New Orleans Saints Draft thread

[wicket]

Originally Posted by diabsoule

So far in the forum mock, this is who I've drafted for the Saints

2. Billy Winn, DT, Boise St
3. Travis Lewis, LB, Oklahoma
4. Ladarius Green, TE, UL-Lafayette
5a. Tyrone Crawford, DE, Boise St
5b. Dwight Bentley, CB, UL-Lafayette
6. Terrell Manning, LB, North Carolina St.

i know Lewis in the third is great value but I really dislike him (relative to his ranking) as a prospect, more than perhaps any other position relevant prospect. Might want to throw a wideout in there just cuz we are bound to lose either colston or maech, or both

[diabsoule]

Originally Posted by wicket

i know Lewis in the third is great value but I really dislike him (relative to his ranking) as a prospect, more than perhaps any other position relevant prospect. Might want to throw a wideout in there just cuz we are bound to lose either colston or maech, or both

I plan on drafting two wideouts in the 7th

[zachsaints52]

I kinda am afraid to put the player that I love in the draft, but basing on my last two:
Sean Weatherspoon
Julio Jones

I am afraid I cant take another heartache.

[wicket]

Originally Posted by zachsaints52

I kinda am afraid to put the player that I love in the draft, but basing on my last two:
Sean Weatherspoon
Julio Jones

I am afraid I cant take another heartache.

do tell!!!!

[zachsaints52]

Bruce Irvin

[wicket]

Originally Posted by zachsaints52

Bruce Irvin

honestly would be suprised if we took him, has no real position in spagz D. Like him as a player as well but imo he is exclusively 34 material

[zachsaints52]

Originally Posted by wicket

honestly would be suprised if we took him, has no real position in spagz D. Like him as a player as well but imo he is exclusively 34 material

Pass rush end, kinda like before Tuck moved inside. He has a big frame and could add some weight. He'd be better then Shanle for sure though.

[zachsaints52]

Welp we got another Rams defensive assistant.

Do you guys think the Rams defense was decent enough to pick all these coaches from there?

[diabsoule]

I wouldn't mind bringing over Chris Chamberlain, their OLB, in FA.

[wicket]

Originally Posted by zachsaints52

Welp we got another Rams defensive assistant.

Do you guys think the Rams defense was decent enough to pick all these coaches from there?

yes and no, they werent great but they improved a bunch in the last 2 years imo. Also, this injury, injuries killed them

[zachsaints52]

I wish we didn't take Ingram :/

[CJSchneider]

I think we've had this discussion before.

[wicket]

Originally Posted by CJSchneider

I think we've had this discussion before.

dont be a hater, i just felt like that

[diabsoule]

I can understand drafting Ingram at the time since the Saints hadn't signed Sproles (IIRC) but if they had ANY indication that Sproles would be coming to NOLA then they shouldn't have trading up for Ingram. The move then didn't make sense considering our running game was fine and it makes even less sense now.

[CJSchneider]

No, we hadn't signed Sproles when we drafted Ingram.

[Saints Dome Patrol]

Originally Posted by diabsoule

I can understand drafting Ingram at the time since the Saints hadn't signed Sproles (IIRC) but if they had ANY indication that Sproles would be coming to NOLA then they shouldn't have trading up for Ingram. The move then didn't make sense considering our running game was fine and it makes even less sense now.

If you recall, right after we drafted Mark Ingram is when Reggie Bush tweeted "It's been fun New Orleans." So, no, we did not yet have Darren Sproles in the fold. Also, if I remember correctly, there was uncertainty that Pierre Thomas and/or Chris Ivory would be back in Black and Gold in 2011.

That said, as much as it looks like a foolish move by our front office, there was no guarantee that we wouldn't have the depth that we had this past season. If you don't believe me, look back to the season after our Super Bowl. In the NFC Wild Card round game against the Seahawks, we were down to a fifth-string running back after everyone else got injured.

That's probably the biggest reason we lost that game, not the Marshawn Lynch run that everyone else in the league says was the best run since Riggins' 70-chip fourth down run in the Super Bowl. Yes, it was a good run, and yes, there were a lot of missed tackles, but if we would have actually had a decent running back (if I remember, we were using Julius Jones or Ladell Betts...yuck) we probably would have won that game.

Yes, it sucks that we have no first round selection (at this point) but the fact remains that at least Ingram does provide depth, if nothing else.

[zachsaints52]

I thought PT 23 was signed to the 4 year deal when we drafted him though?

[wicket]

Originally Posted by Saints Dome Patrol

If you recall, right after we drafted Mark Ingram is when Reggie Bush tweeted "It's been fun New Orleans." So, no, we did not yet have Darren Sproles in the fold. Also, if I remember correctly, there was uncertainty that Pierre Thomas and/or Chris Ivory would be back in Black and Gold in 2011.

That said, as much as it looks like a foolish move by our front office, there was no guarantee that we wouldn't have the depth that we had this past season. If you don't believe me, look back to the season after our Super Bowl. In the NFC Wild Card round game against the Seahawks, we were down to a fifth-string running back after everyone else got injured.

That's probably the biggest reason we lost that game, not the Marshawn Lynch run that everyone else in the league says was the best run since Riggins' 70-chip fourth down run in the Super Bowl. Yes, it was a good run, and yes, there were a lot of missed tackles, but if we would have actually had a decent running back (if I remember, we were using Julius Jones or Ladell Betts...yuck) we probably would have won that game.

Yes, it sucks that we have no first round selection (at this point) but the fact remains that at least Ingram does provide depth, if nothing else.

There was no doubt PT and Ivory would be back. The problem I had (and i said so at the time) with drafting ingram was that it was a kneejerk reaction to having a rush off injuries on the same position. In that light it didnt even help, if you have that many injuries on the same spot you will be screwed regardless so using that situation as a reason to draft ingram is flawed, we'd still have 4 good bodies with hamilton.

but then again i dont think there was anyone at the time who hated trading for ingram more than I did

[Saints Dome Patrol]

Originally Posted by wicket

There was no doubt PT and Ivory would be back. The problem I had (and i said so at the time) with drafting ingram was that it was a kneejerk reaction to having a rush off injuries on the same position. In that light it didnt even help, if you have that many injuries on the same spot you will be screwed regardless so using that situation as a reason to draft ingram is flawed, we'd still have 4 good bodies with hamilton.

but then again i dont think there was anyone at the time who hated trading for ingram more than I did

wicket, let's call a spade a spade. Mark Ingram was the 2009 Heisman Trophy winner, a premier running back at a premier football factory school (Alabama) and (even though I hate saying this) played for a great coach who has an NFL-like team.

After a little research, I did discover, yes, I was wrong, Pierre Thomas did, in fact, sign an extension in March of 2011. But, both Chris Ivory and Lydell Hamilton were still recovering from injury during the lockout before the NFL season started this past fall. You said that the drafting of Ingram is a knee-jerk reaction to the rash of injuries we had at that position. Well, is it not logical to draft a player that you think could conceivably come in and become an integral piece of the puzzle to get your team back to the Super Bowl.

I think that we all agree that Ivory was a huge surprise in 2010. The fact that he was the leading rusher; however, did not bode well with me. The whole "running back by committee" that we used in 2010 was a nightmare. If I remember, besides Thomas, there was Reggie Bush, Ivory, Hamilton, Ladell Betts, Julius Jones and DeShawn Wynn. Didn't we end up with four running backs on the injured reserve list by the end of the season? I know there was another player, P.J. Hill, in there somewhere, but I don't know if he actually played or was on the practice squad.

The fact is this, in my own opinion, yes, we have no first-round selection at this point. Yes, that was because of the Mark Ingram trade.

However, look back at how many people thought that the Deuce McAllister selection was a horrible pick since we already had Ricky Williams in the fold. I think we all know how that turned out.

[wicket]

Originally Posted by Saints Dome Patrol

wicket, let's call a spade a spade. Mark Ingram was the 2009 Heisman Trophy winner, a premier running back at a premier football factory school (Alabama) and (even though I hate saying this) played for a great coach who has an NFL-like team.

After a little research, I did discover, yes, I was wrong, Pierre Thomas did, in fact, sign an extension in March of 2011. But, both Chris Ivory and Lydell Hamilton were still recovering from injury during the lockout before the NFL season started this past fall. You said that the drafting of Ingram is a knee-jerk reaction to the rash of injuries we had at that position. Well, is it not logical to draft a player that you think could conceivably come in and become an integral piece of the puzzle to get your team back to the Super Bowl.

I think that we all agree that Ivory was a huge surprise in 2010. The fact that he was the leading rusher; however, did not bode well with me. The whole "running back by committee" that we used in 2010 was a nightmare. If I remember, besides Thomas, there was Reggie Bush, Ivory, Hamilton, Ladell Betts, Julius Jones and DeShawn Wynn. Didn't we end up with four running backs on the injured reserve list by the end of the season? I know there was another player, P.J. Hill, in there somewhere, but I don't know if he actually played or was on the practice squad.

The fact is this, in my own opinion, yes, we have no first-round selection at this point. Yes, that was because of the Mark Ingram trade.

However, look back at how many people thought that the Deuce McAllister selection was a horrible pick since we already had Ricky Williams in the fold. I think we all know how that turned out.

I just bolded the parts that i wanted to respond to

If the staff truely believed ingram could be an integral part of a superbowl run that would surely be an explanation for the pick but given the saints system, the way ingram runs the ball and the rbc approach of payton I just cannot see how ingram can even have more than a marginal contribution to a title run. (yet again you can look back in this thread this is what ive always said). I was actually a pretty big fan of ingram as a prospect but he more than most running backs needs the right system, with enough carries and the right type of plays called for him to be great. The system Payton runs is a polar opposite of that.

The RBC in 2010 can be called a nightmare but what approach isnt a nightmare when you have the top5 guys at a position injured? That has nothing to do with the RBC approach and all with bad luck. Also, drafting Ingram has done nothing to alter the RBC approach, it just changed the fourth back in the list from hamilton to ingram.

At the time we drafted him i was of the opinion that Id rather have hamilton than ingram (due to hamilton being more violent, which has value in closing down games in garbage time). Ive grown beyond that and am now neutral with having ingram on the roster but there isnt a player on the saints roster that i think fits the teams scheme worse than ingram.

On the flipside, i dont do this as a profession and the Saints FO does so they obviously see more than I do with this sort of thing. There is just no way I can look at that pick looking back and can validate it. When i judge a draftpick I would do it on a few merits, mainly value, fit and need and in my opinion the ingram pick ticked none of those boxes. But then again, my opinioin is just my opinion and holds no real value whatsoever

[zachsaints52]

Originally Posted by zachsaints52

I just don't see why we gave up that for a RB who won't get 17 carries a game.

People bring up the SB year, but we didn't have one guy who averaged more then 13 carries a game that year. Thats what made our offense awesome, was we had three backs who could do different things to keep a team on its toes. And when you worry about the RB's, oh wait we still had Brees.

Originally Posted by wicket

loomis is now dead to me

Originally Posted by wicket

agreed, we wasted 2 premium picks on 1 player that we dont need and doesnt fit in our offense. Im friggin angry about this

Me and Wicket was against the pick from the start. I still find it stupid to be honest.

[Saints Dome Patrol]

Originally Posted by wicket

I just bolded the parts that i wanted to respond to

If the staff truely believed ingram could be an integral part of a superbowl run that would surely be an explanation for the pick but given the saints system, the way ingram runs the ball and the rbc approach of payton I just cannot see how ingram can even have more than a marginal contribution to a title run. (yet again you can look back in this thread this is what ive always said). I was actually a pretty big fan of ingram as a prospect but he more than most running backs needs the right system, with enough carries and the right type of plays called for him to be great. The system Payton runs is a polar opposite of that.

The RBC in 2010 can be called a nightmare but what approach isnt a nightmare when you have the top5 guys at a position injured? That has nothing to do with the RBC approach and all with bad luck. Also, drafting Ingram has done nothing to alter the RBC approach, it just changed the fourth back in the list from hamilton to ingram.

At the time we drafted him i was of the opinion that Id rather have hamilton than ingram (due to hamilton being more violent, which has value in closing down games in garbage time). Ive grown beyond that and am now neutral with having ingram on the roster but there isnt a player on the saints roster that i think fits the teams scheme worse than ingram.

On the flipside, i dont do this as a profession and the Saints FO does so they obviously see more than I do with this sort of thing. There is just no way I can look at that pick looking back and can validate it. When i judge a draftpick I would do it on a few merits, mainly value, fit and need and in my opinion the ingram pick ticked none of those boxes. But then again, my opinioin is just my opinion and holds no real value whatsoever

wicket, first let me commend you for your bluntness and honesty. Some posters (not from this forum) might not have taken the high road and just called me some four-letter words and that would have been the end of it. You; however, have given us more insight on your dislike of the Saints' trade in last year's draft and I appreciate it.

That said, I realize that we are on opposite sides of the coin on this issue. Sure, as a draftnik (just like everyone here), I dislike the fact that the Saints do not have a first round selection due to the Ingram deal. The fact we did so well without Ingram for the last few games of the season also weighs heavily in your argument's corner.

I suppose the thing that sticks with me the most is the fact that Ingram, in my opinion, could, could have the potential to become the feature back in New Orleans' offense, if given the opportunity. I truly believe that. I know this could be considered blasphemy, but I feel Ingram is a more balanced back than Chris Ivory and is more polished than Pierre Thomas. Of course, he is nothing like the "Swiss Army Knife" of our offense, Darren Sproles, but then, no one (not even Reggie Bush) is.

I agree with you, though, neither you nor I are in the Saints' front office (even if we have done our fair share of mock drafts and played Madden dynasties for years) and do not have the professional background they have. Although, there have always been some head scratchers in terms of questionable picks the Saints have made in the past, I have faith that this one will turn out for the best in the long run. And if I'm wrong, well, what can I say, it wouldn't be the first time that I've been wrong and it sure as hell won't be the last.

[Saints Dome Patrol]

Okay, let's all huddle up here.

*calls in diabsoule, CJSchneider, wicket, Auron, zachsaints52, Flyboy, Sveen and all other Saints fans*

I know that several of us are not in agreement in the Saints decision in the 2011 NFL Draft to trade our first rounder this year in order to move up and select Mark Ingram.

Whether you agree, disagree or are neutral is neither here nor there. The question I have for you is this, who do you want the Saints to select with our first selection in this year's draft? Who do you think the Saints should target? Who would you select if you were Mickey Loomis, Sean Payton and the whole krewe down there in New Orleans?

[wicket]

its a tough one, if by some miracle zach brown would be available hed be my pick but id be fine with guys like wagner, david and burfict with the first pick. I dont think all of em would be available though, maybe one or two

[wicket]

Originally Posted by zachsaints52

Me and Wicket was against the pick from the start. I still find it stupid to be honest.

that brings me back man, wouldve loved to be able to give you rep but i have to spread it around apparently, i almost feel the anger coming back again ;)

I disliked other picks before but I never had a draftday quite like last year, I was absolutly estatic about getting Cameron Jordan and then that pick happened, it was like 4am local time and I was shouting and cursing at my computer (where i was watching the draft on a stream). Wilson and Patrick are going to be nice players for us though