I'm just going to have to call this for what it is: nonsensical wishful thinking. I've presented numerous times statistical evidence that the Saints offense cannot carry the defense no matter how good it is. Yet you continue to insist that some marginal offensive improvement is somehow going to turn everything around.

All you need to do is look at the scores from last season to see that that strategy isn't going to work. The Saints were 1-6 last season when they gave up 30 or more points. OTOH they were 5-0 when giving up 21 points or less. They were 1-3 in shootouts, where both the offense scored more then their season average and the defense gave up more of their season average. The bottom line is that the only game they were successful in scoring more points is the Giants game.

More offense isn't the solution. When you are 5-0 when holding the opposition to 21 or less and 2-9 when giving up 24 points or more, then the sole goal should be to hold opponents scoring down.

I presume you are referring to the 2009 SB champs instead of the 2008 8-8 squad. The difference between those two years is exactly what I have been referring to. The offense got a bit better. But the defense in 2009 held scoring to 21.3 PPG and had 39 takeaways. The offense didn't carry that defense. The defense in fact created the conditions for that offense to be as successful as it was. The high 3rd down percentage and the takeaways facilitated more opportunities for the offense. Holding the scoring down facilitated more opportunities to run the ball.

I'm sure you have the causality backwards. You seem certain that the great offenses of the Saints in the last 10 years have been because of the offense. But if you go back and look at the most successful years from 2006 until now, the strong correlation is that the offensive output was improved when the defense did their job.

SFIAH

The defense was great that season, but don't forget that our running game made a huge jump from near last to 6th in the league.

Mike Bell, Pierre Thomas, Lynell Hamilton and even Reggie Bush all had success running behind that monster O line.

Drew literally had no running game in 2008, which is why we lost something like 5 games by 3 points or less, we could never convert a third and short.

Not taking anything away from the defense because 39 takeaways certainly helped our offense massively, but the running game also took a ton of pressure off Brees.

We had no running game because we didn't know to use PT until late. Deuce was done. And Reggie just didn't fit. I still believe using Reggie in that Chicago game cost us in the first half.

And the running game was sixth due to the blowouts. We never ran more than passed with Drew on the field.

In weeks 3 and 4 Brees failed to throw a TD, so the running game and defense carried us both weeks.

We ran for 150+ yards in both those games and they weren't blowouts.