Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

Points per game. Since the number of games is fixed for the regular season, total points scored against the defense also qualifies.

BTW any "superior knowledge" I may have is from researching the topic. The stats are all on Pro-Football-Reference.com - Pro Football Statistics and History at the top of any team's page for a given year. Also I scrounged up the postseason data from the stats section of NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League

Defense winning championships. The reason is that good defense and running the football function more consistently over a wider variety of conditions. As an example I take you back to 2000, the Baltimore ravens:

2000 Baltimore Ravens Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

If you take a look they only gave up more than 20 points twice all season, and no more than 10 in the playoffs. When you're only giving up 10 points a game, You are always in contention.

Now the problem with teams that shoot it out without a defense is that if the offense sputters at all, then you lose the game. It puts a lot of pressure on an offense to be perfect.

The other aspect, which I've been saying here about the Saints for awhile, is that a defense can give up quite a bit, but if they prevent you from scoring, they've done their job. Put it this way: in a drive an offense needs to succeed on every third down, the defense only needs to succeed on one.

And you missed one final point: the defense can score too, both directly and indirectly. Directly by a turnover return for a TD. Indirectly by a turnover that gives you offense such great field position.
Correct. That's why I have the word virtually in my signature.

Yes. But it's not all that complex. A team has to be able to run the ball effectively and not turn the ball over. Since your defense will virtually always back you up.

But I want to remind you that until that last drive the Patriots defense had done their job. That top 10 defense had their team in a position to win the. That final drive by the Giants was as improbable as they come. Here's a pretty good video of it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7195569314950590387&ei=uP8iSNzsK4amrwK6p-3IAg&hl=en
Without the 4th and 1 conversion and the literally miracle play from Manning to Tyree (which IMHO would result in a sack or incompletion 99% of the time), the game is over with the Giants scoring 10 points. A fanstastic and improbable finish to be sure.

But to finish up, in an ideal NFL world, your team has the best offense, the best defense, and comes away champions. But in virtually every instance in a playoff run, the best defense during that playoff run prevails because it simultaneously takes pressure off your offense while exerting tremendous pressure on opposing offenses.

BTW great offenses and defenses complement one another. That's why the Rams and Cowboys of the 90's and the Niners of the 80's were so successful.

That's where I'd like to see the Saints going in this next window. And our offense is going to be a great contributor to the effort. But IMO it's a near championship caliber offense RIGHT NOW! Brees' surgical precision with the ball almost always works in lieu of that consistent running game that I referred to above. However, like all great offenses the Saints can be shut down by superior defense. Witness the NFC championship game, the Indy game, and the Tennessee game for recent examples.

So that gets us back to Shockey. I know ya'll think I don't think he'll make the offense better. He would. My issue is the potential costs on three fronts: players/picks, dollars, and team chemistry.


Are you willing to give up next year's first for the guy?

What about Harper, your best starting safety?

Are you willing the risk the guy being unhappy with his production?

He's going to want his money. Do you pay him over Smith? Over Colston?

What if Vilma returns to earlier 4-3 and becomes the beast in the middle we think he's going to be. Paying him will impact both the draft pick and potentially Shockey's money.

It's not as clear cut as "He's great! Get him!"

I know it's a lot to read. The Professor is just trying to drop some knowledge.

SFIAH

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

With the relative costs? Absolutely!

BTW Miller and Johnson are not playing 11 on 10. The defense have to account for them too. A safety or a LB have to cover them.

I'm going to keep saying the word until it gets addressed. Let's try three times:

cost, Cost, and COST!

If Shockey were free, I'd take him. If Shockey could be had for next year's 5th, I'd take him. If I could foist Bullocks onto the Giants for Shockey I'd take him.

Dude, the Giants wanted Harper and a 2nd round pick for Shockey. OUCH!!!

Now the financial and team chemistry costs, which are related. You think Shockey is going to be satisfied just being a part of an offense at his current price? He's going to want to be the centerpiece of the offense and want to get paid premium TE money for the privilege.

What impact do you think that Mr. Unhappy is going to bring to the Locker Room. Shockey hasn't participated with anything with the Giants AFAICT. That's the kind of "team player" you want in the Saints locker room?

Let me see if I can give you an oddball example. With gas prices going through the roof, I've been looking at electric cars. You can find my dream car right here:

Tesla Motors

0-60 in 3.9 S, 2 cents a mile to drive, 220 miles per charge. A dream electric car...

...That costs $100,000 for the base model!

With Shockey I'm not even going to bother continuing to argue the production angle. I'm even willing to stipulate to the production of the TE position, even if I don't really believe it's going to be as much an impact as ya'll do.

But Shockey isn't a Saint right now because of costs. It's going to be a painfully high price to bring him in. Those costs can impact the Saints for years to come.

Are you sure you're willing to pay it?

SFIAH

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

Memnoch, do not fear for my sanity. I did qualify with "on this point", and I was referring to the claim about the 9ers defense. SFIAH is a fine writer, and has some convincing arguments, but I'm not sucked in (on this point) just yet.

SFIAH, nice posts. I enjoyed them a good deal. I'm still almost on board with the Anti-Shockey sentiment. IMO the strongest arguments are the "cost" argument and the "chemistry" argument. The second hasn't convinced me yet (and might never), and it is hard to tell what the cost will be (yet). However, I like this "cost" concern: Shockey's contract will make it difficult to get substantial (and desirable) contracts with Smith and Colston - those two are certainly worth more than Shockey.

Regarding the "scoring defense", I'm still a bit unclear. Is this just the "points allowed" category? It is interesting to me that such a stat is a good predictor of championship success. It is also interesting to me since I think this stat also reflects the success of the offense (which may be your point, I can't tell yet). It reflects the success of the offense, since as we all know, a clock-grinding offense keeps the opponent's offense off the field. Maybe that is your point about the running game?

So, overall, I'm not convinced that points allows is a purely defensive statistic (like yards allowed, third downs allowed, and the like, are). Thus, I'm skeptical that "scoring defense" is a good indicator of how good a defense is (but I may be misunderstanding), and, in turn, I now question the simple (though I concede there may be a more complex way of understanding this) version of "defenses win championships".

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

SFIAH, I'm glad you're willing to capitulate on the "production" argument. I think a case could be made, but the work wouldn't be worth it. The other arguments don't rely on claiming we already have a "Shockey equivalent" on the roster (even if the equivalent is made up of some sort of rotation); thus, you don't need this claim to press your case.

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

PS - Memnoch, "waffle house mathematics", I like it. :)

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

thats what ive been saying all along.....i think that colston may still find himself as a favorite but id like to see shockey with us cuz i know that our short passing offense will allow shockey to go all out....he will be dominating...we will use him...if he wouldnt end up drews favorite target then he would be a close second....shockey has mad skills....if u have the chance to put him on ur team u dont pass it up

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

We have a damn good one right now. #1 and #4 in the league in yards the last 2 years. 5th and 12th in scoring.

Now you've finally gotten to the cost argument. Good.

Let's start with Brees. He cost the team nothing but money. And money structured in such a way that if he didn't work out, the team could cut him for virtually no cost, because he had a $12 million option bonus after the first year.

Reggie was drafted. Again all he costs is money.

Let's not even talk about Alexander. Uggg.

In the case of Shockey, upgrading the offense is hurting the defense. Let's remember what the offer on the table to Giants supposedly was: Our 2nd round pick AND Roman Harper. That pick turned into Porter. So if the trigger got pulled then you lose a defensive starter and a player that's likely to be a contributor on the defense and ST.

Now let's look at the Saints defensive acquitions this offseason so far:

Vilma: cost a 4th round pick and possibly a second next year.

Morgan: just money:

Ellis: A 3rd round pick with the swap that turned into Nicks, projected to be a 2nd round talent. WOW! You get a 2nd round offensive player too!

Porter: nothing but the pick

Pressley: nothing but the pick.

So upgrading the defense cost little more than a couple of picks.

More pointedly, absolutely none of these guys have been reported to be anything other than team oriented pros in the locker room.

Maybe you haven't read my analysis of what should be done with the offense. In summary:

1) Resign our free agents. Check.
2) Integrate PT23 into the running game. Remains to be seen.
3) Pay Colston. Remains to be seen.
4) Get Meachum out on the field. Remains to be seen.
5) Continue to shore up the offensive line to keep Brees upright and to bolster the running game. Goodwin at center and the integration of the young OL (Allenman, Bushrod, Nicks) should assure that.
6) Get Stickum for the receivers hands :D

In short, the offense is already capable of playing at a championship level.

Funny.

Don't get me started about Brooks. There isn't enough space on the Internet for that discussion.

BTW that 2000 Saints defensive squad was 10th in the league in scoring defense. That, along with the 10th best scoring offense, led the Saints to the NFC west crown and the teams first playoff win.

The bottom fell out in 2001. Guess what? The defense dropped to 27th.

My "Waffle House Mathematics" as you put it doesn't change. Successful teams in the NFL play defense. That's the foundation. It's a theme that is recurrent and timeless.

BTW I think it's disingenuous for you to intimate that I want to dismantle the offense to build the defense. I certainly would have had a problem if the Saints wanted to get rid of Brees, Bush, Brown, Colston, or any of the offensive talent to improve the defense. So far the FO has done a brilliant job of rebuilding the defense through judicious trades of draft picks, free agency, and the draft.

But Shockey has deep meaningful costs associated with acquiring him. All I've been pointing out throughout the now dozen pages of this thread is that while he'd certainly improve an already outstanding offense, that the costs in personnel, money, and team chemistry are going to cut, and cut deeply into the fabric of this team.

I'd certainly have no issue with the money if that's all it would cost. I'd even consider rocking the team chemistry boat. But the personnel cost? That's over the top for me.

SFIAH

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

Having Shockey means opposing defenses actually have to cover our TE and not double Colston and Reggie or spy Drew.

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

So let's say it's only a 2nd round pick? That's not a bad cost to pay for a ProBowl TE is it? The just drafted a quality S via the draft... I wouldn't think they'd have a big need for Harper anymore.

Now if we're going to talk about money, you were in favor of signing Moss and Shockey wouldn't cost nowhere near as much as Moss would have. Has Shockey even asked for a contract extension yet? Let's say he does, I'm going to use Daniel Graham's contract as a barometer... 30 million for 5 years with 15 million in guaranteed money. That's really not that bad and remember that the league's cap has been going up every year.

Now if we're talking about team chemistry, maybe a change of scenery will serve him Shockey well. There's no guarantee he won't be a "class act" here. Who would have thought Moss would become boy scout once he arrived in New England? He knows Payton... he was productive under Payton. I'm sure his familiarity with Payton and his increased production in our system will keep him happy.

Obviously cost is the major issue here... but it's not like we're trying to acquire Antonio Gates here. I'm sure everyone understands the "Defense wins Championships" cliche, but it doesn't mean the offense should be ignored. Just because they're playing at a high level, doesn't mean they will continue to do so. Adding playmakers will only help us maintain our level of success instead of letting the league catch up to us.

Re: payton wants shockey...................
 

What exactly do you consider "a perfect offense"? And what exactly do you consider an offense getting "shut down"? Sure the Patriots looked mighty impressive destroying the Jets and Redskins and Buffalo in the regular season, but the post season is another beast.

The fact remains that the Patriots offense took the lead with 2 minutes left. So they didn't get shut down.

That is true, but they need to play offense and special teams as well.