Emmanuel Sanders (1 Viewer)

Keep or trade?


  • Total voters
    188
Chase Claypool, more yards and more than twice the TDs.

Just saying.

Not asking this too provoke you, but is there a point to bringing up a rookie wide receiver on another team?

Was this someone you were really wanting in the draft last year?

Otherwise I'm not understanding the point of bringing up someone who is unavailable.
 
for the life of me i can't remember who was our #2 before sanders. was it ginn? i thought he was 3rd receiver...
 
for the life of me i can't remember who was our #2 before sanders. was it ginn? i thought he was 3rd receiver...

The historical depth charts I can find appear to suggest as follows. These are pre-season projections and not necessarily how things played out.

2014: WR1 Colston - WR2 Stills
2015: WR1 Cooks - WR2 Colston
2016: WR1 Cooks - WR2 Thomas
2017: WR1 Thomas - WR2 Ginn
2018: WR1 Thomas - WR2 Ginn
2019: WR1 Thomas - WR2 Ginn
2020: WR1 Thomas - WR2 Sanders
 
Last edited:
for the life of me i can't remember who was our #2 before sanders. was it ginn? i thought he was 3rd receiver...

There's not one. SP uses XYZ not WR1, WR2, WR3.

When the offense was at it's best, SP had WRs who's strengths fit the roles they were in. It got murky during the JG years and then Cooks years. Now bring in Thomas who is an X. It looked like SP tinkered with having numerous WRs who can play each position making them interchangeable, however although it makes the offense more flexible it takes away some of the big play that the mismatches brought on when there were WRs for specific roles. This may have been out of necessity if we can agree that Drew's arm hasn't been as strong for the last few years as it was in the first 10 years in NOLA. Some of the recent personnel moves may indicate that SP is going back to having WRs with predominate roles and strengths that compliment those roles. He also may be going back to having a big slot (Y). Colston started as a big slot and evolved to the X. The current WRs don't have the top end speed to be a legitimate Z and Harris doesn't have the size/blocking ability for that role.

If we add a WR this offseason, it would be a true Z who has the potential to be more. Someone who can stretch the field, block and catch the deep ball. DK was essentially a Z is evolving into way more than just a Z. So the Z doesn't have to be a small WR.
 
There's not one. SP uses XYZ not WR1, WR2, WR3.

When the offense was at it's best, SP had WRs who's strengths fit the roles they were in. It got murky during the JG years and then Cooks years. Now bring in Thomas who is an X. It looked like SP tinkered with having numerous WRs who can play each position making them interchangeable, however although it makes the offense more flexible it takes away some of the big play that the mismatches brought on when there were WRs for specific roles. This may have been out of necessity if we can agree that Drew's arm hasn't been as strong for the last few years as it was in the first 10 years in NOLA. Some of the recent personnel moves may indicate that SP is going back to having WRs with predominate roles and strengths that compliment those roles. He also may be going back to having a big slot (Y). Colston started as a big slot and evolved to the X. The current WRs don't have the top end speed to be a legitimate Z and Harris doesn't have the size/blocking ability for that role.

If we add a WR this offseason, it would be a true Z who has the potential to be more. Someone who can stretch the field, block and catch the deep ball. DK was essentially a Z is evolving into way more than just a Z. So the Z doesn't have to be a small WR.

Yes, perhaps it would have been prudent for me to clarify that most of the depth charts I look at use WR1, WR2 and WR3 interchangeably with X, Z and Y (in that order). So your slot guy is basically WR3 even though in some cases (e.g. Snead v Colston in 2015) the WR3 was clearly a more productive player. I am also aware that he moves everyone, including Thomas, to different positions on the field. However, Sanders was drafted to be a Z guy and that's the position we've probably struggled with the most on this offence prior to his arrival.
 
Yes, perhaps it would have been prudent for me to clarify that most of the depth charts I look at use WR1, WR2 and WR3 interchangeably with X, Z and Y (in that order). So your slot guy is basically WR3 even though in some cases (e.g. Snead v Colston in 2015) the WR3 was clearly a more productive player. I am also aware that he moves everyone, including Thomas, to different positions on the field. However, Sanders was drafted to be a Z guy and that's the position we've probably struggled with the most on this offence prior to his arrival.

I agree about Sanders. He used to be a Z and they probably hoped he'd be effective there, but he doesn't have that 4.41 speed he had when he was younger. I don't think we have a true Z on the roster. This pretty much goes with that other thread about needing a burner.
 
I'm honestly on the fence with this one. I loved sanders especially since he as coming on later in the season. I also like how Smith up'ed his game this year. Callaway looks like the real deal as well. If we cannot keep Sanders I think we will be ok, but it would be nice to have him for his locker room presence.


----
 
In a perfect world, bring him back. Loved what he brought to the team. In reality, he's understandably likely to be a salary cap casualty. We're going to have to make a lot of hard decisions over the next couple months. I tend to be more in favor of just ripping off the Band Aid and clearing the problems in 2021, even if it means we have a very down year.
 
His money for next year is just too rich.

CGM, TQS, and Callaway will all be back, and I’d like to see Callaway’s role increase. Callaway had deep ball/jump ball/50-50 ball listed among his strengths, but we didn’t see it this season. I also really like his blocking skills on the outside.

I know there’s articles floating around about how the Saints cap situation isn’t as bad as we believed, but $$$ has to be saved somewhere, and with the current depth at the position, Sanders’ spot is a place to save.

Perriman or John Ross (Ross especially) could be cheaper speed options at WR that could help stretch the field... or at least threaten it.
 
Would love to keep at lower number but only time will tell. Our new qb can get the ball to him more
 
I wish we would have had him earlier in his career with Brees
 
Not asking this too provoke you, but is there a point to bringing up a rookie wide receiver on another team?

Was this someone you were really wanting in the draft last year?

Otherwise I'm not understanding the point of bringing up someone who is unavailable.
Yes.

They keep passing on stud wrs for aging vets and never-has-beens.
 
Chase Claypool would have half that this season with old man Brees.

Relax. We have a draft this season to possibly get the game breaking #2WR you so desperately want.
You must've missed the part where Claypool isn't just fast but also enormous.
 
It's really hard to properly evaluate Sanders given the fact that our QB situation was so messed up this season combined with him getting COVID and CGM being out or ineffective for almost the entire season. I don't think we ever saw what the real Saints offense was supposed to be this year. One thing is for sure: Even if we keep Sanders, we still need to get better overall at WR. If we lose him, we will be even further behind the eight ball.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom