Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Top 10 defenses in NFL!
1.Pittsburg - offense 19.4 first downs per game.
2. Buffalo- offense 16.9 first downs per game.
3.Washington - offense 16.8 first downs per game.
4.Denver - offense 21.9 first downs per game.
5.Tampa Bay- offense 16.9 first downs per game.
6.Baltimore - offense 16.2 first downs per game.
7.New York Jets- offense 19.6 first downs per game.
8.Miami - offense 16.7 first downs per game.
9.New England- offense 21.5 first downs per game
10.Philadelphia - offense 18.8 first downs per game.
32. New Orleans - offense 18.2 first downs per game.

Out of the TOP 10 defenses in the NFL, the Saints offense had MORE first downs than 5 teams! (Miami, Baltimore, Tampa, Washington, and Buffalo)

How can 5 of the TOP 10 defenses in the NFL have offenses with LESS first downs than us? Their offenses didn't keep them from finishing in the top 10?!

Let's carry this a bit further:

Top 10 defenses in NFL!
1.Pittsburg - offensive scoring per game - 23.2
2. Buffalo- offensive scoring per game - 24.7
3.Washington - offensive scoring per game - 15.0
4.Denver - offensive scoring per game - 23.8
5.Tampa Bay- offensive scoring per game - 18.8
6.Baltimore - offensive scoring per game - 19.8
7.New York Jets- offensive scoring per game - 20.8
8.Miami - offensive scoring per game - 17.2
9.New England- offensive scoring per game - 27.3
10.Philadelphia - offensive scoring per game - 24.1
32. New Orleans - offensive scoring per game - 21.8

Of the TOP 10 defense in the NFL, 5 teams (Miami, Jets, Balitmore, Tampa, and Washington) scored less points than our offense:

Conclusion: 5 of the top 10 defenses in the NFL had offenses that:

1. Scored less points than the the Saints offense.
2. Had fewer first downs than the Saints.

Simply put, our offense had very little effect on our 32nd ranking. And we better hope this gets fixed because our offense wasn't the problem!

[Edited on 23/2/2005 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 23/2/2005 by GumboBC]

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

That\'s alot of numbers....

Everyone who has a pulse knows our D is weak..and we will continue to perform at the same level...we have the same guy running the show...and it doesn\'t look like there will be any major shifts ...

Expect more of the same next year...

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

You would think that! You\'d think that after watching this miserable defense for the last 4-years that folks would see it for what it is ........ TERRIBLE!!

But, they don\'t!! That\'s why I had to show the numbers I did.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Gator --

I\'m going to put this as simply as I can:

I NEVER said the offense wasn\'t a problem. In fact, I\'ve said several times that the offense has MANY problems.

Get this: In this particular thread, I\'m saying the offense had VERY LITTLE effect on the DEFENSE finishing 32nd!!

Quit trying to put words in my mouth. If you can show me where I said the offense isn\'t hurting this team, then show me.

I\'ve shown where the Bills, Bucs, Redskins, Ravens and Dolphins had worse offenses than us and finished in the top 10 in defense.

Care to explain how that happened?

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Let\'s see...

I\'ve said our defense was awful independant of our offense. Spin doctor?

Othe folks have said the offense played a large role in our 32nd ranked defense.

I backed my opinion up with FACTS!!

Spin Doctor?

I\'m still waiting on SOMEBODY to show me how the Dolphins, Bucs, Ravens, Bills, and Redskins finished in the TOP 10 defenses in the NFL with worse offenses than the Saints?!

Somebody? Andbody?

Gator? I thought not.

Who\'s the spin doctor?

[Edited on 23/2/2005 by GumboBC]

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

This must be the offense is great thread.
well points win games and we didn\'t score any. .We can look at any stat to prove a point but in the end points win games and the offense wasn\'t doing it. The defense was holding the opponents to 7.3 points according to some stats posted earlier on the other thread. I just feel that what the offense did during the first half of games put our defense in a very bad spot and they still held oppenents to more field goals than touchdowns. If our offense could have produced something i thin kthe defense would have played even better as the game progressed. The defense played better the last 4 games but so did the offense by scoring more in the first half outscoring 43-26.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Also to clarify i\'m not placing blame on any individuals just the unit as a whole including coaches. The defense wasn\'t the greatest but they aren\'t responsible for putting points on the board either. The stats are all fourth quarter padded stats for the offense trying to play catchup from their first half disater.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

No, this is the another poster got tired of my BS and asked me not to respond to them so I will make another useless thread to explain myself post. This way, I can totally ignore what they said and any facts provided and call them out by saying outlandish statements like \"some of us believe the offense caused all the problems for the D, even though that was never said, I have a point to prove\" Boy this is old.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

:lol:

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Gator --

You didn\'t answer my question worth anything.

I\'ve clearly showed you where the worst offense in the NFL, the Dolphins, ranked 8th in total defense.

How did the Dolphins do that?

Leave the Saints out of it.

Just answer the question!!!

If you will do that I will answer any question you have. But, iit\'s got to make some sense.

Wating Wating Waiting...

Can\'t do it can ya?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

..wow.. this must be the first time in the history of the NFL that an offense raked higher than 10 in total defense!!!!!! :rollinglaugh:

..but seriously...
... a wise man once said:
\"...it takes longer to run the ball than to pass the ball...\"

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Gator --

Quit arguing just to be arguing. You know our defense suked. They would suck one a mile long if they didn\'t have to walk back...LMAO

Name 3 defenses worse than ours?

Tough ain\'t it? LOL

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

You know I was only playing. Don\'t make me come over there!! :P

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

well for one thing get your stat evidence right-the first rule in research is not to compare apples and oranges...

you want to find out why our offense hurt our defense look at time on feild and how many first downs our offense got verus how many our defense gave up...that would be a fair research..not scoring offense versus first down defense..that means nothing..

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

I don\'t get what you\'re talking about.

Let me explain.....

It has been said that our offense was largely to blame for our defense finishing 32nd. They said we didn\'t make enough first downs and that put our defense back on the field.

I agree that our offense hurt our defense SOME.

But, as I\'ve shown, the Dolphins, Bucs, Ravens, Bills and Redskins offenses put their defense in more bad situations than ours and their defenses still finished in the TOP TEN!!

That\'s apples to apples all day long. At least in my eyes.

Take a bite of the appple .... see the light.... Hey, I\'m just kidding but do you see my point?

Also, yeah, everyone knows the best place for a struggling defense is on the bench. Does anyone think that someone doesn\'t know that? But, I also know that when our defense was on the field they couldn\'t stop ANYBODY.

Like I\'ve said, our defense EARNED every bit of that 32nd ranking. I can\'t think of ANYONE else that deserved it any more!!

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

no apples to apples is looking at how many first downs our offense got..then looking at how many first downs our defense gave up...then looking at time on the feild..you will start to see a correlation. basic statistics.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

This is what I know:

The Dolphins, Redskins, Bucs, Ravens and Bills offenses made LESS first downs than us. I also know that all of those teams defenses allowed LESS first downs than our defense.

Those other team\'s offenses ran less plays than the Saints\' offense and their defenses still finished in the TOP 10. I\'m talking about TOP 10 here. Not 22nd, or 19th, TOP 10!

You think the Dolphins hurt their defense worse than our offense hurt our defense. We\'re talking about the freakin\' Dohpins\' offense. And their defense finished 8th in the NFL.



[Edited on 24/2/2005 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 24/2/2005 by GumboBC]

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

I\'m going to be honest here, this apples and oranges thing never ceases to confuse me.

Some people think that comparing the Dolphins to the Saints is apples and oranges. Others think comparing the Defense to the Offense is apples and oranges.

Myself, I\'ve never really seen much of a problem comparing apples and oranges. One set is red and or green, the other is orange. One is more firm than the other. One has a horrible tasting peel. Those are comparisons aren\'t they?

I guess, I don\'t see a problem comparing the number of first downs allowed versus the number of first downs gained. I also don\'t see a problem comparing the Dolphins to the Saints. I guess the real questions are something more like these: (1) what are the relevant similarities (and there appear to be some in these cases), and (2) what conclusion are we trying to get from the comparison (some conclusions will be too strong to draw from a comparison, but others aren\'t too much of a stretch).

I guess, right now, I\'m inclined to think the Dolphins are a reasonable comparison. What does this show? It shows that an offense with a bad track record for first downs didn\'t hurt their defense. This should lead us to ask, why did our offense hurt our defense so much, when it didn\'t happen to this other team (or, perhaps, it should lead us to believe that the offenses lack of first downs is not correlated strongly to our defenses poor showing)?

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Well, the Dolphins D is A LOT more talented than ours, it\'s not even close. As well as any of those other teams mentioned. The talent on those defenses can overcome mistakes by their offenses. We have no such luxury. None. Our margin for error by our offense is minimal due to the lack of overall talent on the D, and they far exceeded it.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

;)

I see. Thus, it is because our Defense is so awful that our defense effects them so much. If our Defense was any good (or much better), then how our Offense did wouldn\'t effect them very much, if at all?

I think I\'m on board with that idea.

:popcorn:

PS - I wonder if some of you guys have a little alarm that goes off when a response is posted - your response time is like 12 seconds or something...

PPS - Just so you all know, I really appreciated all the notes and concern the other day. I\'m on the mend from my outside concerns, so hopefully I\'ll be at full strength soon. Again, thank you all. Also, I wanted to apologize for blowing up like that; it was pretty immature, and I apologize to all those I made feel bad, concerned, or guilty - this was mostly on me, not any of you jointly or severally.

[Edited on 24/2/2005 by JKool]

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

If you are saying that our bad offense should have helped our bad defense a lot more, I am definitely on board with that. Remind me again of Miami\'s record? That super talented defense got them the 2nd pick in the draft, so we see what a bad offense can truly do to a team, even if they have a good defense. I am glad someone brought them up. This is getting too easy.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

I\'m not clear on what is getting easy, Whodi? Maybe you could make that clearer. :)

I do think our offense (which was middling, not bad), could have helped out or poor defense. However, I also think that our downright poor defense could have helped out our offense just as much or more. I guess, I take the question to be this: if we were going to assign a percentage contribution to our wins to the different aspects of the team, what would it look like?

This isn\'t an argument one way or the other... yet, but here is my hunch:

Wins:
Offense - 35% (asked to win a lot of games, and often didn\'t)
Defense - 30% (was plain bad)
Special Teams - 15% (really helped us in a couple of games)
Game Plan/Coaching - 20% (when the defensive scheme was revamped and the FB was finally utilized, we played much better).

Losses:
Offense - 25% (was asked to win games, and often didn\'t)
Defense - 30% (was about as bad in wins as in losses)
Special Teams - 10% (didn\'t hurt us on the whole)
Game Plan/Coaching - 35% (ineffective game planning, poor leadership, misuse of players we do have, etc.)

It seems to me that when we were losing, the coaches were the biggest factor, and when we were winning the offense was the biggest factor (though one game the ST and the D really did step it up).

These percentages are just based on impressions and game observations, so the could certainly be way off. However, I believe that it might be worth while to see if we can find some ways to confirm these distributions - that would resolve a lot, IMO.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Does your distribution factor in that our D was top 10 in takeaways? And that a certain member of the offense was the red zone turnover leader? I think our offense was more bad than middling. How much more do you want the D to \"help\" the offense than being top 10 in takeaways? Should they also score the points for the O?

I am also basing this on the fact that the main reason we won the final four games was BECAUSE of special teams and D and not because of offense. I also don\'t see how an offense that could not score or get a first down in the first quarter of 14 of 16 games can be counted as a bigger factor than a unit that was top 10 in takeaways. I don\'t have a distribution, but I would have offense as less a factor in wins and slightly more of a factor in losses. You have to score to win right? Well, they weren\'t.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Whodi, I have a suggestion, and I hope you\'ll be amenable to it.

Let\'s do this cooperatively, since I, for one, don\'t think we actually disagree on that much. Here is my idea. You post your distribution, and then we\'ll see if others can get in on coming to an agreement among all of us on what the distribution is like (I\'m sure in the end, it\'ll be somewhere between yours in and mine). Maybe we can even move this to its own thread?

What say you?

On a related point, to win you must score more points than the other team, not simply score points. Scoring more points than the other team involves not only scoring points but stopping the other team from scoring points. I\'m sure we agree on that.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

PS - Since I pulled those distributions mostly out of my azz, I wouldn\'t be shocked if they were a bit off - they just seemed roughly intuitive to me.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

I don\'t want a big disagreement Kool. You can go into the thread where you said you were leaving and see where our defense CLEARLY stopped the other teams from scoring while our offense was playing dominoes on the sideline or something. I don\'t know if you refuse to see it or what. I can post it again if you like cause lynnwood asked for it.

This was how many punts and 3 and outs forced on the first drive of every game by the D. Also the points they gave up for the quarter. Averages to 7.3 points given up per 1st quarter, AGAIN while our offense was scoring ZERO and not getting first downs. Seems like the defense stopped people plenty, and it only includes ONE of 10th place in the league 33 turnovers they created overall. So based on THAT, and the high number of red zone turnovers, here is my distiburtion.

Wins
Offense-29%
Defense-31%
ST-25%
Coaching-15%

Losses
Offense-29%
Defense-26%
ST-15%
Coaching-30%

[Edited on 24/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

No matter how much we discuss winning and losing, as far as the Siants are concerned, I still come to the same conlusion.

1. Our defense is most responsible.
2. Our offense needs to play better.

That\'s not taking coaching into consideration.

Then when I break down what\'s wrong with the defense. Here\'s what I see the problems are:

1. Rick Venturi.
2. Lack of talent.

Then when I break down the offense. Here\'s what I see as the biggest problems.

1. Offensive line.
2. Penalties.

Then you can factor in Deuce being injured, Brooks, dropped passes, poor play calling, etc., etc....

Defense doesn\'t win alone.
Offense doesn\'t win alone.

TEAMS WIN AS TEAMS AND TEAMS LOSE AS TEAMS!

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

I\'ve posted these numbers in another thread, and I\'ll post \'em again here, cause I don\'t think you can have an HONEST conversation about what was wrong (or who\'s to blame, since we like to play the blame game here) with our defense unless you acknowledge this:

Minnesota -- 425 yards passing (5 TD p ***** in that game)
St. Louis -- 358 yards passing
Oakland -- 350 yards passing
KC -- 311 yards passing
Carolina -- 307 yards passing

We did do pretty well against teams with Rookies or cast offs at QB tho.

Seattle -- 170 yards rushing
San Fran -- 180 yards rushing
Arizona -- 240 was it...yards rushing
Minnesota -- 188 yards rushing
SD -- 251 yards rushing
Denver -- 200 yards rushing
Atlanta -- 186 yards rushing
Carolina -- 132 yards rushing
Dallas -- 121 yards rushing
Tampa Bay -- 169 yards rushing

This isn\'t \"a\" game, this is a list of our poorest passing and running defensive efforts. I think we held 5 teams under a hundred, and couple of those teams got pretty close. If you dig deeper you\'ll see that we sucked against QB\'s that had a clue and did fairly well against the bad ones.

Also, is it just me, or did our defense have a hard time getting off the field all season long? I seem to remember getting frustrated about that nearly every game. I think I recall screaming something like \"STOP SOMEBODY\" followed by a few words my wife didn\'t care for. Anybody?

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Yes cause this quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEA- 1st drive punt. 0 points first quarter given up.
SF- 3 and out 1st drive. 3 points first quarter
ST.L- 1st drive TD. 7 points given up 1st quarter
ARI- Brooks fumbles at the 1. D forces punt. 7 points total first quarter
TB- 1st drive field goal. 3 pts 1st quarter.
Minn-1st drive INT. 7 pts. 1st quarter
OAK- 1st drive punt. 6 pts
SD-1st 2 drives TDs. 14 pts.
KC- 1st drive TD. 10 pts.
DEN. 1st 3 drives score. 17 pts then Mike Lewis fumbles and they add a FG. 20 pts scored.
ATL- 1st drive 3 and out and punt.
CAR- 1st 2 drives FGs. Deuce fumbles. CAR adds TD. 13 points scored.
DAL- Berker kicks off out of bounds. Dallas 1st drive no points. 10 1st quarter.
TB- 1st drive TD. 7 for the quarter.
ATL-1st drive punt. Zero points 1st quarter.
CAR- 1st drive FG. 3 for the quarter.

looks so much like stats from A game. I can\'t even do this again. :rollinglaugh:

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Once again you ignore the numbers I guess. My point is that you hollered when we said the O-Line sucked. You said, \"But fella\'s I was AT the Dallas game and man you should have seen how well they played.\" Now it\'s the Seattle game.

Without asking a question, can you comment on the rushing yards allowed and tell me how that points to our defense being done in by our offense?

:popcorn:

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.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

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?

Nope. Who besides the Colts did?

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

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

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?

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.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

That cracked me up. LMAO!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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



[Edited on 24/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

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

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

Well, that was cooperative.

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.

Offense hurt Defense Part 2.
 

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?

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.