And those times are consistently and always. :wink:

I have found myself thinking this same exact thing ever since the beginning of free agency when we snagged Jermaine Mayberry and Dwight Smith. But lately I have stepped back and taken a realistic look at how much we have truly "improved." For a defense ranking dead last in the NFL we have replaced only one starter (maybe two if Fincher snags the starting MLB job). We continue to put our hopes into unrpoven players (Watson), 7th rounders (Bock), or failures (Sullivan), just praying that maybe they will step up and do something this season. But I just don't understand this approach. I look around the NFL at teams who were so very close to reaching their goals but fell short (just like the Saints), and I see the Minnesota Vikings who engaged in one of the most dramatic team makeovers in recent memory. The Vikes are a team who were close to getting to the Super Bowl but they just needed a little bit more. Instead of sitting around and picking up a couple of players in FA, they were aggressive, they took the initiative and they have given themselves a better chance to succeed with better defensive players.

But who knows what is going to happen. Maybe not being active in free agency and making some of the questionable choices in this year's draft will be good for the Saints. I am optimistic about this upcoming season; I'm predicting 9-7 or 10-6, but I can't seem to block out that little voice inside my head that asks me why I think that this year is going to be any different than the last few years. I try to answer by starting with "This year will be different because we added...." but my reply ends shortly after that. I just don't think we have really improved as much as a lot of people think. I think our offense will be improved quite a bit, but our defense still (in my opinion) sucks hard. And all we did was pick up one safety. Improvement? Maybe. But a lot of fans seem to believe that our 32nd ranked defense will magically become good; I just can't understand that because we haven't done anything in the offseason that would prove me wrong.

Deuce, I don't think anyone thinks the D is going to be "good" so to say. The word "improved" probably comes to mind more than anything. With the pick-up of Smith and the way the D played the last 4 games gives alot of people some hope. Let's face it, McKenzie will be with us from game 1 this year. Even when he started playing, he didn't know the playbook as well as he needed to. Also the young core of LB's that played the last 4 games did well considering the circumstances. You have to take the good with the bad, but I really doubt the defense will be anywhere near what it was the first 12 games. I think the D may be in the middle of the pack statistically. I don't think the D will magically be better, just more prepared, better equipped personel wise and more of a team. Let's all just hope they are better than they were last year or we are in for a long season.

It's all a big "IF".

IF....Brooks doesn't throw the ball backwards more than forwards.

IF...Deuce stays healthy and helps us control the ball.

IF...Our defense plays like it did at the END of last season rather than the BEGINNING.

Frankly, we have the offensive talent to compete with anyone...IF we play up to that talent.

Really. everything depends on the defense. It's SO important they play well at the beginning of the season.

Prediction..9-7 (realistically) with the potential for more.

Sniper, I agree with you. I do think that every NFL team has the "IF Factor", though.

New England could go to the SB again:

"IF" Tom Brady plays like he did last season and doesn't get injured.

"IF" Corey Dillon can stay healthy and continue to contribute.

"IF" The Pat D continues to be dominent.

I'm not disagreeing with you, however, I think every team has similar "IF Factors". I think every team has the ability or possibility to go into the post season (Well, almost every team). It's wether or not the "IF"'s come into play.

The Saints have the ablility and talent to make it into the post season, it's just all the "IF Factor's" that come into play during the year.

I understand that some teams' problems can be substantially less than that of the Saints, but they are still a factor in every game of every season.

Hopefully the Saints can execute well enough this year to go to the playoffs.

IF we are going to compare another team's IF factor to the Saints, can it not be the defending Superbowl Champs and winners of 3 of the last 4? Does anyone think New England would be in as bad a situation as us IF they didn't make the playoffs next year? Is their team moving? Would the fans give up? Would they stop selling out their stadium? Would their coach be fired? Would their owner show a modicum of concern? Are they questioning their starting QB? Are they questioning their defense? I have to disagree with the notion their IFs have anywhere near the weight of ours. We are iffing just to make the playoffs, their IFs are IF they can repeat as Superbowl champ. Slight difference.

thx, whodi, we should not even be in the same book as the Pats much-less the same paragraph!!!

Ok, ok, good point whodi. Bad example by me and good argument by you. Point made bro. :wink:

The only thing worse than being bad is having the talent to be great while being mired in inconsistency and mediocrity. You want to be positive about the Saints this season, go ahead. There are certainly reasons to be.... but then, weren't there reasons to be positive last season? The season before? The season before that?

I have a hard time with people who come to the site every offseason and tell me how the teams has vastly improved and how this year every thing is going to be differnt. This year 11-5 is realistic. A year later after another 8-8 season they're telling me about how this is the year. Yeah, heard that one before. Not buying this time. Let the team prove it on the field, b/c ultimately, what you think doesn't matter. What the team does on the field is the only thing that is important. Depending on how you look at it, this team is either 8-8 or 0-0 right now, but either way they're exactly average.

Your example was fine J, it's the team you chose that I had a problem with. If you used, say, the Rams or the vikes, teams that barely eeked us out the playoffs last year with similar records, that's all good. Both have lots of questions going into the off-season. Like for the vikes, it's:

IF the receivers they have can pick up Randy's slack.

IF Culpepper wasn't a product of Moss

IF all the new players they got on D can gel

IF the new ownership group approves of the coaches, who are all on one year contracts

IF their stadium issue gets resolved(new ownership wants an outdoor stadium, in MN? Huh? Those people are more used to a dome than us).

IF they can get one of their RBs to carry the slack

And for the Rams it would be:

IF their offensive line can avoid the huge failures of last year(they were worse than ours).

IF Steven Jackson can carry the load Marshall used to as the featured back in their offense

IF the new LBs they brought in will help their defense

IF Aeneas Williams has anything left

IF Mike Martz' job is secure.

IF they will get anything out of oft injured Jimmy Kennedy, who they took 11th or 12th in the Sully draft.

IF their young corners develop.

IF anyone picks up Isaac Bruce's slack should he start to slow down.

So I agree with you totally every team has IFs, just some team's IFs are a little more in line with ours, and some IMO we shouldn't even touch. Your point was fine.