- 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: Did Saints waste two draft picks on MI22
Posted on 11/11/11 at 2:54 pm to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 11/11/11 at 2:54 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Wut? First of all, as a fan, I don't know all the guys available as free agents, but I'm pretty sure the Saints FO do, or they should, if not they should be fired. Sproles was a FA, that was known, there were several others. If they could find guys like Mike Bell during summer camp 2 years ago, why can't they find someone else? Next are you some how under the impression that Ingram was the ONLY RB in the draft? I said at the time, I'd rather keep the extra pick and draft in no particular order: Williams, Leshoure, Hunter, Murray, Ridley, Rodgers, Lewis
And if you choose to draft those players awesome; however, our front office choice was to choose the best runningback (scounting wise) coming out of the draft, and I don't think that a waste of a pick. Especially coming off of the poor rushing season we had the year before and the lack of depth we had.
1
Posted on 11/11/11 at 3:24 pm to CajunFootball
quote:
Really? Because they used one to actually draft him, and gave another to be able to draft him. That is two.
They "gave up" a 2nd. They "traded" a 2012 1st for an additional 2011 1st. Your not "giving up" something if you use it, but you go ahead and believe what you want.
Posted on 11/11/11 at 4:23 pm to whodatfan
If you think that it only cost the Saints one pick then keep dreaming.
Posted on 11/11/11 at 4:32 pm to Cydewayz
quote:
our front office choice was to choose the best runningback (scounting wise) coming out of the draft, and I don't think that a waste of a pick
what they did was choose to trade one pick away to take him, that's the waste.
Posted on 11/11/11 at 4:35 pm to H-Town Tiger
Did anyone have any intent on drafting him before the Saints would have come back up in the 2nd?
Posted on 11/11/11 at 5:07 pm to CajunFootball
quote:
If you think that it only cost the Saints one pick then keep dreaming.
Quick question. What's 2-1?
Posted on 11/11/11 at 5:16 pm to whodatfan
We made up for it by drafting Romeus.
Posted on 11/11/11 at 8:48 pm to CajunFootball
quote:
They "gave up" a 2nd. They "traded" a 2012 1st for an additional 2011 1st. Your not "giving up" something if you use it, but you go ahead and believe what you want.
Thats correct
quote:
If you think that it only cost the Saints one pick then keep dreaming.
I must dreaming because it only costed us one extra pick
Posted on 11/11/11 at 8:56 pm to CM84
I guess it's too much to ask for people to realize while you only gave up an additional pick it was still two draft picks that got you him. Let me clear this up. Cam Newton was drafted with one pick, Ingram was drafted with one plus an additional. 1+1=2
Posted on 11/11/11 at 11:13 pm to St Augustine
I read like 15 replies.
It's halfway through the man's first season. He has shown very much PROMISE. He scores TDs and the reason he hasn't "broken through" yet is because...well, when have we pounded the rock?
I want to see us give it to him 25 times. Then let's judge.
It's halfway through the man's first season. He has shown very much PROMISE. He scores TDs and the reason he hasn't "broken through" yet is because...well, when have we pounded the rock?
I want to see us give it to him 25 times. Then let's judge.
Posted on 11/12/11 at 6:59 am to CajunFootball
"cost", "gave up", "wasted", whatever you want to call it is equal to something you did not use/gain/benefit from (ie, the 2nd rounder). We gave a 1 and 2 but recieved a 1 in return which we used to aquire Ingram. You DO NOT count a pick you use as "cost" to the team traded with. What you just said is fine, just not relative to waste or cost.
Posted on 11/12/11 at 9:37 am to whodatfan
So the cost of getting cam Jordan was zero picks?
Posted on 11/12/11 at 10:24 am to TigerRantMan99
Does this thread have an invisible sticky? It's been at he top every time I check this board
Posted on 11/12/11 at 10:42 am to jacks40
quote:
So the cost of getting cam Jordan was zero picks?
no. My dumb mistake. Cost was wrong to add Ito the "gave up" category. I stand corrected. "Cost" 2 picks. "Gave up" 1 pick. Better?Posted on 11/12/11 at 11:18 am to whodatfan
That's all I've been saying. It cost the Saints two picks to take a RB in the first round. IMO, it was not worth it.
Posted on 11/12/11 at 12:15 pm to cornstarch
quote:
I read like 15 replie
quote:
It's halfway through the man's first season
then you need to read more if you think the issue most of us have is with Ingram's performance.
Posted on 11/12/11 at 1:07 pm to H-Town Tiger
I don't think people understand that we have no problem with Ingram or the production the Saints are able to get from him. The problem is the cost of a RB that, at least for now, has not produced numbers you would want from a first rounder.
When you look at it Ingram cost the Saints two draft picks whereas Foster and Tate cost the Texans a total of one. I think it was a waste considering the Saints were going to go get another RB for Bush. They probably didn't expect the replacement to do what Sproles is doing, but the point is they had the intent on another RB in that crowded backfield.
When you look at it Ingram cost the Saints two draft picks whereas Foster and Tate cost the Texans a total of one. I think it was a waste considering the Saints were going to go get another RB for Bush. They probably didn't expect the replacement to do what Sproles is doing, but the point is they had the intent on another RB in that crowded backfield.
Posted on 11/12/11 at 1:35 pm to CajunFootball
quote:
I don't think people understand that we have no problem with Ingram or the production the Saints are able to get from him. The problem is the cost of a RB that, at least for now, has not produced numbers you would want from a first rounder.
So you do or you don't have a problem with Ingram's production? We have done well with finding gems late in the draft or through free agency. We have all seen what the Saints front office can do as our record would indicate since SP has come to NOLA. Saints FO thought it was worth it to move up in the draft and take him.
Are you smarter than the Saints FO? Do you have any NFL personnel experience?
I'm on board with the pick and the subsequent first rounder in next year's draft that it took to move up to acquire Ingram. (But, I was also a big Reggie fan as well.)
Posted on 11/12/11 at 2:04 pm to TexasTiger6777
quote:
I was also a big Reggie fan
Not going to hold it against you. At least you had the balls to admit it unlike a majority that claim they never liked him.
quote:
Are you smarter than the Saints FO?
I've never met anyone in the front office. I could not honestly answer this question.
quote:
Do you have any NFL personnel experience?
No; however, that does not stop me from commenting on their decisions.
Posted on 11/12/11 at 2:05 pm to cornstarch
quote:
I want to see us give it to him 25 times. Then let's judge.
That's the point here. We aren't ever going to pound it with 25 carries for one back. And to draft a guy so high whose best only comes out in that situation is a waste.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News