- 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
re: Saints Talk Draft Project: The Dirty Dozen for #27
Posted on 3/30/14 at 5:26 pm to Lester Earl
Posted on 3/30/14 at 5:26 pm to Lester Earl
quote:I'm proving to you how silly it is when you were doing the same to me.
Why do you keep trying to compare players after the fact?
Fact is we don't know how these kids are going to turn out, so to ignore someone in the first just because he isn't tall enough to ride the ride is stupid.
All it takes is one. It's rare but it happens and to ignore the chance because the guy doesn't fit the prototype is stupid.
That's all IF they feel the guy will be that good.
quote:Is it? They were teammates and they flipped your so called idea of a WR1 and WR2 on it's head. That's a stupid way to look at things. Height is one piece, not the whole puzzle.
again, stupid question.
Edit:
And I see your trying to take talent and generalize. You know damn well I'm taking about elite talent and not just being "good enough".
If Cooks has elite talent and Moncrief is just "good enough" who would you rather have? So I can play your silly comparison game too.
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 5:32 pm
2
Posted on 3/30/14 at 5:36 pm to bonethug0108
I feel like Pat has been preparing you for this for a very long time.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 5:44 pm to Hoodoo Man
I feel like this:
Posted on 3/30/14 at 7:35 pm to bonethug0108
quote:
Fact is we don't know how these kids are going to turn out, so to ignore someone in the first just because he isn't tall enough to ride the ride is stupid.
I never said to ignore Cooks
quote:
All it takes is one. It's rare but it happens and to ignore the chance because the guy doesn't fit the prototype is stupid.
This is all I've been saying. You keep trying to argue against it then you agree and say it's rare.
quote:.
If Cooks has elite talent and Moncrief is just "good enough" who would you rather have? So I can play your silly comparison game too
I want the better player. So if you cam tell me for sure Cooks is better, then sure.
I never said Moncreif was better. But a player with his stature is more likely to be a WR1 than someone 5'10". That's a fact yet somehow you're finding a way to disagree
Posted on 3/30/14 at 7:36 pm to Hoodoo Man
quote:
I feel like Pat has been preparing you for this for a very long
They def have a lot in common. Ie posting like they're drunk
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 3/30/14 at 7:47 pm to Lester Earl
Again, like I said, a lot of what I'm saying pertains to my original argument with others and not your spin off.
Someone said they don't want Cooks because he is small and then listed over 6' WRs as guys he wants.
What I'm saying all goes back to that. Quit being so self centric and pay attention. This is about more than your spin off.
Someone said they don't want Cooks because he is small and then listed over 6' WRs as guys he wants.
What I'm saying all goes back to that. Quit being so self centric and pay attention. This is about more than your spin off.
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 3/30/14 at 8:17 pm to bonethug0108
I know this debate has kind of run its course but just for the record I never said this
I said big and physical. Being tall doesn't mean shite if you're a shrimp and cant get position. Second I never said Cooks wouldn't be a good player I just said if there's a guy with similar skill sets but he's also 3 inches taller and 30 lbs heavier give me the bigger guy everyday and twice on Sundays, especially if I can get the other guy a round later.
quote:
you need tall WRs to beat Seattle
I said big and physical. Being tall doesn't mean shite if you're a shrimp and cant get position. Second I never said Cooks wouldn't be a good player I just said if there's a guy with similar skill sets but he's also 3 inches taller and 30 lbs heavier give me the bigger guy everyday and twice on Sundays, especially if I can get the other guy a round later.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 11:12 pm to PurpleDrank18
quote:
Yeah a guy with great speed, quickness, hands and return ability would be terrible in our system.
quote:
When he's 5'10" and our other WR opposite of him is barely 6 feet and we gotta play a secondary like the Seahawks, etc in the playoffs in the coming years, yeah, yeah I would say he would be.
I know it's not direct and you did add physical, but you were still putting an overemphasis on height. Guys can be short and physical and just as effective.
But my point to you was that you can't out physical Seattle's secondary and their holding. You need to outrun them. For the most part the speed guys were the ones beating them.
And similar skill set doesn't equal similar skill. Very important difference.
That said, ALL things being equal(route running, catching, speed, shiftiness, ability to create separation, double moves, etc.) of course you take the bigger guy(that's why it's the prototype). But very rarely are all those things equal. Two guys running the same 40 time doesn't mean they are equally as fast with the pads on and the adrenaline pumping.
And the guy you get a round later is usually there a round later for a reason. It doesn't always play out that way, but that's just where all the variables play in.
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 11:14 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 1:31 am to bonethug0108
Beyond the individual players ya gotta look at the whole draft class. This one is exceptionally deep at WR. The supply/demand ratio will make WRs highly likely to be better values than normal with the second pick.
Beckham, Cooks, or Matthews would be okay values at #27. Not great or bad but in that range. Robinson, Matthews, Adams, Landry, Moncrief, and maybe Bryant would offer more talent for the draft pick buck at #58.
Beckham, Cooks, or Matthews would be okay values at #27. Not great or bad but in that range. Robinson, Matthews, Adams, Landry, Moncrief, and maybe Bryant would offer more talent for the draft pick buck at #58.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:00 am to blueslover
I get all that, but the Saints usually have pretty different grades on some guys than these mockers. Hell they could have Landry ranked as one of their top WRs and the other guys could all have 3rd round grades.
That's why I'm saying the shouldn't(and they won't) pass on a guy no matter his size if the value is there no matter what round it is.
I was just pointing to Cooks because he was being mentioned as too short to be a 1st rounder and other guys would be better a round later because they are taller.
Insert whatever name you want and the scenario is the same. Height is not going to be THE determining factor as others have been suggesting.
That's why I'm saying the shouldn't(and they won't) pass on a guy no matter his size if the value is there no matter what round it is.
I was just pointing to Cooks because he was being mentioned as too short to be a 1st rounder and other guys would be better a round later because they are taller.
Insert whatever name you want and the scenario is the same. Height is not going to be THE determining factor as others have been suggesting.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:54 am to bonethug0108
I think a good example of what we're both talking about is Vaccaro vs. Mathieu.
The value was certainly much better for Mathieu in the third than Vaccaro in the first. Vaccaro is the better player, but it's not like he's far and away better.
So who would you rather have? There are a ton of other factors that have to be looked at, such as who gets drafted instead and who we don't draft, if Mathieu would be a better or worse scheme fit, how is the player in the locker room, and what is the long term ceiling for each player.
So let's say that Cooks or Beckham are Vaccaro and Moncrief or Matthews is Mathieu. You get one of the first two in the first or one of the second two in the second.
The first two are going to be all pro by their third year and the second two are going to be borderline pro bowl.
Yes you get better value one the second two, but you get better players on the first two.
This isn't a clear cut answer. I'd be happy with the results either way.
The value was certainly much better for Mathieu in the third than Vaccaro in the first. Vaccaro is the better player, but it's not like he's far and away better.
So who would you rather have? There are a ton of other factors that have to be looked at, such as who gets drafted instead and who we don't draft, if Mathieu would be a better or worse scheme fit, how is the player in the locker room, and what is the long term ceiling for each player.
So let's say that Cooks or Beckham are Vaccaro and Moncrief or Matthews is Mathieu. You get one of the first two in the first or one of the second two in the second.
The first two are going to be all pro by their third year and the second two are going to be borderline pro bowl.
Yes you get better value one the second two, but you get better players on the first two.
This isn't a clear cut answer. I'd be happy with the results either way.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:28 am to bonethug0108
quote:
There are a ton of other factors that have to be looked at, such as who gets drafted instead and who we don't draft, if Mathieu would be a better or worse scheme fit, how is the player in the locker room, and what is the long term ceiling for each player.
So let's say that Cooks or Beckham are Vaccaro and Moncrief or Matthews is Mathieu. You get one of the first two in the first or one of the second two in the second.
I think this actually might be the answer in debating with LE.
Back on the size issue... another example might be Cooks vs. Benjamin. Every team has to have one ranked ahead of the other. It is the difference in value that is indeed the trump card. Like this- if they were both available you might have Cooks ranked slightly higher. But if a team goal was to get a big bodied guy you might select Benjamin over Cooks even though you rated him higher. Say that is the plan (big body) but Benjamin is gone. If Moncrief is your next rated big body type. His value is likely not close enough to select him over Cooks.
Value + Need + Scheme Fit
Last year we thought pass rusher was THE need. That's why ST wanted Jarvis Jones a couple of players before Vaccaro. Vaccaro and Jones both fell into the same value range. The Saints might have even had Jones ranked higher. They obviously thought the need and scheme fit was better with Vaccaro- and they were right!
We think they'll look for a WR in the draft but the degree to which they weigh that could be different than how we see it altogether (like Jones/Vaccaro).
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:29 am to bonethug0108
I want us to take a wr in the first if one of the top guys are still available but I'd also be fine with addressing another position and waiting till the 2nd since the position is so deep. I just really want us to address wr in one of the first 2 rounds though. I just feel like it's become an obvious need, and there are so many talented ones that we shouldn't pass this up.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:44 am to Melvin
I'm starting to see the dropoff in talent between the "late 1st round guys" and the "2nd-3rd round guys" isn't much at all. They get a little bit more raw (generalized statement), but they're still physically on par to those late 1st round guys.
I think this is the year where going BPA in the 1st is the best option (assuming we can't trade back).
Then, moving up in the 2nd round is a better option if we feel like Matthews or someone else is our guy. If not, stand pat and we can still pick up a physical WR that could compete for reps and possibly make a big splash.
I think this is the year where going BPA in the 1st is the best option (assuming we can't trade back).
Then, moving up in the 2nd round is a better option if we feel like Matthews or someone else is our guy. If not, stand pat and we can still pick up a physical WR that could compete for reps and possibly make a big splash.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:02 am to blueslover
quote:It was actually said by Payton or Loomis that Jones wasn't even in the same bubble of 6 players Vaccaro was in(and from what else was said it included a WR and a couple of DTs taken before our pick).
The Saints might have even had Jones ranked higher.
I think the saw too much bust potential in him to take him in the first.
quote:I actually think a coverage LB is more of a priority than WR. Also grabbing a guard should be pretty high given our current age and cost there. Corner back shouldn't be completely forgotten either but we at least have bodies there.
I want us to take a wr in the first if one of the top guys are still available but I'd also be fine with addressing another position and waiting till the 2nd since the position is so deep. I just really want us to address wr in one of the first 2 rounds though. I just feel like it's become an obvious need, and there are so many talented ones that we shouldn't pass this up.
"We" are down on Toon but that doesn't mean the Saints are(especially based on what Loomis said) and people are forgetting about Morgan(or aren't expecting him to come back healthy) and Tanner(lol most are saying right now).
All that said, yes this would be the draft to grab a WR since it's loaded with them. I'd actually prefer they just go BPA regardless of position(minus grabbing a center somewhere if we don't sign one). Somewhere there will be a WR where the value fits whether that's the first or fifth round or somewhere in between.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 10:10 am
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:32 am to blueslover
quote:
Back on the size issue... another example might be Cooks vs. Benjamin. Every team has to have one ranked ahead of the other. It is the difference in value that is indeed the trump card. Like this- if they were both available you might have Cooks ranked slightly higher. But if a team goal was to get a big bodied guy you might select Benjamin over Cooks even though you rated him higher. Say that is the plan (big body) but Benjamin is gone. If Moncrief is your next rated big body type. His value is likely not close enough to select him over Cooks.
Value + Need + Scheme Fit
Right.
and size is the major determining factor in value, as well as scheme fit, and well as long term ceiling.
Cooks, for instance...his value isn't as high as his raw physical talent and output...because of his size.....And he may not fit every scheme, because his size may limit him from playing the outside...which also relates to his long term ceiling.
I still like him. But when you start talking about these things, size is a huge factor. That's part of why Mathieu lasted so long.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:36 am to Lester Earl
quote:Yup, but he is exactly what I'm talking about when saying you shouldn't shy away from small guys just because they're small.
That's part of why Mathieu lasted so long.
Like I said, ALL things equal you take the bigger guy. Never tried to argue that. Just saying rarely are all things equal.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:38 am to bonethug0108
quote:
Yup, but he is exactly what I'm talking about when saying you shouldn't shy away from small guys just because they're small.
and it's exactly what im saying when he's the only 5'9" 185lb safety in the NFL right now. Rule exceptions
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:43 am to Lester Earl
So we agree that IF the Saints feel a smaller guy will have a much bigger impact than a bigger one they should take the small guy?
That's all I've been trying to say(well that and you beat Seattle with speed not size).
That's all I've been trying to say(well that and you beat Seattle with speed not size).
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:44 am to bonethug0108
of course
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News