Paton DID want to run more.

jcoll16 · 01-22-2007, 10:31 PM

Hey Guys,

I've read a lot of complaining here and have listened to comment from the so-called experts who don't do any research before spewing their opionated garbage upon the masses about Payton being too stubborn and stupid about his gameplane and refusal to run more against the Bears.

The fact is Payton DID call for more runs.

Times-Picayune,
Saints have nowhere to run
Chicago defense stacked box, put pressure on Brees
Monday, January 22, 2007
By Ted Lewis

"We understand the importance of getting the ball to Deuce,"
Saints Coach Sean Payton said. "But we didn't want to
keep running our heads against the wall against some of the looks we were getting."

Not that the Saints didn't think about it a lot.

Brees said several called runs had to be checked into passes
because of the fronts the Bears presented.

Even when it was obvious the Saints were committed to the passing game,
the Bears stayed with their plan, leaving cornerbacks Charles Tillman and
Nathan Vasher to cover the Saints receivers, which they were able to do in
large part because of the pressure the Bears were able to apply to Brees.

"That was our No. 1 goal," Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher said of containing
McAllister. "And I think we did a pretty good job of it."

http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index...amp;thispage=1

Also, Brown and Stinchcomb, and even Deuce blocking in the backfield, had rough days. Payton wasn't being stupid, the Bears just dictatexd that we beat them without the run... and if it weren't for the fumbles, It certainly could have happened.

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.

GoldRush26 · 01-23-2007, 12:00 AM

Ah that article won't matter to some. They will insist that we should have run no matter what looks we were getting and that Payton had a bad gameplan.

I trust that if we didn't run we had a good reason for not running.

SaintFanInATLHELL · 01-23-2007, 07:58 AM

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

hagan714 · 01-23-2007, 08:23 AM

oh well. payton did what he did and that is that. he did an excellent job overall this season so I, myself, will not say much about the second half game plan. We did not have our best game and the bears did for the most part. Result was we lost.
loved the season and i am looking forward to next year. We might be on monday night football more than once i bet. we might even get a late season date. safe bet

Tobias-Reiper · 01-23-2007, 10:56 AM

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...

wheelman · 01-23-2007, 11:54 AM

Not checking out of a play when the defense is showing they know what you are about to do is not a good idea. That is playing right into their hands.

DJLengai · 01-23-2007, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by jcoll16

Hey Guys,

I've read a lot of complaining here and have listened to comment from the so-called experts who don't do any research before spewing their opionated garbage upon the masses about Payton being too stubborn and stupid about his gameplane and refusal to run more against the Bears.

The fact is Payton DID call for more runs.

Times-Picayune,
Saints have nowhere to run
Chicago defense stacked box, put pressure on Brees
Monday, January 22, 2007
By Ted Lewis

"We understand the importance of getting the ball to Deuce," Saints Coach Sean Payton said. "But we didn't want to keep running our heads against the wall against some of the looks we were getting."

Not that the Saints didn't think about it a lot.

Brees said several called runs had to be checked into passes because of the fronts the Bears presented.

Even when it was obvious the Saints were committed to the passing game, the Bears stayed with their plan, leaving cornerbacks Charles Tillman and Nathan Vasher to cover the Saints receivers, which they were able to do in large part because of the pressure the Bears were able to apply to Brees.

"That was our No. 1 goal," Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher said of containing McAllister. "And I think we did a pretty good job of it."

http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index...amp;thispage=1

Also, Brown and Stinchcomb, and even Deuce blocking in the backfield, had rough days. Payton wasn't being stupid, the Bears just dictatexd that we beat them without the run... and if it weren't for the fumbles, It certainly could have happened.

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.

On the way to the Superbowl everyone knew the Panthers were going to run Stephen Davis. They ran Davis and imposed their will on the defense no matter what look they got. No matter what look we gave Chicago they ran the ball down our throat. They didn't check out of all of the runs to pass. Point is that we never tried to smash them in the mouth no matter what they were doing. If that didn't work then go to the low percentage passing in wet weather. We have 2 bangers, they have 2 bangers. They banged and we didn't. It doesn't get any more fundamental than that. Even Payton is kicking himself for not running to get Cundiff closer for the FG so go play.

DJLengai · 01-23-2007, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by jcoll16

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.

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

Tobias-Reiper · 01-23-2007, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by wheelman

Not checking out of a play when the defense is showing they know what you are about to do is not a good idea. That is playing right into their hands.

Nope.
Best example is the ol' Green Bay power sweep. Everyone and their mothers knew the Packers were going to run it, but it was rarely stopped.

Defenses have seen the film, the formations, etc... they know - or at the very least have a very educated guess about - what the offense is going to do, depending in the situation (3rd and long, goal to go, etc), so usually it comes down to execution of the play on the part of the offense.

Now, when going against a complex defense like the Bears or the Ravens, what they show before the snap has usually absolutely nothing to do with what happens after the ball is snapped, unless it is an obvious situation (4th and inches, goal to go on the 1 yard line, 3rd and 20, etc.) Not because they put 8-9 players in the box it means that all of them are going to stay put or blitz. So you still have to run it at them, even if it means a few plus or minor 1 yard gains. If you completely abandon 50% of your offense just because of what they are showing pre-snap, then they'd simply show you 8-9 in the box, then at the snap drop the LB's and safety(ies) to defend the pass, and you lose, just like happened to the Saints.

One thing is to check off a 15 yard pass for a 5 yard pass if the corner is sitting on your planned route, another is to check off your running game, especially when the Seahawks were able to run it at them.

saintfan · 01-23-2007, 03:48 PM

Thing is, minus a few errant passes and a fumble or three and we're not even having this conversation. The problem wasn't with the playcalling or the audibles...the problem was with execution. A young team with so much on the line in those conditions...well...

01-22-2007, 10:31 PM	#1
jcoll16 Registered Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: B. Rouge Posts: 39	Paton DID want to run more. Hey Guys, I've read a lot of complaining here and have listened to comment from the so-called experts who don't do any research before spewing their opionated garbage upon the masses about Payton being too stubborn and stupid about his gameplane and refusal to run more against the Bears. The fact is Payton DID call for more runs. Times-Picayune, Saints have nowhere to run Chicago defense stacked box, put pressure on Brees Monday, January 22, 2007 By Ted Lewis "We understand the importance of getting the ball to Deuce," Saints Coach Sean Payton said. "But we didn't want to keep running our heads against the wall against some of the looks we were getting." Not that the Saints didn't think about it a lot. Brees said several called runs had to be checked into passes because of the fronts the Bears presented. Even when it was obvious the Saints were committed to the passing game, the Bears stayed with their plan, leaving cornerbacks Charles Tillman and Nathan Vasher to cover the Saints receivers, which they were able to do in large part because of the pressure the Bears were able to apply to Brees. "That was our No. 1 goal," Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher said of containing McAllister. "And I think we did a pretty good job of it." http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index...amp;thispage=1 Also, Brown and Stinchcomb, and even Deuce blocking in the backfield, had rough days. Payton wasn't being stupid, the Bears just dictatexd that we beat them without the run... and if it weren't for the fumbles, It certainly could have happened. 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.

01-23-2007, 12:00 AM	#2
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594	RE: Paton DID want to run more. Ah that article won't matter to some. They will insist that we should have run no matter what looks we were getting and that Payton had a bad gameplan. I trust that if we didn't run we had a good reason for not running.
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594

01-23-2007, 07:58 AM	#3
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,776	RE: Paton DID want to run more. 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

01-23-2007, 08:23 AM	#4
hagan714 LB Mentallity Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 15,870 Blog Entries: 68	RE: Paton DID want to run more. oh well. payton did what he did and that is that. he did an excellent job overall this season so I, myself, will not say much about the second half game plan. We did not have our best game and the bears did for the most part. Result was we lost. loved the season and i am looking forward to next year. We might be on monday night football more than once i bet. we might even get a late season date. safe bet

01-23-2007, 10:56 AM	#5
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. 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...

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

01-23-2007, 11:54 AM	#6
wheelman Sammich Lover Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 682	RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Not checking out of a play when the defense is showing they know what you are about to do is not a good idea. That is playing right into their hands.
wheelman Sammich Lover Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 682

01-23-2007, 12:22 PM	#7
DJLengai 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 168	Re: Paton DID want to run more. Originally Posted by jcoll16 Hey Guys, I've read a lot of complaining here and have listened to comment from the so-called experts who don't do any research before spewing their opionated garbage upon the masses about Payton being too stubborn and stupid about his gameplane and refusal to run more against the Bears. The fact is Payton DID call for more runs. Times-Picayune, Saints have nowhere to run Chicago defense stacked box, put pressure on Brees Monday, January 22, 2007 By Ted Lewis "We understand the importance of getting the ball to Deuce," Saints Coach Sean Payton said. "But we didn't want to keep running our heads against the wall against some of the looks we were getting." Not that the Saints didn't think about it a lot. Brees said several called runs had to be checked into passes because of the fronts the Bears presented. Even when it was obvious the Saints were committed to the passing game, the Bears stayed with their plan, leaving cornerbacks Charles Tillman and Nathan Vasher to cover the Saints receivers, which they were able to do in large part because of the pressure the Bears were able to apply to Brees. "That was our No. 1 goal," Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher said of containing McAllister. "And I think we did a pretty good job of it." http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index...amp;thispage=1 Also, Brown and Stinchcomb, and even Deuce blocking in the backfield, had rough days. Payton wasn't being stupid, the Bears just dictatexd that we beat them without the run... and if it weren't for the fumbles, It certainly could have happened. 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. On the way to the Superbowl everyone knew the Panthers were going to run Stephen Davis. They ran Davis and imposed their will on the defense no matter what look they got. No matter what look we gave Chicago they ran the ball down our throat. They didn't check out of all of the runs to pass. Point is that we never tried to smash them in the mouth no matter what they were doing. If that didn't work then go to the low percentage passing in wet weather. We have 2 bangers, they have 2 bangers. They banged and we didn't. It doesn't get any more fundamental than that. Even Payton is kicking himself for not running to get Cundiff closer for the FG so go play.
DJLengai 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 168

01-23-2007, 01:01 PM	#8
DJLengai 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 168	Re: Paton DID want to run more. Originally Posted by jcoll16 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. ????????????????????????????????????
DJLengai 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 168

01-23-2007, 01:46 PM	#9
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Originally Posted by wheelman Not checking out of a play when the defense is showing they know what you are about to do is not a good idea. That is playing right into their hands. Nope. Best example is the ol' Green Bay power sweep. Everyone and their mothers knew the Packers were going to run it, but it was rarely stopped. Defenses have seen the film, the formations, etc... they know - or at the very least have a very educated guess about - what the offense is going to do, depending in the situation (3rd and long, goal to go, etc), so usually it comes down to execution of the play on the part of the offense. Now, when going against a complex defense like the Bears or the Ravens, what they show before the snap has usually absolutely nothing to do with what happens after the ball is snapped, unless it is an obvious situation (4th and inches, goal to go on the 1 yard line, 3rd and 20, etc.) Not because they put 8-9 players in the box it means that all of them are going to stay put or blitz. So you still have to run it at them, even if it means a few plus or minor 1 yard gains. If you completely abandon 50% of your offense just because of what they are showing pre-snap, then they'd simply show you 8-9 in the box, then at the snap drop the LB's and safety(ies) to defend the pass, and you lose, just like happened to the Saints. One thing is to check off a 15 yard pass for a 5 yard pass if the corner is sitting on your planned route, another is to check off your running game, especially when the Seahawks were able to run it at them.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

01-23-2007, 03:48 PM	#10
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Thing is, minus a few errant passes and a fumble or three and we're not even having this conversation. The problem wasn't with the playcalling or the audibles...the problem was with execution. A young team with so much on the line in those conditions...well...