You understand our team is built different now, correct? Our game is ball control with the run and short quick passes so we control the clock. We have a defense that can stop teams now. Our philosophy has changed. Nothing is stopping him from being a lance/ willie type rec for us. Maybe he just cant get open

That was sarcasm, cmike. It was directed to those that claimed the Saints lost last week because they "abandoned the run" while the running game was working. They ignored the fact that a third of the yards gained were on two trick plays with Taysom and Ginn carrying the ball. The Bucs were forced to give up on the run for the exact same reasons as the Saints last week versus the Falcons.

AK averaged 6YPC against ATL

0-42

On four frickin' carries! He averaged more yards than that on his 8 catches!

And the Saints have lost 395 games when they have run the ball 15 or more times.

Once again, people that know the game FAR better than any of us have repeatedly said that the number of rushing attempts in a game has ZERO bearing on the outcome. The flow of the game and the defense, however, has a HUGE bearing on the number of rushing attempts.

Forty-two times in the 52 year history of the Saints they have lost when running the ball less than 15 times. Has it occurred to some of you that the total inability to maintain a drive (other than via pass) might have something to do with a limited number of rushing attempts? Huh?

Once again, I shared a link to the play by play from that Falcons game. I challenged any of you to go to that play by play and tell me exactly which plays should have been a run instead of a pass and your argument as to why.

How about on the 2nd and 10 after being stuffed for zero yards on the first down?

Or how about the 2nd and 9 when the first down run gained only one?

Or how about the 2nd and 8 when Murray was able to rip off the two yard romp?

Or how about on the 3 and nine after Tre'Quan dropped what would have been a 1st down?

Or how about on the 3rd and 14 after Warford committed a false start?

Or how about on the 1st and ten when Brees completed a 14 yrds pass to Thomas?

Or how about any of the final ten plays of the first half (all passes) with 1:31 left on the clock which, by the way, did lead to a field goal as the clock expired?

Or how about on 2nd and 6 when Ginn dropped what would have been a huge gain?

Or how about on 3rd and 8 when Brees picked up 13 yards on a completion to Tre'Quan.

Or how about on any of the last twelve plays of the game with 2:26 left on the clock and down 26-9?

Shall I continue? I can. Tell me when a running play should have been the choice and when the defensive alignment didn't favor a passing play, instead.

Well? Maybe you can find four or five, but there is no assurance they wouldn't end up being stuffed just like most of the other carries.

It's all good and fine to say that they should have run the ball more ... but when in hell's name was it a viable option?

0-42

Correlation is not causation. Why was the artificial limit of "under 15 attempts used"? Because there were definitely wins with only 15 attempts.

If a team was 218-0 when kneeling on the snap in the 2nd half does it mean that the team should kneel on every play in the 2nd half to assure winning? Equally logical to your assertion.

Attempting less than 15 runs in those 42 games did not cause the Saints to lose those games. Circumstances during the loss limited their favorable instances to choose the run versus the pass in those games.

As I pointed out, the Saints have lost 395 games when running the ball 15 or more times over that same period of time.

Once again, instead of repeatedly posting a totally meaningless 0-42 statistic, how about pointing out actual plays in the game where a rushing attempt would have been more logical than a passing attempt. If you could find four instances where we would have reached the magical 15 that would have guaranteed us the win it would be nice.

And why did the Bucs only attempt EIGHT carries against us this week? Because our defense limited their opportunities to run the ball successfully. Winston averaged 11.5 yards per carry. Why didn't they just have him carry it 15 times?

Post game, Rev Deuce mentioned that their could have been several reasons on the limited snaps for Davenport ...

1. Wanted to keep him "fresh" throughout since TB is a pass team first.
2. The brace on his arm may have limited him on technique.
3. Trey Hendrickson provides more consistency from the pass rush.
4. Not using Davenport on stunts as much with Rankins back & see TRex as the better edge presence right now.

All good talking points though.