Offense hurt Defense Part 2.

saintswhodi · 02-24-2005, 03:23 PM

Wow. I can\'t believe I have to explain this but okay. We have a bad defense, point taken. So what is the best way for the TEAM to protect them? Good offense, i.e. Indianapolis Colts. Did we get that? No. We got 3 and outs and turnovers. Now, if your team CONSISTENTLY goes three and out, does that not give MORE possessions to the opposing team? More possessions=more yards. See how that works? Probably not. Again, we had a bad defense that needed protecting. Somehow you feel a defense where most every position has fans calling for replacements should have done a better job? That\'s like saying you bought a volkswagon beetle for the gas mileage but are pissed that it can\'t win the Indy 500. Let\'s get this straight: WE WERE NOT GONNA HAVE A TOP 10 D IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. What we needed was an offense who had the ability to shield the defense\'s weaknesses, again ala the Colts. We didn\'t. What we got was a non first quarter scoring, red zone turning over, ineffective run gaming, poor play calling, backwards passing, inability to sustain a drive having sub-par train wreck for an offense. So let me put this in plain English, or more plain than the last several times I have said it. LARGE NUMBERS OF THREE AND OUTS, PUNTS, AND TURNOVERS LEAD TO MORE POSSESSIONS FOR THE OPPOSING TEAM. MORE POSSESSIONS LEADS TO MORE YARDS THAT CAN BE ALLOWED BY A DEFENSE. IF YOUR DEFENSE IS ALREADY BAD, THIS WILL KILL THEM. See? If someone said you need to hit 5 free throws, would you feel better if you only got 5 shots at it or if you got 20? Wouldn\'t you feel more comfortable you could hit 5 out of 20 than 5 out of 5? Same with the defense. If teams were getting less possessions cause of a decent offense on our end, that is less yards the defense would have given up. But that was so far from the case as to be ludicrous.

saintfan · 02-24-2005, 04:04 PM

Did we get that? No. We got 3 and outs and turnovers

Poor offense in the 1st quarter...granted. We held teams scoreless in the 1st quarter how many times? 2?

Recall the Denver game, when whats-his-name broke off that long run the first time he touched the ball? Was that the ONLY time you saw that all year? Did you watch?

Good offense, i.e. Indianapolis Colts. Did we get that?

Nope. Who besides the Colts did?

Now, if your team CONSISTENTLY goes three and out, does that not give MORE possessions to the opposing team?

Nice Einstien, but our offensive didn\'t \"Consistantly\" go three and out. But you wouldn\'t exagerate huh?

WE WERE NOT GONNA HAVE A TOP 10 D IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Even with Indy\'s Offense? Really? How \'bout top 20 with Indy\'s Offense? Do I hear maybe top 30...IF we had Indy\'s Offense?

So, what you\'re saying is if we\'d have had a record setting offense that set the league on fire our D wouldn\'t have been ranked 32nd because they woulda never been on the field eh? I see. Can somebody go fetch me a record setting offense please? Ok. You win. I\'ll buy that. The ONLY way to keep from giving up 200+ (or near it) rushing yards a game with OUR D was to keep them off the field. I LIKE that. LMAO

What we got was a non first quarter scoring, red zone turning over, ineffective run gaming, poor play calling, backwards passing, inability to sustain a drive having sub-par train wreck for an offense.

...that scored over 20 points a game. I\'m with ya.

LARGE NUMBERS OF THREE AND OUTS, PUNTS, AND TURNOVERS LEAD TO MORE POSSESSIONS FOR THE OPPOSING TEAM.

Ahhhh, I GET it now. But then doesn\'t large numbers of rushing and passing yards given up by the defense (alarmingly large numbers in fact -- the ones you won\'t acknowledge) = more points for the other team? I really do think I\'m starting to get it. Man, you\'re GOOD.

So, here\'s one for ya Mr. Guru. Did we give up all those points to those other teams because we were tired? Were we on the field too long? Those other teams seemed to sustain drive after drive on us...especially the GOOD teams, or am I mistaken?

saintswhodi · 02-24-2005, 04:09 PM

Just to add on to how great our offense was, they were 25th in the league in 3rd down conversion %. 25th. That seems like a good #? Seems like an offense that gets off the field on 3rd down. The number was 33%. So one out of 3 third downs you can count on the O punting. Even worse than that is they were 28th in TOP. 28th? That\'s pretty close to worst in the league. And they got more possessions than 11 other teams. I think top 10 in takeaways had something to do with that. Even Miami and Chicago has better TOP than that. Well, the only teams worse were Det, Cle, and Oak. Pretty elite company for our O there. But that shouldn\'t effect the D.

GumboBC · 02-24-2005, 04:14 PM

WE WERE NOT GONNA HAVE A TOP 10 D IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Even with Indy\'s Offense? Really? How \'bout top 20 with Indy\'s Offense? Do I hear maybe top 30...IF we had Indy\'s Offense?

So, what you\'re saying is if we\'d have had a record setting offense that set the league on fire our D wouldn\'t have been ranked 32nd because they woulda never been on the field eh? I see. Can somebody go fetch me a record setting offense please? Ok. You win. I\'ll buy that. The ONLY way to keep from giving up 200+ (or near it) rushing yards a game with OUR D was to keep them off the field. I LIKE that. LMAO

That cracked me up. LMAO!!

You don\'t post enough anymore, saintfan. That totally cracked me up...

saintswhodi · 02-24-2005, 04:26 PM

I already addressed our offense before you posted, but here we go again. I hope you aren\'t intentionally trying to get a rise out of me, cause this is really no challenge. I hope you have some better points next time but here goes.

Poor offense in the 1st quarter...granted. We held teams scoreless in the 1st quarter how many times? 2?

We averaged giving up 7.3 points every 1st quarter. Since I know you won\'t look up how many our offense scored in the first cause your eyes are better than stats, we scored less than 2 points per game in the first quarter. Great offense.

Nice Einstien, but our offensive didn\'t \"Consistantly\" go three and out. But you wouldn\'t exagerate huh?

Wow, name calling already? A bit early huh? I guess when you get whipped two days in a row........Yes they DID consistently go 3 and out. I don\'t know what you were watching, but those black and gold glasses the offense gave you must be getting sweaty by now. Take them off pelase and maybe there can be a smidgeon of objectivity from you.

Even with Indy\'s Offense? Really? How \'bout top 20 with Indy\'s Offense? Do I hear maybe top 30...IF we had Indy\'s Offense?

Um yes, we would have been MUCH better with Indy\'s offense. What do you think Manning could have done with all those extra possessions the defense would have given him? Prob more than punt the ball away or turn it over.

So, what you\'re saying is if we\'d have had a record setting offense that set the league on fire our D wouldn\'t have been ranked 32nd because they woulda never been on the field eh? I see. Can somebody go fetch me a record setting offense please? Ok. You win. I\'ll buy that. The ONLY way to keep from giving up 200+ (or near it) rushing yards a game with OUR D was to keep them off the field. I LIKE that. LMAO

Wow, you actually get it. They need a parade on this day next year. As I said we have a bad defense. Listen so you don\'t miss it, we have a bad defense. Our bad OFFENSE made it worse. Repeat. Our bad offense made it worse. It only took several threads and posts for you to get it. The only chance our D had was for us to have a good offense that consumed time, and we sucked terribly at that. Hallelujah I don;t have to repeat myself on that point any more.

that scored over 20 points a game. I\'m with ya.

So basically, you don\'t care how terrible they look in the first half, or 10 out of 11 possessions in the Arizona game as I posted the drive chart, as long as they get 20 points a game somehow. I gotcha. This is hilarious.

Ahhhh, I GET it now. But then doesn\'t large numbers of rushing and passing yards given up by the defense (alarmingly large numbers in fact -- the ones you won\'t acknowledge) = more points for the other team? I really do think I\'m starting to get it. Man, you\'re GOOD.

Wait, yards=points? huh? I thought crossing the goal line equals points. But in the NFL you watch, a certain amount of yards automatically equals points. I got it. I see why it takes so long for things to sink in now. This is the funniest thing I may have heard. Yards=points. Yeah, you showed me on that one. But again, this shows me what I am arguing. Yards=points. Maybe you can tell Tagliabue that endzone thing is overrated, just give points to the teams with the most yards.

So, here\'s one for ya Mr. Guru. Did we give up all those points to those other teams because we were tired? Were we on the field too long?

Again with the name calling. Yikes. Yes and yes. See, you get it. It takes longer than a glacier does to go a mile, but you get it. I\'ll copy and paste my other post.

Just to add on to how great our offense was, they were 25th in the league in 3rd down conversion %. 25th. That seems like a good #? Seems like an offense that gets off the field on 3rd down. The number was 33%. So one out of 3 third downs you can count on the O punting. Even worse than that is they were 28th in TOP. 28th? That\'s pretty close to worst in the league. And they got more possessions than 11 other teams. I think top 10 in takeaways had something to do with that. Even Miami and Chicago has better TOP than that. Well, the only teams worse were Det, Cle, and Oak. Pretty elite company for our O there. But that shouldn\'t effect the D.

Yeah, I see why you love that offense. :rollinglaugh:

[Edited on 24/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

saintswhodi · 02-24-2005, 04:32 PM

Hey, saintfan you even got a cheering section. A well respected one at that. :P

JKool · 02-24-2005, 04:49 PM

Well, that was cooperative.

saintswhodi · 02-24-2005, 04:57 PM

My apologies to you Kool. If you want, we can go back to our original discussion where I did a percentage of blame assessment. If not it\'s all good. I must admit though I feel your anger from when you blew up about having to repeat yourself. Especially when you have to type it. It\'s just annoying as hell.

saintfan · 02-24-2005, 05:02 PM

Um yes, we would have been MUCH better with Indy\'s offense.

Now we agree, because the ONLY way to keep our Defense from losing games for us would have been to keep them off the field. Is this Football heaven? By the way, they would have been a crappy defense sitting on the bench either way. The ONLY way to keep the team afloat would have been to score 40 a game, and if you\'ve gotta score 40 a game then you have a BAD defense. Surely you can understand.

And no, Whodi, I\'m not being mean-spirited. I\'m just posting in kind. No hard feelings here. You take lots of stabs at me, and others...typically with sarcasm, but I don\'t mind. I don\'t take it personally.

FYI, our defense needs to stop the run Whodi, and we don\'t need to blame their CLEAR inability to do that on the offense do we?

JKool · 02-24-2005, 05:03 PM

Whodi, I\'m having trouble deciding why it is getting all heated so often these days. My hypothesis earlier was the amount of agreement leaving only undecidable opinions to butt heads. However, I\'m starting to wonder if I was right about that.

I think one of the main problems lately is false attribution of conclusions. I mean, a lot of the time, people misunderstand the conclusion that is being argued for. This thread is an example (which is why I tried to do a distribution). No one is literally saying the performance of one unit has nothing to do with the other - what people are saying is this one is more to blame for this or that. All too frequently no one says how much more to blame or even what this or that is - this leads to others assuming the conclusion.

This is frustrating for two reasons: (1) people attribute stuff to other people which is flat out not true, and (2) people end up talking past each other.

Xan gave me some great advice on all of this. Getting angry is just unproductive (though sometimes altogether too easy). It is better to take a couple of deep breaths and then calmly try and figure out the disagreement. Now, Xan didn\'t put it that way, and it was much more elegant and elloquent than that, but that was roughly the idea.

I\'ll see if I can get a thread going on our earlier question that might help. I\'ll look for your help to keep it civil and figure out what is up.

02-24-2005, 03:23 PM	#31
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Offense hurt Defense Part 2. Wow. I can\'t believe I have to explain this but okay. We have a bad defense, point taken. So what is the best way for the TEAM to protect them? Good offense, i.e. Indianapolis Colts. Did we get that? No. We got 3 and outs and turnovers. Now, if your team CONSISTENTLY goes three and out, does that not give MORE possessions to the opposing team? More possessions=more yards. See how that works? Probably not. Again, we had a bad defense that needed protecting. Somehow you feel a defense where most every position has fans calling for replacements should have done a better job? That\'s like saying you bought a volkswagon beetle for the gas mileage but are pissed that it can\'t win the Indy 500. Let\'s get this straight: WE WERE NOT GONNA HAVE A TOP 10 D IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. What we needed was an offense who had the ability to shield the defense\'s weaknesses, again ala the Colts. We didn\'t. What we got was a non first quarter scoring, red zone turning over, ineffective run gaming, poor play calling, backwards passing, inability to sustain a drive having sub-par train wreck for an offense. So let me put this in plain English, or more plain than the last several times I have said it. LARGE NUMBERS OF THREE AND OUTS, PUNTS, AND TURNOVERS LEAD TO MORE POSSESSIONS FOR THE OPPOSING TEAM. MORE POSSESSIONS LEADS TO MORE YARDS THAT CAN BE ALLOWED BY A DEFENSE. IF YOUR DEFENSE IS ALREADY BAD, THIS WILL KILL THEM. See? If someone said you need to hit 5 free throws, would you feel better if you only got 5 shots at it or if you got 20? Wouldn\'t you feel more comfortable you could hit 5 out of 20 than 5 out of 5? Same with the defense. If teams were getting less possessions cause of a decent offense on our end, that is less yards the defense would have given up. But that was so far from the case as to be ludicrous.

02-24-2005, 04:04 PM	#32
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Offense hurt Defense Part 2. Did we get that? No. We got 3 and outs and turnovers Poor offense in the 1st quarter...granted. We held teams scoreless in the 1st quarter how many times? 2? Recall the Denver game, when whats-his-name broke off that long run the first time he touched the ball? Was that the ONLY time you saw that all year? Did you watch? Good offense, i.e. Indianapolis Colts. Did we get that? Nope. Who besides the Colts did? Now, if your team CONSISTENTLY goes three and out, does that not give MORE possessions to the opposing team? Nice Einstien, but our offensive didn\'t \"Consistantly\" go three and out. But you wouldn\'t exagerate huh? WE WERE NOT GONNA HAVE A TOP 10 D IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. Even with Indy\'s Offense? Really? How \'bout top 20 with Indy\'s Offense? Do I hear maybe top 30...IF we had Indy\'s Offense? So, what you\'re saying is if we\'d have had a record setting offense that set the league on fire our D wouldn\'t have been ranked 32nd because they woulda never been on the field eh? I see. Can somebody go fetch me a record setting offense please? Ok. You win. I\'ll buy that. The ONLY way to keep from giving up 200+ (or near it) rushing yards a game with OUR D was to keep them off the field. I LIKE that. LMAO What we got was a non first quarter scoring, red zone turning over, ineffective run gaming, poor play calling, backwards passing, inability to sustain a drive having sub-par train wreck for an offense. ...that scored over 20 points a game. I\'m with ya. LARGE NUMBERS OF THREE AND OUTS, PUNTS, AND TURNOVERS LEAD TO MORE POSSESSIONS FOR THE OPPOSING TEAM. Ahhhh, I GET it now. But then doesn\'t large numbers of rushing and passing yards given up by the defense (alarmingly large numbers in fact -- the ones you won\'t acknowledge) = more points for the other team? I really do think I\'m starting to get it. Man, you\'re GOOD. So, here\'s one for ya Mr. Guru. Did we give up all those points to those other teams because we were tired? Were we on the field too long? Those other teams seemed to sustain drive after drive on us...especially the GOOD teams, or am I mistaken?
	C'mon Man...

02-24-2005, 04:09 PM	#33
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Offense hurt Defense Part 2. Just to add on to how great our offense was, they were 25th in the league in 3rd down conversion %. 25th. That seems like a good #? Seems like an offense that gets off the field on 3rd down. The number was 33%. So one out of 3 third downs you can count on the O punting. Even worse than that is they were 28th in TOP. 28th? That\'s pretty close to worst in the league. And they got more possessions than 11 other teams. I think top 10 in takeaways had something to do with that. Even Miami and Chicago has better TOP than that. Well, the only teams worse were Det, Cle, and Oak. Pretty elite company for our O there. But that shouldn\'t effect the D.

02-24-2005, 04:14 PM	#34
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Offense hurt Defense Part 2. WE WERE NOT GONNA HAVE A TOP 10 D IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. Even with Indy\'s Offense? Really? How \'bout top 20 with Indy\'s Offense? Do I hear maybe top 30...IF we had Indy\'s Offense? So, what you\'re saying is if we\'d have had a record setting offense that set the league on fire our D wouldn\'t have been ranked 32nd because they woulda never been on the field eh? I see. Can somebody go fetch me a record setting offense please? Ok. You win. I\'ll buy that. The ONLY way to keep from giving up 200+ (or near it) rushing yards a game with OUR D was to keep them off the field. I LIKE that. LMAO That cracked me up. LMAO!! You don\'t post enough anymore, saintfan. That totally cracked me up...
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-24-2005, 04:26 PM	#35
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Offense hurt Defense Part 2. I already addressed our offense before you posted, but here we go again. I hope you aren\'t intentionally trying to get a rise out of me, cause this is really no challenge. I hope you have some better points next time but here goes. Poor offense in the 1st quarter...granted. We held teams scoreless in the 1st quarter how many times? 2? We averaged giving up 7.3 points every 1st quarter. Since I know you won\'t look up how many our offense scored in the first cause your eyes are better than stats, we scored less than 2 points per game in the first quarter. Great offense. Nice Einstien, but our offensive didn\'t \"Consistantly\" go three and out. But you wouldn\'t exagerate huh? Wow, name calling already? A bit early huh? I guess when you get whipped two days in a row........Yes they DID consistently go 3 and out. I don\'t know what you were watching, but those black and gold glasses the offense gave you must be getting sweaty by now. Take them off pelase and maybe there can be a smidgeon of objectivity from you. Even with Indy\'s Offense? Really? How \'bout top 20 with Indy\'s Offense? Do I hear maybe top 30...IF we had Indy\'s Offense? Um yes, we would have been MUCH better with Indy\'s offense. What do you think Manning could have done with all those extra possessions the defense would have given him? Prob more than punt the ball away or turn it over. So, what you\'re saying is if we\'d have had a record setting offense that set the league on fire our D wouldn\'t have been ranked 32nd because they woulda never been on the field eh? I see. Can somebody go fetch me a record setting offense please? Ok. You win. I\'ll buy that. The ONLY way to keep from giving up 200+ (or near it) rushing yards a game with OUR D was to keep them off the field. I LIKE that. LMAO Wow, you actually get it. They need a parade on this day next year. As I said we have a bad defense. Listen so you don\'t miss it, we have a bad defense. Our bad OFFENSE made it worse. Repeat. Our bad offense made it worse. It only took several threads and posts for you to get it. The only chance our D had was for us to have a good offense that consumed time, and we sucked terribly at that. Hallelujah I don;t have to repeat myself on that point any more. that scored over 20 points a game. I\'m with ya. So basically, you don\'t care how terrible they look in the first half, or 10 out of 11 possessions in the Arizona game as I posted the drive chart, as long as they get 20 points a game somehow. I gotcha. This is hilarious. Ahhhh, I GET it now. But then doesn\'t large numbers of rushing and passing yards given up by the defense (alarmingly large numbers in fact -- the ones you won\'t acknowledge) = more points for the other team? I really do think I\'m starting to get it. Man, you\'re GOOD. Wait, yards=points? huh? I thought crossing the goal line equals points. But in the NFL you watch, a certain amount of yards automatically equals points. I got it. I see why it takes so long for things to sink in now. This is the funniest thing I may have heard. Yards=points. Yeah, you showed me on that one. But again, this shows me what I am arguing. Yards=points. Maybe you can tell Tagliabue that endzone thing is overrated, just give points to the teams with the most yards. So, here\'s one for ya Mr. Guru. Did we give up all those points to those other teams because we were tired? Were we on the field too long? Again with the name calling. Yikes. Yes and yes. See, you get it. It takes longer than a glacier does to go a mile, but you get it. I\'ll copy and paste my other post. Just to add on to how great our offense was, they were 25th in the league in 3rd down conversion %. 25th. That seems like a good #? Seems like an offense that gets off the field on 3rd down. The number was 33%. So one out of 3 third downs you can count on the O punting. Even worse than that is they were 28th in TOP. 28th? That\'s pretty close to worst in the league. And they got more possessions than 11 other teams. I think top 10 in takeaways had something to do with that. Even Miami and Chicago has better TOP than that. Well, the only teams worse were Det, Cle, and Oak. Pretty elite company for our O there. But that shouldn\'t effect the D. Yeah, I see why you love that offense. :rollinglaugh: [Edited on 24/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

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

02-24-2005, 04:32 PM	#36
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Offense hurt Defense Part 2. Hey, saintfan you even got a cheering section. A well respected one at that. :P

02-24-2005, 04:49 PM	#37
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Offense hurt Defense Part 2. Well, that was cooperative.

02-24-2005, 04:57 PM	#38
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Offense hurt Defense Part 2. My apologies to you Kool. If you want, we can go back to our original discussion where I did a percentage of blame assessment. If not it\'s all good. I must admit though I feel your anger from when you blew up about having to repeat yourself. Especially when you have to type it. It\'s just annoying as hell.

02-24-2005, 05:02 PM	#39
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Offense hurt Defense Part 2. Um yes, we would have been MUCH better with Indy\'s offense. Now we agree, because the ONLY way to keep our Defense from losing games for us would have been to keep them off the field. Is this Football heaven? By the way, they would have been a crappy defense sitting on the bench either way. The ONLY way to keep the team afloat would have been to score 40 a game, and if you\'ve gotta score 40 a game then you have a BAD defense. Surely you can understand. And no, Whodi, I\'m not being mean-spirited. I\'m just posting in kind. No hard feelings here. You take lots of stabs at me, and others...typically with sarcasm, but I don\'t mind. I don\'t take it personally. FYI, our defense needs to stop the run Whodi, and we don\'t need to blame their CLEAR inability to do that on the offense do we?
	C'mon Man...

02-24-2005, 05:03 PM	#40
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Offense hurt Defense Part 2. Whodi, I\'m having trouble deciding why it is getting all heated so often these days. My hypothesis earlier was the amount of agreement leaving only undecidable opinions to butt heads. However, I\'m starting to wonder if I was right about that. I think one of the main problems lately is false attribution of conclusions. I mean, a lot of the time, people misunderstand the conclusion that is being argued for. This thread is an example (which is why I tried to do a distribution). No one is literally saying the performance of one unit has nothing to do with the other - what people are saying is this one is more to blame for this or that. All too frequently no one says how much more to blame or even what this or that is - this leads to others assuming the conclusion. This is frustrating for two reasons: (1) people attribute stuff to other people which is flat out not true, and (2) people end up talking past each other. Xan gave me some great advice on all of this. Getting angry is just unproductive (though sometimes altogether too easy). It is better to take a couple of deep breaths and then calmly try and figure out the disagreement. Now, Xan didn\'t put it that way, and it was much more elegant and elloquent than that, but that was roughly the idea. I\'ll see if I can get a thread going on our earlier question that might help. I\'ll look for your help to keep it civil and figure out what is up.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks