On the Saints' rushing game: stats don't lie, but they sure talk funny

by MtnExile on Mar 2, 2009 3:10 PM CST Comment 7 comments

It's become something of a truism among Saints fans that when it comes to rushing, our team is...shall we say, subpar? Our inability to convert crucial third downs cost us dearly on several occasions, and our lack of a power running game in the fourth quarter meant that nearly every victory had to be a shootout.

But in looking over rushing stats, I made some puzzling discoveries. Puzzling, hell: startling would be more like it. Maybe even astonishing.

For instance: did you realize that, judged by scoring, three of the top five ground attacks were in the NFC South...and that one of them was--the Saints? That's right: New Orleans scored 20 rushing touchdowns last year, behind only Carolina, Tennessee, Atlanta, and New England. We scored on the ground better than half the NFL did through the air.

The Saints are way down near the bottom of the list in total yards, yards per game, yards per carry, and attempts. Yet we're actually 14th in first downs by rushing. By percentage of first downs--that is, the total of runs compared to those that resulted in firsts--we're third.

What in the world could all of this mean? Am I remembering wrong? Didn't we lose games because we couldn't pick up a yard when we needed it most? And yet here we are scoring more touchdowns and making a better percentage of first downs on the ground than nearly any other team.

Let's compare different parts of the season. We know that our offense became more balanced late in the year, right? Wrong: in the first 8 games, we rushed 206 times. In the second 8 games, after making "a renewed commitment to the ground game," we rushed 192 times. Yet we made more yardage: in the first half of the season, we gained a total of 710 yards on the ground, for an average of 3.4 yards per carry. In the second half, we gained 884 yards and a 4.6 average. W. T. And let me add, F.

I don't know what to make of all this, except that the Saints are an engine for boggling men's brains. Does all this mean that we can rush...or that we can't?

This FanPost was written by a reader and member of Canal Street Chronicles. It does not necessarily reflect the views of CSC and its staff or editors.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: saints, rushing, stats, New Orleans Saints

Comments

it means we can rush

Pierre looked good enough to cause arguments here as to whether he was an every down back or not. Reggie is Reggie. There were a few plays called last year that were disasters and very memorable, and they cloud the perception of the running game. Saints had a 4.0 yards per rush average in 2008. The Ravens were ranked 4th in rushing and were also at 4.0. What does that mean? I don’t know.

Here’s the kicker: NFC champs Arizona were ranked 32nd dead last, with only 1178 yards and a 3.5 average. Numbers are overrated.

I'm down with G-Dub.

by stujo4 on Mar 2, 2009 3:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

What led up to most of those rushing TD's?

If my memory is correct, most of those rushing TD’s came from within the 10 yard line where it makes sense to try to punch it in rather than throw it in. Usually, it was the pass plays that got us down the field and in the red zone. That would seem on the surface to account for the many rushing TD’s and the not so many rushing yards. Plus, I think Payton is a little more creative with his rush play-calling when it’s close to the goal line as opposed to somewhere between the twenties when he’s just trying to convert a 1st down. At those times, it was like the defense knew exactly how to defend us. Whatever the answer is, let’s all just hope the rush attack is stronger and better utilized next season. I hope Payton gets that power back he says he’s been “dying to get.”

Go Saints!!!! Deuce may be gone, but he will never be forgotten.

by satchmo26 on Mar 2, 2009 3:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

What you're describing

is essentially the short-yardage game, which we all excoriated last season. I remember that vividly, because I was part of it (the excoriation, I mean, not the running game. I’m still alive).

So we couldn’t get a first down when we needed one, but we could punch it into the end zone better than half the teams could pass it in. Freaky.

Oh when the Saints...Start kicking ass...You don't want to be in that number...

by MtnExile on Mar 2, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, I think the failed 3rd down conversions were memorable because of how badly they sucked, not because there were so many of them.

I'm down with G-Dub.

by stujo4 on Mar 2, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True

If not for a couple of late-game missed field goals by Grammatica, we probably wouldn’t really remember them. I’m speaking mostly of the heartbreaking Denver loss of course where they couldn’t convert the 1st down and then give Frodo a closer shot at winning the game for us. Damn! That was a painful game to watch because they were down by two or three TD’s at first and still managed to battle back by the end only to lose it.

Go Saints!!!! Deuce may be gone, but he will never be forgotten.

by satchmo26 on Mar 2, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the heartbreaking Denver loss

Just saw it again in my head. That was a long ride back to the hotel. I don’t think I’ve ever felt worse after a Saints game.

I'm down with G-Dub.

by stujo4 on Mar 2, 2009 4:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

All season

that was it ,betweeen the 20’s and goal line, we didn’t fool anybody running, i think our line is better @ pass blocking, the Broncos, and Redskins game are prime examples, that Tampa game when we tried a reverse is another; a better def scheme v.s. our poor decision, karney was hurt last yr, so sometimes we ran short w/o a FB. Oh yeah and Lousy Gramatica……….

by metryman on Mar 3, 2009 4:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs