Wrong stratagy on defense

GumboBC · 03-05-2005, 12:24 PM

Okay, look ... there's no way to sugar-coat what the Saints have done, or haven't done, in free-agency so far. So far the Saints haven't inked one free-agent and when you compare that to some of the more agressive teams like the Panthers and Cowboys, it appears that Tom Benson, Mickey Loomis, and Jim Haslett don't appear to be major players in the free-agent market. And that's very puzzling when you consider how much help this team needs!

But what's even more puzzling - to me - is the comment made by Mickey Loomis when he said the team only needs to fill a few key areas in free-agency. While I do believe that's true for the most part, I do not agree with their stratagy.

Mickey Loomis has stated they want to come out of free-agency with an offensive taclke to replace Victor Riley and they also want to sign a free-saftey which apparantly will leave Tebucky Jones as the odd man out.

Both of those moves will be considerd major upgrades if they find the right players. And both of those are the correct moves, IMO.

But for a franshise that as been so inept on defense, it seems to be they should be more aggressive in free-agency. And it appears that taking care of the secondary before addressing the linebacker position is the wrong stratagy!

When you look at the linebacking corp of Courtney Watson, James Allen, and Colby Bockwoldt, not even one of them have proven themselves in the NFL. IMO, of all the areas of need on this team, linebacker has to be considered a "key" area of need. How could it not?

Recently Jack Del Rio stated he builds a defense from the front to the back. In other words, you build a defense to stop the run first and rush the quarterback. Once you can do that, getting a safety is a fine idea!!

Yet, Haslett seems to have other ideas on how to build a strong defense in New Orleans. While he might sign a linebacker in free-agency, it is not high on his list of needs. Instead he wants to strengthen the saftey position.

Let's presume he takes care of the seconday for a second. Is Haslett comfortable we can stop the run? I know I'm not. But I am sure there are some linebackers in free-agency that could definitely help this defense. And I believe that a linebacker would have much more of an impact rather than a safety.

Free-agency isn't over yet and there's a chance Haslett could sign a quality linebacker. If he fails to address this area once again and our young linebacking corp doesn't get the job done and we have to watch our defense get run though like a hot knife through butter ... Haslett and Mickey Lommis should be fired in mid-season!!

[Edited on 5/3/2005 by GumboBC]

JKool · 03-05-2005, 12:44 PM

I don\'t see how people can think we didn\'t want a LB or it is not on our priority list. We went after Peirce right out of the gate; we just didn\'t get him.

GumboBC · 03-05-2005, 12:51 PM

I don\'t see how people can think we didn\'t want a LB or it is not on our priority list. We went after Peirce right out of the gate; we just didn\'t get him.

That\'s true. But it\'s also true we need help at linebacker. If we don\'t get one ... who do I blame?

With all those linebackers out there, I find it VERY hard to believe we can\'t get one.

It seems we can get a safety, does it not?

And addressing safety before linebacker is the wrong stratagy, IMHO.

JKool · 03-05-2005, 01:57 PM

I agree, in principle.

However, people are getting upset about the order in which guys are coming here, etc. What matters is the final set of guys we get. It is not clear to me from the fact that we\'re hearig reports about a deal with a Safety that we are NOT persuing a LB. It is not like there is only one guy and one phone in our front office.

Just because there is NO VISIBLE pursuit of a LB (after Pierce) does not mean that there is no pursuit, or no effort, no deals being broked, or no plan; does it?

I understand that everyone is frustrated. I\'m frustrated too; however, I don\'t see and really good arguments that NOTHING is good is going to happen. I personally don\'t see any value in getting all upset just yet - frustrated, fine; upset, I can wait a few more days. I know lots of people simply disagree, but other than point out how dumb my view is, I haven\'t heard a convincing argument that all hope is lost... yet.

GumboBC · 03-05-2005, 02:02 PM

JKool --

I think you are misunderstanding my point.

My point isn\'t that we aren\'t looking at LB, because it\'s a fact that we are.

My point is that LB isn\'t TOP on the list of needs according to Mickey Loomis.

IMO, LB is the most important need on the ENTIRE defesne. NOT safety.

What furthers my frustration is we\'ve failed to make this a TOP priority for years in free-agency.

With that said, I\'ll be happy if we get an offensive tackle and safety. I just feel it isn\'t the right stratagy in free-agency.

saintswhodi · 03-05-2005, 02:37 PM

I almost called it exactly. Remember that speech i\'d say you\'d have after free agency Gumbo? Here:

I know I talked up Mayberry when we first signed him, but sometimes I question what the front office is doing. Yes I am sometimes seen as their biggest supporter, but I also question some of the moves they make.

Confused?

Well so am I. I don\'t have all the answers, but sometimes the moves they make cause me to shake my head. Mayberry may have been able to help us, but we had the 32nd ranked D in the league last year. That is not very good. We needed help there, so the Mayberry signing really confuses me.

Maybe he will be good for us, maybe not. but I do know that 32nd in defense is terrible, and we needed to address that. So while I was on board with the Mayberry signing at first, I am still scratching my head, as I am about Haslett, the front office, AB, Watson, the other LBs, previous free agency moves, current free agency moves, future free agency moves, and the price of concessions at home games.

I was taught that if you don\'t have the answers, question both sides, and that is what I am doing. I wish others, not everyone, would do the same.

You have to admit, I was close. If we had signed Mayberry, I would have been about 90% correct on your speech. Give me props.

GumboBC · 03-05-2005, 02:50 PM

No props, whodi ...

Just because I would like to bring in some players other than LB or safety doesn\'t mean I think the Saints are doing things the best way possible.

I said before free-agency started that the two biggest needs were offensive tackle and linebacker. Nothing has changed there. Not as far as my opinion anyway.

So, they can bring Mayberry in and I\'ll be happy but I still want a LB and OT. They can bring in Ron Dayne and I\'ll be happy about that move, but I still want a LB and an OT.

I\'m not going to bash the Saints for trying to upgrade ANY position.

I would have preferred they made MLB the highest priority in free-agency. And it appears that\'s not the case. So, I disagree with their decision.

However, free-agency isn\'t over yet and it\'s hard to bash them for something that hasn\'t happened yet.

JKool · 03-05-2005, 04:31 PM

Yeah, I was boggled by comments from Loomis and Haz to the effect that we need a Safety and a RT. I thought it was a smoke-screen - the fact that they went after Peirce suggests to me that it was. I\'m now confused as to why we\'re not moving on Hartwell or Witherspoon?

saintswhodi · 03-05-2005, 08:03 PM

Come on Gumbo, that was pretty close. You know it. Come on man, give me some props. I almos captured the Gumbo mystique with that one. :P

papz · 03-05-2005, 08:06 PM

And if we don\'t sign Fred Miller, we are also going to be right about starting 4 guards on the line at the same time.

03-05-2005, 12:24 PM	#1
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Wrong stratagy on defense Okay, look ... there's no way to sugar-coat what the Saints have done, or haven't done, in free-agency so far. So far the Saints haven't inked one free-agent and when you compare that to some of the more agressive teams like the Panthers and Cowboys, it appears that Tom Benson, Mickey Loomis, and Jim Haslett don't appear to be major players in the free-agent market. And that's very puzzling when you consider how much help this team needs! But what's even more puzzling - to me - is the comment made by Mickey Loomis when he said the team only needs to fill a few key areas in free-agency. While I do believe that's true for the most part, I do not agree with their stratagy. Mickey Loomis has stated they want to come out of free-agency with an offensive taclke to replace Victor Riley and they also want to sign a free-saftey which apparantly will leave Tebucky Jones as the odd man out. Both of those moves will be considerd major upgrades if they find the right players. And both of those are the correct moves, IMO. But for a franshise that as been so inept on defense, it seems to be they should be more aggressive in free-agency. And it appears that taking care of the secondary before addressing the linebacker position is the wrong stratagy! When you look at the linebacking corp of Courtney Watson, James Allen, and Colby Bockwoldt, not even one of them have proven themselves in the NFL. IMO, of all the areas of need on this team, linebacker has to be considered a "key" area of need. How could it not? Recently Jack Del Rio stated he builds a defense from the front to the back. In other words, you build a defense to stop the run first and rush the quarterback. Once you can do that, getting a safety is a fine idea!! Yet, Haslett seems to have other ideas on how to build a strong defense in New Orleans. While he might sign a linebacker in free-agency, it is not high on his list of needs. Instead he wants to strengthen the saftey position. Let's presume he takes care of the seconday for a second. Is Haslett comfortable we can stop the run? I know I'm not. But I am sure there are some linebackers in free-agency that could definitely help this defense. And I believe that a linebacker would have much more of an impact rather than a safety. Free-agency isn't over yet and there's a chance Haslett could sign a quality linebacker. If he fails to address this area once again and our young linebacking corp doesn't get the job done and we have to watch our defense get run though like a hot knife through butter ... Haslett and Mickey Lommis should be fired in mid-season!! [Edited on 5/3/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

03-05-2005, 12:44 PM	#2
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Wrong stratagy on defense I don\'t see how people can think we didn\'t want a LB or it is not on our priority list. We went after Peirce right out of the gate; we just didn\'t get him.

03-05-2005, 12:51 PM	#3
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Wrong stratagy on defense I don\'t see how people can think we didn\'t want a LB or it is not on our priority list. We went after Peirce right out of the gate; we just didn\'t get him. That\'s true. But it\'s also true we need help at linebacker. If we don\'t get one ... who do I blame? With all those linebackers out there, I find it VERY hard to believe we can\'t get one. It seems we can get a safety, does it not? And addressing safety before linebacker is the wrong stratagy, IMHO.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

03-05-2005, 01:57 PM	#4
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Wrong stratagy on defense I agree, in principle. However, people are getting upset about the order in which guys are coming here, etc. What matters is the final set of guys we get. It is not clear to me from the fact that we\'re hearig reports about a deal with a Safety that we are NOT persuing a LB. It is not like there is only one guy and one phone in our front office. Just because there is NO VISIBLE pursuit of a LB (after Pierce) does not mean that there is no pursuit, or no effort, no deals being broked, or no plan; does it? I understand that everyone is frustrated. I\'m frustrated too; however, I don\'t see and really good arguments that NOTHING is good is going to happen. I personally don\'t see any value in getting all upset just yet - frustrated, fine; upset, I can wait a few more days. I know lots of people simply disagree, but other than point out how dumb my view is, I haven\'t heard a convincing argument that all hope is lost... yet.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

03-05-2005, 02:02 PM	#5
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Wrong stratagy on defense JKool -- I think you are misunderstanding my point. My point isn\'t that we aren\'t looking at LB, because it\'s a fact that we are. My point is that LB isn\'t TOP on the list of needs according to Mickey Loomis. IMO, LB is the most important need on the ENTIRE defesne. NOT safety. What furthers my frustration is we\'ve failed to make this a TOP priority for years in free-agency. With that said, I\'ll be happy if we get an offensive tackle and safety. I just feel it isn\'t the right stratagy in free-agency.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

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

03-05-2005, 02:37 PM	#6
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Wrong stratagy on defense I almost called it exactly. Remember that speech i\'d say you\'d have after free agency Gumbo? Here: I know I talked up Mayberry when we first signed him, but sometimes I question what the front office is doing. Yes I am sometimes seen as their biggest supporter, but I also question some of the moves they make. Confused? Well so am I. I don\'t have all the answers, but sometimes the moves they make cause me to shake my head. Mayberry may have been able to help us, but we had the 32nd ranked D in the league last year. That is not very good. We needed help there, so the Mayberry signing really confuses me. Maybe he will be good for us, maybe not. but I do know that 32nd in defense is terrible, and we needed to address that. So while I was on board with the Mayberry signing at first, I am still scratching my head, as I am about Haslett, the front office, AB, Watson, the other LBs, previous free agency moves, current free agency moves, future free agency moves, and the price of concessions at home games. I was taught that if you don\'t have the answers, question both sides, and that is what I am doing. I wish others, not everyone, would do the same. You have to admit, I was close. If we had signed Mayberry, I would have been about 90% correct on your speech. Give me props.

03-05-2005, 02:50 PM	#7
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Wrong stratagy on defense No props, whodi ... Just because I would like to bring in some players other than LB or safety doesn\'t mean I think the Saints are doing things the best way possible. I said before free-agency started that the two biggest needs were offensive tackle and linebacker. Nothing has changed there. Not as far as my opinion anyway. So, they can bring Mayberry in and I\'ll be happy but I still want a LB and OT. They can bring in Ron Dayne and I\'ll be happy about that move, but I still want a LB and an OT. I\'m not going to bash the Saints for trying to upgrade ANY position. I would have preferred they made MLB the highest priority in free-agency. And it appears that\'s not the case. So, I disagree with their decision. However, free-agency isn\'t over yet and it\'s hard to bash them for something that hasn\'t happened yet.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

03-05-2005, 04:31 PM	#8
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Wrong stratagy on defense Yeah, I was boggled by comments from Loomis and Haz to the effect that we need a Safety and a RT. I thought it was a smoke-screen - the fact that they went after Peirce suggests to me that it was. I\'m now confused as to why we\'re not moving on Hartwell or Witherspoon?

03-05-2005, 08:03 PM	#9
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Wrong stratagy on defense Come on Gumbo, that was pretty close. You know it. Come on man, give me some props. I almos captured the Gumbo mystique with that one. :P

03-05-2005, 08:06 PM	#10
papz Problem? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New Orleans Posts: 11,744	Wrong stratagy on defense And if we don\'t sign Fred Miller, we are also going to be right about starting 4 guards on the line at the same time.