- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
bonethug0180
| Favorite team: | New Orleans Saints  |
| Location: | Avondale |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 5169 |
| Registered on: | 7/31/2018 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Free Agency news and rumors; tampering period opens March 9 (Etienne -> Saints?)
Posted by bonethug0180 on 3/3/26 at 8:05 am to Midget Death Squad
It definitely wouldn't take Love off the draft board, but it makes him slightly less appealing to take if comparable or better players are available.
You always want 2 good backs, and even if Kamara stays this year he probably doesn't have much left beyond this one. Having 2 good backs heading into Shough's final rookie years will be important (but not more important than things like a good line and pass rush).
But I've also already stated on how great Love needs to be if you take that swing, because the positional value can crush you if you are wrong.
You always want 2 good backs, and even if Kamara stays this year he probably doesn't have much left beyond this one. Having 2 good backs heading into Shough's final rookie years will be important (but not more important than things like a good line and pass rush).
But I've also already stated on how great Love needs to be if you take that swing, because the positional value can crush you if you are wrong.
2
re: Clyde Edwards-Helaire
Posted by bonethug0180 on 3/3/26 at 8:00 am to Chad504boy
quote:Don't necessarily disagree with this, but you are trying to draft the best player that fits your team, not just a really good one. We have no idea who that is, which is why this whole argument is pretty silly.
Winning a Super Bowl is a dumb small minded approach. Makes you better is pretty fair
It could be Love, Downs, one of the ends, a receiver, etc. We won't ever truly know, but the one thing we do know is what a position costs in FA relative to others, and certain positions give you extremely bad value and have a severe opportunity cost when it comes to signing FAs in the future. So if you take a swing on those poor value positions you need to be VERY right and those players need to be far above the others drafted around them.
re: Clyde Edwards-Helaire
Posted by bonethug0180 on 3/3/26 at 7:50 am to blackandgolddude
Of the winners, only Reggie Bush played a meaningful role on the team the year they won.
Edit: Actually relooked at it and Bush had his worst statistical year of his first 4 year the year we won. xD Michel, while certainly not great, had better overall seasons the 2 they won with him, yet certainly not THE reason or even one of the main reasons they one.
Both sides have a point to this argument, as we went over last time this came up. It's not impossible to get to or win a SB drafting a back in the first round, but it is also CLEARLY not the cause of a team's success. Passing on other more expensive and important positions that high especially can be very detrimental, but when you can find that extremely rare back it is possible they can give you that push.
The question STILL remains, is Love that generational back, or is he simply very good (if even that)? That can only be answered in hindsight, and if we take Love I will hope that means the staff truly believes he is THAT guy and not just some really good guy.
Edit: Actually relooked at it and Bush had his worst statistical year of his first 4 year the year we won. xD Michel, while certainly not great, had better overall seasons the 2 they won with him, yet certainly not THE reason or even one of the main reasons they one.
Both sides have a point to this argument, as we went over last time this came up. It's not impossible to get to or win a SB drafting a back in the first round, but it is also CLEARLY not the cause of a team's success. Passing on other more expensive and important positions that high especially can be very detrimental, but when you can find that extremely rare back it is possible they can give you that push.
The question STILL remains, is Love that generational back, or is he simply very good (if even that)? That can only be answered in hindsight, and if we take Love I will hope that means the staff truly believes he is THAT guy and not just some really good guy.
re: On the flip side of Sonny Styles, Ruben Bain is off my list.
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/27/26 at 9:13 am to VA LSU fan
IF we draft him, it's certainly not to play 3-4 end. He'd be playing OLB/Edge, and Young, Granderson, and Jordan all played fine in that role last year being as big or bigger.
re: Saints high on Caleb Downs and Jeremiyah Love per Charlie Campbell
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/25/26 at 8:34 pm to Midget Death Squad
It's the same thing with Love as well. If they truly believe either is a generational talent, you can break "the rules" for them.
But they can't just be really good players to justify it. That would be a failing (unless none of the other players are even close to as good when they pick).
But they can't just be really good players to justify it. That would be a failing (unless none of the other players are even close to as good when they pick).
re: Saints required to spend an additional $50 million on player contracts this year
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/23/26 at 11:58 am to Proximo
They won't be front loaded. What needs to be spent is just cash, and they will get there with bonuses.
There is very good reason pretty much no team front loads ANY contracts any more, because you can squeeze the players out of those big years by cutting them at the end or getting them to agree to pay cuts. That keeps them from ever getting their actual per year on the total contract that people freak out about.
There is very good reason pretty much no team front loads ANY contracts any more, because you can squeeze the players out of those big years by cutting them at the end or getting them to agree to pay cuts. That keeps them from ever getting their actual per year on the total contract that people freak out about.
re: Saints required to spend an additional $50 million on player contracts this year
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/23/26 at 8:44 am to saints5021
This. It's because over the last 2 offseasons we didn't really go get big price FAs.
But this is literally one big signing away from being fulfilled. Give someone a $50 mil signing bonus on a 5 year deal and that's it. More likely it's met by giving multiple players smaller signing bonuses.
But this is literally one big signing away from being fulfilled. Give someone a $50 mil signing bonus on a 5 year deal and that's it. More likely it's met by giving multiple players smaller signing bonuses.
re: Current cap space projection
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/19/26 at 7:32 pm to ForTheWin81
Carr retiring left a lot of dead money, most of which hits this year (only a small portion was on last year's cap). In addition, Ram also retiring left most of his dead money on this year's cap as opposed to last year. Jordan, Davis, and Hill, if none are resigned prior to free agency, also have dead money hits.
Going forward, if there are no big cuts or surprise retirements, we will have an extremely small amount of dead money. Currently 2027 has no dead money, and with likely no cuts (no one really worth cutting as there are only 2 guys that save money, and only small amounts) nor expiring "pushed" contracts it will likely only contain the extremely small amounts from players added and cut at the bottom end throughout the year.
Going forward, if there are no big cuts or surprise retirements, we will have an extremely small amount of dead money. Currently 2027 has no dead money, and with likely no cuts (no one really worth cutting as there are only 2 guys that save money, and only small amounts) nor expiring "pushed" contracts it will likely only contain the extremely small amounts from players added and cut at the bottom end throughout the year.
re: Current cap space projection
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/19/26 at 3:53 pm to TwoDatBait
quote:If we can resign Cam and Demario, and assuming Olave extends, then yeah just about.
So we fixing to have $83m to play with after Loomising???
re: Cam Jordan new contact
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/19/26 at 2:13 pm to GynoSandberg
I would be extremely surprised if that's related to contract talks, as there would have had to have been a complete and utter breakdown into an unrecoverable position for it to be decided this early. Both his and Demario's contracts aren't scheduled to void until March 10th (the day before FA), and these things are almost always extremely drawn out unless both sides start surprisingly close (or one side holds all or almost all of the leverage).
He may just be getting a jump on moving to his future home for after next year, as this is likely his last year in the league anyway.
He may just be getting a jump on moving to his future home for after next year, as this is likely his last year in the league anyway.
re: Current cap space projection
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/19/26 at 1:22 pm to infantry1026
quote:Just a for instance, restructuring Young puts us at $2.6 mil under, which is enough to sign big free agent with a small first year.
That’s light work for this FO
We can get a lot further under with just simple restructures like that if we want.
Edit:
Without cuts (I think only 2 guys save money with cuts anyway, and both are negligible) or extensions, simple restructures can put us up to $57.5 mil under. The Olave extension will save us even more, and then also if we get something worked out with Cam and/or Demario before they expire.
re: Olave perspective related to contract
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/15/26 at 10:39 pm to t00f
He ranked 18th, 17th, and 8th in his 3 healthy seasons. He is going to be paid number 1 receiver money. There is no talking around it.
He is not going to be paid tippy top receiver money though, but he will be top 5 just because that's what happens when fringe top 10 receivers come up on their contract. Even if we don't pay him, someone will. If you want to argue it shouldn't be us paying him that's one thing. To argue he doesn't need to be paid number 1 receiver money is ignoring the facts.
He is not going to be paid tippy top receiver money though, but he will be top 5 just because that's what happens when fringe top 10 receivers come up on their contract. Even if we don't pay him, someone will. If you want to argue it shouldn't be us paying him that's one thing. To argue he doesn't need to be paid number 1 receiver money is ignoring the facts.
re: Olave perspective related to contract
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/15/26 at 11:07 am to Townedrunkard
quote:While technically correct, you are an idiot if you think anyone will give up a first for him and sign him to a huge contract. The franchise tag effectively kills any chance of a player leaving, and the exclusive tag is only used for the tippy top franchise QBs (like with Brees), where the team doesn't even want to chance someone giving up a first for them. That is literally the only position, and only the top 5 or so, that would ever need the exclusive tag. Even with edge players or top flight tackles teams aren't giving up a first and paying them, so they definitely aren't doing it with a receiver.
Is it the exclusive franchise tag?
If not, than yes he’s a free agent, free to sign with any team in the NFL
re: N/S Maxx Crosby reportedly told Brady he’ll never play for the Raiders again
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/10/26 at 4:58 pm to TheRouxGuru
He is a great edge, but not elite. Not even a tier down from elite. At best he is a borderline top 15 edge, which is something we can use, but not something to give up a haul for.
If you look at my other posts, he isn't even on Parsons level, and is actually closer to Cam than him when it comes to sacks.
For quick reference, per 17 games:
Cam- 9.4 sacks, 29 pressures, 52 tackles, and a 6.7% missed tackle rate
Crosby- 10.7 sacks, 41 pressures, 68 tackles, and an 8.4% missed tackle rate
Parsons- 14.4 sacks, 50 pressures, 66 tackles, and an 8.3% missed tackle rate
Garrett- 16.4 sacks, 46 pressures, 53 tackles, and a 5.2% missed tackles rate
If you look at my other posts, he isn't even on Parsons level, and is actually closer to Cam than him when it comes to sacks.
For quick reference, per 17 games:
Cam- 9.4 sacks, 29 pressures, 52 tackles, and a 6.7% missed tackle rate
Crosby- 10.7 sacks, 41 pressures, 68 tackles, and an 8.4% missed tackle rate
Parsons- 14.4 sacks, 50 pressures, 66 tackles, and an 8.3% missed tackle rate
Garrett- 16.4 sacks, 46 pressures, 53 tackles, and a 5.2% missed tackles rate
re: I can’t help but think MAYBE we will be playing in this game next year
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/10/26 at 4:56 pm to Weekend Warrior79
Yeah people act like the turnaround is impossible, and it's not. It has happened several times. We can maybe make a deep playoff push (yes not what the thread title is suggesting, but still) even if we don't make the big one. I think that's very possible if not even likely.
re: N/S Maxx Crosby reportedly told Brady he’ll never play for the Raiders again
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/10/26 at 10:03 am to Chad504boy
quote:Hey if they take that I'll take that!
we trade: Granderson, Carr, Ruiz, and a 3rd!
re: N/S Maxx Crosby reportedly told Brady he’ll never play for the Raiders again
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/10/26 at 9:56 am to Chad504boy
No he is definitely not worth the upgrade over Granderson considering what he will cost both picks and cap wise. It would be better to swing with pick 8 on an edge guy than use that for Crosby, and I'm still not feeling great about giving up a future 1st either.
He is not the elite player people are claiming he is. He is just a good, available player at an extremely important position that will cost a great deal to get.
He is not the elite player people are claiming he is. He is just a good, available player at an extremely important position that will cost a great deal to get.
re: N/S Maxx Crosby reportedly told Brady he’ll never play for the Raiders again
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/10/26 at 9:53 am to Doug_H
quote:I was with you until here. Everything else I absolutely agree with, but zero chance I give up 8 overall for Crosby. There are at least 2 potentially high impact rookies that will be sitting there, as well as some WRs and Edge players that could be much better long term over taking on Crosby.
Raiders get; 2026-1st (#8)
re: N/S Maxx Crosby reportedly told Brady he’ll never play for the Raiders again
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/10/26 at 9:50 am to saints5021
quote:He's not. He is a very good, but not elite, pass rusher, and is good, but not elite, against the run. He may be pushing top 50, but nowhere close to top 10.
Maxx Crosby is a top 10 player in the NFL.
I posted numbers showing just how far apart he and Parsons are in production, and Garrett is on another level even above Parsons.
For reference as well, Cam has a 9.4 sacks per 17 in his career with 2 seasons in which he had 2 and 4 sacks included as well. Crosby has 10.7. Crosby is an obvious upgrade from Cam, but he doesn't come close to those other guys.
re: N/S Maxx Crosby reportedly told Brady he’ll never play for the Raiders again
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/9/26 at 8:16 pm to Proximo
Parsons also averages 14.4 sacks and 50 pressures per 17 vs Crosby at 10.7 and 41.
I won't knock Crosby's production, but he is very clearly a tier down from Parsons as a pass rusher, and being 2 years older and now in a situation where he "has to" get traded, his value shouldn't be equated to Parsons.
I still think they can get a 1st, but definitely not a high 1st, and maybe a 3rd. They are crazy if they think they can get more, and a team would be crazy to give more.
I won't knock Crosby's production, but he is very clearly a tier down from Parsons as a pass rusher, and being 2 years older and now in a situation where he "has to" get traded, his value shouldn't be equated to Parsons.
I still think they can get a 1st, but definitely not a high 1st, and maybe a 3rd. They are crazy if they think they can get more, and a team would be crazy to give more.
re: What realistic moves this offseason could get us to the Super Bowl next year
Posted by bonethug0180 on 2/9/26 at 4:38 pm to blueboxer1119
Zach is not a FA, but Walker is. I think they are willing to let Walker go and roll with Charbonnet themselves.
Edit:
When did Zach get hurt again? Iirc he may be out most of next season, so scratch that about letting Walker go if so.
Looks like sometime in October or November for him to return if all goes well, and then he'll need some time to get back up to speed.
Edit:
When did Zach get hurt again? Iirc he may be out most of next season, so scratch that about letting Walker go if so.
Looks like sometime in October or November for him to return if all goes well, and then he'll need some time to get back up to speed.
Popular
17
