Greatest Saints Team Ever?
With their latest win over the Atlanta Falcons on Monday night the Saints climbed to a perfect 7-0, tying their best start in franchise history. With comparisons like these being made, I think it's about time we find an answer to the simple question that's probably been on the back of everyone's mind this year: Is this the greatest Saints team in franchise history?
Since we don't know what the final outcome of this season will be, we can't base our decision on achievement alone. Right now that title belongs to the 2006 team that advanced to the NFC Championship game and the most accomplished squad to date. Let's simply consider talent and assume that will also inevitably lead to at least moderate playoff success.
So is this the most talented team the Saints have ever fielded? Obviously, the 2006 team had a great offense similar to this years and a slightly better-than-average defense. Contrarily, the better teams from the late eighties and early nineties played stout defense but had just mediocre offenses. The 2000 Saints were well-rounded but not necessarily great in enough areas.
This season feels different, however, as the team appears to be blossoming on both sides of the ball. They once again have the best offense in the league but also a defense that creates turnovers, scores points and wins games. All of that has combined to create perfection. Have the Saints shown enough so far this season to prove to you that they're the best ever, regardless of what happens the rest of the year? Or does it all just boil down to getting to the Super Bowl?
I look forward to further discussion. I would definitely like to hear from our older fans who've been following the team since the beginning.
0 recs |
35 comments
|
Comments
This team closes games strong.
Even though they have had some sloppy play, this Saints team is finishing games by pulling away and scoring consistently. Only the third quarter has been a problem for them. The most impressive change is the ability to adapt. They are starting to get into some habits now so they need to change it up a bit, but the team at least looks as though it can change, it can adapt, and it can gut out victories. Getting the odd score (or this year, the consistent score) from the defense always helps. But I’m really happy that we can pick up those critical 3rd down conversions late in games. That has made a huge difference.
Although the defense has come through, I’m often pretty scared about how long it takes them to slow the other team down. There have been a lot of red zone picks. Those are just so critical. I nevertheless wish that the opposing team was not in the red zone in the first place.
by xen-cuts on Nov 4, 2009 7:02 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Great points
The fact that this team finishes games, where Mora’s great defensive-oriented teams couldn’t, is what gives them my vote.
And I agree with you about the red-zone picks. In fact, I wrote a story mentioning that, and SBNation ate it. Dave’s trying to figure out where the hell it is. (Unless, of course, it’s visible to everyone but me. Which would be typical.)
Super Bowl 44: "If you play in this league and it's not your goal, there's something wrong with you." -- Marques Colston
by MtnExile on Nov 4, 2009 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The 1992 Saints are still the best, imo. The defense was far more dominating than this year’s team and the offense was good enough to win 12 games against stiff competition. Both teams outrushed and outpassed their opponents, it’s mainly just the strength of the ‘92 defense that tips the scales. That being said, if the current team is able to total 12 wins or more and win one playoff game or more, I’ll have to consider them the best. The 2000 and 2006 teams were about the same, imo. Mediocrity on both sides of the ball. Both won 10 games and managed to advance a game in the postseason. The fact that one gained a first round bye with an identical record means nothing to me, other than that they played in a relatively weaker conference. All in all, I’d rather dominate on at least one side of the ball and, given my druthers, would prefer it be on defense.
"Paralyze resistance with persistence" -Woody Hayes
by coldpizza on Nov 4, 2009 7:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Also, I don’t think there’s any way in hell the 2006 Saints would have made the playoffs, much less advanced, had Brees and McAllister both gone down in Weeks 11 and 12 respectively. While not the most talented Saints team ever, the 2000 squad will always have my respect for overcoming that level of adversity.
"Paralyze resistance with persistence" -Woody Hayes
by coldpizza on Nov 4, 2009 7:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that game after we beat the rams in 2000
you could just tell that the team was mentally and physically drained when we played the vikings. the term overachieved was thrown around a lot. the 06 saints were at least still competing in chicago (as painful as that game was).
by DrewBreesManCrush on Nov 4, 2009 9:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Competing = scoring a TD just before the half? Both teams lost to far superior teams. The 2000 team lost to the Vikings by 18 points. The 2006 team lost to the Bears by 25. I do think the Bears were the better team between those two opponents … I just don’t know about seven points better. Put it this way … I felt a lot less cr*ppy having lost to Daunte Culpepper, Randy Moss, etc., than to Rex Grossman. And the magnitude of the game had nothing to do with that.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 4, 2009 9:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
final scores can be misleading
as much as i hoped the saints to win both games, i knew we didnt have a chance in minnesota (and we didnt). but i def thought that we had a chance in chi, before we decided not to go for it on fourth and short and miss a long field goal with our short legged kicker in artic conditions. that game got out of hand fast after that. i admire the resilience of the 2000 team to make it that far, but the 06 team was a better one.
by DrewBreesManCrush on Nov 4, 2009 10:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not only is this the greatest Saints team
It’s probably the best team I can recall through my memory.
Head Weatherman/ Injury Specialist of the Phinsider.
Bender: Who wants dolphin? Leela: Dolphin? But dolphins are intelligent. Bender: Not this one. He blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.
by Farorefox on Nov 4, 2009 7:55 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s unfair to compare this team to other Saints teams, because those other teams were given more opportunities to diminish their greatness. For example, take the 1991 team. No one knew seven games into that season that they’d wind up losing five; six if you count the playoff loss to Atlanta. If you want to base your answer strictly on their performance through the first seven games, then yes, this is probably the best team ever. On the whole, though, I don’t think that’s a comparison that should be made. It’s the same thing with all-time great players. Is Peyton Manning the greatest QB of all-time? If you think his body of work through today exceeds that of Joe Montana, Johnny Unitas, Brett Favre, etc., then you should be able to answer that with an unequivocable yes. That’s the crux, though. It could all end TODAY. Peyton Manning could die in a car crash and not play another down. The same thing applies to the 2009 Saints. I’m not suggesting that the team will go down in a plane crash, but it COULD happen. They could also lose Brees for the season, which would drastically change the outcome of this season. They could also go into a complete funk and lose seven straight. Not likely, but entirely possible. Withholding judgment until the end of the season is not an entirely pessimistic ideology. Let’s say you think the 1991 team was better, because they won a division featuring two other 10 win teams. Well, what if Atlanta and Carolina wind up winning 10 games this season? What if Buffalo or Miami bounce back and make the playoffs? What if the Eagles continue to play well and wind up going on a postseason tear? What we perceive to be weak or mediocre teams now, could wind up being some of the best 2009 had to offer, which will, in turn, make the current Saints team look even more impressive in hindsight for having defeated them.
"Paralyze resistance with persistence" -Woody Hayes
by coldpizza on Nov 4, 2009 9:17 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think if we go by accomplishments...
We really can’t say that the 2006 team was the best ever. I mean they did make it to the NFC championship game for the first time in team history, but they only won one play-off game to get there. And their record that year was 10-6 (even though it could have easily been 11-5 if they had played their starters throughout he whole game in that last game). The Saints need to win more than one play-off game in my opinion to crown that team the best team ever. History shows that one seems to be the limit. Getting over that hump will be big.
by narco301 on Nov 4, 2009 9:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I think 13 wins total is sufficient, provided at least one is in the playoffs. 13-3 and no playoff win would be a toss-up, imo. Better record, less overall talent. 14-2 and no playoff win, I’d probably side with the current team.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 4, 2009 10:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the deepest team the Saints have ever had
by far in my opinion, and that’s a a big factor. I also think this is the best coaching staff that the Saints have ever coupled with a talented team. Carl Smith was a wek link IMO for some erlier teams and Haslett couldn’t compare to Payton, even though I likd him early on. He was nowhere near as smart. Obviously, GW is on several levels higher than GG.
In regards to depth, just a couple of examples- Gay is clearly the best non-starting CB we have ever had and Arrington could play/start on many past Saints teams. Hamilton could be the 2nd back on many Saints teams in the past. Meachem is the best non-starting receiver we have ever had. Then there is Hargrove/McCray and Charleston- best
non-starting DLs we have ever had. Again, just my opinion, but I think this team is the best overall team in Saints history and definitely best offense. I think maybe the 2nd best defense, but by the end of the year they might just come in tie for first. In my opinion, 1991 team just was not explosive enough on offense and and receivers were not quite elite receivers in the league at that time. Also, I think the Offensive coordinator was Carl Smith, if it was he was really bad.
"Indecision may or may not be my biggest problem" - Jimmy Buffett
by Philinwood on Nov 4, 2009 9:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
1. Neither Carl Smith nor Gary Gibbs were ever coordinators under Haslett.
2. The best non-starting CB we ever had was EASILY Reggie Sutton. I do agree that this is probably the deepest we’ve ever been at the CB position in general, though.
3. Arrington is currently available to 31 other NFL teams. I would think if he could “play/start” for many past Saints teams, he would at least be riding the pine on an active roster. Being that he’s never played a down of professional football, I’m going to go out on a limb and say you’re overrating him.
4. Lynell Hamilton may have been the 2nd best back on a few pre-Hank Stram teams. I can’t think of any since where we’ve been THAT thin at RB.
5. Agreed on Meachem.
6. Willie Whitehead wasn’t never a regular starter and was definitely better than Jeff Charleston. Pretty good depth on the whole talent wise, though I’m not completely satified at either position (DE or DT), in terms of production.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 4, 2009 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Keyuo Craver is another non-starting CB, I’d take over Randall Gay. Either Torrance Small or Floyd Turner, both non-starting WRs on the 1992 team, would likely push for a roster spot on the current team. I think Jerome Pathon would, as well. Lance Moore and Pathon seem like the same guy to me, for some reason. Probably the bright skin and overall dependability. Three others that deserve mention from a career standpoint: Ken Burrough, Jake Reed and Germane Crowell.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 4, 2009 11:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Unequivocally yes
I don’t know how you can watch the 2009 Saints and NOT believe they’re the best team we’ve ever had. We’re dominating previously good opponents and winning games that we usually lose (4 turnovers? 21-point-deficit? come on!). WTF is the point of saying that there’s still a lot of football to play? no duh. are you saying we don’t pass judgment on a team’s ability until after the season is over?
of course it’s POSSIBLE that we have some horrible thing happen like all of our players get put on IR or we lose the next 9 games or the NFL players stage a strike and there’s no more football for the rest of the season. but that argument is completely pointless, and would only be made just to avoid actual discussion about the season thus far. it also blatantly overlooks the unprecidented success that we’ve had so far. if you really think it’s unfair to make such comparasions, then fine—go away, come back at the end of the season, and then say whatever you like. in the meantime, i’ll continue to marvel at our awesomeness thus far. hopefully by season’s end we’ll be saying that this was not only the best saints team of all time, but the best NFL team ever.
in conclusion, who dat.
by jful on Nov 4, 2009 10:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
“WTF is the point of saying that there’s still a lot of football to play? no duh. are you saying we don’t pass judgment on a team’s ability until after the season is over?”
The point is, you’re comparing them to other teams that played 14, 15 or 16 games with the knowledge that those teams lost x-number of games in hindsight. That’s based on success alone. There’s also the talent angle to consider. This team is NOT as talented overall as the 1992 team. At QB? Yes. At RB? Arguable. At WR? Arguable. You could go all the way down the line. I know when you got to LB, if you answer “yes” or “arguable”, you’re smoking crack.
“that argument is completely pointless, and would only be made just to avoid actual discussion about the season thus far. "
It’s not completely pointless. It’s actually quite logical. And the question wasn’t about the season thusfar, it was about this year’s team, as compared to other Saints teams. So, avoiding "actual discussion about the season " would probably be prudent.
Getting back to the actual topic at heand, you don’t think Brees would struggle getting passes off with Pat Swilling and Rickey Jackson breathing down his neck? He’s had considerable difficulty against far less potent pass rushes this season. What kind of pressure would Fujita and Shanle be putting on Bobby Hebert to counteract that? Or would Darren Sharper just return two INTs for TDs to keep it close? I’m not saying they COULDN’T beat the 1992 team, but it would be a whole hell of a lot closer than the “unequivocal” slam dunk you’re making it out to be. That was a very, very solid team we fielded back in those days and it all started up front on D.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 4, 2009 10:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
of course it's based on success--wins are kind of important in the NFL
as a guy who uses defense as a criterion, i can understand your liking the ‘92 saints better —especially since we’re giving up 22 points a game this season. but that doesn’t account for the fact that the league has become a more passing-dominant and high-scoring one as a result of all the recent measures to protect quarterbacks. i think point differential is the more crucial stat.
and if you look at our performance now, we’re performing better than we ever have in our history as a team. the ‘92 saints had an 8 point-per-game differential, while this season’s team is winning games by an average of 17 points. through the first 7 games of the 1992 season, the saints were 5-2, winning 3 of those games by 6 points or fewer. or look at the last saints team to start 7-0; in 1991, we won our first seven games by an average of 9.12 points per game. that’s basically half this season’s.
you can say whatever you want about “talent level” or how this year’s team would stack up if they played against a previous version, but that’s all speculation and opinion (quick, someone do it in madden!). the fact is we’re destroying teams this season and doing it in record fashion—and after seven games the numbers are certainly statistically significant.
by jful on Nov 4, 2009 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The object of the game of football isn’t to score as many points as possible, it’s to outscore your opponent. That can be accomplished more easily, the fewer points your opponent scores, regardless of how potent your offense is. The same can’t be said of the importance of a high scoring offense. Case in point: the Saints have had the top offense in the league the past two seasons and finished no better than 8-8. If the direction of the NFL favors offense, as you claim, then why weren’t we winning more often? Because we lacked a defense. And to at least some extent, they still do. I do see improvement in some areas, but on the whole, it’s still a pretty mediocre group, in terms of talent. To their credit, they’re forcing enough turnovers to bail out the offense at times and the offense continues to bail out the defense regularly. That, in and of itself, is better than we’ve seen in some time.
“in 1991, we won our first seven games by an average of 9.12 points per game. that’s basically half this season’s.”
Check your math. We won our first seven games that season by an average of 13.9 points per game. That’s only about a FG less per game than the 17.0 margin of victory our current team is averaging.
All things considered, I’d much rather have a team that only needs to score 17 pts per game to win 12 games, than a team that relies on a turnover or two per game, in order to prevent their opponent from keeping pace with their Wilt Chamberlain-esque scoring outputs.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 4, 2009 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ok you win
i don’t have the patience to go back and forth saying the same thing over and over. i just don’t like being misrepresented, and i never said we need to score more than 17 points— my point was about point differential (what you call “outscoring your opponent”). and this is the best saints team (so far) in that category— its the first in history whose closest game thus far was +8. that, to me, indicates a pretty feckin good team. but what do i know.
it comes down to whatever arbitrary criterion is used to determine a team’s “goodness”, and i know from experience that you’ll never recognize someone else’s point if it’s different from yours (or even if it’s true—like that this is the most successful team at outscoring opponents, a criterion you concede in your last post).
and, yeah, my math was wrong—my bad. i divided by 8, not 7. i still think my point is valid, since three of those seven games were decided by a TD or less. you might not like winning 39-22—but i think it’s awesome. it’s just my opinion, and it’s no more or less true than anyone else’s.
by jful on Nov 4, 2009 4:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Zero Points
by your opponent will iaure you of atleast a tie. Ya’ll need to Kool off. HA HA
by saint-sly on Nov 4, 2009 7:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's hard to say, but...
Hard to say at this point, because so many factors come into play. I think that this will prove to be the greatest Saints team. I will say that I agree that this is certainly the deepest Saints team that I have seen in my 40+ years following them. That will be an important piece as the year progresses!
"The Saints made the right decision signing Drew Brees-not just in terms of his arm, but because of his heart and mind." - Marshall Faulk
by SaintsFanMD on Nov 4, 2009 10:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Best team ever ?
Not yet. if the Saints can win it all or just make it to the super bowl and not win it , they will be the best ever in team history. I been a fan since 1967 and I must say that the 1991 team was hell on both sides of the ball. the saints for years always had the best defense in the NFL. this year defense is good but not know comparison to the 1987-1991 defense. Jackson,Mills,Johnson,Swillings,Turnbull,Wilks,Geathers,Buck,Atkins,Waymer,Cook. but it’s a start for us to get back to what this team has always been known for and that’s a hard nose hitting DEFENSE. this year team have what it takes to win it all. if we don’t finish 19-0 we should end up at 17-2 with the SUPER BOWL WIN.
by KENTROO'S on Nov 4, 2009 11:08 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
This is deffently the best
This is by far the best i’m 32 and witnessed first hand all the 70 and up teams.Even when we had the dome patrol and we won 9 in a row.We never dominated alot of those wins we sueeked by.no matter what when I seen the 9er’s or Rams I was worried and
very passimistic on it.As then as always we lost horrible once we faced an elite team
(9ers rams vikings bears cowboys giants)i was always worried and didn’t fill we had a chance unless we got lucky.This years i worry only cause of the past,but i never felt like theres no true team that can beat us.the only dominace i care about is the ones where winning TOs redzone,thrid downs those are the ones that count and those are the ones where#1 in.Will get a few deep ones on us but thats only out of desperation and this year teams will only get about 30% unlike years before where they got it 80% of the time
by darshiva420 on Nov 4, 2009 1:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Talent level vs 1992 team
IMO, this team is more talented than the 92 team and it might not be all that close
The 92 defense was obviously better than the current model. They bludgeoned teams into submission. The obvious strength was the LB core though the DL was strong as well. The DBs were servicable, but I think the current group of DBs is better without question.
Moving to offense, this is where the 09 team is dominant. They are better at almost every unit than the 92 team, and in some cases by a WIDE margin. QB? not close. WR/TEs? not close. RBs? I think 09 is better due to depth. OL? This one is debatable, but 02 is probably better, especially with the injuries we’ve had there.
A lot of the season remains, but that 92 team faded, at least partially because the offense put so much pressure on their own defense to stop teams. We shouldn’t have that problem. If the defense continues to play solidly and opportunistically, then the sky is the limit.
by SaintBevo on Nov 4, 2009 4:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The roster depth is what impresses me.
I have been a fan since the early-‘80s (as in, when I was old enough to comprehend a football game) and the depth of this team surpasses any other I’ve seen. This quality was showing through even during the preseason (although it’s a weak standard to make this determination).
Also, Randall Gay used to be good for at least 1-2 interceptions whenever he played against us. I, for one, am glad that he is on our side and not the other.
It’s hard to cross-compare the ‘91 squad w/the 2009 squad due to the structural changes in the entire game. However, if the Saints win this week, will that settle the debate? Also, we have on record members from the ’91 squad vehemently and gladly admitting that this year’s crew surpasses theirs. When Hebert is proudly shouting it from rooftops, that tells me something.
Also, although the translation is not perfect, Grant and Smith can sub as our 21st century version of Jackson/Swilling.
The thing I keep hearing from seasoned fans and ex-players is that this team is the “complete package”, and I agree.
by Recondite on Nov 4, 2009 4:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to CSC!!!
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Saintsational on Nov 4, 2009 6:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As of right now
I believe we are the best Saints team. The only thing for me though, is that they were probably saying that the last time we started 7-0. We have a great and complete offense now. We can pass or run or do a combination of both to win games. Our defense can win games for us. We aren’t a great defense but we are definetly above average. If we could get more 3 and outs or even give up a first down then a 3 and out that keeps them in their territory more often, I’d feel like they were great. I think that our D is good enough to shut out an opponent although they probably won’t do it. Good enough but probably won’t. We have had the #1 offense for 2 out of the past 3 years not including this one, which I believe we are #1 in too. The year we weren’t #1, we were #3 and that was the year of the unbeaten Patriots too I believe. As of right now, we have the best chance to win a SB out of past teams. That’s what will make a team the best in Franchise history, winning a SB. I think we get it this year.
Superbowl bound!!!...I know! do you?! Go Saints!!
by skinnykinney on Nov 4, 2009 5:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
i think
we will see the last day of our season, whenever that may be…
what this team is, or was…
i just hope that whatever happens this year will be replicated next and next season will be even better!
team building is nice
I am a jack of all, and master of none
by doublewide on Nov 4, 2009 6:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
You wanted to hear from an "old" Saints Fan?
Well, here goes:
Our memory of the past is always clouded by the promise of the future!
Do you actually think any active Saints Coach or Player really gives a shit about, “Are we the best Saints team ever?” right now? Our boys are battered and bruised and sore in places we don’t even know exist. And they have a short week to get ready for the Panthers, a division team, who would love nothing more than to be able to say, “We missed the playoffs but took the Saints down!”
The best Saints team ever is always the one currently taking the field. They get my undying support and respect for going out there week after week so I can say, “Man, we sure are good!”
Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves in our joy. I don’t think Payton or Brees is.
Fat, dumb, and happy. Hell, two out of three ain't bad!
by Just 'Nother Day on Nov 4, 2009 6:42 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Amen to that
"All kind of knowledge, eventually becomes self knowledge" - Bruce Lee
by SBookerSaintsFan on Nov 5, 2009 5:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heres some stats from 91 team
The QBs threw 20(season) tds brees already has 16, 2 rushing in 7 games
The D had 29(season) picks where on that paces but they had only 2tds whole season we have 5 already
cant find the stat on fumbles but im sure it doesnt beat our overall sucess
The running backs had 15TDs(season) we have 13 in 7 games
The only thing that D was, had better than what where on pace for or haven’t already beaten is the sacks.This is by far a better D than the dome patrol but in a diffrent since
as not shutdown,but optamistic(imo id rather have)
We have them beat in half the season and to say Eric Martin,Floyd Turner ,Fred Macfee
are the off calibur players as our current boys is an understatement.We(Saints fans just don’t relize what we have yet) who dat :)
To say that offence could even hold Drew Brees towel is an under statement
by darshiva420 on Nov 4, 2009 8:21 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
whoa
This is a ridiculous statement
This is by far a better D than the dome patrol
The current defense is fun to watch and much improved than the other Saints Ds in recent memory, but the Saints D of the early 90s is way better. They suffocated offenses and carried their own which was ordinary. They led the league in least points allowed several times. If they played with this offense, ,they would have been even more dominant because they would have been playing with bigger leads (allowing them to pin their ears back and do what they did best – rush the passer) not to mention they would have spent less time on the field.
by SaintBevo on Nov 5, 2009 6:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
“but in a diffrent since as not shutdown,but optamistic(imo id rather have)”
SaintBevo, he/she would RATHER HAVE this D. What part of “this makes them far better” do you not understand?
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
by coldpizza on Nov 5, 2009 7:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Clear as mud
I understand in the sense that I know what the sentence means, but IMO anyone who would rather have the current D did not see the 92 team play.
by SaintBevo on Nov 5, 2009 1:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















