3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

So much has been made on this board about how our offense made the defense look so much worse than what it actually was.

It amazes me that ... well, let's just say I'm amazed! ;)

Anyone been watching the Saints very long?

Remember the Bobby Hebert/Carl Smith offense? How many 3 and outs did they have?

How did the defense look then?

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

I\'m guessing the numerous 12 play 80 yard drives are what made them look bad.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

How many of those were there?

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

quote:
-






What about this, Gumbo?

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

From what I saw, it appeared to be as many as our opponents wanted.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Is this an assumption to make your side of the argument look better, or is it based on fact. I am not saying you are wrong, I would just like to see the actual facts, not, \"it appears\", or \"I assume.\"

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

No, its what I observed. I don\'t really have a side in this arguement. Take it for what it is, my observation.

The 3-and-outs made our OFFENSE look bad.
Our defense finished dead last.
Looks like two unrelated problems to me , in my opinion.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Here is an attempt at an argument, I\'m not sold yet, so let me know what ya\'ll think:

Our opponents had the ball almost two minutes longer than we did per game. During those two minutes per game our oppents got 52 more first downs than we did (that is 3.25 per game). That sounds a little high for two minutes; however, if the offense keeps the ball longer, perhaps it is only one extra first down.

More importantly though, in those two minutes opponents offenses out passed us by 300 yards (18.75 per game) and out rushed us by nearly 650 yards (40.6 yards), for a grand total of about 60 yards a game. Unless you\'re in a two minute drill (which in 8 games at least our opponents would not have been) 60 yards in two minutes is A LOT.

Thus, ignoring whether or not the score matters to what style of offense you\'re going to play AND that time of possession does not only belong to our offense (since it requires the defense to get the ball back), our defense allowed 3.25 first downs and 60 extra yards in a mere two minute difference. Notice also that unanalyzed this points to them giving up a lot of big plays (which is certainly not the offense\'s fault).

Sure the offense may have hung our defense out to dry occasionally, but when our defense was on the field (and it wasn\'t that much more than our opponents) they gave it up like a two bit whore...

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I\'m guessing the numerous 12 play 80 yard drives are what made them look bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How many of those were there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I\'d say the 1 or 2play, 80 yard drives made them look worse.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Alright, so I went back and counted the number of three and outs we had in the first quarters this year.

We had 19 three and outs, that is 1.2 three and outs per game in the first quarter. I have no idea if that is a lot, but that sounds reasonable to me at the start of the game. Our opponents had 14 three and outs, that is .9 per game. It seems to me relatively safe to say that 1 three and out in the first quarter is normal - so the Saints were slightly bad and our oppnents were slightly good on this criterion.

Of those 19 three and outs, at least 8 of them occurred in games we won.

You guys can take this information any way you\'d like, but to me it indicates that (1) we weren\'t that bad in terms of three and outs overall, and (2) three and outs in the first quarter are at best slightly correlated with wins and losses.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

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.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

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

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

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.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

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.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

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.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

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.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

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.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

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

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

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.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

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.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Good point. Extreme exception noted.

How long it takes for the D to get the ball matters just as much as how often they can get the ball in the context of this argument.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

okay, we were last in total d and in most every category. ya know how well they played for those last 4 weeks? that is, as good as that was for a quarter of a season it still was not good enough to get to even 31st in the league. that is really bad. there is a correlation though, either one good will help the other. it is a team game not fantasy baseball.
last 4 years-
defense offense
19 8
28 18
18 10
32 16
sum total is that even with a 32-32 record for 4 years the overall performance on both sides of the ball is weakening.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Huh? You lost me on this one Kool. Isn\'t getting the ball back to the offense most of what you were saying? The D did just that better than 22 other teams, AND better than 7 playoff teams and one of them with the number one D in the league and another went to the Superbowl. How can you ask for more of them? Ask any fan in the league if they wanted a D top 10 in takeaways, they would say hell yeah. The D gave our O more opportunities than 22 other teams, that stat eclipses any TOP stat. Our O\'s inability to do ANYTHING with those turnovers was the killer. Imagine you have a company with two main departments, R & D(offense) and client acqusition(defense). Client acquisition is struggling, bad. Their numbers are low industry wide, but they are pretty good at call volume. R & D on the other hand, is more reactionary than proactive. Client acqusition gives them feedback on what potential customers say they want, but R & D is slow at putting these plans into tests and then action. Meanwhile because of the lack of support from R & D, acqusitions numbers stay down. Now if YOU were CEO, basically you would say, Acqusition is terrible, disregard the whole picture, and hire new people for acqusition. Meanwhile you are keeping R&D, and explaining away their culpability. So new folks in CA, same old same old from R&D. How long will it take for the same numbers to come in again?

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Whodi!! There you go again making Leon look bad. Remember that Leon is wonderful. He had NOTHING to do with the bad offense or the poor showing of the offense in the first quarter of any game. Remember that he is a TOP 5 QB in this league. We went 8-8 because of the fact that he had to carry this team on his slim shoulders. The fact that he dropped the ball on the one inch line a time or two didn\'t have any effect on things.

Lesson #1: Stop trying to inflict logic on BC and Kool. You and I are wrong because we look at things from a light that is detrimental to Leon. Period. I\'ve stopped posting intelligent things cause there\'s little intelligent thought where Leon is concerned. You can\'t open a closed mind.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Whodi!! There you go again making Leon look bad. Remember that Leon is wonderful. He had NOTHING to do with the bad offense or the poor showing of the offense in the first quarter of any game. Remember that he is a TOP 5 QB in this league. We went 8-8 because of the fact that he had to carry this team on his slim shoulders. The fact that he dropped the ball on the one inch line a time or two didn\'t have any effect on things.

Lesson #1: Stop trying to inflict logic on BC and Kool. You and I are wrong because we look at things from a light that is detrimental to Leon. Period. I\'ve stopped posting intelligent things cause there\'s little intelligent thought where Leon is concerned. You can\'t open a closed mind. [/quote:7c3e21d794]

I don\'t know, RDOX, seems pretty intellilgent to me.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

RDOX for offensive coordinator lol

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

I\'m pretty sure that during these days our offense was notorious for ball control and time of possession...that was Mora\'s style of football. I haven\'t looked it up, but I\'m pretty sure that we stayed close in a lot of games during those days because we controlled the ball so well.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

JKool quote:
_______________________________________________________
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
________________________________________________________

I will endeavor to clarify:

Because the 1st half was where, in the glare of examination, all the games were lost, I\'ve limited the study to where the Coaching staff made a strategy and the players practiced specific plays and sequences for their opponent.

My difference in # of 3&Outs in the 1st quarter is my counting 2 drives where the punt occured as the 1st play of the 2nd quarter. Thus 50 drives

1st Quarter
50 Drives (5 End of Quarter that didn\'t result in punt 1st play)
40% of all drives were 3&Out.
48% were 3 plays or less and only 2 of these involved scores
70% of all drives had a TOP of less than 2:30
The three longest drives accounted for ***20%*** of total possesion and resulted in 1 fumble, 1 INT and one FG (both by LEON)
Three possessions incurred turnovers which resulted in defensive scores, where the Saints D wasn\'t on the field.
1st Drives:
16 Starting on the NO25, 13 punts, 11 3&O, 2 Fumbles 1 TOOD. Avg TOP - 2:27
2nd Drives
16 Starting on the NO27, 10 punts, 9 3&O, 1 TD, 1 FG, 1 INT 2 TOOD. Avg TOP - 1:32

In games we lost, the first three drives started on the 25, averaged 4 plays and lasted 1:33 seconds. We punted 16 out of 24 times, with 4 Fumbles, 2 INT, a TD and a FG.

Even I was amazed at this set of statistics.


2nd Quarter
61 drives, 7 End of Half
9 drives (17%) were 3&O punts
70% of all drives less than 2:30 TOP
(67% net of kneeldowns at the end of half)
3 drives were carry-over where the score was the 1st or 2nd play of the quarter.
4 drives resulted in three play turnovers
3 drives resulted in three play scores

In Losses (after the 1st 3 drives), the next 25 drives showed improvement, however averaging a mere 1:49 TOP, with 11 punts, 6 TDs, 4 FG, 2 INTs and 2 Fum.

Again, how stunning to see how the offense failed to show up.

In absolute terms, these statistics do not qualify the Saints as having an offense. I now completely understand Grant\'s outrage at Brooks. What an utter joke.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Xan, nice work. I\'ll think on this. I will not be responding though due to my decreasing ability to put up with insults and poor behavior - I do commend you for your intelligent analysis.

Either way, I\'m not coming here any more. People who like to label others and call them close minded are not interesting to me. I\'m tired of getting accused of things merely because I think something is worth thinking about.

I\'ve enjoyed my time here, but in the last two weeks I\'ve been insulted and accused of being ignorant and/or irrational more often than any other time in my life. That isn\'t fun or interesting to me anymore.

It seems to me that many people here are happier to insult others than respond to ideas. I\'m done.

I\'ll miss guys like Whodi, BMG, Scotty, Billy and WhoDat. If you guys want to chat, you can try and get my email address. As for the rest of you, good luck turning the board into a place where discussion is useless and being a rhah rhah guys is cool.

:flush:

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

JKool, I hope you\'re not serious about leaving. We need good members like yourself to maintain the balance of the board. I will ask you, Please don\'t let something like this make one of our better members leave.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Anyone have the stats on how many 3 and out our defense caused and also opponents scoring on first drive?

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

JK,

I am sad to see you going, as I liked to read your posts. It is unfortunate that you selected an argument as passionate as the Brooks debate to \"draw a line in the sand\" over.

I don\'t know how long you\'ve followed the board. If you\'ve read it a long time, you will realize that one of the members here has undergone name changes MANY times. Long time readers all know who he is, and I personally enjoy reading him. I believe that you are catching the fallout over the long history of this other poster.

You have chosen to come down on the side supporting Brooks. That in itself is not a problem. The problem is that this other poster has consistently, year in and year out, made one excuse after another in support of Brooks. The excuses change every year and every year we hear new rationalizations on why this year, Brooks is all but blameless in our Offensive problems.

Since the story changes so much, it is not suprising that the other poster gets called out so much. It is unfortunate that you read these call outs and feel they are directed at you, just because you happen to agree with this other poster.

In my opinion, the moderators on this board do an OUTSTANDING job of preventing things from degenerating into personal insults. I am sorry that you seem to take even broad statements as personal insults, and I will miss your insight even though I do not often agree with your conclusions.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

First of all, I hope JKool will change his mind.

Second, JKool has been called close minded and it\'s been suggested that he\'s just making excuses for Brooks. You know who you are.

JKool has been nothing but fair in the whole Brooks\' debate. Not only that, JKool has treated EVERY SINGLE member here with respect.

In case some of you haven\'t noticed, JKool isn\'t a Brooks\' supporter. JKool is someone who discusses what he thinks the problems are and debates what he thinks the important \"points\" are.

Some of you guys have your own opinions of Brooks. You\'ve got every right to feel however you want.

But, calling JKool closed minded and suggesting he\'s a blind Brooks\' supporter? What the hell is wrong with you guys?

JKool brought nothing but fairness to the Brooks\' debate and some guys couldn\'t accept that and had to bring the nonsense in it.

If someone wants to say someone is closed minded or whatever, send that person a private message. Why do you need to post it where everyone can read it. Do you just need to try and make someone look foolish for posting their opinions?

What\'s the point in that?





[Edited on 23/2/2005 by GumboBC]

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

I\'ve been a member here for a while now. I read more often than I post, for the simple fact that I know that I\'m probably not as intelligent as I think I am, and I want to make sure that what I say is intelligent.................no, really. Anyway, I love reading the debates that go on with JKool, Gumbo, JoeSam, Saintfan, all the regular posters. But, here\'s the deal. We have to be able to debate. I mean without that, what\'s the fun in this board? But, if anyone remembers a thread from a couple of months ago, it can seem to get a little personal on this board at times.

Now everyone that comes here loves the Saints. Being a Saints fan means being a true fan, and I think all of us in some way are connected in a way by that. We don\'t have bandwagon fans mostly because we have no wagon. So, let\'s debate all day long, but let\'s not make it personal. Be passionate in you arguments, but don\'t insult the other posters. Moderators should send out warnings to people who are dancing that line, and if they don\'t abide by the rules, kick em off the board. Don\'t quit JKool, you are one of the guys that is the heartbeat of this board.

[Edited on 23/2/2005 by kevinn1972]

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

I\'m with Joe and Frenzy on this one Kool. Why choose the Brooks debate as a measure? Why not eliminate yourself from the Brooks debate as a deterrent to any labels? You and I have discussed this in another thread and I thought we were pretty clear. Yes some guys did come down harsh on you but I agree with Frenzy, that is fall out from a member who attempts to be so far to the other extreme as to be laughable. I think people who fall anywhere near the support Brooks line catch the backlash from that, unfair as it is.

I have attempted minimally in the last few days not to have arguments over Brooks, even though I may make comments. It had made my life easier believe me. In this thread, I discussed the OFFENSE letting the DEFENSE down, and not just Brooks letting them down. I could have done that and shown facts easily enough, but what\'s the point? I have been labeled as bad as anyone on here. That\'s human nature. Don\'t take it personal. I mean I have known you are a sensitive guy, nothing wrong with that at all. That\'s why I tend to clarify myself and such if we have misunderstandings. You\'re good to have around man. DON\'T TAKE IT PERSONAL. You could be AB\'s number one cheerleader(with stiff competition though) it wouldn\'t matter, it is the fairness you bring most times to the convo and your intelligence that is valued. I said the same to LB when he left and he agrees with me way more than you ever did, but my feelings are the same. You don\'t need to leave cause things got personal. either ignore it or move on. NOONE here knows you OUTSIDE of this forum, so why should you care what they think of YOU individually from nominal posts on an internet forum? Hell, I don\'t even know your first name and we have battled on here as much as anyone. Chill, come back, and dazzle us with that JKool wit, go back, read my post, and let\'s get back into this thing. Peace.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Whether somone loves, hates, are falls somewhere in between, on Aaron Brooks, there is no need to make little snide comments. Or personal attacks.

The majority on this board are to the extreme with the Brooks\' bashing. Fine and dandy.

I, myself, am a big Brooks\' supporter. I simply make my feelings known. Like it, hate it, disagree with it - or whatever... But, more than anyone else, I have been called foolish, stupid, close minded, or whatever. It really doesn\'t bother me, but ,at times, I get tired of it.

If you think I\'m closed minded when it comes to Brooks, what are some of you? Objective? Hardly!!

No one needs to use me as an excuse if you\'ve called other members out. I debate folks all day long without using any personal attacks. In fact, I let a bunch or personal attacks go and try to overlook \'em.

I can\'t help that the majority here disagrees with me on Brooks. I can\'t help if it drives some of you crazy that I see it TOTALLY different than the rest of you.

But, I do not attack other members. I get my points across with stats, my personal observations, and my opinions.

Say what you want about me, it doesn\'t bother me.

I\'m very confident in what I say. But, other members don\'t like to be attacked. Leave \'em out of it.



[Edited on 23/2/2005 by GumboBC]

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Guys, you bring a tear to my eye.

Thanks for all the great thoughts. I think I\'m going to take a day or two off and try to sort out some other things. Sorry for getting all sensitive and shiznit; I\'ve got some other stuff going on (still).

I\'ll be back.

Before I head off again though, I want to say three things:
(1) Thanks. Deep down (sometimes very deep) you guys are kind and considerate. I really do appreciate all the thoughts and concern - I will think on some of your suggestions.

(2) I didn\'t draw the line in the sand over AB. Sure, those are the debates that really wore me down, but this thread is about the offense and the defense. I don\'t remember mentioning AB at all, until someone decided that the best thing to do was bring that up, label me, call me close minded, and suggest that logic didn\'t appeal nor apply to me.

(3) The mods here are great. I they do a great job and run a great site. I never felt personally attacked until recently, and I have to say that, in part, it is probably just the other stuff going on for me right now. However, I\'m not as tough as Billy, and I\'d prefer for people to direct disagreement at what I said rather than what they take my personality or position to be. I don\'t see that that is too much to ask.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Take a few days Kool...it\'s worked wonders for me, but get back in here man. You bring a level-headed approach that I enjoy reading. Don\'t stay gone too long.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

PS - Sorry to hi-jack this thread. I think it is interesting, and someone should continue this discussion with Xan. His view is interesting.

3 and outs made our defense look bad?
 

Okay, How many 3 and outs did our defense provide, and first drive punts?

Glad to get back to football talk