Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

If I had to list the topics beat into the ground I do believe defense would be near the bottom.
So no, I don\'t dig. ;)

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

I\'ll agree with that. I\'ve commented this team needs a new identity and replacing AB would help.
I\'m just tired of EVERY discussion about this teams problems devolves into an AB debate, day after day after day after day.

But I do disagree with you slightly, if we had to replace ONE player with a proven A-plus stud, I think the biggest improvement would be attained at DT, then LB, then maybe QB.

But I\'m sick of this crap. I will no longer type AB, or Aaron Brooks for the rest of my existence.

That may seem a bit A_bnormal, but I\'m a_bout fed up!

[Edited on 12/1/2005 by Danno]

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Well I guess we may never know what could have happen if the defense was better. If the defense was ranked in the upper half of the league I still think that we would be in the playoffs probably no worse than 11-5 any probably not having these dicusssions of Brooks. But maybe that\'s just wishful thinking. I just don\'t want to see Brooks leave and come back with a better team and beat the stuffing out of us. And if he is truly as \"stupid and arrogant\" as people say that why does everyone see us getting a good player in a trade or a high pick in the draft for him?

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

To answer your question Sanders, teams are enamored with what they perceive as \"talent.\" Look at the Bailey-Portis trade. Who did that work out better for? Portis is a good back, but he ain\'t worth Champ Bailey, and Denver knew that. Anyback in their system is a monster, not just Portis. They took advantage of that. Never mind Portis is a horrible fit for the run first offense Joe Gibbs likes to run. He saw a talented player in Portis and traded awaytheir best defender for him, PLUS a second round pick. There\'s always takers.

And I see your point about the D, but I posed this to someone else. Look at the last 4 games we won. Basically, brooks had two terrible games, one great 4th quarter, and one good all around game. Simulate that to a 5 day work week you get 3 1/2 days of crap, a 1/2 of overachieving, and one full day of just doing the job you should have been doing all aong. So we may have had a better record, but that still doesn\'t take away the fact that Leon would be a problem the majority of the time. He is just WAY too inconsistent.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Well, I see that the hornets have been stirred up!

This could take awhile, so one at a time then:

1. Gator, I did not say that we\'re lucky to be 8-8. I just said that if our QB were to have played the same has he did this year with a better OLine and better D, we would have made the playoffs. That is something we did not do last year - thus, the QB has improved (since the defense was better last year and so was the defense - coaching remains roughly the same).

2. BMG, it seems we agree. Once again, the most compelling reason to get rid of Brooks is his cost. Agreed.

3. Whodi, I think we all agree that Brooks is frustrating, inconsistent, and sometimes at fault. I\'m not sure I heard anyone say otherwise. As usual, nice points. However, my point was merely that there is some reason to keep him rather than gamble on another - with an improved OLine and D, with Brooks performance this year, we\'d be in the playoffs. Perhaps that is enought to ask FOR NEXT YEAR, but not forever. This just isn\'t the year for a new QB (barring an awesome FA period).

4. If the rumor that Haz started calling the D at the end of the season is true, then there is not sufficient reason to think that Haz is the reason for poor defensive play. Before we say no improvement in the D because of the coach, take a look at our defensive personel - we lack any linebackers of note, we have one real CB (and only for the second half of the season), and our line is weak in the middle.

5. BMG, we agree on Gandy too.

6. WhoDat, nice post. I\'ll consider.

7. Whodi, nice catch 22. I\'ll consider that too. Still it means we\'re not looking at a QB change next year (barring spectacular FA, as noted above).

8. Danno, apologies for the crickets. I read that and agreed - shoulda said so bud. I\'d posted something similar around that time and got the same response you did.

9. RS, welcome to the board. I\'ve got five bucks we take a DT in the first round as that may be BPA. I\'d love one of the top three linebackers or Rolle, but I don\'t think we\'ll get a shot at \'em. Also, we may draft an OT, but I think we\'d do better in FA getting PROVEN tackles.

10. Whodi, trading up to get Rolle is starting to sound pretty tempting. Keep talking.

11. WhoDat, Danno\'s point was look how far down the list QB is - which was my point too. This thread started by suggesting we may take a QB in the first round. That is nuts - barring an awesome FA period... again.

Whew, that was a long read.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Damn Kool, that was a whirlwind. Nice catch up. Damn. :yourock:

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Of course, this relies on the idea that somehow the goodness of the QB is tied to wins/losses, but I don\'t see that it has been invalidated so far. I\'m not sure what I think about it, but it sounds ok to me. I\'m not sure why you guys keep repeating that Br :bugeyes: ks hasn\'t improved as though it is an undisputed fact.

Whodi, you\'re pretty awesome too. Do you have a job dude? How is it that you have time to reply to everything within such a short period of time?

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

\"shiznit\", fo shizzle...

[Edited on 13/1/2005 by JKool]

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Yeah man, it\'s been slow at work lately and the boss hasn\'t been around so I been using up the internet. I was thinking the same thing to myself earlier today, damn self, you respond to everything a lot quicker than most everybody else. lol :dance:

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

What makes me so sad about all of these mock drafts, is that the Saints likely won\'t even pick as well as the WORST of them. We have never learned from history (goes for FA too), and we repeat it again and again every offseason...

Oh yeah, almost forgot, Aaron Brooks sucks ... ;)

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Danno - I can\'t argue with that, though I probably wouldn\'t go after the stud DT. We just need to find a fat guy who can keep from getting so fat he can\'t play anymore. :) But LB I agree with fully. Still, my point isn\'t diminished - even if you say LB, DT, then QB - the position is still way up there as prime for a change.

Please do Gary Granola! :)

I understand, and it\'s a matter of opinion. I think though that Danno and I are on the same page. Basically, we agree the defense needs attention first and foremost. Two LBs and a DT. From there, CB and S are secondary or \"back burner\" concerns. On offense, the only scorching need, as I see it, is at the tackle position - both of \'em. But herein lies the rub - after T, what\'s the next biggest area of concern? I mean, QB IS close to the top of the list. LB, DT, LB, T, T... then what? Considering this team\'s overwhelming need for an identity change, as Danno pointed out, the importance of the QB on a game and the huge impact he can have, and the fact that this offense seems about as inconsistent as it\'s QB, making a move for a QB isn\'t necessarily such a bad idea - especially if it\'s the highest value on the board when we pick. Ya \'erd me?

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Who, I think then, if you look back, that I too agree on these claims you just made.

The only point of disagreement now is this: I don\'t think a QB will be BPA at 16. Maybe we don\'t even disagree about that. I also think that, while BPA is nice, we won\'t have had a good enough free agency period to make BPA the only option - we may need to go for BPA at our key remaining needs.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

All this \"good will\" feelings on the boards lately have me feeling uneasy. What\'s next? Virtual circle jerk?
We cannot predict, at this time, what will be and what won\'t be considered a stretch at 16. This will be a pivotal year for the Saints and who they decide to bring in, in both free agency and the draft. I do not see them being a major factor in free agency because of recent history and the issues that we already have on the home front:

1. reassesment of the defensive line and whether or not Darren Howard has a place there

2. do we continue to grossly underpay our starting RB for the remaining two years of his contract

3. do we decide to let Joe horn enter the 2005 season on the final year of his current contract

4. will McKenzie continue to pursue a top-5 CB contract, much like the one he asked for up in Green Bay prior to being traded

5. Players that have not lived up to the contracts they are receiving, ie T. Jones and Gandy, not that I think Gandy is a bad tackle, but he is overpaid

So, what are the stronger positions in the draft this year? DL, OL, RB, WR, CB, and not necessarily in that order. Outisde of 2 or 3 safeties, this class isn\'t worth spitting on, and the tight end class is worse, and those happen to be two areas that rank on my list of need.
But until the work out days and combine, I\'ll play the wait and see approach before I make any predictions as to who will fall where. Smith may not be the BPA at 16, but that could mean he was taken top-10 (refer to my other post about how dramatic a change Rivers made on his draft status after the season was over last year).

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

No argument there Granola. I couldn\'t agree more. I\'m the guy who always screams about FA and tries to convince people around here that it\'s FAR more important than the draft - though for some reason everyone wants to focus on the draft and believe we can solve our problems there. I\'d say the Saints success in 2005, when considering new players, is based about 80% on FA and 20% on the draft... and that may be giving the draft a lot.

Unfortunately, I also agree with BnB. The Saints are historically terrible in FA. Passive value seekers who always seem to find role players to be the next Joe Horn (and it never works). Admittedly, this is the one place that I am always unabashedly optimistic - I haven\'t learned my lesson. Every year I look at the FA class and think about the two or three players that I think could change this team over night. Of course, they always go elsewhere, and then I\'m deflated and stuck arguing about how Orlando Ruff just isn\'t going to be the impact guy we need at MLB - Spikes would have been, even Chris Claiborne, who cost Detroit $1 million more than Ruff over 3 years, would have been a big improvement... but we settle for mediocre every time. Shocker.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

WhoDat, I disagree that FA is as important as you state. The draft is where a team is able to bring in the lower priced, younger talent that every team needs to be successful. If a team works a draft correctly, they will have the money to spend on FAs. Whereas if they are not efficient in the draft and have to go to FA to fill many holes, the likely outcome will be salary cap hell. Also, knowing you as I do, I can say that you think highly of value for players. Compared to FA the best value players are found in each year\'s draft - especially for things like depth (which is usually underappreciated) and special teams.

Take the Eagles for example. They picked up a high priced FA this year that had been paying off in spades. However, he\'s out now. Had the Eagles been efficient in the draft, the might have gotten a rookie WR with plenty of potential that could unexpectedly step up his game and make the TO hit much less. My point is it doesn\'t matter what you do in FA if your draft sux.

Also, to answer your question above about offense problems. T is definitely a huge problem, but I don\'t know if it is more of a problem than scheme (play calling). Brooks is capable of winning 10 games with the Saints. I think that is unquestionable. So, when you look around about why we haven\'t won 10 games...I say scheme and our Tackles.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

I question this. 1000%. When has Brooks ever won 10 games? Since he hasn\'t, how can you say it is unquestionable he can? In two of the 4 games we won to finish the year, he had a passer rating UNDER 70. Tampa Bay game woulda been that bad except he got hot in the 4th. I know it is not \"unquestionable\" we could win 10 games with him, we have not done it. Playoff year, we were 7-4 with Blake, .500 with Brooks. I don\'t get 10 wins out of a .500 at best qb unless the league moves to 20 game seasons.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

I would suggest that we could win 10 games -- or more -- and probably would have done so this year had our defense been ranked something other than 32nd. This is precisely why I don\'t think the QB position warrants the kind of scrutiny it\'s getting.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

If we win 10 games, going strictly by the numers that can be readily seen by all on NFL.com, it will be DESPITE our qb not because of him. That\'s specifically why he is a problem.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

I completely disagree Whodi. You make it seem like Brooks is the reason the Saints don\'t win. I think the poor showing by our defense the last few years has cost us FAR more W\'s than Brooks. He\'s brought the team back and won shootouts etc etc. He can\'t win \'em all man, but he\'d damn sure win more if our defense wasn\'t so frappin\' aweful.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Saintfan - there is no question about that. You\'re right, the biggest problem is the defense.

I also agree with Scotty that there is better LONG-TERM value in the draft. However, if you want immediate impact, it\'s rarely in the draft. Maybe 10 or 20 rookies may a substantial impact on their team in a year, and there\'s far more draftees than FA signings, IMHO.

I prefaced my comments by saying TWO IMPORTANT things. 1) There is no question that coaching is, IMO, the BIGGEST problem. I am not going to argue scheme, I\'m talking about player personnel. 2) It isn\'t fair, in my opinion, to compare one player to an entire unit. You can\'t say that the defense is worse than Brooks - well you can, but I don\'t know that it is a fair comparison. I agree that the defense needs the most attention. No one is arguing that.

But my point remains. After the Tackles on Offense, what SINGLE POSITION is the next largest liability? QB. On the entire team, after DT, LB or two, T, what is the next problem spot?

To say that AB is not a problem at all, IMO, shows prejudice. As much prejudice as suggesting that he is the biggest problem. IMO, the QB position is a top 5 to 7 need for this team to address - if you don\'t think that\'s fair, fine, but then show me why I\'m wrong. You can say coaching and defense until you\'re blue in the face, but go position by position and show me 7 acquisitions that need to be made before a change at QB.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Examples of a bad throw -- the backwards ones, the ones into the backs of the heads of the OL, the ones into the hands of the defenders, the ones into the line, the ones into the ground, the ones into the wrong spot (although who knows if that\'s AB\'s or the receivers fault)

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

This is where the mix up is saintfan. I took a microcosm of the whole season, and condensed it into the last 4 games all wins. SO in no way am I saying we can\'t win with Brooks. We obviously have or we would be 0-16. What I said is, we win DESPITE him. Now if you look at the last 4 WINS, Dallas game, 68 or so passer rating(no pressure by the way), Tampa game 122 passer rating(hot 4th quarter), Falcons game 60 something passer rating(starters out for Falcs) Panthers game 100 passer rating(best all around game I have seen from Leon). So as I did before, I will compare these 4 WINS to a 5 day work week. You get 3 1/2 days of crap, 1/2 an outstanding day, and 1 full day of just doing what shoulda been done all along. So again, I am not sayign we can\'t win with him, cause we do win some, but most at least half the time it appears we win DESPITE him. Now how much worse is the DESPITE part when we lose? That\'s when we get to blame everyone BUT Leon. If he has a 68 passer rating and we lose, the line, receivers and everyone else is blamed. But 68 passer rating in a win, \"he just had a bad game,\" Huh?

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Has Brooks had bad games the team has had to overcome in order to win? Certainly...but same goes for Deuce, the line, the defense, the coach, etc. Further, I think other teams have to overcome bad games by their QB\'s, o-lines, defenses, coaches, etc. Your focus seems to be on Brooks. His boneheaded play at times can be frustrating, but he\'s no where near the liability you are making him out to be...at least not in my opinion.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Then this is where we shall have to disagree. If a qb can play as horribly as Brooks has in wins where everyone around him DOES do their jobs, I shudder to think about the games where he has to be the one to carry the team. There are times when you need your qb to carry you cause other things aren\'t working, the only time I saw a semblence of this was the Rams game. But, we would have lost that game had Aeneas Williams intercepted another terrible red zone pass from Brooks instead of tipping it to Joe Horn. So even when Brooks tried to carry the team, plain luck got them to a win. The Rams only had 6 INTs all year thank goodness or we woulda lost that one too. So I just don\'t want an unreliable ego maniac around anymore. We will just have to disagree.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Those last 4 you just mentioned, Whoodi, are entirely represntative of AB, IMO. QB rating of 68, 122, 60, `00. Up, down, up, down, up, down.... Since the defense played well in all of those games, I guess we\'ll have to blame the Dallas and ATL poor performances on the line (uh, don\'t remember there be a ton of pressure in either and I was at one of them), the WRs, and Deuce.

I\'m sure some will argue it\'s just two games, and I\'m making a mountain out of a mole hill. But I bet if you look back over time you\'ll see a lot of the same from AB. His mid-80s QB rating may seem respectible, but when it comes via extremes - a real good game followed by a real bad one, it isn\'t hard to see with the Saints offense is so up and down... b/c of the line, WRs, and RB, of course!

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

I have to agree with everyone in a way --- AB is terribly inconsistent -- not just from game to game but from play to play. What is worst is that most of his mediocore games are purely from 4th quarter stats == meaning he plays horrible in the first half etc. Its hard to justify his salary. Having said that I have to jump to the other side of the fence and say that I think we need much more before we try to address a QB situation. AB has a whole lot of talent and personally I would like to see a decent QB coach be added to the team. I have to think that most of AB\'s problems are mental and ego. I say -- give him one more year --- finish the rest of the talent gap fixing (CB,LB and OL) then after next year dump his sorry ass.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Decent QB coach? His QB coach is being interviewed for OC positions. Sheppard can\'t be that bad if Billick is interested enough to let him run the show. Just my opinion.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Also Sheppard can\'t be that bad if Bulger and Delhomme can go on to be starters elsewhere. One annually in the playoffs and one hitting the Superbowl in his first year, and the Rams have the same problems we have. Bad o-line, dropped passes, bad defense.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Whodi, back to your questioning me about Brooks\' winning 10 games. Brooks won 9 in \'02 before the three game slide at the end of the year. I am still adamant that he played well enough against Carolina to win the game and it was basically given away by our WRs and TEs. That would have, SHOULD HAVE, been 10. I think he is capable of winning ten, but I will go on record as saying he\'d probably cost us the other 6 with dumb mistakes.

WhoDat, after DT, LB, T, S & WR, then QB if we\'re talking about starters. We definitely need more from our backups at the QB position as far as potential to become a starter that alone may make this an area of need on our team as high as top 3. I think you\'re dead on about QB being our 5-7 most pressing need otherwise.

Lastly, I wouldn\'t give Sheppard too much credit for those QBs. Was he even here when Jake was? Did Bulger spend more than training camp on the this team? I really don\'t know the answers to those but I don\'t think so.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

So in essence, since Brooks won 9 games in \'02, then he is also responsible for the 7 losses and the 3 game slide right? Cause he can\'t possibly win 9 games and then ride the bench in the 7 losses? SO he has NEVER own 10 games right. That is like me saying it is unquestionable that Peyton Manning will win a Superbowl. Hasn\'t happened so it can be questioned. The only things that are unquestionable in football are things thathave already happened. It is unquestionable this team has not won 10 games in a season with Brooks as the full time starter. That is unquestionable.

And you may be right on about Shepperd, but I gotta agree with WhoDat. If he is interviewing for moves up to OC, he\'s gotta be doing something right, right? I am shocked he gets interviewed with how inconsistent Leon is, but it\'s gotta be something and all I could think of was Delhomme and bulger being successful after having been with the Saints. But I really don\'t knowif Shepperd touched either one.

[Edited on 13/1/2005 by saintswhodi]

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Now I see what you\'re not getting. I did not say Brooks WOULD win 10. I\'m not predicting the future here. I said that his CAPABILITY of winning 10 is unquestioned. I\'m definitely not sold on whether he ever will.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Three questions:

1) Would the Saints be capable of winning 10 games with Bulger or Delhomme at the helm?

2) Would Kitna or Harrington or Volek or Brees or Whomever stop this team from winning 10 games?

3) This is the big one. Have the Saints won 10 games out of any stretch of 16 in the last 4.5 years with Brooks as the starter?

[Edited on 13/1/2005 by WhoDat]

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

1) Bulger maybe. I think Jake is as erratic as Brooks with less of an arm but more heart - so I don\'t know.

2) Kitna maybe. I like all three of the others. (That doesn\'t mean I think they are viable candidates to come here.)

3) No. I\'m afraid to ask if he\'s ever lost 10 games in any 16 game stretch. And I think the chances are good that he does it for the first time in \'05. He\'s got 4 already. Now all he has to do is go 6-6 in the next 12 and we all know he\'s capable of .500.

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Kitna , Volek, Harrington, and Brees aren\'t in any way associated with this teams record..and they probably never will be...

The Howard trade talks are ridiculous...

Arizona could trade him..Atlanta could trade him...It sounds about as dumb as saying we can trade him..he signed a contract..and has completed it..he is a FREE AGENT..In no way does he owe this team anything..he doesn\'t have to play here..he doesn\'t even have to answer the phone if the Saints personel call...and..in turn..the team owes him nothing as well...HE\'S NO LONGER A SAINT..neither is Volek, Harrington, Brees or any other starting Q.B. other than Brooks...Why don\'t we trade Payton Manning?..we could trade him to the Jets for Tom Brady...and get two first round picks for Mcnabb from the Steelers...that\'s about what some fo these posts sound like...

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Shadow, who s__t in your wheaties? Lighten up man. If you don\'t like the post, don\'t read it! ;)

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

[quote:95df57b74b]Shadow, who s__t in your wheaties?

Benson and Haslett..they even fake mooned me and flossed thier a**es on the spoon...

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

I just wonder if shadow has ever heard of the franchise tag. Have you? It\'s a little thingy they use to keep unrestricted free agents from signing elsewhere. While you are trying to people for speaking on trading Howard, EVERY time I have seen it they have said SIGN AND TRADE. We all know the rules of football and the situations of the players on the team.

[Edited on 14/1/2005 by JOESAM2002]

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

GEORGE!!!
Your back, I just now realized it. I\'m must be getting old.

So, how many usernames are you using now?

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Yes..the same Franchise tag they slapped on him last year..it doesn\'t carry over for eternity...you understand that..don\'t you?...

He is an unrestricted free agent...we hold no rights to his name..or who he signs to ..or whatever...heck..why not mention all the free agents we could sign and trade?..it would make as much sense to...

He signed a 1 year contract back in May...His Franchise tag is gone..you can\'t be slapped with it two years in a row...

Now THIS is an interesting mock
 

Trent Dilfer went to the SB. thus any qb EVER is capable of goin to the SB....J Delhomme went to the Sb for cryin\' out loud....oh my bad both those teams had awesome D\'s