Triplett says Saints Interest in Chris "Beanie" Wells is "Bona Fide" (1 Viewer)

[nolafan33]

With the NFL draft vastly approaching, I think if anything else we all would agree on one thing and that’s regardless of whose name is called when the Saints make their selection he will be our guy!

There’s been much debate on this forum over which players to draft and which ones not to. Some great points have been made in the cases of each and everyone of our personal favorites or preferences but in the end, the Saints can select only one.

So regardless if it’s Malcolm Jenkins, Brian Cushing, Chris Wells, Clay Matthews, Aaron Maybin, etc.

Once the name is called, the fact is that the guy is no longer a prospect… he’s a Saint, and he should be supported accordingly!

 

[REALCHRISM]

1) If you knew you never posted a highlight video to augment your point, why did you feel as though I was talking about you? If anything, I was AGREEING that the discourse of for/against Wells has gone full sphere at this point.
2) I don't mention my status as a moderator, you did. And whether you were being sarcastic or not, I do have a solid posting history around here. I just happen to not agree that Wells is the best selection for the Saints at 14. There have been good and bad posts on both sides of the spectrum; the loudest drum-bangers happen to be the bad-against side. Again, if you're solidly backing your points, you have nothing to worry about; this is how discourse takes place. If you're not solidly backing your points, they'll get eaten up... and you'll have to resort to highlight videos and rhetoric.
3) "Cooler?" Really? I remember that as being a joke we laughed about. No further discussion...
4) You're implying, via sarcasm, that my exceptional posts on a message board are indicative of my abilities in the classroom. Since you're actually intoning that my posts are not exceptional, the parallel suggests that my time as a student at Morehouse was not exceptional as well. Knowing the circumstances surrounding my leaving there, I would not have expected you to take it there - but you did, for reasons I can't understand.






99) Let's move this back to Beanie or no Beanie, if you want to discuss this any further, I have 200+ PMs available

1. Your response was to my post and you clearly outlined your post in such a way as to show a lack of sound reasoning on the part of those who make arguments for Wells versus the do-not-draft-Wells coalition who do not make reaching arguments.

2. I mentioned your status as a moderator only because I questioned your insight. If I am questioning the insight of a regular poster, there's no fear of retribution in the form of being banned. Of course, the same is/should be true with you even as a moderator though you could very easily look to exert your authority. Obviously, the moderator line is sarcastic but does show that the fact that you are a moderator is not ignored on my part when making various statements in reference to you.

3. A joke is one thing, a belief is another. We shared a laugh because it was a joke just as saying that your willingness to disregard my arguments must be due to that same joke. That said, when you continously run into a curious case of impertinence, you are left to wonder.

4. It is unfortunate that you think that my reference to Morehouse is somehow a reference to the circumstances for which you left Morehouse. My reference, clearly rife with sarcasm, was nothing different than my saying you're a rocket scientist or a Harvard grad. As an individual who has gone to Morehouse, I knew you could relate more to the Morehouse reference and not be lost on its place amongst the upper echelon of academia. If I had spoken with another individual who is not familiar with Morehouse's academic success, I might have used a separate institution. That said, I know that intention rarely equals outcome. I can be the bigger the person and apologize in that regard only because I did not intend to offend your sensbilities in regard to your grandmother's continuing battle with cancer. Just as much as you are appalled or bewildered about where you think I went, I am just as dismayed as well as disappointed by your persuasion that I would stoop so low. That said, I hope we can move on from this unfortunate exchange.

99. I am through with the Beanie discussion. As I have said before, there's nothing else to be said on the subject that has not already been said time and time again.

 

[AkA Zane]

First, having a #1 offense means little if you cannot finish games.

Your logic is flawed, the O did what they get paid to do and that put alot of points on the board.
Our defense cannot finish games, It wouldn't matter even if we had Jacobs pounding the ball.If we cant get a critical stop to close out the game for the win we are screwed.Like Warren Sapp said after one our loses, Its a unfortunate the defense has trouble making critical stops to end the game, the defense is the backbone of your team.

 

[REALCHRISM]

Our defense cannot finish games, It wouldn't matter even if we had Jacobs.If we cant get a critical stop to close out the game for the win we are screwed.

Good point. However, there are times when your defense wouldn't have to finish games if your offense can run out the clock. A lot of people like to say we lost the Minnesota and Denver games because of Grammatica missing those FGs. But even if he nails them, each team would have had time left on the clock to try to win the game. If we are able to pick up a first down in that game against Denver--even acknowledging the blown offsides call--then you have a chance not only to get a closer try at a FG but also to milk the clock more so that the Bronos are not left with any time to mount a comeback. Same deal against Minnesota. Even in the game against Carolina, we scored to quickly. If we are able to milk the clock more, we would not have had to endure watching Steve Smith beat our guys over-the-top on a busted play.

Even the best defenses in the world will not always be able to bail you out just as the best offense/strongest run game won't be able to bail you. The hope is that you are able have a healthy balance. I think we have taken strides to address our defensive woes. Our problem was we were torched time and time again on the back end. Our poor safety play was exposed all season, particularly against Minnesota, Carolina and Chicago. I think Darren Sharper solidifies us there though he's clearly not a long-term answer given his age. At the same time, you have to recognize that unless you're adding Malcolm Jenkins to the puzzle, there won't be any safeties you can take in the first round who actually carry a first round grade. The hope is that the defense continues to get better and gets addressed. At the same time, to me, the ultimate goal is getting better as a team. I think Wells helps us to do that even if he does not play defense. We have proven we can score quickly and in bunches. Now, we must add a player who can give us the opportunity to run the football when it counts and close out games that we all too often have been forced to watch at the end with our defense always on the field. That could be Wells or it may not be if we are able to land Jenkins. But if it ends up being Wells, I am not upset because I think he's going to be an impact player who only allows our offense to add dimension.

At the end of the day, Drew Brees is our best player. You build around your best player and give him the full arsenal he needs to be successful. You add Wells and all of a sudden, sans a move maybe at C, your offense really does not have a single flaw. There is nothing you cannot do to beat another team. If you need to go high-powered, you can. If you need to be methodical, you can. If you need a little of both, you can do that as well, which means you are much harder to defend and much more capable of giving your defense a chance to rest, which is the very reason why a lesser--talented defense in 2006 ranked #11 overall despite having guys like Simoneau, Thomas and Bullocks, amongst others.

 

[bgizle]

Good point. However, there are times when your defense wouldn't have to finish games if your offense can run out the clock. A lot of people like to say we lost the Minnesota and Denver games because of Grammatica missing those FGs. But even if he nails them, each team would have had time left on the clock to try to win the game. If we are able to pick up a first down in that game against Denver--even acknowledging the blown offsides call--then you have a chance not only to get a closer try at a FG but also to milk the clock more so that the Bronos are not left with any time to mount a comeback. Same deal against Minnesota. Even in the game against Carolina, we scored to quickly. If we are able to milk the clock more, we would not have had to endure watching Steve Smith beat our guys over-the-top on a busted play.

Even the best defenses in the world will not always be able to bail you out just as the best offense/strongest run game won't be able to bail you. The hope is that you are able have a healthy balance. I think we have taken strides to address our defensive woes. Our problem was we were torched time and time again on the back end. Our poor safety play was exposed all season, particularly against Minnesota, Carolina and Chicago. I think Darren Sharper solidifies us there though he's clearly not a long-term answer given his age. At the same time, you have to recognize that unless you're adding Malcolm Jenkins to the puzzle, there won't be any safeties you can take in the first round who actually carry a first round grade. The hope is that the defense continues to get better and gets addressed. At the same time, to me, the ultimate goal is getting better as a team. I think Wells helps us to do that even if he does not play defense. We have proven we can score quickly and in bunches. Now, we must add a player who can give us the opportunity to run the football when it counts and close out games that we all too often have been forced to watch at the end with our defense always on the field. That could be Wells or it may not be if we are able to land Jenkins. But if it ends up being Wells, I am not upset because I think he's going to be an impact player who only allows our offense to add dimension.

At the end of the day, Drew Brees is our best player. You build around your best player and give him the full arsenal he needs to be successful. You add Wells and all of a sudden, sans a move maybe at C, your offense really does not have a single flaw. There is nothing you cannot do to beat another team. If you need to go high-powered, you can. If you need to be methodical, you can. If you need a little of both, you can do that as well, which means you are much harder to defend and much more capable of giving your defense a chance to rest, which is the very reason why a lesser--talented defense in 2006 ranked #11 overall despite having guys like Simoneau, Thomas and Bullocks, amongst others.

Though I've heard this tons of times, I don't think it makes any sense. I know tons of commentators and analysts agree with you, I just hate the term.

And I just personally don't agree with the 2nd part, just my opinion.