Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

deuce?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Yeah, he does seem a little slower, but our O line just isn't providing any protection...not for the run, not for the pass. On most plays, the D is getting past our O in the blink of an eye. I'm ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-28-2005, 09:09 AM   #11
100th Post
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 250
Yeah, he does seem a little slower, but our O line just isn't providing any protection...not for the run, not for the pass. On most plays, the D is getting past our O in the blink of an eye.

I'm not terribly fond of AB, but I can't fault him as much this year as I have in the past...he's getting NO protection on most plays.
Equally, it's a rare play that Deuce has a decent hole to run through.

The blame can't be put on any one player or group of players...to fail at this level is a team failure, top to bottom.

fh
fhotard is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 09:13 AM   #12
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
We sacked Culpepper 7 times. Brooks was sacked 3. Somehow, Culpepper seemed to make the plays needed for his team to win the game, with Travis Taylor, Marcus Robinson, Jermaine Wiggins, rookie williamson, and Mewelde Moore, as opposed to pro bowl Joe Horn, Donte Stallworth, Deuce Mcallister, and Ernie Conwell and Devery Henderson. He had just as much pressure as Brooks. I ain't buying that O-line not giving time crap again. If you have QB who can make quick reads and better decisions, you don't need a lot of time.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 09:21 AM   #13
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by saintswhodi
We sacked Culpepper 7 times. Brooks was sacked 3. Somehow, Culpepper seemed to make the plays needed for his team to win the game, with Travis Taylor, Marcus Robinson, Jermaine Wiggins, rookie williamson, and Mewelde Moore, as opposed to pro bowl Joe Horn, Donte Stallworth, Deuce Mcallister, and Ernie Conwell and Devery Henderson. He had just as much pressure as Brooks. I ain't buying that O-line not giving time crap again. If you have QB who can make quick reads and better decisions, you don't need a lot of time.

Not sure if I can accurately comment since I was only able to listen to the game on the radio instead of TV (damned Fox 33 was out due to storm issues)......but didn't the majority of the sacks on Culpepper happen in the 2nd half? Coincidently enough, the Vikings were pretty much shut out in the 2nd half as a result....until late in the 4th qtr when the Saints had shot themselves in the foot one time too many.

As for the QB decisions, it's important to remember that Brooks was in more of a position to have to gamble, as opposed to Culpepper who was blessed with being able to build up a 24-0 lead before the sacks really started pouring in. Notwithstanding, Brooks played horrible in this game, and I hope to hell he bounces back against Buffalo.
TheGambler is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 09:31 AM   #14
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
What game were you watching. err listening to? Turnovers gave the Vikes that lead, one from Stecker on the opening kickoff where they started in the red zone, one from Brooks' INT. The drive before Brooks' INT he threw a pass to Meier that got him jacked up like Conwell, and a pass to Donte Stallworth that hit him on the back of his feet on an out. As a matter of fact, there was a point in time where the Fox affiliate showed all the open receivers Brooks missed, either through not seeing them, or bad passes. You switch Brooks for Culpepper, we win. Let's not forget we were driving and only down 8 when he threw the INT that killed us. The Vikes had 147 total yards rushing, we had 114. Not a big difference, especially when you factor in we were averaging 5.7 yards per rush to their 3.9. Our first 7 possessions went fumble, punt punt, INT, punt, punt, punt, mainly on the back of bad passes. Plus we sacked Culpepper FOUR TIMES in the first half, as opposed to two for Brooks, which means he was only sacked once more inthe second half, so no the majority of the sacks on Culpepper did nto occur in the secodn half. Here's the gamebook:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebo...0050925_NO@MIN
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 09:39 AM   #15
100th Post
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 250
I agree that Culpepper had lots of pressure on him too. But before the pressure was on him, the Vikes built up a big lead. With good pressure, the Vikes O was pretty much shut down.

Team Failure.
For the first two quarters, it looked like none of our beloved Saints were in the game mentally. QB, RBs, O line, D, it was a sad sight.

The 3rd quarter looked pretty good, points on the board, good pressure on Culpepper. The D started getting fired up. They were mounting a pretty good comeback...then it all fell apart again.

Time to revive that old joke from the 80's: What do the Saints have in common with a tampon? Only good for 1 period.
fhotard is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 09:46 AM   #16
Site Donor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 11,078
Blog Entries: 5
Another year with your griping about the O- line ???
Looks like it. You've seen something in them this year that causes you to feel differently then? Let's hear it.
saintfan is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 09:49 AM   #17
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 2,540
as far as deuce himself he still doesn't look quite as quick or fast to me either. he may not be elite but he is still very good. good enough to carry the load for a succesful running game. i think smith a great backup too btw. he does have 12 catches so far that is more towards his '03 69 total rather than the 34 last year. he got 1000 yds on a leg and a half last year. less than 1200-1400 (with no injuries) would be a disappointment. it will take about 85 yds a game to reach that.
LKelley67 is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 09:52 AM   #18
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by saintswhodi
What game were you watching. err listening to? Turnovers gave the Vikes that lead, one from Stecker on the opening kickoff where they started in the red zone, one from Brooks' INT. The drive before Brooks' INT he threw a pass to Meier that got him jacked up like Conwell, and a pass to Donte Stallworth that hit him on the back of his feet on an out. As a matter of fact, there was a point in time where the Fox affiliate showed all the open receivers Brooks missed, either through not seeing them, or bad passes. You switch Brooks for Culpepper, we win. Let's not forget we were driving and only down 8 when he threw the INT that killed us. The Vikes had 147 total yards rushing, we had 114. Not a big difference, especially when you factor in we were averaging 5.7 yards per rush to their 3.9. Our first 7 possessions went fumble, punt punt, INT, punt, punt, punt, mainly on the back of bad passes. Plus we sacked Culpepper FOUR TIMES in the first half, as opposed to two for Brooks, which means he was only sacked once more inthe second half, so no the majority of the sacks on Culpepper did nto occur in the secodn half. Here's the gamebook:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebo...0050925_NO@MIN
One sack occured on Culpepper during their 17-0 run. Hard to fight back from that. As for all the other stuff......I think I covered that when I said this:

Originally Posted by TheGambler
Notwithstanding, Brooks played horrible in this game, and I hope to hell he bounces back against Buffalo.
TheGambler is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 10:00 AM   #19
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
I thought we were hoping he "bounced back" from the horrible Giants game? How many "hope he bounces backs" does he need? lol
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 09-28-2005, 10:03 AM   #20
500th Post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 600
Well, Culpepper apparently needed 2.

So maybe that's Brooks's magic number .
TheGambler is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts