- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
nesbit sucked and everyone knew that
Yes.
He may have started, but in no way was the front office content with him.
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
Nicks was projected as a RT if I remember correctly. It was thought that he could transition to OG, but I think most fans saw him as Stinchcomb's replacement.
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:15 pm to EmperorGout
quote:
I'm still a bit confused how Nicks was a "need" pick for "depth," which is what you don't like about this entire draft
he was a 5th round pick who could play 2 positions on the OL
most picks in the 5th, 6th and 7th round are taken for depth reasons, not to come in and start
in that draft we picked 2 DTs(Ellis and PRessley) and 1 CB Tracy Porter before we picked Nicks.
even if you want to call it a BPA, they addressed need early in that draft, which gives you the leeway to do whatever you want later in the draft.
but i see Nicks as a need for depth at that point. He pretty much played right away. YOu can have him on the BPA on the Meachem side, the point still stands.
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:16 pm to Lester Earl
quote:Ellis was a consensus top 10 pick. You're really nit picking to argue whether not that was need or bpa. I doubt they had anybody rated higher than Ellis when they picked him
i think thats far too many players to be coincidence
Ellis was traded up to get.
Jenkins was taken when our DBs were "in shambles" before last season
Harper, clearly a need
Evans started as a rookie
Nicks started as a rookie and was taken for depth in the 5th round
its pretty obvious it was need. Need+VALUE. good strategy
Its completely reasonable to believe Jenkins was BPA when the Saints picked him. He went exactly where most people had him rated.
The Saints couldve pick any position but QB when they picked Harper and it wouldve been a "need" position
Evans was TOTAL flyer from a school that nobody ever heard of that panned out. To think they picked him thinking he'd be the starter is a reach
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
our defense isn't anything unique
You really think this? The league is going to more 3-4 looks. We are one of the few D's that play mostly 4-3 with some 3-4 but really it is about the blitz and maximizing matchups. I don't think that many teams play D like we do.
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:18 pm to moneyg
quote:
I don't understand. Are you using Usama Young and Demario Pressley as examples of need picks that were successful?
no, they weren't overly successful, which is why i didn't list them originally with the guys that have been.
but they were taking with the strategy that we wanted to fill a need, to further back up my point that this regime has been big on drafting for need.
people have been saying for 2 days that Payton has taken BPA all the time when that isn't the case. They have done need+value and it has worked out great. and with holes on defense, i'm not sure why they have shied away from that
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:18 pm to mark65mc
quote:
The league is going to more 3-4 looks.
and?
quote:
We are one of the few D's that play mostly 4-3
dude. i haven't looked at the number recently, but at worst it is 50-50. i think 4-3 is still more popular
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
malcom fricking jenkins
I'm sure we've had more than a few, but generally you don't want to reach, you're probably the biggest proponent of not reaching and getting proper draft value on this board. The contention seems to be over pick #64. Maybe we should have traded back to pick up Bowman in the middle of the 3rd, but at 64, what LB should we have taken that would have fit our need and been a 2nd round grade?
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:20 pm to TigerinATL
deuce was a BPA
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:20 pm to eyeran
This whole thread
quote:
is a reach
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:21 pm to eyeran
quote:
You're really nit picking to argue whether not that was need or bpa. I doubt they had anybody rated higher than Ellis when they picked him
THEY TRADED UP TO GET HIM!
its pretty black and white
quote:
Its completely reasonable to believe Jenkins was BPA when the Saints picked him. He went exactly where most people had him rated.
he was the best CB in a weak CB draft dude. Come on.
quote:
The Saints couldve pick any position but QB when they picked Harper and it wouldve been a "need" position
not really. Who were our safties in 06 before that draft? We hadnt had an impact safety since Sammy Knight before then.
quote:
Evans was TOTAL flyer from a school that nobody ever heard of that panned out. To think they picked him thinking he'd be the starter is a reach
it could have been a flier, sure. Doesnt mean OG wasn't a need. He was a guy from a small school that came in and started. Meaning, he had no competition. It was definitely a need
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:21 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
Need+VALUE. good strategy
Obviously.
The question is do you pick a guy at 32 that fits a need (like Washington) but that you don't think is worthy of the 32nd pick? Our biggest needs were LB and DT.
So, who would you have picked at that position in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd?
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:21 pm to The Goat
Deuce was drafted when we needed another back. He was most certainly a need.
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
My point is that we run a hybrid D. I think the only teams that run a Hybrid D are Bal, NE and us. They weigh more 3-4, we do more 4-3. We aren't the boring shitty 4-3 of Gibbs anymore. So, our system is unique.
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:22 pm to Roaad
deuce was drafted under another regime to replace a RB drafted by a third regime 
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:23 pm to moneyg
quote:
The question is do you pick a guy at 32 that fits a need (like Washington) but that you don't think is worthy of the 32nd pick? Our biggest needs were LB and DT.
i liked the Robinson pick
i thought they would have went defense after that too. It really could have been an impactful draft for the 2010 season
EVen the pick of Brown I could understand if they deal Jammal Brown. Cause we'll need him. But that hasnt happened yet, which makes it questionable until it does
This post was edited on 4/24/10 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:23 pm to Roaad
we already had Ricky...we did not "Need" a first round RB....everyone on this board who tells you you're a retard, is correct
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/24/10 at 1:25 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
THEY TRADED UP TO GET HIM!
its pretty black and white
I think you are defining drafting for need differently than it is traditionally defined.
Drafting BPA means being true to your draft board and not reaching for a player even if he fits a need.
Drafting for need means that you take the BPA at the position you need the most even if there are significantly higher rated players on the board at positions that are not as great of a need.
Obviously, every now and then you can draft a guy who fits a need and whose value meets your draft position. When you trade up or down (assuming you get the guy you wanted) it would fall into this category. To me, you can't confuse this scenario with the 2nd scenario above.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News