Hypothesis....your thoughts? (1 Viewer)

[saintsmarchin]

The loss was on ingram's toe.. let's not kid ourselves.. we excel with balance.. and we came out 1 dimensional and lost 1 dimensional

 

[Blackcricket]

I'll play the speculation game and say the Oline got its @^&(% whipped. But, since there's documented evidence from Cooks that can be read over and over again we can just overplay that angle as to why we lost.

 

[mither_rome]

I don't believe that he was on the field in the first series.

And it's not being hosted to the idea. It's just that the idea a dumb one.

You'll have to translate that one for me. Do you mean that idea of Cooks being involved more in the game plan as a reaction to his complaints was a dumb one?

I wasn't endorsing whether he was or wasn't - just that he shouldn't have complained publicly, because it opens him and the staff up to the speculation, and that he's not a big ticket enough of a player, thus far, to even air those complaints in the first place.

 

[VPCajun]

We went away from what was working on offense...because we tried to get the ball to Cooks after he complained....and instead ignored Thomas...who is the "straw that stirs the drink."

This is the biggest problem with the saints the last few years, IMHO. We know of the locker room problems, but the dominating narrative this week was of Cooks complaining, whining and moaning about not getting the ball...a prima donna.

Did our desire to appease the diva receiver (who isn't a complete, game changing receiver) cause our offensive woes today?

.

Moral of the Story:

Don't give in to Selfish Players.

.

 

[DSnfla]

My goodness , some of the most idiotic posts i've seen in a while SMH

 

[crosswatt]

You'll have to translate that one for me. Do you mean that idea of Cooks being involved more in the game plan as a reaction to his complaints was a dumb one?

I wasn't endorsing whether he was or wasn't - just that he shouldn't have complained publicly, because it opens him and the staff up to the speculation, and that he's not a big ticket enough of a player, thus far, to even air those complaints in the first place.

Autocorrect fail. I meant to say opposed. I just don't think it realistic to think that Cooks had any impact on the pacing of the game. He want targeted excessively, or out of a reasonable expectation of a successful play. And he was involved in say Kuhn's touchdown celebration, so there doesn't seem to be any issues within the team because of his comments.

I get why we are discussing it, but I just don't think that it's a thing.

 

[NorfolkedSaint]

I don't believe that he was on the field in the first series.

And it's not being opposed to the idea. It's just that the idea a dumb one.

That you call it a dumb idea is just so asinine. Perhaps we should just look at the idea objectively and then present your counterargument with statistical data and analytics to support your "claim".

This board used to stand for something.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[texasjefe]

We all had high hopes going into the game today so it was rough witnessing a full-on stinker. But give Detroit credit. They're a good team, they won on both sides of the ball, and they hit the home run ball when the Saints got to within six and finbally had some momentum.

I like this Saints team, finally feel like it's on the right track, and maybe just maybe we'll have a winning season next year. We need more at offensive line, running back (need a speed 3rd down back again), and rushing the passer.

As for Cooks, that is no issue whatsoever. Waste of time getting butthurt or saying he's butthurt. He is a young player and maybe not perfect in handling his frustration, but to villainize the guy is ridorkulous.

 

[krushing]

I blame Detroit.

*They have a HOF QB, which our DB's always fare badly against.
*Their WR's were amazing.
*They made us defend the run.
*Their ST played great.

Exactly. That's a huge part of it. A HOF QB who brought his " A" game. The part about cooks is true though. The lions are a perfect example. They lose the best receiver in football and Stafford gets better because he has no pressure to go to one guy.

 

[efil4stnias]

We went away from what was working on offense...because we tried to get the ball to Cooks after he complained....and instead ignored Thomas...who is the "straw that stirs the drink."

This is the biggest problem with the saints the last few years, IMHO. We know of the locker room problems, but the dominating narrative this week was of Cooks complaining, whining and moaning about not getting the ball...a prima donna.

Did our desire to appease the diva receiver (who isn't a complete, game changing receiver) cause our offensive woes today?

Yes.

SP game planned the last two weeks to get Cooks more involved because this week he went on twitter rant.

I don't really know how some of yall seriously come up with this stuff.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[Saints 4 life]

It wasn't Cook's fault, or Ingram's toe's fault. Wasn't the Lions' D, or our O-line's ability to give Brees time to throw. It was the Greenbrier's fault... duh

 

[los226]

The o-line was beat like a drum for the first time this season. It caused Brees to look scared out there and he made some poor decisions.

 

[play action]

The loss was on ingram's toe.. let's not kid ourselves.. we excel with balance.. and we came out 1 dimensional and lost 1 dimensional

only had twelve carries if I read the boxscore correctly,running game vanished this week. Seems to happen a lot when the o sputters. I do think mark was running well before his early injury, should have picked up the extra yard on one of his runs however.

 

[LoE]

They were just really good in coverage.

Slay is a top CB and covered Thomas really well.

No, I think there's more to it than that. Terron Armstead was out.

Ellerbe out - defense spirals.
Amrstead out - offense spirals.