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

01-22-2014, 01:21 PM

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

ScottF · 01-22-2014, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by AlaskaSaints

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

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

AlaskaSaints · 01-22-2014, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by ScottF

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

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

Jack Vegas · 01-23-2014, 03:17 AM

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.

hagan714 · 01-24-2014, 07:07 AM

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

ScottF · 01-24-2014, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by AlaskaSaints

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

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

Utah_Saint · 01-24-2014, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by hagan714

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

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.

01-22-2014, 01:21 PM	#31
Threaded by AlaskaSaints 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Anchorage, AK Posts: 2,484 Blog Entries: 2 Rating: (0 votes - average) 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 halloween 65 likes this.
Views: 5564

01-22-2014, 05:44 PM	#32
ScottF 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 6,324	Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal Originally Posted by AlaskaSaints 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 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

01-22-2014, 06:11 PM	#33
AlaskaSaints 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Anchorage, AK Posts: 2,484 Blog Entries: 2	Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal Originally Posted by ScottF 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 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

01-23-2014, 03:17 AM	#34
Jack Vegas 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,254	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.
Jack Vegas 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,254

01-24-2014, 07:07 AM	#35
hagan714 LB Mentallity Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,870 Blog Entries: 68	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

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

01-24-2014, 02:28 PM	#36
ScottF 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 6,324	Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal Originally Posted by AlaskaSaints 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 but in the other games he managed 86 ctaches and 16 TD's, which isn't exactly a bad thing either

01-24-2014, 03:52 PM	#37
Utah_Saint Site Donor 2019 Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Posts: 3,521	Re: Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal Originally Posted by hagan714 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 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.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/63967-loomis-saints-will-franchise-graham-tight-end-if-no-long-term-deal.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Loomis: Saints will franchise Graham as a tight end if no long-term deal	This thread	Refback	01-21-2014 01:22 PM	8