- 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: Pels Offseason
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:19 pm to Dantheman504
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:19 pm to Dantheman504
Fears, Queen, or Zion could be Brees. But it wasn’t just Brees. saints could used every facet of team building. The pels are limited that’s what I’m trying to get across. Hell CP3 and AD was Brees but the NBA not designed like the NFL
0
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:19 pm to Dantheman504
quote:
"Zion is a focal point of the offense"
Never said this you moron.
Here, let me help you out champ:
quote:
As long as Zion is the focal point that the roster is being built around
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 2:22 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:23 pm to Broski
quote:
Never said this you moron.
Sorry, what you said was even more stupid.
quote:
As long as Zion is the focal point that the roster is being built around
We are building the roster around Zion by leaving him on the bench and playing undrafted players. Yes that makes sense.
At this point Zion is just a guy on this roster. We are not trying to build around only specifically him going forward. You thinking otherwise is due to some weird Zion hate obsession.
That's the problem here. I can't convince you that we drafted Fears/ Queen because they can be our stars and not because they can be Zion's sidekick.
That's your own dumb arse opinion and backwards thinking and I can't help you because I'm not a big enough pussy to think that way.
Serious question: Do you actually think we traded an unprotected 1st + more for Queen BECAUSE of Zion???
You actually think that? Not that we did it because Queen can be better than Zion or be the new focal point, but because of Zion?
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:28 pm to Dantheman504
Get some sleep sport.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:31 pm to Broski
You are a terrible troll..
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:34 pm to Dantheman504
You are a thin-skinned unhinged bitch who can't handle your favorite team not being set up correctly.
Time to grow up kid.
Time to grow up kid.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:40 pm to Broski
quote:
You are a thin-skinned unhinged bitch who can't handle your favorite team not being set up correctly.
Broski this is legit you man, look in the mirror. You are the one melting, being a bitch, and complaining your team isn't set up correctly. LOL.
Quite the melt for someone who is blatantly full of shite and spent the entire thread crying.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:41 pm to Dantheman504
Ah the ol' "I know you are but what am i?" retort.
You lost homie
You lost homie
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:51 pm to Broski
This started off as an ideal offseason post
Lololol
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:53 pm to Broski
quote:
favorite team not being set up correctly.
1 of us is ok with how the team is setup. The other said we are doomed with Zion here.
1 point for Broski.
quote:
thin-skinned unhinged bitch
1 of us asked a specific question regarding the argument and provided valid information. The other guy provided 0 defense and responded with "thin skinned unhinged bitch"
1 point for Broski
Yeah buddy, you are the unhinged one, you are the guy freaking out about how the team is set up, and you are the one acting like a bitch.
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:54 pm to Dantheman504
You poor thing
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:57 pm to Broski
quote:
Serious question: Do you actually think we traded an unprotected 1st + more for Queen BECAUSE of Zion???
You actually think that? Not that we did it because Queen can be better than Zion or be the new focal point, but because of Zion?
Can you answer this very stable question from the apparent "unhinged" guy or are you just going to respond with absolutely no argument at all and then act like I'm unhinged again?
You really think we got Queen/ Fears because of Zion and not because of their own potential. Its kind of sad that you still think this highly of Zion while simultaneously thinking so little of him.
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:47 pm to Tank77
Celtics are shopping Brown, and Mavs are shopping Gafford.
Go after both.
Celtics: Trey, Herb, Poole, 2 1sts top 3 protected
Mavs: Looney, Hawk
Pels: Brown, Hauser, Gafford
That leaves us at 11 million under the tax with the following roster:
Murray/Fears
Brown/ McGowans/Peavy
Zion(I start him at SF)/Hauser
Queen/Bey
Gafford/Missi/Karlo
From there sign Nance back on a 1 year vet minimum, use the draft pick on a high upside wing, then throw the remaining 7 million at the best guard you can find to take it.
That gives us a big switchable starting 5, 10 players that would soak up the majority of minutes, and backups capable of filling in as needed.
We would have a weakness at the 13-15 slots with Nance, draft pick (unless he’s good out of the gate) and depending on which guard is signed or traded for.
Go after both.
Celtics: Trey, Herb, Poole, 2 1sts top 3 protected
Mavs: Looney, Hawk
Pels: Brown, Hauser, Gafford
That leaves us at 11 million under the tax with the following roster:
Murray/Fears
Brown/ McGowans/Peavy
Zion(I start him at SF)/Hauser
Queen/Bey
Gafford/Missi/Karlo
From there sign Nance back on a 1 year vet minimum, use the draft pick on a high upside wing, then throw the remaining 7 million at the best guard you can find to take it.
That gives us a big switchable starting 5, 10 players that would soak up the majority of minutes, and backups capable of filling in as needed.
We would have a weakness at the 13-15 slots with Nance, draft pick (unless he’s good out of the gate) and depending on which guard is signed or traded for.
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:53 pm to Soggymoss
quote:So the Mavs are gonna take our trash for Gafford? Also, doubtful Cs accept protections on picks (as least not on one).
Celtics are shopping Brown, and Mavs are shopping Gafford.
Go after both.
Celtics: Trey, Herb, Poole, 2 1sts top 3 protected
Mavs: Looney, Hawk
Pels: Brown, Hauser, Gafford
That leaves us at 11 million under the tax with the following roster:
Murray/Fears
Brown/ McGowans/Peavy
Zion(I start him at SF)/Hauser
Queen/Bey
Gafford/Missi/Karlo
From there sign Nance back on a 1 year vet minimum, use the draft pick on a high upside wing, then throw the remaining 7 million at the best guard you can find to take it.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:54 pm to NOSHAU
quote:
So the Mavs are gonna take our trash for Gafford?
I don’t think Gafford has a ton of value and I’m looking at it as a salary dump for them. It gets them off 2 years almost 40 million of money.
And I would push for protections on the picks, but if they say no deal unless unprotected then send them unprotected.
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:55 pm to Soggymoss
Wouldn't mind Gafford. Any of Garfford, Turner, Kessler, Allen. Having a stronger starting center and a dominant bench center in Missi would be huge and something we've been missing throughout the dark days.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 4:01 pm to Dantheman504
Basketball Reference "Shooting" table and the FG% from 0–3 feet, the ranking is:
Player Rookie Season FG% from 0–3 ft
Jeremiah Fears 2025-26 61.0%
Derrick Rose 2008-09 57.7%
Kyrie Irving 2011-12 57.2%
Player Rookie Season FG% from 0–3 ft
Jeremiah Fears 2025-26 61.0%
Derrick Rose 2008-09 57.7%
Kyrie Irving 2011-12 57.2%
Posted on 6/24/26 at 4:18 pm to Balsamic_duck
So I would agree if Queen & Fears were only getting like 10 min a game or something. But if they are playing 20+ minutes a game (which even if they don't start, they will) and are put more in positions where they can succeed, rather than having to carry the weight of the franchise, a scenario like that where they are brought along a tad slower, but in a way that builds confidence can have some benefit. I don't think to develop young talent, you need to burn everything down around them.
I say this as someone that would be on board with moving on from Z. I would be thrilled if we could get rid of him and gain something reasonable in return.
I say this as someone that would be on board with moving on from Z. I would be thrilled if we could get rid of him and gain something reasonable in return.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 4:24 pm to Soggymoss
quote:Not sure his value is so low that they would simply dump him, unless they have tax issues.
I don’t think Gafford has a ton of value and I’m looking at it as a salary dump for them. It gets them off 2 years almost 40 million of money.
And I would push for protections on the picks, but if they say no deal unless unprotected then send them unprotected.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 4:33 pm to NOSHAU
quote:
Not sure his value is so low that they would simply dump him, unless they have tax issues.
I dunno, all the potential mock trades I’ve seen have them getting around what I consider that package in return. ESPN put one of Vanderbilt, Knecht and #25. I ‘m assuming the pick is for the extra year of salary Vanderbilt and Knecht have, as they are both pretty much the same as Looney and Hawk value wise.
We may have to throw some 2nds in or something as a sweetner, but not much more.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News