Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line

44Champs · 09-24-2012, 09:59 AM

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.

Shoe. · 09-24-2012, 10:02 AM

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)

|Mitch| · 09-24-2012, 10:12 AM

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...

SaintsBro · 09-24-2012, 10:14 AM

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.

Shoe. · 09-24-2012, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by SaintsBro

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.

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

SaintsBro · 09-24-2012, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Shoe.

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.

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

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.

Belair57 · 09-24-2012, 10:14 AM

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

Danno · 09-24-2012, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Belair57

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

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

44Champs · 09-24-2012, 10:20 AM

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.

ScottyRo · 09-24-2012, 10:22 AM

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.

09-24-2012, 09:59 AM	#1
44Champs Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,589	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.
44Champs Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,589

09-24-2012, 10:02 AM	#2
Shoe. 500th Post Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Hub City Posts: 576	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)

09-24-2012, 10:12 AM	#3
\|Mitch\| 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Alexandria, La Posts: 11,303	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...

09-24-2012, 10:14 AM	#4
SaintsBro Site Donor Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG Posts: 3,650 Blog Entries: 3	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. Halo, ScottyRo, papz and 2 others like this.

09-24-2012, 11:44 AM	#5
Shoe. 500th Post Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Hub City Posts: 576	Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line Originally Posted by SaintsBro 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. 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

09-24-2012, 04:40 PM	#6
SaintsBro Site Donor Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG Posts: 3,650 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line Originally Posted by Shoe. 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. tl;dr - We should've spent the money on Nicks, even if it meant losing some of our current toys, offense/defense not withstanding. 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.

09-24-2012, 10:14 AM	#7
Belair57 500th Post Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 848	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
Belair57 500th Post Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 848

09-24-2012, 11:31 AM	#8
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,747	Re: Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line Originally Posted by Belair57 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 Correct. Our OT's are the problem, not the interior guys.

09-24-2012, 10:20 AM	#9
44Champs Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,589	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.
44Champs Site Donor Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 2,589

09-24-2012, 10:22 AM	#10
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	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. SaintsBro likes this.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/50740-losing-carl-nicks-has-affected-while-o-line.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Losing Carl Nicks has affected the while O Line	This thread	Refback	09-24-2012 10:13 AM	4