We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S.

spkb25 · 01-26-2005, 06:20 PM

i have to admit there were to many post for me to read but for my own two cents i would like to see us go after a real good tackle. we need to get rid of that riley guy. i heard his name a lot this year and im not sure it was ever for a good reason. i would keep gandy. im not sure of his cap hit if its to much or something i guess we would be forced to let him go but if we can restructure him to something reasonable i would like to keep him for another year so that we dont have two new guys at that spot. i\'d like to draft at least one tackle. i wouldnt mind seeing that be our first round pick but only if the tackle that is available is worth the pick. im not sure how many fit into that category. anyway thats my two cents and it is probally worht even less

LKelley67 · 01-27-2005, 01:12 AM

i reviewed 27 mock drafts services that were updated in the last week. the totals for first round pick are-
LB- 8
CB-8
DT-7
S-2
OT-1
QB-1
i cant quite imagine derrick johnson falling that far. that would be a godsend.

getting something for howard seems numero uno. dallas has 2 first round picks and most have them taking a edge rusher with the flop of wiley. plenty of teams need a sackman of his caliber, please loomy get something, a second... maybe draft insight/info from a team LOL

JKool · 01-27-2005, 02:23 AM

sdrinker,

You don\'t really think our biggest need is Safety. One of the two of them was our leading tackler. That can only happen if your LBs are failing to make tackles and/or your CBs are getting burnt. We need at least an OT (to replace Riley) and a LB to play the middle or the strong side. I\'m inclined to think that Safety is on the list, but not number one.

shadowdrinker · 01-27-2005, 04:01 AM

I really do feel like Safety is just too glaring a need to be left till next year again...

I also feel like obtaining an upper caliber safety would help to reduce ruhing yards..and help with passes over the middle..and give deep coverage as well...Bellamy is fine and good at tackling, ( just ask David Carr)..but..his cover skills are not up to par...

I feel like if we get a very good safety..we imporve instantly on defense..in key areas where we suffered for most of the season...

We have too weak of a Defense to try to plug in with 4th and 5th rounders..We need serious talent..and not project players either...the real deal...

Last year..all the talk was about..getting at least one LB to come in here and get some play time..and improve..and we got 2 very young..very willfull, and very good LB\'s that have had the year of experience that was a prerequisite of most peoples wish list last year.....I think we are going to be fine at LB..not stunning by any means..but..improved at least...

If we can\'t get a top 3 Safety..we need to get a top 3 CB..period..that should be first on the agenda..as I see it

The tackle position..which is in dire need of help..would be much better addressed in the Free Agent Market...or..a trade..involving Howard...which is a totally different subject...but..as I was shown by a member of this board..a very possible scenario...and quite possibly..our safest route..in retrospect...If we were to trade him at all

[Edited on 27/1/2005 by shadowdrinker]

JKool · 01-27-2005, 11:05 AM

Gotcha.

I guess I\'m not sold on our LBs. I think Watson is good, but a little small. Buckwoldt had a few good games at the end of the year, but he is really small. But even with those two, who is the third? I feel like, at best, we have two guys who can play and one of those two may actually turn out to be quite darned good. However, that leaves us needing at least one more.

I agree that we need a Safety in the draft, since there are so few available in FA. I\'ve also been convinced a QB would be a good selection in the middle rounds (but I\'m still pondering that). Though, I think you and I will agree that our draft should depend some on our work in FA. If we get at least one OT and an LB in FA, then I\'d consider a second rounder on a Safety; otherwise, I agree with you - we have plenty of mid round safeites (Gleason and Mitchell). Who do you think will be available in the mid-rounds? the second round?

I just think that a first round pick on a Safety is a waste, unless and Ed Reed is available, but that is pretty rare.

If any of those defensive studs make it to us at 16, I just think we have to take them. I haven\'t checked for awhile, but I don\'t remember anyone listing a Safety in the top 25-30 players in the draft.

saintswhodi · 01-27-2005, 11:08 AM

Actually Kool, Thomas Davis is listed at safety as one of the top picks and shazor could move up depending on combine stats.

JKool · 01-27-2005, 11:36 AM

Well, lets keep our eye on them then! Do it.

I guess, I don\'t think that I would feel great about a first round Safety pick right now. Of course, FA could change my mind about that pretty easily.

It is my view, in general, that very good Safeties, like FBs, Gs, and TEs can usually be found in the later rounds. Due to the instant productivity of DLinemen, RBs, and OLBs (and the occasional QB), they tend to go faster than a lot of other positions (people put a premium on those); also, developmental players with a big upside, like WRs, are often taken a bit higher than they should. My point: very good players at Safety, Guard, and TE can slip down into the later rounds more easily.

If we were going to go after a Safety in the first round, we could probably trade down and maybe get an extra second or third round pick. Hmmmm.

papz · 01-27-2005, 11:39 AM

LOL shadow... yet you approve of Colby B. a 7th rounder being in our starting lineup... don\'t contradict yourself buddy... GAMEOVER!

Ask David Carr ROFLROFLROFL... about what? About how anyone can get to him with that poor line forcing him to make bad decisions? What is that going to prove lol!

ONCE AGAIN BELLAMY WAS BEATEN OUT FOR THE JOB... REPEAT HE WAS BEATEN OUT FOR THE JOB... REPEAT HE WAS BEATEN OUT FOR THE JOB... so obviously he isn\'t a project and people on the staff knows he has the talent...

Stop contradicting yourself buddy and maybe anything you say I\'ll take you a little more seriously. Otherwise LOL! what a funny guy!

Danno · 01-27-2005, 11:42 AM

Gotcha.

I guess I\'m not sold on our LBs. I think Watson is good, but a little small. Buckwoldt had a few good games at the end of the year, but he is really small. But even with those two, who is the third? I feel like, at best, we have two guys who can play and one of those two may actually turn out to be quite darned good. However, that leaves us needing at least one more.

Where does all this talk about Watson being small come from?
I don\'t understand it...Watson is 6\'-1\", 246 lbs.
Here are the top MLB\'s in the league.
237 J. Armstead
245 Dan Morgan
243 Dat Nyguen
230 Zach Thomas
225 Shelton Quarles
234 Mark Simineau
230 Mike Peterson
245 Ray Lewis
247 Teddi Bruschi
262 Jeramiah Trotter
245 James Farrior
240 Antonio Pierce

Average Weight = 240.25 lbs

I don\'t think Watson needs to add 1 lb. He may need to strengthen up some, but he is the perfect size for a MLB in todays NFL.

Tobias-Reiper · 01-27-2005, 12:03 PM

...call me crazy, but I think we have 2 solid young LB\'s in Colby and Courtney...
.. on the defensive line, we got pass rush but no run stop. I think we need a true nose tackle, and some coaching... (just to mention one example) I am tired of seeing Grant make the same mistake over and over again. Someone needs to teach the young man to hold his ground when it\'s a run... he\'s got a great pass rush, but outside pass rush (going outside the tackle) when the play is a run just about always gives the other team 5-7 yds, if not more...
.. I still think Tebucky is a liability out there...

.. on offense , definitely a true LT... I still think this 2 TE set is there to help both tackles because they can\'t hold their side on their own... if the Saints could get at least one solid tackle who doesn\'t need constant help to cover his side, , either left or right, it would be a great improvement...

01-26-2005, 06:20 PM	#41
spkb25 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 13,101	We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S. i have to admit there were to many post for me to read but for my own two cents i would like to see us go after a real good tackle. we need to get rid of that riley guy. i heard his name a lot this year and im not sure it was ever for a good reason. i would keep gandy. im not sure of his cap hit if its to much or something i guess we would be forced to let him go but if we can restructure him to something reasonable i would like to keep him for another year so that we dont have two new guys at that spot. i\'d like to draft at least one tackle. i wouldnt mind seeing that be our first round pick but only if the tackle that is available is worth the pick. im not sure how many fit into that category. anyway thats my two cents and it is probally worht even less
	Your team stinks

01-27-2005, 01:12 AM	#42
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S. i reviewed 27 mock drafts services that were updated in the last week. the totals for first round pick are- LB- 8 CB-8 DT-7 S-2 OT-1 QB-1 i cant quite imagine derrick johnson falling that far. that would be a godsend. getting something for howard seems numero uno. dallas has 2 first round picks and most have them taking a edge rusher with the flop of wiley. plenty of teams need a sackman of his caliber, please loomy get something, a second... maybe draft insight/info from a team LOL

01-27-2005, 02:23 AM	#43
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S. sdrinker, You don\'t really think our biggest need is Safety. One of the two of them was our leading tackler. That can only happen if your LBs are failing to make tackles and/or your CBs are getting burnt. We need at least an OT (to replace Riley) and a LB to play the middle or the strong side. I\'m inclined to think that Safety is on the list, but not number one.

01-27-2005, 04:01 AM	#44
shadowdrinker Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 517	We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S. I really do feel like Safety is just too glaring a need to be left till next year again... I also feel like obtaining an upper caliber safety would help to reduce ruhing yards..and help with passes over the middle..and give deep coverage as well...Bellamy is fine and good at tackling, ( just ask David Carr)..but..his cover skills are not up to par... I feel like if we get a very good safety..we imporve instantly on defense..in key areas where we suffered for most of the season... We have too weak of a Defense to try to plug in with 4th and 5th rounders..We need serious talent..and not project players either...the real deal... Last year..all the talk was about..getting at least one LB to come in here and get some play time..and improve..and we got 2 very young..very willfull, and very good LB\'s that have had the year of experience that was a prerequisite of most peoples wish list last year.....I think we are going to be fine at LB..not stunning by any means..but..improved at least... If we can\'t get a top 3 Safety..we need to get a top 3 CB..period..that should be first on the agenda..as I see it The tackle position..which is in dire need of help..would be much better addressed in the Free Agent Market...or..a trade..involving Howard...which is a totally different subject...but..as I was shown by a member of this board..a very possible scenario...and quite possibly..our safest route..in retrospect...If we were to trade him at all [Edited on 27/1/2005 by shadowdrinker]
shadowdrinker Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 517

01-27-2005, 11:05 AM	#45
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S. Gotcha. I guess I\'m not sold on our LBs. I think Watson is good, but a little small. Buckwoldt had a few good games at the end of the year, but he is really small. But even with those two, who is the third? I feel like, at best, we have two guys who can play and one of those two may actually turn out to be quite darned good. However, that leaves us needing at least one more. I agree that we need a Safety in the draft, since there are so few available in FA. I\'ve also been convinced a QB would be a good selection in the middle rounds (but I\'m still pondering that). Though, I think you and I will agree that our draft should depend some on our work in FA. If we get at least one OT and an LB in FA, then I\'d consider a second rounder on a Safety; otherwise, I agree with you - we have plenty of mid round safeites (Gleason and Mitchell). Who do you think will be available in the mid-rounds? the second round? I just think that a first round pick on a Safety is a waste, unless and Ed Reed is available, but that is pretty rare. If any of those defensive studs make it to us at 16, I just think we have to take them. I haven\'t checked for awhile, but I don\'t remember anyone listing a Safety in the top 25-30 players in the draft.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

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

01-27-2005, 11:08 AM	#46
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S. Actually Kool, Thomas Davis is listed at safety as one of the top picks and shazor could move up depending on combine stats.

01-27-2005, 11:36 AM	#47
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S. Well, lets keep our eye on them then! Do it. I guess, I don\'t think that I would feel great about a first round Safety pick right now. Of course, FA could change my mind about that pretty easily. It is my view, in general, that very good Safeties, like FBs, Gs, and TEs can usually be found in the later rounds. Due to the instant productivity of DLinemen, RBs, and OLBs (and the occasional QB), they tend to go faster than a lot of other positions (people put a premium on those); also, developmental players with a big upside, like WRs, are often taken a bit higher than they should. My point: very good players at Safety, Guard, and TE can slip down into the later rounds more easily. If we were going to go after a Safety in the first round, we could probably trade down and maybe get an extra second or third round pick. Hmmmm.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

01-27-2005, 11:39 AM	#48
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,755	We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S. LOL shadow... yet you approve of Colby B. a 7th rounder being in our starting lineup... don\'t contradict yourself buddy... GAMEOVER! Ask David Carr ROFLROFLROFL... about what? About how anyone can get to him with that poor line forcing him to make bad decisions? What is that going to prove lol! ONCE AGAIN BELLAMY WAS BEATEN OUT FOR THE JOB... REPEAT HE WAS BEATEN OUT FOR THE JOB... REPEAT HE WAS BEATEN OUT FOR THE JOB... so obviously he isn\'t a project and people on the staff knows he has the talent... Stop contradicting yourself buddy and maybe anything you say I\'ll take you a little more seriously. Otherwise LOL! what a funny guy!
	Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. All little common sense goes a long way.

01-27-2005, 11:42 AM	#49
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,724	We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S. Gotcha. I guess I\'m not sold on our LBs. I think Watson is good, but a little small. Buckwoldt had a few good games at the end of the year, but he is really small. But even with those two, who is the third? I feel like, at best, we have two guys who can play and one of those two may actually turn out to be quite darned good. However, that leaves us needing at least one more. Where does all this talk about Watson being small come from? I don\'t understand it...Watson is 6\'-1\", 246 lbs. Here are the top MLB\'s in the league. 237 J. Armstead 245 Dan Morgan 243 Dat Nyguen 230 Zach Thomas 225 Shelton Quarles 234 Mark Simineau 230 Mike Peterson 245 Ray Lewis 247 Teddi Bruschi 262 Jeramiah Trotter 245 James Farrior 240 Antonio Pierce Average Weight = 240.25 lbs I don\'t think Watson needs to add 1 lb. He may need to strengthen up some, but he is the perfect size for a MLB in todays NFL.

01-27-2005, 12:03 PM	#50
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	We need LBs, Ts, DT, and S. ...call me crazy, but I think we have 2 solid young LB\'s in Colby and Courtney... .. on the defensive line, we got pass rush but no run stop. I think we need a true nose tackle, and some coaching... (just to mention one example) I am tired of seeing Grant make the same mistake over and over again. Someone needs to teach the young man to hold his ground when it\'s a run... he\'s got a great pass rush, but outside pass rush (going outside the tackle) when the play is a run just about always gives the other team 5-7 yds, if not more... .. I still think Tebucky is a liability out there... .. on offense , definitely a true LT... I still think this 2 TE set is there to help both tackles because they can\'t hold their side on their own... if the Saints could get at least one solid tackle who doesn\'t need constant help to cover his side, , either left or right, it would be a great improvement...
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill