- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
0
Posted on 5/12/14 at 11:10 am to Meateye
quote:
Meateye
you must feel betrayed that they didn't draft your boys Dennard or Roby.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 11:15 am to Midget Death Squad
quote:
you must feel betrayed that they didn't draft your boys Dennard or Roby.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 11:38 am to SaintEB
quote:
Cooks is a WR. He will do what WRs do. Split out...slot, etc. He'll play all WR positions looking for matchups. Also, he'll be able to go over the top of the D. I wouldn't count on him lining up in the backfield unless its solely to cause a matchup problem...maybe by motioning out to the slot or something.
I agree with this. I wasn't talking about motioning out of the backfield into the slot, but starting in the slot and running some of the same routs. Although he will also probably run more deep routs than Sproles ran.
Different, but still getting those short quick passes to try to break open in space.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 12:41 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
The similarities will pertain to the setups in which Sproles was lined up as a WR and they will stop there.
Which is pretty much every time sproles touched the ball. He rarely even lined up as a RB this year
Posted on 5/12/14 at 12:52 pm to Suntiger
Cooks was drafted to "win" in the passing game. Our WRs didn't win enough which allowed defenses to drop the extra defender in the box or play two high safeties. The extra defender in the box wasn't necessary to stop our run game, it was used to stop our short passing game and screen game. We need our WRs to "win" more causing the other defenses to have to double more thus opening back up our screen game and the vertical passes to the WR opposite the rolled coverage.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 1:14 pm to tigersint
quote:
every time sproles touched the ball. He rarely even lined up as a RB this year
you didn't watch many games did you
Posted on 5/12/14 at 1:19 pm to GynoSandberg
quote:
Well he spent 40% of the plays split out wide or in the slot
The other 60%?
Pretending to be a RB before ultimately running an obvious passing route that everyone in the building could see coming.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 3:06 pm to oreeg
In fairness, I shall present Larry Holder's stance on the other side of this argument.... somewhat. LINK
Keep in mind he is only looking at the few rushing attempts he had in college and saying that his success may mean we will use him as a RB at times as well. I do think Paeyton will line him up in the backfield on occasion, but he will not be a RB nor will he only run screens, flats and underneaths. This dude will be a do-it-all WR for us, which is nothing of what Sproles was. The comparison is silly
quote:
The Cooks-Sproles comparisons
At first thought, I figured Cooks would be more of a receiver and return man rather than truly assume the Darren Sproles/Reggie Bush role for the Saints. Cooks, after all, made his mark in college as a wide receiver with his off-the-chart production in 2013. I glossed over his 61 career rushes for 340 yards, a 5.6 yard-per carry average, with two touchdowns.
So maybe Cooks will be more like Sproles or Bush than I originally thought. There's zero doubt Saints coach Sean Payton will ponder his newest offensive toy in ever imaginable scenario. I still think it's safe to say Cooks will be a receiver more than anything else.
Keep in mind he is only looking at the few rushing attempts he had in college and saying that his success may mean we will use him as a RB at times as well. I do think Paeyton will line him up in the backfield on occasion, but he will not be a RB nor will he only run screens, flats and underneaths. This dude will be a do-it-all WR for us, which is nothing of what Sproles was. The comparison is silly
Posted on 5/12/14 at 4:04 pm to Midget Death Squad
quote:
This dude will be a do-it-all WR for us, which is nothing of what Sproles was.
Sproles was our do it all RB. Cooks will be our do it all WR.
I don't ever see him lining up in the backfield, although I think he ends up with 2 or 3 reverses every year.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 6:25 pm to Midget Death Squad
I think it's mainly the size similarity that has people bringing up Sproles whenever Cooks is mentioned. Cooks CAN be lined up at running back to do some Sproles-ish stuff, but you're right, he is primarily a receiver, and will see a lot more snaps as a receiver split out wide instead of catching passes out of the back-field. I'm excited about what Cooks brings to the table and I really feel that he can help this offense continue to be explosive.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 7:03 pm to Midget Death Squad
First I want to say that I agree with the Harvin comparison, only I think in our offense he can be even better.
Second I want to point out that the last 2 years Sproles averaged 315.5 routes run vs. 50.5 rushing attempts. He was WAY more receiver than running back.
So to say Cooks won't take over a majority of those duties because of some label, much like Galette being called an OLB. It doesn't matter what you call him because he's a pass rusher. Just like Sproles was a receiver. He was a slot receiver and a receiver out of the back field and even occasionally lined up out wide.
Cooks will run many of the same routes as Sproles did, just not always from the same starting place. Slants, flats, short option routes, and ins/outs were Sproles' bread and butter. Cooks will run those.
The difference is that Cooks can and will run so many more. SO not only will he be taking most of Sproles' role in the passing and return game, he will also be adding to it. And hell I can see him occasional lining up in the back field and running a draw or a quick toss, as well as the occasional pass route.
So it's not the label that matters. It's the role. And make no mistake he can and will take over most of that role and so much more. As for the meager 50 rushes, those will be divided among the other backs.
Second I want to point out that the last 2 years Sproles averaged 315.5 routes run vs. 50.5 rushing attempts. He was WAY more receiver than running back.
So to say Cooks won't take over a majority of those duties because of some label, much like Galette being called an OLB. It doesn't matter what you call him because he's a pass rusher. Just like Sproles was a receiver. He was a slot receiver and a receiver out of the back field and even occasionally lined up out wide.
Cooks will run many of the same routes as Sproles did, just not always from the same starting place. Slants, flats, short option routes, and ins/outs were Sproles' bread and butter. Cooks will run those.
The difference is that Cooks can and will run so many more. SO not only will he be taking most of Sproles' role in the passing and return game, he will also be adding to it. And hell I can see him occasional lining up in the back field and running a draw or a quick toss, as well as the occasional pass route.
So it's not the label that matters. It's the role. And make no mistake he can and will take over most of that role and so much more. As for the meager 50 rushes, those will be divided among the other backs.
Posted on 5/12/14 at 8:08 pm to Suntiger
quote:I saw the Saints begin to do some different formations last year; Brees was in the Pistol a couple times.
I don't ever see him lining up in the backfield, although I think he ends up with 2 or 3 reverses every year.
When LSU ran the Pistol when Russell Shepard was here, there were a lot of times he'd either come in motion, or line up as a wingback and run the jet sweep.
I could see Cooks doing the same. You put a banger like Ingram or Robinson at halfback, Brees in the pistol, and Cooks at wingback, and you'll create some havoc. Might open up some seams inside for the "real" back, might free up Cooks for the sweep or bubble screen, might stress the defense out and cause them to release Graham or Stills.
He doesn't have to actually carry much, once you see the speed. You'll force the defense to panic if they somehow force a LB to account for him.
Posted on 5/13/14 at 9:06 am to bonethug0108
quote:
the last 2 years Sproles averaged 315.5 routes run vs. 50.5 rushing attempts. He was WAY more receiver than running back.
Yes and no. I agree he caught more balls than he ran, but these numbers don't tell us how many times he was lined up in the backfield on those pass plays. I don't deny Sproles was mostly used to catch passes, but he was doing so in a Dave Meggett fashion: swings, slants, screens, etc. He was rarely if ever used as a true WR; he was the underneath guy.
quote:
Cooks will run many of the same routes as Sproles did, just not always from the same starting place. Slants, flats, short option routes, and ins/outs were Sproles' bread and butter. Cooks will run those.
The difference is that Cooks can and will run so many more.
This is my point as to why Cooks is not replacing Sproles. Cooks is coming here to be a WR, and as such he will be running every route. By the above comparison, we would have to say Moore was just another Sproles, because Moore ran most of the same type of routes. It's foolish to sit here and peg players as replacement for other players of different positions. Of course there will be some similarities between Cooks and Sproles, but that is just a fraction of what Cooks will be doing for us; hence, they are two completely different players with two completely different roles
Posted on 5/13/14 at 11:27 am to Midget Death Squad
That's why I used the term role and not replacement. He will be assuming most os Sproles' role and then some.
Also I never called Sproles a wide receiver, just that he was more of a receiver than a running back because he did more receiving than running. Where he lined up at is less important. It was about the role.
I'd have to check the slot numbers but he did line up there a lot.
Also I never called Sproles a wide receiver, just that he was more of a receiver than a running back because he did more receiving than running. Where he lined up at is less important. It was about the role.
I'd have to check the slot numbers but he did line up there a lot.
This post was edited on 5/13/14 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 5/13/14 at 11:42 am to whodatfan
He didn't get figured out, the OL got beat up at times.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News