2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

wunnerful danno

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

So, Shadow, you\'re saying that the 8 games won last season was because the offense annihilated the opposition? That specious argument could cost you some cred.

Fact is, the Defense actually showed up in 8 wins and two of the losses (3 if you count the 1st half of MIN). They did suck significantly in the 5 blowouts, but as I\'ve demonstrated above, the offense actually played for the opponent in the first half of each of those games. They averaged 352 yards (26th) and 18.3 points allowed which was 9th in the 10 close games.

I\'ll take the 9th best scoring defense in the league any day regardless of how many yards they give up. That\'s what this group is capable of.

Though I\'m not finished with the analysis, it is looking like the problem still is the secondary, as the bulk of rushing yardage in games lost occured in the 2nd half of games already out of reach. Run D, surprisingly held up well. The RadOut in each is that there was 1 long run in each game that accounted for much of the total yards rushing.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

Someone with the resources and time should figure out the yard given up in the first half by our defense against yards gained by our offense. Our defense wasn\'t great but our offense was worse. I\'ve seen enought stats posted on here to know that the offense played only a half of stat padding football. Also look at time of defense on the field versus offense. They do have some closed minded I love the offense no matter what people on here but they didn\'t do squat to keep the game close or relieve the defense in almost all of the games. If they had 1000 yards a game but couldn\'t score the offense woulds stat good but we would still lose.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

No truer words.............................

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

Also good work with the stats Xan and SaintsWhodi.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

When taking up for the 32nd ranked defense in the NFL, that\'s about the only thing someone can say. Or quote!! LMAO!!

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

No i say it about people that take up for a 4th quarter stat padding offense that can\'t score but all they do is play fantasy ball and care about the yards stats and catch stats. The team might lose but i bet your fantasy score was great.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

:o

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

I\'ll have you to know that I\'ve NEVER played fantasy football.

How\'s your team doing?

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

I\'m amazed how anyone can defend an offense that was outscored tremendouly in the first half of games or how they can defend an offense that doesn\'t play ball until they are 20 behind in the 4th quarter.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

lynnwood, you seem like a smart guy, but this is what you are doing. :casstet: Let it go man. Minds have been made up, and no argument is gonna change them. Just know some people feel what you are saying, and some you can\'t reach. It\'s all good. Live to fight another battle. :)

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

lynwood -

Nobody is taking up for the offense. But, ain\'t nobody ready to excuse the defense.

Anyway, I don\'t care to try and change anyone\'s mind on this subject. You\'ve got the right to think whatever you want to think.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

Yeah I know. I\'m a true fan, I have hope for the Hopless. Thanks.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

I\'m not excusing the defense, but just as the thread title says, they were not as bad as you think. Just that if the offense put more effort in the first half we might have been ranked even higher on both sides.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

From Shadow:

No..Your saying that...I said..The only reason we even won 8 games ..is because of the Offense...and..It\'s true...I also said..the Offense wasn\'t strong enough to carry the weak D every week...BUT..they D**M sure produced more towards victory than the LAST RANKED DEFENSE ..and that is just a fact...Year in and year out..it is our Offense that we hang victories on...The Stats prove it..they are not\'\'modified\'\'..they are not able to be taken away..and changed into something else...

The Offense isn\'t the greatest ever...the Defense on the other hand..could be argued as the worst in History...

I\'m still in awe, and just udderly amazed...that anyone could actually try to defend the Defense...
________________________________________________________

I\'ve shown you facts that haven\'t been altered showing that the defense could be ranked 9th taking 10 out of 16 games where they were a full touchdown better than their overall average and nearly 3 touchdowns better than the games they got blown out. The offense, however, only managed to score 3 points more than their season average during those wins.

Show me facts that support that the offense won those games and the D was there as an afterthought and I\'ll entertain your assertion.

I\'ll keep showing you facts, you keep bringing the close mindedness.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

________________________________________________________

I\'ve shown you facts that haven\'t been altered showing that the defense could be ranked 9th taking 10 out of 16 games where they were a full touchdown better than their overall average




That\'s called..picking and choosing....taking certain games out..and..whatever man....it\'s false...it\'s modified...the facts are..32nd rank...LAST..

you can try to twist it around..take this here..and move this there..but..when you get down to the FACTS...DEAD LAST IN NEARLY EVERY SINGLE CATAGORY ....

Here\'s a real test...

We can ask people from other boards..if the Saints Defense was bad..bad enough to hinder the progress of the Offense...

If bieng 32nd ranked can be modified to make them a better Defense than they actually appear...by taking out this game..and this drive..and this play...and only looking at the very few times they actually managed to show up...

Of course..there\'s no way you would do it...you would be laughed out of the Net...haha

And it would be a waste of my time..as I know..what the end result would be...and so do you...

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

I\'d ask people from another board if our offense stunk or was the opponents defense that good to prevent us from scoring and keeping the game close.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

Oh wait you said hinder progress of the offense..now it\'s my turn .....LMAO

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

WRONG!! We were 10th in takeaways, one of the most important stats. Okay, i\'m out again. :P

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

nope pts per game 27th
td\'s allowed 24th

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

Define nearly....

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

The real funny thing is..your bragging about placing 27th and lower in a catagory...

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

the only thing i found we ranked last in was yards allowed per game. Time defense was on the field was pretty high though.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

Saints defense:

Yards per game-383.8- 32nd
Yards per play-5.8-30th
First downs allowed per game-21.4-30th
Penalties on defense-119-25th
Penalty yardage-965-22nd
Field Goals allowed-31- rank 32nd
Scoring: 25.3 per game: rank28th
Passing plays of 20+ yards-65 -rank 31
First downs allowed by passing -193 - rank 27th
Rushing allowed: 140.3 yds per game - rank 30th



[Edited on 26/2/2005 by GumboBC]

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

Dead last in nearly every single catagory or nearly dead last in every single catagory. It\'s your quote.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

nearly dead last...almost .....thats the definiton of nearly..almost...not quite...very close...

I fail to see where I contradict myself....

We were either dead last..or very near it..in NEARLY every single catagory...

That\'s what i said..your right...

Then you post Stats to solidify my position further...thanks for the help..but..it was unnecessary

As I said..The Stats speak for themselves

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

Think the reason we were outscored so much during the 1st quarter of NEARLY all our games may have been due to the fact we were giving up over 140 yards on the ground on average?

Kinda hard to score when you can\'t take the Field...

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

yeah the stats say the defense was bad. That was never questioned. How bad the defense was compared to the padded stats of the offense is what is in question. We can pass 10 times for 300 yards and not score and the yards look great but the fumbles and the ints and the three and outs tell a differnt story. The defense didn\'t have a chance to win a game because the offense couldn\'t get on the board. Defnse wins games yeah but you still need to score to win. And the offense couldn\'t get it started until late when the padding started. Ball control would have helped alot.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

okay we give up 140 yards. how much did the offense gain in the first half or wherever you pulled that stat from?

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

[quote:16335c85f7]yeah the stats say the defense was bad. That was never questioned.

Um...mind reading the thread topic ?..you did start it..right?

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

Kinda hard to score when you go three and out and can\'t stay on the field. I\'m out after this. I know what i saw during game time. Punts, and 3 and outs during the first half. The defense on the field LONGER than the offense because they couldn\'t control the ball, even when given a turnover from the defense. Uninspired football is contagious and the offense was uninspired. The offense had all the potential and allll the superstars and what did they give us? Nice stats.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

No i didn\'t start it XAN did and Not as bad as we think is the topic, hence bad but not as bad as the offense.

[Edited on 26/2/2005 by lynwood]

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

okay we give up 140 yards. how much did the offense gain in the first half or wherever you pulled that stat from?
[/quote:5b4b68514d]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics

There\'s where I got my stats from..E.S.P.N.com

How the heck is the Offense suppose to put up numbers when the defense lets the opposing team run the ball at will?

With the way our D played..It\'s a miracle the Offense was even able to pull off a top 15 Ranking

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics

There\'s where I got my stats from..E.S.P.N.com

How the heck is the Offense suppose to put up numbers when the defense lets the opposing team run the ball at will?

With the way our D played..It\'s a miracle the Offense was even able to pull off a top 15 Ranking
[/quote:2c1eed1f4b]

So what your saying is our offense was so bad it couldn\'t get at least 140 yards in the first half? heck they were averging over 300 yards a game right? Guess those were 4th quarter yards. But you proved my point. 3 and outs don\'t get you many yards and they played 4th quater pad the stat ball.


[Edited on 26/2/2005 by lynwood]

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

hence bad but not as bad as the offense.

[Edited on 26/2/2005 by lynwood] [/quote:24b312180e]




hahahahahahahaa...So now...your just flat out saying the Defense is better than the Offense?...that is just a LIE...

15th rank vs. 32nd rank...Doesn\'t take a Math Genius to figure this one out...it does however..take a person who can see beyond the rose colored delusion that this Defense is not as bad as it seems...

Your celebrating one of the Worst Defensive units that has ever played Football ...EVER....

You can take whichever scenario you want..pick and choose this drive..this play..whatever...it\'s all falsified...because the end result is what ultimately matters...4-12 teams don\'t go to the Playoffs...and 32nd ranked Defesnses don\'t win games...that\'s why they\'re last...cuz they\'re the worst...

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

You want to talk about \'\' Stat Padding\'\'..?

Take the last 4 games of the year...even with the D getting the easy way out..on most of the last quarter of the Season...they still ranked last.

The Offense doesn\'t have a \'\'Stat Padding\'\' agenda...they just play better than about 17 other teams...yards gained in the 1st and yards gained in the 4th are both recorded in the same manner...to say they are just padding stats is an opinion of rage...and dissapointment...not anywhere close to bieng true..at all.

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

... I don\'t want to type the whole thing again, so I\'m just going to cut an paste this stats from another post:

[Edited on 26/2/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]

2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk
 

Then where was the offense during the first half of the games? Like i said before and i\'lll say it again you can throw and run for as many yards you want but if you don\'t score you don\'t win. The first half of the games the offense was worse than the defense. the expectation of the defense was nowhere near the expectation of the offense.they were expected to place high in stats but also to score, and not go three and out all season long. all they did was put up yards with no points. what good is that besides looking good for stats?