Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Devils Beat Rangers, Head To Stanley Cup Finals

Without Reggie Bush, The Saints Will Have A Tough Time Against the Atlanta Falcons

First off, let me say that I love the New Orleans Saints chances of going back to the Super Bowl and winning it again.  I think they have a great team and the fire is still there. Having said that, I will not play homer and think they are going to go undefeated. This Sunday they are visited by the Atlanta Falcons and I think this is a game the Saints might lose. Why?  Reggie Bush is on the sidelines. Read Rest of Article

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.

Comment 33 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Oh good! You found the caps lock!

Snap, place, kick! And it's good! It's good! It's goo-hoo-hood! Pigs have flown! Hell Has frozen over! The Saints are going to the Superbowl!

by Joseph William Stern on Sep 25, 2010 7:11 PM CDT reply actions  

Reggie being on return duty was a mistake by payton. We had been having problems all night with the wind. But that is over and done with it hurts us not having reggie on the field. Teams have to study and take him being on the field a threat everytime he is there. I hope Tusk is the big back we been looking for to punish defenses. I really hate he is hurt but we can win without him and he needs to be healthy for the end of the season. If tusk doesnt work out we really need to draft a power runningback, a stud de, outside lb.

by iori125883 on Sep 25, 2010 8:41 PM CDT reply actions  

From the comment section:

What people will say is that he’s too small and thus injury prone…but the reality is that he really isn’t. His knee problem was the same knee that he never was given the time to really heal…but people don’t want to hear it.

In my mind, what you’re describing is one of the very few ways anyone CAN accurately be described as “injury prone”. Players who suffer a variety of unrelated injuries are NOT “injury prone”. Injuries happen all the time. More often than not, these players are just an extreme on the spectrum of random occurrence, just as Peyton Manning and probably several dozen more guys that no one ever associates with the topic represent the other end.

Two other exceptions: someone with a rare disorder, like golfer Casey Martin would be more prone to injury. To the best of my knowledge, there are no NFL players that fall under that category. Players whose running style is not congruent to their size and/or physics of the common tackle, i.e., little guys who don’t play little (Darren Sproles) and players who run too upright (Chris Brown). Sproles has yet to suffer a rash of injuries, but I feel confident that if he was used with more regularity, he would.

In summary, for the most part, no one is born with an inert knack for winding up on the sidelines. It just happens. The laundry list of guys like Brian Westbrook, Fred Taylor, Clinton Portis, etc., that we compile in our heads is nothing more than a visceral summary of that collective happenstance.

"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper

by coldpizza on Sep 26, 2010 4:03 AM CDT reply actions  

Sorry, I should have been clearer. It’s the frequency of the same TYPE of injuries (knees, lower legs) that makes me feel as though Bush is, in fact, injury prone. NOT his size. His size is average, he doesn’t run with particularly reckless abandon, overly upright, or even too frequently for the odds to be catching up to him the way they have. He’s a victim of improper healing, imo. So yes, Taydigga … we agree on this … just not the terminology, I suppose.

"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper

by coldpizza on Sep 26, 2010 4:08 AM CDT up reply actions  

How can you go on a diatribe about injury prone players and not mention Bob Sanders?

Who dat, from a cajun exiled to cowboy country.

by alcoholic_insight on Sep 26, 2010 5:55 AM CDT up reply actions  

CP As I remember it. Reggie last year was haveing trouble with a knee.

  Used sparingly trying to get it 100% for playoffs. This injury [ fibula ] was just bad luck. Also wonder if he has put on weight. Seems like I remember an article that said he was thinking about putting on twenty pounds to make him a more punishing back . Deuce advised against it ,saying his knees would give out sooner. Wonder if he has put on any extra ? Last I think it nuts to use him for returns.

by saints-fan-in-miss on Sep 26, 2010 8:37 AM CDT up reply actions  

These players (Westbrook, Taylor and etc.,)

get all sorts of injuries all the time. One day it’s an ankle, next it’s a shoulder, then it’s a knee. THAT’S injury prone. But look, my point was, the saints are in dire need of Reggie. Without him we don’t work as well. It was proven today…

2010 is cuzzin's breakout year...run with that chip bruh!

by TAYDIGGA on Sep 26, 2010 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

if you think the Saints lost today because Reggie wasn't in the backfield

you either didn’t watch the game, or don’t understand football at all

by HB-NOLA on Sep 26, 2010 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

ok thanks for my options...

2010 is cuzzin's breakout year...run with that chip bruh!

by TAYDIGGA on Sep 26, 2010 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

fine - suggest another option

And then explain to me how Reggie in the backfield helps the O-Line on any play that doesn’t involve a blitz. Then explain how Reggie keeps the defense from allowing a 50% conversion rate on 3rd downs. Explain how Reggie helps Drew throw the ball more accurately on deep passes. Those are the reasons the Saints lost today, and Reggie wouldn’t have been able to do a thing about it. He would have been hit in the backfield just like Pierre and Tusk were. The two screen plays I they bothered to run today were both successful – without Reggie.

I’m a big fan of Bush, but he would not have made the difference in this game, because the Saints weren’t having any problems with the RBs.

by HB-NOLA on Sep 26, 2010 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think you already made your mind up

All I’m saying is that when Reggie is active, there’s a lot more deception involved. He lines up as a WR and the D prepares for a pass but we run it with PT. He moves in motion an we fake the end-around to him but hand it off to PT for 5 yards. He’s off the field and the D assumes we are running, but we playaction deep. Gruden quoted Payton, I’ll see if it’s on the game but Payton said Bush is a major part of them being able to do what they do. I’m not saying tonight had everything to do with Reggie being gone but are you saying that if he was there nothing would’ve been different? Like that screen PT took in OT for that huge game, I looked and I think Reggie would’ve took that too the house—thus we win. Reggie makes the D adjust differently, puts them in a different frame of mind. But again, I’m just throwing out my opinion. I could be totally wrong. Like you said, I probably don’t understand anything about football at all. Sorry…

2010 is cuzzin's breakout year...run with that chip bruh!

by TAYDIGGA on Sep 26, 2010 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

pardon my aggravation after that loss

I’ll concede the point that if things were different, they wouldn’t have been the same. Yes, the game would have been different with Reggie on the field. My point, which you seem to be ignoring, is that the Saints were outplayed in many aspects of the game, none of which relate to Reggie’s presence. Even the punt return game was at least as good.

by HB-NOLA on Sep 26, 2010 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm not ignoring it...

I agree, but my whole point of this post was about Bush so I was just restating my point. Not ignoring you at all yo!

2010 is cuzzin's breakout year...run with that chip bruh!

by TAYDIGGA on Sep 26, 2010 11:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

ok ok

I was just responding to your comment above that today’s game proves your point about missing Reggie. I agree that the offense is better with Reggie, but I still contend his absence had nothing to do with the loss today. peace bro.

by HB-NOLA on Sep 27, 2010 12:44 AM CDT up reply actions  

gotcha

2010 is cuzzin's breakout year...run with that chip bruh!

by TAYDIGGA on Sep 27, 2010 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

No, that’s a series of unrelated injuries that occurred over time. Both Fred Taylor and Brian Westbrook have played entire 16 game seasons. If they were inherently injury prone, that could not possibly occur as a featured back.

"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper

by coldpizza on Sep 26, 2010 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

I disagree completely in regards to being injury prone.

Some peoiple are just injury prone. From a Physiologic perspective it can have much to do with things like ligament reiliency, flexibility, reflexive reaction to physical trauma, ability to heal quickly, and things like nutrition and the way you take care of yourself can impact this in a big way. Some individuals produce more growth hormone naturally than others. This is HUGE. Your recovery time and ability to heal is so much augmented by this naturally occurring variance. We know this by testing and by seeing how much better individuals who supplement with Growth Hormone, GH precursors and Creatinine, etc fare. Somewhere after adolecense, Growth Hormone starts to decrease from a peak of say 700 ug/day to eventual adult status of 400ug/day. Where you are on the spectrum as far as closer to 700 or 400 can impact your injury risk greatly- whether it’s because you are older or because you are just an individual who secretes less GH naturally. So, your muscle mass, reaction time, flexibility and ability to recover from micro trauma as well as macro trauma is hugely affected.

Players like Ki Jana Carter are not just “unlucky.” They often have physiologic attributes that predispose them to injury. It can also even have to do with minor injuries suffered in Pop Warner, High School, College that predisposes a joint or area of the body to be weaker and less flexible/ resilient/strong.

It doesn’t “just happen.” There is an element of randomness but there is also a gradient of resiliency to injury that all of the factors I have mentioned and many more play a huge role in. Walter Payton was not just lucky- he was an abnormality that was hugely injury resistant. He was just very fortunate that he was born that way. He took many, many hits that would have sidelined many other players .

"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

by Philinwood on Sep 26, 2010 8:35 AM CDT reply actions   1 recs

boom rec'd it

Chiefs wide receiver Sylvester Morris. Frail.

I bet you're fat and married and you're always home in bed by half-past eight.
And if I talked about the old times you'd get bored and you'll have nothing more to say.

by stujo4 on Sep 26, 2010 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions  

It doesn’t seem as though you completely disagree …

"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper

by coldpizza on Sep 26, 2010 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

“Players like Ki Jana Carter are not just "unlucky." They often have physiologic attributes that predispose them to injury.”

Prove it, starting with Ki-Jana.

"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper

by coldpizza on Sep 26, 2010 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

Can't wait for all to blaim to be laid on Hartley. Payton is a gutless SOB ! Period!

Most dynamic offense in the NFL. You make the first down . Oh Ok lets kick . Cuss I don’t trust my offense Bull CHIT !!! Lay it on me . Geaux Saints .

by saints-fan-in-miss on Sep 26, 2010 3:49 PM CDT reply actions  

To echo the Frank Gore thread from earlier in the week, don’t blame the loss on anything we did or didn’t do. In doing so, you’re showing zero disrespect for the Falcons, who thoroughly whipped our as*** throughout the game. If it wasn’t for a ball richocheting off the heel of a Falcons blocker, we wouldn’t have even been in a position to force OT.

"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper

by coldpizza on Sep 26, 2010 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

“you’re showing disrespect for the Falcons”

omit “zero”

"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper

by coldpizza on Sep 26, 2010 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

I had a bad feeling about this game all week

But didn’t want to say anything. I started to post it but then thought otherwise.

Breesus Is My Homeboy

by SarahT on Sep 26, 2010 4:43 PM CDT reply actions  

you kinda alluded to it somewhere, can't remember

but I felt the same way, saw it coming.

2010 is cuzzin's breakout year...run with that chip bruh!

by TAYDIGGA on Sep 26, 2010 5:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The ultimate community for lovers of all things Black and Gold! The latest news, commentary, discussion, linkage and more! Join in the conversation now with all of your fellow Who Dats!

Featured Poll

Poll
How much do you think Drew Brees is worth per year? (avg. over life of contract)
Less than $17M
152 votes
$17M
52 votes
$18M
136 votes
$19M
183 votes
$20M
575 votes
$21M
212 votes
$22M
98 votes
$23M
523 votes

1931 votes | Poll has closed

Twitter-logo_medium


Head Coach

Erindavewhodat_small Dave Cariello

Assistant Coach (Editor/Contributor)

13088_f520_small David "Satch" Kelly

0113wbphillips_small Hans Petersen

Offensive Coordinators (Contributors)

Saintslogo_small Andrew Juge

Titans_small Jack Sharkey

316807_10150333101899753_504374752_8049350_806276562_n_small Alex Swift

Squat_small Preston J. Gary, Jr.

100media36imag0036_small Travis Dauro

Vgfl_logo_small_small Adesola Badon

Small Jimmy Angel

Small Jordan Katz

Small Win Ellington

Super-bowl-44_small Wallace Delery

Thomas_photo_small Thomas Hukel

Angrywhodat-saints-gold-50pct-bright-grey-outline_small_small The Angry Who Dat