A terrible "What If" question

That’s a distinct possibility. Heavily worked into the game plan, at least.

Yeah, Kurt (I love Kurt.)… Kurt knows Bobby too.

We’re already bent. You have to remember Childress obviously likes the feeling or he would have gone after McNabb. There is a QB who knows the system, knows Childress and has a lot of skill. Also, he wouldn’t have the worlds worst fans supporting him anymore. No I understand people have issues with the fan base in Minnesota right now but honestly these aren’t choices we can make.

I think Favre will be back I also think the media are being extremely incompetent in their coverage of these situations basically trusting any one and doing no due dilligence. Favre has had a release stating he will play if his ankle is feeling better. As well he has not text any team mate stating he is retiring and lastly he has not gone into negotiations with the Vikes for more money. Could this be a lie? Sure, but as this is the only thing I’ve heard on the news that Favre has actually said I’m going to stick with it.

By the way I still hate Childress, damn leprechaun.

“In the upcoming game with the Vikings, if any punt or kickoff returner sees the opportunity to run it back for a touchdown, do you think it would be preferable for them to not do so in order to get better TOP?”

No, but if they run it back for a TD and wind up losing the game, the lost TOP would inevitably be a contributing factor in that loss. Think of a football game as a tire on a car. If someone has a flat on the driver’s side, on the right shoulder of a busy interstate, should they change the tire there, or drive on the flat to the next exit and change it at a service station? Before you answer, do realize that there’s no GUARANTEE you’re going to get sideswiped by a car and die, if you attempt to change it there. At the same time, if you drive on it and the tire completely shreds, you can’t very well NOT blame driving on it as the reason you lost the tire. You can certainly justify your decision based on hazards, statistical odds, etc., but doing so has no bearing whatsoever on the cause and effect of what caused the tire to shred. Comprende?

“My point was, and is, that in order to cite two punt returns that netted 14 points as a contributing factor to the loss requires you to assume we would have scored anyway. Otherwise, the original statement that Bush’s two punt return scores "negated the TOP of two standard scoring drives" makes no sense.”

This is actually false. You don’t necessarily have to score TDs to win games. A FG on either one of those two drives wins the game, provided the other team isn’t afforded an opportunity to score. You’re obviously under the interpretation that scoring as many points as possible, as often as possible guarantees a win (or rather a non-loss). It doesn’t. The other team could conceivably match you tit for tat and come out on top by scoring last, going for two, an onside kick, scoring last in the first half, first in the second, etc. While it may better your odds dramatically, the only thing that basically GUARANTEES a win (or rather a non-loss), is if the opposing team never possesses the ball. And the only reason I say “basically” is because you could conceivably lose on a safety, something I’ve only seen happen once in 36 years of watching pro football. And even that wasn’t in a scoreless game.

In any timed contest, control of the clock is actually MORE important than scoring. That’s generally speaking, all 32 NFL teams from the get-go. The greater the disparity in talent between offense and defense, the greater/lesser the importance of TOP, based on the side of strength. In the 2008 Saints’ case, you’re talking about the #1 offense and the #26 defense. That’s a HUGE disparity and greatly supports the importance of TOP. Unfortunately, we’re talking about the #1 offense BASED PRIMARILY ON PASSING THE BALL, which actually belies that ideology more than it supports it. Again, generally speaking. That’s not just because they passed more, mind you, but the WAY they moved the ball down the field. It was done too quickly. A team could conceivably dink and dunk it four yards at a time all the way down the field, completing every pass (not likely), and still be eating the hell out of the clock, just as effectively as if they were running it.

They appear to have gotten away from that quite a bit in 2009 and it paid dividends. A more effective running game, a better pass-to-run ratio, a better short pass-to-long pass ratio. All that added up and helped offset the TOP lost on occasional blow coverages, like Henderson vs the Patriots, for example. The defense stepped up in that game with some takeaways and stops too, so it isn’t as apparent. Had they not, the game would have likely been just as close as the Saints-Vikings game in ‘08 … and the Henderson play just as detrimental to TOP (and thus the likelihood of winning) as either of Bush’s PR touchdowns the year prior. I mean, it’s not like the Patriots were exactly shooting themselves in the foot, right? We controlled that game. Of course, the growing lead (the result of both scoring AND defensive stops) contributed to New England abandoning the run (which is a good thing, Maroney was running well that game), passing more often, leading to more turnover opportunities for us, cutting down on their TOP, increasing ours, etc. Big cycle. Games do tend to snowball like that quite often, just not all the time. Regardless, that snowball effect had as much to do with our new and improved (read: tortoised down) offense, as it did with our opportunistic defense. Great game overall, arguably our best all season.

Back to the ‘08 Vikings game. Two TDs scored on punt returns. Two fairly standard scoring drives in response. End result? A tie game at the end of regulation. Taking our 26th ranked defensive studs out of the equation completely, that’s probably the best we could have hoped for, since our offense wasn’t doing much of d*** that particular night. In a perfect world (again, defense aside) they would have been clicking and capping off long scoring drives on TOP of those two returns. Then, like the Patriots game of new-and-improved Saints football, those returns aren’t poison at all. They’re icing on the cake. Regardless, two time consuming drives = less time for the Vikings (who WERE clicking) to score. One TD … possibly answered. Still a wash. Two TDs … probable win in regulation. No time to answer both. TD and a FG … probable win. Long FG attempt to tie or Hail Mary to win. Better odds. One FG … now you’re getting into consistency and execution as the reasons for the possible loss. I’m no longer b**** ing about TOP, at least on those particular drives, because the offense would have milked the clock extremely effectively, they just wouldn’t have closed out the deal. With the punt returns, I still have both TOP and lack of execution (by the offense anyway) to b**** about. And b**** I did.

“I don’t think any teams game plan for TOP at the expense of shunning quick scoring opportunities when they present themselves (unless perhaps when they’re trying to win or tie towards the end of the game).”

I agree with this. At the same time, if all things were equal otherwise and they did, they’d inevitably win games more often. In order to lose, your opponent must score. That/those opposing score(s) have to occur SOMETIME, right? Scoring quickly doesn’t limit that “sometime” in any way, shape or form. All it does is necessitate that same number of points, on top of the one point that was already required to win. In other words, it makes it harder, but not impossible. As does TOP. It’s when you start dealing in extremes — i.e., “scoring EVERY time you possess the ball” versus “NEVER allowing the other team to possess it” — that the true values arise.