New Orleans Saints (1 Viewer)

[Shawnky]

This offseason all I've heard for the most part is how the favorites for the Superbowl winner are the Cowboys, Vikings, Jets, and Colts. While these teams are good picks, what makes them better picks than the Saints? I've read a great deal on nonsense on this board about them. The funniest claim was that eventhough the Saints won the Superbowl the Vikings were the best team. That statement is ridiculous! Not only did NO beat them to go to the Superbowl, they also won more games in the regular season. So, how someone can come to such an illogical conclusion is beyond me. As for this year, let's look at the situations:

Cowboys---They added Dez, but what about the secondary? And last time I checked Romo was still the QB. I'm NOT saying he's a bad QB, but his poise in the postseason isn't much to be proud of. He is the definition of choke. I know this team beat NO last year, but that loss was the best thing that happened to NO last year. If the Saints had done a better job of pass blocking and tackling, they probably would have won that game.

Vikings--What exactly did they do in the draft to help them? Henderson and Griffin aren't 100%, and now Rice is hurt. If Favre doesn't come back they will struggle to get a wildcard spot. Even if he does come back, I think he won't last all season. He's breaking down quickly, and I doubt he's able to pull off what he did last season. Just my opinion.

Colts--As always this team will be solid. I love what they did in the draft. This comes down to Peyton and the coaching. Could they win it all again.....yes. Do I think they will....no. Peyton chokes.....again.

Jets--they added Santonio, but lost Leon and TJ. LT is a good goal line back but is far from what TJ is. Will Greene be able to carry the load, maybe? If Revis sits out that defense is screwed. Jason Taylor is done. The return game will miss Leon!

Saints--have everyone returning except Fujita and Grant. Addressed the secondary again in the draft. Solid picks in Brown and Graham. They have arguably the best QB in the league right now. If Brees plays like he did year, this team has a better shot than any other. I'll take him over Peyton, Favre, and Romo any day.

Again, these are my personal views. I just don't think NO is getting the proper love this year.

 

[Harrassment Panda]

+1

I am a Saints fan, but taking an objective viewpoint, they don't seem to be getting the respect most Super Bowl champions do. Especially considering how good they really were....this is not a team who snuck into the playoffs and got lucky. They were legitimately dominant for 90% of their games. I guess that some perceptions cannot be changed.

As for the Cowboys, well, we hear this hype about them every single year. Nothing new. Vikings...meh. If Favre isn't there nobody will consider them a contender. Even with Favre, they will have a tough time beating out GB for their division.

 

[texasbirdfan]

+1

I am a Saints fan, but taking an objective viewpoint, they don't seem to be getting the respect most Super Bowl champions do. Especially considering how good they really were....this is not a team who snuck into the playoffs and got lucky. They were legitimately dominant for 90% of their games. I guess that some perceptions cannot be changed.

As for the Cowboys, well, we hear this hype about them every single year. Nothing new. Vikings...meh. If Favre isn't there nobody will consider them a contender. Even with Favre, they will have a tough time beating out GB for their division.

well they got lucky in both Falcon games which were in serious doubt until near the final gun....

 

[Shawnky]

+1

I am a Saints fan, but taking an objective viewpoint, they don't seem to be getting the respect most Super Bowl champions do. Especially considering how good they really were....this is not a team who snuck into the playoffs and got lucky. They were legitimately dominant for 90% of their games. I guess that some perceptions cannot be changed.

As for the Cowboys, well, we hear this hype about them every single year. Nothing new. Vikings...meh. If Favre isn't there nobody will consider them a contender. Even with Favre, they will have a tough time beating out GB for their division.

well they got lucky in both Falcon games which were in serious doubt until near the final gun....

Yeah ok....I guess the Cowboys were just lucky then there wasn't 2 more minutes on the clock when they played the Saints. Brees was lighting up that secondary most of the 2nd half. Yout team lost plain and simple!

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Let's start with the off season drug debacle which still has a lot of loose ends.

Actually I'll start and stop with that for now. I agree their offense is solid again, but the defense IMO is still kind of iffy. Just because they won a Super Bowl doesn't mean that this is not an issue. I seem to remember them making the playoffs and then not doing so well the year after that.

What's to say that after a SB run that they don't take a step back this year?

Dallas and Minnesota are hungry, plus Dallas IMO has a much better defense right now especially in the front 7. And IIRC didn't they beat you all last year too?

Congrads on the SB win, the Aints are no more but c'mon they are not the recreation of the '88-'89 49ers or the '92-'93 Dallas Cowboys.

 

[PatrickT]

We had 5 starters out in the Georgia Dome game and lost by 3 points. Chris Redman hung 300 yards on NO. Sounds like maybe you're not giving Atlanta any respect.

But, this is typical of any Super Bowl winner, despite the fact that history shows that the Super Bowl winner often has a let down the next year. I'm not one of those that says the Saints "lucked" into a Super Bowl. They got their breaks just like any team who goes all the way. But to say they're not getting any respect is not paying attention, that's all I hear about is how the Saints are built to repeat. You had a great year. This year, the NFC South belongs to ATL.

 

[Gordon09]

+1

I am a Saints fan, but taking an objective viewpoint, they don't seem to be getting the respect most Super Bowl champions do. Especially considering how good they really were....this is not a team who snuck into the playoffs and got lucky. They were legitimately dominant for 90% of their games. I guess that some perceptions cannot be changed.

As for the Cowboys, well, we hear this hype about them every single year. Nothing new. Vikings...meh. If Favre isn't there nobody will consider them a contender. Even with Favre, they will have a tough time beating out GB for their division.

well they got lucky in both Falcon games which were in serious doubt until near the final gun....

Yeah ok....I guess the Cowboys were just lucky then there wasn't 2 more minutes on the clock when they played the Saints. Brees was lighting up that secondary most of the 2nd half. Yout team lost plain and simple!

You do realize that the game ended on a sack and fumble recovery for the Cowboys right? What would the Saints have done with another 2 minutes? Watched Romo kneel.As for Romo being a "choke artist." Yeah, he really choked in those 3 must win games to end the season, including the aforementioned victory over the undefeated Saints, and the win-and-in throttling of the Eagles in Week 17. Then he choked again in the Wild Card when he owned the Eagles again. Even in the joke of a Viking game, he was solid despite having no time to throw with Colombo and Flozell doing their best impressions of turnstyles.

Stop holding onto labels that were misguided in the first place. Romo is the least of the Cowboys problems.

 

[David Yudkin]

What concerns me about the Saints is that they had an insane amount of turnovers on defense. IIRC, they had 38. And they also scored 8 times off of turnovers. Historically, that doesn't happen again very often, and they should go way down in both categories.

 

[gianmarco]

What concerns me about the Saints is that they had an insane amount of turnovers on defense. IIRC, they had 38. And they also scored 8 times off of turnovers. Historically, that doesn't happen again very often, and they should go way down in both categories.

While that was the defensive focus, those numbers aren't sustainable. That said, I think the defense overall is headed in the right direction.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I agree. Alot of pundits have the Saints not even winning the division this year putting a paper champion tag on the Falcons. Not liking that as a Falcon fan...I'd prefer if more people were on the Saints bandwagon. IMO, they need more smoke up their ###.

 

[Shawnky]

Let's start with the off season drug debacle which still has a lot of loose ends. Actually I'll start and stop with that for now. I agree their offense is solid again, but the defense IMO is still kind of iffy. Just because they won a Super Bowl doesn't mean that this is not an issue. I seem to remember them making the playoffs and then not doing so well the year after that. What's to say that after a SB run that they don't take a step back this year?Dallas and Minnesota are hungry, plus Dallas IMO has a much better defense right now especially in the front 7. And IIRC didn't they beat you all last year too?Congrads on the SB win, the Aints are no more but c'mon they are not the recreation of the '88-'89 49ers or the '92-'93 Dallas Cowboys.

Drug debacle? You really think that has some bearing on what this team does? That was a short lived something that amounted to nothing. You can say the defense is iffy, but they did what was necessary to win. I agree that Dallas's front 7 is better, but what makes the defense better than NO? And, if you go back and read what I wrote I spoke of the Dallas victory. And what is it with this you all talk. Where did I claim to be a Saints fan? I'm just trying to figure out how this team gets overlooked. The masses criticized them last year and said they wouldn't but they did. I just don't see how any of those teams have a BETTER chance than they do.

 

[LittlePhatty]

I just don't think NO is getting the proper love this year.

I've seen them listed at #2 in power rankings. That seems like an appropriate amount of love.Anyway, if you're generally considered to be in the Top 5, why complain? I'd rather NOT be the consensus #1 pick and then prove everyone wrong and win a SB repeat. It sucks worse to be ranked #1 and then not live up to it. I think people want Dallas to win it this year because it will be a home town SB, but that just means there will be double the disappointment when the fail.

 

[Shawnky]

As for Romo being a "choke artist." Yeah, he really choked in those 3 must win games to end the season, including the aforementioned victory over the undefeated Saints, and the win-and-in throttling of the Eagles in Week 17. Then he choked again in the Wild Card when he owned the Eagles again. Even in the joke of a Viking game, he was solid despite having no time to throw with Colombo and Flozell doing their best impressions of turnstyles.Stop holding onto labels that were misguided in the first place. Romo is the least of the Cowboys problems.

Denial.....the road to recovery is long and hard until you can see your in it. It's really funny how the Cowboys are picked as a favorite every year for the Superbowl, yet you have like what.....1 playoff win in the last 10 years or longer.

 

[Shawnky]

I just don't think NO is getting the proper love this year.

I've seen them listed at #2 in power rankings. That seems like an appropriate amount of love.Anyway, if you're generally considered to be in the Top 5, why complain? I'd rather NOT be the consensus #1 pick and then prove everyone wrong and win a SB repeat. It sucks worse to be ranked #1 and then not live up to it. I think people want Dallas to win it this year because it will be a home town SB, but that just means there will be double the disappointment when the fail.

I was speaking in reference to the opinions on this board. I'm really wanting to hear why these teams has so much of a better chance. In no way am I predicting another Saints Superbowl win.

 

[Proud Communist]

Let's start with the off season drug debacle which still has a lot of loose ends.

Actually I'll start and stop with that for now. I agree their offense is solid again, but the defense IMO is still kind of iffy. Just because they won a Super Bowl doesn't mean that this is not an issue. I seem to remember them making the playoffs and then not doing so well the year after that.

What's to say that after a SB run that they don't take a step back this year?

Dallas and Minnesota are hungry, plus Dallas IMO has a much better defense right now especially in the front 7. And IIRC didn't they beat you all last year too?

Congrads on the SB win, the Aints are no more but c'mon they are not the recreation of the '88-'89 49ers or the '92-'93 Dallas Cowboys.

The defense was a high rish, high reward defense last year. Turnovers have a bit of luck to them, and that is where the Saints defense shined.

Also, you have the SB hangover effect. Only one team, the NE Patriots, have repeated in this decade. They are also the only team to go to back to back Super Bowls in this decade. It is very difficult to do.

 

[Proud Communist]

I just don't think NO is getting the proper love this year.

I've seen them listed at #2 in power rankings. That seems like an appropriate amount of love.Anyway, if you're generally considered to be in the Top 5, why complain? I'd rather NOT be the consensus #1 pick and then prove everyone wrong and win a SB repeat. It sucks worse to be ranked #1 and then not live up to it. I think people want Dallas to win it this year because it will be a home town SB, but that just means there will be double the disappointment when the fail.

I have yet to see a list where the Saints are out of the top 5. I can't see how that is not getting respect.

 

[ATC1]

Let's start with the off season drug debacle which still has a lot of loose ends.

Actually I'll start and stop with that for now. I agree their offense is solid again, but the defense IMO is still kind of iffy. Just because they won a Super Bowl doesn't mean that this is not an issue. I seem to remember them making the playoffs and then not doing so well the year after that.

What's to say that after a SB run that they don't take a step back this year?

Dallas and Minnesota are hungry, plus Dallas IMO has a much better defense right now especially in the front 7. And IIRC didn't they beat you all last year too?

Congrads on the SB win, the Aints are no more but c'mon they are not the recreation of the '88-'89 49ers or the '92-'93 Dallas Cowboys.

The defense was a high rish, high reward defense last year. Turnovers have a bit of luck to them, and that is where the Saints defense shined.

Also, you have the SB hangover effect. Only one team, the NE Patriots, have repeated in this decade. They are also the only team to go to back to back Super Bowls in this decade. It is very difficult to do.

I think Greg Williams has always dreamed of playing with an offense like this. It allows him to take risks. Win the TO battle with Brees & Co. behind you and you will win. Yes, it may have been a bit of luck, but I don't see a huge drop off. We'll see about hang over affect the first week of the season. Hopefully Favre, Harvin Rice and the rest of the pansy Vikings that are missing camp because of a hang nail or foe injury will show up so we don't have to hear Vikings fans whine like the Falcons fans in here about not being at full strength.

 

[PatrickT]

Let's start with the off season drug debacle which still has a lot of loose ends.

Actually I'll start and stop with that for now. I agree their offense is solid again, but the defense IMO is still kind of iffy. Just because they won a Super Bowl doesn't mean that this is not an issue. I seem to remember them making the playoffs and then not doing so well the year after that.

What's to say that after a SB run that they don't take a step back this year?

Dallas and Minnesota are hungry, plus Dallas IMO has a much better defense right now especially in the front 7. And IIRC didn't they beat you all last year too?

Congrads on the SB win, the Aints are no more but c'mon they are not the recreation of the '88-'89 49ers or the '92-'93 Dallas Cowboys.

The defense was a high rish, high reward defense last year. Turnovers have a bit of luck to them, and that is where the Saints defense shined.

Also, you have the SB hangover effect. Only one team, the NE Patriots, have repeated in this decade. They are also the only team to go to back to back Super Bowls in this decade. It is very difficult to do.

I think Greg Williams has always dreamed of playing with an offense like this. It allows him to take risks. Win the TO battle with Brees & Co. behind you and you will win. Yes, it may have been a bit of luck, but I don't see a huge drop off. We'll see about hang over affect the first week of the season. Hopefully Favre, Harvin Rice and the rest of the pansy Vikings that are missing camp because of a hang nail or foe injury will show up so we don't have to hear Vikings fans whine like the Falcons fans in here about not being at full strength.

Accusations of whining in a thread started by a Saints fan whining about not getting any respect. Priceless.

 

[ATC1]

Let's start with the off season drug debacle which still has a lot of loose ends.

Actually I'll start and stop with that for now. I agree their offense is solid again, but the defense IMO is still kind of iffy. Just because they won a Super Bowl doesn't mean that this is not an issue. I seem to remember them making the playoffs and then not doing so well the year after that.

What's to say that after a SB run that they don't take a step back this year?

Dallas and Minnesota are hungry, plus Dallas IMO has a much better defense right now especially in the front 7. And IIRC didn't they beat you all last year too?

Congrads on the SB win, the Aints are no more but c'mon they are not the recreation of the '88-'89 49ers or the '92-'93 Dallas Cowboys.

The defense was a high rish, high reward defense last year. Turnovers have a bit of luck to them, and that is where the Saints defense shined.

Also, you have the SB hangover effect. Only one team, the NE Patriots, have repeated in this decade. They are also the only team to go to back to back Super Bowls in this decade. It is very difficult to do.

I think Greg Williams has always dreamed of playing with an offense like this. It allows him to take risks. Win the TO battle with Brees & Co. behind you and you will win. Yes, it may have been a bit of luck, but I don't see a huge drop off. We'll see about hang over affect the first week of the season. Hopefully Favre, Harvin Rice and the rest of the pansy Vikings that are missing camp because of a hang nail or foe injury will show up so we don't have to hear Vikings fans whine like the Falcons fans in here about not being at full strength.

Accusations of whining in a thread started by a Saints fan whining about not getting any respect. Priceless.

If you would read the thread, the OP is not a Saints fan. And I'm not whining about lack of respect.

 

[Harrassment Panda]

The defense was a high rish, high reward defense last year. Turnovers have a bit of luck to them, and that is where the Saints defense shined. Also, you have the SB hangover effect. Only one team, the NE Patriots, have repeated in this decade. They are also the only team to go to back to back Super Bowls in this decade. It is very difficult to do.

"Power rankings" are supposed to be a snapshot of who the best teams are, right at this very moment, correct? Well, last I recall, the Saints were the last NFL team to win a game. They certainly didn't get worse in the offseason, and I for one can't see any teams that made such vast improvements that they should leapfrog them, at least on paper. And frankly, on paper is all we have to go on, since with these so-called "power rankings" we are evidently supposed to ignore what has happened on the field.As for the "turnovers=luck" thing, people said that about the Saints the entire season, and they kept doing it all the way to the end. What's that saying about "luck" being when opportunity meets preparation? If Tracy Porter's play to end the Super Bowl was "luck" then you can probably expect more "luck" this season.I've never heard more negative things said about a Super Bowl winner in my life. It is kind of ridiculous.Just sayin'.

 

[saintsfan]

The defense was a high rish, high reward defense last year. Turnovers have a bit of luck to them, and that is where the Saints defense shined. Also, you have the SB hangover effect. Only one team, the NE Patriots, have repeated in this decade. They are also the only team to go to back to back Super Bowls in this decade. It is very difficult to do.

"Power rankings" are supposed to be a snapshot of who the best teams are, right at this very moment, correct? Well, last I recall, the Saints were the last NFL team to win a game. They certainly didn't get worse in the offseason, and I for one can't see any teams that made such vast improvements that they should leapfrog them, at least on paper. And frankly, on paper is all we have to go on, since with these so-called "power rankings" we are evidently supposed to ignore what has happened on the field.As for the "turnovers=luck" thing, people said that about the Saints the entire season, and they kept doing it all the way to the end. What's that saying about "luck" being when opportunity meets preparation? If Tracy Porter's play to end the Super Bowl was "luck" then you can probably expect more "luck" this season.I've never heard more negative things said about a Super Bowl winner in my life. It is kind of ridiculous.Just sayin'.

Sorry dude. You are imagining things. People always look for a reason why a Super Bowl team can't repeat. Happens every year to every team that wins the Super Bowl. I've seen power rankings with the Saints on top and I've seen power rankings with the Saints in the top 5. I haven't seen too many of them with the Saints less than a top 5 team. It's useless anyway. This isn't the BCS. I've heard some people say the Falcons, and I've heard probably more say the Saints in the NFC South. The point is, who cares?? We have the trophy and these other teams have to knock us off. Can we enjoy our success without the "no respect" mantra? Respect is earned over time. If the Saints go on a Patriots run here for the next 10 years, you'll have all the respect you want.Do you want the entire world to universally have the Saints listed as #1 on every power ranking?? How is that gonna sell magazines???

 

[Harrassment Panda]

The defense was a high rish, high reward defense last year. Turnovers have a bit of luck to them, and that is where the Saints defense shined. Also, you have the SB hangover effect. Only one team, the NE Patriots, have repeated in this decade. They are also the only team to go to back to back Super Bowls in this decade. It is very difficult to do.

"Power rankings" are supposed to be a snapshot of who the best teams are, right at this very moment, correct? Well, last I recall, the Saints were the last NFL team to win a game. They certainly didn't get worse in the offseason, and I for one can't see any teams that made such vast improvements that they should leapfrog them, at least on paper. And frankly, on paper is all we have to go on, since with these so-called "power rankings" we are evidently supposed to ignore what has happened on the field.As for the "turnovers=luck" thing, people said that about the Saints the entire season, and they kept doing it all the way to the end. What's that saying about "luck" being when opportunity meets preparation? If Tracy Porter's play to end the Super Bowl was "luck" then you can probably expect more "luck" this season.I've never heard more negative things said about a Super Bowl winner in my life. It is kind of ridiculous.Just sayin'.

Sorry dude. You are imagining things. People always look for a reason why a Super Bowl team can't repeat. Happens every year to every team that wins the Super Bowl. I've seen power rankings with the Saints on top and I've seen power rankings with the Saints in the top 5. I haven't seen too many of them with the Saints less than a top 5 team. It's useless anyway. This isn't the BCS. I've heard some people say the Falcons, and I've heard probably more say the Saints in the NFC South. The point is, who cares?? We have the trophy and these other teams have to knock us off. Can we enjoy our success without the "no respect" mantra? Respect is earned over time. If the Saints go on a Patriots run here for the next 10 years, you'll have all the respect you want.Do you want the entire world to universally have the Saints listed as #1 on every power ranking?? How is that gonna sell magazines???

Dude, chill. I'm not whining about respect, and I don't think I'm imagining things either. I am a Saints fan in Colts country, and from an outside perspective, I don't think the team gets their just due. It's not a huge deal, I'm just making an observation.

 

[Doug B]

Before reading through the thread, I will post this -- apologies if these points have been made.

EVERY national publication I've looked at is predicting two things, and implicitly proposing a third thing:

1) Atlanta will win the division in a walk

2) Saints struggle to get to the 8-9 win range due to a phantom "letdown"

Implicit in these assumptions is that

3) The Saints' 2009 was an endless stream of flukes. They were, even firing on all cylinders, at best the 5th best team in the NFL. The Cowboys beat them in the Superdome during the regular season -- clearly better (never mind that the Saints were playing at about 60% in that game ... don't expect non-fans to accept that). The Vikings killed those Cowboys in the playoffs, and then "really beat" the Saints in the NFC title game (a POV that thinks yards-from-scrimmage>>>>points, and that completely ignores special teams). Then the Saints had to rely on a trick onside kick and a fluke Manning error to win the Super Bowl ... and yeah, the Colts were better than the Saints too (like in a 7-game series or something).

Truth, IMHO?

The Saints are a legit dynasty contender that are built to win for a 3-to-5 year window. Recent SB squads like the 2000 Ravens and the 2002 Bucs DID NOT have a Brees-quality QB to carry them through -- that was a huge reason those two were one-and-done. And the Saints have gotten their defense right, IMHO -- they will not need a zillion turnovers to compete in 2010, and given that, a return to 2007-2008 form is unlikely (all MHO ... take it as you will). The Saints D struggled in 2009 when their depth got exposed, but the experience gained by the second-string guys will pay off this year.

The Falcons are a good team, but they've got something to prove. If they're an NFC title contender ... show me (same could've been said for the Saints going into 2009). Can't see why the Falcons are pencilled in as winning the NFC South in a walk.

 

[Doug B]

Cowboys---They added Dez, but what about the secondary? And last time I checked Romo was still the QB. I'm NOT saying he's a bad QB, but his poise in the postseason isn't much to be proud of. He is the definition of choke. I know this team beat NO last year, but that loss was the best thing that happened to NO last year. If the Saints had done a better job of pass blocking and tackling, they probably would have won that game.

Saints were a MASH unit for this game -- even a lot of Saints fans forget that. Pro Bowl C Jonathan Goodwin was lost early in the game, and the line calls were in shambles. Most pressure Brees saw all season by a mile -- and the pressure in and of itself wasn't the issue ... it was having 3.5 sec to release the ball instead of 4.0 sec. Plays couldn't develop.

 

[Doug B]

Saints--have everyone returning except Fujita and Grant. Addressed the secondary again in the draft. Solid picks in Brown and Graham. They have arguably the best QB in the league right now. If Brees plays like he did year, this team has a better shot than any other. I'll take him over Peyton, Favre, and Romo any day. Again, these are my personal views. I just don't think NO is getting the proper love this year.

The second-half-of-the-season issues with the Saints' secondary last year were directly related to Jabari Greer's sports hernia. Our nickel package had to be run with a still-learning Malcolm Jenkins, and that got exposed even by weak passing attacks like the Rams & Panthers. Note how that was totally rectified in the Cardinals' playoff game, when everyone was healthy. Hopefully, Patrick Robinson can be kept under wraps until he's ready.I'd love to be surprised, but I don't see much from Graham this year. Shockey and David Thomas make a good duo -- Shockey's snaps really have to be limited.

 

[Doug B]

We had 5 starters out in the Georgia Dome game and lost by 3 points. Chris Redman hung 300 yards on NO. Sounds like maybe you're not giving Atlanta any respect.

The Saints healthy secondary ate Kurt Warner's and Larry Fitzgerald's lunch in January.Kevin Kolb & DeSean Jackson were the ones who actually owned the Saints' healthy secondary ... though it was major catch-up ball for them. The game at Philly was never close.

 

[Doug B]

What concerns me about the Saints is that they had an insane amount of turnovers on defense. IIRC, they had 38. And they also scored 8 times off of turnovers. Historically, that doesn't happen again very often, and they should go way down in both categories.

The team being in Year 2 of Williams' system (esp youngsters Jenkins, Porter, Casillas, and Dunbar) will pay dividends. The glut of TOs will not be necessary in 2010, I predict.

 

[Yenrub]

What concerns me about the Saints is that they had an insane amount of turnovers on defense. IIRC, they had 38. And they also scored 8 times off of turnovers. Historically, that doesn't happen again very often, and they should go way down in both categories.

The team being in Year 2 of Williams' system (esp youngsters Jenkins, Porter, Casillas, and Dunbar) will pay dividends. The glut of TOs will not be necessary in 2010, I predict.

The defense does need to improve a lot 21st against the run in 200923rd against the pass in 2009

 

[Harrassment Panda]

The defense does need to improve a lot 21st against the run in 200923rd against the pass in 2009

Yardage does not tell the whole story because the Saints often had a big lead and were sitting back, and quick strikes on offense give the other team the ball more often.That can be partly proved by looking at opposing pass efficiency: the Saints were No. 1 in that category in 2009 and it wasn't even close; IIRC it was one of the 4 or 5 best figures in league history (well, at least since they started tracking passer rating).

 

[GregR_2]

... And what is it with this you all talk. Where did I claim to be a Saints fan? ...

From The Saints will be in the Super Bowl thread:

Cowboys made the blue print on how to beat the Saints, and the Boys will do it again at the Dome. I mean the Cards have given up what 80 points the past two games. A pee wee football team could score against the cards.

Enjoy the win Saints fans, "cause the boys are coming to town" and Drew is going to feeling a cool Breeze on his back

Keep predicting us to lose, cause we continue to win when you do. Sorry, but I can't see the Cowboys beating us at home again. This isn't the Eagles.The Saints problem in the previous game was blocking and making tackles. They will solve those problems. Again, having Greer, Porter, and Gay all healthy makes this team soooo much better on defense.

To avoid future confusion, maybe you could give us a list of all the teams you refer to as "us" and "we", yet are not a fan of?

 

[Yenrub]

The defense does need to improve a lot 21st against the run in 200923rd against the pass in 2009

Yardage does not tell the whole story because the Saints often had a big lead and were sitting back, and quick strikes on offense give the other team the ball more often.That can be partly proved by looking at opposing pass efficiency: the Saints were No. 1 in that category in 2009 and it wasn't even close; IIRC it was one of the 4 or 5 best figures in league history (well, at least since they started tracking passer rating).

I understand that yards allowed doesn’t tell the whole story and I can’t recite the pass efficiency formula but I am pretty sure interceptions help that number look good and I am sure it doesn’t speak to the run defense.That being said I have nothing against the Saints but I am not sure where all of this they are not getting enough love crap is coming from. Fox and CBS has them #1 in their power rankings, ESPN has them #2 and Sporting News #3. I doubt that you will find them outside of the top 5 anywhere.And for those sites that don’t have the Saints #1, is it really that hard to understand that they might think the defense is a question mark when looking at their 2009 rankings?They were 21st against the run, 23rd against the pass and 20th in scoring defense but 3rd in turnovers in 2009. Yards against might not tell the whole story but it’s hard to look at those numbers and say that the defense doesn’t need to improve.

 

[Harrassment Panda]

They were 21st against the run, 23rd against the pass and 20th in scoring defense but 3rd in turnovers in 2009. Yards against might not tell the whole story but it’s hard to look at those numbers and say that the defense doesn’t need to improve.

The Packers had a defense very similar to the Saints last season, but I don't see anybody penalizing them for their turnovers and predicting their defensive downfall.Again, just sayin'.

 

[Yenrub]

They were 21st against the run, 23rd against the pass and 20th in scoring defense but 3rd in turnovers in 2009. Yards against might not tell the whole story but it’s hard to look at those numbers and say that the defense doesn’t need to improve.

The Packers had a defense very similar to the Saints last season, but I don't see anybody penalizing them for their turnovers and predicting their defensive downfall.Again, just sayin'.

What stats are you looking at? Per CBS GB was #1 against the run#5 against the pass#7 in scoring defensePlus I don't recall seeing the Packers ranked higher than the Saints (they could be someplace but I haven't seen it)

 

[motor guy]

Meh, I think most Saints fans are just insecure. Heavy lies the crown.

 

[Harrassment Panda]

What stats are you looking at? Per CBS GB was #1 against the run#5 against the pass#7 in scoring defensePlus I don't recall seeing the Packers ranked higher than the Saints (they could be someplace but I haven't seen it)

Because of the turnovers, I was talking about the turnovers.

 

[Harrassment Panda]

Meh, I think most Saints fans are just insecure. Heavy lies the crown.

Nice rash generalization here. I will say it again, as somewhat of an outside observer, I don't believe this Saints team gets the respect usually afforded a Super Bowl winner. That doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. Just having a discussion, there's no need to start throwing around insults.

 

[Doug B]

The defense does need to improve a lot

Agree a little ... the improvement needs only to be slight. Strategically, I think Williams' system has been working, and the defense has bought in. The depth needs to keep developing, however.

21st against the run in 200923rd against the pass in 2009

Think about what those stats really tell you, though. That defense helped win a Super Bowl.Stats like that don't actually say there's 20 defenses in the NFL better than the Saints' D at doing their jobs. Keep in mind that the Saints' defense's job is not to, say, consistently hold opponents below 14 points ... they have more room for error and can break assignment and gamble more often than most teams.

 

[Doug B]

Another little-talked of advantage the Saints have in forming a dynasty is that after Brees, there aren't a bunch of stars that have to get paid at the top end of their positions (see also the Indianapolis Colts). Also, neither the Saints' coaching staff nor the roster was poached after the SB XLIV win ... so almost all the guys get to stay around and grow within the current system. There's no wholesale plugging-in of replacement-level players, nor a bunch of new starters that have to adjust.

 

[Proud Communist]

The defense was a high rish, high reward defense last year. Turnovers have a bit of luck to them, and that is where the Saints defense shined.

Also, you have the SB hangover effect. Only one team, the NE Patriots, have repeated in this decade. They are also the only team to go to back to back Super Bowls in this decade. It is very difficult to do.

"Power rankings" are supposed to be a snapshot of who the best teams are, right at this very moment, correct? Well, last I recall, the Saints were the last NFL team to win a game. They certainly didn't get worse in the offseason, and I for one can't see any teams that made such vast improvements that they should leapfrog them, at least on paper. And frankly, on paper is all we have to go on, since with these so-called "power rankings" we are evidently supposed to ignore what has happened on the field.

As for the "turnovers=luck" thing, people said that about the Saints the entire season, and they kept doing it all the way to the end. What's that saying about "luck" being when opportunity meets preparation? If Tracy Porter's play to end the Super Bowl was "luck" then you can probably expect more "luck" this season.

I've never heard more negative things said about a Super Bowl winner in my life. It is kind of ridiculous.

Just sayin'.

I am far from a Saints hater. Saying TO's have a large element of luck to them is no disrespect to the Saints. I didn't post that the Saints TO's had a bit of luck to them, I posted that TO's(meaning all for every team) have an element of luck to them.This is not college football. The previous year's champion is not automatically ranked #1.

AGAIN, the Saints are ranked in almost everyone's top-5. How is that lacking in respect? Also, what is different about the Saints from the 8 other(excluding the 2004 NE Patriots) 00's Super Bowl winners that have not returned to the Super Bowl the following year. That is 1 team in 10, a 10% return rate. Matter fact, the only team to play in the Super Bowl and return in the last 10 years is the 2004 NE Patriots. That makes the odds 1 team in 20, a 5% return rate.

Making, much less winning, the Super Bowl is very difficult. The Saints are definitely in the hunt. Just because some pundits are predicting them not to return doesn't mean they are disrespecting the Saints in any way.

 

[Proud Communist]

.. Can't see why the Falcons are pencilled in as winning the NFC South in a walk.

I agree. Most pundits are predicting a Saints repeat with a stiff challenge from the Falcons. Some are predicting a tight race with the Falcons winning it. I have yet to read(yet it is possible they exist) where the Falcons are predicted to win the NFC South in a walk.

 

[Proud Communist]

... And what is it with this you all talk. Where did I claim to be a Saints fan? ...

From The Saints will be in the Super Bowl thread:

Cowboys made the blue print on how to beat the Saints, and the Boys will do it again at the Dome. I mean the Cards have given up what 80 points the past two games. A pee wee football team could score against the cards.

Enjoy the win Saints fans, "cause the boys are coming to town" and Drew is going to feeling a cool Breeze on his back

Keep predicting us to lose, cause we continue to win when you do. Sorry, but I can't see the Cowboys beating us at home again. This isn't the Eagles.The Saints problem in the previous game was blocking and making tackles. They will solve those problems. Again, having Greer, Porter, and Gay all healthy makes this team soooo much better on defense.

To avoid future confusion, maybe you could give us a list of all the teams you refer to as "us" and "we", yet are not a fan of?

 

[cheatsheetwarroom]

+1I am a Saints fan, but taking an objective viewpoint, they don't seem to be getting the respect most Super Bowl champions do. Especially considering how good they really were....this is not a team who snuck into the playoffs and got lucky. They were legitimately dominant for 90% of their games. I guess that some perceptions cannot be changed.As for the Cowboys, well, we hear this hype about them every single year. Nothing new. Vikings...meh. If Favre isn't there nobody will consider them a contender. Even with Favre, they will have a tough time beating out GB for their division.

I hear ya Panda, I'm also a die-hard Saints fan. It'll take multiple championships for the Saints to get respect, that just comes with the territory of being so bad for so long. How some people overlook the fact that the Saints went through their first 5 or 6 games WITHOUT EVEN RELINQUISHING THE LEAD is beyond me. The only time the Saints started to stall was when our defensive secondary got dinged up. When everyone returned we just started stomping everyone.In terms of fantasy, the only true stud on the team is Brees. This comes with the territory when you have so many weapons I imagine. Who Dat!

 

[Doug B]

Eric Kuselias mentioned the same thing as the OP on Mike & Mike this morning. Mike Golic mentioned the same thing Yudkin posted here in post #8 (can't rely on turnovers every year), but then conceded that he has the Cowboys and Saints as his co-NFC favorites.

...

Generally, though, it's a good thing that the Saints are flying under the radar.

 

[Doug B]

.. Can't see why the Falcons are pencilled in as winning the NFC South in a walk.

I agree. Most pundits are predicting a Saints repeat with a stiff challenge from the Falcons. Some are predicting a tight race with the Falcons winning it. I have yet to read (yet it is possible they exist) where the Falcons are predicted to win the NFC South in a walk.

I exagerrated a little. I think the first 5 or 6 football magazines I picked up and read at the grocery store had the Falcons winning the NFC South. I didn't recall specific records assigned to the teams or anything ... but when that many mags in a row picked the Falcons, it made me think there was a consensus out there that the Falcons were a clearly superior team to the Saints.The Falcons may well be the better squad in 2010 ... but I want to see it on the field before buying into that. Guess others feel the same way about the Saints: "Do it a second time ... but this time, with no turnovers, hold teams to fewer points, and stop with the flukey wins!"

 

[saintfool]

Eric Kuselias mentioned the same thing as the OP on Mike & Mike this morning. Mike Golic mentioned the same thing Yudkin posted here in post #8 (can't rely on turnovers every year), but then conceded that he has the Cowboys and Saints as his co-NFC favorites.

...

Generally, though, it's a good thing that the Saints are flying under the radar.

usually, the chatter following a dark horse winning a championship is centered around the question "how will this team handle success? it's different when you are going from 'hunter' to 'hunted'..."i don't think it's possible for this team to fly under the radar much longer. if we start out hot then it's talk of a repeat; if we start out slow then it's how over-rated the saints are. and, lord help us, if we struggle! the only reason we're staying under the radar is because it's the preseason.

if we can stay healthy then we have a good chance to make the playoffs. i would feel pretty good about going 6-3 or better into the bye week. the schedule will get *much* harder in the second half of the season with four tough road games in Dallas, Cincy, Baltimore and Atlanta.

 

[Doug B]

How some people overlook the fact that the Saints went through their first 5 or 6 games WITHOUT EVEN RELINQUISHING THE LEAD is beyond me. The only time the Saints started to stall was when our defensive secondary got dinged up. When everyone returned we just started stomping everyone.

x 100A lot of observers think the late-season Cowboys game was the "real Saints" playing at their real level after a sustained period of fluke wins (e.g. Miami, Washington). Only people who watched the team closely all year knew what was going on.

In terms of fantasy, the only true stud on the team is Brees. This comes with the territory when you have so many weapons I imagine.

Good point again. Like the Colts and Patriots, having only one real star helps a ton with team-building and replenishment. The team won't have a bunch of huge star contracts tying up payroll.

 

[Doug B]

if we can stay healthy then we have a good chance to make the playoffs. i would feel pretty good about going 6-3 or better into the bye week. the schedule will get *much* harder in the second half of the season with four tough road games in Dallas, Cincy, Baltimore and Atlanta.

You've got something there. Even with improvement, the Saints could go something like 10-6 in the regular season.But at least now, they've been playoff-hardened -- even coming out of the Wild Card round, the Saints would still be a tough out in January.

 

[saintfool]

if we can stay healthy then we have a good chance to make the playoffs. i would feel pretty good about going 6-3 or better into the bye week. the schedule will get *much* harder in the second half of the season with four tough road games in Dallas, Cincy, Baltimore and Atlanta.

You've got something there. Even with improvement, the Saints could go something like 10-6 in the regular season.But at least now, they've been playoff-hardened -- even coming out of the Wild Card round, the Saints would still be a tough out in January.

i don't think anyone would want to tangle with us. however, if we've learned anything over the last few years, it's the decisive advantage of playing in the Dome. this team should scrap, claw and fight every game to help ensure the HFA for the playoffs. it's not that we don't play well outdoors in winter either. it's just that we seem to find greater resolve and the opposition is apt to shrink just a bit when playing in front of all those fans.

 

[Catbird]

The same whining plea for more ultra-respect that seems to overcome the fans of every team that has a great season. It was far worse with Patriot fans (maybe because it was nearly interminable). Why can't fans be glad they won, consider their team good enough to win again, accept that its a new season and everyone else wants and tends to believe their own team has a great chance and just enjoy their success. The desire (let alone expectation) for everyone else to bow down to last year's winner is pathetic.

 

[Doug B]

The same whining plea for more ultra-respect that seems to overcome the fans of every team that has a great season. It was far worse with Patriot fans (maybe because it was nearly interminable) ... The desire (let alone expectation) for everyone else to bow down to last year's winner is pathetic.

It's not as bad as all that -- just weird to see dirt thrown on the coffin already.

Why can't fans be glad they won[?]

... honestly, the great feelings of the Saints winning the Super Bowl are diappearing rapidly, at least for me. Was kind of hoping the ride would last a little longer. Getting a bunch of favorable pre-season predictions would kind of "lengthen the ride", even if only in an illusory way.Eh ... I don't think any Saints fans are actively trying to be Richards, or rub it in with other team's fans, or anything. I really think it's more the seemingly-premature-dirt-on-the-coffin effect.