Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Brees can't step up into the pocket anymore and our RB's are having a hard time finding holes. Grubbs is definitely no Nicks.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

I was saying this before we traded him, and lots of people shot me down.

"No way, trade Nicks before Colston dude, Colston is Brees #1 target!!"

WHO CARES WHO HIS TARGET IS IF HE'S RUNNING FOR HIS LIFE

No protection for a 5-foot-nothing QB = you're gonna have a bad time.

And yes, I understand that it is also an issue with our OT's, they're laughable, but when Nicks was here they were the same dudes, and what we're seeing right now simply didn't happen as often (Rams game excluded)

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

I don't see losing Nicks to be the problem, Grubbs is doing just fine... It's Strief and Bushrod on the ends without help is the problem...

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

I get what you're trying to do here, but first of all we didn't "trade" Nicks -- he walked -- and we could not afford to keep him. We probably couldn't have afforded him, even if we had let Colston go! The writing was on the wall for a long time that Nicks was going to go, whether we wanted him to stay or not. No matter what we offered him, somebody out there in free agency would have offered $1 more and a bag of chips, and he would have taken it. He was going to take top dollar and nothing less. It was a bidding war the Saints could not win. You can't just sign everybody in the world that you want and keep the ol' gang together forever. It's a business.


When Nicks was here we also had the same dudes but we had an O-line coach who wasn't pulling double duty head coaching the whole team at the same time. Who do you think is supposed to figure stuff out about blocking schemes and game planning against specific opposing players and their styles, or make adjustments when things aren't working? You think Kromer really has the same amount of time during the week or during the game, that he used to have to prepare these guys specifically for the war in the trenches, or make adjustments on the fly? Nicks was a beast but he's not the savior of the team and he's not the only problem we have.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

i disagree, both tackle positions are getting abused!! I think Grubbs has done a pretty good job....plus its the ENTIRE offense, just cant pin on one guy...We need Sean payton back to solve it

I agree our OT's are horrible. I remember reading somewhere that the key to Bree's passing success is the ability of the Interior lineman to create space for him to step up and make his throws. How many times have we seen DE's miss a sack because Brees steps up into the pocket? He doesnt seem to have that opportunity anymore. But don't get me wrong, Bushrod has beem horrible this year and so has Strief. I think we just miss that push from the inside that Nicks gave us.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

For pass protection the middle of the line is doing fine, not outstanding, but fine. That's not the case with run blocking or the Chiefs have the best front 7 in football.

Speed rushing is killing the Tackles. This is where we're missing SP. We should have already adjusted the offense to more 3 and 5 step throws with less shotgun.

I know I say this like I'm an expert, but I've been watching a long time and have seen the SAINTS do this very thing under SP.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

And don't forget that Brees and Grubbs, (and the rest of the O-line), lost valuable time together while Brees' contract negotiations were going on.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Yes those 10 practices without pads that Brees missed but the rest of the line was here for, are clearly what's killing us in the O-line. And yet Drew missed those same 10 practices the year before and threw for 5,476 yards and 7,474 total yards of offense. Okay. Yup. It's Brees' fault. Gotcha.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Gotcha? Don't flatter yourself; you probably couldn't spell CAT if I spotted you the C & the T!

Show me where I posted that it was Brees' fault?

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Fair enough! Somebody else posted something very similar a day or two ago, and they were saying it was Brees' fault. So my bad. E? It's got to be E, right?

I still don't think Brees being there would make THAT much difference in the O-line drills.

You dummy - it's a "U"!! Sheesh

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

How can you say our run game has suffered??? When has it suffered this year? The reason it hasn't been great is because WE HAVENT BEEN RUNNING THE BALL!! Hello..do you even watch the games? PT just came off a 100 yrd performance. Everyboy was whining why hasn't Sproles got a rushing carry yet, well he did yesterday. It is no way shape or form the O line. Seems to be the one thing they are pretty good at.

Zack has been a total failure this year and Bushrod is not far behind. How many sacks has Brees had from a DT? All the pressure is coming from the ends.

Your grasping at straws trying to figure out why we suck. SaintsBro hit the nail on the head. The O line coach can't coach the O line and the team. So I am willing to bet he has his assistants working with the line.

I havent read any posts on this thread saying that our running game has suffered - who are you addressing?

As far as zero sacks from DTs, I never said that was a problem. I think you need to read more thoroughly before making your assumptions.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Everybody needs to chill out. That's spelled "C-H-I-L-L" and "O-U-T" and includes a U. ;)

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Usually when soemone says this, they are saying that since they can't find the holes that means we are not running the ball well. If I misinterpreted what you meant, I am sorry.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Correct. Our OT's are the problem, not the interior guys.

I understand and yes, sorry if it came across that way. I agree with you that Our OTs are the weak link and that Kromer can't pull double duty. My point about Nicks is that Brees seemed to have more space to step up and avoid the sacks from the outside when we had him on the line. I trust that Grubbs will be a good addition for us and that somehow our O'line will get better.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

To me, it just seems like defenses now know how to attack us. I believe Payton would have found a way to play call around it. I wonder if anyone on our current coaching staff will find themselves without a job next season.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

When Payton was here I would have a hard time guessing what 50% of our plays would be. We'd run when I expected pass, we'd pass deep when I expected a short route or run. There would be many times when Brees would have the time to go through progressions to find an open man.
Now we have predictable play calling and Brees has no time to get to options in routes. The big plays we have made in the run have come off of unexpected situational calls. When we need to run we have trouble. When we need to pass we have trouble. Nothing is firing on all cylinders for sure.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Okay, please excuse my verbage, you are correct, we didn't trade Nicks, he was bought out from under us. I stand corrected.

But my point is this: Can you honestly say, and believe, that the O-line would look no better at all if he were here? Essentially by saying he wasn't the reason we were better (with an O-line coach) than we are now (without), you're also saying that we would be in the same place if he were here, and I really can't be on board with that idea, O-line coach or not.

I do understand that it was a bit of a bidding war, and yes, somebody may have offered a little more and taken him away, and also that it is a business, can't keep the band together, etc.. But we found the money to keep Colston, we found the money to bring in Hawthorne, Herring, Lofton, and Bunkley not to mention making our QB the highest paid in the history of the game. Would I want Nicks over some of these gentlemen? Well hindsight certainly is 20/20, and if our idea of "Saints Football" is to hammer away with a consistently unstoppable offense, and make the defense work piece-meal, we certainly have diverted from that vision. Now we have an offense that can't click, and a defense that, despite several free agent signings in the past two seasons, has yet to show any real improvement

tl;dr - We should've spent the money on Nicks, even if it meant losing some of our current toys, offense/defense not withstanding.

edit: whatever it was that Nicks was doing to help out the OTs, he certainly isn't around to do it now. Maybe it was TE/RB chip blocks. I dunno

That's probably true. Payton is a master at adjustments.

I think our coaching staff as a whole is solid WHEN PAYTON IS AROUND. I can't see Loomis canning any of them because they are all doing their best without a rudder. However, you woul think that with having an ex headcoach as our D coordinator, our defense would be leas affected. Dunno.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

I think where we really miss Carl Nicks is the running game ... our interior run blocking has looked pretty bad.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Well yeah, I get that you liked Nicks (I did too). I'm not even trying to say that Grubbs is better. We all miss the glory days of Nicks blowing people up on a screen in front of Pierre Thomas, or whatever your favorite Nicks play was.

But Jahri Evans already had the big contract in 2010, making HIM the highest paid guard in the NFL at the time. The Saints were never going to tie up that much money in the guard position, especially with Grubbs on the market. The writing was on the wall, for a long time, that Carl Nicks was going to leave us. You want the Saints to have the TWO highest paid guards in the NFL, plus the highest-paid quarterback?

Nicks commands a $47.5 million five year contract (total)-- that's practically half of the Brees deal right there. Evans is actually around $56.7 million for seven years. I don't remember what the specific cap hit is for Evans, but Nicks is a cap hit in Tampa of something about $10 million dollars...whatever Evans is, it's not cheap...put those two together and it is A LOT. That is TOO MUCH money tied up in guards. You'd lose a lot more than just Colston, that's for sure. You can only do so much with the cap. We got many good years out of Nicks, and I love the guy, but we just couldn't afford to keep him. And the reason is not because of Brees, it's because of Evans at the guard position.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

ProFootballFocus OG rankings so far this year...

1st - +7.7 grade - Ben Grubbs
3rd - +6.6 grade - Jahari Evans
18th - +2.2 grade - Carl Nicks
44th - -2.3 grade - Ted Larsen

Grubbs has graded out the best in the entire NFL so far.

Also, OT's overall...

#54 Zach Strief
#57 Jermon Bushrod

Well i guess that squashes my theory. I cant believe grubbs is ranked highest in nfl. I still somehow feel that we're missing Nicks, but then again, this whole fiasco is hard to measure with the loss of Payton.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Grubbs #1 guard in the league right now Evans #6, Nicks somewhere down in the 15s according to PFF. NVM, I see someone had the quote, I was trying to find it.

Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line
 

Thank you I was trying to find those stats, I read them earlier. Glad you found them.