Paton DID want to run more.

jcoll16 · 01-23-2007, 04:20 PM

jcoll16 wrote:

It was a great ride, and I hope this year begins a turnaround for this franchise. Now it's time for Saints' fans favorite time of the football season --- the offseason.

????????????????????????????????????

That was a joke. Typically, the Saints have not fared too wel during the season or, if they make it, the postseason. Therefore, us Saints fans, are typically filled with the most optimism during Free Agency and the Draft before we get a chance to get bummed over a game. I suppose all that doesn't translate well in writing as it would in person.

GoldRush26 · 01-24-2007, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL

I'm one of those folks who think that you should run against those fronts. The Bears put up that front to get a predictable play. So they didn't have to think about what their players needed to do. By running against that front it creates doubt in their actions. And that doubt is what creates opportunity.

Think about the safety for example. Even if Deuce gets a yard or two on first down, that may have given enough space to get out of that hole.

Sometimes you have to run even when the defense dictates otherwise.

SFIAH

I'm going to agree with SFIAH. It is when you start checking out of your intended play that the defense starts dictating what you do. Besides, given what happened the Sunday before, I would've definitely challenged that run defense.

But, hey, I'm not complaining, just commenting...

How is it challenging the run D when they were stuffing us every time? We were slowly but surely beating them with the pass. Things that did us in were protection issues, fumbles, and ill-timed intentional groundings. When we got our passes off we were completing them.

If you look at it not checking out of our plays was playing into the D's hands. It was painfully obvious that they determined that Deuce was not going to beat them. They even said this afterwards. They watched the Eagles game. NFL defenses (especially the Bears) can eliminate a single player if they have to. We had to pass. Passing out of passing situations wasn't ideal because they would be looking for the pass at that time. The only way to effectively pass would be to audible out of run situations. If we somehow won that game, it wasn't going to be on the legs of Deuce.

I don't see that as the D "dictating what we do". It's more of the D "dictating what we won't do" if that makes sense. I'd much rather have them audible out of run stopping formations to stop the pass, personally. Given our personnel, I think it was our best shot. We just turned the ball over too many times. We only have 1 turnover to their zero, we win that game. Lovie Smith and Ron Rivera just called an excellent defensive gameplan on us and were opportunistic. Hats off to them.

Tobias-Reiper · 01-24-2007, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by GoldRush26

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL

I'm one of those folks who think that you should run against those fronts. The Bears put up that front to get a predictable play. So they didn't have to think about what their players needed to do. By running against that front it creates doubt in their actions. And that doubt is what creates opportunity.

Think about the safety for example. Even if Deuce gets a yard or two on first down, that may have given enough space to get out of that hole.

Sometimes you have to run even when the defense dictates otherwise.

SFIAH

I'm going to agree with SFIAH. It is when you start checking out of your intended play that the defense starts dictating what you do. Besides, given what happened the Sunday before, I would've definitely challenged that run defense.

But, hey, I'm not complaining, just commenting...

How is it challenging the run D when they were stuffing us every time? We were slowly but surely beating them with the pass. Things that did us in were protection issues, fumbles, and ill-timed intentional groundings. When we got our passes off we were completing them.

If you look at it not checking out of our plays was playing into the D's hands. It was painfully obvious that they determined that Deuce was not going to beat them. They even said this afterwards. They watched the Eagles game. NFL defenses (especially the Bears) can eliminate a single player if they have to. We had to pass. Passing out of passing situations wasn't ideal because they would be looking for the pass at that time. The only way to effectively pass would be to audible out of run situations. If we somehow won that game, it wasn't going to be on the legs of Deuce.

I don't see that as the D "dictating what we do". It's more of the D "dictating what we won't do" if that makes sense. I'd much rather have them audible out of run stopping formations to stop the pass, personally. Given our personnel, I think it was our best shot. We just turned the ball over too many times. We only have 1 turnover to their zero, we win that game. Lovie Smith and Ron Rivera just called an excellent defensive gameplan on us and were opportunistic. Hats off to them.

....ok...following that logic, tell me why were the Bears not able to stop Shawn Alexander? Because the Bears didn't care? Because the Bears said they were not going to get beat by the vaunted Seahawks air attack?

And in reality, the Saints were doing diddley-poo passing the ball, if not for the last drive at the end of the 2nd quarter and a 10-yd throw that Reggie ran into an 88 yd TD.

And it's not like Deuce or Reggie were getting stuffed 5 yards behind the line.
Not counting Brees' 8 yd scramble, here's what Deuce, Reggie, and Karney did running the ball:

2, 4, 6, -1, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 2, 0

That's not even close to stuffing the run. That's not even stopping the run. And that's only 11 rushing plays in an entire game.

Furthermore, speaking of the passing game, 3 of the fumbles and the safety came about in the passing game: 2 fumbles by Brees after sacks, an INT, and grounding in the endzone.

blake6900 · 01-24-2007, 03:06 PM

Ya know, a lotta people around here spend a lotta time utilizing the most basic (and silly) of offensive game plan logic i.e. run the ball no matter what. It's a great concept...except it doesn't work. It is, as Payton said, "running your head against the wall".

Running or not running enough did not lose this game. Four turnovers lost this game. The defense on the field too much lost this game. Brees not being sharp lost this game. Fred Thomas' poor pass coverage lost this game. Poor officiating lost this game. And the weather didn't help. There were a number of reasons why the Saints lost this game but giving up on the run isn't one of them.

The basic premise of offensive football is this: Take what the defense gives you. And then take some more. I repeat, take what the defense gives you and take then take some more. Anybody who doesn't understand this needs to ask themselves one question: If the whole point of offensive football is to "dictate" to the defense then why does a quarterback waste time looking over a defense before any given play. It shouldn't be necessary. It is necessary because (altogether now) you take what the defense gives you. The Bears, by their own admission, were not gonna let the Saints run against them and they didn't. The Saints would have to beat them with passing the ball in inclement weather. They were unable to do so for a multitude of reasons. The notion of running the ball no matter what looks a defense presents is a throwback to the Haslett/Ditka days and is based on pure, unadulterated stubborness. Not only was it ineffective against the Bear eight-man fronts it proved to be counter-productive because it put the Saints in second down and third down and long situations time and time again. In short,continuing to try running the ball and expecting a different result would have been an exercise in insanity.

If the Saints had continued to run the ball incessantly and the final score was still 39-14, there isn't one person here who would be saying, "Well, they lost but at least they didn't just abandon the running game."

Hey, we're all upset that the Saints didn't do better but this 20/20 hindsight stuff is ridiculous and many of you are exhibiting just how little football knowledge you really have or, more likely, you're letting your emotions get in the way. We all have an answer as to why we lost but that's all after the fact. Sean Payton took a team that few thought had any chance of success and he made winners of them. He made the decision to essentially abandon the running game and with all due respect to the "coaches and coordinators" around here he's proven he's a helluva lot more qualified to make that judgement than we are. Don't let your anger get in the way of common sense.

BTW, the Saints were able to run against the Eagles successfully last week. Had it been ineffective do you think they should have continued trying?

SaintFanInATLHELL · 01-24-2007, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by GoldRush26

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL

I'm one of those folks who think that you should run against those fronts. The Bears put up that front to get a predictable play. So they didn't have to think about what their players needed to do. By running against that front it creates doubt in their actions. And that doubt is what creates opportunity.

Think about the safety for example. Even if Deuce gets a yard or two on first down, that may have given enough space to get out of that hole.

Sometimes you have to run even when the defense dictates otherwise.

SFIAH

I'm going to agree with SFIAH. It is when you start checking out of your intended play that the defense starts dictating what you do. Besides, given what happened the Sunday before, I would've definitely challenged that run defense.

But, hey, I'm not complaining, just commenting...

How is it challenging the run D when they were stuffing us every time?

As I stated above, you run against the front so that that front 7 has to account for the run. That may give Brees the extra second or two on play action to get the ball down the field.

Another point is that running the ball gives the offensive line an opportunity to attack that Bears front line. Pass blocking is a defensive position, with the offensive linemen backing up to pass protect. Running the ball is an attacking mode where offensive linemen get the opportunity to fire out into the defense.

It's difficult to win when you don't run the ball. You can look at the Saints stats in each of their meaningful games to see that. In each and every game the Saints lost this season, Brees threw the ball at least 38 times. Only in 3 of the wins did he throw the ball more than 35 times.

We were slowly but surely beating them with the pass. Things that did us in were protection issues, fumbles, and ill-timed intentional groundings. When we got our passes off we were completing them.

But the point is that the protection issues and the intentional grounding were both influenced by the lack of a run game. The Bears simply pinned their ears back and attacked Brees. And checking out of the runs facilitated that.

If you look at it not checking out of our plays was playing into the D's hands. It was painfully obvious that they determined that Deuce was not going to beat them. They even said this afterwards. They watched the Eagles game. NFL defenses (especially the Bears) can eliminate a single player if they have to. We had to pass. Passing out of passing situations wasn't ideal because they would be looking for the pass at that time. The only way to effectively pass would be to audible out of run situations. If we somehow won that game, it wasn't going to be on the legs of Deuce.

I agree. But even if running the ball isn't productive in yards, it still sets up play action. If you run the ball against the front, then they have to account for the run. If you don't then they don't.

I don't see that as the D "dictating what we do". It's more of the D "dictating what we won't do" if that makes sense. I'd much rather have them audible out of run stopping formations to stop the pass, personally. Given our personnel, I think it was our best shot. We just turned the ball over too many times. We only have 1 turnover to their zero, we win that game. Lovie Smith and Ron Rivera just called an excellent defensive gameplan on us and were opportunistic. Hats off to them.

But by dictating what we will not do, that in turn dictates what we will do. It made the offense one dimensional. And that played right into their hands.

I agree with hats off to the Bears. And I'm very very very proud of our Saints. Most teams do not make it through the conference championship the first time through. And I have a good feeling that with our players, coaches, and system that the Saints will be back very very soon.

However, there is a lesson to be learned here and I'm hoping that both Payton and Brees sees it.

SFIAH

Tobias-Reiper · 01-24-2007, 04:57 PM

..and a lot of people just flap their yaps without actual thought of what they are saying.

Again, here are the runs that Deuce, Reggie, and Karney had on the 11 run plays called:

2, 4, 6, -1, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 2, 0

How is that that the run "wasn't working?" Please explain that to me.
For those who love stats, that's 4.3 yds a carry.
For those who don't, it is simply that the run was not stuffed, nor even stopped.
Only 2 carries resulted in no yards.

I'm still waiting on an explanation on how is it that the Bears were stopping the run, given the yardage that the Saints RBs were getting when they ran the ball.
And also waiting on an explanation on how was the passing game effective, being that Brees spent the afternoon eating frozen grass, fumbling the ball, and no more points were scored, and when 1 pass play was turned into an 88 yard TD because Reggie ran it 78 yards,
Go ahead, explain it to me like I'm 8 years old.

Originally Posted by blake6900

Ya know, a lotta people around here spend a lotta time utilizing the most basic (and silly) of offensive game plan logic i.e. run the ball no matter what. It's a great concept...except it doesn't work. It is, as Payton said, "running your head against the wall".

Running or not running enough did not lose this game. Four turnovers lost this game. The defense on the field too much lost this game. Brees not being sharp lost this game. Fred Thomas' poor pass coverage lost this game. Poor officiating lost this game. And the weather didn't help. There were a number of reasons why the Saints lost this game but giving up on the run isn't one of them.

The basic premise of offensive football is this: Take what the defense gives you. And then take some more. I repeat, take what the defense gives you and take then take some more. Anybody who doesn't understand this needs to ask themselves one question: If the whole point of offensive football is to "dictate" to the defense then why does a quarterback waste time looking over a defense before any given play. It shouldn't be necessary. It is necessary because (altogether now) you take what the defense gives you. The Bears, by their own admission, were not gonna let the Saints run against them and they didn't. The Saints would have to beat them with passing the ball in inclement weather. They were unable to do so for a multitude of reasons. The notion of running the ball no matter what looks a defense presents is a throwback to the Haslett/Ditka days and is based on pure, unadulterated stubborness. Not only was it ineffective against the Bear eight-man fronts it proved to be counter-productive because it put the Saints in second down and third down and long situations time and time again. In short,continuing to try running the ball and expecting a different result would have been an exercise in insanity.

If the Saints had continued to run the ball incessantly and the final score was still 39-14, there isn't one person here who would be saying, "Well, they lost but at least they didn't just abandon the running game."

Hey, we're all upset that the Saints didn't do better but this 20/20 hindsight stuff is ridiculous and many of you are exhibiting just how little football knowledge you really have or, more likely, you're letting your emotions get in the way. We all have an answer as to why we lost but that's all after the fact. Sean Payton took a team that few thought had any chance of success and he made winners of them. He made the decision to essentially abandon the running game and with all due respect to the "coaches and coordinators" around here he's proven he's a helluva lot more qualified to make that judgement than we are. Don't let your anger get in the way of common sense.

BTW, the Saints were able to run against the Eagles successfully last week. Had it been ineffective do you think they should have continued trying?

D24pick · 01-24-2007, 10:20 PM

Thats squat! He should've run the ball anyways! Those fronts mean they're just extremely soft up the gut. If Karney can run a deep draw for 11 yards up the gut vs that front why not Deuce? Explain gain 6 yards on 1st down with Deuce then leaving the run again just to get sacked.

We should've came in running the ball, and instead we didn't. So the result was us coming out with a loss

GoldRush26 · 01-24-2007, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

..and a lot of people just flap their yaps without actual thought of what they are saying.

Again, here are the runs that Deuce, Reggie, and Karney had on the 11 run plays called:

2, 4, 6, -1, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 2, 0

How is that that the run "wasn't working?" Please explain that to me.
For those who love stats, that's 4.3 yds a carry.
For those who don't, it is simply that the run was not stuffed, nor even stopped.
Only 2 carries resulted in no yards.

I'm still waiting on an explanation on how is it that the Bears were stopping the run, given the yardage that the Saints RBs were getting when they ran the ball.
And also waiting on an explanation on how was the passing game effective, being that Brees spent the afternoon eating frozen grass, fumbling the ball, and no more points were scored, and when 1 pass play was turned into an 88 yard TD because Reggie ran it 78 yards,
Go ahead, explain it to me like I'm 8 years old.

How about this; Perhaps Payton was no longer getting the defensive fronts that allowed him to get the run gains he was getting earlier. That's pretty straightforward. The Bears noticed they got gashed for those few plays and they adjusted not to give up those runs. I'm sorry but if Chicago is putting 7 or 8 in the box no RB is going to run effectively. You can't really look at our numbers and determine that they should've kept running no matter what. Too many factors came into play, the most important of which was turnovers.

I'm sure Payton watched enough tape to know when the Chicago D was ready to run commit, so he opted to audible out and took his chances on trying to beat a run commit formation with the pass. It was worth the risk given the state of the Bears' secondary. The only reason it didn't work is because we had pass protection issues. They gameplanned to stop Deuce primarily. Probably the one thing that Payton didn't do as much this game was run Deuce and Reggie in the same backfield. It was easy to stop Deuce if he's the only one in the backfield and they are gunning for him specifically.

mike27 · 01-25-2007, 10:37 AM

I think the Bears coach had it right. You just run at first whether you succeed or not. But that isn't really the point. The point is, on that drive they were running about 5/6 plays, and the few passes they attempted worked for that reason. He stopped running, on that drive, threw three fairly low-percentage passes, especially for the conditions, then kicked a long field goal which fell short. I'm convinced if they'd just kept running it most plays that they would've gotten at least a field goal out of it.

I'm just getting on this board so I'll say one other thing. I think next year if it looks like they'll be playing in an ice-box they should at least rent some sort of cold-field practice facility going into the game to condition themselves, to harden players off a bit. Part of the stripping the ball early-on "might" have had something to do with this lack.

Even if Deuce was limping a bit, they've got the other runners to use, and Reggie wasn't used much at all, and when he was they played him "downhill" rather than more creatively.

Of one thing I'm certain; you can't pass the ball almost every play and win, which is the situation they got into after this failed drive. It isn't just this game, but the whole season.

Tobias-Reiper · 01-25-2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by GoldRush26

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

..and a lot of people just flap their yaps without actual thought of what they are saying.

Again, here are the runs that Deuce, Reggie, and Karney had on the 11 run plays called:

2, 4, 6, -1, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 2, 0

How is that that the run "wasn't working?" Please explain that to me.
For those who love stats, that's 4.3 yds a carry.
For those who don't, it is simply that the run was not stuffed, nor even stopped.
Only 2 carries resulted in no yards.

How about this; Perhaps Payton was no longer getting the defensive fronts that allowed him to get the run gains he was getting earlier.
That's pretty straightforward. The Bears noticed they got gashed for those few plays and they adjusted not to give up those runs. I'm sorry but if Chicago is putting 7 or 8 in the box no RB is going to run effectively. You can't really look at our numbers and determine that they should've kept running no matter what. Too many factors came into play, the most important of which was turnovers.

Shawn Alexander did gash them for 108, even though the Bears KNEW Alexander was the only legitimate threat on offense, and they were actually putting 7-8 people in the box. So why not challenge them?

If you are getting 11, 12 yards a pop, just because they hold you to 2 in one run, you completely abandon the run?

And how many times did you see Urlacher on Colston, after he was right on the line of scrimmage? Their LBs were constantly dropping into coverage because the Saints were not even try to run it.

And how many hits does your QB have to take before you give him a breather with a couple running plays? There were plenty of 3-and-outs just passing the ball... why don't give the QB a breather from all the hits and the o-line a couple plays where they could attack the d-line?

And, lastly, how many times did you see the Bears defense line up one way and do something different after the ball was snapped?

01-23-2007, 04:20 PM	#11
jcoll16 Registered Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: B. Rouge Posts: 39	jcoll16 wrote: It was a great ride, and I hope this year begins a turnaround for this franchise. Now it's time for Saints' fans favorite time of the football season --- the offseason. ???????????????????????????????????? That was a joke. Typically, the Saints have not fared too wel during the season or, if they make it, the postseason. Therefore, us Saints fans, are typically filled with the most optimism during Free Agency and the Draft before we get a chance to get bummed over a game. I suppose all that doesn't translate well in writing as it would in person.

01-24-2007, 12:57 AM	#12
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594	Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL I'm one of those folks who think that you should run against those fronts. The Bears put up that front to get a predictable play. So they didn't have to think about what their players needed to do. By running against that front it creates doubt in their actions. And that doubt is what creates opportunity. Think about the safety for example. Even if Deuce gets a yard or two on first down, that may have given enough space to get out of that hole. Sometimes you have to run even when the defense dictates otherwise. SFIAH I'm going to agree with SFIAH. It is when you start checking out of your intended play that the defense starts dictating what you do. Besides, given what happened the Sunday before, I would've definitely challenged that run defense. But, hey, I'm not complaining, just commenting... How is it challenging the run D when they were stuffing us every time? We were slowly but surely beating them with the pass. Things that did us in were protection issues, fumbles, and ill-timed intentional groundings. When we got our passes off we were completing them. If you look at it not checking out of our plays was playing into the D's hands. It was painfully obvious that they determined that Deuce was not going to beat them. They even said this afterwards. They watched the Eagles game. NFL defenses (especially the Bears) can eliminate a single player if they have to. We had to pass. Passing out of passing situations wasn't ideal because they would be looking for the pass at that time. The only way to effectively pass would be to audible out of run situations. If we somehow won that game, it wasn't going to be on the legs of Deuce. I don't see that as the D "dictating what we do". It's more of the D "dictating what we won't do" if that makes sense. I'd much rather have them audible out of run stopping formations to stop the pass, personally. Given our personnel, I think it was our best shot. We just turned the ball over too many times. We only have 1 turnover to their zero, we win that game. Lovie Smith and Ron Rivera just called an excellent defensive gameplan on us and were opportunistic. Hats off to them.
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594

01-24-2007, 02:10 PM	#13
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Originally Posted by GoldRush26 Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL I'm one of those folks who think that you should run against those fronts. The Bears put up that front to get a predictable play. So they didn't have to think about what their players needed to do. By running against that front it creates doubt in their actions. And that doubt is what creates opportunity. Think about the safety for example. Even if Deuce gets a yard or two on first down, that may have given enough space to get out of that hole. Sometimes you have to run even when the defense dictates otherwise. SFIAH I'm going to agree with SFIAH. It is when you start checking out of your intended play that the defense starts dictating what you do. Besides, given what happened the Sunday before, I would've definitely challenged that run defense. But, hey, I'm not complaining, just commenting... How is it challenging the run D when they were stuffing us every time? We were slowly but surely beating them with the pass. Things that did us in were protection issues, fumbles, and ill-timed intentional groundings. When we got our passes off we were completing them. If you look at it not checking out of our plays was playing into the D's hands. It was painfully obvious that they determined that Deuce was not going to beat them. They even said this afterwards. They watched the Eagles game. NFL defenses (especially the Bears) can eliminate a single player if they have to. We had to pass. Passing out of passing situations wasn't ideal because they would be looking for the pass at that time. The only way to effectively pass would be to audible out of run situations. If we somehow won that game, it wasn't going to be on the legs of Deuce. I don't see that as the D "dictating what we do". It's more of the D "dictating what we won't do" if that makes sense. I'd much rather have them audible out of run stopping formations to stop the pass, personally. Given our personnel, I think it was our best shot. We just turned the ball over too many times. We only have 1 turnover to their zero, we win that game. Lovie Smith and Ron Rivera just called an excellent defensive gameplan on us and were opportunistic. Hats off to them. ....ok...following that logic, tell me why were the Bears not able to stop Shawn Alexander? Because the Bears didn't care? Because the Bears said they were not going to get beat by the vaunted Seahawks air attack? And in reality, the Saints were doing diddley-poo passing the ball, if not for the last drive at the end of the 2nd quarter and a 10-yd throw that Reggie ran into an 88 yd TD. And it's not like Deuce or Reggie were getting stuffed 5 yards behind the line. Not counting Brees' 8 yd scramble, here's what Deuce, Reggie, and Karney did running the ball: 2, 4, 6, -1, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 2, 0 That's not even close to stuffing the run. That's not even stopping the run. And that's only 11 rushing plays in an entire game. Furthermore, speaking of the passing game, 3 of the fumbles and the safety came about in the passing game: 2 fumbles by Brees after sacks, an INT, and grounding in the endzone.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

01-24-2007, 03:06 PM	#14
blake6900 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 182	RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Ya know, a lotta people around here spend a lotta time utilizing the most basic (and silly) of offensive game plan logic i.e. run the ball no matter what. It's a great concept...except it doesn't work. It is, as Payton said, "running your head against the wall". Running or not running enough did not lose this game. Four turnovers lost this game. The defense on the field too much lost this game. Brees not being sharp lost this game. Fred Thomas' poor pass coverage lost this game. Poor officiating lost this game. And the weather didn't help. There were a number of reasons why the Saints lost this game but giving up on the run isn't one of them. The basic premise of offensive football is this: Take what the defense gives you. And then take some more. I repeat, take what the defense gives you and take then take some more. Anybody who doesn't understand this needs to ask themselves one question: If the whole point of offensive football is to "dictate" to the defense then why does a quarterback waste time looking over a defense before any given play. It shouldn't be necessary. It is necessary because (altogether now) you take what the defense gives you. The Bears, by their own admission, were not gonna let the Saints run against them and they didn't. The Saints would have to beat them with passing the ball in inclement weather. They were unable to do so for a multitude of reasons. The notion of running the ball no matter what looks a defense presents is a throwback to the Haslett/Ditka days and is based on pure, unadulterated stubborness. Not only was it ineffective against the Bear eight-man fronts it proved to be counter-productive because it put the Saints in second down and third down and long situations time and time again. In short,continuing to try running the ball and expecting a different result would have been an exercise in insanity. If the Saints had continued to run the ball incessantly and the final score was still 39-14, there isn't one person here who would be saying, "Well, they lost but at least they didn't just abandon the running game." Hey, we're all upset that the Saints didn't do better but this 20/20 hindsight stuff is ridiculous and many of you are exhibiting just how little football knowledge you really have or, more likely, you're letting your emotions get in the way. We all have an answer as to why we lost but that's all after the fact. Sean Payton took a team that few thought had any chance of success and he made winners of them. He made the decision to essentially abandon the running game and with all due respect to the "coaches and coordinators" around here he's proven he's a helluva lot more qualified to make that judgement than we are. Don't let your anger get in the way of common sense. BTW, the Saints were able to run against the Eagles successfully last week. Had it been ineffective do you think they should have continued trying?
blake6900 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 182

01-24-2007, 03:20 PM	#15
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,776	Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Originally Posted by GoldRush26 Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL I'm one of those folks who think that you should run against those fronts. The Bears put up that front to get a predictable play. So they didn't have to think about what their players needed to do. By running against that front it creates doubt in their actions. And that doubt is what creates opportunity. Think about the safety for example. Even if Deuce gets a yard or two on first down, that may have given enough space to get out of that hole. Sometimes you have to run even when the defense dictates otherwise. SFIAH I'm going to agree with SFIAH. It is when you start checking out of your intended play that the defense starts dictating what you do. Besides, given what happened the Sunday before, I would've definitely challenged that run defense. But, hey, I'm not complaining, just commenting... How is it challenging the run D when they were stuffing us every time? As I stated above, you run against the front so that that front 7 has to account for the run. That may give Brees the extra second or two on play action to get the ball down the field. Another point is that running the ball gives the offensive line an opportunity to attack that Bears front line. Pass blocking is a defensive position, with the offensive linemen backing up to pass protect. Running the ball is an attacking mode where offensive linemen get the opportunity to fire out into the defense. It's difficult to win when you don't run the ball. You can look at the Saints stats in each of their meaningful games to see that. In each and every game the Saints lost this season, Brees threw the ball at least 38 times. Only in 3 of the wins did he throw the ball more than 35 times. We were slowly but surely beating them with the pass. Things that did us in were protection issues, fumbles, and ill-timed intentional groundings. When we got our passes off we were completing them. But the point is that the protection issues and the intentional grounding were both influenced by the lack of a run game. The Bears simply pinned their ears back and attacked Brees. And checking out of the runs facilitated that. If you look at it not checking out of our plays was playing into the D's hands. It was painfully obvious that they determined that Deuce was not going to beat them. They even said this afterwards. They watched the Eagles game. NFL defenses (especially the Bears) can eliminate a single player if they have to. We had to pass. Passing out of passing situations wasn't ideal because they would be looking for the pass at that time. The only way to effectively pass would be to audible out of run situations. If we somehow won that game, it wasn't going to be on the legs of Deuce. I agree. But even if running the ball isn't productive in yards, it still sets up play action. If you run the ball against the front, then they have to account for the run. If you don't then they don't. I don't see that as the D "dictating what we do". It's more of the D "dictating what we won't do" if that makes sense. I'd much rather have them audible out of run stopping formations to stop the pass, personally. Given our personnel, I think it was our best shot. We just turned the ball over too many times. We only have 1 turnover to their zero, we win that game. Lovie Smith and Ron Rivera just called an excellent defensive gameplan on us and were opportunistic. Hats off to them. But by dictating what we will not do, that in turn dictates what we will do. It made the offense one dimensional. And that played right into their hands. I agree with hats off to the Bears. And I'm very very very proud of our Saints. Most teams do not make it through the conference championship the first time through. And I have a good feeling that with our players, coaches, and system that the Saints will be back very very soon. However, there is a lesson to be learned here and I'm hoping that both Payton and Brees sees it. SFIAH
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.

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

01-24-2007, 04:57 PM	#16
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. ..and a lot of people just flap their yaps without actual thought of what they are saying. Again, here are the runs that Deuce, Reggie, and Karney had on the 11 run plays called: 2, 4, 6, -1, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 2, 0 How is that that the run "wasn't working?" Please explain that to me. For those who love stats, that's 4.3 yds a carry. For those who don't, it is simply that the run was not stuffed, nor even stopped. Only 2 carries resulted in no yards. I'm still waiting on an explanation on how is it that the Bears were stopping the run, given the yardage that the Saints RBs were getting when they ran the ball. And also waiting on an explanation on how was the passing game effective, being that Brees spent the afternoon eating frozen grass, fumbling the ball, and no more points were scored, and when 1 pass play was turned into an 88 yard TD because Reggie ran it 78 yards, Go ahead, explain it to me like I'm 8 years old. Originally Posted by blake6900 Ya know, a lotta people around here spend a lotta time utilizing the most basic (and silly) of offensive game plan logic i.e. run the ball no matter what. It's a great concept...except it doesn't work. It is, as Payton said, "running your head against the wall". Running or not running enough did not lose this game. Four turnovers lost this game. The defense on the field too much lost this game. Brees not being sharp lost this game. Fred Thomas' poor pass coverage lost this game. Poor officiating lost this game. And the weather didn't help. There were a number of reasons why the Saints lost this game but giving up on the run isn't one of them. The basic premise of offensive football is this: Take what the defense gives you. And then take some more. I repeat, take what the defense gives you and take then take some more. Anybody who doesn't understand this needs to ask themselves one question: If the whole point of offensive football is to "dictate" to the defense then why does a quarterback waste time looking over a defense before any given play. It shouldn't be necessary. It is necessary because (altogether now) you take what the defense gives you. The Bears, by their own admission, were not gonna let the Saints run against them and they didn't. The Saints would have to beat them with passing the ball in inclement weather. They were unable to do so for a multitude of reasons. The notion of running the ball no matter what looks a defense presents is a throwback to the Haslett/Ditka days and is based on pure, unadulterated stubborness. Not only was it ineffective against the Bear eight-man fronts it proved to be counter-productive because it put the Saints in second down and third down and long situations time and time again. In short,continuing to try running the ball and expecting a different result would have been an exercise in insanity. If the Saints had continued to run the ball incessantly and the final score was still 39-14, there isn't one person here who would be saying, "Well, they lost but at least they didn't just abandon the running game." Hey, we're all upset that the Saints didn't do better but this 20/20 hindsight stuff is ridiculous and many of you are exhibiting just how little football knowledge you really have or, more likely, you're letting your emotions get in the way. We all have an answer as to why we lost but that's all after the fact. Sean Payton took a team that few thought had any chance of success and he made winners of them. He made the decision to essentially abandon the running game and with all due respect to the "coaches and coordinators" around here he's proven he's a helluva lot more qualified to make that judgement than we are. Don't let your anger get in the way of common sense. BTW, the Saints were able to run against the Eagles successfully last week. Had it been ineffective do you think they should have continued trying?
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

01-24-2007, 10:20 PM	#17
D24pick 500th Post Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New Orleans Posts: 578	RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Thats squat! He should've run the ball anyways! Those fronts mean they're just extremely soft up the gut. If Karney can run a deep draw for 11 yards up the gut vs that front why not Deuce? Explain gain 6 yards on 1st down with Deuce then leaving the run again just to get sacked. We should've came in running the ball, and instead we didn't. So the result was us coming out with a loss

01-24-2007, 10:41 PM	#18
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594	Re: RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper ..and a lot of people just flap their yaps without actual thought of what they are saying. Again, here are the runs that Deuce, Reggie, and Karney had on the 11 run plays called: 2, 4, 6, -1, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 2, 0 How is that that the run "wasn't working?" Please explain that to me. For those who love stats, that's 4.3 yds a carry. For those who don't, it is simply that the run was not stuffed, nor even stopped. Only 2 carries resulted in no yards. I'm still waiting on an explanation on how is it that the Bears were stopping the run, given the yardage that the Saints RBs were getting when they ran the ball. And also waiting on an explanation on how was the passing game effective, being that Brees spent the afternoon eating frozen grass, fumbling the ball, and no more points were scored, and when 1 pass play was turned into an 88 yard TD because Reggie ran it 78 yards, Go ahead, explain it to me like I'm 8 years old. How about this; Perhaps Payton was no longer getting the defensive fronts that allowed him to get the run gains he was getting earlier. That's pretty straightforward. The Bears noticed they got gashed for those few plays and they adjusted not to give up those runs. I'm sorry but if Chicago is putting 7 or 8 in the box no RB is going to run effectively. You can't really look at our numbers and determine that they should've kept running no matter what. Too many factors came into play, the most important of which was turnovers. I'm sure Payton watched enough tape to know when the Chicago D was ready to run commit, so he opted to audible out and took his chances on trying to beat a run commit formation with the pass. It was worth the risk given the state of the Bears' secondary. The only reason it didn't work is because we had pass protection issues. They gameplanned to stop Deuce primarily. Probably the one thing that Payton didn't do as much this game was run Deuce and Reggie in the same backfield. It was easy to stop Deuce if he's the only one in the backfield and they are gunning for him specifically.
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594

01-25-2007, 10:37 AM	#19
mike27 100th Post Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 104 Blog Entries: 2	RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. I think the Bears coach had it right. You just run at first whether you succeed or not. But that isn't really the point. The point is, on that drive they were running about 5/6 plays, and the few passes they attempted worked for that reason. He stopped running, on that drive, threw three fairly low-percentage passes, especially for the conditions, then kicked a long field goal which fell short. I'm convinced if they'd just kept running it most plays that they would've gotten at least a field goal out of it. I'm just getting on this board so I'll say one other thing. I think next year if it looks like they'll be playing in an ice-box they should at least rent some sort of cold-field practice facility going into the game to condition themselves, to harden players off a bit. Part of the stripping the ball early-on "might" have had something to do with this lack. Even if Deuce was limping a bit, they've got the other runners to use, and Reggie wasn't used much at all, and when he was they played him "downhill" rather than more creatively. Of one thing I'm certain; you can't pass the ball almost every play and win, which is the situation they got into after this failed drive. It isn't just this game, but the whole season.

01-25-2007, 12:47 PM	#20
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Originally Posted by GoldRush26 Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper ..and a lot of people just flap their yaps without actual thought of what they are saying. Again, here are the runs that Deuce, Reggie, and Karney had on the 11 run plays called: 2, 4, 6, -1, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 2, 0 How is that that the run "wasn't working?" Please explain that to me. For those who love stats, that's 4.3 yds a carry. For those who don't, it is simply that the run was not stuffed, nor even stopped. Only 2 carries resulted in no yards. How about this; Perhaps Payton was no longer getting the defensive fronts that allowed him to get the run gains he was getting earlier. That's pretty straightforward. The Bears noticed they got gashed for those few plays and they adjusted not to give up those runs. I'm sorry but if Chicago is putting 7 or 8 in the box no RB is going to run effectively. You can't really look at our numbers and determine that they should've kept running no matter what. Too many factors came into play, the most important of which was turnovers. Shawn Alexander did gash them for 108, even though the Bears KNEW Alexander was the only legitimate threat on offense, and they were actually putting 7-8 people in the box. So why not challenge them? If you are getting 11, 12 yards a pop, just because they hold you to 2 in one run, you completely abandon the run? And how many times did you see Urlacher on Colston, after he was right on the line of scrimmage? Their LBs were constantly dropping into coverage because the Saints were not even try to run it. And how many hits does your QB have to take before you give him a breather with a couple running plays? There were plenty of 3-and-outs just passing the ball... why don't give the QB a breather from all the hits and the o-line a couple plays where they could attack the d-line? And, lastly, how many times did you see the Bears defense line up one way and do something different after the ball was snapped?
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill