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

Sheppard to replace McCarthy

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index...8605203240.xml Saints promote Sheppard to OC. Turk Schonert the new QB coach. Anyone have any thoughts about this? Yes!! It sucks!! BIG TIME!! This means another 8-8 season with Leon at the QB position. We\'re hosed. Yea i don\'t guess ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2005, 08:08 PM   #11
Cold as Ice!
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Da Big Easy
Posts: 2,978
Sheppard to replace McCarthy

http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index...8605203240.xml

Saints promote Sheppard to OC. Turk Schonert the new QB coach. Anyone have any thoughts about this?
Yes!! It sucks!! BIG TIME!!
This means another 8-8 season with Leon at the QB position. We\'re hosed.
Yea i don\'t guess a 32nd rkd D had ANYTHING to do with 8-8 :casstet:
FireVenturi is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 08:28 AM   #12
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,762
Sheppard to replace McCarthy

Seems odd to me that Haslett couldn\'t find anyone else in the league interested in being our O-coordinator. Sheppard is pretty much the last option he had.

I wonder what other coaches in the league think about the current front office/coaching staff?

Now everything is riding on free agency. I\'m not prepared to write off next season yet, but I\'m one step closer in that direction.

BTW, what are Turk (career backup) Schonert\'s chances of actually getting the current QB to listen to him?

[Edited on 6/2/2005 by BrooksMustGo]
BrooksMustGo is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 10:37 AM   #13
The Professor
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lithonia, GA
Posts: 1,408
Sheppard to replace McCarthy


Yes!! It sucks!! BIG TIME!!
This means another 8-8 season with Leon at the QB position. We\'re hosed.
Yea i don\'t guess a 32nd rkd D had ANYTHING to do with 8-8 :casstet:
32nd depends on the stats. The team gave up the most yards, but not the most points. They finished 28th in points given up.

FV I\'m glad to see someone that actually gets it.

I\'m going to keep putting out this stat until someone comments on it. In the last 4 years the Saints, with Brooks as QB are 20-8 when the opposition is held under 21 points including 4-0 in the season ending winning streak. A 715 winning percentage. In the first 12 games of the 2004 season, the team gave up 20 or more points in each of those 12 games.

The one thing I think we can all agree on is that we would like the Saints to be a consistent winner that goes deep into the playoffs. Teams of that caliber have one consistent theme: good defense. 3 of the teams in the final 4 finished 1-3 in scoring defense, and the 4th (Atlanta) held the opposition under 20 points in half of their games.

Brooks is tangential to the fundamental problems that the team has in consistently winning games.

The one area I really want to see improvement in is total offensive turnovers. Last year Brooks contributed 19 turnovers, with 11 lost fumbles. This year the lost fumbles were cut down to 2, but he doubled his INTS, so the total turnovers were still 18. In an ideal season, you\'d like to see that number between 10 and 15. Peyton Manning\'s 10 INTs and no lost fumbles was exceptional this year for example.

Personally I find the call for Brooks head unresonable. While he can be a knuclehead that needs to keep his yap shut, between the lines his play is more than enough to helm a championship caliber team. He isn\'t great as he claims. But he is really good. And really duable. And really consistent. And while most of the BMGAAC crowd dismisses these for lack of leadership, lack of smarts, and bonehead plays, the fact of the matter is that a QB with the kind of numbers that Brooks has shown over the last 4 years can lead a team deep into the playoffs.

But you need a decent defense, especially scoring defense. Get the scoring average under 21 PPG and you\'ll have a team with a 700+ winning percentage, vying for the division, and a playoff bye.

SFIAH

SFIAH

The Saints have three consecutive 10 win seasons and a SB championship.

I can hardly believe this happened in my lifetime.
SaintFanInATLHELL is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 11:29 AM   #14
Cold as Ice!
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Da Big Easy
Posts: 2,978
Sheppard to replace McCarthy


Yes!! It sucks!! BIG TIME!!
This means another 8-8 season with Leon at the QB position. We\'re hosed.
Yea i don\'t guess a 32nd rkd D had ANYTHING to do with 8-8 :casstet:
32nd depends on the stats. The team gave up the most yards, but not the most points. They finished 28th in points given up.

FV I\'m glad to see someone that actually gets it.

I\'m going to keep putting out this stat until someone comments on it. In the last 4 years the Saints, with Brooks as QB are 20-8 when the opposition is held under 21 points including 4-0 in the season ending winning streak. A 715 winning percentage. In the first 12 games of the 2004 season, the team gave up 20 or more points in each of those 12 games.

The one thing I think we can all agree on is that we would like the Saints to be a consistent winner that goes deep into the playoffs. Teams of that caliber have one consistent theme: good defense. 3 of the teams in the final 4 finished 1-3 in scoring defense, and the 4th (Atlanta) held the opposition under 20 points in half of their games.

Brooks is tangential to the fundamental problems that the team has in consistently winning games.

The one area I really want to see improvement in is total offensive turnovers. Last year Brooks contributed 19 turnovers, with 11 lost fumbles. This year the lost fumbles were cut down to 2, but he doubled his INTS, so the total turnovers were still 18. In an ideal season, you\'d like to see that number between 10 and 15. Peyton Manning\'s 10 INTs and no lost fumbles was exceptional this year for example.

Personally I find the call for Brooks head unresonable. While he can be a knuclehead that needs to keep his yap shut, between the lines his play is more than enough to helm a championship caliber team. He isn\'t great as he claims. But he is really good. And really duable. And really consistent. And while most of the BMGAAC crowd dismisses these for lack of leadership, lack of smarts, and bonehead plays, the fact of the matter is that a QB with the kind of numbers that Brooks has shown over the last 4 years can lead a team deep into the playoffs.

But you need a decent defense, especially scoring defense. Get the scoring average under 21 PPG and you\'ll have a team with a 700+ winning percentage, vying for the division, and a playoff bye.

SFIAH

SFIAH
:yourock: For ex. the Ravens won a Sb with Trent\"stinkin\" Dilfer at QB, and the Bucs with Brad Johnson. :shrug:

Season Ticket Holder Since 2003
Section 149, Row 14, Seats 15 and 16 Baby!
FireVenturi is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 12:40 PM   #15
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,288
Sheppard to replace McCarthy


Yes!! It sucks!! BIG TIME!!
This means another 8-8 season with Leon at the QB position. We\'re hosed.
Yea i don\'t guess a 32nd rkd D had ANYTHING to do with 8-8 :casstet:
32nd depends on the stats. The team gave up the most yards, but not the most points. They finished 28th in points given up.

FV I\'m glad to see someone that actually gets it.

I\'m going to keep putting out this stat until someone comments on it. In the last 4 years the Saints, with Brooks as QB are 20-8 when the opposition is held under 21 points including 4-0 in the season ending winning streak. A 715 winning percentage. In the first 12 games of the 2004 season, the team gave up 20 or more points in each of those 12 games.
..well, I\'ll comment on it...

.. first off, I\'m NOT a stats guy... stats are for baseball.. anyone who\'s ever taken any sort of math at a high level knows that averages (which is what most stats are ) are the least effective way to quantify anything, especially when different factors affect the outcome of each instance in a different way...
for example, if you look at total offense and total defense stats, Denver has the highest combination of both ranks (5th total offense and 4th total defense), so on average, they are better than anyone else...
.. if we look at a combination of total points scored by offense vs total points allowed by defense, using stats, we cannot explain why the Chiefs ended 7-9 since their offense averaged 30 points scored a game while the defense only yielded 27 points a game..,

... I am not going to say that the Saints defense is good, because it is not. You need only a pair of eyes to see they can\'t stop the run, and that is just no good in football no matter how you slice it.... having a good defense is obviously a good thing: if the opposing team can\'t score, you have a better chance to win the game, given that your offense can score and doesn\'t give up a turnover or two that go the other way for defensive TD\'s...

... but let\'s take a look at the dynamics here:
... everyone has heard the \" if the defense didn\'t spot the opposition 21 points...\" routine... you know, if the defense didn\'t spot the other team 21 points, we wouldn\'t have to abandon the run, and then the offense wouldn\'t become one dimensional, then they wouldn\'t commit as many mistakes, etc. etc. etc....

..and that is somewhat of a valid argument... I say somewhat, because, yes, being down by 21 points does tend to make a team one dimensional... however, I don\'t know of any football play that yields 21 points... to score 21 points, a team needs at least 3 possessions, which means that the other team\'s offense had the ball at least that many possessions... of course, there could\'ve been a series of unfortunate special teams events: for example, the other team could\'ve kicked and recovered 3 on-side kicks, and gone down to score each time... but we know that\'s not the case...

... in the Saints case, it means that the offense has gotten the ball at least 3 times and did nothing with it. You have seen it, it\'s not a stat: 3 and out, punt, the other team scores.. 3 and out, punt, the other team scores... and here\'s where the other team gets control of the game...

.. so you really have a combination of 2 things: the inability of the defense to stop anyone early, and the inability of the offense to score early...
...offense gets ball, 3 and out, punt, other team gets ball in good field position, defense can\'t stop the run, other team scores... repeat cycle...
..so, while the offense may look good while trying to catch up (i.e, get good stats because they rack up a lot of yards, score a lot points late in the game when it doesn\'t matter, etc...) , they are as much to blame for the entire team\'s woes...


... and that\'s no stat...





[Edited on 6/2/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]

La neta es chida, pero inalcanzable
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 01:01 PM   #16
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
Sheppard to replace McCarthy

Excellent, excellent breakdown tobias. Superb. Trying to explain that is like spitting in the wind, but you did an exceptional job. I have repeatedly wondered why a D that has an offense with a QB who leads the league in red zone turnovers, and can\'t score in the first quarter, and barely the first half, and add to that giving free points to the opposing team\'s D is held accountable for everything. It\'s only a matter of watching the games to see, yeah, the defense was bad, but the offense was worse EVERY first quarter, and giving away points and keeping your own offense from scoring in the red zone CERTAINLY DOES NOT help that at all.
saintswhodi is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 04:05 PM   #17
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,704
Sheppard to replace McCarthy

hey i just hope our offense doesnt get any worse. but not scoring in the first quater nearly every game this year ,well i cant imagine that happens again
spkb25 is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 06:04 PM   #18
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,704
Sheppard to replace McCarthy

wouldnt surprise me gatorman. i mean we know thathe isnt making those decisions. i just wonder what changes he was talking about when he was talking about staying there. i also wonder how much adding that other guy as part of the d but not as coordinator had to due with him wanting a replacement. i cant say im right i just dont know. but theres a reason that guy is in some newly created position
spkb25 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts