Some Interesting (to me) stats on NO, GB, and SF
Posted 01-09-2012 at 03:01 PM by mike27
Teams SF played won 115 games, teams GB played won 117 games, and teams our Saints' played won 113, so the schedules are pretty much statistically even in strength.
Interesting weirdness on same teams played. It plays to the Saints' doing poorly against teams with really bad records, for some reason, less practice perhaps, don't have to win? Whatever.
Anyway, San Francisco beat Tampa 48-3, the Saints' lost 26-20, in their first meeting, playing as if drugged, and won 27-16 in their second.
Saints lost to St. Louis 31-21, another hapless contest, while SF won twice, 26-0, and later 34-27--did SF get worse, or St. Louis get better? You decide.
Games that mattered--Detroit, SF won 25-19, and the Saints' won with 31-17 first, then 45-28 which would've easily been 52-28 without the kindness of taking three knees, and ending the game mercifully. Plus, the late Detroit game shows much improvement, against a stronger, more healthy Detroit team.
Finally, SF beat the Giants 27-20, and the Saints smoked them 49-24, and if I remember correctly, they could've probably run that score up a bit too.
I tend to dismiss the teams that aren't doing well, as for whatever reason, perhaps they just rest a bit during weeks where they play teams they feel are inconsequential. But against the better teams, the Saints' did better, and they made a run at the end that looks better than SF did, who appears to be closer to where the Saints' were during their sag-period, losing to Tampa and the Rams.
Working on GB, v. Saints' comparison of same opponents played now.
Interesting weirdness on same teams played. It plays to the Saints' doing poorly against teams with really bad records, for some reason, less practice perhaps, don't have to win? Whatever.
Anyway, San Francisco beat Tampa 48-3, the Saints' lost 26-20, in their first meeting, playing as if drugged, and won 27-16 in their second.
Saints lost to St. Louis 31-21, another hapless contest, while SF won twice, 26-0, and later 34-27--did SF get worse, or St. Louis get better? You decide.
Games that mattered--Detroit, SF won 25-19, and the Saints' won with 31-17 first, then 45-28 which would've easily been 52-28 without the kindness of taking three knees, and ending the game mercifully. Plus, the late Detroit game shows much improvement, against a stronger, more healthy Detroit team.
Finally, SF beat the Giants 27-20, and the Saints smoked them 49-24, and if I remember correctly, they could've probably run that score up a bit too.
I tend to dismiss the teams that aren't doing well, as for whatever reason, perhaps they just rest a bit during weeks where they play teams they feel are inconsequential. But against the better teams, the Saints' did better, and they made a run at the end that looks better than SF did, who appears to be closer to where the Saints' were during their sag-period, losing to Tampa and the Rams.
Working on GB, v. Saints' comparison of same opponents played now.
Total Comments 9
Comments
-
OK, first I'd like to say it looks like you couldn't get a piece of paper to slide between the abilities of the teams. That said, the same oddness occurs with teams with losing records, or fairly inconsequential teams with GB.
Head to head, remember the first game, Saints' lose 42-34. I never took that one hard, as Green Bay was of course last years' superbowl champs, and the Saints' were on the half-yard line, a touchdown and a two point conversion from tying. That game, like much of what is to follow here, just showed a nearly identical strength. Green Bay just happened to get a bit of an advantage from an early mistake, a fumble, and managed to be a bit ahead at the end. The Saints outplayed them for almost the rest of the game.
Chicago was beaten 27-17 and 35-21 by GB, and the Saints' beat them 30-13, maybe slightly favoring our team.
Carolina was beaten 30-23 by GB, and the Saints' two divisional games were 30-27, and 45-17, edge goes to N.O. I think on that one, especially since the last game represents the current strength.
Atlanta lost to Green Bay 25-14, and the Saints beat Atlanta 26-23 away, and 45-16 at home. I think Atlanta was on the wane already in the second game, and the Saints' were just getting stronger. So this one is somewhere between a toss-up and a slight favoring of the Saints'.
Minnesota, an inconsequential team, that the Saints' nearly always do poorly with (still not sure why, but I know there is a reason), lost to the Saints 42-20. Green Bay beat them twice, 33-27, and 45-7 later. Got to give this one to Green Bay. I wish the Saints' could address their weak-team problem, but maybe it's just a try not to get injured strategy, or practice less and try to recover, or I don't really need to win this one.
Tampa lost to Green Bay 35-26, and the Saints split 20-26, and 27-16 later at home. Is it turf? I hope they get some practice time in on grass, hopefully trying to simulate San Francisco. Maybe they should bring some lights with them, or generators after the SF, Steelers game.
Detroit, both played two games, both won two games, GB 27-15 and 45-41, and N.O. 31-17 and 45-28. That's 72-56 and 76-45, so this one goes to the Saints', tho GB was using a second string quarterback, New Orleans clearly would have likely scored yet another touchdown, and run it up to 52-28, which I sort of wanted them to do, but I guess it made sense to be nice.
(whew, lots of common games) The New York Giants, a very inconsistent, skitzoid team, Green Bay 38-35, the Saints' 49-24--got to give this one to the Saints' for a couple of reasons, the drubbing in the score, which also could've been run up if I remember. And the Giants, maybe playing Green Bay again, with their strong, hard hitting defense may ding them up a bit more.
So, if Colston or some other receiver doesn't gift them a lead with a fumble early, or Brees doesn't throw an interception early, I think the Saints' have every possible chance to beat Green Bay, even at home. And even if it's windy and snowy, I'd have to give our runners the advantage in inclement weather, so we're healthy. Maybe they should not only practice on turf, but in a cold, cold place. Winter may not have completely arrived yet, but by the Super Bowl it might just get here.Posted 01-09-2012 at 03:19 PM by mike27
-
Good stuff Mike. Lot of research.Posted 01-10-2012 at 01:52 PM by SapperSaint
-
Thanks.Posted 01-10-2012 at 02:20 PM by mike27
-
Wow! That's a slam-dunk ... I can't even come up with an argument for argument's sake ... stats don't lie.Posted 01-10-2012 at 05:41 PM by SloMotion
-
Well I find them encouraging, but they don't count much for emotion, or turf, or location, or enthusiasm. But I don't think the Saints' are short on that either, so...I feel pretty good about it.
I just hope they've been practicing on turf a bit, doing some running, getting those cleat sizes just right, etc....like I suggested in another forum, after that Steelers game, they might want to take some lights and a generator, but then I don't remember, the game might be in the daytime anyway.
I feel like a lot of the commentary has been discounting the Saints' running game too. I think it's pretty damn good myself. Personally I like Ivory as much as Ingram, and Arrington is stepping in for Moore, and he's good too.Posted 01-10-2012 at 11:15 PM by mike27
-
Yeah, but if anybody could compile stats on emotion, the smart money would be on you, mike27. Emotion is one of those untangibles you just can't measure, but it's a real factor in the outcome of a game. Everybody is going to be up the game, but the Saints have the 'calm under fire' to focus on the prize. That's all Sean Payton.
When the Lions went to artificial turf in 1975, it changed the characteristic of the team forever. They never got it done on natural turf as much after that. It's a very real concern for teams that don't have natural turf at home, IMO.
It's hard to believe people would discount the Saints run game. I knew about Sproles, but Thomas adds the second punch to a 1-2 punch running game. The Saints will get the tough yards when they need 'em and you have a sure 100yds a game on the ground, "I ga-ron-tee". (that's my Justin Wilson tribute, my favorite cooking show of all time). Plus, Sproles returns kicks. You gotta' like a guy like that. Anybody discounts the Saints running game, shame on them.
I do want to point out Arrington was a Michigan boy before he was a Saint
, you guys got a steal and you're bringing him along right. He was always the #1/#2 guy with the Wolverines and made the key catches. He can be a big game receiver if you need him to be.
All in all, things are looking up in the ol' Big Easy.Posted 01-11-2012 at 06:35 AM by SloMotion
-
Yea, I first saw Arrington and Ivory in the preseason last year, and liked them both. I thought they looked like good future standouts.
Hey, remember, Thomas was the "first-punch" during the 2009 Super Bowl run. Isn't he amazing? It's like you are sure he's down, two or three guys are right on him, but somehow he remains standing, and cobbles together a few more yards. It is the most unique running style I've ever seen, but it looks like one that could result in injury easily.
I think not only does the depth make good sense, after all the injuries led to a hapless performance at Seattle last year in the first and only playoff game. But it offers three entirely different running styles. Payton can run them all, can see which one is working better, and use that one a bit more.
I'll let you cover the colleges SloMo, as it's just too big. I scarcely can follow just the Saints'! I didn't even watch that Alabama LSU game the other night. Didn't go to either of the colleges, so...I think the Saints' are going to do well, and I agree with everything you said. I don't know how, but the Saints really have worked motivation and work ethic into a winning formula, along with a fantastic offense, and a team spirited defense.Posted 01-11-2012 at 10:51 AM by mike27
-
I have no stats to back up my comment but the Saints D has REALLY stood up as of late. They are holding offenses to a minimum score as well as turning up the heat in the 2nd half. I know EVERYONE picks on the Saints D because they allow a lot of yardage but does that matter if they "step up" when it matters most? I believe our boys on D will actually become the heroes of the postseason!
So c'mon boys! Make me right!!
WHODAT is guna TWODAT!!Posted 01-13-2012 at 09:28 AM by 95shakinpf
-
Agreed Shakin'. Seventeen points is pretty good, and I've pointed out before, if they keep the other team from scoring more, then they've done their jobs.
Seems like it's possible the game may be a very low-scoring contest, though with the Saints' on either end, I could clearly be wrong.
I hope they can contain Gore. Like the guy at Seattle last year, he's a bulldozer.Posted 01-13-2012 at 11:20 AM by mike27
Total Trackbacks 0
