Now THIS is an interesting mock

WhoDat · 01-12-2005, 08:28 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?

01-12-2005, 08:28 PM	#1
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.\"