GumboBC

Yeah, that\'s what I was talking about. I should have made that clear. But, I\'ve posted this in the past and I assumed everyone knew what I was talking about.

I think we had more penalty yardage than we had actual yards rushing. So, in effect, we had minus yards rushing..

[Edited on 9/3/2005 by GumboBC]

saintswhodi

Now THAT is a funny stat. Makes me say

xan

In analyzing the defense (from another thread), I proposed that it was the pass defense that really needed addressing rather than the run defense. The statistics on tracking defensive performance on a play-by-play basis showed that the pass defense gave up more yards early in games, went for longer plays (over 10 yards) and failed to stop teams on 3rd and long passing situations. Most of the yards given up in rushing defense were late in games where the Saints were down by 13 points or more, exactly where you would expect them to be.

From this, one can argue that upgrading the secondary would be the higher priority, then DT, then LB. Smith will bring a \"clock cleaning\" threat for passes over 10 yards, which were the Achilles heel last year.

Also, statistically, because the Saints were far behind in many games, the number of pass plays in the 2nd half was significantly higher than run plays, as the run was abandoned. When you abandon the running game, the statistics for running the ball will correspondingly fall. It would be fallacious to attribute the lack of running production on Deuce or the blocking. Game situations far more dictated the run/pass play selection and therefore the running statistics.

As far as upgrading the offense, a qb who can read defenses would be a major upgrade. After that, a versatile lineman is necessary. There were several injuries last year that caused a shuffling of assignments, and having a guy like Mayberry is addressing that need.

As for penalties, The defense had many many many pass interference and illegal contact calls, as well as some fatally timed personal fouls (mostly in the 1st 12 games). This aspect more than anything contributed to the persistent defensive struggles. Again, having trustworthy help over the top by Smith will go a long way to alleviating the pressure on the cover corners.

Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger."
Hobbes: "Common lament."

xan

Damn, I failed to pursue the point:

It seems that whatever plan the FO and Haslett have for addressing needs, the actions taken so far are somewhat related to the relevant statistics.

RDOX

Dare we hope that the FO and Hazlett are trying to fit the team to some remote semblance of a Plan?

My heart be still!!!

yasoon

OK, Gumbo...I know people tee off on you here, but your \'3 offensive problems\' was missing 2 very important elements:

1) The erratic and downright confounding play of our regressing QB.
2) Poor play calling and in game adjustments.

An impartial NFL expert would mention number one first and any Saints fan who wants to argue number 2 didn\'t watch the games

GumboBC

I agree with part of that. However, I think Deuce being injured and the blocking by the offensive line really hurt in a lot of games.

Examples:

09/12 Seattle L 7-21 Yes 16 57 3.6
09/19 San Francisco W 30-27 Yes 3 1 0.3 (Deuce got injured)
09/26 @St. Louis W 28-25 Did Not Play (out with injury)
10/24 @Oakland W 31-26 Yes 24 42 1.8 (24 carries for 42yds?)
12/19 @Tampa Bay W 21-17 Yes 25 89 3.6 (25 carries for 89yds?)

In conclusion:
1. Deuce missed almost 2 full games due to injury.
2. Averaged 1.8 yard per carry on 24 runs against the Raiders?!
3. Averaged 3.6yds on 25 carries against the Bucs. And rushed for a total of 89 yards on 25 carries.

That doesn\'t sound very \"Deuce\" like to me. I think injury and poor blocking significantly effected our running game in \'04.

But, I do agree that we had to abandon the running game often.

GumboBC

Let\'s just say I think our lack of rushing far outweighed any problems by our QB. And the playcalling, while it wasn\'t the best in the world, was dictated by our lack of success in the running game.

Simply saying our play calling was the main factor, doesn\'t cut it with me. I agree it wasn\'t the best in the world, but I need more evidence than that\'s the way you feel.

IMO, play calling is rarely ever the problem.

saintswhodi

Hhhmmm, just as an example, but did you know in the Arizona game when Emmitt broke that 29 yard run to seal the game and put him over 100 yards, Venturi called a stunt? Made a big hole right up the middle cause NOONE was there in time for the quick hitting run they called for Emmitt. Oh, and Arizona was up and trying to grind clock and had no reason to pass. Why would anyone call a stunt in an obvious running situation? Anywho, my point was bad play calling can have just as negative an effect as anything else.

GumboBC

Let me clarify my statement. Every team calls good and bad plays. When they work the coach is a genius. When they don\'t he\'s an idiot.

Playcalling is largely dependent on personnel. We can\'t run the same plays as the Patriots, Colts, or Vikings. Instead, our play calling is dependent on Brooks, Deuce, Joe Horn, offensive line, etc., ect.

When we can\'t run the ball, it\'s hard to be creative. It\'s pass pass pass. Or try to run the ball and fail fail fail.

Were there mistakes in the offensive play calling? I\'m sure there were. But, it was more to do with the personnel than the play calling, IMO.

As far as the defense goes. Yeah, that\'s one of those rare cases where we\'ve got a defensive coordinator that sucks. His playcalling absolutely sucked. And we saw how much the defense improved when that playcalling changed. Whomever was responsible for that, I have no idea.

[Edited on 9/3/2005 by GumboBC]