Totally sucks ... and the running game
 

I'm having withdrawal symptoms. I watch last years Super Bowl last night just to try to cure it.

Who else thinks that if we would have had a slightly above average running back this year, LT would have fit nicely, everything would have been better.

Brees doesn't throw all those picks (b/c we have a running game)

Red Zone % dramtactically better

even on defense - we would have scored more so it's way easier when the opponent is in constant "catch-up" mode. Time of possesion would have been way better etc...


Just somebody who would have lasted all season (very important) and could have at least been a threat between the tackles, on the screen, and in pass protection.


Nothing else needed to have changed. With this, we would have been hosting the NFC Championship game this weekend.

If our RBs were healthy, it would have been huge, Still need to upgrade the front 7 on defense.

we scored 36 and the defense gave up 41, still think its defense we need more adjstments to.

Running backs need to stay healthy .... defense has holes all over the front 7

I remember discussing this on this forum when LT became available. I would have been in favor of that, but it is a moot point now. We would have been fine if we hadn't lost 9 rb's or so at various points in the year.

This is true but we had a top 10 defense for the first time in years. I don't think anyone in their wildest dreams would've imagined that we'd give up 41 offensive points to the Suckhawks.
I think with a better running game, we control the ball better, Drew gives up less picks, and the offense scores more points.
Still, I agree with you that we need to make more adjustments on defense.

I won't argue that now that the season is over we can't use upgrades on defense, esp. at the front 7.

BUT

'10 would've been a different story IMHO if only for a durable back or even two.

But you don't make personnel decisions based on one game. Our defense outshined our offense numerous times this year.

And Tom Brady sucked when it counted. Time for a change in New England?

finally someone somewhat agrees with me. lol its all true what u r saying also about a running game would have helped. the top ten showing is great but it was a bottom feeder against the seaturds.

tell me we need better offense then because we can't seem to keep seattles defense out of our backfield for that playoff game danno. if our defense pressures hassbeck like brady got pressured for only a couple more times during that game and we would have been watching saints football for 1 more week. do u agree with that?

I'm comparing situations, and pointing out that you don't make wholesale changes based on one game. You have to look at the big picture and quit over-reacting to one game, which many are.

If you think that then you need to watch more football.

were going defense, my bets on a speed rusher and if its not i will kindly go back in my hole.

That or a solid DT to pair with Ellis, or a stud OLB (who can also rush the passer)

Or if Ingram is there I'm OK with that.

I agree that a durable and credible threat in the running game would have made a huge difference. With that threat, our offense improves and we dont play the Seahawks on the road. We play in a nice warm comfortable dome. That's a huge difference for our Saints. But don't forget one thing. EVERY play has a huge impact. If we don't miss a 29 yard field goal, we are playing for the number one seed at the end of the year, everyone's frame of mind is different, we don't lose to Tampa Bay and we are probably still playing at home in the post-season even without much of a running game. Suddenly that "chip-shot" looks like a mighty big kick.

Wrong about what?

Are you saying you would make changes based on ONE game instead of the entire 17 game season?

Personally, I'd base my decisions on the 17 games we played, not just the Seattle game.

I'm guessing Loomis and company will do the same. Are they wrong too?

totally agree. even if i have to go in my hole.

I never said it wasn't a priority. I was simply pointing out that basing that decision on strictly the Seattle game is shortsighted.

I'd prefer defense, but our offense has a few issues too. I just wouldn't base any decision strictly on the Seattle game. Shanle sucked the entire year, so I'm consistent on him.:)

And I'd probably wait until free-agency is over before declaring our #1 need in the draft. If we land a stud OLB and DE in free-agency, they're no longer a dire need in the draft.

I agree. I'd vote Defense for sure, followed closely by a RB NOT made of glass or an OT.

Hard to blame the RB coach when we played most of the season with our top running backs out.

I'd say our O-line coach is in more trouble than the RB coach.

In hind sight LT comes in with a good season & the key RB injuries could have been less of a problem. Hey we got Brees from SD probably should have gone back to the well. But here we sit watching LT on TV that's the way it goes!

Had we brought in LT he probably would have broke his hip in training camp.

This is very true. Last year the line was dominant but it took a huge step backwards this year, don't know why really. I'd like to see some changes in the strength and conditioning, there seems like the same injuries keep popping up among the player all the time. And special teams, I'd like to see us really look for a good returner in the lower rounds. Field position is key.

And fans don't stand by their team when it counts. It is called being a fair weather, turncoat fan.

Move to Atlanta. They'll love you.