bonethug0108
| Favorite team: | New Orleans Saints  |
| Location: | Avondale |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 12690 |
| Registered on: | 3/9/2013 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Practice Two! (7/27/17) Tweets Inside
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/27/18 at 2:00 pm
quote:
Question
I know the league changed the rule from two cut dates to one last year.
Used to be from 90 to 75 to 53.
Now its just 90 to 53 with the deadline being September 1st.
Is it mandatory that no player is cut until after the last preseason game/ sept 1 hard cut date?
Or is that now just a hard date to have your roster finalized and you can cut players throughout camp?
Couldnt recall from last year.
You can cut anyone anytime. We could carry 30 players right now if we wanted (no team would want that though).
Those deadlines just say you have to trim the roster down by said date, not that you can't cut anyone before then.
0
re: Rams and Cooks agree to 5 yr extension
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/26/18 at 9:53 pm
quote:
The Saints are tighter than Scrooge McDuck bro. MT isn’t gonna get paid lol. He will head on down the road just like BC did.
This isn't right from a cap perspective (we're always right up against it), nor from a paying receivers perspective (both Colston and Moore (moreso Colston) got paid).
On Cooks hate, I certainly don't hate him and I think he is a very good receiver who is more than a deep threat, but I did knock his run blocking skills because he isn't good at it.
On the Rams, I really think they are one of those in one year out the next. They changed too much of their core imo. At the very least I don't think they win the division this year (though overall that division is still pretty weak).
re: Rams and Cooks agree to 5 yr extension
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/19/18 at 2:31 pm
You have to be at least a decent blocker to be a complete receiver. He isn't.
re: Why the change in RB philosophy?
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/19/18 at 8:41 am
The same year we got PT was the same year we drafted Pittman in the 4th (iirc he was rated higher but slipped slightlt due to some character issues). We just simply kept the best back.
The year before that we drafted Bush 2nd overall.
In 2011 we traded up to draft Ingram in the first.
And I don't give a frick what some people may think of them, but KRob and Cadet were not good backs.
KRob had one really good run, and could get a few tough yards here and there, but he wasn't a good pass catcher or blocker.
Cadet couldn't run for shite and was a very mediocre receiver because he had basically no yac yards. 5 yards and down about everytime.
So the only two truly good backs we hit on as UDFAs were Thomas and Ivory, and Ivory was always getting banged up and it took him years (sometime after being with us) to develop into a decent blocker.
We've had more success in the draft than with UDFAs (3-2 for actually good talent). We've used both over the years, but we have not had any kind of shift in philosophy.
Edit:
As for the vets for depth, we've been bringing them in BECAUSE we haven't hit on any UDFA HBs. We've brought in at least one every year and haven't found any worth a shite since KRob, nor any actual good ones since Ivory. That's not for lack of trying though.
Plus as mentioned above we've had our fair share of veteran depth throughout the years also, plus one really good vet in Sproles.
The year before that we drafted Bush 2nd overall.
In 2011 we traded up to draft Ingram in the first.
And I don't give a frick what some people may think of them, but KRob and Cadet were not good backs.
KRob had one really good run, and could get a few tough yards here and there, but he wasn't a good pass catcher or blocker.
Cadet couldn't run for shite and was a very mediocre receiver because he had basically no yac yards. 5 yards and down about everytime.
So the only two truly good backs we hit on as UDFAs were Thomas and Ivory, and Ivory was always getting banged up and it took him years (sometime after being with us) to develop into a decent blocker.
We've had more success in the draft than with UDFAs (3-2 for actually good talent). We've used both over the years, but we have not had any kind of shift in philosophy.
Edit:
As for the vets for depth, we've been bringing them in BECAUSE we haven't hit on any UDFA HBs. We've brought in at least one every year and haven't found any worth a shite since KRob, nor any actual good ones since Ivory. That's not for lack of trying though.
Plus as mentioned above we've had our fair share of veteran depth throughout the years also, plus one really good vet in Sproles.
re: Saints to sign RB Shane Vereen replacing failed physical designation Lasco
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/18/18 at 1:19 pm
quote:
Assuming Mark Ingram, Kamara, Boston Scott are safe
Pick 2 out of
Daniel Lasco
Jonathan Williams
Shane Vereen
Trey Edmunds
Terrence West
Ingram wouldn't count the first 4 games, and word is Lasco is gone (likely was regardless with Scott on board).
I'd say Edmunds is likely safe too with how important he is to special teams.
If we keep 4 to start it'd likely be:
Kamara
Scott
Edmunds
And then one of West, Vereen, and Williams. Add one of them if we keep 5 to start.
Then one/two of those same 3 will get cut when Ingram comes back.
re: Rams and Cooks agree to 5 yr extension
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/17/18 at 10:11 pm
The Rams dumped some of their other players they had in favor of expensive vets on short deals (mostly 1 year deals) so that they could go for a run this year and then jettison them in favor of paying those other guys coming up.
Imo they should have just rocked Cooks for one year first to see how it'd go. Paying him that isn't going to affect them resigning Gurley and Donald (and later Goff), but it will cripple them in FA.
Donald can't be happy he wasn't the first getting paid though. Seems pretty disrespectful, and they'll likely tag him after the year further pissing him off before finally signing him long term. But it's going to cost them going that route.
Imo they should have just rocked Cooks for one year first to see how it'd go. Paying him that isn't going to affect them resigning Gurley and Donald (and later Goff), but it will cripple them in FA.
Donald can't be happy he wasn't the first getting paid though. Seems pretty disrespectful, and they'll likely tag him after the year further pissing him off before finally signing him long term. But it's going to cost them going that route.
re: Gun Flex Right Stack 394 Dragon Smoke Kill Turbo Sucker Right
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/16/18 at 7:27 am
I was explaining to that one other poster why it looked so long but really isn't because he still seemed clueless.
re: Gun Flex Right Stack 394 Dragon Smoke Kill Turbo Sucker Right
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/15/18 at 4:31 pm
Yeah when I went back and read the article it said as much. Payton got some of those different wrinkles from Gruden (and later Parcells).
I thought it was weird they would have 394 bunched without an X, Y, or Z in front (or whatever alternative they would use), so when I saw it was protection (3 step drop with max protect) it made more sense.
The other thing I noticed when I was reading is that Payton doesn't use a "uniform" play call system, so you won't always see things (like formation or routes) called the same way. It's very much "this is what we are calling this play this week/season" type of thing, and they change certain ones up every now and then.
I thought it was weird they would have 394 bunched without an X, Y, or Z in front (or whatever alternative they would use), so when I saw it was protection (3 step drop with max protect) it made more sense.
The other thing I noticed when I was reading is that Payton doesn't use a "uniform" play call system, so you won't always see things (like formation or routes) called the same way. It's very much "this is what we are calling this play this week/season" type of thing, and they change certain ones up every now and then.
re: Gun Flex Right Stack 394 Dragon Smoke Kill Turbo Sucker Right
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/14/18 at 8:05 pm
Ah thanks. Some teams use numbers for the routes to simplify it. I should have figured it would be a bit more complex for Payton (and why receivers in our system need to really know their shite).
But really it's still not too bad.
On passes Brees needs to know the whole play, the oline (and backs and TEs if they are staying in to block) needs the protection call, and the receivers needs to know the route concept, while everyone needs to know the formation.
On runs Brees needs to know where the handoff takes place (the he likely knows the whole play), the blockers need to know where and how to block, the back needs to know where the play is designed to go, and again everyone needs to know the formation.
But as long as you know what somethings means (and know what that thing itself is) it just becomes recall.
What was impressive is Brees remembering when and how many times a play was called.
But really it's still not too bad.
On passes Brees needs to know the whole play, the oline (and backs and TEs if they are staying in to block) needs the protection call, and the receivers needs to know the route concept, while everyone needs to know the formation.
On runs Brees needs to know where the handoff takes place (the he likely knows the whole play), the blockers need to know where and how to block, the back needs to know where the play is designed to go, and again everyone needs to know the formation.
But as long as you know what somethings means (and know what that thing itself is) it just becomes recall.
What was impressive is Brees remembering when and how many times a play was called.
re: Gun Flex Right Stack 394 Dragon Smoke Kill Turbo Sucker Right
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/14/18 at 7:23 pm
quote:
still a long play call need to simplify it
That's actually two plays called at once. Everything before Kill is one play, and everything after is another.
Payton does this for every call so we have something very different to check into while maintaining the same formation.
And the information is simple if you know it.
On this play they are running out of Shotgun with (I'm guessing) the TE flexed out (could be the back instead) and the receivers are stacked (3 to one side close together).
394 is the routes the stacked receivers are running (one a 3 route, one a 9(fly) route, and one a 4 route).
I'm not sure what Dragon Smoke is but it could be the protection call.
The second call is a run to the right.
This stuff is pretty easy once you learn the "language".
re: Bill Barnwell’s top offensive Arsenals for 2018
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/12/18 at 8:07 am
quote:
but it would be fascinating to see how their weapons would look without a future Hall of Famer under center.
I understand the fact that Brees can elevate the play of his receivers (and keeps teams from stacking the box most of the time), but the fact is also that he isn't making something out of nothing.
Coleman elsewhere may be pretty much a nobody, but here he has been a low level number 4 receiver. Meachem had his production cut to a third and went from a solid number 3 guy to a Coleman.
But then you look at other guys we've had that never amounted to anything. Brees couldn't take very poor talent and do anything with it.
So the fact is guys like Colston and Thomas would still be good elsewhere. Colston would be a good number 2 guy, but I think Thomas would still be a number 1 guy. Maybe not in talks of top 5 in the league, but likely still top 10.
And Kamara would still be a very good running and receiving back elsewhere. Most of his catches are closer to the line and then he makes guys miss.
And Ginn was putting up these number with Newton, so it isn't the fact that Brees elevated his play at all.
I feel this group is being severely underestimated. Brees may have made Colston, Henderson, Moore, and Meachem look better than they would have elsewhere (though they still had the talent), but I feel this current group (minus Coleman) would be just about as effective elsewhere (and Ginn has already proven that).
re: Top 5 punters in the NFL
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/11/18 at 1:03 am
Dat boy good!
re: 2018 Saints Off-season Roster Mega Thread
Posted by bonethug0108 on 7/3/18 at 12:42 pm
For a guy with a 3.9 career ypc and as many catches in his career as Ingram had in one year?
Nah it's the exact right value. Ingram last year alone basically matched or passed West's career numbers aside from total rushing yards (in which he had more than half of West's career total).
For a 225 lbs. HB his ypc is pretty disappointing.
Nah it's the exact right value. Ingram last year alone basically matched or passed West's career numbers aside from total rushing yards (in which he had more than half of West's career total).
For a 225 lbs. HB his ypc is pretty disappointing.
re: Would you like to see the Saints give Ingram an extension with higher pay or let him walk?
Posted by bonethug0108 on 6/30/18 at 10:12 am
quote:
Would he take a 4 year 28 mil contract with 15 mil guaranteed?
Probably will take a bit more to keep him. He'll get around Freeman money, so between $8-8.5 mil per.
Not sure what it'd look like if we tagged him. Bell's contract is going to throw it a bit out of whack, but I'd think the tag would be around $9 mil if we wanted to keep him one more year (which it looks like we'd have the cap to do).
Beyond that though it may be better to let him walk as he'd be 30 after the end of next year.
He does have less wear and tear compared to other guys, but you have to think maybe by 32 his production may start slipping a good bit compared to what he'd be getting paid.
re: Would you like to see the Saints give Ingram an extension with higher pay or let him walk?
Posted by bonethug0108 on 6/30/18 at 9:54 am
quote:
Ingram is a two down back
That's complete bullshite.
Ingram is a very good blocking back (something Kamara has said he really needs to work on) and has 50, 46, and 58 receptions each of the last 3 years while averaging 380 yards per year in that span.
And let's not forget he averaged over 1,000 yards rushing 3 of the last 4 years (while still getting over 750 yards the other year in only 12 games, meaning he was on pace for another 1,000 yard year).
Ingram isn't the flashy back that can make the plays Kamara does in the passing game, but he can get you yards (averages 7.4 ypr over the last 3 years) and isn't a liability blocking for Brees.
re: No naps for Kamara this Summer
Posted by bonethug0108 on 6/27/18 at 5:52 pm
quote:
Well, as soon as I finish taking a ride on my Can-Am Spyder, I like to try to cool off by drinking a nice Pepsi while using my Microsoft Surface Tablet (thanks to the trusty internet provided by Cox) before hopping in the shower to wash myself off with Old Spice. My wife will typically throw my dirty clothes in the washing machine, but we only trust Tide, so I know my Wranglers will be Real. Comfortable. Jeans.
What do you take to help you fall asleep when you're sick?
re: #1 Pass blocking O-Line
Posted by bonethug0108 on 6/25/18 at 8:37 am
We didn't want to give a huge contract to a guy that still had the same maturity concerns that caused him to fall into the 5th round in the first place, despite being a first round talent.
Iirc it was the SB season where we threatened him with being benched because he was phoning it in during practices. He responded the right way (allegedly) so we kept starting him, but it was stuff like that that made us think as soon as he got paid he was just going to phone it in.
We'll never know if that would have been the case, but we were burned by Grant just a few years before so we didn't want to chance it.
Iirc it was the SB season where we threatened him with being benched because he was phoning it in during practices. He responded the right way (allegedly) so we kept starting him, but it was stuff like that that made us think as soon as he got paid he was just going to phone it in.
We'll never know if that would have been the case, but we were burned by Grant just a few years before so we didn't want to chance it.
re: Is Tripplet serious?!
Posted by bonethug0108 on 6/20/18 at 10:56 pm
quote:
Everyone here at the time was saying: "HAHAHA ATL gave up 2 firsts for a WR".
It wasn't just two firsts. Granted you guys moved 8 spots higher than we did, but y'all gave up 2 firsts, a second, and 2 fourths for the 6th overall pick.
We gave up two "starters" and a "special teamer" for a "high end starter".
You guys gave up three "starters" and two "role players" for an "elite starter".
So what y'all gave up was considerably more than what we did, for potentially not that much better of an impact player.
We "cost" ourselves one starter, while y'all "cost" yourselves two, plus the extra "role player/special teamer" more than what we gave up.
But we did it for a position that is regarded as the most important and hardest to find on defense, while y'all did it for a receiver.
So to try and compare these two trades is foolish.
re: Is Tripplet serious?!
Posted by bonethug0108 on 6/20/18 at 10:45 am
I hear no one saying, "GB gave up a first round pick."
I agree it's a bit silly to argue semantics, but the media is using the language to make it sound worse than it is.
Instead of saying we gave up two firsts to move up and draft Davenport, they are trying to frame it more dramatically by saying we gave up two firsts for Davenport.
They almost never mention the (higher) first we got back in return (which was also a fair value trade minus the extra 5th thrown in).
It's just a way for the media to spin it into some incredibly risky move.
So yeah we're kind of arguing semantics, but people are tired of seeing the spin job of pretty much never mentioning the higher first we got back.
I agree it's a bit silly to argue semantics, but the media is using the language to make it sound worse than it is.
Instead of saying we gave up two firsts to move up and draft Davenport, they are trying to frame it more dramatically by saying we gave up two firsts for Davenport.
They almost never mention the (higher) first we got back in return (which was also a fair value trade minus the extra 5th thrown in).
It's just a way for the media to spin it into some incredibly risky move.
So yeah we're kind of arguing semantics, but people are tired of seeing the spin job of pretty much never mentioning the higher first we got back.
re: Mini camp discussion thread: did Michael Thomas ever show up?
Posted by bonethug0108 on 6/13/18 at 2:05 pm
It's not the helmet itself, but just seeing Brees in a different helmet from what we've seen since forever.
Popular
33
