The Silver Lining
by Philinwood on Oct 5, 2010 7:17 AM CDT
Email
Print
Yes, we are persevering through some tough times in a sense mostly (IMO) due to some injuries, but there is a silver lining. When that final stretch of the season comes, there is a good chance that a lot of the players who are missing time now such as Reggie, Sharper, Porter, PT, Ingram,Harper, Prioleau et al will not be as worn down and won't be limping into the playoffs, assuming we get there. We have been fortunate that many of these injuries are not season - ending ( although not so fortunate re: Reis,Casillas, Hill, Hamilton, Mallei, etc).
The other positive thing about the situation is that we have some reserves who, with the increased amount of playing time and experience, can really raise their level of play. I think Payton etal have done a good job having the right blend of young players with a lot of potential and some veterans mixed in, that can grow and have the best games they've ever had in the NFL. I think players like Jenkins, Ivory, Young, Patrick Robinson, Dunbar, etc are showing signs of really becoming true bonafide NFL players and are groing into being on the same level as other starters in the league. Without the injuries, their progression might be either non-existent or slower.
The next player I hope to see get a chance and make the most of his playing time is Reggie Jones. He caught my eye in pre-season and I hope he will eventually be a starter as I predict. Hopefully this will not happen as a the result of someone else's injury. All we have to do is keep winning, even if it's by one or two points, so we have to be patient. If you look at the schedule, this is the perfect time to weather theses injuries if they are going to occur. We can beat the next 3 teams if we play well ( have to play well, though they aren't gimmees), then we play Pittsburgh and we should be closer to full capacity then. Also, we can't look past teams like Ariz and Tampa, thinking about the Pitt game. Then the bye week is soon after that. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.!!
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.
67 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well done, my Friend.....
Glass half FULL……WHO DAT!
DON'T STOP 'TIL WE REACH THE TOP!!!!!!!!
Another SAINTS fan in Panther country!
GEAUX SAINTS!!!!!!!!!!!
WHO DAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
whatever happened to junior galette?
also – at the end of the season, if the saints win all of their games including the superbowl by an average of 2 points… will we really care?
Amen said the Preacher to the choir (lol) !!
"I think we agree, the past is over" - George W Bush
"The greatest enemy of knowlege is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking
“if the saints win all of their games including the superbowl by an average of 2 points… will we really care?”
No, we wouldn’t. And if they played better in the interim, there’d be no need for such an “if”.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
So winning by 30 takes away the possibility of a loss the following week? I’m not sure that I understand what you are saying CP, but trust me, there is always an “if.”
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
I’m saying everything isn’t hunky dory just because we’re winning. We’re winning by precarious margins. These last four games could have gone either way. With better play, that probably wouldn’t be the case. That’s what people are complaining about. Trust me, they’re fully aware that a win is a win, no matter how you slice it. They’re also aware that a convincing lead is less likely to wind up a loss than the nail biters we’re currently witnessing. All of this goes without saying, obviously. But when it comes down to superfluous rhetoric, they’re only in waist deep, while the “it is what it is” crowd is using a snorkel.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
rec'd you
there’s always more to a win than just a win. you need to look deeper than that. I’m pretty sure that if we were 0-4 or 1-3 right now then alot of ppl who are saying a win is a win wouldn’t be saying a loss is a loss. They’d be looking for why we’re losing like we are looking at why we’re barely coming out with a win.
Superbowl bound!!!...I know! do you?! Go Saints!!
We shold have been 4-0 really….
You are my people, you are my crowd, this is our music, we love it loud...
True, and it might have been the weakest, luckiest 4-0 ever. Oh, well, except for Denver last year.
I like misty water, I like fog and haze.
Anne Maria and her daughters, they like misty water.
No,
LSU’s 5-0 this year is the most absurd.
"I don't think we're the team with the target on our backs. They're not gunning for us, we're gunning for them. We're the ones with the scope." - Saints defensive tackle Sedrick Ellis
by BRSaintsFan on Oct 5, 2010 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
If any one doubts how good of a coach the Saints have, all they need to is take a look at the buffoon that coaches LSU.
by Drew-Dat on Oct 5, 2010 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
BOOM! Rec'd
the buffoon that coaches LSU
"I don't think we're the team with the target on our backs. They're not gunning for us, we're gunning for them. We're the ones with the scope." - Saints defensive tackle Sedrick Ellis
but one can dream
rotoworld.com:
Tyler Lorenzen-TE- Saints Sep. 5 – 1:38 am et Saints waived TE Tyler Lorenzen, CB Reggie Jones, FB Zak Keasey, and DTs Jay Ross and DeMario Pressley. Pressley is perhaps the group’s biggest surprise, as he racked up a solid 15 tackles in seven games off the bench down last season’s stretch. Lorenzen and Ross were undrafted free agents. Jones and Keasey were practice bodies.
I like misty water, I like fog and haze.
Anne Maria and her daughters, they like misty water.
The term “practice body” is relative to the depth and/or talent at the position at the time (Sept 5). Tracy Porter won’t be participating in practices any time soon, so maybe (just maybe) the tag would no longer apply to Jones, if recalled.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Just as “cannon fodder” refers to elite foot soldiers going into battle. uh huh
However, Jeff Duncan disagrees:
jeffduncantp
Reggie Jones a more likely candidate. RT @LAstorm83: w/the injuries to the secondary any chance mike mckenzie back? or they focusing on S?
Unless that was Duncan sarcasm, as in responding to “Will Wynn start for the Saints?”
.
Deuce a more likely candidate.
I like misty water, I like fog and haze.
Anne Maria and her daughters, they like misty water.
Did anyone else see SP on the Jim Rome show today?
To his credit, Payton didn’t say a single word about injuries being a factor when discussing the close games the Saints have had thus far. He said they were happy to be 3-1 but that everyone on the team knew they had to improve going forward. And he doesn’t buy into Super Bowl hangovers or that teams prepare any harder for them this year than they did last year after they were 6-0.
After the interview segment with coach was over, Rome did mention the fact the Saints had a lot of starters not on the field and predicted the same thing a lot of us have….. that being if they can get everyone healthy, the Saints will be just fine down the stretch.
by Drew-Dat on Oct 5, 2010 5:23 PM CDT reply actions 4 recs
Rec'd Drew Drat!
I sure did!! And I will say, I like Jim rome. He always says positive things regarding the Saints and Sean Payton. He says in spite of our injuries we’re still winning and they’ll be fine down the stretch.
He’s straight to the point as well, about any subject.
Maybe just maybe......
Darren Sharper is a little more important to the defense than anyone gave him credit for THIS YEAR. Seems to me last year everyone was singing his praises and how he was so important to the resurgence of this defense. This year everyone seems to have a short memory.
And, maybe, just maybe Reggie Bush IS as important to the Saints offense as all the analysts on TV such as Gruden, Keyshawn etc say he is in contrast to what some Saints fans say.
And maybe the loss of Fujita, while not dire, might just take a few games to accomodate to. He is a very good LB and did get to the NFC Championship game (before Vilma) and to the SB. Not saying he is irreplaceable, but it’s a littlle different situation than replacing Aaron Brooks with Drew Brees or Ricky Williams with Deuce Mc Allister. If we had replaced Fujita with a “Brees – level LB or a McAllister-level LB” then we would not experience any growing pains.
Having said that, I am very pleased with Dunbar and he will only get better.
And, of course, playing without Harper and PT is certainly a transition of sort. We can overcome it, but all of these reasons help keep a team from playing at its 100% potential, which is coming slowly..
"I think we agree, the past is over" - George W Bush
"The greatest enemy of knowlege is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking
Apologies for picking on a small point, but what has Patrick Robinson done to show signs of becoming a “true bonafide NFL player” other than signing a contract with the Saints?
If I am good I could add years to my life / I would rather add some life to my years.
just watched him in pre- season and in the small amount he played this season
he has 7 tackles so far in minimum playing time, 6 of them solo. Just seemed like when I have seen him play at CB, he was very physical and covered well for a rookie. To me he had a good combination of physicality and cover skills. Not saying he is Derrell Revis or even Sheldon Brown in his prime, for example, but he seemed like he has a lot of potential. Time will tell. He seemed to have a presence about him that I was impressed with. He has the highest number of tackles on the team for a non-starter. Can’t be doing all that bad…….
"I think we agree, the past is over" - George W Bush
"The greatest enemy of knowlege is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking
The only problem I see is the Falcons schedule
We have the same record as them and I see a much easier schedule left for them then I see for us
It is a real possibilty that they win the division if they keep playing like they have been and we settle for a wild card
World Champions at last
A dirty bird cant fly with a broken wing
by mississippisaintsfan on Oct 6, 2010 1:10 PM CDT reply actions
It makes the Steelers game very important in possible tie-breaker scenarios. The Falcons schedule is easier but I don’t know that it’s “much easier”. On the back end they get the Packers and we get the Cowboys. We both get the Bengals and Ravens and, of course, we both play each other.
The significant difference is all of those games for them are at home and all of ours are on the road. When we go head to head in Atlanta in week 16, we can’t be more than one game down in order to have a shot of winning the division.
“It makes the Steelers game very important in possible tie-breaker scenarios.”
Actually, the Steelers game would only come into play as part of the “common opponents” tiebreaker. I seriously doubt it comes down to that. If anything, the Steelers game will help avoid tiebreakers all together, i.e., give Atlanta at least one more overall loss.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Oh, you meant OUR game with the Steelers. Important yes, but no moreso than Cincinnati, Cleveland and Baltimore. A non-conference loss is a non-conference loss. Our divisions are relegated to one another, in terms of interconference play, so the “who beat who” aspect of it becomes moot. Common opponents among two or more NFC teams from different divisions would merely entail other NFC teams.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Common opponents tiebreaker is unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
Right now, I would say the Steelers game is more important than the games with Cincinnati, Cleveland and Baltimore as it’s the only one of the four that we know the Falcons have lost.
By the time we play the Steelers, the Falcons will have also played Cleveland and Cincinnati and more than likely won both. We will have more than likely have won over Cleveland as well. The Ravens will present a challenge to both teams.
When I look at the remaining schedules for both teams, I don’t think it’s too far fetched to envision both teams ending up with identical overall, head to head, and division records. In which case, common opponents would be the tiebreaker.
I understand what you’re saying, but those common opponents will be the same, no matter who we (theoretically) lose one game to. For example, if we beat the Steelers, Bengals and Browns, while losing to the Ravens, while the Falcons run the table on the AFC North, we’ll both be 3-1 and that tiebreaker won’t apply. While I agree that the Pittsburgh game should present more of a challenge for us than Cleveland in terms of difficulty, it’s truly no more important a game, in terms of a tiebreaker. As far as both Cincinnati and Baltimore go, I wouldn’t chalk up a W in either one of our columns just yet. Both are exceptional on defense.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Cincinnati was supposed to be exceptional on defense
but they haven’t really shown it yet. They only team they’ve really shut down was Carolina – not exactly a big accomplishment. Flacco hurt the Ravens more than the Bengals did.
“As far as both Cincinnati and Baltimore go, I wouldn’t chalk up a W in either one of our columns just yet.”
I understand what you’re saying also, but your theory is valid only by assuming the Falcons are going to win a game against a future opponent that you assume the Saints will lose to. I’m not assuming that either the Falcons or the Saints will win any of these games. They could both lose or both win. Or, the Falcons could win over one of them and the Saints lose, or vice versa. Christ, it’s even possible they could both tie any future common opponent. But, in the present tense, we know the Falcons lost to the Steelers. What may happen in any future games is totally speculative.
One of the few “slight” scheduling advantages we have over the Falcons is they play all of the AFCN opponents before we do. In as tight of a race as we’re likely to have with Atlanta, every game for both teams is important and could be considered a “must win”. If we should lose to the Steelers and the Falcons should lose to either the Begals or Ravens (or even the Browns), then that game would replace the Steeler game in degree of importance. But, we’re not there yet.
Also, the reason I’m putting such emphasis on the AFCN is because the remainder of our common opponents are the Bucs, Panthers, Rams, Seahawks and Cardinals. While any one of those games could theoretically be equally important in terms of tiebreaking, I think we will at least agree they don’t pose as great of a challenge to either team as do the Steelers, Ravens, Bengals.
With all that said, if we should lose to the Cardinals and a QB making his first start this week, the entire argument becomes less important. But I’m going to step out on a limb for the time being and “assume” thats not going to happen. If my assumption isn’t correct, we’ve got bigger issues to deal with than tiebreaker scenarios.
On a different topic, the Falcons have an overall scheduling advantage in the sense they play both the Ravens and Bengals at home while we play them on the road in December with the possibility of bad weather conditions. But, the only other “slight” scheduling advantage the Saints have over the Falcons is the remaining non-common NFC opponents. I think the Saints have a better chance of beating the Cowboys than the Falcons have of defeating both the Packers and Eagles (although it does appear they will be facing Kolb instead of Vick).
Completely disregarding common NFC opponents, I’m only talking about importance from the Saints’ perspective, as it pertains to the four AFC North teams.
The Saints beating the Steelers is no more important than the Saints beating the Bengals. It’s also no more important than the Saints beating the Browns. It’s also no more important than the Saints beating the Ravens. If the Saints win all four equally important games, they would win that specific tiebreaker, If they lose one (and only one), it’s moot at worst. Again, it doesn’t matter which of the four they lose. As it pertains to Atlanta vs New Orleans, a common opponent loss is a common opponent loss.
“your theory is valid only by assuming the Falcons are going to win a game against a future opponent that you assume the Saints will lose to.”
False. I’m not assuming anything of the sort. All I’m saying is that to GUARANTEE an edge over Atlanta versus AFC North opponents, the Saints must sweep that division. Period. That’s not an assumpion, it’s a fact.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
“If the Saints win all four equally important games, they would win that specific tiebreaker. If they lose one (and only one), it’s moot at worst.”
That statement is correct assuming the Falcons win their remaining three games versus the AFCN. If they should lose any one of the three, then the Saints losing one (and only one) would actually give them a tiebreaker advantage rather than being moot.
“All I’m saying is that to GUARANTEE an edge over the Falcons versus AFC North opponents, the Saints must sweep that division. Period. Thats not an assumption, it’s a fact.”
This statement might be correct. But it again brings us back to that assumption thing as it will prove to be correct only if the Falcons win the remainder of their unplayed games againt the AFC North. All I’m saying is that to guarantee an edge over the Falcons versus AFC North opponents, the Saints must win one game more than the Falcons win against that division. While that may translate to a sweep, it can’t be called a “fact” until we know the outcome of Atlanta’s unplayed games..
The reason the Steelers game is more important at this stage than the other AFCN contests is not only because we already know the Falcons have lost to them, but because it’s the first game we play against an AFCN opponent where we have an above normal chance of losing. If we don’t win this game, we may have to beat both the Bengals and Ravens just to keep pace with the Falcons and make the AFC common opponent aspect a moot point. (And, I haven’t forgotten about the Browns, but their winning either game would be a major upset.)
If we played the Ravens in the 8th week of the season rather than the Steelers, it would be the more important of the two right now. But, since we don’t play them until the 15th week, we can’t know for certain how important it will be until we get there. Although it is extremely unlikely, it is at least mathmatically possible that winning or losing that game won’t have any consequence on the Saints playoff seeding.
Originally, all I said was “It makes the Steelers game very important in possible tiebreaker scenarios”. Due to the word “possible”, that statement is accurate. Your initial response was “I seriously doubt it comes down to that”. Due to the words “seriously doubt”, that statement is also accurate. I doubt it will come down to a common opponent tiebreaker also and I hope it doesn’t. I think we might should have just left it at that.
Dude, I don’t know what you’re missing. It has nothing to do with whether the Falcons win or lose AFC North games. If the Saints win all four, they win that tiebreaker, if applicable. Period. They already lost to the Steelers. That makes them 3-1 among those common opponents at best. If the Saints lose 1 (and only one) of the 4, it makes the tiebreaker moot (i.e., non-applicable) at worst. Yes, it could possibly give them a 3-1 to 2-2, 3-1 to 1-3 or 3-1 to 0-4 advantage in hindsight. That’s why I said “at worst”. There are no assumptions being made here. Lose any one of the other three and the Saints are in the same boat they’d be in, if they lost to the Steelers. They’re all equally important games. It doesn’t matter which of the four the Falcons lost to. That’s heresay. They lost a game against what will ultimately be a common opponent. If it comes down to that particular tiebreaker, that and a sweep gets us past them. No subsequent Atlanta wins or losses are playing into that scenario, aside from the head-to-head loss necessary to reach that tiebreaker.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
“The reason the Steelers game is more important at this stage than the other AFCN contests is not only because we already know the Falcons have lost to them, but because it’s the first game we play against an AFCN opponent where we have an above normal chance of losing.”
Neither of those factors make it more important than the other three. There’s a difference between difficulty and importance. I’m not talking about what it will take to beat certain teams. All I’m comparing is the repercussions of whether we win or lose the game, as it applies to a tiebreaker with the Falcons
“If we don’t win this game, we may have to beat both the Bengals and Ravens just to keep pace with the Falcons and make the AFC common opponent aspect a moot point. (And, I haven’t forgotten about the Browns, but their winning either game would be a major upset.)”
The same could be said of any of the four games. If we lose any one (and only one) … we’ve covered this.
“But, since we don’t play them until the 15th week, we can’t know for certain how important it will be until we get there.”
This is true. Let me rephrase. All four AFC North games are equally important, AS OF TODAY. I assumed that was understood. Yes, if the Falcons have lost a 2nd, 3rd or 4th and we’re sitting pretty at 3-0 going into the Ravens game, then the game would be meaningless, at least from THAT tiebreaker standpoint. It would still hold water in terms of overall record, obviously.
“Originally, all I said was "It makes the Steelers game very important in possible tiebreaker scenarios". Due to the word "possible", that statement is accurate.”
Originally, I thought you were referring to Atlanta’s loss to Pittsburgh. I was merely pointing out that within the realm of a tiebreaker, that’s kinda sorta a ways down the list of importance, due to the relative improbability of its application. We appear to agree on this. Of course, the same could be said of the Saints-Steelers game on Oct 31st. Upon realizing that’s what you meant, I simply added, “no more important than the other three” meaning the Saints-Bengals, Saints-Browns and Saints-Ravens contests (as of now, if it comes down to a common opponents tiebreaker understood).
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
“All four AFC North games are equally important, AS OF TODAY. I assumed that was understood.”
Therein lies the cause of our disagreement. I assumed that it was understood that we would know the outcome of the other Falcon games with the AFCN at the time we played the same opponents since they play every game prior to us.
This explains why I thought the Steelers game was more important than the games that follow and you didn’t. It explains why you felt the only way for the Saints to guarantee an edge over the Falcons was to sweep the AFCN and I argued that it wasn’t necessarily the case; etc., etc.
From the time of my first comment on the matter, I’ve felt that both teams will most likely defeat the Browns and Bengals. Using that as a basis for my logic, the games with the Steelers and Ravens present the greatest opportunity to separate New Orleans and Atlanta in the win/loss column. As the Falcons have already lost to the Steelers, it made that game more important, from my perspective, than the games agains the Browns and Bengals since I’m figuring those two games will “probably” be a wash. The same can be said for the Ravens game being an opportunity to pick up a game on the Falcons. But since we don’t play them until the 15th week, “as of today” we can’t know for certain if that game will be critcal to our post season aspirations or not.
The old adage says one should never assume. Our previous exchanges is perhaps a good example of why that adage exists. Similarly, it could be argued that I shouldn’t assume both the Falcons and Saints will defeat the Browns and Bengals. However, in plotting any strategy, one has to sometimes make logical assumptions….. such as the Steelers game more likely presenting a better opportunity to pick up a game against the Falcons than the Browns game will provide.
On a side note, I read earlier that Peter King has the Browns beating the Falcons this week as his “upset special”. While I hope he’s right for a change, It’s been my past observation that this makes it a virtual lock the Falcons will win.
“Dude, I don’t know what you’re missing.”
I hope you do now.
It’s been fun. Geaux Saints.
It certainly could come to that
The common opponents tie-breaker is right after division record and comes before the conference record for teams in the same division (14 instead of 12 games to compare). That means it’s more important for the Saints to win against the Steelers than the Cowboys. Right now, the Steelers game is more important than the other AFCN games because the Falcons lost to them and it’s a chance for the Saints to pick up a game on the Falcons.
“Right now, the Steelers game is more important than the other AFCN games because the Falcons lost to them and it’s a chance for the Saints to pick up a game on the Falcons.”
No, it’s not. By the time the tiebreakers are applied, both the Saints and Falcons will have played all four AFC North teams. It’s important that we win at least one more of those four than the Falcons do. That’s it. One opponent is no more important than another. More difficult? Possibly. More important? No.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
That's why I said "right now"
Right now that’s the only loss for the Falcons, and it provides the Saints an opportunity to pick up a game on the Falcons it if comes down to a common games tie breaker. (I don’t know why I mentioned AFCN games in that context – they’re no more important than any other game with a common opponent.) For the rest of the games in common, it’s hard to argue the Falcons have a significantly better chance of beating any of those teams than the Saints do, excepting maybe the Ravens, since they get them in Atlanta, and the Saints have to go to Baltimore.
Ultimately, I agree with you and Marshall Faulk – every game on the schedule is the most important game.
“That means it’s more important for the Saints to win against the Steelers than the Cowboys.”
In breaking a tie with the Falcons for the division title, it is. Overall, beating the Cowboys is more important, as it’s much more likely to be a determining factor in whether or not we clinch a playoff berth. “NFC South Champions” means very little, in and of itself. Of course, with it comes an automatic berth, at least one additional home game and a minimum 4th seed in the NFC. All things considered, if I had to pick one to lose out of the two, I’d choose the Steelers, as we can still beat the Falcons head-to-head for a push. Lose to the Cowboys and all you gain is that least-likely-to-be-applicable advantage for what amounts to a footnote in the big picture (division title), while potentially losing a head-to-head tiebreaker with the Cowboys (equally hit-or-miss) or a conference record tiebreaker other non-South NFC team (more likely than either of the aforementioned, based on the sheer number of teams potentially involved in such a gridlock).
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Winning the division is more than a footnote in the big picture
It’s either a 1st round bye or at worst home field advantage against a wild card team. I see what you’re saying about beating Dallas to have a better shot at winning a tie breaker for a wildcard spot. Maybe I’m too optimistic about this, but I doubt the Saints would be in a tie breaker situation with any other NFC team for a wildcard. I just don’t see the Saints finishing worse than 10-6. If they do, things will probably have gotten so bad that the playoffs are out of the question in any case. I suppose the Saints could miss the playoffs with a 10-6 record in a tie breaker situation, but that’s exceptionally rare.
Ok, then that’s where we differ. You’re sweating a tiebreaker for the division title with Atlanta, but you’re confident that we won’t be in a wild card tiebreaker with any other NFC team. So, basically what you’re saying is that the loser of the NFC South divisional tiebreaker will be in the playoffs regardless. I’m not buying that. Neither Atlanta nor the Saints are playing head and shoulders above the rest of the conference. I think there’s a very real chance that only one team out of our division makes it. And if we both do, I think there’s even a better chance of it being by virtue of an interdivisional tiebreaker.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Call me crazy.
Without elaborating, I’ll say I am comfortably confident the Saints, Falcons and Packers will be in the playoffs. I’m absolutely certain that one team from the NFC West will be in the playoffs even if it’s with an 8-8 record. The NFC East is up for grabs as is the remaining wildcard.
One of the wildcard teams may get in by virtue of an interdivisional tiebreaker, but it won’t be the Saints or Falcons.
"what you’re saying is that the loser of the NFC South divisional tiebreaker will be in the playoffs regardless."
Not at all. What I’m saying is I don’t think the Saints will need to worry about a tie breaker for the second wild card if Atlanta ends up winning the division. If Atlanta wins the South, the most likely scenarios are that the Saints win a wild card spot outright with at least a 10-6 record or are sitting at home.
I think the chances of the Saints finishing at 9-7 are slim (I can explain why if you want). The chances of them finishing at 9-7 and losing an interdivisional tie breaker are remote.
“I think the chances of the Saints finishing at 9-7 are slim (I can explain why if you want).”
I’d much rather hear your reasoning as to why 5 of the 12 non-South NFC teams finishing 10-6 or better is implausible.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
If I understand you correctly
You’re saying that if the Saints finish 10-6, 5 other non-South NFC teams might finish with at least that record and the Saints would at best be in a tie breaker situation for the second wild card spot. In that case, the Falcons would also have at least a 10-6 record, plus the Saints and 5 other teams, for a total of 7 of 16 NFC teams finishing 10-6 or better. Besides the fact that it’s never happened before, the apparently increased parity in the NFC this year makes it exceedingly unlikely.
“Besides the fact that it’s never happened before”
Not in the NFC, but it happened In 2003, 2005, 2007 in the AFC. And while not necessarily at a 10-6 mark, increased parity would increase the likelihood of teams finishing with indentical records, not make it exceedingly unlikely. The crux being the inherent likelihood of an in-or-out tiebreaker involving the Saints, not the existence of such at a W-L record you pulled out of the air based on last year’s success.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
I know it’s happened in the AFC. And look at the records of the bottom teams during those years. In each case there is a lot of disparity between the top and bottom. Parity bring all teams closer to 8-8, and makes it more difficult for above average teams to get 10 or more wins. (btw, I called the current parity in the NFC apparent because it’s only 4 games in, not because I don’t think it’s there.) As for the 10-6 mark, I didn’t pull it out of the air. It is historically a record which will guarantee a playoff spot for teams in the NFC, and it’s about where I think the Saints will finish, that or 11-5.
I meant in terms of the Saints final record. Thinking = pulling it out of the air. You’re associating the Saints success from last season and the first four games of this season, their opponents’ struggles from last season and the first four games of this season, etc., to what will ultimately transpire the rest of the way. Educated guesses are still guesses. That’s what I meant by pulling it out of the air (as it pertains to the Saints). Everyone in the NFC is currently within three games of one another. That doesn’t mean 7 teams won’t pull away from the pack. “Parity” can just as easily indicate a flipflop from the results of the year prior (i.e., the unexpected), as it can a middle of the road logjam by all 16 teams in 2010. The bottom line being that it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility. If Brees goes down in Week 10, a 9-7 record and a wildcard berth via tiebreaker would be looked upon as a blessing. Hey, stranger things have happened. Kurt Warner came out of nowhere in the right system, as did Tom Brady. Steve Walsh won 8 games and got us to the playoffs. Thee’s just way too many variables to consider, not just with the Saints, but with all the NFC teams, to be ruling out certain scenarios this early in the season, imo.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Strange things can and do happen in the NFL
I won’t deny that. But we were talking about the likelihood of different scenarios – without a crystal ball, we have to make educated guesses or wild speculations just like the talking heads. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, but they are a decent indicator.
“If Brees goes down in Week 10, a 9-7 record and a wildcard berth via tiebreaker would be looked upon as a blessing.”
Indeed it would. That’s partly why I think a 9-7 record is one of the most unlikely outcomes for the Saints. If they managed to lose 6 more games, then it means they’ve lost to some not very good teams, and most or all of the good ones. I think something catastrophically bad would have to happen for that to occur, and in that case, I’m guessing they would lose more than just another 6.
“If they managed to lose 6 more games, then it means they’ve lost to some not very good teams, and most or all of the good ones. I think something catastrophically bad would have to happen for that to occur, and in that case, I’m guessing they would lose more than just another 6.”
Not necessarily. They could easily lose to Pittsburgh, Dallas, Cincinnati, Baltimore and Atlanta. That’s 10-6 at best, without ever having lost to an outright bad team. Brees could miss one more game along the way with a non-catastrophic injury to tally a 7th loss. Hell, he may even lose a 7th playing. Tampa Bay beat them at home last year when they were a better team. What’s to say it won’t happen again? Seattle could pull an upset. You’re acting like the season’s in the bag. We’re scrapping for wins as it is, same as every other NFC team out there.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
“They could easily lose to Pittsburgh, Dallas, Cincinnati, Baltimore and Atlanta. That’s 10-6 at best”
That’s what I’m saying. If they lose all of those and at least one of the easier ones, then something has probably gone very wrong and the likelihood of losing to one of the other bad teams goes up quite bit.
I definitely don’t think the Saints have a lock on a playoff spot, and certainly not the division. But as things stand right now, I wouldn’t bet against them. On the other hand, if they do lose to one (or more) of the easier teams coming up on the schedule, 9-7 is probably not in the cards. Then again, maybe that’s just the motivation they need.
" If they lose all of those and at least one of the easier ones, then something has probably gone very wrong"
Very wrong, as in … what exactly? We were talking about season ending injuries to Drew Brees a few minutes ago. I just illustrated how it could transpire without that even entering the equation. Without them losing to “some not very good teams” (plural).
I personally think we’re going to wind up losing one of the next three. We SHOULDN’T lose any of them. That means nothing. We shouldn’t have lost to Tampa Bay last year and we did. I also think we’ll wind up beating at least one of the “better” teams I mentioned earlier. I also think we’ll struggle against a second team we should handle easily. We’ll also probably blow out a team we have no business blowing out. By the end of the season, you’re probably going to see the full gamut of scenarios play out before your eyes, just as we did last year.
With that being said, I just don’t see the inherent unlikelihood of a head-to-head tiebreaker with Dallas. We’re practically spitting images of one another, are currently a 1.5 game apart (not having served our bye) and ultimately play one another on Thanksgiving Day at their home stadium. Why are you so confident that we won’t end up with the same record? Do you view them as a particularly bad team? Do you view us as particularly dominant? I just don’t get that.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
very wrong as in "who knows"
Could be multi-week injury to Brees, or multiple injuries on the o-line. Or the defense gets substantially worse. It doesn’t really matter. My point was that something would have to go very bad for the Saints to lose 6 of the remaining games, so bad that they would more likely lose more than 6.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they lost one of the next 3. I don’t think they will, but yeah, it’s the NFL.
I do think Dallas is not nearly as good as they appear on paper. A lot of that has to do with the coaching staff, some of it is egos, and some is their offensive line.
“If Atlanta wins the South, the most likely scenarios are that the Saints win a wild card spot outright with at least a 10-6 record or are sitting at home.”
I would agree that COMBINED, those two scenarios outweigh the odds of the Saints being involved in an in-or-out tiebreaker. However, I don’t think either scenario would outweigh the odds of that on its own. There’s just too many other non-division winning teams that are going to finish in that W-L range. History and parity dictate that.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
I think those two scenarios are each more likely than the Saints being in a tie breaker situation for the second wild card spot
I need to back up a moment and recap what we’re discussing. I asserted that it’s more important for the Saints to win against the Steelers than the Cowboys. That’s based on the assertion that any of the following scenarios are individually more likely than the Saints ending up in an interdivisional tie breaker for the second wild card spot (in which a win against the Cowboys is more important than against the Steelers):
1. Saints win the NFCS outright.
2. Saints win the NFCS in a tie breaker with Atlanta.
3. Atlanta wins the NFCS (either way) and the Saints win a wild card spot outright with a 10-6 or better record.
4. Atlanta wins the NFCS and the Saints miss the playoffs with less than a 10-6 record.
In scenarios 1, 3, 4, beating the Cowboys is no more important than beating the Steelers. In scenario 2, beating the Steelers is more important than beating the Cowboys.
All of the other scenarios for the Saints might involve an interdivisional tie breaker for a wild card spot, and can be broken down by their potential final record.
10-6 or better: see earlier comment above
8-8 or worse: The Saints are all but guaranteed to miss the playoffs.
9-7: I think this is very unlikely, for reasons involving their current record and remaining schedule. But even if it does happen, the tie breaker scenarios are limited. I’m happy to go into more detail if you want.
“In scenarios 1, 3, 4, beating the Cowboys is no more important than beating the Steelers.”
In scenario 1, beating the Cowboys increases the likelihood of clinching home field advantage throughout the playoffs in a tiebreaker with ANY NFC team, in particular with the Cowboys (head-to-head). Beating the Steelers would be moot in hindsight, as they wouldn’t be a common opponent of any of those teams.
In scenario 2, same thing beyond the initial division-deciding tiebreaker.
In scenario 4, you’re right. A victory over either would be equally detrimental to our 2011 draft position.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
yes, I did ignore playoff seeding in scenarios 1&2
Because, as things stand now, it’s more important for the Saints to beat Pittsburgh than Dallas to get into one of those scenarios. That’s what I said originally, that winning the division is more important than worrying about a tie-breaker for a wildcard spot. You’re right though, if the #1 overall seed came down to a tie-breaker, it would suck horribly to miss it because of a loss to the Cowboys.
I know things can change a lot from now until the end of the season, but a head-to-head tie-breaker between the Saints and Cowboys seems unlikely given current records and remaining schedules.
And I love that characterization of the importance of the games in scenario 4.
“I know things can change a lot from now until the end of the season, but a head-to-head tie-breaker between the Saints and Cowboys seems unlikely given current records and remaining schedules.”
LOL, given a Cowboys victory, there’s only a half game separating the two. You’re taking waaaaay too much for granted, imo. Especially considering how poorly the Saints are currently playing and how talented Dallas’s team is on paper. And yes, I know the opposite could also be said. That’s my point.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
I'm trying not to take anything for granted
just talking probabilities. I think the most likely outcomes are the Saints win the division, win a wild card outright, or are out of the playoffs entirely, and the least likely outcome is being in a tie-breaker for a wildcard spot, especially a head-to-head tiebreaker with Dallas.
The way the season has gone so far for all of the NFC, though, one bad week could be the difference. That’s basically where we disagree. I think that’s less likely than not, particularly for the top teams in the NFC.
If I had to rank them in order of likelihood, I would say …
1. Win the division outright.
2. Win tiebreaker for wild card.
3. Lose tiebreaker for wild card.
4. Lose tiebreaker for division (followed by 2 or 3).
5. Not qualify for playoffs outright.
6. Win wild card outright.
Initially, I viewed the runners-up of the NFC North as the only NFC team with a better than average chance of winning a wild card outright. That was before I saw Minnesota struggle (though Moss could right that ship) and how competitive the Bears are bound to make that division. Currently, I don’t think there will be any outright wild card winners. I foresee a 3 or 4 team second tier log jam by season’s end, with either the Falcons or the Saints being a part of that. The Buccaneers could possibly be, as well.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
agreed about Tampa Bay
I even picked them to beat Cinci tomorrow!
Chicago not so much. Their running game absolutely stinks, the o-line is a mess, and Cutler (when he comes back) doesn’t have any legitimate down field receivers. I think he expects his receivers to be able to do things they generally cannot (only one of them is over 6’0"). Their defense is inconsistent – sometimes very good, sometimes not. I’m becoming more convinced that only one team from the NFCN will make the playoffs.
re: Patrick Robinson reply, see above
"I think we agree, the past is over" - George W Bush
"The greatest enemy of knowlege is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canal Street Chronicles
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
