- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Which NFL team has the fewest draft selections in the last 5 years ?
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:29 pm
Who picked the fewest players in the last 5 NFL Drafts?? Yes it's true that the New Orleans Saints rank at the bottom of this list they've made the NFL's fewest number of draft selections (31) in the previous five drafts.
In that time we have went from Super Bowl Champs... to not making the playoffs & losing records.
We need more players , NOT trading up and giving up our pick for a 1 golden egg...
This post was edited on 4/27/15 at 10:31 pm
7
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:32 pm to 24chevrolet48
Was this a trivia crack question?
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:41 pm to Kankles
It was in the earlier article* quoted in the ST post about Winner's Curse.
LINK
* Football Outsiders Link
LINK
* Football Outsiders Link
This post was edited on 4/27/15 at 10:43 pm
Posted on 4/27/15 at 10:52 pm to 24chevrolet48
Let's trade our two 1st round picks for 2 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th round picks for 2015 and 2016, then. That should bring us back to the ship.
Posted on 4/27/15 at 11:06 pm to 24chevrolet48
quote:
that time we have went from Super Bowl Champs... to not making the playoffs & losing records.
Bringing up 2012 is silly IMO.
While I agree with your overall point, we've made the playoffs in 3 of the last 4 years under Payton, and I'm confident we'll right the ship this next season
Posted on 4/27/15 at 11:17 pm to 24chevrolet48
It's not like the organization hasn't had draft picks stripped from them during that time frame either. 
Posted on 4/27/15 at 11:24 pm to BigBrod81
Well it's a combo of losing picks to bounty farce, using picks to trade up(with mixed results), and trading picks for veterans(actually effective).
I want to say we've only had 4 or 5 of our 9 seconds rounders. That has hurt a lot more than anything else, especially since we missed on Charlie Brown and SJB hasn't seen the field yet.
But if you look at pure percentages we are actually pretty solid in the first three rounds. Almost every player picked there has made some form of meaningful contribution.
I want to say we've only had 4 or 5 of our 9 seconds rounders. That has hurt a lot more than anything else, especially since we missed on Charlie Brown and SJB hasn't seen the field yet.
But if you look at pure percentages we are actually pretty solid in the first three rounds. Almost every player picked there has made some form of meaningful contribution.
This post was edited on 4/27/15 at 11:26 pm
Posted on 4/28/15 at 12:01 am to bonethug0108
quote:
Well it's a combo of losing picks to bounty farce, using picks to trade up(with mixed results), and trading picks for veterans(actually effective).
I just mentioned the picks that were stripped away since the OP conveniently left that fact out.
Posted on 4/28/15 at 12:30 am to BigBrod81
That wasn't directed at you personally. Just a general statement about where our picks have gone along with some other info.
I went through and looked at every draft since 2006 and every player we've picked in the first three rounds(21 total) has started at least one game (only one didn't get a start with us but got a few elsewhere and that was G Andy Alleman during the time we had Evans and Nicks so it's understandable).
Now starting isn't a total measure of how good a player is (as poor depth can make you start bad players), but it shows at least some faith from the coaching staff.
If I get time I'll list the players by how many starts they've had total, and list how many were with us.
I went through and looked at every draft since 2006 and every player we've picked in the first three rounds(21 total) has started at least one game (only one didn't get a start with us but got a few elsewhere and that was G Andy Alleman during the time we had Evans and Nicks so it's understandable).
Now starting isn't a total measure of how good a player is (as poor depth can make you start bad players), but it shows at least some faith from the coaching staff.
If I get time I'll list the players by how many starts they've had total, and list how many were with us.
This post was edited on 4/28/15 at 12:33 am
Posted on 4/28/15 at 12:33 am to 24chevrolet48
An all i see is posts from saint beat reporters along with lots of fans an its all trade up an up.New England keeps going to super bowls by staying put or trading down.Stay an pick at 13th an trade down a few picks at 31st pick an pick up more picks. Lets get the 4th round pick back.They have 9 now with a few minor trade downs they could have 12 picks.Needs are Qb-Wr-Te-Hb-OG-OT-DT-DE-Edge/DE-MLB-CB-SLB/WLB thats 12 picks an as weak as they are with lack of good depth if they pick right i can find a 53 roster spot for each pick. 
Posted on 4/28/15 at 12:44 am to Henten
I count about 36 locks for the roster with another 8-10 guys that will likely make it(not even counting flyer vets like Wilson or Hightower). So while it's possible we can keep all 9 picks on the squad I find it highly unlikely. You know at least a couple of UDFAs are gonna sneak on too.
It all depends on the players they want to target and when they can get them. If they feel as strongly about a player as they did with Cooks and they value is right then yes they should trade up. If not then stay put or trade down.
You don't make 9 picks just to make 9 picks. You are looking for certain players and have to be flexible as to where you can get them.
It all depends on the players they want to target and when they can get them. If they feel as strongly about a player as they did with Cooks and they value is right then yes they should trade up. If not then stay put or trade down.
You don't make 9 picks just to make 9 picks. You are looking for certain players and have to be flexible as to where you can get them.
Posted on 4/28/15 at 1:11 am to 24chevrolet48
I wish we would get our picks back that we lost from bounty gate.
Posted on 4/28/15 at 1:22 am to bonethug0108
Yes true for most NFL teams. However saints with fewest total picks last few years have a lot of borderline UFDA an Late draft picks on projected 53 roster.QB-Luke Mc cown at age 34 an every other 12 positions i listed they could up grade.For example last year when Left tackle Armstead missed games Bryce Harris did not have foot speed to play left Tackle.Let Bryce Harris an Nick Becton fight it out to back up Stief at right tackle.But even a late round pick say with 187th should have the foot speed to be a better option as back up left tackle.I have picked out 12 players on a 53 roster picked from current-70 players they could up grade. 
Posted on 4/28/15 at 6:27 am to bonethug0108
While it hasn't been the end of the world, I agree with the OP. Yeah, Saints have gone to the playoffs. But if you look historically at the best teams, they win with the players they draft b/c they have a lot of picks and they hit on them. Free agents are necessary, but good drafting is they key to sustaining long term success. It's a numbers game. The more picks you have, the less it hurts when you miss on a few
Posted on 4/28/15 at 7:39 am to 24chevrolet48
i agree the saints need to keep both first round picks and select players on either side of the ball that will come ine and contribute right away. There is no need to trade up to select a player that may fall to you. Be patient and trust in your scouting that the players available at 13 and 31 will be productive.
Posted on 4/28/15 at 7:57 am to Henten
The problem with what you're saying about backup LT and picking someone late is that we did that exact thing last year and it didn't work out. People forget that many of these later round picks (5-7 specifically) rarely make any team. In order to truly fix the backup tackle spot we need to draft one in the first three or four rounds.
And I'm not disagreeing with you or the OP or others necessarily. In fact the info I've given actually points to us perhaps doing better if we acquired more early picks since most of our early picks have seen the field in some capacity.
But the flip side is that you can't just pick anyone at your given spot and hope it works out (unless you "reach" for a lower graded players you're more sure about). Sometimes you have such a strong conviction on a player that it's worth trading up for him.
And I'm not disagreeing with you or the OP or others necessarily. In fact the info I've given actually points to us perhaps doing better if we acquired more early picks since most of our early picks have seen the field in some capacity.
But the flip side is that you can't just pick anyone at your given spot and hope it works out (unless you "reach" for a lower graded players you're more sure about). Sometimes you have such a strong conviction on a player that it's worth trading up for him.
Posted on 4/28/15 at 8:41 am to bonethug0108
Tavon Rooks is now on another teams roster the fact he was not resigned is strange. I think it was because of locker room stuff which is sad after he spent the entire season on the practice squad.He did have the foot quickness to play left tackle.I know a lot of low round picks have a hard time making the NFL 53 rosters.However due to a lack of draft picks the saints are loaded with marginal UFDA/low round draft picks cast offs from other teams rosters.So if the new people hired to draft do draft well.Then the Saints are a team with such shocking lack of good depth on a projected 53 roster I can see the 12 positions i listed make the final cut.This team missed on the 126th pick so some heads had to roll.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News