PFW: Saints to concentrate on signing Dan Morgan (1 Viewer)

[Dave]

Lots of draftdaddy's "info" is crap but let's hope this is one their hits. I'd love the Patriots to sign Morgan and take him off the table. The Saints need to solidify their LBs, not throw a roster spot away on guy who will probably tear a tendon signing his contract.........

I'm curious how you can determine who's info is crap and who isn't?

 

[hookedsaint]

they might as well sign me to play mlb, they would be wasting a less amount of money and getting the same amount of playing time.

 

[Pdlc]

How are folks even contemplating this as real? Puff puff pass.

I wouldn't be surprised if we do sign him.

We already brought him in before Zach.

Why is it hard to imagine we wouldn't sign him?

We signed Brian Simmons last year.

 

[kevison]

I don't think that Loomis & Co. are naive enough to think that he is the long-term answer. We WILL draft a LB in the early rounds, if not 2. He will be siged for depth(for either us or the Pats or whoever), and I am sure that whoever signs him will give him an incentive laden contract based mainly on PT. Besides, it really can't be worse than Simoneaux, right? Simmons will still be there, as will the rookies.

 

[Ti Rider]

I'm curious how you can determine who's info is crap and who isn't?

Hazy, speculative, unlinked information from anonymous "insiders" = mostly crap. PFT used to do the same thing. Now they've cleaned up their act and link all their sources......

 

[flyguy8558]

I dont see what the harm in signing him is..

He knows hes not gonna get a big pay, so if worse comes to worse he can be a pretty good backup, we all know whoever signs him, it wont be for much

 

[Dave]

Unnamed and unlinked soures from anonymous "insiders" = mostly crap. PFT used to do the same thing. Now they've cleaned up their act and link all their sources......

Huh? Just about every report I see that is "inside infromation" are from unnamed sources.:dunno:

 

[workhorse]

With so many gaping holes on D, you would think we could have made at least one move by now. But all the corners got franchised and there doesn't seem to be much out there in the way of LBs and DTs.

No one can officially be signed until Friday. There has only been a handful of guys who were cut, Zach Thomas being one of them and we made a good contract offer to him.

I hate the idea of signing Dan Morgan.

 

[keefresh2]

I sincerely hope this is not true.

 

[Scott B]

why does signing Dan Morgan completely take the Saints out of addressing the MLB position with other free agents and/or the draft? Last time I checked, the NFL doesn't limit the amount of linebackers a team can acquire in the offseason.

 

[llama]

I wouldn't be surprised if we do sign him.

We already brought him in before Zach.

Why is it hard to imagine we wouldn't sign him?

We signed Brian Simmons last year.

Exactly. You extrapolated my supposition. The writer said what he did in the OP's quoted text because it's any easy guess to say such.

We DID offer a contract to Zach. Did we offer one to Morgan? Not that I've heard. So now that ZT has moved on we automatically have fallen back on another guy who was cut? Before free agency starts?

I find it hard to imagine that we would sign him. I hope I'm right.

 

[Pdlc]

I hope your right too.

 

[Ti Rider]

Huh? Just about every report I see that is "inside infromation" are from unnamed sources.:dunno:

Yes, the same unnamed sources that told us - that the Saints were the frontrunners for signing Zach Thomas, Roderick Hood had a deal done with the Saints, Reggie Bush was going to hold out and re enter the '08 draft, Drew Brees was signing with Miami and on and on....all from anonymous "insiders".......

 

[mark1]

We are oozing desperation right now. There's got to be a better answer at MLB.

there is. curtis lofton at 10. or at the very least mayo in the 2nd, though he could creep into the first with a good workout.

 

[The_Burning_Bush]

I guess it's better than nothing, for now.