Now THIS is an interesting mock

BrooksMustGo · 01-11-2005, 07:06 PM

Yea lets draft a QB and start tha rebuilding process. GREAT IDEA!!! What retard came up with this mock!

Ummm, If I can ask a question without starting a peeing contest here.

Why is it that: New QB = Rebuilding?

The Steelers are starting a rookie and seem to have a better than average change of going to the superbowl. The Patriots won the superbowl with a rookie. The Rams won a superbowl with a guy who had never started in the NFL before.

It seems like if we got good value for Leon in a trade we could address defensive needs and improve our OT\'s and move to more of a ball control offense so the QB position just isn\'t as important. I don\'t think anyone in favor of a Leon trade is suggesting that the rookie has to come in and run the same playbook as Peyton Manning.

But even beyond that, I\'m not sure that Leon is so indispensible that the entire organization folds without him. Likewise, I don\'t see Leon taking us to a superbowl next year, so I\'m not sure why keeping him at his high cap number is so critical?

At any rate, this \"rebuilding\" claim has come up several times and leaves me scratching my head. Just asking.

saintswhodi · 01-11-2005, 07:23 PM

You wonder about that too BMG? It seems to me, more are afraid of doing WORSE w/o Brooks than taking ANY chance at being better. Stick with the devil you know rather than take chanes with one you don\'t.

WhoDat · 01-11-2005, 08:03 PM

In the first round we fail to take an OT or an LB... sure. The only way that happens is if we go APE SHIZNIT in FA, which we all know we won\'t.

Right, b/c we NEEDED another pure speed WR with no hands and who can\'t learn the system in the 2nd round last year. We NEEDED Deuce in 2001... right?

BlackandBlue · 01-11-2005, 08:19 PM

...and we NEEDED a DE in last year\'s draft.

BPA, baby, you\'ll never go wrong with BPA. If it weren\'t for that philosophy, deuce would be playing elsewhere.

BrooksMustGo · 01-11-2005, 08:33 PM

...and we NEEDED a DE in last year\'s draft.

BPA, baby, you\'ll never go wrong with BPA. If it weren\'t for that philosophy, deuce would be playing elsewhere.

I totally agree with the BPA approach to the draft. But if a team is going to take that approach, they MUST deal with need picks in free agency. Mismanagement of free agency is what puts so much pressure on our drafts and one of the glaring failures of this front office.

Euphoria · 01-11-2005, 08:39 PM

Actually, drafting this qb from Utah isn\'t such a bad idea. Drafting him for the future is a damn good idea. if we take care of the O-line via FA. Saints already signed a WR whom I like... CUTTING PATHON ALERT!!!!!!!!

turbo_dog · 01-11-2005, 09:18 PM

I guess we must have killed that site, because I can\'t get to it anymore.

aaaaahhhh, the power of cheese.

JKool · 01-12-2005, 11:25 AM

BMG, I tend to agree with you on this:

I totally agree with the BPA approach to the draft. But if a team is going to take that approach, they MUST deal with need picks in free agency. Mismanagement of free agency is what puts so much pressure on our drafts and one of the glaring failures of this front office.

I\'m not sure what the rest of you guys are getting at here.

1. We have no need for a QB AT THIS POINT, and Smith will NOT be BPA at 16. He\'s probably a second rounder.

2. Everyone agrees that Sullivan was a bust. However, he was high on most boards. Also, if he had been good, we would not have been in such dire straights against the run this year and looking for a DT still. Thus, the pick itself was a bust, but the idea wasn\'t too shaby (even if I thought we need a CB more at that point).

3. If you look at who is available in FA, you\'ll see we can get two LBs, two OTs, and even an OG. What we cannot get is a QB, S, or WR. Thus, there is some scenario where we will be able to take a QB at 16, it is just INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY.

4. I agree that our FO is bonkers and has done very poorly over the last many years. However, I really don\'t see this group (1) needing to take a QB and/or (2) believing that we need to take a QB.

I\'m fairly certain that IF we address all of our other needs (2 LBs, 2 OTs, 1 OG, and 1 DT) in FA, they SHOULD take a CB NOT a QB with our 1st pick.

Also, I don\'t think that Gandy should be moved to RT. We should try and deal him - his contract is huge, and he is an LT. Someone will want him as a solid backup.

Euph, I agree. Pathon is done.

JKool · 01-12-2005, 11:32 AM

Oh yeah.

As far as the \"devil you know\" stuff, I think that sums up my view on it pretty well. Brooks is a serviceable QB.

You are all talking about getting some guy (perhaps a rookie) to manage the ball if we beef up the line. Why are you so sure that Brooks couldn\'t do that? He\'s been asked to do a lot with no protection all year, he\'s managed the fumbles, he\'s made few turn overs - he\'s improving. If you pluged him into a management role, are you so sure he couldn\'t do it?

I guess, I just don\'t see the argument. We\'re 500 with Brooks. If we improve the D and the O line, we should be better than 500, no? 9-7 is a playoff record. This year, if our D had been ANY GOOD AT ALL in the first 8 games, we would have made the playoffs. I agree that Brooks is not a long term solution at our QB position, but he sure as heck is Mr. Right Now.

I agree that if we can get a blockbuster trade for him (at least a first and second round pick and maybe a backup QB or Safety), then I\'d say we should go ahead and let him go for a rookie. Otherwise, I am, as of right this moment, not convinced by any of the vim and vigor with which many of you seem to be using to suggest we do away with him.

saintfan · 01-12-2005, 11:44 AM

I guess, I just don\'t see the argument. We\'re 500 with Brooks.

Yes, we are, and so I\'ll get accused of calling him perfect...again...but I get this point. We\'re .500 with Brooks and the worlds worst defese, yet still they DEMAND we cut or trade the QB.

01-11-2005, 07:06 PM	#11
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Now THIS is an interesting mock Yea lets draft a QB and start tha rebuilding process. GREAT IDEA!!! What retard came up with this mock! Ummm, If I can ask a question without starting a peeing contest here. Why is it that: New QB = Rebuilding? The Steelers are starting a rookie and seem to have a better than average change of going to the superbowl. The Patriots won the superbowl with a rookie. The Rams won a superbowl with a guy who had never started in the NFL before. It seems like if we got good value for Leon in a trade we could address defensive needs and improve our OT\'s and move to more of a ball control offense so the QB position just isn\'t as important. I don\'t think anyone in favor of a Leon trade is suggesting that the rookie has to come in and run the same playbook as Peyton Manning. But even beyond that, I\'m not sure that Leon is so indispensible that the entire organization folds without him. Likewise, I don\'t see Leon taking us to a superbowl next year, so I\'m not sure why keeping him at his high cap number is so critical? At any rate, this \"rebuilding\" claim has come up several times and leaves me scratching my head. Just asking.
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

01-11-2005, 07:23 PM	#12
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Now THIS is an interesting mock You wonder about that too BMG? It seems to me, more are afraid of doing WORSE w/o Brooks than taking ANY chance at being better. Stick with the devil you know rather than take chanes with one you don\'t.

01-11-2005, 08:03 PM	#13
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Now THIS is an interesting mock In the first round we fail to take an OT or an LB... sure. The only way that happens is if we go APE SHIZNIT in FA, which we all know we won\'t. Right, b/c we NEEDED another pure speed WR with no hands and who can\'t learn the system in the 2nd round last year. We NEEDED Deuce in 2001... right?
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

01-11-2005, 08:19 PM	#14
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Now THIS is an interesting mock ...and we NEEDED a DE in last year\'s draft. BPA, baby, you\'ll never go wrong with BPA. If it weren\'t for that philosophy, deuce would be playing elsewhere.

01-11-2005, 08:33 PM	#15
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Now THIS is an interesting mock ...and we NEEDED a DE in last year\'s draft. BPA, baby, you\'ll never go wrong with BPA. If it weren\'t for that philosophy, deuce would be playing elsewhere. I totally agree with the BPA approach to the draft. But if a team is going to take that approach, they MUST deal with need picks in free agency. Mismanagement of free agency is what puts so much pressure on our drafts and one of the glaring failures of this front office.

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

01-11-2005, 08:39 PM	#16
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Now THIS is an interesting mock Actually, drafting this qb from Utah isn\'t such a bad idea. Drafting him for the future is a damn good idea. if we take care of the O-line via FA. Saints already signed a WR whom I like... CUTTING PATHON ALERT!!!!!!!!

01-11-2005, 09:18 PM	#17
turbo_dog 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,592	Now THIS is an interesting mock I guess we must have killed that site, because I can\'t get to it anymore. aaaaahhhh, the power of cheese.

01-12-2005, 11:25 AM	#18
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Now THIS is an interesting mock BMG, I tend to agree with you on this: I totally agree with the BPA approach to the draft. But if a team is going to take that approach, they MUST deal with need picks in free agency. Mismanagement of free agency is what puts so much pressure on our drafts and one of the glaring failures of this front office. I\'m not sure what the rest of you guys are getting at here. 1. We have no need for a QB AT THIS POINT, and Smith will NOT be BPA at 16. He\'s probably a second rounder. 2. Everyone agrees that Sullivan was a bust. However, he was high on most boards. Also, if he had been good, we would not have been in such dire straights against the run this year and looking for a DT still. Thus, the pick itself was a bust, but the idea wasn\'t too shaby (even if I thought we need a CB more at that point). 3. If you look at who is available in FA, you\'ll see we can get two LBs, two OTs, and even an OG. What we cannot get is a QB, S, or WR. Thus, there is some scenario where we will be able to take a QB at 16, it is just INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY. 4. I agree that our FO is bonkers and has done very poorly over the last many years. However, I really don\'t see this group (1) needing to take a QB and/or (2) believing that we need to take a QB. I\'m fairly certain that IF we address all of our other needs (2 LBs, 2 OTs, 1 OG, and 1 DT) in FA, they SHOULD take a CB NOT a QB with our 1st pick. Also, I don\'t think that Gandy should be moved to RT. We should try and deal him - his contract is huge, and he is an LT. Someone will want him as a solid backup. Euph, I agree. Pathon is done.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

01-12-2005, 11:32 AM	#19
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Now THIS is an interesting mock Oh yeah. As far as the \"devil you know\" stuff, I think that sums up my view on it pretty well. Brooks is a serviceable QB. You are all talking about getting some guy (perhaps a rookie) to manage the ball if we beef up the line. Why are you so sure that Brooks couldn\'t do that? He\'s been asked to do a lot with no protection all year, he\'s managed the fumbles, he\'s made few turn overs - he\'s improving. If you pluged him into a management role, are you so sure he couldn\'t do it? I guess, I just don\'t see the argument. We\'re 500 with Brooks. If we improve the D and the O line, we should be better than 500, no? 9-7 is a playoff record. This year, if our D had been ANY GOOD AT ALL in the first 8 games, we would have made the playoffs. I agree that Brooks is not a long term solution at our QB position, but he sure as heck is Mr. Right Now. I agree that if we can get a blockbuster trade for him (at least a first and second round pick and maybe a backup QB or Safety), then I\'d say we should go ahead and let him go for a rookie. Otherwise, I am, as of right this moment, not convinced by any of the vim and vigor with which many of you seem to be using to suggest we do away with him.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

01-12-2005, 11:44 AM	#20
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Now THIS is an interesting mock I guess, I just don\'t see the argument. We\'re 500 with Brooks. Yes, we are, and so I\'ll get accused of calling him perfect...again...but I get this point. We\'re .500 with Brooks and the worlds worst defese, yet still they DEMAND we cut or trade the QB.