JP, If you look at it like I'm looking at it we need another bad a$$ DT up front, one that not only plays the nose in a 3-4 but can play all the front line, keep in mind 6 linemen in a 3-4 that is why I want Hageman in the 1st. As of now we have 5 really good linemen add Hagemen thats 6 and a rookie at that to bring along with Jenkins, Jordon, Hicks and Walker. I would not let Bunkley go this year either. About the lb.'s I wanted to pull the trigger on Van Noy in the 2nd but we need more help on the O line, I did mock this guy Andrew Jackson ILB because we need a thug type in the middle and if him and Rufus could be paired together in the middle over time I do't think we would have to ever worry about the run. Basically in a nut-shell what I would like to see out of our front 7 is to go thug type just like the Dome Patrol was. The pieces are almost there.

Honestly, I could see the Saints being just fine with all of the suggested individuals gone, but I would like to see at least Ingram and either Sproles or Thomas back... not necessarily both. While a large staple of backs is nice, I'd like to see the Saints highlight fewer of them during a single game, so that they'd be able to get into the running game a bit better - I think this especially holds true for Ingram.

Agree, not sure we need "wholesale" change; maintain continuity...

With maybe the exception on the offensive line...

Not sure we don't already "package" or "feature" certain running backs from week to week depending on opponent...

Expect that either Sproles or Thomas to be released from their respective contracts; both a Thomas and Sproles fan, but Sproles' size, being 30+, and much slower than two years ago, plus the knee injury - he's most vulnerable...

Thomas still has the power and is the most effective running the screen (have posted ad nauseum); but Ingram is his biggest factor in returning; Ingram could be extended with his salary slot and Thomas will turn 30 this season...

Haralson plays the run very well and comes cheap.

You keep Greer and Harper off of restructures.

As far as cutting more people; it gets really tight. What's tight about replacing people who you may not need, or are not producing.... and getting cheaper options.....



The more I think about it i don't know if we can afford to keep Graham. If we keep him we might lose 3-4 starters through cuts alone. We have had the #1 offense without Graham in the past, is he really worth it?

the cap is a mess. super bowl hang over contracts are killing us.

Mickey has a plan i hope

draft is the best way to address a cap issue.

so sit back and watch and see what happens

No sir. We do not have anyone on a big contract due to the SB. Evans and Brees are about it and they were All-Pro, Pro-Bowl, MVPs, etc... Smiths huge contract was from 2008.

We only have 9-10 players that were even on that 2009 team.

Thats true, but he did nail it on the draft comment. The best way to bring that cap down is to start hitting on draft picks.

We knocked it out of the ball park (and halfway across the parking lot)
in 2013. Another year or two like that and we'll be sitting pretty cap wise, even with Drews big contract.

BTW, Drew is currently the 4th highest paid QB in the league. With Newton, Wilson, Kaeppernick contracts coming up soon he'll probably drop out of the top 5. His contract amount isn't all that absurd.

Its a catch-22 Danno. Too many draft homeruns will balloon on you especially when you make it to a SB or NFCCG. FAs are less likely to balloon on you as their market values have been pretty much set after their rookie contract.

Your examples on Kaep and Wilson prove my point which leaves a dilemma.

A. You get a good blend and maintain some retention.

B. You flood the team with youth and every three years if you are successful have to deal with high turnover because you cant fit all the outstanding players under your cap.

Its a good problem to have but still a problem none the less. In my opinion the solution is not an either, or; but a blend. The short term solution typically looks fantastic until you look at the effect long term.