deuce?

fhotard · 09-28-2005, 10:09 AM

Yeah, he does seem a little slower, but our O line just isn't providing any protection...not for the run, not for the pass. On most plays, the D is getting past our O in the blink of an eye.

I'm not terribly fond of AB, but I can't fault him as much this year as I have in the past...he's getting NO protection on most plays.
Equally, it's a rare play that Deuce has a decent hole to run through.

The blame can't be put on any one player or group of players...to fail at this level is a team failure, top to bottom.

fh

saintswhodi · 09-28-2005, 10:13 AM

We sacked Culpepper 7 times. Brooks was sacked 3. Somehow, Culpepper seemed to make the plays needed for his team to win the game, with Travis Taylor, Marcus Robinson, Jermaine Wiggins, rookie williamson, and Mewelde Moore, as opposed to pro bowl Joe Horn, Donte Stallworth, Deuce Mcallister, and Ernie Conwell and Devery Henderson. He had just as much pressure as Brooks. I ain't buying that O-line not giving time crap again. If you have QB who can make quick reads and better decisions, you don't need a lot of time.

TheGambler · 09-28-2005, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

We sacked Culpepper 7 times. Brooks was sacked 3. Somehow, Culpepper seemed to make the plays needed for his team to win the game, with Travis Taylor, Marcus Robinson, Jermaine Wiggins, rookie williamson, and Mewelde Moore, as opposed to pro bowl Joe Horn, Donte Stallworth, Deuce Mcallister, and Ernie Conwell and Devery Henderson. He had just as much pressure as Brooks. I ain't buying that O-line not giving time crap again. If you have QB who can make quick reads and better decisions, you don't need a lot of time.

Not sure if I can accurately comment since I was only able to listen to the game on the radio instead of TV (damned Fox 33 was out due to storm issues)......but didn't the majority of the sacks on Culpepper happen in the 2nd half? Coincidently enough, the Vikings were pretty much shut out in the 2nd half as a result....until late in the 4th qtr when the Saints had shot themselves in the foot one time too many.

As for the QB decisions, it's important to remember that Brooks was in more of a position to have to gamble, as opposed to Culpepper who was blessed with being able to build up a 24-0 lead before the sacks really started pouring in. Notwithstanding, Brooks played horrible in this game, and I hope to hell he bounces back against Buffalo.

saintswhodi · 09-28-2005, 10:31 AM

What game were you watching. err listening to? Turnovers gave the Vikes that lead, one from Stecker on the opening kickoff where they started in the red zone, one from Brooks' INT. The drive before Brooks' INT he threw a pass to Meier that got him jacked up like Conwell, and a pass to Donte Stallworth that hit him on the back of his feet on an out. As a matter of fact, there was a point in time where the Fox affiliate showed all the open receivers Brooks missed, either through not seeing them, or bad passes. You switch Brooks for Culpepper, we win. Let's not forget we were driving and only down 8 when he threw the INT that killed us. The Vikes had 147 total yards rushing, we had 114. Not a big difference, especially when you factor in we were averaging 5.7 yards per rush to their 3.9. Our first 7 possessions went fumble, punt punt, INT, punt, punt, punt, mainly on the back of bad passes. Plus we sacked Culpepper FOUR TIMES in the first half, as opposed to two for Brooks, which means he was only sacked once more inthe second half, so no the majority of the sacks on Culpepper did nto occur in the secodn half. Here's the gamebook:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebo...0050925_NO@MIN

fhotard · 09-28-2005, 10:39 AM

I agree that Culpepper had lots of pressure on him too. But before the pressure was on him, the Vikes built up a big lead. With good pressure, the Vikes O was pretty much shut down.

Team Failure.
For the first two quarters, it looked like none of our beloved Saints were in the game mentally. QB, RBs, O line, D, it was a sad sight.

The 3rd quarter looked pretty good, points on the board, good pressure on Culpepper. The D started getting fired up. They were mounting a pretty good comeback...then it all fell apart again.

Time to revive that old joke from the 80's: What do the Saints have in common with a tampon? Only good for 1 period.

saintfan · 09-28-2005, 10:46 AM

Another year with your griping about the O- line ???

Looks like it. You've seen something in them this year that causes you to feel differently then? Let's hear it.

LKelley67 · 09-28-2005, 10:49 AM

as far as deuce himself he still doesn't look quite as quick or fast to me either. he may not be elite but he is still very good. good enough to carry the load for a succesful running game. i think smith a great backup too btw. he does have 12 catches so far that is more towards his '03 69 total rather than the 34 last year. he got 1000 yds on a leg and a half last year. less than 1200-1400 (with no injuries) would be a disappointment. it will take about 85 yds a game to reach that.

TheGambler · 09-28-2005, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

What game were you watching. err listening to? Turnovers gave the Vikes that lead, one from Stecker on the opening kickoff where they started in the red zone, one from Brooks' INT. The drive before Brooks' INT he threw a pass to Meier that got him jacked up like Conwell, and a pass to Donte Stallworth that hit him on the back of his feet on an out. As a matter of fact, there was a point in time where the Fox affiliate showed all the open receivers Brooks missed, either through not seeing them, or bad passes. You switch Brooks for Culpepper, we win. Let's not forget we were driving and only down 8 when he threw the INT that killed us. The Vikes had 147 total yards rushing, we had 114. Not a big difference, especially when you factor in we were averaging 5.7 yards per rush to their 3.9. Our first 7 possessions went fumble, punt punt, INT, punt, punt, punt, mainly on the back of bad passes. Plus we sacked Culpepper FOUR TIMES in the first half, as opposed to two for Brooks, which means he was only sacked once more inthe second half, so no the majority of the sacks on Culpepper did nto occur in the secodn half. Here's the gamebook:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebo...0050925_NO@MIN

One sack occured on Culpepper during their 17-0 run. Hard to fight back from that. As for all the other stuff......I think I covered that when I said this:

Originally Posted by TheGambler

Notwithstanding, Brooks played horrible in this game, and I hope to hell he bounces back against Buffalo.

saintswhodi · 09-28-2005, 11:00 AM

I thought we were hoping he "bounced back" from the horrible Giants game? How many "hope he bounces backs" does he need? lol

TheGambler · 09-28-2005, 11:03 AM

Well, Culpepper apparently needed 2.

So maybe that's Brooks's magic number

.

09-28-2005, 10:21 AM	#13
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610	Originally Posted by saintswhodi We sacked Culpepper 7 times. Brooks was sacked 3. Somehow, Culpepper seemed to make the plays needed for his team to win the game, with Travis Taylor, Marcus Robinson, Jermaine Wiggins, rookie williamson, and Mewelde Moore, as opposed to pro bowl Joe Horn, Donte Stallworth, Deuce Mcallister, and Ernie Conwell and Devery Henderson. He had just as much pressure as Brooks. I ain't buying that O-line not giving time crap again. If you have QB who can make quick reads and better decisions, you don't need a lot of time. Not sure if I can accurately comment since I was only able to listen to the game on the radio instead of TV (damned Fox 33 was out due to storm issues)......but didn't the majority of the sacks on Culpepper happen in the 2nd half? Coincidently enough, the Vikings were pretty much shut out in the 2nd half as a result....until late in the 4th qtr when the Saints had shot themselves in the foot one time too many. As for the QB decisions, it's important to remember that Brooks was in more of a position to have to gamble, as opposed to Culpepper who was blessed with being able to build up a 24-0 lead before the sacks really started pouring in. Notwithstanding, Brooks played horrible in this game, and I hope to hell he bounces back against Buffalo.
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610

09-28-2005, 10:52 AM	#18
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610	Originally Posted by saintswhodi What game were you watching. err listening to? Turnovers gave the Vikes that lead, one from Stecker on the opening kickoff where they started in the red zone, one from Brooks' INT. The drive before Brooks' INT he threw a pass to Meier that got him jacked up like Conwell, and a pass to Donte Stallworth that hit him on the back of his feet on an out. As a matter of fact, there was a point in time where the Fox affiliate showed all the open receivers Brooks missed, either through not seeing them, or bad passes. You switch Brooks for Culpepper, we win. Let's not forget we were driving and only down 8 when he threw the INT that killed us. The Vikes had 147 total yards rushing, we had 114. Not a big difference, especially when you factor in we were averaging 5.7 yards per rush to their 3.9. Our first 7 possessions went fumble, punt punt, INT, punt, punt, punt, mainly on the back of bad passes. Plus we sacked Culpepper FOUR TIMES in the first half, as opposed to two for Brooks, which means he was only sacked once more inthe second half, so no the majority of the sacks on Culpepper did nto occur in the secodn half. Here's the gamebook: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebo...0050925_NO@MIN One sack occured on Culpepper during their 17-0 run. Hard to fight back from that. As for all the other stuff......I think I covered that when I said this: Originally Posted by TheGambler Notwithstanding, Brooks played horrible in this game, and I hope to hell he bounces back against Buffalo.
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610

09-28-2005, 11:03 AM	#20
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610	Well, Culpepper apparently needed 2. So maybe that's Brooks's magic number .
TheGambler 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 610

09-28-2005, 10:09 AM	#11
fhotard 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Pensacola, FL Posts: 263	Yeah, he does seem a little slower, but our O line just isn't providing any protection...not for the run, not for the pass. On most plays, the D is getting past our O in the blink of an eye. I'm not terribly fond of AB, but I can't fault him as much this year as I have in the past...he's getting NO protection on most plays. Equally, it's a rare play that Deuce has a decent hole to run through. The blame can't be put on any one player or group of players...to fail at this level is a team failure, top to bottom. fh

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

09-28-2005, 10:13 AM	#12
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	We sacked Culpepper 7 times. Brooks was sacked 3. Somehow, Culpepper seemed to make the plays needed for his team to win the game, with Travis Taylor, Marcus Robinson, Jermaine Wiggins, rookie williamson, and Mewelde Moore, as opposed to pro bowl Joe Horn, Donte Stallworth, Deuce Mcallister, and Ernie Conwell and Devery Henderson. He had just as much pressure as Brooks. I ain't buying that O-line not giving time crap again. If you have QB who can make quick reads and better decisions, you don't need a lot of time.

09-28-2005, 10:31 AM	#14
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	What game were you watching. err listening to? Turnovers gave the Vikes that lead, one from Stecker on the opening kickoff where they started in the red zone, one from Brooks' INT. The drive before Brooks' INT he threw a pass to Meier that got him jacked up like Conwell, and a pass to Donte Stallworth that hit him on the back of his feet on an out. As a matter of fact, there was a point in time where the Fox affiliate showed all the open receivers Brooks missed, either through not seeing them, or bad passes. You switch Brooks for Culpepper, we win. Let's not forget we were driving and only down 8 when he threw the INT that killed us. The Vikes had 147 total yards rushing, we had 114. Not a big difference, especially when you factor in we were averaging 5.7 yards per rush to their 3.9. Our first 7 possessions went fumble, punt punt, INT, punt, punt, punt, mainly on the back of bad passes. Plus we sacked Culpepper FOUR TIMES in the first half, as opposed to two for Brooks, which means he was only sacked once more inthe second half, so no the majority of the sacks on Culpepper did nto occur in the secodn half. Here's the gamebook: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebo...0050925_NO@MIN

09-28-2005, 10:39 AM	#15
fhotard 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Pensacola, FL Posts: 263	I agree that Culpepper had lots of pressure on him too. But before the pressure was on him, the Vikes built up a big lead. With good pressure, the Vikes O was pretty much shut down. Team Failure. For the first two quarters, it looked like none of our beloved Saints were in the game mentally. QB, RBs, O line, D, it was a sad sight. The 3rd quarter looked pretty good, points on the board, good pressure on Culpepper. The D started getting fired up. They were mounting a pretty good comeback...then it all fell apart again. Time to revive that old joke from the 80's: What do the Saints have in common with a tampon? Only good for 1 period.

09-28-2005, 10:46 AM	#16
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Another year with your griping about the O- line ??? Looks like it. You've seen something in them this year that causes you to feel differently then? Let's hear it.

09-28-2005, 10:49 AM	#17
LKelley67 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: baton rouge Posts: 2,540	as far as deuce himself he still doesn't look quite as quick or fast to me either. he may not be elite but he is still very good. good enough to carry the load for a succesful running game. i think smith a great backup too btw. he does have 12 catches so far that is more towards his '03 69 total rather than the 34 last year. he got 1000 yds on a leg and a half last year. less than 1200-1400 (with no injuries) would be a disappointment. it will take about 85 yds a game to reach that.

09-28-2005, 11:00 AM	#19
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	I thought we were hoping he "bounced back" from the horrible Giants game? How many "hope he bounces backs" does he need? lol