Keeping Darren Howard

WhoDat · 03-30-2005, 09:28 PM

Danno - I agree completely. I said this three weeks ago in the midst of the Trade Howard rampage and got chewed out. I said the same thing about Horn when the trade suggestion came up about him. Is it so terrible an idea to have to have three great DEs next season? Oh yeah, poor Saints.

lumm0x · 03-30-2005, 09:42 PM

Don\'t get me wrong, as I really like Darren Howard (and I\'ll elaborate on why), but I believe he has to be dealt.

I like him because I believe he is underrated vs. the run. He has a decent motor, and seems to be a quality person. His pass rush skills are well honed and he has proven he can put up the numbers. He has exhibited some tendency to get hurt, and we have two capable and productive starting ends to fill the roles. Whitehead is a solid back-up, as is Bryant if he returns. There are many second rate DE\'s available to sign as back-ups id depth is a concern, but having 3 starting DE\'s to fill 2 roles is something any team would want to have....but it\'s a pure luxury. If we can turn Darren into a starting MLB or CB and pick up a late first day pick in the process then we are ahead in my opinion.

I literally drooled when I heard we may have struck a deal to get Nguyen off of Dallas as well as getting a 2nd round pick. We could have fixed the MLB problem, and you can snap a guy like Surtain off of Miami for a 3rd rounder in all likelihood. That would have allowed us much greater flexibility with that 1st round pick. Howard\'s salary is simply too much to bear for sheer luxury at any position. I fully believe that the Saints did not enter last years draft targeting Will Smith, but that the mentality was such that they could plan for the departure of Howard since Smith fell to them.

Keep him or move him, either way I\'m pleased. If Howard wasn\'t the person and player he was I\'d have no qualms about seeing him leave.

ScottyRo · 03-30-2005, 09:46 PM

The only thing we could have done wrong is let Howard walk without getting any compensation for him. So far, the FO hasn\'t screwed this up, but it\'s not over yet....

I agree with the thought that we can\'t go wrong keeping him or trading him for the right package. The last thing we need to do is get bullied into trading him for less than what he\'s worth.

JKool · 03-31-2005, 02:05 AM

His cap hit is huge. We\'d have to do some shuffling just to sign our rookies if we keep him (at least when last I heard our cap numbers).

I\'m with Lumm0x on this one. We need serious help at LB, before we need a third stud DE. We have very serviceable backups in Whitehead and Bryant. Howard is a luxury. We can have a guy who is always on the field if we get an LB, or we can get a guy who will take at most 2/3 of our defensive snaps.

Also, with McAllister coming due next season, if we don\'t resign him now, we\'ll either have to franchise him or take a market price - if we are in position to renegotiate now, we can get a longer contract on McAllister at a more cap friendly price. Also, I believe, that Grant and Bentley (not to mention Horn) are all due for a new contracts.

The sad fact is that we\'d simply have to chose who to franchise between McAllister and Howard next year (and possibly Bentely or Grant (unless I\'m mistaken about that) and let the other guy(s) be UFAs - with NO compensation.

I just don\'t think that keeping Howard is really an option, unless we\'re going to sign him to a long-term cap-friendly deal, which he doesn\'t seem to be going for ($16 mil signing bonus and Wistrom like money!).

Don\'t get me wrong, I believe that Howard is a stand up Saint. I\'ll be sorry to see him go, but, unlike Horn, I don\'t see him helping us out with a favorable contract AND we\'d really risk not getting any compensation for him or McAllister (and possibly others) if we don\'t deal him now.

rAge · 03-31-2005, 02:29 AM

Didn\'t read the whole thread so if I say something that has already been said - ignore it.

Reason why he needs to go now is to free up the cap space to resign the players you mentioned. Why now and not after the season? Would you really want to see Deuce, Horn & Howard all on the FA market next year? Do you really believe we would beable to sign Deuce & Horn and then franchise Howard again? And if we did do that, imagine how big the cap hit would be for Howard. And if we don\'t franchise him next year, he walks and we get NOTHING. So yeah, I\'d say we need to move him now.

no_cloning · 03-31-2005, 05:23 AM

Howard, Smith, and Grant would all see about 1/3 of the snaps.

Considering that there are two DEs on the field on most plays, it would be more like 2/3.

I agree with rAge that you have to look beyond next season. If you can get a good player and sign him to a long-term contract plus maybe a draft pick, the deal would be a good one in the long run.
But even in the long run, giving up Howard for a mere 2nd rounder doesn\'t make sense to me. There has to be some value in a deal, otherwise it would be better to keep him and see what happens next year.

4saintspirit · 03-31-2005, 09:51 AM

As my father was so fond of saying \"What we have here is a high class problem\" We can\'t lose -- if we keep him we have a quality player -- if we trade him and get good value we help our cap situation and fill other needs. Personally I think we need help in other areas more thant a 3rd DE but its not in our best interests to give him away either -- Bottom line -- either way we win --- something the Saints usually have trouble doing

JKool · 03-31-2005, 01:10 PM

As I said above, if we keep him (and don\'t manage to sign him for a more cap friendly long term contract BEFORE this year starts, which seems unlikely), then it appears to me HIGHLY LIKELY that either one of Duece or Howard (and maybe Bentely or Grant) will go WITHOUT compensation.

It is simply impossible, given my most recent memory of our cap space) to be able to pay Howard his tender value and still sign McAllister to a long term deal. They will both be UFAs next year, which means we will not get compensation for at least one of them. It is also possible, though I don\'t remember acurately) that Bentely and Grant will also be UFAs next year. If that is so, keeping Howard this year will cause us to not get compensation for at least one of those four guys next year.

Unless someone can demonstrate that there is enough cap room THIS year to re-sign McAllister (and possibly Grant and Bentley, as well as our rookies), keeping Howard will merely result in our not getting compensation for him NEXT year AND possibly the loss of one of those other three. It would NOT in that case be win-win at all.

natedogg02 · 03-31-2005, 01:18 PM

I dont think we will have a problem with signing deuce, he wants to be here (close to home) so he will help all he can. Did\'nt he say in a interview at the end of the season that \"Him being in NO will not be an issue\"

GumboBC · 03-31-2005, 01:22 PM

While you can never have enough good DEs ... there are too many needs on defense to NOT trade Howard if the chance presents itself.

If Charles Grant or Will Smith goes down we will simply have to deal with it. Same goes for many positions on this team. It\'s irrelevent if you ask me.

We need linebackers first and foremost and Howard seems to be the best hope of acquiring one.

03-30-2005, 09:28 PM	#11
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Keeping Darren Howard Danno - I agree completely. I said this three weeks ago in the midst of the Trade Howard rampage and got chewed out. I said the same thing about Horn when the trade suggestion came up about him. Is it so terrible an idea to have to have three great DEs next season? Oh yeah, poor Saints.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631

03-30-2005, 09:42 PM	#12
lumm0x Resident antediluvian Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,026	Keeping Darren Howard Don\'t get me wrong, as I really like Darren Howard (and I\'ll elaborate on why), but I believe he has to be dealt. I like him because I believe he is underrated vs. the run. He has a decent motor, and seems to be a quality person. His pass rush skills are well honed and he has proven he can put up the numbers. He has exhibited some tendency to get hurt, and we have two capable and productive starting ends to fill the roles. Whitehead is a solid back-up, as is Bryant if he returns. There are many second rate DE\'s available to sign as back-ups id depth is a concern, but having 3 starting DE\'s to fill 2 roles is something any team would want to have....but it\'s a pure luxury. If we can turn Darren into a starting MLB or CB and pick up a late first day pick in the process then we are ahead in my opinion. I literally drooled when I heard we may have struck a deal to get Nguyen off of Dallas as well as getting a 2nd round pick. We could have fixed the MLB problem, and you can snap a guy like Surtain off of Miami for a 3rd rounder in all likelihood. That would have allowed us much greater flexibility with that 1st round pick. Howard\'s salary is simply too much to bear for sheer luxury at any position. I fully believe that the Saints did not enter last years draft targeting Will Smith, but that the mentality was such that they could plan for the departure of Howard since Smith fell to them. Keep him or move him, either way I\'m pleased. If Howard wasn\'t the person and player he was I\'d have no qualms about seeing him leave.

03-30-2005, 09:46 PM	#13
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Keeping Darren Howard The only thing we could have done wrong is let Howard walk without getting any compensation for him. So far, the FO hasn\'t screwed this up, but it\'s not over yet.... I agree with the thought that we can\'t go wrong keeping him or trading him for the right package. The last thing we need to do is get bullied into trading him for less than what he\'s worth.

03-31-2005, 02:05 AM	#14
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Keeping Darren Howard His cap hit is huge. We\'d have to do some shuffling just to sign our rookies if we keep him (at least when last I heard our cap numbers). I\'m with Lumm0x on this one. We need serious help at LB, before we need a third stud DE. We have very serviceable backups in Whitehead and Bryant. Howard is a luxury. We can have a guy who is always on the field if we get an LB, or we can get a guy who will take at most 2/3 of our defensive snaps. Also, with McAllister coming due next season, if we don\'t resign him now, we\'ll either have to franchise him or take a market price - if we are in position to renegotiate now, we can get a longer contract on McAllister at a more cap friendly price. Also, I believe, that Grant and Bentley (not to mention Horn) are all due for a new contracts. The sad fact is that we\'d simply have to chose who to franchise between McAllister and Howard next year (and possibly Bentely or Grant (unless I\'m mistaken about that) and let the other guy(s) be UFAs - with NO compensation. I just don\'t think that keeping Howard is really an option, unless we\'re going to sign him to a long-term cap-friendly deal, which he doesn\'t seem to be going for ($16 mil signing bonus and Wistrom like money!). Don\'t get me wrong, I believe that Howard is a stand up Saint. I\'ll be sorry to see him go, but, unlike Horn, I don\'t see him helping us out with a favorable contract AND we\'d really risk not getting any compensation for him or McAllister (and possibly others) if we don\'t deal him now.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

03-31-2005, 02:29 AM	#15
rAge 100th Post Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 320	Keeping Darren Howard Didn\'t read the whole thread so if I say something that has already been said - ignore it. Reason why he needs to go now is to free up the cap space to resign the players you mentioned. Why now and not after the season? Would you really want to see Deuce, Horn & Howard all on the FA market next year? Do you really believe we would beable to sign Deuce & Horn and then franchise Howard again? And if we did do that, imagine how big the cap hit would be for Howard. And if we don\'t franchise him next year, he walks and we get NOTHING. So yeah, I\'d say we need to move him now.
rAge 100th Post Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 320	http://www.cutandpastescripts.com/cg...=forgottenrage

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

03-31-2005, 05:23 AM	#16
no_cloning 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 249	Keeping Darren Howard Howard, Smith, and Grant would all see about 1/3 of the snaps. Considering that there are two DEs on the field on most plays, it would be more like 2/3. I agree with rAge that you have to look beyond next season. If you can get a good player and sign him to a long-term contract plus maybe a draft pick, the deal would be a good one in the long run. But even in the long run, giving up Howard for a mere 2nd rounder doesn\'t make sense to me. There has to be some value in a deal, otherwise it would be better to keep him and see what happens next year.
no_cloning 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 249

03-31-2005, 09:51 AM	#17
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690	Keeping Darren Howard As my father was so fond of saying \"What we have here is a high class problem\" We can\'t lose -- if we keep him we have a quality player -- if we trade him and get good value we help our cap situation and fill other needs. Personally I think we need help in other areas more thant a 3rd DE but its not in our best interests to give him away either -- Bottom line -- either way we win --- something the Saints usually have trouble doing
4saintspirit 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 690

03-31-2005, 01:10 PM	#18
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Keeping Darren Howard As I said above, if we keep him (and don\'t manage to sign him for a more cap friendly long term contract BEFORE this year starts, which seems unlikely), then it appears to me HIGHLY LIKELY that either one of Duece or Howard (and maybe Bentely or Grant) will go WITHOUT compensation. It is simply impossible, given my most recent memory of our cap space) to be able to pay Howard his tender value and still sign McAllister to a long term deal. They will both be UFAs next year, which means we will not get compensation for at least one of them. It is also possible, though I don\'t remember acurately) that Bentely and Grant will also be UFAs next year. If that is so, keeping Howard this year will cause us to not get compensation for at least one of those four guys next year. Unless someone can demonstrate that there is enough cap room THIS year to re-sign McAllister (and possibly Grant and Bentley, as well as our rookies), keeping Howard will merely result in our not getting compensation for him NEXT year AND possibly the loss of one of those other three. It would NOT in that case be win-win at all.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

03-31-2005, 01:18 PM	#19
natedogg02 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 145	Keeping Darren Howard I dont think we will have a problem with signing deuce, he wants to be here (close to home) so he will help all he can. Did\'nt he say in a interview at the end of the season that \"Him being in NO will not be an issue\"
natedogg02 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 145

03-31-2005, 01:22 PM	#20
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Keeping Darren Howard While you can never have enough good DEs ... there are too many needs on defense to NOT trade Howard if the chance presents itself. If Charles Grant or Will Smith goes down we will simply have to deal with it. Same goes for many positions on this team. It\'s irrelevent if you ask me. We need linebackers first and foremost and Howard seems to be the best hope of acquiring one.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616