- 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
Saints players drafted much more on value than need
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:20 am
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:20 am
The thread discussing the thought of a QB being drafted made me think back... Who have been some of the most pronounced value over need players drafted by the Saints?
First two that come to mind for me-
2001
Deuce McAllister
The team had just expended an entire draft to get a RB two years earlier. Rickey Williams had just ran for a thousand yards in playing only 10 games in 2000. They simply thought at #23 they were getting a Top 10 player (he was the 2nd RB after Tomlinson). His first year Deuce only had 16 carries. His ability though made Williams expendable and the rest is history.
2004
Will Smith
Darren Howard and Charles Grant were a good young DE duo at the time. It wasn't a need push at all. Again, he was just too good to pass on at #18. He only started 4 games in '04 but then became a likely Saints HOFer.
The further ya go down the draft board the more fluid ratings become. Ya might make a slight case for Jimmy Graham also. We had just come off a SB win with Shockey & Thomas having 83 catches. It was not a pressing need. Graham at pick #95 was not derided but was clearly seen as a pick on potential not on need. BTW if ya forgot, Graham only had 31 catches his first season.
First two that come to mind for me-
2001
Deuce McAllister
The team had just expended an entire draft to get a RB two years earlier. Rickey Williams had just ran for a thousand yards in playing only 10 games in 2000. They simply thought at #23 they were getting a Top 10 player (he was the 2nd RB after Tomlinson). His first year Deuce only had 16 carries. His ability though made Williams expendable and the rest is history.
2004
Will Smith
Darren Howard and Charles Grant were a good young DE duo at the time. It wasn't a need push at all. Again, he was just too good to pass on at #18. He only started 4 games in '04 but then became a likely Saints HOFer.
The further ya go down the draft board the more fluid ratings become. Ya might make a slight case for Jimmy Graham also. We had just come off a SB win with Shockey & Thomas having 83 catches. It was not a pressing need. Graham at pick #95 was not derided but was clearly seen as a pick on potential not on need. BTW if ya forgot, Graham only had 31 catches his first season.
2
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:26 am to blueslover
Bush was value. Meachem I guess they thought was value because we had our top 3 guys set.
They also try to trade up and down(more up though) to make value and need fit when there is a player they really like. Ellis(
), Ingram, John Jenkins, and Morstead are some examples.
I want to say the Ellis pick is what made them even more BPA over need. Lesson learned there.
They also try to trade up and down(more up though) to make value and need fit when there is a player they really like. Ellis(
), Ingram, John Jenkins, and Morstead are some examples. I want to say the Ellis pick is what made them even more BPA over need. Lesson learned there.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 10:27 am
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:45 am to bonethug0108
Bush was value but not value way over need. Deuce as coming off serious injury and only averaged 3.6ypc in 2005. Bush also was a completely different type of back that ya know Payton was oogling over to utilize in his playbook.
Meachem seemed more need or reach than value to me. WRs set? Colston yes. Devery was still in his high dropsies stage with only 20 catches in '07. David Patten was 33 and clearly a stop gap filler. Lance Moore was still not a proven commodity and was never a deep threat type.
Ellis was rated in that range but trading #10 + #78 to move up and get him smacked of desperation to me. We know they tried going after Dorsey before him as well. Hollis Thomas and Brian Young were clearly coming to the end of the line and the middle of the D was poor.
Meachem seemed more need or reach than value to me. WRs set? Colston yes. Devery was still in his high dropsies stage with only 20 catches in '07. David Patten was 33 and clearly a stop gap filler. Lance Moore was still not a proven commodity and was never a deep threat type.
Ellis was rated in that range but trading #10 + #78 to move up and get him smacked of desperation to me. We know they tried going after Dorsey before him as well. Hollis Thomas and Brian Young were clearly coming to the end of the line and the middle of the D was poor.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:50 am to blueslover
I missed the little part in the OP that said "pronounced".
I was just talking general value over need or trying to make value meet need.
I was just talking general value over need or trying to make value meet need.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:52 am to blueslover
quote:
Meachem seemed more need or reach than value to me
To my memory, Meachem "dropped" to our spot. He was projected to go higher, and we were not in need of WR at that time. I do remember my WTF mindset at that pick due to us having other needs, and I think I remember the chatter being a "because he fell" one.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 6:14 pm to blueslover
Thankfully we adhere to the philosophy of drafting the best available talent instead of trying to force picks for positions of need. I believe that teams that do this are much more successful in the long term.
I find it kind of funny when folks say we need a CB or DE so let us draft one in the 1st round. If the top available CD or DE is not worthy of a 1st round pick then it is better to select a player that is worthy from a talent standpoint even if it isn't one of the biggest holes on your team. Just keep compiling top talent every year and eventually the team's holes with disappear one by one.
I find it kind of funny when folks say we need a CB or DE so let us draft one in the 1st round. If the top available CD or DE is not worthy of a 1st round pick then it is better to select a player that is worthy from a talent standpoint even if it isn't one of the biggest holes on your team. Just keep compiling top talent every year and eventually the team's holes with disappear one by one.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 6:41 pm to PokerPlayingTiger
We do both. It would be dumb to not have a balance of both
We don't need a DE
quote:
I find it kind of funny when folks say we need a CB or DE so let us draft one in the 1st ro
We don't need a DE
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:40 pm to TigerBait1127
You could argue that DE is our position with the least need 
outside of depth - which is irrelevant, because you can always have better depth. The only position we're probably stronger at is QB and you could rate the need higher based on Drew's age.
outside of depth - which is irrelevant, because you can always have better depth. The only position we're probably stronger at is QB and you could rate the need higher based on Drew's age. 
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News