Emmanuel Sanders to Saints

[ColoradoBills]

13 hours ago, inaugural balls said:

Dare I say, it might be fun seeing Brady vs Brees twice this season.

 

I didn't even realize that to you pointed it out.

Those games will be fun to watch!

[RocCityRoller]

Yes. He doesn't have to be 'the guy' in New Orleans. Thomas will command the double. Sanders has enough savvy and juice to still produce one on one.

 

Good pick up for New Orleans, and good opportunity for Sanders to reach another Super Bowl.

[PetermansRedemption]

1 hour ago, The Dean said:

The rich get richer.

 

 

This is the kind of silly stuff that amuses me.

Do you find it coincidental that WR’s statistically peak at age 26-28. And that in 2016 Emmanuel Sanders would have been 28? If you have some statistical information to back your position I would love to hear it. 

[stinky finger]

14 hours ago, whatdrought said:

Heck yeah it will. Also, I will always hate TB12, but it’ll be fun to watch him with a little less hatred. 

 

All (or mostly?) about the laundry. 

 

My TB "hate-o-meter" aint pegged red no more.

 

Put another way, IF IF IF the Pats were ever to play the Bucs in the SB - GO BUCS!!! 

6 hours ago, CNYfan said:

Cheering for the Saints, big time then.

 

I get it. 

 

I'm talking from a pure football enjoyment standpoint. 

 

Let's not forget, Brady and Brees are neck and neck in career stats. Interesting to me who will end up out-dueling the other.

1 hour ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I didn't even realize that to you pointed it out.

Those games will be fun to watch!

 

Strange when you think about it.

 

TB playing in domes and warm weather (Tampa, Atlanta, NO, Carolina) more often than not. 

 

Honestly, bares watching. I look forward to it.

Edited March 21, 2020 by inaugural balls

[The Dean]

50 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said:

Do you find it coincidental that WR’s statistically peak at age 26-28. And that in 2016 Emmanuel Sanders would have been 28? If you have some statistical information to back your position I would love to hear it. 

 

 

As a former research professional, I find stats presented with zero context rather useless. Who were the other WRs on his team? How about the QBs? What was the team's offensive balance/philosophy?  Even more importantly, have you noticed him being significantly slower?  Route running getting sloppy? Dropping more passes?

 

Saying he isn't good/on the decline because he hasn't reached 1,000 yards is lot like those who say Josh Allen isn't good because he doesn't throw for over 300 yards a game. Now if you provided some actual context and analysis to your statement, I wouldn't have made the comment.

 

I think the real questions are ones like, "Does Sanders make the Saints a better, more dangerous team?" "Is this value to the team likely to be commensurate to his deal?' Remember, they already have Michael Thomas. Sanders doesn't need to necessarily have huge yardage stats for them. 

[PetermansRedemption]

30 minutes ago, The Dean said:

 

 

As a former research professional, I find stats presented with zero context rather useless. Who were the other WRs on his team? How about the QBs? What was the team's offensive balance/philosophy?  Even more importantly, have you noticed him being significantly slower?  Route running getting sloppy? Dropping more passes?

 

Saying he isn't good/on the decline because he hasn't reached 1,000 yards is lot like those who say Josh Allen isn't good because he doesn't throw for over 300 yards a game. Now if you provided some actual context and analysis to your statement, I wouldn't have made the comment.

 

I think the real questions are ones like, "Does Sanders make the Saints a better, more dangerous team?" "Is this value to the team likely to be commensurate to his deal?' Remember, they already have Michael Thomas. Sanders doesn't need to necessarily have huge yardage stats for them. 

If me bowing down had a sufficient emoji, I would input it here