2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk

saintswhodi · 02-25-2005, 03:36 PM

Nice Frenzy, but it\'s hopeless to disagree with someone who is laughing it up with a guy who says this:

I often get criticized for taking different stances on the same topic.
But -- there\'s a reason for that.

For one... I don\'t know if there\'s a right or wrong answer to many things that are discussed here.

Take Haslett for example. I hear some persuading arguements on both sides. I agree that Haslett probably should have been fired. And I agree that he\'s made some bad mistakes. But I also think he can still be a damn fine coach.

Confusing?

GumboBC · 02-25-2005, 03:39 PM

I would hope no one would argue that our defense was terrible this year. They were flat awful. Period.

I would also hope that no one would argue that our offense failed far too many times and kept putting that awful defense on the field - far more than they should have been.

I would also hope no one would argue that this fact contributed to our defense having even worse stats that they would have had if our offense had shown up in the first half all year long.

Make of that what you will.

I agree. But, since the topic is HOW MUCH our offense hurt our defense. I say that our defense would have ranked in the bottom 5 in the league regardless of our offense.

If our offense would have scored quickly ... Guess what? Our defense would have been right back on the field. And guess what? They still wouldn\'t have stopped ANYBODY!!

So, yes, the offense could have helped the defense more. But they were the WORST defense in the NFL for a reason and it had very little to do with the offense.

[Edited on 25/2/2005 by GumboBC]

FrenzyFan · 02-25-2005, 03:46 PM

I would hope no one would argue that our defense was terrible this year. They were flat awful. Period.

I would also hope that no one would argue that our offense failed far too many times and kept putting that awful defense on the field - far more than they should have been.

I would also hope no one would argue that this fact contributed to our defense having even worse stats that they would have had if our offense had shown up in the first half all year long.

Make of that what you will.

I agree. But, since the topic is HOW MUCH our offense hurt our defense is the topic, I say that our defense would have ranked in the bottom 5 in the league regardless of our offense.

If our offense would have scored quickly ... Guess what? Our defense would have been right back on the field. And guess what? They still wouldn\'t have stopped ANYBODY!!

So, yes, the offense could have helped the defense more. But they were the WORST defense in the NFL for a reason and it had very little to do with the offense.

No argument on this one. This whole thing is a lot of speculation without any way to make it definitive. I also think our defense would have ranked pretty close to the basement. I also happen to think we still SHOULD have won a few of those games but lost because the offense was also awful in those games.

I think the offense\'s stats are inflated because once enemy teams got up on us, they played smart D and let us score - they just made sure it took us forever to do it. I think the defenses stats are deflated because the offense played poorly. My most honest assessment of our team is:
Defense in the bottom 5 in the league
Offense in the bottom half of the league

Problem with all this is its just opinion - across the board.

GumboBC · 02-25-2005, 03:56 PM

I also happen to think we still SHOULD have won a few of those games but lost because the offense was also awful in those games.

No arguement from me on this one either, FrenzyFan!!

Though we might disagee on why our offense struggled so much. But, I really don\'t know what your overall thoughts are on that subject.

Though we may disagree I enjoy reading your posts...

Take care FF...

FrenzyFan · 02-25-2005, 03:58 PM

Same here, as always.

shadowdrinker · 02-25-2005, 04:00 PM

[quote:a914ec7b15]

I think the offense\'s stats are inflated because once enemy teams got up on us, they played smart D and let us score - they just made sure it took us forever to do it.

I\'m trying to understand how letting teams score is smart D...

Why wouldn\'t a team in the lead...want the clock running...doesn\'t really matter who scores..if you have a 20 point lead...with 5 minutes left in the fourth...It \'s not smart to let the team score against you..and stop the clock...your joking..right?

[Edited on 25/2/2005 by shadowdrinker]

xan · 02-25-2005, 04:12 PM

When the team was 4-8, they beat 2 of the worst teams in the league both offensively and defensively (though still ranked higher than the Saints) and 2 teams that were superior offensively and significantly higher ranked defensively.

They lost 2 games MIN and TB because the offense didn\'t decide to play until the end of the game (padding stats) and barely lost both

In 5 blowouts, the D looked bad, but were up against 3 of the top 10 offenses and only AZ worse than ours. In those 5 blowouts, the game was decided in the 1st half, due to turnovers by the offense that resulted in scores and an inability to move generate any offense.

If you remove 20 points caused by the offense in those games, the D rank on scoring improves from 27nd to 22nd. Yardage improves from 32nd to 31st.

I\'m not saying that the D was very good, I just don\'t think that it was as bad, even when the team was getting blown out, as people seem to think. The stats on final season wouldn\'t lead you to think that the Saints won any games. EOY stats are often skewed by radical outliers.

While one can say that the D was a radical outlier, the fact that the saints won 7 of 10 close games, they lost 5 of 6 games decided by 10 or more points. In each of those games, the offense didn\'t score but a total of 61 points (12.2/game) and all of those points were scored after the games were not in doubt. Removing those 61 points puts the offense at 18.9 points per game and 26th in scoring, and 284 yards per game or 26th.

Forcing the Defense to play 4 quarters while the offense plays 3 most quarters and in 5 games, essentially 1 quarter, seems to me to be exessively punitive on the Defense.

There were two games lost because the Saints couldn\'t manage a critical 1st down (TB and ATL) where there was only 1 game where the D couldn\'t get the ball back (MIN)

saintswhodi · 02-25-2005, 04:22 PM

I hear you xan. Gosh that is fine work. :thumbsup: It\'s unfortunate that your good work will fall mainly on deaf ears. Keep trying though, I like reading it.

shadowdrinker · 02-25-2005, 04:30 PM

The problem is...you base your views starting with \'\'if you take away this\'\'

You can\'t just take things away....then make them fit...y\'know..it is what it is...

If you take away the good things Defenses do..you would be left with the Defense we have...

The numbers don\'t lie...and they don\'t change...situational stats are just that..situational...

Here\'s a situation...Put the Defense up against 16 other teams Offenses..and see how they do...that one..I can prove...Dead Last...

Let\'s take a look at the past 3 years...Offense rank vs. Defensive rank....

2002 - Offense -19th - Defense - 27th

2003 - Offense - 11th -Defense - 18th

2004 - Offense - 15th - Defense - 32nd

Even though the Defense was scraping the bottom of the barrell...the Offense still managed to acheive a top 15 ranking..and has maintained good production for consecutive years...the Defense on the other hand...

[Edited on 25/2/2005 by shadowdrinker]

Danno · 02-25-2005, 04:57 PM

Ya know, if you take away the handful of big running plays per game against us, and take away the numerous pass plays against us, our defense would probably rank about mid-pack.

Of course if you change the same number of plays for our offense they\'d finish top 2 or 3 in the league.

Hey this is fun. If you add a few more TD\'s to Brooks\' numbers you\'d have Tom Brady.

If you drop 20 lbs from Deuces weight, he may have flirted with 2000 yards.

If Venturi had gotten hit by a runaway bus in week 1 our defense may have finished upper third.

02-25-2005, 03:36 PM	#31
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk Nice Frenzy, but it\'s hopeless to disagree with someone who is laughing it up with a guy who says this: I often get criticized for taking different stances on the same topic. But -- there\'s a reason for that. For one... I don\'t know if there\'s a right or wrong answer to many things that are discussed here. Take Haslett for example. I hear some persuading arguements on both sides. I agree that Haslett probably should have been fired. And I agree that he\'s made some bad mistakes. But I also think he can still be a damn fine coach. Confusing?

02-25-2005, 03:39 PM	#32
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk I would hope no one would argue that our defense was terrible this year. They were flat awful. Period. I would also hope that no one would argue that our offense failed far too many times and kept putting that awful defense on the field - far more than they should have been. I would also hope no one would argue that this fact contributed to our defense having even worse stats that they would have had if our offense had shown up in the first half all year long. Make of that what you will. I agree. But, since the topic is HOW MUCH our offense hurt our defense. I say that our defense would have ranked in the bottom 5 in the league regardless of our offense. If our offense would have scored quickly ... Guess what? Our defense would have been right back on the field. And guess what? They still wouldn\'t have stopped ANYBODY!! So, yes, the offense could have helped the defense more. But they were the WORST defense in the NFL for a reason and it had very little to do with the offense. [Edited on 25/2/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-25-2005, 03:46 PM	#33
FrenzyFan 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 406	2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk I would hope no one would argue that our defense was terrible this year. They were flat awful. Period. I would also hope that no one would argue that our offense failed far too many times and kept putting that awful defense on the field - far more than they should have been. I would also hope no one would argue that this fact contributed to our defense having even worse stats that they would have had if our offense had shown up in the first half all year long. Make of that what you will. I agree. But, since the topic is HOW MUCH our offense hurt our defense is the topic, I say that our defense would have ranked in the bottom 5 in the league regardless of our offense. If our offense would have scored quickly ... Guess what? Our defense would have been right back on the field. And guess what? They still wouldn\'t have stopped ANYBODY!! So, yes, the offense could have helped the defense more. But they were the WORST defense in the NFL for a reason and it had very little to do with the offense. No argument on this one. This whole thing is a lot of speculation without any way to make it definitive. I also think our defense would have ranked pretty close to the basement. I also happen to think we still SHOULD have won a few of those games but lost because the offense was also awful in those games. I think the offense\'s stats are inflated because once enemy teams got up on us, they played smart D and let us score - they just made sure it took us forever to do it. I think the defenses stats are deflated because the offense played poorly. My most honest assessment of our team is: Defense in the bottom 5 in the league Offense in the bottom half of the league Problem with all this is its just opinion - across the board.
FrenzyFan 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 406	\"The AB brand of TP will hurt your O-ring.\" - BlackandBlue http://www.darrylbercegeay.com/wsmith1.jpg

02-25-2005, 03:56 PM	#34
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk I also happen to think we still SHOULD have won a few of those games but lost because the offense was also awful in those games. No arguement from me on this one either, FrenzyFan!! Though we might disagee on why our offense struggled so much. But, I really don\'t know what your overall thoughts are on that subject. Though we may disagree I enjoy reading your posts... Take care FF...
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-25-2005, 03:58 PM	#35
FrenzyFan 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 406	2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk Same here, as always.
FrenzyFan 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 406

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

02-25-2005, 04:00 PM	#36
shadowdrinker Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 517	2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk [quote:a914ec7b15] I think the offense\'s stats are inflated because once enemy teams got up on us, they played smart D and let us score - they just made sure it took us forever to do it. I\'m trying to understand how letting teams score is smart D... Why wouldn\'t a team in the lead...want the clock running...doesn\'t really matter who scores..if you have a 20 point lead...with 5 minutes left in the fourth...It \'s not smart to let the team score against you..and stop the clock...your joking..right? [Edited on 25/2/2005 by shadowdrinker]
shadowdrinker Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 517

02-25-2005, 04:12 PM	#37
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,371 Blog Entries: 34	2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk When the team was 4-8, they beat 2 of the worst teams in the league both offensively and defensively (though still ranked higher than the Saints) and 2 teams that were superior offensively and significantly higher ranked defensively. They lost 2 games MIN and TB because the offense didn\'t decide to play until the end of the game (padding stats) and barely lost both In 5 blowouts, the D looked bad, but were up against 3 of the top 10 offenses and only AZ worse than ours. In those 5 blowouts, the game was decided in the 1st half, due to turnovers by the offense that resulted in scores and an inability to move generate any offense. If you remove 20 points caused by the offense in those games, the D rank on scoring improves from 27nd to 22nd. Yardage improves from 32nd to 31st. I\'m not saying that the D was very good, I just don\'t think that it was as bad, even when the team was getting blown out, as people seem to think. The stats on final season wouldn\'t lead you to think that the Saints won any games. EOY stats are often skewed by radical outliers. While one can say that the D was a radical outlier, the fact that the saints won 7 of 10 close games, they lost 5 of 6 games decided by 10 or more points. In each of those games, the offense didn\'t score but a total of 61 points (12.2/game) and all of those points were scored after the games were not in doubt. Removing those 61 points puts the offense at 18.9 points per game and 26th in scoring, and 284 yards per game or 26th. Forcing the Defense to play 4 quarters while the offense plays 3 most quarters and in 5 games, essentially 1 quarter, seems to me to be exessively punitive on the Defense. There were two games lost because the Saints couldn\'t manage a critical 1st down (TB and ATL) where there was only 1 game where the D couldn\'t get the ball back (MIN)
	Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger." Hobbes: "Common lament."

02-25-2005, 04:22 PM	#38
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk I hear you xan. Gosh that is fine work. :thumbsup: It\'s unfortunate that your good work will fall mainly on deaf ears. Keep trying though, I like reading it.

02-25-2005, 04:30 PM	#39
shadowdrinker Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 517	2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk The problem is...you base your views starting with \'\'if you take away this\'\' You can\'t just take things away....then make them fit...y\'know..it is what it is... If you take away the good things Defenses do..you would be left with the Defense we have... The numbers don\'t lie...and they don\'t change...situational stats are just that..situational... Here\'s a situation...Put the Defense up against 16 other teams Offenses..and see how they do...that one..I can prove...Dead Last... Let\'s take a look at the past 3 years...Offense rank vs. Defensive rank.... 2002 - Offense -19th - Defense - 27th 2003 - Offense - 11th -Defense - 18th 2004 - Offense - 15th - Defense - 32nd Even though the Defense was scraping the bottom of the barrell...the Offense still managed to acheive a top 15 ranking..and has maintained good production for consecutive years...the Defense on the other hand... [Edited on 25/2/2005 by shadowdrinker]
shadowdrinker Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 517

02-25-2005, 04:57 PM	#40
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,723	2004 Defensive Performance not as bad as you thinnk Ya know, if you take away the handful of big running plays per game against us, and take away the numerous pass plays against us, our defense would probably rank about mid-pack. Of course if you change the same number of plays for our offense they\'d finish top 2 or 3 in the league. Hey this is fun. If you add a few more TD\'s to Brooks\' numbers you\'d have Tom Brady. If you drop 20 lbs from Deuces weight, he may have flirted with 2000 yards. If Venturi had gotten hit by a runaway bus in week 1 our defense may have finished upper third.