Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Ok. WTF?

From NFL.com:

Sounds like the Courtney Watson of FS's. We need a freakin' LB. I hope the FO knows something we don't. I was ok with an OT in the first, but we need a DT or a freakin' LB LOOMIS YOU AZZ.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

from espn-
He was too inconsistent and isn\'t a complete enough player to gamble on in the first two rounds

forget burnett, thurman, justin miller or corey webster

all i want to hear is how billy spins this into greatness

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

That pick was very odd. We need a linebacker. Someone please make sense of this? It is nuts. You can\'t tell me that Burnett wasn\'t the pick we should have made here.

Maybe there is a deal in the works - Bullocks and Howard for something? I don\'t get it. I can\'t even come up with anything that makes this pick rational.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

I love the 1st pick with Brown.

I don\'t understsand the 2nd pick at all.

I suppose they went with the best player avaliable approach.

Honestly, I never heard of Josh Bullocks.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Hasbeen is clueless .......

Anyone believing any Billy Hype , better ask for a kiss .... :hump:

Dallas is showing how to put players on the defensive side of the ball .....

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Josh Bullocks was no where near BPA at that point.

As far as all of this goes, all you guys who wanted to keep Howard, you\'re getting exactly what you wanted. Even if we could trade him now, who would be worth getting?

Blah.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Billy, I bet you $100 Bullocks was not BPA at that point. :casstet:

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Damn. Some of you guys need to get off of your emotional trip

Obviously Bullocks was the BPA on the SAINTS\' board.

I don\'t agree with it.

I\'m just trying to make some damn sense of it.

Geez!!!!!!!

[Edited on 23/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

I don\'t think I\'m being emotional. I would like an explanation of this pick that makes it seem even remotely rational. Saying that he was BPA on our board is not an explanation that makes it rational - as I\'d like to know how he got there on our board before I decide that this makes some sense. That was quite simply a terrible pick, as terrible as Stinch or Henderson when we needed a LB.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

You want an explaination, then you\'re not going to get one here. Unless Jim Haslett\'s son is posting here.

All I said was I thought they went with the BPA approach. That\'s the only thing that makes sense to me.

Now, whether Bullocks was the BPA is debatable. I know nothing about the dude. Which I CLEARLY stated.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Not saying this is a good pick but it is possible that the Saints drafted him to move Smith to CB. It would be like drafting a CB which would be accepltable. Not a good pick at all with Burnett AND Blackstock still on the board, but I think I MIGHT understand what they were thinking?

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Well there\'s a Gerry V question for you.

How is it that the Saints arrive at the conclusion that Bullocks was at the top of the board at #40. This pick makes less sense than the Stinchcomb pick.

I\'m not sure how they worked that out, but it doesn\'t make any sense to me. He probably would have lasted into round 3, he wasn\'t a need, he plays a different defensive scheme and he won\'t be starting this year. I don\'t get it.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

I\'ll one up you and bet $2500 that this was not the best player available, especially with Shazor still out there.

Piss poor move. It\'s Sullivan all over again, sans the trade.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

The guys sounds impressive to me. Bellamy is getting up there in age.

Who knows?

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Billy, no need to be defensive on this one. I just think that BPA can\'t be the explanation, unless our scouts somehow see something that no other scout on the planet sees - either way it is dumb.

I don\'t like this pick even a little. I can\'t understand it, and BPA just doesn\'t sound sane to me.

Brown, fine. Bullocks over Burnett, Thurman, Crowder, Shazor, and so on, NO! Our FO is full of it with this pick. It was truly dumb. I rarely think that, but in this case, I just see NO other possible explanation than they are truly dumb.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

I put this on the other thread, but I doubt it will be seen as much.

Here\'s my take on the FS pick.

1. We will have another year with no hope of the 2nd rounder seeing the field. Bullocks will be sitting next to Stinchcomb and Henderson on the sidelines. At some point we need to be getting starters out of the second round.

2. He is a pretty good zone player. The pity is that both are corners only shored up the pass defense when they started playing man. Why do we need this guy again?

3. He\'s wildly inconsistent. I suppose this is why he was drafted, perfect fit for this team. Sean Taylor this kid is not.

4. What the heck does our FO\'s draft board look like? I\'m having a hard time believing Bullocks wouldn\'t have been there in round 3. A HUGE reach.

5. We continue to ignore key areas of need. (stop the run anyone?) Better players were available at 40. We blew it.

By the way, I just listened to the Haslett post pick interview on Bullocks. The man didn\'t make a lot of sense about the BPA song and dance. He contradicts himself about 3 times as he explains the pick. The best I could tell, they think the kid will replace Bellamy.
http://www.neworleanssaints.com

[Edited on 24/4/2005 by BrooksMustGo]

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

JKool --

Not really saying this about you. But, emotion seems to be running very high on this board.

All I said was I thought the Saints went with the BPA approach. What I mean is on thier board. Not on JKool\'s board. Or BMG\'s board. Or B&B\'s board. But on the Saints\' board.

I do NOT like the pick. But ONLY because it wasn\'t a real need.

If the guys is a good player then I can live with it. I\'m not going to write Bullocks off just because he isn\'t a LB.

But, I am NOT happy with this pick. It\'s not the direction I want to go.

Now, let\'s see how many guys can spin what I said into me saying I\'m thrilled with the pick.

Have at it.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

It isn\'t just that Bullocks wouldn\'t have been MY pick, it is that I can\'t even understand it. Brown wouldnt\' have been MY pick either, but I can certainly understand it, respect it, and even like it. Not so with this pick.

I\'m going back into my \"Howard for Urlacher mode.\"

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Josh Bullocks is a solid pick here. Although I would have loved for us to get Webster instead, they are kind of in the same mold. This team does not create enough turnovers and Bullocks is a ballhawk. What\'s not to like about that? He runs a 4.5 and has good size... Bellamy is also getting up there in age. One thing I am disappointed in is the fact that we are not giving Mitchell another chance to regain his starting spot. I feel as if he\'s very talented. Remember the blow up between him and Haslett on the sidelines last year... I bet it has something to do with it too. Smith and Bullocks looks great to me for the back end of our secondary.

I didn\'t like our first round pick. I would have preferred either Derrick Johnson or Travis Johnson. The fact that we traded a 3rd next year to move up made it worse. Brown could have still been there at 16. Bad move. Randy Mueller needs to come back here because Loomis sucks in my opinion.

Darren Howard is also still here.... :shrug:

[Edited on 24/4/2005 by papz]

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

...ok.. who\'s writing this stuff? Harvey Fierstein?

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

I just saw the Saints are projecting Bullocks to play DB

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

FS is a DB, no?

People keep saying we could have had Brown at #16, but everyone seems to think the reason for trading up is CAR would have taken him - that seems reasonable, since they need help on the OL.

Papz, you\'ve helped my attitude regarding this pick. Perhaps they think Crowder or Blackstock will be there in the 3rd? There was a run on DBs in the second.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Sorry..I meant CB

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

On NewOrleansSaints.com there is audio of Haslett that you can listen to.

Haslett said Bullock would NOT play CB. He said Bellamy is getting up there in age and he said Bullock was the highest rated player on their board.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

the one reason i can think the drafted a safety, maybe
than plan on d. smith playing the other corner spot
or some corner in nickle and dime sit. As far as the
1st pick, they should have gotten DJ or Davis,
LOOMIS IS A IDIOT, I Know Hasslet isnt calling
the Draft day Shots,,, That Guy is going to be the
death of the Saints,,, Our front office is the joke
of the NFL,,,,

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

This pick is where I went to go rearrange our furniture. This pick also solidifies my stance that we need a real football GM.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Agreed.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Cb-Mckenzie,Smith
Fs-Bullocks
SS-Mitchell
Backup-Bellamy

??????? is this what they are thinkin\'?

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Could be.
I found myself really wondering--Doesn\'t Bellamy call the defense? Looks to me like they aren\'t counting on Bullocks playing this year.

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

Doesn\'t sound that way in Haslett post-2nd-round-interview. When asked if the Saints felt they needed help at safety, Haslett answered that they felt good with Smith, plus Bellamy had two good years in a row.
The only explanation he offers is \"Bellamy is getting up their in age\" and \"he was the highest rated on the defensive side\".

I\'m not scratching my head at this one, I\'m shaking it hard, blubbering \"no no no no\".

Josh Bullocks - FS - #40
 

noone-and I mean no one..can tell me that this kid is going to be a better football player than burnett...

this is ridiculous..the safety from auburn would\'ve been a better pick.