GumboBC

Oh how I love me some FACTS!!

Thanks for getting that info, JKool. I know it must have taken a while!!

While our 3 and outs aren\'t that bad, I\'m pretty sure our \"scoring\" in the 1st quarter was pretty bad.

Much of that can be blamed on our running game, though. I think though the first 12 games our running game was almost DEAD LAST in the NFL.

Hell, for that matter, it was almost DEAD LAST at the end of the year. 27th to be exact.

JKool

Well Billy, if I had to bet, I would say that scoring is strongly correlated with wins and losses...

kevinn1972

Our 3 and out numbers aren\'t enormously bad but I\'d be willing to bet the time spent on our side of the field is what killed us. Also, I believe the ineffective offense DID hurt our D. Our offense did nothing to put pressure on the other team\'s offense. If a team ended up having to punt it was really no big deal because they would have every confidence that their D would shut us down. Which, most of the time was a correct assumption. Teams were able to take a few more risks with their play calling because of this, thereby making their offense less predictable. Don\'t get me wrong, our defense was HORRIBLE most of the year, but our offensive ineptitude certainly didn\'t help. And we lost the game of field position all year. That was a big hurt too.

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your crotch, and your arms be too short to scratch.

TayTay

Agree 100%. Our offense gave no help to the D. They always were either inconsistent on the O-Line or huring at RB. I expect much better next year. But then again, I always do.

GumboBC

Hey, I really wish I could say our offense hurt our defense. That would make me feel much better about our defense next year. But, our defense stunk so bad, I just don\'t think our offense had much to do with it.

I\'ve watched football for a long time and I know a bad defense when I see one. They were baaaaaad!!

The offense had it\'s problems too. And I\'m going to lay that blame on the offense, not the defense.

I ain\'t makig any excuses for either one of them. There\'s reason\'s why they both stuggled. But the offenses problems are mostly on the offense and the defensive problems are mostly on the defense.

kevinn1972

All I\'m saying is that field position plays a huge part in play calling and strategy. Our offense would punt and the opposition would get the ball on their 35 or 40. That puts them two decent passes away from a field goal. On the rare occasion our offense would move the ball a little and ended up punting, our defense did let them move it too much, so that\'s on them. But another reason I hold the O partially accountable for the D is because if you give a pro offense, except Chicago, enough opportunities, they WILL score. There\'s just too many good players in this league for them not too. And the offense just wasn\'t moving the chains enough too keep the other team\'s offense off the field. The offense definitely had an effect on the D IMHO.

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your crotch, and your arms be too short to scratch.

xan

From JKool quote:
________________________________________________________
Our opponents had the ball almost 2 minutes longer than we did per game.
________________________________________________________

I attempted in another thread to analyze this beter, and I\'ll attempt to summarize (it\'s really nearly 3.5 minutes longer, actually, as 31:42 - 28:18 = 3:24)

The Saints offense held the ball, on average, nearly 14:12 in the 1st half in 2004.

1st Quarter TOP was 6:59
Of the 50 drives that started in the 1st quarter:
21 drives were 3 and out punts (14% of total TOP)
9 drives of 7 plays or longer
with only 1 FG
with 5 turnovers
accounted for 21% of total TOP

Of the 31 drives that went 3 plays or less in the 1st quarter,
there were
2 fumbles,
2 touchdowns,
5 drives that continued into the 2nd quarter

Of the 19 remaining 1st quarter drives that were 4 plays or more:
6 resulted in punts,
3 turnovers on downs,
3 fumbles
1 INT
2 FG
0 TDs
and 4 drives continued into the 2nd quarter.

average drive was 19 yards
and outscored a whopping 114-20

The 2nd QuarterTOP was 7:18
Of the 61 drives in the 2nd quarter:
22 Punts
15 TDs
9 FGs
7 INT\'s
1 Fumble
Average drive was 25 yards
9 drives were 3 and out punts (6% of total TOP)
7 drives ended out the Half in 3 plays or less
14 drives were 7 plays or longer
7 TDs
5 FGs
2 punts
0 turnovers
Accounted for 24% of total TOP.

Analysis:

While there was only a slight imbalance in TOP, the quality of the play was severely lacking in both quarters. 55% of all drives were 3 plays or less and accounted for less than 58 seconds of time of possession per drive. That meant that the defense had little time for adjustment or recovery. In addition, only 25% of all drives ended in a score (which was 26th in the league).

I will grant you that the Saints D wasn\'t very good, but I think that everyone will acknowledge that on balance, the Falcons\' offense wasn\'t very good either, but they managed nearly 1 minute more per game in TOP (which was skewed because of the last 2 games played without Vick). And, TOP has NOTHING to do with defensive performance. If you can\'t execute, you won\'t hold onto the ball.

There were exactly 8 drives over 70 (3 over 80) yards in the entire Saints\' first halves in 2004, yielding 7 TD\'s and one in a fumble, but only 3 consumed more than 3 minutes in a drive.

This was an extremely inefficient offense, given what many people believe are 3 key players in the top 5 of their respective disciplines.

Without seeing and analyzing each play from the film, it is tough to say that it was bad execution, though penalties and drops and turnover do seem to be an indicator of that. It is also tough to say that it was poor playcalling as well. It could also be that there weren\'t enough audibles.

Whatever the case, laying the blame on the Defense, while merited in the 1st half the season, it doesn\'t account for the consistently poor performance over the entire season for the offense.

So, yes, the inexcusable number of 3 & out\'s PLUS the diminimus TOP in each of those drives made our defense looked bad. In each game the Saints lost, it was the Offense\'s inability to stay on the field and score in the 1st half that made most of the difference.

Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger."
Hobbes: "Common lament."

Tobias-Reiper

..if a train leaves St. Louis ...

JKool

Nice break down Xan.

I agree that the offenses performance effects the defense. However, I cannot agree with your statement that there was an inexcusable number of three and outs. I\'m willing to bet that league wide there is on average one three and out per first quarter. Thus, we are not much worse than league average at 1.2; certainly one more three and out per first quarter per 5 games is NOT inexcusable. An NFL defense needs to expect such a situation at least once per first quarter. If that impacts our defense so badly, then our defense is to blame for that.

I\'m more inclined to agree with your time of posession argument than any of this stuff about three and outs.

Furthermore, I was trying to resolve this dispute about the first quarter three and outs, your analysis is for the first half. It follows that if the defense can\'t get the ball back, the offense cannot have a great time of posession, doesn\'t it?

Also, at 19 three and outs (by my count) in the first quarter and with 8 of those coming in wins, three and outs in the first quarter are not well correlated with wins. Thus, I agree our defense may have suffered, but the three and outs also effect the offense negatively as well (they are forced to alter the game plan as the opponent wracked up points) and we still won almost half the time when we had more than two three and outs in the first quarter (Raiders, Chiefs, Falcons, and Panthers).

I believe that is obvious that sometimes the offense made the defense look bad statistically, but other times it was the other way around. I don\'t see anything so far that has shown that the causal arrow clearly goes from the O to the D.

Also, While your analysis is both excellent and helpful, there is no way to draw this conclusion from your data. You have no analysis of three and outs or time of possession by wins and losses (and certainly no non-team specific averages) - thus, your conclusion goes way beyond the evidence you presented.

Finally, at 3.5 minutes per game more than our offense, the offense managed to rank middle of the pack in yards gained and the defense DEAD LAST. While the defense couldn\'t get the offense the ball, the offense kept on rolling. When the offense couldn\'t keep our defense off the field what happened? The defense folded.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

saintswhodi

I am taking EXTREME exception to this Kool. You know where we ranked in takeaways? 10th in the league.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...1=3&_3:col_2=3

Makes us top 10 no? In the Seattle game alone, the D had 3 takeaways in the first half. Guess how many points the O got? 7. And the D held Seattle to 14 all game until a turnover by he who shall not be mentioned giving Seattle the ball in the red zone. Offense DEFINITELY let the D down, as the D did give them the ball often, as they are top 10 in takeaways. Seattle, Green Bay, Denver, Minny, Philly, Atlanta, even Pittsburhg(number one D in the league) had less takeaways than our D.