Saints Looks like Saints will be without Thomas and Sanders [Covid List] on Sunday... (1 Viewer)

[sfidc3]

The saints didn't have a good defense in 2009 either but they could score 40 points at will against anyone and forced other teams into turnovers trying to keep pace.

From the first game of the season to the last with that firepower every fan in N.O. was confident the team would hoist the Lombardi.

That extreme confidence hasn't been back since.

Like I said. Wake me up when they win the sb this year and you all can tell me how wrong I was.

From the perspective of yards given up per game they were just ok. But they were a turnover forcing machine. Saying the offense was the reason for the turnover ratio is a bit disingenuous, like the defense had nothing to do with it? Right.....We had a +11 turnover margin, near or at the top of the NFL, was trying to find some stats on red zone defense but pretty sure we were better than average there as well.

We also won a few games because of the defense, the game that sticks out was the NY Jets game, the offense was pretty much stifled by a good Jets D, but the defense got some critical turnovers and I believe scored a TD. Then the following week against Buffalo they held the Bills to 7 points.

The offense got most of the accolades and there is no denying they scored a bunch of points, but the defense contributed as well, to say they didn’t have a good defense is dead wrong.....

 

[Loco Hornet Fan]

You mean the Dolphins game where they came back from like 20 points down to end up scoring 46?

Yes, I mean the Dolphins game when the offense's first drives went like this:
Punt
Interception
FG
Punt
Interception
Missed FG
Punt

The defense was absolutely not afforded the luxury of "playing with a 21 point lead". In fact, our first offensive touchdown was only set up by a fumble forced by the defense right before halftime. The defense then started off the second half with a 42 yard interception returned for a touchdown.

So for most of the first half, not only did the offense fail to score themselves, but interceptions actually set up touchdowns for the other team (the Dolphins had TD drives of 4 and 19 yards because of Saints turnovers).

So you mention coming back from 21 down (omitting that 14 of those points were due to turnovers) and act like the comeback was the result of nothing but offensive firepower, when it was really 14 points by the defense (directly or indirectly) that started said comeback.

Oh, and the Saints scored a 2nd defensive touchdown to help get to that 46 point mark you are touting.

Basically, the Miami game played out a lot different than you keep trying to make it sound.

The Bill's were never in that game and only scored one TD.

As for the Bills game, perhaps they were "never in the game" based on talent and probability, but the actual score was 10-7 in the 4th quarter. That's pretty darn close. And it is because our receivers and passing attack couldn't get going at all that day.
Brees only completed 55% of his passes for 172 yards and no touchdowns.

And don't you think it is fair to say that they only "scored one TD" because of a good game by the defense (who again, didn't have the luxury of playing with a huge lead)?

And any offensive success we did have against the Bills was because of our running backs and offensive line opening holes for them. We ran for well over 200 yards and 3 touchdowns.

This game was another example of a team effort and other position groups (outside of the receivers) carrying the Saints to a win. That's not a knock on the receivers or the passing game. I'm just saying that it takes more than that to go 13-0 and eventually win a championship.

Even without the two Defensive TDs the Saint's still scored enough to beat the Jets,though I will give you that it was one of their worst offensive performances because of Darrelle Revis.

Once again, no. This game did not occur at all the way you are describing.

We only scored 10 points on offense, which would have tied the Jets. The offense also set up the Jets' only touchdown of the game with a turnover (their TD drive was only 34 yards). We scored 14 points on defense. It is the only way that we won.

And since you stress the importance of the receivers allowing everyone to play with a big lead. Well against the Jets, it was consecutive defensive scores that opened up a 17 point lead for us. Our first/only offensive score came on a Pierre Thomas run midway through the 4th quarter.

If the defense hadn't given us such a lead, would we have been able to stick to our balanced (like it or not) gameplan (32 passes and 32 runs) and eventually get that offensive touchdown?

You can't just look at the final score and claim "even without the two Defensive TDs the Saint's still scored enough to beat the Jets". Even if that were mathematically accurate, there is no guarantee that the game would have actually played out like that. In fact, it looked like it probably would not have.

And the Vikings playoff game doesn't help your point. The Vikings were only in that game because the rush defense was so bad. They gave up 165 yards on the ground and 3 TDs while Brees passed for 3 tds and Thomas ran for another. Adrian Peterson's fumbles was their only saving grace on D and the most boneheadedplay in playoff history by Farve, while Courtney Roby quietly had a great game with 143 return yards on kickoffs that helped field position.

So you admit that 1) our special teams played a key role in the game ,and 2) our defense intercepted Favre twice, and recovered 3 fumbles.

Let's also keep in mind that our two running backs accounted for 71 of our receiving yards and 2/3 passing td's (adding another on the ground). The trio of Colston, Henderson, and Meachem COMBINED for only 80 yards and 1 td.

But somehow you are trying to spin this as a BAD example of a team win? You really think our receivers and passing game completely carried us in that game? I mean, really?

Wake me up when that type of dominance returns.

And that's the point. That type of dominance won't return without a good defense (or at least one that can generate timely turnovers and limit td's), a great offensive line, terrific running game, and good special teams play.

Our passing game was absolutely our strength in 2009 (and pretty much every year under Brees). But we weren't dominant just because of our passing game and wide receiver group (otherwise we would have won more than 1 Super Bowl). It takes a lot more than 1 element of the team playing well to be dominant, and yes, I think it is fair to say that it takes some measure of balance as well (although that doesn't mean you can't emphasize one thing over another).

The way you are trying to reimagine how a lot of these games actually played out, and unfairly hand-waving away the important contributions of other position groups has overtaken what could have been a perfectly reasonable opinion about the importance of wide receivers.

But it is clear that we are actually a lot further apart on this than I originally thought. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think it means that I really am going to simply disagree and move on. No sense in arguing forever.

 

[NOFALCONS10]

From the perspective of yards given up per game they were just ok. But they were a turnover forcing machine. Saying the offense was the reason for the turnover ratio is a bit disingenuous, like the defense had nothing to do with it? Right.....We had a +11 turnover margin, near or at the top of the NFL, was trying to find some stats on red zone defense but pretty sure we were better than average there as well.

We also won a few games because of the defense, the game that sticks out was the NY Jets game, the offense was pretty much stifled by a good Jets D, but the defense got some critical turnovers and I believe scored a TD. Then the following week against Buffalo they held the Bills to 7 points.

The offense got most of the accolades and there is no denying they scored a bunch of points, but the defense contributed as well, to say they didn’t have a good defense is dead wrong.....

The defense almost blew the nfccg and the SB.

Addai and Clark were murdering the front 7.

Tracy Porter was nearly the only person who showed up on D in both games.

The D was so bad Payton knew going into the game he would have to steal a possession with an onside kick.

 

[NOFALCONS10]

Yes, I mean the Dolphins game when the offense's first drives went like this:
Punt
Interception
FG
Punt
Interception
Missed FG
Punt

The defense was absolutely not afforded the luxury of "playing with a 21 point lead". In fact, our first offensive touchdown was only set up by a fumble forced by the defense right before halftime. The defense then started off the second half with a 42 yard interception returned for a touchdown.

So for most of the first half, not only did the offense fail to score themselves, but interceptions actually set up touchdowns for the other team (the Dolphins had TD drives of 4 and 19 yards because of Saints turnovers).

So you mention coming back from 21 down (omitting that 14 of those points were due to turnovers) and act like the comeback was the result of nothing but offensive firepower, when it was really 14 points by the defense (directly or indirectly) that started said comeback.

Oh, and the Saints scored a 2nd defensive touchdown to help get to that 46 point mark you are touting.

Basically, the Miami game played out a lot different than you keep trying to make it sound.


As for the Bills game, perhaps they were "never in the game" based on talent and probability, but the actual score was 10-7 in the 4th quarter. That's pretty darn close. And it is because our receivers and passing attack couldn't get going at all that day.
Brees only completed 55% of his passes for 172 yards and no touchdowns.

And don't you think it is fair to say that they only "scored one TD" because of a good game by the defense (who again, didn't have the luxury of playing with a huge lead)?

And any offensive success we did have against the Bills was because of our running backs and offensive line opening holes for them. We ran for well over 200 yards and 3 touchdowns.

This game was another example of a team effort and other position groups (outside of the receivers) carrying the Saints to a win. That's not a knock on the receivers or the passing game. I'm just saying that it takes more than that to go 13-0 and eventually win a championship.


Once again, no. This game did not occur at all the way you are describing.

We only scored 10 points on offense, which would have tied the Jets. The offense also set up the Jets' only touchdown of the game with a turnover (their TD drive was only 34 yards). We scored 14 points on defense. It is the only way that we won.

And since you stress the importance of the receivers allowing everyone to play with a big lead. Well against the Jets, it was consecutive defensive scores that opened up a 17 point lead for us. Our first/only offensive score came on a Pierre Thomas run midway through the 4th quarter.

If the defense hadn't given us such a lead, would we have been able to stick to our balanced (like it or not) gameplan (32 passes and 32 runs) and eventually get that offensive touchdown?

You can't just look at the final score and claim "even without the two Defensive TDs the Saint's still scored enough to beat the Jets". Even if that were mathematically accurate, there is no guarantee that the game would have actually played out like that. In fact, it looked like it probably would not have.


So you admit that 1) our special teams played a key role in the game ,and 2) our defense intercepted Favre twice, and recovered 3 fumbles.

Let's also keep in mind that our two running backs accounted for 71 of our receiving yards and 2/3 passing td's (adding another on the ground). The trio of Colston, Henderson, and Meachem COMBINED for only 80 yards and 1 td.

But somehow you are trying to spin this as a BAD example of a team win? You really think our receivers and passing game completely carried us in that game? I mean, really?


And that's the point. That type of dominance won't return without a good defense (or at least one that can generate timely turnovers and limit td's), a great offensive line, terrific running game, and good special teams play.

Our passing game was absolutely our strength in 2009 (and pretty much every year under Brees). But we weren't dominant just because of our passing game and wide receiver group (otherwise we would have won more than 1 Super Bowl). It takes a lot more than 1 element of the team playing well to be dominant, and yes, I think it is fair to say that it takes some measure of balance as well (although that doesn't mean you can't emphasize one thing over another).

The way you are trying to reimagine how a lot of these games actually played out, and unfairly hand-waving away the important contributions of other position groups has overtaken what could have been a perfectly reasonable opinion about the importance of wide receivers.

But it is clear that we are actually a lot further apart on this than I originally thought. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think it means that I really am going to simply disagree and move on. No sense in arguing forever.

See the problem is that we live in two different universes when it comes to defining "good defense."

My contention is that while good defenses tend to create a ton of turnovers, a truly good defense never has to RELY on them to win games.

Had Porter not made those two ints when he did, horrible play on defense would've cost them both games.

The defense put them in those bad situations both times.

 

[sfidc3]

The defense almost blew the nfccg and the SB.

Addai and Clark were murdering the front 7.

Tracy Porter was nearly the only person who showed up on D in both games.

The D was so bad Payton knew going into the game he would have to steal a possession with an onside kick.

The D was so bad....right....the Colts offense was really good also, but gloss right over that why don’t you....

So, turnovers by your defensive standard are no big deal...ok....it’s like you have never watched football or something....

Have you ever looked at the offensive stats in the NFCCG? We had only 257 yards of offense....we won because our defense forced so many turnovers. I mean, what the heck were you watching?

Last I checked it was a team game....

 

[NOFALCONS10]

The D was so bad....right....the Colts offense was really good also, but gloss right over that why don’t you....

So, turnovers by your defensive standard are no big deal...ok....it’s like you have never watched football or something....

Have you ever looked at the offensive stats in the NFCCG? We had only 257 yards of offense....we won because our defense forced so many turnovers. I mean, what the heck were you watching?

Last I checked it was a team game....

Turnovers are more a result of opportunism than skill and consistent defensive fundamentals.

The offense had 4 tds and Roby threw in another 143 yards on returns so they didn't have to post many yards.

People celebrating a few lucky ints must've loved it when Jason David posted 5 ints in 07.'

 

[Saint Spud]

The D was so bad....right....the Colts offense was really good also, but gloss right over that why don’t you....

So, turnovers by your defensive standard are no big deal...ok....it’s like you have never watched football or something....

Have you ever looked at the offensive stats in the NFCCG? We had only 257 yards of offense....we won because our defense forced so many turnovers. I mean, what the heck were you watching?

Last I checked it was a team game....

Yeah, if we're making a list of why that 2009 Saints team was great, the WRs would be 4th or 5th on the list.

1. Elite QB
2. Elite interior OLine (one of the best in NFL history)
3. Opportunistic defense which took away the ball at crucial times
4/5. Pass-catchers, including Bush and Thomas in the screen game & out of the backfield.

I'll ask this as a final argument: If you put the 2020 Saints WRs on that 2009 team, with everything else equal, is that team better, worse, or the same? I'm talking about prime MT, Sanders at this point in his career, Harris, etc. to go along with Reggie Bush, Pierre Thomas, Jeremy Shockey, etc? And that opportunistic defense?

I'd argue that the 2009 team is a perfect example of why we made the right choice with Ruiz instead of getting a WR.

 

[Loco Hornet Fan]

Yeah, if we're making a list of why that 2009 Saints team was great, the WRs would be 4th or 5th on the list.

1. Elite QB
2. Elite interior OLine (one of the best in NFL history)
3. Opportunistic defense which took away the ball at crucial times
4/5. Pass-catchers, including Bush and Thomas in the screen game & out of the backfield.

I'll ask this as a final argument: If you put the 2020 Saints WRs on that 2009 team, with everything else equal, is that team better, worse, or the same? I'm talking about prime MT, Sanders at this point in his career, Harris, etc. to go along with Reggie Bush, Pierre Thomas, Jeremy Shockey, etc? And that opportunistic defense?

I'd argue that the 2009 team is a perfect example of why we made the right choice with Ruiz instead of getting a WR.

Yeah, that’s a point I tried to bring up before, and am still confused about.

When compared to Colston, Henderson, Meachem, Lance, and late-career Shockey, is our current group of Thomas, Sanders, Tre’Quan, Callaway/Harris, and Cook really so bad?

If we can put together this WR group AND add guys like McCoy and Ruiz on the line, then what is the huge problem?

 

[Lustmord]

Man I'm excited about seeing this offense with Thomas, sanders and calloway all playing with Brees.