re: We pushed the poker chips in and made a huge bet

Exactly, so him and the Michigan DT woulda been available at 27

quote:

---

Exactly, so him and the Michigan DT woulda been available at 27

---

So you take Landry or the nameless Michigan DT instead of giving an additional 1st rounder to take Davenport?

quote:

---

still disagree that his impact next year has to be "elite" to justify the cost

---

You’ve got a very small window 1-2 years tops left with Brees, so I’m not really interested in if this guy will be some elite pass rusher 4-5 years from now, you have just as good a chance of the pick at 27 and next years first of being key pieces 3-4 years from now

quote:

---

Thing is, we don’t need him to be elite right now. If he can get 6 -8 sacks, that’s plenty. That takes the defense to another level.

Then you hope he becomes one of those badass guys down the road

---

This I agree with. Down the road the guy has infinite potential. Getting him to 8 sacks as a rookie though will be hard.

quote:

---

Or later.

You're missing my point, I think.

---

If I had listed people picked before 27, you'd say well those guys were not available. Those 2 guys are expected to go within the next few pics of the 2nd round. They wont be anywhere close to being there at 91.

quote:

---

So you take Landry or the nameless Michigan DT instead of giving an additional 1st rounder to take Davenport?

---

Nameless? Maurice Hurst is a stud and talked about being a high first round talent if not for his potential heart condition. And Landry is a stud pass rusher. So you're asking me if I would rather 2 other highly rated defensive players instead of Davenport for the sake of an extra first rounder next year? I cannot answer that question because all these players are drafted on POTENTIAL. If they are comparable players 3 years from now, will you be mad you gave up a 2nd 1st rounder for some guy no better than the guy we could have gotten without trading up? I will be. If he is the next JJ Watt or Aldon Smith, then obviously, no I wont be upset with the trade. Simple fact is that we don't know what we have in Davenport. But to say that the draft was devoid of defensive talent when Hurst and Landry were available at 27 is asinine.

soooo you're rolling the dice on a) Key being there in round 3 b) having his shite together

quote:

---

And Landry is a stud pass rusher.

---

knee and back issues dropped him

quote:

---

if not for his potential heart condition

---

yeah kind of a big deal

right? Glossing over a heart condition like it’s a nagging ankle.

quote:

---

I cannot answer that question because all these players are drafted on POTENTIAL. If they are comparable players 3 years from now, will you be mad you gave up a 2nd 1st rounder for some guy no better than the guy we could have gotten without trading up? I will be. If he is the next JJ Watt or Aldon Smith, then obviously, no I wont be upset with the trade. Simple fact is that we don't know what we have in Davenport. But to say that the draft was devoid of defensive talent when Hurst and Landry were available at 27 is asinine.

---

we're all blindly guessing because we don't know how the saints board looks, but seeing the bold move we made I think its clear they felt there's a significant gap between davenport and the players you listed. If they thought they could get comparable talent without the move up, then they probably hold tight, Just because Mayock has prospects listed close to each other in rankings doesn't mean we felt that way

quote:

---

you and others have stated he doesn’t need to be elite next year just get 6-8 sacks, you can get that kind of production without giving up a additional first

---

you still have a better long term outlook with Davenport. The guy is a freak and if he booms then we got him for cheap. The point is, year one does not need to be elite to justify the costs.

its similar to people comparing white and lattimore last year. White had a damn good season last year but his ceiling is no where near that of Lattimore, hence the pick gap between the two.