Can't miss at 16, can we?

Danno · 04-19-2005, 11:22 PM

I\'ll wade into this only long enough to say:

\"Can\'t miss\" and \"Saints\" in the same sentence is a recipe for disaster. You would know that if you hadn\'t intentionally forgot the name Jonathan Sullivan.

These kinds of predictions make me nervous Danno, ma-boy.

While I was being a bit sarcastic I think if you take away one player we\'ve done pretty good with our top few picks. That one glaring mistake still leaves a bad taste though. But not too bad if you consider Howard, Grant, McAllister, Bentley, Stallworth, Smith, Watson.

Last year I listed 5 players I\'d be happy with. We picked the 5th on my list, after the 1st 4 were gone. We\'re on a roll dude.

jnormand · 04-19-2005, 11:57 PM

Jonathan Sullivan was SUPPOSED to be a really good DT. Fact of the matter is, he has done realitively nothing since coming to the Saints. I don\'t put too much blame on the FO for taking him. IMO everyone you draft could be a bust. The guy looked great coming out of college, the fact that he never lived up to expectations is hardly all of the FO/Coaches fault. Sully looked very promising, but he is nothing but an overpaid benchwarmer. Bottom line is, you can\'t say the Saints really screwed up by taking him, when at the time, he was a very good prospect. Thats Monday Morning Quarterbacking, and we all know that isn\'t relative to the situation when it arises. I\'m sure the FO and coaches are really kicking theirselves in the b@lls about drafting fatty, but they couldn\'t have forcasted this. If so, they never would have drafted him.

The Saints could draft DJ and he could end up on the bench or injury ridden. It\'s all a big gamble.

saintswhodi · 04-20-2005, 10:09 AM

Jonathan Sullivan was SUPPOSED to be a really good DT. Fact of the matter is, he has done realitively nothing since coming to the Saints. I don\'t put too much blame on the FO for taking him. IMO everyone you draft could be a bust. The guy looked great coming out of college, the fact that he never lived up to expectations is hardly all of the FO/Coaches fault. Sully looked very promising, but he is nothing but an overpaid benchwarmer. Bottom line is, you can\'t say the Saints really screwed up by taking him, when at the time, he was a very good prospect. Thats Monday Morning Quarterbacking, and we all know that isn\'t relative to the situation when it arises. I\'m sure the FO and coaches are really kicking theirselves in the b@lls about drafting fatty, but they couldn\'t have forcasted this. If so, they never would have drafted him.

Well, actually you can blame them cause sully was rated as the 5th or 6th best DT in the draft, and we took him second. Passing on a pro bowler in Kevin Williams, and a damn good corner in Trufant. That\'s exactly why they catch so much heat for that pick. They are absolutely 100% to blame for blowing that one. Except for the 3rd rounds of almost every draft, they have faired okay outside of that.

GoldenTomb · 04-20-2005, 01:28 PM

I\'ll wade into this only long enough to say:

\"Can\'t miss\" and \"Saints\" in the same sentence is a recipe for disaster. You would know that if you hadn\'t intentionally forgot the name Jonathan Sullivan.

These kinds of predictions make me nervous Danno, ma-boy.

Sorry bro...not the same thing. I don\'t think you\'ll find any record of ANYONE ANYWHERE saying Sully was a can\'t miss. I didn\'t even know who he was until the Saints picked him. I thought they had traded up to get Terrell Suggs.

baronm · 04-20-2005, 01:44 PM

I\'ll wade into this only long enough to say:

\"Can\'t miss\" and \"Saints\" in the same sentence is a recipe for disaster. You would know that if you hadn\'t intentionally forgot the name Jonathan Sullivan.

These kinds of predictions make me nervous Danno, ma-boy.

Yeah, I thought we had traded up to grab vilma..I was hoping atleast..I wanted vilma and dansby in that draft...kinda similar to this year..oh damn...

Sorry bro...not the same thing. I don\'t think you\'ll find any record of ANYONE ANYWHERE saying Sully was a can\'t miss. I didn\'t even know who he was until the Saints picked him. I thought they had traded up to get Terrell Suggs.

saintswhodi · 04-20-2005, 01:51 PM

This last pos was confusing baron as Vilma and Dansby were not in the same draft as Sullivan.

04-19-2005, 11:22 PM	#21
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Can't miss at 16, can we? I\'ll wade into this only long enough to say: \"Can\'t miss\" and \"Saints\" in the same sentence is a recipe for disaster. You would know that if you hadn\'t intentionally forgot the name Jonathan Sullivan. These kinds of predictions make me nervous Danno, ma-boy. While I was being a bit sarcastic I think if you take away one player we\'ve done pretty good with our top few picks. That one glaring mistake still leaves a bad taste though. But not too bad if you consider Howard, Grant, McAllister, Bentley, Stallworth, Smith, Watson. Last year I listed 5 players I\'d be happy with. We picked the 5th on my list, after the 1st 4 were gone. We\'re on a roll dude.

04-19-2005, 11:57 PM	#22
jnormand 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Free State of Idaho Posts: 5,662	Can't miss at 16, can we? Jonathan Sullivan was SUPPOSED to be a really good DT. Fact of the matter is, he has done realitively nothing since coming to the Saints. I don\'t put too much blame on the FO for taking him. IMO everyone you draft could be a bust. The guy looked great coming out of college, the fact that he never lived up to expectations is hardly all of the FO/Coaches fault. Sully looked very promising, but he is nothing but an overpaid benchwarmer. Bottom line is, you can\'t say the Saints really screwed up by taking him, when at the time, he was a very good prospect. Thats Monday Morning Quarterbacking, and we all know that isn\'t relative to the situation when it arises. I\'m sure the FO and coaches are really kicking theirselves in the b@lls about drafting fatty, but they couldn\'t have forcasted this. If so, they never would have drafted him. The Saints could draft DJ and he could end up on the bench or injury ridden. It\'s all a big gamble.

04-20-2005, 10:09 AM	#23
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Can't miss at 16, can we? Jonathan Sullivan was SUPPOSED to be a really good DT. Fact of the matter is, he has done realitively nothing since coming to the Saints. I don\'t put too much blame on the FO for taking him. IMO everyone you draft could be a bust. The guy looked great coming out of college, the fact that he never lived up to expectations is hardly all of the FO/Coaches fault. Sully looked very promising, but he is nothing but an overpaid benchwarmer. Bottom line is, you can\'t say the Saints really screwed up by taking him, when at the time, he was a very good prospect. Thats Monday Morning Quarterbacking, and we all know that isn\'t relative to the situation when it arises. I\'m sure the FO and coaches are really kicking theirselves in the b@lls about drafting fatty, but they couldn\'t have forcasted this. If so, they never would have drafted him. Well, actually you can blame them cause sully was rated as the 5th or 6th best DT in the draft, and we took him second. Passing on a pro bowler in Kevin Williams, and a damn good corner in Trufant. That\'s exactly why they catch so much heat for that pick. They are absolutely 100% to blame for blowing that one. Except for the 3rd rounds of almost every draft, they have faired okay outside of that.

04-20-2005, 01:28 PM	#24
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591	Can't miss at 16, can we? I\'ll wade into this only long enough to say: \"Can\'t miss\" and \"Saints\" in the same sentence is a recipe for disaster. You would know that if you hadn\'t intentionally forgot the name Jonathan Sullivan. These kinds of predictions make me nervous Danno, ma-boy. Sorry bro...not the same thing. I don\'t think you\'ll find any record of ANYONE ANYWHERE saying Sully was a can\'t miss. I didn\'t even know who he was until the Saints picked him. I thought they had traded up to get Terrell Suggs.
GoldenTomb 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 591

04-20-2005, 01:44 PM	#25
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954	Can't miss at 16, can we? I\'ll wade into this only long enough to say: \"Can\'t miss\" and \"Saints\" in the same sentence is a recipe for disaster. You would know that if you hadn\'t intentionally forgot the name Jonathan Sullivan. These kinds of predictions make me nervous Danno, ma-boy. Yeah, I thought we had traded up to grab vilma..I was hoping atleast..I wanted vilma and dansby in that draft...kinda similar to this year..oh damn... Sorry bro...not the same thing. I don\'t think you\'ll find any record of ANYONE ANYWHERE saying Sully was a can\'t miss. I didn\'t even know who he was until the Saints picked him. I thought they had traded up to get Terrell Suggs.
baronm 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 954

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

04-20-2005, 01:51 PM	#26
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Can't miss at 16, can we? This last pos was confusing baron as Vilma and Dansby were not in the same draft as Sullivan.