Am I the only one?
 

Am I the only one who saw anything positive about the game in Seattle? We all went into this game worried if the secondary would be as dismal as they looked in preseason. The high powered Seahawk passing attack was pretty much non-existant Sunday. Hasslebeck and the highly touted receivers had less than 150yds passing all day. Take away a couple of pass interference calls and they would have been shut completely down.

Seattle had a good day running the ball. I don't think they did spectacular on the ground. I think Alexandar ran for 107 yds and their other back had about 50yds.

If I would have told anyone before the game that the Saints would have turned the ball over 4-times and the defense would have kept Hasselbeck under 150yds passing and Alexander would have had 107 yds and they would score only 27-pts -- most of you would have told me I was crazy.

The defense did not play that bad and they are not the reason we lost the game. The biggest reason we lost the game was because of turnovers. While it is in vouge on this board to bash the QB and the coaches, if anyone wants to tell the truth -- then you cannot overlook the 4- turnovers.

There is no doubt that our offense struggled. A lot of that can be attributed to costly penalties at the most inopportune times. A holding call that turns a 3rd & 3 into a 3rd and 13. Add in the fact that the receivers dropped the ball all day long and it's little wonder why the offense is struggling.

What I'm saying is that the Seahawks didn't do anything special on offense or defense. What happend is the Saints beat themselves with penalties, turnovers, and dropped passes. No one wants to lose but I came out of the game with the feeling that most of the mistakes that were made are easily correctable. Hopefully, the Saints offense will get back on track against Huston.

Am I the only one?
 

Billy you keep quoting the passing statistic as if it tells the story. The points on the board tell the story, the hawks had an effective day and scored. Much of the damage was done on the ground, remember how improved our run defense was supposed to be? Does\'nt Haslett say stopping the run is the most important thing to do? Our offensive ineptness contributed to a short field so the hawks didn\'t have to go far to put up points may times. To call the passing attack non-existant baised on that is missing he point. Sure the defense did\'nt give up much yards, there were not many yards to give up. You can pull out all the stats you want the Saints lost for good reasons and some of those reasons were on defense. The tackling was terrible again, they gave up big gains because of it. The fact is the defense may not of been the worst thing on the field Sunday they were far from good as well.


That is the problem, I don\'t find it so comforting to say the Saints beat themselves, that is always the mantra of losers. Every wek in the NFL the teams that win are the ones that do not make as many mistakes. The ones that lose comfort themselves by saying, we had chances, we did not excitue we we needed to, it\'s not like thay beat us we lost. Billy if these mistakes had only surfaced in just this one game I would call them easly correctable. These mistakes have been losing games for the Saints last year, all pre season, and now when they coun\'t. The span and consistancy of errors is getting a little to long for such blithe optimism. Penalities, turnovers, droped passes and missed tackles are what make bad teams bad. Every team can win if they don\'t do those things. Untill we find a way to not do those things we will lose and lose often. Does this staff know how to field a mentally tough team that will not shoot itself? We\'ll find out soon enough.



[Edited on 9/9/2003 by saint5221]

Am I the only one?
 

I sort of agree. But good teams don\'t drop balls all day long, don\'t turn the ball over 4 times, don\'t commit pre-snap penalties on 3rd down and short.

If we can just stop doing what bad teams do, we can become a good team.

You\'re right, those are correctable mistakes, but we haven\'t corrected them in about 8 games.
I think everyones fear is that Haslet and company are incapable of correcting the little things on both sides of the ball.

Last nights game was encouraging because Philly looked a lot worse than we did and I\'ll bet nobody\'s calling for McNabb\'s head or predicting dom and gloom for the Eagles.

[Edited on 9/9/2003 by tweeky]

Am I the only one?
 

First of all: 27 points is 27 points is 27 points is a lot. (Repeat after me)
Don\'t look at the stats, just look at what you saw on the field. They played ball control offense because that was all they needed to do. If the Saints would have taken the lead or shut down the run Hasselbeck would have thrown the ball downfield - and yes, I believe he would have torched our defensive backs for a TD or two, but that\'s not the point here. The point is our pass defense didn\'t look good just because they only gave up 137 yards. That\'s misleading, they weren\'t really taken to the test.
Not exactly what I call positive. You say these errors are easily corrected. Maybe, but the question was if anyone saw something positive in the game in Seattle. \"We will probably look better next week\" is not something positive.
My three keys to victory were: Pass rush, turnovers and avoiding penalties. Sadly, I was right.

Am I the only one?
 

Saints5221 -- I guess I did not get my point across. Here is my point: Turnovers, penalties, and dropped passes, cost us the game. I don\'t know why they happened. I do know Haslett and Venturi didn\'t do any of those things. How about let\'s forget last season and concentrate on THIS season. I\'m so sick of hearing about last season!! How many times are you guys going to beat that in the ground? Sure it may be relevant to the mistakes that happened against Seattle and maybe it\'s not. But, how many times do we need to hear this?

There was nothing wrong with the coaching or play calling. The offense put the defense into some positons where the Seahawks had a very short field. This has nothing to do with last year -- this has to do with holding on to the ball. It\'s really that simple. Nothing complicated about it.

The offense moved the ball up and down the field. The receivers dropped a lot of balls and the offense had way to many penalties that killed drives. Again, it\'s that simple.

Stat\'s do not tell the whole story and neither does comparing everything to last year. You don\'t turn the ball over 4 times, have 10 penalties for 110 yards and expect to win a game. Go ahead and blame the coaches if you want, but I don\'t get it.

Am I the only one?
 

clone --


Seattle had 270 yards of total offense, 151 rushing and 119 passing. 3rd down efficiency 3-12, 2-4 in red zone efficency, and 2-3 in goaltogo situations. They were forced to punt 7 times. One of Seattle\'s scoring drives - 7 plays, 3 yards! The Seahawks scored three touchdowns on drives of 3, 23, and 38 yards.

That sounds postive for the defense. Sounds like turnovers cost us the game. Do you see nothing positive in there?

Am I the only one?
 

Of course there are positives there are always positives, the problem is the negatives out weigh the positives. As to forgeting last season, I hate to issue over used conventional wisdom ,but it does fit here, Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Looking at last year is very relevant in this case because the play is the same, there is a continuum here. It tells us the problems of last year have not been fixed. If you bury you head in the sand every thing looks fine, if you come up for air you\'ll see a few things to be concerned about. There is no maybe about it\'s relevance, it is directly relevant to the core of the issue, how and why the Saints lose games. Looking at one game, one season only, will never tell you the whole story, You have to look at everything, see how it all fits together.

I say they did. When a team exibits a pattern of mental errors and lack of focus, this is within the realm of the coaching staff and it\'s tone and focus set. Some teams always execute well and make few mistakes, some teams always struggle, even when the personel changes. Why do you think that is? Coaching. Billy you love stats, they help understand things but only in context. Mark Twain said there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The stats miss the truth here. If you want the truth there is one stat you can look at, 27-10

Am I the only one?
 

Billy, I\'ll agree that the defense should not shoulder the burden of the loss. But, they didn\'t play well. You\'ve quoted all sorts of stats to show that they were effective, but as you also mentioned, Seattle played with a short field because of the turnovers and thus, didn\'t have to march the length of the field to score. The fact that we gave up equal passing and rushing yards only means that Seattle was not forced to throw to beat us. We gave up 50 yards rushing to a veteran fullback? Many of Alexander and Strong\'s rush yards came in blatant rushing situations. The Saints D had 8-9 in the box and they blasted for big carries. Our DL was 1-2 yards back of the line of scrimmage on every running play.....moving backwards. Our LBers were trapped behind the DL and couldn\'t see the ball carrier squirt outside until it was too late. And then there was the hideous tackling....that spoke volumes for itself.
What bothers me the most was all of the \"pillow talk\" from the players and coaching staff about how we will see the true defense in Seattle, about how we will unleash the beast. We did absolutely nothing differnt defensively against Seattle than we did in preseason. In this I\'m not just talking about poor play, but poor scheming. We still have that sweet vanilla coating.

The defense was put in a bad position all day. That is the truth. They didn\'t shut down anything though. The fact that Seattle didn\'t have to do anything special to win the game is the scariest thought here.

Turnovers, penalties and dropped passes cost us this game. Agreed. Few defenses could have overcome this position and I would not have expected ours to, but to say they had a good showing is very courteous of you to not want to hurt their feelings.

Am I the only one?
 

LummOX -- I never said the defense had a good showing. But, if it helps your post sound better, feel free to misquoute me all you want.

How do you figure the schemeing was bad? You just said we had eight in the box. Seattle did most of the damage running the ball. Maybe you would have put 10 in the box? What would you have done ole wise one?

Granted our denfense was not dominating and I didn\'t suggest that. What I said is that our defense did not cost us the game. They forced Seattle to punt 7- times and were put in bad situations. It\'s hard for most defenses to overcome that.

Everyone talks about Seattle running a ball control offense and using the clock up. Well, they lost in that attempt because we had the ball for 34 minutes despite our offense turning the ball over 4-times. Again, how do you explain that???

Am I the only one?
 

Looks like we need to hire a jockey to beat this dead horse some more. I got one last question for you Billy. If the Saints had the ball for 34 minutes as you said. Doesn\'t that speak volumns about how inept they were? How many times on average does an offense touch the ball in a given game? Maybe 8 or 9? To have touched the ball 8 or 9 or even 10 times in this game and have 4 turnovers leaves the percentage pretty high wouldn\'t you say?

Everyone likes to use quotes on this board so much. Here\'s one for you.

\"Statistics are for losers.\" Seems to me the man that said that was a pretty good coach.
Vince Lombardi.

Am I the only one?
 

Oh and one more thing. The only two stats that count are........

1. 27-10
2. 1 mark in the loss column

Am I the only one?
 

Joe -- If stats are for losers maybe no one on here should ever use them again? Why don\'t we make that a rule here on B&G. I don\'t want anyone to sound like a loser.

I think us having the ball for 34 minutes despite turning the ball over 4 times suggests that Seattle couldn\'t sustain time consuming drives.

The defense wasn\'t dominate by a long shot. I just wanted to see if anyone saw any positives out of them. Why don\'t you give me a list of what I can and cannot talk about? I just can\'t seem to make you happy.





[Edited on 9/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Am I the only one?
 

Billy I\'m not misquoting you.....but you are the master at diversion.

Bad scheming.....
how many blitzes did you see Sunday? We ran 4 men straight ahead, with few stunts. Any backfield pressure we did get was by pure pass rush moves by the players. The LBers stood in their lanes and then got blocked out of them. Even on these blatant run down where we had 8 or 9 in the box there is such things as a run blitz, but we simply stood in the gaps and got pushed out of them. But no scheming would make up for the simple fact that when our defender got his hands on the ball carrier at the line of scrimmage he was only feeling him up because he sure as hell wasn\'t tackling him. I guess no ole wise one can correct that....except maybe a coach. Our defense wasn\'t dominating, nor was it respectable and if it makes you feel optimistic that it was then good for you. You can pretend it was.

And I\'m sure glad we had the ball for 34 minutes.....we played a good game of hot potatoe with it.

And don\'t call me off the bandwagon because I can admit we stunk it up on Sunday. There was nothing positive about Sunday. A few players had respectable outings but I don\'t consider that positive, I consider that expected.

Am I the only one?
 

LummOx-- The fact of the matter is I stated some reasons I saw that were positive about the defense. I DID NOT say they had a good game. The saints defenders were in position to make most of the plays -- they just didn\'t make them. To blame that on scheming is a reach IMO.

I also have never said you were a bandwagon fan. But if you want to throw that in there to make your post look better -- feel free.

[Edited on 9/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Am I the only one?
 

It\'s called discipline, which is instilled by the coaches. Let\'s look at how many penalties the Cowboys had yesterday under head coach Parcells- oh, they didn\'t have any, what a shocker. That helped the mental midgets they have on offense not look as bad. Holmgren, Gruden, and Shanahan, all Super Bowl winning coaches, had no turnovers this past week.
Turnovers and penalties are going to happen to every team. Some teams have the defense that will make up for it (read New york Giants who will create more turnovers than the offense allows). We don\'t have the luxery of that type of defense, though.

Am I the only one?
 

Wow, a list of what you can and can\'t talk about on here. What a novel idea. Where in the hell did you get that?

As for the quote. Everyone else on here uses them, why can\'t I? If you feel that was aimed at you then maybe you have a guilty consience.
How many times have you posted that you will say what ever you want? More than I care to remember. Well I like all others have an opinion, and like all others it might stink, but it\'s mine. At least I allow others to disagree with me without getting defensive.

Think about, just think about reading what others post and let it sink in before you jump their case and call them pesimists or worse. We all love the Saints and want to see them do the best they can. It\'s just hard for us when they go out and perform like they\'ve never been on a football field in their lives. We all know that this is a better team than what was shown Sunday, that\'s what kills us. The fact that they are better than that and aren\'t performing up to their potential.

[Edited on 9/9/2003 by JOESAM2002]

Am I the only one?
 

Joe -- It\'s not that I don\'t think you are entitled to tell me or anyone else what you want to say. It\'s just I read a post the other day I made which was entirely about football and you felt the need to edit it. You didn\'t take anything out of it. you just felt obligated to tell me what to talk about, as if I should channge my opinion.

Just because I don\'t agree with the majorty here on B&G puts me at odds with them and why you feel the need to do whatever it is you do, I really have no idea.

I don\'t want to get into it with you, and that\'s not my intention, but why do u feel the need to edit my posts when I\'m talking about football. I can show you plenty of posts by other members that called members everything under the sun -- yet u edit none of them. I haven\'t called anyone anything, except a bandwagon fan. BIG DEAL.

[Edited on 9/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Am I the only one?
 

I was edited for posting a hole on another though it wasn\'t directed at anyone in particular. You\'re not being picked on, people get edited for all kinds of things, it\'s part of the TOS.


Plllllllllllllllllllllltttt! :P

[Edited on 9/9/2003 by JOESAM2002]

Am I the only one?
 

My God Billy, you do have a problem. I edited your post to save space in the thread. Or did you read what I typed in there at all? And yes I did edit B&B\'s A hole because it isn\'t something that should be on a family oriented board. I try to be unbiased but when a member pushs the envelope I have to do what the owner of the board expects of me. That I will do. You have to keep yourself in mind, I one the other hand have to keep about 1500 members from getting upset. Billy you\'re a nice guy but you take everything to personally. If a member has an opinion the isn\'t matched with yours you take it as a personal attack on you. It\'s not that way. Allow others to have their opinion. If it\'s wrong to you just say you think it\'s wrong don\'t try to create a bigger problem by telling them they\'re not a fan or they\'re stupid. We are all fans.

Am I the only one?
 

Joe -- I do not take it personal everytime someone disagress with me. You have to keep in mind when you go and post something on top of my post, it carries a little more weight than some bonehead telling me something Furthermore, I haven\'t told anyone they are stupid. Hell, my posts have gotten about as vanilla as the Saints defense.

I\'m sure a lot of things I say are wrong, but it don\'t change the way I feel at the time when I say \'em. If me telling someone they are a bandwagon fan offends them -- then they need to grow up. And I have since changed my mind about them being bandwagon fans -- they are fairweather fans.... :o

Joe -- It\'s hard for me to tell when you are posting as a member or a moderator. I really don\'t know what else I can do. Except quit being me.

Am I the only one?
 

LOL, you old as....I mean, \"codger\". Had me laughing on that one.

Am I the only one?
 

To answer the original topic question ... yes billy, it appears you are the only one. At least right now.

About the editing, I like it. I get bored and aggravated when I see people open a new topic about the same subject that is already on the board. Most of the time it appears it is done because someone thinks they have something important to say and they want to make sure everyone sees it. I have nothing against starting a new topic that originates of another post, but to say the same thing only throws othersnew topics farther down the page.

Am I the only one?
 

Oh no. You\'ve discovered my secret.

I misquote Billy to make my posts \"sound better\"..... and I use his terms to make my posts \"look better\".

Am I the only one?
 

I knew you were a phony :P

Am I the only one?
 

FWtex -- You\'re the last person who should be talking about beating a dead horse to death. About the only thing you have talked (whined) about is the coaching staff. Do you ever have anything to say that isn\'t related to coaching?

Why don\'t you just cut and paste the first post you ever made on here for every responce you make? You don\'t need to keep doing all that typing.

Am I the only one?
 

Billy, I have a feeling this is part of what Joesam was trying to get through to you. I did not point anyone out yet you seem to take offense to it.

I have only started a few topics that deal with the coaching. Most of the comments you have read have been to your screwed up logic ... like this one.

Your good for this board though billy. without you we would all be agreeing with one another and none of us would be sure we are smarter than the other. At least with you we know we are not as football ignorant as we could be.

Am I the only one?
 

FWtex -- You\'re good for something too --NOTHING-- That\'s really what I think about your gloom and doom theory -- NOTHING -- You can keep on talking about the coaches if you want and I\'ll keep on beleiveing that we can win.

You see FWtex -- The season is young and I\'m still standing firmly in my belief that we are a good team. If I\'m wrong it won\'t be the first time. I hope when the Saints start winning that you will be enough of a man and come back and tell us how ignorant you are.

Am I the only one?
 

when they continue playing like crap will you come back and admit what I already know about you?

Am I the only one?
 

Once the Saints are eliminated from the playoffs -- I will have to admit how blind I was. Until then -- I will not call into question every mistake that is made. I get pissed off at some of the stupid sh!t they do too. You can call me patient, optimistic, stupid , ignorant, what ever you want to call me. I hoped that the Saints would come out in mid-season form, but they didn\'t.

We got a big whole season ahead of us and one of us is going to be wrong. I like my chances. One game brother -- that\'s all we lost -- I don\'t care how bad we looked, I firmly believe that we will have a good year.

If all of this gloom and doom stuff applies because we lost the first game, then, we should be superbowl bound if we beat huston, huh??



[Edited on 9/9/2003 by BillyCarpenter1]

Am I the only one?
 

I gotta agree with FWTex. Sooner or later the coaching staff has to step up and accept the blame for the poor play of thier players.

If a big corporation is constantly losing money because the CEO and top management can\'t seem to hire the right employees or motivate the one they\'ve got, I\'ll guarantee that changes will be made, people will be held accountable and heads will roll -- starting at the top. It\'s the same in professional sports as it is in business or education or anything else of importance. Somehow, Benson and the SAINTS just don\'t seem to get it though.

They complain when the fans lose interest or don\'t buy enough tickets to games, but they don\'t seem to care whether or not they put on a quality performance for the fans that ultimately pay all of their salaries. So in my opinion, the fans certainly have the right to complain when they believe that the coaches are allowing an inferior product to be produced and if Benson (and BillyC.) doesn\'t realize that, they must not be all there.

No more excuses! Just get the job done. If you have talent, use it and get the most out of every player. If you don\'t, then get the talent you need and fast. But quit making lame excuses.

Just my rambling opinion,

Go SAINTS!!!!!

David in Houston

Am I the only one?
 

Ok you two, enough of the side show. From here on I start deleting posts completely. Ease up and get on to the next game.