- 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: The Official Saints UDFA Thread
Posted on 5/11/14 at 9:12 am to bonethug0108
Posted on 5/11/14 at 9:12 am to bonethug0108
This post was edited on 5/11/14 at 9:14 am
1
Posted on 5/11/14 at 10:19 am to goatmilker
Reminds me of Jimmy Graham. Not a great route runner but at his size he can get away with it, and his hands aren't great(definitely saw the potential for a few drops in those highlights; not terrible hands though just decent). Those things should definitely be worked on though. Fast for his size with a little more shake than Jimmy and can high point the ball and catch over the shoulder.
Though I'm keeping in mid those are highlights I just watched. I saw some other stuff with him that wasn't straight highlights.
Definite potential but we are still deep at WR(Colston, Stills, and Cooks as locks with only 2 or 3 spots for guys like Meachem, Morgan, Toon, and Coleman) and he absolutely cannot show drop issues and needs to run cleaner routes.
He isn't making it on special teams so he won't be our 6th WR(if we keep 6). He's going to have to show he can be our 5th best receiver at the least.
Though I'm keeping in mid those are highlights I just watched. I saw some other stuff with him that wasn't straight highlights.
Definite potential but we are still deep at WR(Colston, Stills, and Cooks as locks with only 2 or 3 spots for guys like Meachem, Morgan, Toon, and Coleman) and he absolutely cannot show drop issues and needs to run cleaner routes.
He isn't making it on special teams so he won't be our 6th WR(if we keep 6). He's going to have to show he can be our 5th best receiver at the least.
This post was edited on 5/11/14 at 10:20 am
Posted on 5/11/14 at 10:22 am to bonethug0108
I'm just imagining him and Graham in the End Zone at once.
We might never kick a FG again.
We might never kick a FG again.
Posted on 5/11/14 at 10:40 am to Hoodoo Man
shite Colston too. 3 out of the 5 guys able to box out on the goal line is a scary proposition for other teams.
Trust me I'm not hating this kid. At his size I really hope he shows out and makes it. Definite successor to Colston if so. Just saying he isn't a perfect WR right now and he will have to battle guys that are better and have experience in the system. He will have to bust his arse to get better than some of these guys. For all of our sakes I hope he does.
I'm just hoping he won't be this year's Eric Martin, which with all the praise he's getting and guys calling him a lock already it's giving me similar vibes. At the least he should be able to beat out Toon, right?
Trust me I'm not hating this kid. At his size I really hope he shows out and makes it. Definite successor to Colston if so. Just saying he isn't a perfect WR right now and he will have to battle guys that are better and have experience in the system. He will have to bust his arse to get better than some of these guys. For all of our sakes I hope he does.
I'm just hoping he won't be this year's Eric Martin, which with all the praise he's getting and guys calling him a lock already it's giving me similar vibes. At the least he should be able to beat out Toon, right?
Posted on 5/11/14 at 10:41 am to bonethug0108
I have this image that if Coleman gets on the field. Him and Graham on the outside, Colston/Cooks in the slot 
Posted on 5/11/14 at 10:44 am to bonethug0108
Well, I think he's destined for the PS.
Or IR if we really like him.
But yeah, I don't see him and Toon both on the roster after the first year
Or IR if we really like him.
But yeah, I don't see him and Toon both on the roster after the first year
Posted on 5/11/14 at 10:49 am to fightingtigers98
quote:
Brandon McCray
Posted on 5/11/14 at 10:56 am to Hoodoo Man
quote:Agreed. Either he won't show he's ready and goes to the PS, or he'll be just good enough where a team will want him and he "goes down".
Well, I think he's destined for the PS.
Or IR if we really like him.
The other scenario is that he's legitimately good enough to make the roster this year. If he beats out Toon and 1 of Morgan/Meachem it's possible. That puts him in the top 5.
Honestly I think it could be 6 WRs again this year like when we had Roby(Cooks taking some of that return role), and back to 4 HBs with only Cadet or the UDFA making it(and those UDFAs have a good track record of making it).
Could be:
WR
Colston
Stills
Cooks(and as a returner)
Morgan
Coleman
Toon or Meachem
HB
Thomas
Ingram
Robinson
Flanders
This post was edited on 5/11/14 at 10:59 am
Posted on 5/11/14 at 10:58 am to bonethug0108
I'd be surprised if Cadet didn't make it on the active roster.
CSP has mentioned him too many times in the off-season.
CSP has mentioned him too many times in the off-season.
Posted on 5/11/14 at 11:05 am to Hoodoo Man
Before we took Cooks I'd agree(and that's when all of the Cadet talk was going on). Cooks fills a lot of that space they were talking about Cadet taking.
We're very unlikely to take more than 10 combined WRs/HBs(I don't think we ever have under Payton).
It's possible Flanders isn't good and Cadet easily makes it as the 4th back, but if Flanders is good he'll have a hard time making it over our WRs as they are deep(a lot deeper than what people were claiming and much deeper now with Cooks and maybe Coleman). That's 7 legit candidates for only 5 or 6 spots and it will be hard not to keep 6.
Before the draft Cadet had at least a 90% shot at making it. Now it's more of a 50/50 proposition and that why you can't really make projections until OTAs are set to start. The draft and FA change your roster a lot. The draft part(and UDFA after) is what could get him cut.
We're very unlikely to take more than 10 combined WRs/HBs(I don't think we ever have under Payton).
It's possible Flanders isn't good and Cadet easily makes it as the 4th back, but if Flanders is good he'll have a hard time making it over our WRs as they are deep(a lot deeper than what people were claiming and much deeper now with Cooks and maybe Coleman). That's 7 legit candidates for only 5 or 6 spots and it will be hard not to keep 6.
Before the draft Cadet had at least a 90% shot at making it. Now it's more of a 50/50 proposition and that why you can't really make projections until OTAs are set to start. The draft and FA change your roster a lot. The draft part(and UDFA after) is what could get him cut.
This post was edited on 5/11/14 at 11:07 am
Posted on 5/11/14 at 11:08 am to bonethug0108
But do Cooks and Cadet share overlapping roles to that extent?
Cooks is an all-around receiver/scat back.
Cadet is more a Shane Vereen type back.
Cooks is an all-around receiver/scat back.
Cadet is more a Shane Vereen type back.
Posted on 5/11/14 at 11:28 am to Hoodoo Man
I wouldn't even call Cooks a scat back, though he can do those things. It's more about the routes they are running. The route tree that they would run in the offense would be the same(with Cooks being able to run a lot more).
And he can take over the returner role.
The only thing Cooks can't do that Cadet can is run the ball, and we have 3 other guys that can do that(4 if Flanders is good).
I could see them maybe not wanting to risk Cooks on returns(but the did it with Bush and Sproles so unlikely), or maybe they want to keep at least 2 options on the roster(but someone else could step up).
Not saying Cadet is gone. Just that he went from near lock to more 50/50. It really depends on Flanders more than anything.
And he can take over the returner role.
The only thing Cooks can't do that Cadet can is run the ball, and we have 3 other guys that can do that(4 if Flanders is good).
I could see them maybe not wanting to risk Cooks on returns(but the did it with Bush and Sproles so unlikely), or maybe they want to keep at least 2 options on the roster(but someone else could step up).
Not saying Cadet is gone. Just that he went from near lock to more 50/50. It really depends on Flanders more than anything.
This post was edited on 5/11/14 at 11:30 am
Posted on 5/11/14 at 12:07 pm to bonethug0108
quote:Actually, Cadet isn't a great runner at all; and Cooks ran out of the backfield in college some.
The only thing Cooks can't do that Cadet can is run the ball, and we have 3 other guys that can do that(4 if Flanders is good).
Posted on 5/11/14 at 12:39 pm to Hoodoo Man
Just meant on a more consistent basis. Cadet is built to be able to do that(never said he was good at it though ), whereas Cooks would be like Sproles at best doing it(no more than 50 carries a season but I doubt he sniffs that).
), whereas Cooks would be like Sproles at best doing it(no more than 50 carries a season but I doubt he sniffs that).Posted on 5/11/14 at 12:50 pm to goatmilker
I don't get why he slipped through the cracks. Seemed like a really solid guy that's huge and pretty damn fast for his size with good hands. I guess it just shows you how deep this WR class really is. Could be a future Colston replacement. I had a feeling Saints were going to get a huge WR and this guy might be it.
This post was edited on 5/11/14 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 5/11/14 at 12:52 pm to bonethug0108
Have to agree with you. Cadet just isn't a good runner. He runs hard but he's slow as frick getting to the edges and he has absolutely no burst at all. It makes even less sense to split him out catching the balls because he has no capability of escaping LBs or a mismatch. He can catch the ball but that's about it. Don't expect him to run past anyone. Flanders doesn't appear to be super fast but has some nifty moves?
This post was edited on 5/11/14 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 5/11/14 at 1:24 pm to deuce985
The only thing Cadet provided that we didn't have before the draft was catches near the LOS, Cooks provides that with more athleticism and Cadet probably still doesn't have the hand of Pierre.
Posted on 5/11/14 at 1:45 pm to chrisksaint
quote:Yeah that was the point I was making about the routes these guys would run.
The only thing Cadet provided that we didn't have before the draft was catches near the LOS, Cooks provides that with more athleticism and Cadet probably still doesn't have the hand of Pierre.
Thomas can run the screen(several variations), a flat, or a short curl over the middle well. He doesn't have the same burst Sproles had to run options routes and ins and outs, as well as slants.
Cadet(while still not possessing the same burst) can run those, but Cooks can run those better plus a lot more.
Two reasons to keep Cadet: Either we want two legit return guys(though someone else could step up) or Flanders isn't good(or both). The second reason is the easy way for him to stay.
This post was edited on 5/11/14 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 5/11/14 at 1:58 pm to Hoodoo Man
What happened to Arrington?
Page 13 of 17
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News