4th and Geaux: Saints at Seahawks Playoff edition
The New Orleans Saints have had a strangely dramatic week for a team going into what should be one of the easiest playoff games in NFL history. The Saints’ running backs are falling left and right, and Sean Payton and Mickey Loomis are left trolling for backups. In fact, I think the Saints just signed a Lucky Dog vendor to play special teams (hopefully not Ignatius J. Reilly); is there any doubt that the homeless radio voice guy is next?
It’s time for 4th and Geaux.
Well, this is getting interesting, isn’t it? The Saints head to Seattle to this week for what will likely be a fairly easy game (as playoff games go), but there’s an air of anxiety around Who Dat Nation. Regardless of whether or not you believe in momentum (I don’t), the Saints aren’t headed into the playoffs in peak form.
Even if you ignore their disinterested loss to Tampa, the Saints are a battered team: the injured list includes the Saints’ 2 best running backs are hurt (Pierre Thomas and Chris Ivory), their best receiving tight end (Jimmy Graham), a critical member of the secondary (Malcolm Jenkins), and those are just the people who could miss the game. If you count the nicked up, things get even worse.
That’s not a great start to the postseason. But, you’ve gotta play the players you got (how poetic!), so there are really two important questions at this point: (1) How will the Saints do this weekend?, and (2) How does the playoff field line up for the Saints next weekend?
I’ll try to tackle both of those in this week’s column.
Can the Saints Lose to Seattle?
There is no doubt that the Saints are a better team than the Seahawks. However, of course the Saints can lose to Seattle. After all, the Saints have already lost to Arizona, which is a worse team than even the lowly Seahawks. Football’s playoffs are different from those of most team sports in that each round is a single game, not a series. As a result, there’s a better chance in football that the worse team will advance based on a fluky outcome. That’s life.
Instead of asking whether or not the Saints can lose to Seattle, it’s more interesting to think about how the Saints might lose to Seattle, and what they can do to prevent those scenarios from occurring. Before I get to that, though, let’s look at how the two teams stack up in our Statpoints.
Saints Statpoints
Saints offense vs. Seattle defense
This is where the Saints need to win the game. The Saints’ offense is in the top third of the league and Seattle’s defense is in the bottom three. If the Saints’ offense doesn’t put up points against this defense, then they won’t deserve to advance in the playoffs.
Going into more detail, Seattle’s defense is okay against the run (around 17th in the league, per Football Outsiders) but horrible against the pass. The Seahawks particularly struggle against teams with receiving depth, giving up over 100 yards per game to 2nd, 3rd, & 4th wide receivers (total, not 100 yards to each receiver!). Even if Marques Colston is still struggling to recover from his random knee surgery, Lance Moore, Devery Henderson, and Robert Meachem all should have a chance to make some plays. Seattle is also one of the worst teams at covering running backs on pass routes, giving up around 50 receiving yards per game to RBs. If you believe that Reginald is healthy, and that he’ll step up like he promises to, then he could have a big day, as well.
The Saints’ passing game has been frustrated all year long, as teams have dropped into coverage to take away the deep passing game. I don’t think the Seahawks have the players to do that. The deep passes will be there, assuming that the Saints’ receivers can catch them.
Of course, the Saints’ offensive line has let defenses off the hook this year, as Drew can't spread the ball around if he doesn’t have time to throw. Fortunately, this matchup favors the Saints, too. The Seahawks are one of the worst 3 teams in the leagues when it comes to creating sacks, so even the Saints’ struggling line should be able to contain them.
Now: the running back question. Chris Ivory had blossomed into a top-10 running back (especially since he’d stopped fumbling the ball), and Pierre Thomas was one of the best receiving running backs in the league. The Saints are left with Reggie Bush, who has never shown the ability to be the main back, Julius Jones, who shouldn’t be in the NFL, DeShawn Wynn, who wasn’t in the NFL until a couple of days ago, and Joique Bell, who went to Wayne State University and has yet to actually log any NFL stats. This isn’t just a bad running back group, it’s a terrible running back group. Does it matter?
Yes and no. The Saints’ offense doesn’t rely on running. In fact, there are times when it seems like Sean Payton hates running the ball. Instead, the Saints’ offense tends to use short passes as "extended handoffs", getting short-to-medium yards with high percentage pass plays.
Of course, who do those plays go to? Generally the running backs and receivers. While it’d be nice to have Pierre Thomas and Chris Ivory, chances are that Reginald, Lance Moore, and the rest of the offense can make up for the lack of running backs in the passing game.
However, unless one of the new guys shows us something, the Saints don’t have any running backs who can actually run the ball all that effectively. This could pose a problem, especially in the second half if the Saints are trying to keep the clock running. Additionally, if there isn’t even a threat of a running game, then the Seahawks might be able to adjust their defense to be more effective against the Saints’ passing game.
Ideally, I’d like to see Reginald or one of the other running backs get a few solid carries (up the middle, Reggie! Not sideways!) early in the game to keep the Seahawks honest. I won’t hold my breath.
The lack of running game probably won't be an issue against Seattle, but the Saints will be in trouble later if they can't find a way to get a tough yard in a critical situation.
Saints defense vs. Seattle offense
Seattle’s offense is bad. They can’t pass the ball, the can’t run the ball, and they don’t score very many points. Advanced Football Stats has them rated as the 28th-ranked offense in the league. They literally have 0 starting skill position players rated above average by Football Outsiders. That’s not so good.
The one area where Seattle is okay on offense is preventing sacks, where they’re about league average. This is an important stat, because the Saints need to try to generate a pass rush without resorting to big blitzes. Why? Matt Hasselbeck.
It turns out that Matt Hasselbeck is one of the best quarterbacks in the league against big blitzes: the Seahawks averaged almost 10 yards per play when opposing teams rushed 5, 6, or 7 guys, which is the best in the league, and far better than the ~5 yards Seahawks averaged in other plays. If the Saints have to rely on the big blitz (one of Gregg Williams’ favorite moves, incidentally) to generate pass rush, Hasselbeck could make them pay.
Which brings us back to our original question: How might the Seahawks beat the Saints?
If you buy into my premise that the Saints are a significantly better team than the Seahawks, then you’d probably agree with me that the Seahawks aren’t going to beat the Saints by lining up and outplaying them, man-by-man, possession-by-possession.*
*Of course, they could beat the Saints that way -much stranger things have happened- , it’s just not very likely.
Instead, the Seahawks would likely beat the Saints through a series of flukes, serendipitous bounces, and the like.
The first place I’d look for these lucky breaks is on special teams. The Seahawks have one of the best special teams squads in the league, whereas the Saints’ squad is a bit below average. If the Saints struggle against kick returner Leon Washington, that could spell trouble. The Saints aren’t a good enough team to give up points on special teams or to give their opponents consistently good field position. They need to cover kicks and punts well, and might want to consider kicking away from Leon Washington when appropriate.
The next thing I’d worry about is the Seahawks’ pass rush. Yes, I mentioned earlier that the Seahawks’ pass rush stunk, but so did Tampa’s, and Tampa consistently hurried Drew Brees last week. If Drew Brees doesn’t have time to throw the ball, and the receivers don’t have time to get open, then we might see the interceptions rear their ugly head. Interceptions are huge, game-changing plays, and Seattle will need a few of them to win. The pass rush (especially against a short quarterback) is one way to make that happen.
The final thing I’d worry about is the unpredictable nature of playing an opponent with nothing to lose. The Seahawks know they aren’t as good as the Saints. As a result, they’ll likely try a few goofy things (fake kicks, trick plays, etc.). The Saints have been vulnerable to trickeration all year, and if the Seahawks can hit a few goofy plays for big yardage, it could turn the game around.
So, while I don’t think the Seahawks will win, I can see a few different "shorelines" that might allow them to win. None of these shorelines is all that far-fetched. Part of the Saints’ job is to prevent them from happening.
How far will the Saints go this year?
The good news is that the NFC is a lot more wide open than the AFC, which is dominated by two teams (the Patriots and Steelers). The bad news is that the Saints are the 5th seed, which means they’ll be playing a lot of road games.
In order to make it to the Super Bowl, the Saints will have to beat the Seahawks and then 2 of the following 4 teams*: Philadelphia, Green Bay, Atlanta, Chicago. Of those, only the hypothetical Packers game would be in the ‘Dome.
*Exactly which team depends on which team wins which games.
Of those teams, I’m comfortable saying that the Saints will beat the Seahawks, even on the road. The Saints have played two extremely close games with the Falcons, so I can see us beating them, but it’d be hard to do in a rocking Georgia Dome. Even if the Saints beat the Falcons, they’d still need to beat Chicago on the road, Philadelphia on the road, or Green Bay at home. The Saints wouldn’t be favored in any of those games (except maybe Green Bay, which would probably be close), and they wouldn’t deserve to be favored in any of those games, if you believe my earlier research*.
*While the numbers have changed a bit, the gist of that piece is the same: the Saints are about the 4th best team in the NFC, behind Green Bay, Philadelphia, Chicago, and about equal with Atlanta.
So, to make the playoffs, the Saints will have to win 3 games: this weekend’s game against the Seahawks, followed by two games (quite possibly road games) against teams that are better than they are. Can it happen? Of course. None of the NFC teams is perfect, and the Saints are better than most at taking advantage of opponent weaknesses. Beating two better teams in a row is a tall order, though.
Beer of the week: because sober analysis requires good beer
Since there aren’t any Washington beers available at the Beer Store, I’ll head over to Oregon for this week’s beer selection. This week’s beer is Rogue Chocolate Stout, from Rogue Brewery in Newport, Oregon.
(photo by Flickr user @joefoodie)
Rogue Chocolate Stout is a relatively light 6% ABV, which is a nice change from the current trend of highly alcoholic stouts. It pours oil-black with a nice, thick brown head. The smell is chocolatey, but not as much as you’d think. I also get a lot of coffee and a bit of milk, too, which is kind of a turnoff for me, because I don’t like milk stouts all that much.
Tastewise, the chocolate is definitely there, but there’s a definite bitterness as well, likely from both the hops and the chocolate. This is a big beer, but not all that heavy. Rogue Chocolate Stout is one of the more sessionable craft stouts I’ve had, I could definitely have a few of these in a sitting. Nice beer. Not my favorite, but nice.
That was too long...could you offer me a 1-paragraph summary and prediction?
Sure. The Saints running back situation might spell trouble down the line, but probably not against Seattle, which just doesn't have the defensive or offensive firepower to keep up with the Saints barring turnovers, special teams insanity, or other fluky things. The Saints should win this game despite being on the road, but might not be favored again in the playoffs, which will make it tough (but not impossible) to get to Dallas. But, we'll hopefully be dissecting that next week.
You can listen to Stuart each week on the Who Dat Report or follow him on Twitter.
64 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I enjoyed your write up-lots of good stuff.
I have to take issue with two things, though
1) Julius Jones is averaging 4.0 yds per carry and ran off a 54 yard gain during the season. While I wouldn’t rank Julius Jones anywhere near the top of RBs, to say he doesn’t belong in the NFL is unfair. A 54 yd gain for his l;ongest is longer than most of the RBs in the NFL and 4.0 is respectable. And, inspite of his fumble last game, he hadn’t fumle in several season, over 300 carries, I think the guy deserves a little love. After all, he’s the only running back on our roster who hasn’t gotten hurt and is depended on week after week.
2) It’s just my opinion, but your analysis of the Saints being the 4th best team in the NFC is incorrect. First of all, look at the Eagles. They got destroyed by Minnesota led by Joe Webb. The Eagles have a terrible linebacker corps with a rookie that’s meiocre and inexperiences at MLB because of injuries. Likewise, their secondary with Dimitrii Patterson, Trevar Lindley and Joselio Hanson is exploitable to be kind. They are awful. If they didn’t have three rookies in the secondary and 1-2 others who are inexperienced, they could be a contender.
I won’t comment on GB, they change every other week but they seem good. As far as Chicago is concerned, let’s just say that Jay Cutler has to beat Drew Brees for me to concede Chicago is better. They have a bad pass defense- so if the field or weather is bad, maybe – ut otherwise I’m for the Saints and I think the game will be a toss up as far as odds.
If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress? Congress!
-Men's Restroom - House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Fair points
(1) I probably was a little harsh on Jones, although it’s not awesome if he’s your starting tailback.
(2) Sure, they got beaten by Minnesota (not destroyed…it was a 10-point win and the Eagles were within 3 with about 5 minutes to play), but the Saints also lost to Max Hall and the Cardinals (incidentally, by 10 points).
I agree that the Saints CAN exploit those folks, I’m just not convinced that they will, especially on the road.
(3) Chicago seems to have good weeks and bad weeks. Indeed, Football Outsiders has them ranked ~30th in “variance”, which means they’re extremely inconsistent. I believe that the Saints can beat the “bad” Chicago team at Soldier Field, but I think they will struggle to beat the “good” Chicago team in Soldier Field. The key to this game, though, is that it’s in Chicago. That’ll be a tough place to play.
Don’t forget to take strength-of-schedule into account when you evaluate Chicago, Green Bay, and Philadelphia. Let’s look at each teams strength of schedule using Saragrin’s ratings, Football Outsiders’ ratings, and Pro Football Reference’s ratings:
Chicago: 13th-Saragrin/18th-Football Outsiders/11th-Pro Football Reference
Green Bay: 9/16/9
Philadelphia: 16/20/16
New Orleans: 25/27/27
So those are teams that have looked good against significantly harder opponents than the Saints.
Now, that doesn’t mean the Saints can’t win against them. I think they can. You’ve pointed out some weaknesses, and other readers have pointed out some others. However, doing so will be difficult.
Fortunately, we have one of the best game-planning coaches in the NFL in Sean Payton. If anyone can do it, he can.
Do you mind if I take your question, edit it a bit, and stick it in a column for tomorrow? You raise good points, and I’d like for everyone to be able to see them (and my response).
Either way, thanks, as always, for reading.
-S
by Stuart Carlton on Jan 7, 2011 7:18 AM CST up reply actions
I don't give much credence to that strength of schedule analysis brcause
clearly we are in the toughest division in NFC. TB, Atlanta re very worth opponents. Let’s take NFC east for example. Before the season everyone would have said best division in NFC- Washington would get better with Mc Nabb, Cowboys were playoff bound and a serious contender for SB, Giants strong defense, good running game, playoff material, and Phila – unknown because of their youth movement. As it turns out Washington was awful and Dallas was awful for 2/3 of the season, Giants were mediocre , inconsistent, and played absolutely horrible at times. So, how do you evaluate NFC East as far as strength of schedule?
If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress? Congress!
-Men's Restroom - House of Representatives, Washington, DC
I don't know that that's so clear that we're in the toughest division
The NFC South teams had the best records, but also had a much easier non-division schedule than other divisions. Here’s a quick (and overly simplistic) analysis between the NFC South and NFC East:
You can’t just look within the divisions for strength of schedule, though, because most of a team’s games aren’t divisional games.
The NFC South played the AFC North and NFC West this year. Those two divisions have a combined winning percentage of .453. A hypothetical team with that winning percentage would win 7.3 games (rounded) in a 16-game season.
The NFC East played the AFC South and the NFC North this year, two divisions with a combined winning percentage of .492. That’s significantly better, and a hypothetical team with a .492 winning percentage would win 7.9 games in a season.
Now, there are more complex analyses to be done, and that’s what the folks at FO, Saragrin, and Pro Football Reference do. They take how the teams are actually playing (measured in different ways) and use that to come up with a strength-of-schedule.
So, if I take an average of the strength-of-schedule ratings from Saragrin for example, the NFC South’s average rank was 18.75 and the NFC East’s was 16.75. That’s a difference, though not a huge one.
However, the Saints played the easiest schedule in the NFC South: according to Saragrin, their schedule was ranked 25 this year. That’s a lot easier than the “average” NFC East team.
Again, I think the Saints CAN beat any of those teams. It would just require a series of upsets on their part.
by Stuart Carlton on Jan 7, 2011 9:08 AM CST up reply actions
Everybody (including me) looked at our strength of schedule going into the year and thought we were in trouble. We went 13-0 before we finally faltered, even if we did have some bumps on the way.
Everybody (including me) looked at our strength of schedule this year and thought we’d have a cakewalk. We didn’t then either.
Strength of schedule is a great way to make you FEEL like you are performing in depth analysis. But raw numbers mean little enough by themselves. Strength of schedule means even less. If it didn’t, we would have absolutely BLOWN OUT the Cardinals and the Browns.
What’s truly critical is how a team performs on the day in question, whether they play as well as they could or as bad as they could. Everything else is really only selectively finding numbers to support a predetermined gut opinion, and the most critical gut opinion is overall TALENT.
And in overall TALENT, we’re clearly 3rd or better. In actual production, we might be 4th on a bad day, but maybe even 2nd on a good.
Quality-of-opponent is an essential part of evaluating how good a team is.
Look at Tampa. They put up a good record, but did so by beating a bunch of crappy teams and one good team (the Saints). If you don’t consider their strength-of-schedule and quality of wins, you’d think Tampa was an excellent team when they aren’t.
by Stuart Carlton on Jan 7, 2011 9:51 AM CST up reply actions
No I’d think they are a good team. They won 10 games. You don’t do that by pure accident. But they aren’t an elite team yet, and wouldn’t be even if they’d gotten lucky enough to have beaten Atlanta or the Ravens or whatever else.
The most critical factors are how talented the team as a whole is, how well they all support one another, and how well they execute when the chips are down. Even Drew, good as he is, can’t do anything when he’s on his butt every other play. (Reference Browns, Butt-Whooping for evidence.) The Browns are a bad team, which we are clearly better than in just about every way, but we executed like crap and they played a perfect game. And they won a game they shouldn’t have had a chance in.
So no, quality of opponent is an essential part of FOOLING yourself into thinking you’ve considered everything, but when it all comes down to the critical basics, what is most important is whether you EXECUTE when the chips are down. If we execute and the opponent doesn’t, there is nobody we can’t beat. And if the reverse is true, there’s almost nobody we can beat.
But if both teams execute and do a good job, then what TRULY matters is how talented the team is and how well the coaches scheme to attack the opponent, no how talented (or not) their opponents were earlier in the season. We lost to the Browns and the Cardinals, two very bad teams. By that measure we should be 6th in playoffs. Even the Seachickens beat the Cards (twice) after all. But we aren’t, because strength of schedule is a CRUTCH of lazy thinking.
The Bears played well against a “tougher” schedule, but were beaten in their own house by the Seachickens. Does that mean now they are 6th? No. It just means they had a bad day and the Suckhawks had a great one that particular day.
Atlanta was pasted by the Eagles, and the eagles played a “tougher” schedule. Does that mean the Eagles are better than the Falcons? Not remotely. They just had a good day and a GREAT game plan.
Strength of schedule is a crutch of lazy thinking. We all make that mistake at times (myself included). But when the chips are truly down, it’s execution, talent, and game planning, and nothing else truly matters.
I think too strength of schedule reveals little about how good a team is when you consider how evenly matched NFL teams are in the first place. That isn’t to say you shouldn’t consider it at all, just don’t assign too much weight to it.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Jan 7, 2011 11:59 AM CST up reply actions
*I too think
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Jan 7, 2011 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
let’s just say that Jay Cutler has to beat Drew Brees for me to concede Chicago is better
So, let me get this straight … either Rex Grossman “beat Drew Brees” in 2007, or you’re putting a little bit too much emphasis on the QB position. Which is it?
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
I've been waiting on the CP quip of the day and....
Woop dere it is. LOL
Our fat punk kicker, Garrett Hartley, missed a game-winner and we lost for the second week in a row - Scott Fujita in 2009
by Ragin Who Dat on Jan 7, 2011 1:43 PM CST up reply actions
Was this supposed to be in sarcasm font concerning Joyk
I’m sure his blitz pickup skills are top notch.
"I understand this is a violent game. It's the only place you can hit somebody and not go to jail. So you understand that it's a privilege to play this game." Danny Clark
Seriously, is there anyone on this blog that thinks the Seahawks can win?
You have exactly two players to worry about on that team: Washington and Babeneaux. It is going to be interesting to see what your OC cooks up for Brees and company in the passing game.
Rule #1: Double tap.
by Ball Hawk on Jan 7, 2011 7:34 AM CST via mobile reply actions
I think they can win
It wouldn’t be the craziest thing ever. I just don’t think they will win.
Do you mind if I take up your question in a quick column for tomorrow?
by Stuart Carlton on Jan 7, 2011 7:42 AM CST up reply actions
Seriously, is this a real question?
If you think that 2 players make a team something is wrong with your thinking. Im sure the other 51 players on that squad think they have a little to do with the game also. What if I said all I had to worry about with your falcons is Matty rice, Turner and Gonzo, well now you only have 3 players to worry about. Im with Stuart here the hawks should NOT win but can they? YES.
"I understand this is a violent game. It's the only place you can hit somebody and not go to jail. So you understand that it's a privilege to play this game." Danny Clark
Matty rice, Turner and Gonzo
That about sums it up, actually. LOL.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Jan 7, 2011 12:12 PM CST up reply actions
yeah, forgot about Roddy in my jestful snubbing of the dirty birds.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Jan 7, 2011 1:02 PM CST up reply actions
I will be at the game
Born in New Orleans. Lives in Seattle
I think This game will be rough and they way the hawks can win is through weather, snowing more than likely, Errors in offense(lets hope Brees breaks his streak of INT)and of course, that 12th man is loud.
But at least it will be nice to watch a whole city wake up from a dream
HOLY F'IN CRAP
I’m gone 6 days and allll this crap happens!?!? I’m going back to the Falcons game.
Week 17 matchup: Bucs
Week 17 motto: I have a manlove with Pierre.
Canal Street Chronicles-you know you want to
by Jon Banks on Jan 7, 2011 8:07 AM CST via mobile reply actions
I didn't see snow in the forecast- snow in the 40's?
If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress? Congress!
-Men's Restroom - House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Don't knock walkons
Don’t forget the Beer Man.
"In fact, Sterger claims that, in one of the photos Favre allegedly sent her, he's masturbating — while wearing a pair of Crocs"
4th best team?
Sorry, don’t buy it. Nobody is CONSISTENTLY and CLEARLY better than us except maybe Green Bay.
Now of course it could all be rendered moot by losing to the Suckhawks tomorrow, but hopefully it won’t. And if it isn’t, the only two teams that have ANY area of the game where they are CLEARLY better than us are the Bears and the Packers, both of which are clearly better on defense. Eagles are better on offense, but not THAT much so. Falcons aren’t CLEARLY better than us in any area except INTs and return yards. And that’s really about it.
Seachickens are clearly worse. No need to justify this, they are. They could win, of course, because anything is possible, but if they do win it’s a flat embarrassment of epic proportions.
Philly offense is somewhat better but their defense is BAD. They rank 21st in points a game (we’re 7th), they are 12th in total yards (we’re 4th), they give up 2 less YPG on the ground but over 20 more in the pass, and their only saving grace is turnovers. And before you start on about us last year, they have significantly less turnovers than we did last year. And their offensive line makes ours (of THIS year) look elite. They’ve given up 50 sacks for over 300 yards, and the team as a whole has been penalized about 130 times for over 1100 yards, while we in comparison have given up only 26 sacks for under 200 and been penalized only 90 times for less than 900. Lucky for them they have a mobile QB back there… for now at least. No guarantee it will stay that way after the GB defense gets done with him. Even with him they are at 4th, without him they might even drop to 5th.
Atlanta is basically a tie. Sure they have a better record, but they got a LOT of luck in no injuries, good bounces of the ball, and tons of horrible calls and non-calls by the refs. They aren’t CLEARLY better than us. If their luck continues to be insanely good then they are tied with us at #3, if they lose even an ounce of luck they drop to #4 or even #5 depending on what Philly and Chicago teams show up on the week(s) in question.
Green Bay is fairly even on offense but clearly better on defense. I’ll rate them at #1b on a good day and 2a on a bad.
Chicago is WAY behind (plus VERY inconsistent) on offense but clearly better on defense. I’ll rate them as #1a on a great day but all the way down to #4 or even #5 on a bad.
So if everybody has their best possible days we have:
1a Chicago
1b Green Bay
3-tie Saints
3-tie Falcons
4 Eagles (yes I know after a tie you usually skip a number, but they are very close behind in this scenario)
6 Seahawks
On everybody’s worst days, the numbers shift instead:
1 Green Bay
3 Saints (the number games are to show the gap involved)
4 Falcons
5 Bears
6 Eagles
10 Seachickens (the number games are to show the gap involved)
Realistically, we’re either tied for third or flat out third. While it all depends on how good each team plays on the critical day in question, we really do have a decent chance to at least make the NFCCG. I don’t think we’ll win it, though I’d be delighted to be wrong, but we’d need Atlanta’s level of luck to do so.
Fine enough points, I just disagree that we're better than CHI, GB, and PHI
I think we’re a bit better than Atlanta, and obviously better than the Seahawks.
Still, it’s not a huge difference. As I said, I think that the Saints can definitely come out of the NFC this year. I just don’t think they will, especially having to play at least 2 (and maybe 3) games on the road.
by Stuart Carlton on Jan 7, 2011 9:43 AM CST up reply actions
I didn’t say we were better than GB. On our absolute best day and their absolute worst I still think they might just be slightly better.
But Chicago? Complete toss up. On their worst day and our best we can use them a chew toy. And in the reverse situation, they can use us as theirs. If both put up their best day they’re a bit better than us, if both put up their worst we’re a bit better than them.
Philly is they only one of the three you mention I truly think we’re clearly better than. Vick is very good, but not quite good enough to make the team as a whole better than our team as a whole.
Then we don't disagree by that much
Just on the chances of us going into Soldier Field or going into Philly and winning.
Again, of course the Saints can beat those teams. They even might beat those teams. I just think it’s a relatively small chance that the Saints will win all of the games that they need to win in order to get to the Super Bowl.
That’ll make it that much sweeter when they do :)
by Stuart Carlton on Jan 7, 2011 9:54 AM CST up reply actions
“Just on the chances of us going into Soldier Field or going into Philly and winning.”
“Or” may be kind. We would wind up travelling to both, if GB wins two. Not that I see that happening.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
What the heck? I don’t tend to agree with you much anyway, but this time you are so far off it’s not even funny.
If GB wins two (and we do as well) we will play them in the Dome. That means they beat the Eagles this weekend and the Falcons the next.
There is NO way we play at Chicago AND Philly. If we win this weekend, we will go to either Atlanta or Chicago, depending on whether Philly or GB win their game. If Philly wins, we go to Atlanta, if GB wins we go to Chicago.
If we beat Atlanta, that means that Philly had to play Chicago. If we win, then we go visit whomever won between the two of them. This is the ONLY way we manage to visit Philly, by the way, is if we do so in the NFCCG.
If we beat Chicago, then we either go to Atlanta or host GB.
You’re right, I don’t know what I was thinking. So, basically we’re guaranteed to play two outdoor games in the playoffs, provided we don’t lose. Had St. Louis won the NFC West, we would have played no more than one. That means it actually WOULD be better if Green Bay won this weekend. All along I had been assuming that because the Falcons were the only indoor team other than the Rams, that having Green Bay play them and defeat them in the 2nd round (in lieu of us) would be a bad thing, in that it would knock out the lone remaining dome opponent. I didn’t take into account the fact that Green Bay would also be knocking out Philadelphia in the process. Basically, I was merely focusing on the ramifications of the Falcons losing (period) and not the more immediate advantage — that of a potential outdoor NFC championship host (Philly) losing — of Green Bay getting to that two-playoff-victory point. My bumble B.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
I’m still not sold on Chicago, so I won’t concede they are better. But overall, each NFC team has weaknesses that can be exploited. Except for Seattle, I think each NFC team has as good a chance to reach the SB as the next.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Jan 7, 2011 12:18 PM CST up reply actions
This is my prediction...
Saints beat Seahawks (Of course). Bell gets 7-8 carries in the game and makes a respectable, but not earth shattering, 30 yards. Reggie puts up good numbers. Drew is da man. Then Payton has a full week of practice with Bell next week to prepare for….
Saints Play Chicago. Bell gets 10-12 carries for 65 yards. Running game is coming back. Reggie does OK. Brees is on. Saints beat Chicago in a squeaker. Then….
Saints host Green Bay in the DOME!!! Another squeaker. Bell has over 100 yds on 15+ carries. Garrett Hartley field goal wins the game for us. Then…
Saints vs. Ravens in Superbowl. Saints shut down Ray Rice just like we did Michael Turner. Flacco throws 2 interceptions, 1 for a pick 6. Saints win by 10 points or more.
TWO DAT BABY!!!!
Our fat punk kicker, Garrett Hartley, missed a game-winner and we lost for the second week in a row - Scott Fujita in 2009
by Ragin Who Dat on Jan 7, 2011 1:58 PM CST up reply actions
I like the way you think
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Jan 7, 2011 2:01 PM CST up reply actions
regarding JuJo's fumble
Let’s remember Ivory’s ball security problems midseason, and how we forgave him when he cleaned up that act. I’m ready and willing to forgive JuJo with the stunning performance (closing my eyes and willing it to be) he turns out Saturday.
JuJo’s goal line fumble in what amounted to a meaningless game pales in comparison to Ivory’s four. He’s never been close to the fumble-per-touch ratio Ivory is currently, even as a rookie. It COULD reoccur, obviously … Michael Turner and Steven Jackson fumbled three times combined this season … just not something I’m about to sweat, given the relative lack of touches Jones is bound to get (even if he was our only healthy back).
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Turner fumbled 3 times in 334 attempts, or .009%. He also fumbled twice in 20 attempts this season. Or .10%. Numbers are fun. Fumbles happen…and you can’t predict them. All you can do is look at the big picture. Michael Turner has fumbled 10 times in his career …once again a .009% fumble percentage. The guy hangs onto the ball. Jujo has fumbled 13 times in his career…a .010 percent. He fumbled on a big play at the goal line…it happens in football. But the fact is his numbers clearly show he isn’t prone to fumbling.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
Turner only fumbled twice, according to profootballreference.com. They also have him down for 11 on his career (one MORE than you’re citing, not less). Odd. What’s your source? Also, twice in 20 attempts … as in a 20 attempt span? Again, where are you getting this? Just curious, as PFR doesn’t offer information THAT in depth. Well, unless the two fumbles happened to be in the same game and he only had 20 carries in that particular game. You would get that in the box scores.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Ahh, I found the discrepancy. I was using his stats from espn. He has 10 fumbles in his career rushing…one fumble receiving from 2004. You’re right on only the 2 fumbles this year, i’ll blame that on my ever failing eyesight.
As to the twice in 20 carries, his 2 fumbles this year came in the final two games of the season. Once against us, once against Carolina. There were a total of 34 attempts between those two games. However, I watched both of the games and his fumble against Carolina came early in the game within his first 10 carries. I’m sure someone somewhere can find the exact info…I just rounded to a very plausible number having watched the games. Best guess…off my memory…I’d say they happened anywhere between 15-23 carries of each other.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
Closest info I can find is this. Turner fumbled in the third quarter versus the Saints, and he rushed 9 times in the first half. Which means the fumble occurred sometime during his final 8 carries. He had 17 carries in the next game which means at best both fumbles came within 25 carries of each other. However, the fumble against Carolina occurred in the first quarter on I believe Atlanta’s second possession in or around the 6 minutes mark. Atlanta immediately forced a punt by Carolina which they returned for a TD at the 4:24 mark. So most likely his fumble was within his first 3-10 carries.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
Gamebooks are great for this
Turner fumbled on his 14th carry vs. the Saints
He fumbled on his 4th carry against the Panthers.
Therefore, 6 carries between the fumbles (not counting the fumbled carries).
(this was all done in a hurry, so my counting may be slightly off)
To find NFL game books, after the game, go to NFL.com’s Game Center for the game, click on the “analyze” tab, and search for the word “book”.
by Stuart Carlton on Jan 7, 2011 11:50 AM CST up reply actions
Cool, thank you for the info. So he fumbled twice in 8 carries. Obviously not indicative of his entire career.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
2 data sources you may not know about
CP,
In addition to the NFL game books that I talk about below, Advanced NFL Stats has just released all of the 2010 play-by-play data, which you can find (along with every year since 2002) right here.
It’s a bit unwieldy, but good stuff. I’ll eventually use this to try to answer your earlier question about run/pass ratio on scoring drives and non-scoring drives. But, that’s morphed into an offseason project…
by Stuart Carlton on Jan 7, 2011 12:01 PM CST up reply actions
There shouldn't be a such thing as a "trap game" in the playoffs
But if there was, this would be it. We are heavily favored and the Seahawks are “terrible.” Like I said, there shouldn’t be a trap game in the playoffs, because if you can’t get up and play in the playoffs then maybe you should find a new job. This game just seems like a “trap game.” We are heavy favorites, but people around here are questioning how good we really are. Let’s show them how good. Two Dat!!!
Peyton, I can eat Oreos faster than you!!!!
Sean payton usually replaces his special team with starters.
If we remember last year this move dramatically improved the special teams ability to cover and return punts in addition to the field goal unit.
"I can eat oreos faster than him" Scott Fujita's take on Payton Manning SB44
I can tell everyone's fired up about the playoffs!
Some great comments, even the ones that disagree with me. Hopefully we can be arguing about this each week for the next month or so :)
By that are you implying that if the Saints lose you won't be doing anymore posts about what's going on in the rest of the playoffs?
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
He could be implying that they’ll be no one sticking around to argue.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
I have no problem with bandwagon fans leaving for greener pastures. Just means they won’t be here to interfere with the rest of us arguing over draft prospects.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
I think he’s just trying to give FriarBob a reason to drink.
Our fat punk kicker, Garrett Hartley, missed a game-winner and we lost for the second week in a row - Scott Fujita in 2009
by Ragin Who Dat on Jan 7, 2011 4:41 PM CST up reply actions
I'll still be posting
But a little less. I have a dissertation to write, as my wife likes to remind me.
by Stuart Carlton on Jan 8, 2011 7:14 AM CST up reply actions

by 


























