Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal
 

Graham led all TE's in catches, and had 30% more yards than the second guy. How can you say he is not one of the best?
It would not surprise me at all if it came out that he was still battling injuries late in the year

Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal
 

How did we EVER win a Super Bowl without Jimmy Graham?

Listening to you guys, it just doesn't seem possible.

I'll take two first-rounders in a heartbeat.

One of the reasons we are not still in it, is because we concentrate too much on Jimmy Graham, when most other TEs in the game can make the catches he does and drops that he does.

We forgot about the deep route because we now have Jimmy Graham, and it has cost us.

Agree or disagree, but that's the way I see it.

Alaska

Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal
 

not following the logic here at all
who are you blaming for 'concentrating too much on JG'? Brees? Payton as a play caller? how can it be Graham's fault?
Brees threw 43 times vs Seattle, targetting Graham 6 times. We also ran 26 times. So basically Graham was 8% of our 'concentration'

most TE's do NOT make most of the catches he does, evidenced by him leading all TE's in catches and yards, and ALL players in TD's

Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal
 

With all due respect, you reference one game. One of the games where Jimmy was taken out of production by smothering, dedicated cover.

Like I said, agree or disagree, but this is the way I see it.

My logic is that we won the Super Bowl before we had Jimmy Graham and we can win it again, without Jimmy Graham.

Alaska

Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal
 

It's a catch-22. Yes, Drew focuses too much on Graham on the whole, but at the same time, I wonder how much of a choice he has sometimes. Poor Colston, and I love the guy to death, but he is just not the player he used to be because of his wrecked knees/ankles/feet. Past him there's Stills, who was a good rookie but still a rookie, Meachem, who is fairly one-dimensional as a reciever, and Moore who was invisible this season which seems to happen about every other year now. It's no wonder we had two running backs catch 70 passes each.

If Colston comes back fully healthy and strong, and we get typical second-year development from Stills I think this is a much better group even without making any acquisitions.

Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal
 

now if we were to do a sign and trade involving graham there would be a few conditions

1) a proven starter included with impact skills that has a cap friendly contract for 2 or more years
2) #1 pick - a team that by all odds will stink up the joint the next year
3) the team involved must take a player that is cap heavy for 2 or less years from us
4) prefer an AFC team but at the least outside the division - i do not want to face him after this

Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal
 

but in the other games he managed 86 ctaches and 16 TD's, which isn't exactly a bad thing either

Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal
 

Would the Saints be allowed to make conditions, wouldn't they lose him to whoever offers him more money and the Saints two picks? For example, If the Seahawks or the Panthers came a'callin, would the Saints have any leverage to negotiate?

I'm not sure how that process works.