Peter King on CB's and their impact (1 Viewer)

[CitySaint]

I don't think being a highly ranked pass defense in certain years had anything to do with pass rush. IMO the defense has been below avg for years and they emphasize every other offseason upgrading the D-line talent and at the same time ignoring other issues.

I agree that having a pass rush is an important asset, but you can only invest so much in one area. What we currently have needs to be more effective before we go out looking for more top passrushing talent.

 

[BoNcHiE]

I don't think being a highly ranked pass defense in certain years had anything to do with pass rush. IMO the defense has been below avg for years and they emphasize every other offseason upgrading the D-line talent and at the same time ignoring other issues.

I agree that having a pass rush is an important asset, but you can only invest so much in one area. What we currently have needs to be more effective before we go out looking for more top passrushing talent.

You keep investing until it pays off. Until you have that pass rush nothing else matters. And we haven't invested that much. Grant and Smith over the last 7 years. Sullivan not working out set us back years as far as building this defense.

Its easy to say "I'm sick of pass rushers, lets get some CB's"...and I totally understand the sentiment.

 

[St. PJ]

Yall should know that I feel the same as Bonchie when I say that we need to fix our problems on the defensive line and at linebacker and even safety before we should really agonize over cornerback. Our corners look terrible and are the most obvious areas of weakness, but you must understand that curing the most obvious symptom doesn't mean we heal the defense. Matter of fact, a better approach would be to attack the virus head on, and give ourselves a pass rush and a fighting chance for whomever we have at cornerback.

That said, I have to disagree about one thing you said Bonchie. The stats concerning pass defense may be skewed. The only defensive stat that matters is points allowed. So we had a top three pass defense--- well, what was our TOP, their score, and were they instead running it all over us becuase they had the lead and no reason to throw (2005)? Two years ago Minnesota had the best rush defense. No one tried running on them becuase their pass defense was horrible. Thats what I mean about skewed stats. You can make any argument, they are all relative to how and what you say. Again, the only defensive stat that couts is points allowed.

 

[dtc]

I'm going to reveal the secrets of the universe to you guys, so pay attention.

Football is a team sport. It takes 11 guys on each side of the ball to make up a team. DEs and CBs maybe all the rage, but the greatest 10 D players in the history of football couldn't win a game against an average NFL offense.

 

[BoNcHiE]

That said, I have to disagree about one thing you said Bonchie. The stats concerning pass defense may be skewed. The only defensive stat that matters is points allowed. So we had a top three pass defense--- well, what was our TOP, their score, and were they instead running it all over us becuase they had the lead and no reason to throw (2005)? Two years ago Minnesota had the best rush defense. No one tried running on them becuase their pass defense was horrible. Thats what I mean about skewed stats. You can make any argument, they are all relative to how and what you say. Again, the only defensive stat that couts is points allowed.

I understand that criticism of the stats and knew someone would bring that up. The common thinking is that teams just chose to run on us instead of pass and thats why our pass defense was good. I think that played into it some. 2004 though kinda leaves you scratching your head. We were terrible against that run that year also, but also terrible against the pass. 32nd in defense overall. So why did teams not choose to just run all over us and not pass like they supposedly did in 2003/5/6 if we were really just as weak against the pass those years as 2004? I think its a little of both and the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Our pass defense wasn't really number 3 good, but they probably were legitemately top 15 in those years.

 

[Professor]

I just tried again,

Maybe I should reboot, yes I'm drunk again.

But I was serious, I can see "Stat of the week"

and the word "amuel", and (this is in bold there: Corey Webster , aaron ross, sam madison, dw mcQuarters, tom brady, nate clements, and Michael Lewis.

Is that a combination or what?

No, I reall can't read it. The non bold letters are garbage.


ddd

Same thing here... until I passed my mouse over the text and clicked with the little "+" magnifying glass hovering over the text to enlarge the picture.

 

[cruize]

I want all of you front 7 guys to tell me someone who will be available when the Saints pick that will make J. David and Bullocks look good. Rivers? He's certainly better than Shanle, but hasn't been a great pass rusher. Gohlston? He won't be available and would only be in a three man rotation. One of the Saints best defenders would be on the bench. Ellis and Dorsey are going to be gone. If not, it's a no brainer. But, looking at who's most likely going to be available, CB Talib is the player that will most improve the Saints defense.

 

[MSUSousaphone]

I put this in another thread:

Its just the flavor of the month (year). Last year the Colts won it all and it was ALL about continuity with players and a franchise QB. If the Pats had won it would be all about team chemistry or an awesome OL. With the Rams it was the passing game, Steelers was a coaching staff that had been there forever, DBs and LBs for the Ravens......it goes on and on. Next year the Jags could win and it will be all about CBs and RBs.

 

[Numbskull]

I understand that criticism of the stats and knew someone would bring that up. The common thinking is that teams just chose to run on us instead of pass and thats why our pass defense was good. I think that played into it some. 2004 though kinda leaves you scratching your head. We were terrible against that run that year also, but also terrible against the pass. 32nd in defense overall. So why did teams not choose to just run all over us and not pass like they supposedly did in 2003/5/6 if we were really just as weak against the pass those years as 2004? I think its a little of both and the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Our pass defense wasn't really number 3 good, but they probably were legitemately top 15 in those years.

Accept what is plain, simple, and oh so obvious. The Saints D is not a jiggsaw, they are hardly complicated at all.The Saints are what you would call "not so great" on the defensive side of the ball and it is possible to declare them terrible without much argument. The team has exhibitted six consistent seasons of defensive mediocrity for us all and that I believe is as polite as it can be said.

These stats "3rd in Passing Defense" you refer to are just clouding your judgement. How do you explain screwy stats? More Stats. Follow with me...

Besides being the #3 in Passing Defense in 06' the Saints were also:

1st in Total O, 5th in Scoring O, but 23rd in Rush Defense, and 31st in YPC Allowed - Teams were hardly rushing to pass when they could just as easily rip off 4.9 yards per carry and keep our offense off the field. Its easy logic to figure why the team faced the 9th most opp rush attempts and the 3rd least opp pass attempts.

32nd in Allowed Plays of 40+ Yrds, T31st in Passing TDs Allowed, T30 in INTs, T31 Takeaways - Note: Small amount of attempts, Large ammount of TDs, Large ammount of big plays.. Numbers that just go to show you that our secondary doesn't nessessarily need as much heat to be burnt to the darkest crisp of all. I would say these stats are much more telling to how efficiently our secondary was playing. Not alot of yards, but gave momentum/game changers up like gangbusters...

More?

Football Outsiders' Adjusted Rankings from 2005 to 2007 on a Defensive's Effectiveness of containing #1 & #2 Wideouts is a great read.... Here's where the Saints rank for each year....

2005
vs #1WRs - 29th
vs #2WRs - 29th

2006
vs #1WRs - 32nd
vs #2WRs - 18th

2007
vs #1WRs - 32nd
vs #2WRs - 23rd

And if that wasn't great, I can't wait to see next year's progress... Some might say I'm a dreamer, but a composite rank of 24th could be within reach with young studs like Usama and David taking the starter reigns...

Really, they're not good... haven't been in awhile... nothing really to confuse.