Reality Check

1) Giving up in excess of 400 yards is not an “occasional failure”. It’s a trend. A habit. An expectation of our defense that is bore out, not defined by statistics.

2) TOP is the best statistical indicator of success in pro football. It usually indicates a greater degree of control of the game by the holder of the statistical advantage. The various anomalies to the shaky “rule” that TOP advantage equals victory are never lopsided success stories for the winners. They are late game rallies, and squandered opportunities(like turnovers) by the team with the higher TOP. TOP does not determine winners. The score does. TOP merely has the best chance of success in suggesting who the winner is, of all stats. The one possible stat to be more important than that one is the turnover differential. These two stats are not exact opposites. One can heavily influence the other, in either direction. The NFC Championship was a great example of how the TO differential allowed the dominant team to lose to the less effective team. A high number of turnovers can also give the TOP advantage to the team with the takeaways, in that that team will have more possessions. If the Saints had managed to avoid a few of those 3-and-outs, then TOP would have been much closer, the TO differential would be roughly the same, and the game probably would have ended the same way, only earlier, in that the Saints may have scored more, or the Vikings definitely would have had fewer chances to score.

3) I can’t speak for coldpizza, but I can tell you that I am not arguing that a team should strive for TOP dominance. A high time of possession is a symptom of successful football, not the cause. You don’t eat cough drops to cure the flu. You get a flu vaccine, which, in addition to treating the infection, will also lessen your propensity for coughing. Turnovers also don’t dictate game winners, which the game on Sunday effectively illustrated, as well. We completely dominated that stat line, yet we had to win in overtime.

My point is, no statistic completely explains the outcome of a sports contest. You cannot envision a game accurately by reading a spreadsheet about it. But some stats tend to suggest success more than others. I think this iteration of the Saints are a great example of what one can accomplish by focusing on exploiting statistical anomalies, but no team can thrive on creating turnovers consistently, because no player is good enough at creating turnovers for that to be their job. The Saints took the ball from Minnesota a ton on Sunday, but it gave them no scoring advantage, because Minnesota stopped New Orleans from advancing the football consistently. One of those things can be repeated more regularly than the other.

The highest paid pass rushers in the game produce about 1.5 sacks per game. The best “ball-hawk” DB’s in the game average about one pick per 1.5 games. You cannot plan your defense around that. Stopping an offense from collecting ten yards in three tries is a very attainable goal, though. You can do that several times per game, and you will likely win when you are good at that. You will almost definitely win the TOP “battle”, though that wouldn’t have been your goal. Your goal was, simply, to stop the other team from scoring as much as you.

Viewing TOP as “the battle” and striving to maintain possession for the ball as long as possible, while finishing off drives with TDs whenever possible, is about as close to a recipe for perfection as you’re going to find in the NFL. Far moreso than merely scoring TDs whenever possible.

“And the failures of our offense were the sole reason we lost the TOP "battle".”

It definitely wasn’t the sole reason.

We’re really getting to the point of arguing over the definition of the word is now. So I guess I’ll just shut up.

Two clear cut examples of TOP coming into play:

Reggie Bush muffs a punt at the Saints 14 yard line with 1:24 left in the half. The Vikings recover. Two plays later, Adrian Peterson fumbles. The Saints take over again with 0:56 left in the half. Afraid of turning the ball over again before the half, the Saints decide to play it safe and run out the clock. The two turnovers nullified one another. What was lost was TOP. Would the Saints have run the ball twice with 1:24 remaining? I seriously doubt it. Whether they could have moved into FG range or not remains uncertain, but their chances of doing so would have been considerably better, had they not lost those extra 28 ticks.

Minnesota is faced with a 3rd-and-8 at their own 23 with 1:52 left in regulation. Favre passes 5 yards to Berrian, who gains 5 more after the catch. 1st down, Vikings. The drive continues.

Had the pass been broken up, that play takes roughly 3 seconds. If he catches it and is tackled immediately, the Saints spend a timeout. Roughly 4 seconds total have elapsed.

Even if the Saints have no timeouts, the Vikings would have had two options: milk the clock down to 1:20 or so before punting, or go for it deep in their own territory a la Belichick.

Let’s assume they punt 50 yards and Bush doesn’t gain anything whatsoever on the return. The Saints now have the ball at their own 12 with about 1:08 left. Realistically, about 1:36 left being that the Saints DID have timeouts to spare.

Regardless, worst case scenario, 1st-and-10 from the 12, 1:08 left to work with. Can they drive it into FG range before the end of regulation? Again, that’s open to speculation. Again, their odds would have been considerably better than with a 1st-and-10 from their own 48 with 0:07 remaining.

This time, however, there was no giveaway. Only Tracy Porter’s takeaway, i.e., a +1 in the turnover ratio. Far more meaningful than that pesky old TOP, right? So, what did that advantage net them on the scoreboard? You could argue 3 pts in prevention. You could also argue those same 3 pts with a 3rd down stop.

In truth, by comparison, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was gained. The only things lost were 1:01-1:29 TOP and yet another opportunity for the offense to take the lead, without having to resort to a second coin toss.

Generally speaking, three-and-outs > turnovers.

As steadfast rules:

a.) TOP > everything when you have a lead.
b.) TOP > everything but points when you don’t.
c.) TOP + points > TOP.
d.) TOP + points > points.

Rules c. and d. are pretty damn superfluous, imo. Still, I’ve seen air show enthusiasts argue points even that elementary in the past.

Yeah, after further thought, it’s probably a rathole to go down.

I was just commenting that during the game, I thought of CP fondly. Not in a ha-ha TOP doesn’t mean crap way. I was just envisioning CP sweating the TOP. Just like I was sweating the score and all my other who dats were sweating the game. I felt ‘connected’ to CP during the game, just knowing he was there, even though I’ve never met him. I looked over to section 140, wondering what Dave was thinking too. If I’d recognized you guys, I would have sent you a beer or something. Thats what’s so great about this Blog.

While I typically (grudgingly) agree with CP’s realism, I think calling the Saints an overachieving .500 ballclub is a little extreme.