Re: Chase Daniel...
 

YOU made the comparison of Drew to Aaron, in a clear sign that the point some of us were discussing had completely escaped you. I simply made a case to counter your statement that Aaron was surrounded with more, and that Drew would have won "back to back to back" SB's.

Drew HAD a top ten defense in 2010, as I just pointed out. How'd that end? We had the 4th ranked defense is Rob Ryan's first year here. How'd that go? Nobody is saying Aaron was a better QB than Drew Brees. You're the only person I see in here who would even make that out to be part of the conversation. But your opinion that Aaron had more to work with doesn't hold much water, in MY opinion.

As for your offensive line comparison; what evidence do you have that Fontenot was better than Goodwin? Because you said so? At best they were about the same, but having watched both of them play, Goodwin appeared more athletic and able to cover more ground. But, I will just call that a wash. Naeole was good, not great. Evans and Nicks were THE two best guards in the entire league when they were here together. Wally Williams, with all due respect to him, just wasn't anywhere near their class.

At tackle, Drew had Jon Stinchcomb, who developed into a pro bowl right tackle, and while he wasn't as good as Turley, he was not a big drop off during his prime years. The only obvious drop off was at left tackle. Drew didn't have anyone like Willie Roaf, but when you look at the totality of what he had at O-line, I think it was easily as good, if not better, than that line of the early 2000's.

We know Drew makes some players look better than they are. But it's been proven if you build your team correctly, you don't HAVE to have an elite QB. So for all the defeatists who don't care about the backup QB, because they think no Drew is "give up" time, I would just like for them to think about these things before they poo poo on everyone who takes a legitimate interest in who our backup will be. Needless to say, we'd all much rather have Drew in the equation.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

OMG YES...EVERYONE WAS HURT. That was how we lost to Seattle who went into the playoffs with 7 wins

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

I did not do such a thing. I was comparing the teams, not the QB's,

I wasn't trying to jump into whatever you were discussing. I specifically responded to a point Beastmode made.

If I remember correctly, Seattle and Marshawn Lynch ran all over that alleged 4th ranked defense, and scored 41 points, including a run at the tail end of the game that came to epitomize "beastmode" and is now part of every highlight rushing reel ever.

And yet, I didn't. Again, I was comparing the TEAMS, not the QB's.

And again with Aaron.. whatever...

It's just a theory :crazy:

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

Not really. The score was 36-41. Saints lost because they couldn't stop the Hawks.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

We lost because we were one dimensional and couldn't run the ball. We out gained the Seahawks in total yards and had more first downs. We couldn't run the ball at all. We led early in that game, and I remember Julius jones inside the 10 maybe inside the 5 yard line fumbling the ball.

Lynch did put a beating on us that day but we still out gained them in total yards, first downs, time of possession.. Bush got hurt early in that game and the only running back we had left was Julius Jones. Pretty sure we drafted Ingram and signed Sproles after that season because of it

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

Exactly! That season was more frustrating to me than the past 7-9ers. We couldn't find a RB who would last a game much less the season. By the end I think we were putting in former players from old age homes around the country and when we ran out of those, they were putting in busts of players someone was hijacking from the hall of fame.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

When you said Drew would have won back to back to back SB's with the team Aaron had you were absolutely, 100%, telling us that Drew is a better QB. Which is like saying that it's better to swim in water than to swim in lava. You can't say that you were just comparing teams when you are saying that one QB would win three SB's with the same team another QB won zero with. And Neither I nor Beastmode were suggesting that because Aaron had less to work with, that Drew has somehow accomplished less than Aaron because Drew's had more talent around him.

It is unquestionable that Drew has made some average players look very good. But he has certainly played with better overall talent than what Brooks had.

I was merely making that point to you, as well as shooting down the myth that those early 2000's teams would have been a dynasty with Drew at the helm. Would they have been better? Sure. But history has told us that Drew and a top ten defense do not equal automatic championships.

As for Marshawn Lynch and his "beastmode" performance, he didn't do much of anything until that last run, when it was OBVIOUS the Saints were trying to strip the football and had ZERO interest in tackling him. To tackle him and NOT force a turnover would have effectively ended the game, whereas we ended up being able to score and have an opportunity for an onside kick at the end. Lynch had 18 carries for 64 yards and no TD's before that play... Not exactly beastly, was it?

No, our defense wasn't good that day, overall, but the Seahawks defense was bad all year long. Doesn't it seem like Drew Brees should have been able to outduel Matt Hasselbeck and his 7-9 team? Not that Drew lost that game, but if you're going to say player (X) would win back to back to back championships with a top 10 defense, then I want to see the proof, and I don't want to hear the excuses. When you make definitive and hyperbolic statements like the one above, then you don't leave room for "yeah, but". And what was the excuse for us putting up 15 points on the Seahawks in the second go around in the playoffs, in '13, when we had a defense that was #4 overall and #7 in points against? That defense kept us in that playoff game.

Some things aren't as cut and dry as you make it seem. And yes, "again with Aaron", because you made a statement about Aaron, in response to beastmode. Where's the hang up on that? His name is perfectly relevant considering he was a central piece of the discussion. Anything for you to disagree with me, I suppose.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

Whatever, dude.

I replied to Beastmode's comment about how good the teams were. If you want to read something else, be my guest.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

I don't know about that. One dimensional or not, the Saints scored 36 points, and lost by 5.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

I'm not reading anything into it other than what was said. Maybe you didn't have the direct intention of comparing the two, but you made the argument that those older Brooks teams were more talented by saying that Drew would have won SB's with them. I don't know how else you expect anyone to take that, other than the way I did. I've tried to illustrate to you that those older teams were not more talented.

My case went far beyond the quarterbacks themselves. Clearly we've missed some opportunities to win more than the one Super Bowl with Drew here. So I don't buy that he would have made us a dynasty back in the early 2000's. Some poor coaching/personnel decisions have cost us over the last few years. Hopefully that's trending in the right direction now. But I don't think the coaching was there for the Haslett teams to win any championships, along with being less talented than some of the teams we've had under Payton.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

;)If Sean Payton would have been coaching back then the Saints would have more Super Bowls than they do now.
Also if Jake Delhomme was black and had Sean Payton's teams of late we would also Have more Super Bowls
If Drew was black and had this team with Ditka and the 80s Bears defense we would have some more Super Bowls.
Not sure how many we would have if Payton was Asian though.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

Except our back up QB that went to a division opponent and went to a Super Bowl. Delhomme should have been our starter way before Brooks mastered the backwards pass.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

Agreed. I also thought Blake was a consistant qb. Can't even imagine what Archie would have looked like with either of these lines.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

If we'd have had a running attack, we wouldn't have even needed to be playing in that game...

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

It is a fair point, but after being up early 17-7 we started getting our butts kicked and scored a few td's late if I remember correctly. But your point is true that 36 should be enough to win. I just know that there is situational football and sometimes that is extremely important.

That said the d let you too many points and explosive plays. True

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

Very frustrating

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

Noticed a local big mouth missing from this thread...go figure.

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

3.......2..........1 I couldn't resist!!

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

LMMFAO

Re: Chase Daniel...
 

To think that there was ever a QB other than Brees or that we will have another QB other than Brees in the next 15 years is negative and he doesn't participate in negative threads