LKelley67

i spose i aint in the best of moods today as i considered the team and the lack of aggressiveness to make improvements. i'm not one much for each person's proclamation that "this is the year donte breaks out big" or "i got a feeling the defense is gonna really gel". gimme some substance or make a case why such should be thought. well, i have one of those feeling things today. the only basis of reasoning is past track record. i hope it aint so, but this it is it...

the need to move howard and create cap space to spend that $8mil on team needs that are much more pressing than keeping 3 starting de's. to me it is like a bright red flashing alarm with a siren wailing. i do not think it is in the front office though. that line they came out with that we can keep him and use 3 defensive ends at a time sucks the hope out of me. i remembered a situation last year that i would not doubt much the same happening here. mackenzie held out in green bay and demanded a trade. the saints were ready to offer a second round pick before the season started (so it seems). they held on for a first since cb's are in such great demand. it never came. near the trade deadline he ends up in nawlins for the same second rounder initially offered plus a throw in 3rd strng qb. it is hard for me to believe there is no offer of a 2nd or 3rd round pick for howard standing. sometimes ya can be too smart or greedy for your own good. move him! those dollars could sign a hartwell and have some left over for other business. i'm just laying on the couch for therapy from my saints fan doctors. tell me my fears that we will be using 3 defensive ends until near the trade deadline then he is moved for a 3rd or 4th round pick are only that. tell me they will not try to outsmart the rest of the league. no, just tell me they will make some sort of prudent move in regard to this. hepp me, hepp me, i dont wanna wear a bag on my head again mommy.

[Edited on 9/3/2005 by LKelley67]

JOESAM2002

Here\'s my gut feeling. I think he will be traded at some point in time before the season starts. It wouldn\'t surprise me for it to be Houston. We have what they need and they have what we need. If the money can be worked out I think it will fly. Just my opinion.

xan

Let\'s say for the sake of argument that the Saints will be playing from behind a lot in 2005. (Given the schedule, that\'s not a stretch assumption.) Let\'s also make the assumption that the offense is only going to be marginally better due to the lack of change in personnel.

The defense will be called upon to put pressure on the opposing offense in order to give the offense more chances. It also implies that the defense will be on the field for long periods of time. As a result, 2 \"all out\" DE\'s will tire out and there will be a repeat of the cry \"we can\'t stop the run\" when the opponent pounds the ball in the 4th quarter. Having 3 superior DE\'s is not a luxury at that point. Exhaustion is a real problem for the D-Line late in games, especially the tight ones. If we can\'t find a good DT, (preferably 2) then keeping Howard makes great sense as he was very effective as a passing down DT. His speed and agility inside was a key factor in his team leading 11 sacks.

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

JOESAM2002

That\'s true xan. So what do we do for linebackers or are you happy with what we have?

LKelley67

the first thing that strikes me xan is your seeming acceptance of playing from behind a lot. that is my sticking point. i think there is enough talent on this team to not be marginal, 8-8, or just vie for the playoffs. it should have been and still can be much better than that. surely you know this team is widely recognized as the most underperforming in the entire league. shrewd cap management (which i think loomis aint bad at) along with good talent evaluation (no tbucks or sullivans) provides the tools to reach the next level. a difference maker like a hartwell could be had for what cap is allocated to howard with millions to spare and a draft pick to boot i fully understand the strength of depth. tha catch in the cap era is at what price though? as little as it would cost, the patriots could not afford to keep david patten and troy brown. david givens is an unsigned rfa too. having three superior defensive ends is not a luxury. paying three defensive ends starting salary is though. howard openly voiced his displeasure having to play inside when he did also, whether the idea of 3 de\'s at a time is revolutionary or not.

xan

The Saints D played from behind in 97 of 194 drives or 50%.
They played from behind by greater than 7 points in 45 drives or roughly 25%.
They played from a \"tied\" position in 38 drives. or approximately 20%.
They played with the lead 57 times, or 30% of total drives.
They played with a greater than 7 point lead 18 times (<9%)

From this data, I concluded that they play from behind a lot.

It appears that more depth at linebacker is necessary, not necessarily a god-like starter.
From the last 4 games, if that is going to be an indication of 2005:

24 rushes for 108 yards. (Half the total yards on 4 drives and 58 yds avg. in 2nd half )
18 of 48 passing for 175 yards. (96 yards avg. in the 2nd half)

What seems to be a major problem is starting field position for the Defense. Over the season\'s 194 drives, 36 started within 59 yards of the goal and 26 resulted in scores (15 tds). A full 20 inside Saints territory with 15 resulting in scores (8 tds). That\'s 38% of scoring on less than 17% of all drives. We had the #2 special teams, so the explanation is turnovers and where they occured. The offense has to keep the ball longer and move further down the field or the D gets tired. Having quality depth at linebacker will go a long way here. It doesn\'t appear that the D-Line was the major problem, given the quality and rotations there. Schemes that rely on closing to the ball and gap filling need speed and \"smarts.\" That should be the the goal of either FA or draft. I\'d even play with moving Howard to OLB or a roving LB a la Lawrence Taylor to shore up the LB corps (if he has the smarts or inclination).

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

papz

Sharper for Howard... I\'m drooling already.

saintswhodi

xan, I like your posts cause you do your research and bring it to the table strong. But to just assume we will be playing from behind automatically this year cause such was the case last year doesn\'t seem like a stat you can carry forward. You know I agree the offense needs to do more, we have been there, but no amount of info will suggest we will be playing from behind majority of the time again. We have made a couple of decent changes, got rid of a highly undependable player on O, Riley, and made our secondary deeper(Smith). We don\'t know yet if the players we draft will be studs or duds. We don\'t know if there are a rash of injuries to key players in the off-season like there was last off-season. I just can\'t see how you can sustain that assumption, no matter how intelligent your stats are presented.

xan

whodi,

I should try to make myself clearer. I read my post and while it said what I wanted to, it still lacked focus on my point.

In planning mode, one should start with the worst case scenario. Since the offense and the defense were arguably the worst they\'ve been in the Haslett era, I was trying to set a baseline to show where improvement would be most needed. I was holding certain factors constant in order to make the competitive disadvantage more evident.

At the moment, the only offensive change is at tackle. There is significant doubt as to whether the change will be an improvement, or possibly regression. This offense is 80% the same as it was 2 years ago, and has gotten worse. Contingency planning forces one to respect the trend line. In order to improve, the basic statistics from last year indicate that RT was an issue. However, there were other significant issues that change at RT will not solve. Properly run routes, accurate passing, defensive reads, better play schematics (like a screen pass that works), and better play calling will each have a positive impact.

The defense has had significant turnover from last year. Based on performance, all things being equal, improving the secondary should be the primary focus. After that, LB. At present, there isn\'t enough data to suggest that DT deficiencies were more of a problem than LB. Clearly, 100% turnover of the LB corps from the start of the season to the end doesn\'t really help the analysis, but the D-Line was regular. Injuries to the LB corps played significantly in the subpar play there. Anecdotal suggestions that LB was a bigger need than secondary are not supported by the statistics.

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

saintswhodi

I gotcha, and that is much clearer. It was basically this and everything else flowed better. I gotcha now.