Now THIS is an interesting mock

WhoDat · 01-12-2005, 09:28 PM

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.

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.

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

Please do Gary Granola!

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.

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?

JKool · 01-12-2005, 11:06 PM

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.

BlackandBlue · 01-13-2005, 01:27 AM

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).

WhoDat · 01-13-2005, 09:25 AM

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.

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.

ScottyRo · 01-13-2005, 01:16 PM

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.

saintswhodi · 01-13-2005, 01:31 PM

Brooks is capable of winning 10 games with the Saints. I think that is unquestionable.

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.

saintfan · 01-13-2005, 01:45 PM

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.

saintswhodi · 01-13-2005, 01:51 PM

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.

saintfan · 01-13-2005, 01:55 PM

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.

WhoDat · 01-13-2005, 02:00 PM

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.

01-12-2005, 09:28 PM	#51
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Now THIS is an interesting mock 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. 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. 6. WhoDat, nice post. I\'ll consider. Please do Gary Granola! 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. 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?
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

01-12-2005, 11:06 PM	#52
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	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.

01-13-2005, 01:27 AM	#53
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	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).
	The waiting drove me mad.... I don't want to hear from those that know... Everything has changed, absolutely nothing's changed Eddie is a....draftnik?

01-13-2005, 09:25 AM	#54
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Now THIS is an interesting mock 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. 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.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

01-13-2005, 01:16 PM	#55
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	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.

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

01-13-2005, 01:31 PM	#56
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Now THIS is an interesting mock Brooks is capable of winning 10 games with the Saints. I think that is unquestionable. 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.

01-13-2005, 01:45 PM	#57
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	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.

01-13-2005, 01:51 PM	#58
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	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.

01-13-2005, 01:55 PM	#59
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	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.

01-13-2005, 02:00 PM	#60
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	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.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"