Rod Woodson nailed it! (1 Viewer)

[Kegger]

I agree we playing the falcons at the wrong time. Abraham back ... Hartwell back and they lost 3 straight in need of a win. The Saints always start the opposing team run. ( the steelers ravens and now the falcons)

Plus Colston will not play because he didn't practice today. I see another bengals type lost

The Falcons are playing US at the wrong time.

 

[Speck Killer]

I agree Kegger. Why can't it be that Atlanta is palying us at the wrong time? It is allways us that is running into the buzzsaw not the other way around.

 

[charlieT]

beachblum whats the Cox channel?

 

[dninc]

This board will be in utter chaos after we lose to the Falcrums.

Yeah they are desperate and so are we, It's gonna be one of those games where Whichever team makes the most mistakes with Turnovers and Penalties will come out the loser.
At least we can say our team don't give up when down and out of the game, ATL has been giving up after being dominated the past 2 games against bad teams.

 

[lifelongsaint]

we bette rrun the ball with deuce, not reggie. and stop the stupid mistakes and we win this game.

 

[CHI-TOWNSAINT]

we bette rrun the ball with deuce, not reggie. and stop the stupid mistakes and we win this game.

Deuce will never be the featured back he was under Haslett. The sooner you realize that the better, for you. Deuce will get carries, but he'll never average 20 carries a game ever again, at least not on this team.

 

[Danchrism]

Non-sense? Do you remember the Eagles game? Do you remember Payton's strategy? Ball control offense. We won that game. We ended that game with a 8+ minute drive! If we go into shootout mode, turnovers become more of an issue and we do NOT GIVE OUR WEAK SECONDARY REST! It is pretty black and white to me...

I wasn't even thinking about giving the secondary rest, I was thinking more about their on-field presence opening things up for the OTHER team (just like how Bush opens up everything for us...)

That POV difference aside...

quoted for truth.

 

[St. Pike]

Non-sense? Do you remember the Eagles game? Do you remember Payton's strategy? Ball control offense. We won that game. We ended that game with a 8+ minute drive! If we go into shootout mode, turnovers become more of an issue and we do NOT GIVE OUR WEAK SECONDARY REST! It is pretty black and white to me...

If running is effective, you run. If passing is efective while running isn't, you pass. Balance is relative. You have balance when the defense is unbalance.

There is a false belief that passing instantly means high explosion fast scoring mentality. The simple fact is this is false. The West Coast Offense was always predicated on balance, but it was necessarily a pass happy offense. In some games it was more of a running attack.

Every play there is a risk of a turnover.

Every team would like to be balance because balance means that you have the defense off balance. Sometimes, however, to be more effective, you must pass more when team are not honest.

Do not mistake my comments as anti- run. If you know y philosophical approach to the game, then you will know that I would prefer to run on virtually every play. The theory is great, though impractical in reality. I am a pragmatist. I will do what is best or effective in order to score. If this means passing more than running, even at a 2-1 ratio, then I will do it.

At the end of the game and/ or half, there are other factors involve. Maintaining possession of the ball may be crucial in ensuring a victory. The ideal situation is always to run it. This in mind, there are time left, points ahead, and players condition and determination.

This is black and white to me, but then again, I take a more abstract approach to balance than most. I suppose

 

[hawaiiansaint]

If running is effective, you run. If passing is efective while running isn't, you pass. Balance is relative. You have balance when the defense is unbalance.

There is a false belief that passing instantly means high explosion fast scoring mentality. The simple fact is this is false. The West Coast Offense was always predicated on balance, but it was necessarily a pass happy offense. In some games it was more of a running attack.

Every play there is a risk of a turnover.

Every team would like to be balance because balance means that you have the defense off balance. Sometimes, however, to be more effective, you must pass more when team are not honest.

Do not mistake my comments as anti- run. If you know y philosophical approach to the game, then you will know that I would prefer to run on virtually every play. The theory is great, though impractical in reality. I am a pragmatist. I will do what is best or effective in order to score. If this means passing more than running, even at a 2-1 ratio, then I will do it.

At the end of the game and/ or half, there are other factors involve. Maintaining possession of the ball may be crucial in ensuring a victory. The ideal situation is always to run it. This in mind, there are time left, points ahead, and players condition and determination.

This is black and white to me, but then again, I take a more abstract approach to balance than most. I suppose

We abandoned the run against Pit and Cincy while the score was very close. In Pits case we had the lead.If you have to adjust because of what a defense is giving you, then pass the ball. We have abandoned a balanced attack on our own. So 600 yards or not the playcalling was an issue and Rod Woodson nailed it as did Jaws last night on NFL matchup. Until stopped we must make a legitimate effort to pound the ball.

 

[Zardnok]

If running is effective, you run. If passing is efective while running isn't, you pass. Balance is relative. You have balance when the defense is unbalance.

Every team would like to be balance because balance means that you have the defense off balance.

Deep thoughts!

 

[St. Pike]

We abandoned the run against Pit and Cincy while the score was very close. In Pits case we had the lead.If you have to adjust because of what a defense is giving you, then pass the ball. We have abandoned a balanced attack on our own. So 600 yards or not the playcalling was an issue and Rod Woodson nailed it as did Jaws last night on NFL matchup. Until stopped we must make a legitimate effort to pound the ball.

What evidence is there to support that we gave up abandoned the run? Simply not running the ball doesn't necessarily mean we abandone the run. The condition of the game may have altered the game plan.

If you read any of my post, Ido not give too much weight to the so- called "experts." In fact, Jaws is good an analyzing why plays work and why they don't. To my knowledge, he has little experience coaching. BTW, how exactly do you know that Rod "nailed it?" Is it because he agreed with you, or you were convinced by his arguments?

The facts are we are not going 3 and out,... we are moving the football. We are turning the football over. If we were not moving the football downthe field, I would say, "yes," we need to do something different.

 

[hawaiiansaint]

The evidence was in the pudding. Dude I watch the games thats my evidence. Rod saying the same thing I said just makes me believe that others are seeing the same thing I am regardless of there stature. Jaws was a QB and he said we need balance, For effect I'll rewrite that a QB said we need more balance. It seems to me that maybe you read the boxscores and dont really watch the games. Balance is more than just ball movement its about options and well balance. I dont know dude you either get it or you dont. I'm not trying to be rude, but some times people see things differently. I'm sure we both just want to see them win. GO SAINTS

 

[K-SWIB]

If running is effective, you run. If passing is efective while running isn't, you pass. Balance is relative. You have balance when the defense is unbalance.

There is a false belief that passing instantly means high explosion fast scoring mentality. The simple fact is this is false. The West Coast Offense was always predicated on balance, but it was necessarily a pass happy offense. In some games it was more of a running attack.

Every play there is a risk of a turnover.

Every team would like to be balance because balance means that you have the defense off balance. Sometimes, however, to be more effective, you must pass more when team are not honest.

Do not mistake my comments as anti- run. If you know y philosophical approach to the game, then you will know that I would prefer to run on virtually every play. The theory is great, though impractical in reality. I am a pragmatist. I will do what is best or effective in order to score. If this means passing more than running, even at a 2-1 ratio, then I will do it.

At the end of the game and/ or half, there are other factors involve. Maintaining possession of the ball may be crucial in ensuring a victory. The ideal situation is always to run it. This in mind, there are time left, points ahead, and players condition and determination.

This is black and white to me, but then again, I take a more abstract approach to balance than most. I suppose

WHAT UTTER NON-SENSE! Look at the results from today. Look at the red-zone possessions.