Mike McKenzie is not a sure thing to return

by stujo4 on Jan 27, 2009 9:28 AM CST Comment 23 comments

Don't count those chicks before they're hatched.

I love Mike McKenzie. I like how he plays, I like how he looks, I like him being a Saint. I also love Archie Manning, George Rogers, and Ricky Williams, but they can't help the Saints on the field in 2009.

I had to do some research to confirm, but that broken kneecap (how in the hell did THAT happen?) is on the same right leg as the 2007 ACL surgery.

Rotoworld.com:

Mike McKenzie-DB - Saints Nov. 10 - 1:08 pm et
Saints coach Sean Payton confirmed Monday that CB Mike McKenzie
(broken right patella) will be placed on injured reserve, ending his season.
McKenzie will have surgery this week. It's believed that his right knee was
weakened by last year's ACL surgery, making him more susceptible to further injury. McKenzie had not been playing badly, but he will be 33 next season and is due $4.45 million in 2009 salary. He is unlikely to return.
Source: NFL.com

So, do you think he's been drinking his milk, making that right leg strong and completely rehabbed? (Dec 30 rotoworld.com report said he is ahead of schedule) Do you think he'll have lost another step, turning 33 in April? Do you believe he and Mickey will come to terms on compensation? Are you really counting on him wanting to, and being able to, transition to safety if that is the role he is assigned?

That's a really big to-do list. Not sure that I'd be penciling him in the opening day lineup at this point. I hope so, but Mick and Keith were on the radio while I was typing this:

I said, baby, baby, baby, you're out of time
Yes, you are left out
Out of there without a doubt
'Cause baby, baby, baby, you're out of time

This FanPost was written by a reader and member of Canal Street Chronicles. It does not necessarily reflect the views of CSC and its staff or editors.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

...

The thought has been on my mind but a fear of revealing it to the light and making it come true that way has kept it inside.

by MT_always on Jan 27, 2009 9:57 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

With a salary of 4.5MM next year, he's clearly not a lock to return

BUT…. the busted up patella was a freak injury and has little to zero to do with the ACL, in my admittedly layman’s opinion. He was still the Saints’ best corner last year (after the ACL) and if the patella is healed, he’d be the best corner on the roster this fall too.

On the other hand, you never know when a corner on the wrong side of 30 is gonna hit the wall. And the two separate injuries to the same knee in consecutive years don’t exactly help his cause. Neither does the 4.5MM.

I do think he’ll be asked to restructure, and I think he might be asked to consider a move to free safety. I have nothing to back this up, but my belief is that he’d be amenable to both. And I think that would be great. McKenzie would be one hell of a free safety if he put his mind to it, in my opinion.

by Grandmaster Wang on Jan 27, 2009 10:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Gotta agree again

If you were Mike McKenzie, and you knew you could make damn good money in the middle of a depression by moving to safety, would you say, “Nah, catch you later”?

And stujo: why you trying to bring us down, man? Don’t you know we’re all about hope, now?

Beer is GOOD.

by MtnExile on Jan 27, 2009 10:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Keeping it real

That’s my job, man. I sit and worry about impending doom and misery. I must share it with you all.

Change is GOOD.

by stujo4 on Jan 27, 2009 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How realistic

is the possibility of MM moving to Safety? My thoughts on this are along the lines that he still good enough to be a regular contributor but injuries make it difficult for him to be an everyday starter. There’s nothing you can do to stop the aging process an he is no spring chicken. Good ballplayer on the downside of his career. I think it’s too risky to put all of our eggs in the Mike McKenzie basket- as a CB or S. Unless we take on FA talent (and possibly strain the cap) our options may be to stay old and possibly hobbled or go new and inexperienced- wil have to transition sooner or later…. I say do it now. If he is willing to restructure, then great! But still take in new talent and he can mentor as well. Of course, I could be looking at this with too narrow of vision. Thoughts?

Hot Boudin, Cold Cous Cous, Comon Tigers Poosh Poosh Poosh!

by Barrylsu5 on Jan 27, 2009 1:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely

We do need to get younger and more talented. But though it may be a mistake to rely on MM being a significant contributor to the defense, it may just as much be a mistake to assume he has nothing left to give. Suppose we move MM to safety; then suppose we draft a good safety like Johnson or Delmas; then suppose that MM actually beats him out for the starting job. Have we really lost anything? We have the best man playing the position, and excellent depth: what’s wrong with this picture?

Oh when the Saints...Start kicking ass...You don't want to be in that number...

by MtnExile on Jan 27, 2009 1:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry if this is precisely the point you're making, but...

…sorry man, I’m just a little too stupid to tell. Heh. Seriously, my sarcasm detector is going off halfway right about now, and I don’t know whether I’m coming or going.

What’s wrong with this picture is that starting lineup > depth every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Starters start, depth rides the pine. Simple as that. Depth is great, and it’s very important. Just not nearly as important as who you have starting. And screw drafting for depth when you’ve got gaping holes in your starting lineup. (Which might be exactly what you’re getting at in a way that is so clever that I’m only half sure that’s what you’re doing. And if so, kudos to you. I love it when that happens.)

Have we really lost anything? Absofreakinglutely. Even though you can never have too many good players at any given position, surely we’d all agree that the Saints would be idiots to draft Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez right about now. They’d be idiots to take a TE or a WR or a MLB in the first this year too. Sure, it would be great to have a bunch of studs sitting on your bench. But as long as you have holes in your starting lineup, any stud sitting on your bench represents a waste.

It’s why, to reference another recent CSC thread, “drafting BPA” is total bullshit. Because you always end up adding a positional qualifier or two or three. And as soon as you do that, you’re no longer drafting BPA. You’re drafting “BPA within reason” or some other description people use when they’re really drafting for need (like everybody else, every single year) but think “BPA” sounds better for some reason.

Starters > backups. Every time. And as a result, everybody drafts for need. Which is precisely what they should do.

That being said, you’re absolutely right. It’s a double-edged sword. Let’s say the Saints release Brunell for cap reasons. Then Brees gets rolled up in preseason and all of a sudden welcome to the Joey Harrington Experience. God forbid. And all of a sudden people are saying “My God, Matt Stafford fell to 14 and the Saints passed!!!!! Loomis is an idiot!!!! If only we had gone BPA!!!!” But you go BPA and that doesn’t happen, and you’ve got Aaron Rodgers sitting on your bench for half a decade while you continue to miss the playoffs every year because you’ve got no DBs. You just never know.

The only correct way to approach it is to make the most informed decision you can about whether McKenzie is gonna start at CB, or at FS, or not be on your roster, and do it before the draft. Decide on whether or not Dan Morgan and JoLonn Dunbar are realistically gonna be factors at OLB, and whether or not if all else fails you’re comfortable rolling with Shanle and Fujita. Then once you have the best handle on all that as you possibly can, pick the guy you think is most likely to start for you right from day one based on his ability AND the baseline set by the guys already on your roster.

Pick the guy who you think gives you the greatest immediate net gain. It’s the only reasonable way to go about it.

by Grandmaster Wang on Jan 27, 2009 2:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No argument, except for this:

they’re really drafting for need (like everybody else, every single year)

Just because they have office jobs in the NFL, that doesn’t keep them from being morons. How else can you explain Janikowski going in the first round? Or ALL those wide receivers Detroit drafted? Or Payton picking Meachem? “Best player available, in my judgment” which really means “that’s the guy I wanted”.

Change is GOOD.

by stujo4 on Jan 27, 2009 2:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Al Davis felt like his team needed a kicker and he didn't want to let Shankikowski go to someone else.

Payton felt like we NEEDED a speedster at WR more than we needed any of the other guys available at that pick.

Both “best player available” and “drafting for need” are vague enough to be used to explain a litany of offenses carried out in the draft.

Another term tossed around by draft “experts” is that of the “value pick,” which is, I believe a variation or permutation of the “best player available” idea. Drafting a high “value pick” is when a team drafts someone they weren’t initially targeting because this player drops much farther in the draft than anyone was expecting, so a team can’t NOT choose this player because of the high value of the selection of this player. My feeling (like Wang’s) is that if it’s not based on a need or a perceived need, then it’s total BS.

The Detroit Lions are on the clock!

by HansDat on Jan 27, 2009 3:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points, but...

Best player > second best player. Even if second best player is #1 draft pick. But just because a veteran already on your roster winds up starting over your highly touted first-rounder doesn’t mean taking that player was a mistake, or a waste of a roster spot. Teams do that all the time with quarterbacks; why not with safeties?

Admittedly, the best scenario would be drafting a top-notch safety who makes the All-Rookie team, while McKenzie returns at corner and goes to the Pro Bowl. But if McKenzie turns out to play better than the rookie, he should start. And the rookie should sit and learn.

I agree, drafting for depth when you need starters is stupid. But if the Saints draft to fill a gaping void in their secondary, and after the draft find an even better way to fill it, what you have is a problem solved. In the final analysis, would we really care if every draft choice was a bust, so long as the Saints find some way to solve the problems that keep them from a Super Bowl?

(By the way…the guy arguing in that other thread that BPA is an illusion, was me.)

Oh when the Saints...Start kicking ass...You don't want to be in that number...

by MtnExile on Jan 27, 2009 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we almost completely agree, and have from the start

Interesting how this kind of thing works sometimes, huh? I think we’re pretty much exactly on the same page big-picture, but we’re each partial to a specific part of the overall strategy, and for the most part we’re just debating particulars. Which specific factor is more important to the overall logic, which we both agree on. Again, I love it when that happens.

Can we agree on this? Let’s say you’re choosing between Rey Maualuga and Vontae Davis. Let’s accept for purposes of the hypothetical that Maualuga is 20% better than Davis, who he’d be replacing as the pick, AND 20% better than Vilma, who he’d be replacing in the starting lineup.

But Davis, while 20% not-as-good as Maualuga, is 90% better than Jasson David, who would otherwise start.

Maualuga is the BPA by 20, but he only offers a 20 improvement over Vilma. Davis is not the BPA, but he offers a 70% greater impact over the other likely starter.

Don’t you take Davis?

by Grandmaster Wang on Jan 27, 2009 3:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My point exactly

I think you would have to go with Davis. Though, I don’t think Maualuga is better than Vilma or that Davis is the best option behind Jenkins either. I would like to see us trade down, take S. Smith, and hopefully have an extra pick to show for it.
by the way, is that Bea Author?

Hot Boudin, Cold Cous Cous, Comon Tigers Poosh Poosh Poosh!

by Barrylsu5 on Jan 27, 2009 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Okey dokey - yes, amazingly fascinating development of thoughts and ideas on draft strategies that overlap and spiral around - I LOVE THIS GAME!

Though, I don’t think Maualuga is better than Vilma or that Davis is the best option behind Jenkins either.

And that, my friend is another aspect of this that makes a huge impact on what happens.

We don’t know how the Saints rank the players or how valuable they see each one, and we won’t ever know it either.

The Detroit Lions are on the clock!

by HansDat on Jan 27, 2009 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nothing wrong at all

I would love to see that happen- actually that’s what I’m hoping for… My point is that (and I hope I’m wrong here) I don’t believe he has the stamina to keep it up all year… He is likely to beat out any youngster for starting position, but can he maintain is the question.
As things currently stand do you think we should draft Safety over Corner first?

Hot Boudin, Cold Cous Cous, Comon Tigers Poosh Poosh Poosh!

by Barrylsu5 on Jan 27, 2009 2:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

draft Safety over Corner first?

Yes. Even if you weren’t asking me.

Change is GOOD.

by stujo4 on Jan 27, 2009 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not only do I think we should

I think that’s Gregg Williams’ modus operandi. Build the defense from the rear forwards.

Oh when the Saints...Start kicking ass...You don't want to be in that number...

by MtnExile on Jan 27, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m a From The Rear man also.

Change is GOOD.

by stujo4 on Jan 27, 2009 3:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hello! Too much info. :)

by Grandmaster Wang on Jan 27, 2009 4:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the problem

I have trouble getting around (and maybe what Wang was referring to, not sure): Better plyers available at the corner position than at safety (in my opinion- could be wrong but I don’t stars in this year’s Safety selection). Do we take a decent Safety this year over a higher quality CB and then hope for a CB just as good or better next year when, in all likelihood, the available Safeties will be better? does that make sense? or am I off the reservation?

Hot Boudin, Cold Cous Cous, Comon Tigers Poosh Poosh Poosh!

by Barrylsu5 on Jan 27, 2009 3:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

No, you are quite in the middle of the reservation

I think questions in that area are exactly what Mis-Pay-Wil are mulling over right now.

They might even think to go decent S or CB early and then draft a development prospect later in the draft at the other position, but if there’s a great OLB/DE on the board when we pick at 14, that could be the way that they go.

The Detroit Lions are on the clock!

by HansDat on Jan 27, 2009 3:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"With the 14th

pick in the draft, the New Orleans Saints select……. Joe Smith… Long snapper from Botswana City College!"

Hot Boudin, Cold Cous Cous, Comon Tigers Poosh Poosh Poosh!

by Barrylsu5 on Jan 27, 2009 3:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

MMc Knee Cap?

When I heard broken Patella, I was like,do they mean ruptured patella tendon? b/c i Tivo(ed) that game (as i do all of them) slowed down the re-play ,and theres no contact other than him hitting the ground belly first, if it’s a broken knee cap don’t dr.s have to sub with an artificial one?Thought he would be a sintch to move to S and help younger guys, even if we draft a S or CB 1st rd. but that type of injury and the 4.5M might be too much ……metryman

by metryman on Jan 28, 2009 4:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

CB NOT FS for Mc Kenzie

I think, unless he appears totally uncapable of playing his original position, then he should play there at CB. If he is not able to play better than any of our other corners, I don’t want him to play safety. If he has lost that much- then I don’t want him at FS. I think it’s unrealistic (as well as an insult to FSs) to think a player such as McKenzie can be not good enough to function as a CB but be fast enough or durable enough or agile enough to play FS. The position of FS is VERY difficult, requires much speed, involves more physical contact than CB, involves opponents coming at you ( and your knees) from more angles and positions than CB, and is very hard to learn in a handful of games. Mc Kenzie is perfect size for CB, not really bult for FS, not at all suitable for SS. Nope, I say start him, sub him or cut him (and for the record I am a big fan of MM), but as far switching him to FS, I say let that be some other teams experiment. As far as the draft, to me that’s a no brainer. Try to get either a FS or CB in free agency and then draft whichever position you didn’t cover (or visa versa).

by Philinwood on Jan 29, 2009 7:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs