D_it_up

I have just a quick scenario I\'d like to see for the upcoming season:

1. Score touchdowns
2. Play defense
3. Win games

Short, quick, and to the point.

WhoDat

I can shorten that further:

Win games.

As a footnote - try to go a full season without going 3-5 during any point.

JimBone

when the Saints can throw Horn, Stallworth, Henderson, Boo Williams and Deuce on the field, I dont care who you are, there is not a defense in the league that can match that speed at those positions. Now, how often that group is on the field doesnt matter to me, and i know McCarthy knows his grouping much better than i do, i just know that on second and third downs, with those five on the field, it is very hard to match up with that. I would like to know what team has the combination of speed and strength to match up with the saints.

Aaaaaayyyyyy!!
-The Fonz

JKool

Good question Gator.

I think it is safe to say that this defense is thiner and younger than the 02 group (not to mention faster - so if they slow down as they tire, they\'ll still be able to cover more ground). We are also way deeper on DL, where the wearing down is most prominent; perhaps there is a bit more logic to the W.Smith pick than we first thought? Any way, this group should be better able to deal with more playing time, at least physically.

Good luck with the finals.

WhoDat

I think the defense was out of shape and got worn down, yes. However, Haslett\'s excuse is BS. Did you hear the Rams complaining about scoring too fast? No coach in the league says, \"aw shoot, we scored another TD in two and a half minutes. I guess we\'ll have to put the D back on the field.\" The comment about the defense being out of shape was true, but that crap about us scoring too fast is bull.

JKool

I agree that the \"excuse\" was crap. It is an interesting point though. If you have a pretty good offense, but a kinda crappy defense, there is a good reason to try and keep the defense off the field - thus, it is a legitimate concern about how much playing time the D will get. Of course, if you score a butt-load of points, it doesn\'t really matter how long the defense is on the field (except perhaps psychologically for the players on the D - getting molested over and over doesn\'t do much for team cohesion, sanity, or confidence).

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

GumboBC

Haz never said he didn\'t want our offense to score as quickly as possible. What he said is he thought because they scored quickly that our defense was getting worn down. Now, here\'s the big difference in what he really said and what some are suggesting. Basically he said our defense needed to be in better shape. He NEVER said our offense needed to stop scoring quickly.

And, if you think about it, his actions have supported his statements. He got rid of the guys on defense that were gettig worn down. As further proof that he still wants a quick strike offense, he\'s continued to add big play receivers. Devery Henderson, Stallworh, Joe Horn, and the rest............. Does that sound like possession receivers to ya\'ll??

Come on guys. Do you really think he actually said that?

lumm0x

As the front man of this team to the media it is his job to have an answer when asked a question. He pointed the blame towards the defense being on the field too much, and that we would have benefited from having sustained drives (while still scoring) than quick strikes. I agree, he\'d never want the TD\'s of the board, but he did say that our quick strike ability was having a negative effect on our defense.

Let\'s back track a step then and find the real problem. We traded Ricky Williams to put Deuce into the line-up. Why? Because according to Haslett and Meuller, Deuce had the ability to score on any given touch of the ball. He had \"big-play\" potential. They wanted a guy who could put up a TD fast, not a guy that would grind the ball down the field. They draft Stallworth. A consumate big play reciever. Henderson...same mold.

I think that they wanted the offense to be more Rams-ish, but didn\'t have the foresight to see that there would be a consequence to this process. A ripple effect on other aspects of the game. That combined with the divisional, maybe league spread trend toward similar speed on offense. Why they percieved that a gargantuan D-line and aging cover corners was the defensive answer is an indictation they looked at successful defenses of the past, without factoring what they defended to be successful. Hence we get someone more effective in the kick-off department in Mitch Berger, we start to draft for defensive speed and versatility.

You look at how other teams draft and acquire free agents and you can understand the reasoning. The Saints surprise me constantly. Just when you think they have a direction they go on a tangent.

[Edited on 13/5/2004 by lumm0x]

GumboBC

lummOx --

You know, I was going to bring up this very point :

But, I deciced not to. I totally agree with you. Regardless of what some think, coaches don\'t always tell the truth. Being a coach is kinda like being a politician. More often than not, they just try to say something that can\'t be used against them. And we all know that happens

I agree with you about what Haslett really said. That\'s kinda what I was trying to say, you just did a much better job than I did.

WhoDat

Didn\'t you POUND me, Gator, and 08 when we suggested this in the past? Oh, but that dealt with your loverboy Brooks, so I guess it was different. LOL.