Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing' Set For Sunday

Saints 21 @ Rams 31: Offensive Abandonment

There were many disappointments in the Saints upsetting 31-21 loss to St. Louis yesterday. Many. And while it pains me to say it, one of those disappointments was the questionably poor decision making by Drew Brees, which was only exacerbated by the obviously poor play from the offensive line.

More specifically, I'm referring to Brees and the offenses overall abandonment of the short yardage pass plays they've found so much success with, like screens and underneath routes, in favor of ill-advised deeper throws, often into coverage. Quite simply, Drew and company were forcing it instead of taking what the Rams were giving them.    

And it's those high-percentage short pass plays that define this offense. So many of their big plays aren't long bombs to vertical receivers, but rather quick dump-offs to shifty guys in space like Pierre Thomas and Darren Sproles, who make things happen after the catch. The Saints longest offensive play last week against the Colts amid all that offensive production was a screen pass to Pierre Thomas. Take that away from this offense, and they are simply mediocre. Yesterday, by the Rams and their very own doing, it was taken away from the Saints. 

How did the Saints go from near perfection versus the Colts to near meltdown against the Rams? Below are a few examples of this offensive abandonment theory and how I think hurt the Saints yesterday. My apologies for the awful picture quality. 

Star-divide

1st Quarter

Imag0362_medium

2-3-NO 35 (11:25) (Shotgun) D.Brees pass incomplete deep left to D.Henderson

It's the Saints first offensive drive. On second and short Brees has an open Darren Sproles in the flat and ready to pick up the first down. Instead Brees goes to the right side and throws it away out of bounds. Devery Henderson is kinda in the area. 

 

Imag0363_medium 

2-8-NO 43 (10:09) (Shotgun) D.Brees pass incomplete short middle to L.Moore (J.Laurinaitis)

Still their first drive. Brees has Pierre Thomas to his right awaiting a potential screen pass. Instead, he throws over the middle Lance Moore who is double covered. The ball goes off the hands of James Laurinaitis, who nearly picked it off.  

 

 

2nd Quarter

Imag0364_medium

3-4-SL 43 (5:12) (Shotgun) D.Brees sacked at NO 48 for -9 yards (R.Quinn).

Robert Quinn has busted through the Saints offensive line and is coming right up the middle at Brees. He's got Pierre Thomas open to this right and ready for a pass. If Drew can think quick enough, he might be able to dump it off. The play ends with a 9-yard sack.  

 

Imag0365_medium

2-10-NO 39 (1:54) (Shotgun) D.Brees sacked at NO 30 for -9 yards (C.Long) 

The offensive line has gotten Brees in trouble again, this time he's facing pressure from both sides. Darren Sproles is to his right. If Drew has enough time, he could lob a touch pass to his safety valve. Another 9-yard sack.  

 

Imag0366_medium

3-19-NO 30 (1:46) (Shotgun) D.Brees pass incomplete short right to J.Graham (C.Long)

Yet again Drew is facing pressure on his front and back side. He's rushed and never has time to look at a wide open Sproles with room to run. Brees tries to hit Graham but the ball is tipped by a lineman and falls short. 

 

Imag0367_medium

1-10-NO 12 (1:06) (Shotgun) D.Brees pass deep right intended for D.Henderson INTERCEPTED by J.Gordy at NO 38. J.Gordy to NO 38 for no gain (D.Henderson).

This is Drew's first interception and quite possibly the turning point of the game. Brees steps up in the pocket and has Pierre Thomas staring him in the face over the middle, wide open with nary a defender in the area. But the Saints are down by ten points and there is only a minute left in the half, so there's a sense of urgency. His attempted pass to a decently covered Devery Henderson along the sideline is picked off. Once again, you can't force plays and you've got to take what you're being given by the defense. 

 

4th Quarter

Imag0368_medium

2-10-NO 33 (6:22) (Shotgun) D.Brees pass incomplete short middle to R.Meachem (D.Stewart)

Here Brees decides to throw over the middle to a double covered Robert Meachem instead of dumping it off to a wide open Sproles with room to run. The pass is nearly picked off. 

 

Imag0369_medium

3-10-NO 33 (6:16) (Shotgun) D.Brees pass incomplete short right to D.Henderson.

Brees is flushed from the pocket and must make the pass on the run. He looks to Henderson past the first down marker but his pass hits the dirt. Jimmy Graham is open in the flat. To be fair, Graham would have had to do something spectacular to pick up the first down. This was surely four down territory, though. 

Comment 141 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Canal Street Chronicles

Caption This

May 2012 by Dave Cariello - 30 comments

Caption This

May 2012 by Dave Cariello - 30 comments

Comments

Display:

Dave it was God awful ugly I will say

And what the heck were they thinking punting the ball with 6 mins left down by 10 knowing their defense can’t stop anybody? And we are not a short passing offense. There was not one deep ball thrown.

 There was zero excuse for this embarrassing performance

I spent 8 years trying to reach him...and then another 7 trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...Evil.

Dr. Sam Loomis Aka (Donald Pleasence)

by Jricky70 on Oct 31, 2011 10:04 AM CDT reply actions  

Jricky

I was at the game, and when they sent the punt team out on the field, I turned to my family and the other Rams fans in my section and said, “Don’t worry, guys. This game is over. You got it in the bag now. They have given up.”

WIN NOW
WINGRAMANIA!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Oct 31, 2011 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions  

Amazing huh?

I was like ok, was Jim Mora out there for a sec calling that play? I was livid!

I spent 8 years trying to reach him...and then another 7 trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...Evil.

Dr. Sam Loomis Aka (Donald Pleasence)

by Jricky70 on Oct 31, 2011 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions  

playoffs?

I wonder who Mora cheered for when the Saints played the Colts last week

by WestBank on Oct 31, 2011 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

LOL

I spent 8 years trying to reach him...and then another 7 trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...Evil.

Dr. Sam Loomis Aka (Donald Pleasence)

by Jricky70 on Oct 31, 2011 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

Cool

What did he have to say? Did he say: PLAYOFFS????

I spent 8 years trying to reach him...and then another 7 trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...Evil.

Dr. Sam Loomis Aka (Donald Pleasence)

by Jricky70 on Oct 31, 2011 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

No

but I think he heard me say it to my friends after he walked away.

Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!

by Dave Cariello on Oct 31, 2011 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

Haha!

I’ll never forget his rants. All of them.

I spent 8 years trying to reach him...and then another 7 trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...Evil.

Dr. Sam Loomis Aka (Donald Pleasence)

by Jricky70 on Oct 31, 2011 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

“They have given up."

That’s exactly what I texted three friends at that exact point. :-(

by Dan Kelly on Nov 1, 2011 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

Dave - I know what you actually meant, but I can't pass up this opportunity

The Saints had a lot to do with that picture quality being so crappy – bazinga!!!

We’ll be lucky to finish 10-6 – I just hope that might be enough to win the division, but these next two division games are JUGE, I tells ya, JUGE for the Saints!!

C’mon Andrew, can’t you make these guys play better? Maybe if you inflate their grades, they might actually play better – kind of like a NeverEnding Story or Pagemaster scenario…

WIN NOW
WINGRAMANIA!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Oct 31, 2011 10:29 AM CDT reply actions  

You couldn't possibly inflate what I watched yesterday.

Best you could do is dig a deep hole and cover it up.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Oct 31, 2011 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions  

What was good about yesterday?

Absolutely nothing!

I spent 8 years trying to reach him...and then another 7 trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...Evil.

Dr. Sam Loomis Aka (Donald Pleasence)

by Jricky70 on Oct 31, 2011 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions  

Will Smith

The only player show up to really play yersterday!

"We, in our building, didn't feel like we needed to have Reggie Bush to have a successful offense. We've had lots of games over the last five years where Reggie was unavailable. And yet, we've been able to move the ball, score points and win games at the same rate as when we did have Reggie." -- Saints General Manager Mickey Loomis

by halo2saints on Oct 31, 2011 11:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

What was the exchange between Nicks and the OL coach?

I think those types of meltdowns typically show there are contributing issues off the field.

by snowboard_kat on Oct 31, 2011 10:30 AM CDT reply actions  

I read that Payton radioed to down to Coach Kromer to yell at Nicks for not running off the field after a drive ended

Because Payton’s big on body language and “never let them see you sweat”, and that Kromer did it and then Nicks yelled back at him (and he probably wouldn’t have yelled back if Payton was down there doing the actual yelling instead of a proxy.

They need to get Payton in to a hovering anti-grav chair that can manuever up/down and side to side so he can chew people out face to face and then float up above the crowd when the plays start to protect his leg.

Or maybe the oaches can all carry Ipads running a Skype to the press box, so they can just hold it up to a player’s face while Payton screams at them…

WIN NOW
WINGRAMANIA!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Oct 31, 2011 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions  

here's James Varney's mostly uninformative blurb from yesterday

CLICK HERE

I’m not sure what my other source is on the other info I gave…so take it for what it is right now – unsourced rumor

WIN NOW
WINGRAMANIA!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Oct 31, 2011 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions  

love this quote from Nicks
I apologize for making myself look dumb

is he speaking for himself or the whole team there?

by snowboard_kat on Oct 31, 2011 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions  

quotation?

"I'm not allowed to comment on lousy officiating." -Jim Finks, New Orleans Saints G.M.

by theprogrammerman on Oct 31, 2011 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hans, doubtful it’s ruptured because back in the day when Billy Joe Hobert blew out his achiles he had to get carried off and was in tears. The player always knows it’s bad. Did you see something on the web somewhere

"Saints fans should be sending Paul Tagliabue primo Hollywood quality hookers monthly for the remainder of his life"---Andrew Juge

by Malbrough on Oct 31, 2011 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions  

sorry, didn't mean to stir real panic yet

just commenting on the close-lipped injury status info of Team Payton possibly hiding something bigger than we realize…

WIN NOW
WINGRAMANIA!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Oct 31, 2011 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

They do that even if a guy has a hangnail

Just because we have chiseled abs and stunning features, it doesn't mean that we too can't not die in a freak gasoline fight accident.

by Fat Punk Kicker on Oct 31, 2011 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't thinks so because last week they showed him limping to the locker room.

I feel like a guy wouldn’t be able to walk if he achilles were exploded

Just because we have chiseled abs and stunning features, it doesn't mean that we too can't not die in a freak gasoline fight accident.

by Fat Punk Kicker on Oct 31, 2011 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions  

You can walk with you achilles effed up

But it’s a severe limp/drag leg hobble

/completely ruptured achilles class of 2008.

nemo me impune lacessit

by LSUJOSHUA on Oct 31, 2011 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

i tore mine too.. end of the line for the plague..

took away my 4.0 speed..

but you know is gone cause it feels like shooting an empty bow..
nasty..

by the 9th plague on Oct 31, 2011 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well IIRC and I do

He was just walking on his toes with a slight limp

Just because we have chiseled abs and stunning features, it doesn't mean that we too can't not die in a freak gasoline fight accident.

by Fat Punk Kicker on Oct 31, 2011 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

Naw

That would be an instant IR injury. Not even Sean would cover-up that one.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Oct 31, 2011 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions  

probably this ^

no reason to waste a roster spot on a lengthy rehab. Could be achilles tendonitis…I mean the way he came down it looked as if he didn’t pound his heel into the ground and maybe that something was pulled, stretched or otherwise annoyed to the point of inflammation. Although, we should all hope for the heel bruise, get him some dr scholls pads and back into the game. Could have used him yesterday for sure.

hopefully it isn’t plantar fasciitis…

by WestBank on Oct 31, 2011 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

Different faces...same reaction

Thinking back to win the Saints put a whooping on the Patriots a couple years back, the expressions on the faces of Vitt, Carmichael, Payton, and Brees looked quite reminiscient of the expressions on Brady and Belichick. It’s like, “What the hell is going on here? What team is this again? Is this a parallel universe? Oh, wait, it’s us preparing for a no name team with an awesome game plan!”

Queezy to the point of losing consciousness,

Drewbdo Cal

by drewbdo on Oct 31, 2011 11:57 AM CDT reply actions  

I am in agreement 100%

You can’t give up the bread and butter and try to force long bombs down their throat to eradicate a deficit. From what I saw, we never really were able to keep picking up small chunks of yards. Moving the chains and tiring out the Ram’s. Play calling was very strange in my opinion. This was a game where Lance Moore, Pierre Thomas and Darren Sproles should have lit the Ram’s up in my opinion.

I like Hamburgers!

by Grumps on Oct 31, 2011 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

the saints offense is obv a passing offense, but its more of drew brees pounding the ball over and over for 5-15 yard gains. we dont really have a mike wallace, greg jennings guy who can just outrun a defense. brees best targets are colston, grahm, moore, and sproles all guys who are “shifty” , have great hands to make catches in traffic. and our best runnign game is hitting thomas and sproles for screens. i kept waiting for that 10 play, 80 yard td but we kept going for a 5 play drive even in the third quater.

by forrestgump52 on Nov 2, 2011 4:51 AM CDT up reply actions  

Yes

I completely agree. I think that, for some reason, the saints play calling goes into panic mode when we aren’t 3 touchdowns up and they make rash and predictable play calls, mostly throws, down the field. We forego the run, the screen, the short game altogether for a hopeful 90 second scoring drive, which is of course understood if you have no time but to go to that in the 1st half like we did and always seem to do when playing from behind is mind boggling. I have no idea if its because the brass has no faith in the o-line, the running game, the short game or what have you but it’s obvious there is some reason for it, maybe Brees is calling the plays, because we do it week in and week out. I would imagine that if you look back at all of brees interceptions and our now 3 losses, at least half would come from this false sense of urgency, predictible plays and forcing throws created by being a couple scores back.

by WestBank on Oct 31, 2011 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions  

sorry thanks for the reminder

I feel like you are absolutely correct.

It was quite painful to watch Brees pass up on a short throw to force it downfield into coverage – the Rams easily could have had 4-5 picks in that game.

And the troubling thing was that he started doing it pretty early, while it was still just 3-0. I fear this may begin to be his new normal mindset for the rest of 2011 – UGH.

WIN NOW
WINGRAMANIA!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Oct 31, 2011 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

I absolutely feel like this panic, all throw, play calling is and has been the norm since last year if not before.

by WestBank on Oct 31, 2011 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

I agree with you Dave

If we had burned them on a couple of long runs after the catches on some of those, the deep lanes might have opened up. And maybe we could have actually run the ball some more, too.

by BlackandGold4ever on Oct 31, 2011 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

When Dave is calling out Drew

it’s got to be bad. So bad I almost couldn’t even enjoy Olindo Mare whiffing it for the Panthers yesterday. Almost.

  Given our offensive tendenices, our “play action” probably needs to be faking the pass and then running the ball.

The 2011 Saints: From Lockout to Knockout

by MobileSaint on Oct 31, 2011 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

you know, Mobile Saint

they do have a few of those plays in the arsenal…I’ve seen them before! It’d be a nice change of pace to see some of them again.

Brees fakes the bubble screen to the wide receiver, then a quick, underneath handoff to PT or Ingram, who look like they are just back their to max protect, but then take the ball and go to the other side of the field from the faked screen.

WIN NOW
WINGRAMANIA!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Oct 31, 2011 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

I have seen them too

Kind of like seeing Bigfoot

The 2011 Saints: From Lockout to Knockout

by MobileSaint on Oct 31, 2011 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

I call him

Fred

"I'm not allowed to comment on lousy officiating." -Jim Finks, New Orleans Saints G.M.

by theprogrammerman on Oct 31, 2011 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

Fake Screen, Middle Draw

It has worked in the past… and with Sproles…

They’ll be expecting pass or screen, so you run it up the middle. THAT is when you run it up the middle, when they are spread out!

by Dan Kelly on Nov 1, 2011 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

i certainly can see it from brees' angle concerning dave's take on the dump off passes..

i see dave’s point.. but typically that dump off is not our means of converting.. although it could have helped yeaterday..

i see it a little as a denial mental process that the top notch QBs have.. they just cannot believe you are going to cover “his” bread & butter seam route every time..
he froced it once & you tipped it.. no matter.. he’ll force it again later..

you can’t play at a high level unless you have a little of that mentality.. if you are cautious you’re just a game manager..

it’s not that he does not know the risk.. it’s that he thinks it’s worth taking it..

by the 9th plague on Oct 31, 2011 12:37 PM CDT reply actions  

the virtually zero time of protection..

influenced some of the throws too.. if he had an extra instant to really go through the progression of receivers, maybe he would have taken the dump off in a couple of those.. not all of them..

by the 9th plague on Oct 31, 2011 12:42 PM CDT reply actions  

He did have a limited decision window

for sure but it’s those that you want to take the short play…if they are blitzing, even 5 people, and you see double coverage downfield that means that your RB will have single or no coverage and could rack up some yardage. Now, with limited time you may not know where your RB is, especially someone as short as Sproles, added to that how short Brees is…so maybe he just wasn’t seeing them in some of those.

by WestBank on Oct 31, 2011 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

Dave's post

Sorry, Dave…Sometimes we just get caught up in the tangents.

With respect to your post, you are spot on! My wife and I kept saying, “dump it off to Sproles”, “dump it off to Pierre”. For a team that has recognized the danger of Sproles in space, it was blatantly apparent that he was not an essential element of the game plan. After reading all the hype about St. Louis’ secondary being banged up, I think Brees and Carmichael both believed that they could capitalize and execute. Unfortunately, they were wrong. The Saints are not a "bomb it " team. In fact, if you review game film, it is a rarity that Brees throws it more than 20-30 yards. Like you said, it is the yards after catch that are so dangerous!

Good observations, Dave!

by drewbdo on Oct 31, 2011 12:47 PM CDT reply actions  

this was great analysis Dave- a poor game plan and poor execution

Brees was rushed a lot- and never made trhe adjustment that the primary receiver prob wouldn’t be open- dump it off!
I saw PT and Sproles open a number of times as your pictures illustrate.

If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress? Congress!
-Men's Restroom - House of Representatives, Washington, DC

by Philinwood on Oct 31, 2011 1:07 PM CDT reply actions  

I feel like the Saints need help with their abandonment issues

Dr. Feelgood is not available, Dr. Bombay is dead, and Dr. Pepper is not an official NFL corporate partner, so let’s dial up…

WIN NOW
WINGRAMANIA!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Oct 31, 2011 1:16 PM CDT reply actions   1 recs

I like that idea. But again, I think they players just need a good butt kicking. Or a few sets of squat thrusts/up & downs. Bad attitudes on the team. Hey, I know. They should cut Devery Henderson as an example. Try harder or you are out.

Now something's wrong
Where the Sherwood used to be

by stujo4 on Oct 31, 2011 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

Dave, I see where you are going, but I don't entirely agree.

In fact, I think the biggest difference in the Saints over the past two years has been the abandonment of the run and the vertical pass and the increasing inability of their wideouts to get any kind of separation. They have so entirely abandoned the run that play action is not fooling anyone (and usually big pass plays come when the safeties are sucked in thinking there will be a run). You can see in many cases the other teams linebackers and corners sitting on the short routes. You have picked out a couple of plays, but there were many others where Drew had to throw into incredibly tight quarters in the 7 to 10 yard range because the field was so compressed. The lack of a running game is also the reason the D-Lines are teeing off, not just on third down, but on many downs.

The short passing game works best when the linebackers and cover guys have to take deep drops and you can do things underneath. Right now, I think the defeses believe that if they take Graham and Sproles out of the game, the other receivers cannot beat them one on one and the Saints will not be committed to the run.

"I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it." Groucho Marx

by BenDerDonDat on Oct 31, 2011 1:20 PM CDT reply actions  

Yeah, I agree with this as well,

and I have been pushing 60 pass – 40 run for a while now but this game went beyond not running the ball. The short game was forgotten as well. So not only were we telegraphing pass plays because we weren’t running but we weren’t checking down down when those pass were well covered. we need all four, run game, short, medium and long pass game.

I think that what you said about the wideouts and seperation has much to do with the coverage thats being called cby the defense, but could also be route running or age, I’m not really sure there. I’ll stick to my guns and say that we are predictable ‘pass first’ offense that , at times, is hesitant to use checkdowns and, most of the time, the running game. That’s why we are struggling

by WestBank on Oct 31, 2011 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

The sad thing is...

if we were to use yesterday’s game as a representative sample, we could go on for hours about the abysmal performance of the offense and the causes thereof..Truth is that we are not as good as we looked against the Dolts, nor as sad as we looked against the Lambchops.

Run…..the….ball…at least 25 times a game. Is that too much to ask? And let’s not wait until we are down 17 points before we give running a try.

"I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it." Groucho Marx

by BenDerDonDat on Oct 31, 2011 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

Honestly, with the horrid play of our offensive line, i'm just glad we got out of yesterday with a healthy quarterback.

In the middle of the third quarter, I was thinking if we have no O-line backups to put in, or if those backups would actually play WORSE than who was in there, we should throw chase daniel in their to take the beating of a lifetime instead of brees.

by pvinet on Oct 31, 2011 1:40 PM CDT reply actions  

Yes but

if Chase was in there we would be running the ball; more and solve the issue…

by WestBank on Oct 31, 2011 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

either way sounds good to me. that was a lost game yesterday.

even if it did end 31-21, it felt like 45-0. Drew just wanted (and im not saying i blame him) to extend his passing touchdown streak.

by pvinet on Oct 31, 2011 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

Drew just wanted to extend his passing touchdown streak.

You’re not the only one who has said that, so this is not directed 100% at you

NO EFFING WAY!

Drew is the guy who could have beaten Dan Marino’s record for total yards in a season, but he had no idea how close he was. He was completely focused on winning the game… doing anything he could to win the game… throwing a risky pass that, even if it was completed, was EXTREMELY likely to be tackled half a second after the catch.

That was so much lower percentage play than a Hail Mary it was laughable.

Personally, it that situation, I think he should have thrown it to a WR that was shorter just to get the record b/c he was so close and that game was over… but he didn’t.

by Dan Kelly on Nov 1, 2011 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

i dont think brees really cares about the td streak, i dont think its really that amazing. i do have to question why he (and other starters) was in the game when we were down by 3 scores and a minute or something left. i know its like giving up, but in a physical game like fball u cant afford injuries

by forrestgump52 on Nov 2, 2011 4:56 AM CDT up reply actions  

lol...

another one on the ‘run more’ list… :-(

by Dan Kelly on Nov 1, 2011 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

we are legion

Honestly, I don’t understand why you have a problem with the idea of running more. Obviously everyone wants more effective running, with more creativity and less predictability. Running more often is just an extension of that, and part of the method to accomplish it.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -Albert Einstein

by HB-NOLA on Nov 2, 2011 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

“Obviously everyone wants more effective running”

That’s not true… because that’s not what they are asking for.

When you ask for something (from Santa, from the Universe, from whoever) you need to be specific.

Don’t ask for more garbage to be delivered to your doorstep, when you really wanted and iPod.

by Dan Kelly on Nov 2, 2011 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

If I ask for chocolate

it should be safe to assume I don’t what a chocolate covered turd.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -Albert Einstein

by HB-NOLA on Nov 2, 2011 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

If you are selling widgets for $1 a piece, and you’re paying $2.50 a piece for them…

Selling more widgets will not make your business more profitable. In fact, you will lose more money the more widgets you sell.

Don’t ask your salespeople to sell more widgets, until and unless you can make each sale a profitable one.

by Dan Kelly on Nov 2, 2011 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

Interesting analogy

If the widgets cost $2.50 a piece when I buy ten at a time, but $.50 when I buy 100 at a time, then clearly I should be aiming for higher volume.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -Albert Einstein

by HB-NOLA on Nov 2, 2011 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

There are no “economies of scale” when it comes to runs, unfortunately the price of individual runs is VERY in-elastic when the quality is kept at our current levels.

The only way to decrease the price we pay for each run, is to make the quality of each run (not the average) better.

Nice try though. ;-)

by Dan Kelly on Nov 2, 2011 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

When you run MORE it does not necessarily make future runs more EFFECTIVE.

Some people are calling for balance for the sake of balance (ie. simply running more no matter what the results of those runs are.)

Because they think if we run more, however ineffective it is, that it will magically open up the passing game.

But, as I’ve said before, if our run game can be stopped with 7 men in the box, our opponent will not put another man in the box because they don’t have to.

We need to beat the 7 men with more effective runs, to make them respect the run game and bring an 8th man in the box.

THAT IS THE KEY…

If our runs continue to be ineffective (Colts game not included), no team will respect our run game and no team will commit any more player to run defense.

-

Do you believe that our runs ARE effective and we need to call more of them? If so, that may be the breakdown in our communication.

You don’t think they need to be more effective, because you think they already are effective. Is that the case?

by Dan Kelly on Nov 2, 2011 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

My perspective has been that we need to run more in order to run more efficiently. I understand there’s not a 1:1 correlation there, but I think for the Saints more runs would improve our running game. Ingram, and Ivory to a lesser extent, are the types of backs you can wear out the front four of a defense with and because of that will have more success later in games IF you ran them early and often.

I’m not naive enough to think that we’re going to run the ball that way, though, so I’d settle for some more traditional playcalling. Just run the damn ball on first down, don’t worry whether they expect it or not, and force your will on them. Or, conversely, don’t call that first down running play on 2nd and 10 after an incompletion. It just seems like the playcalling hasn’t been doing our running game any favors.

by sammasaaron on Nov 2, 2011 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

You are being rather CP-esque.

How can you possibly judge the effectiveness of a run game that doesn’t happen. No one get positive runs every time they run it. Even Steven Jackson, didn’t have positive yards on every play against us. Yes, running even when its not working well will, or rather, can lead to better runs. Chip at the Defense long enough, and you will wear them down. Especially in a game like last week, when your passing game is totally ineffective. The best drive of the game came near the end, when we didn’t have enough time to do it, when we ran more than passed. If we had committed, to the run earlier in the game, before it got so out of hand, we could have altered the course of the game. And I said could have, not would have. The problem is we will never know because we kept doing the same thing over and over, which wasn’t working.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Nov 2, 2011 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

We could argue this for days… breaking down every situation.

- The drive later in the game is virtually meaningless… because the defense wasn’t trying as hard. They knew we had to score fast and would likely PASS, so they called more pass coverages… which made our run game seem more effective… so we called more runs… which wasted precious time… which is EXACTLY what they wanted us to do!

So, if we get far behind, yes… that will open up run lanes. :-)

- I don’t believe the theory of wearing down the defense by calling ineffective runs repeatedly so we can run it better later.

That sounds like the old Saints to me – sorry. We use to throw away a down running up the gut, on a high percentage of our 3 chances to get a first down. I’ve seen it a few times this year.

Is that what you want, CC58? It sounds like it is what sammasaaron wants.

- If we add to the suckage at the beginning, that means more punts early in the game.

More punts = fewer possession for us and more possessions for the other team

More possessions for the other team = a higher chance they will score more points than us

(This is why turnovers are so important.)

- The goal is to get first downs – NOW, and if we can setup looks and trickery for later on and wear down certain players (for the run or the pass to be more effective) so be it.

But, I don’t want to punt more and give the other team more opportunities to score and potentially get a lead on us.

Because, what happens when a team has a big lead? The blitz more which leads to potential QB injuries, sacks, or interceptions, or they play pass coverage…. ESPECIALLY, if we can’t effectively run the ball to get first downs against the base defense.

by Dan Kelly on Nov 2, 2011 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'd rather

Punt more and give them worse field position than have them INT the ball because they know we are going to force Drew to try to make a play that isn’t there. Your reasoning is to make 40 pass plays that don’t work. I’m done. Let’s just agree to disagree.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Nov 2, 2011 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

- The drive later in the game is virtually meaningless… because the defense wasn’t trying as hard. They knew we had to score fast … so we called more runs… which wasted precious time…

It was at the start of the 4th quarter! They weren’t anywhere close to running out of time. And that 10 play, 70 yard drive took less than five minutes.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -Albert Einstein

by HB-NOLA on Nov 2, 2011 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

“You are being rather CP-esque.”

That was a low blow. Take it back!

I’m not arguing just to argue. I’m not using obscure nonsensical references. I’m not trying to add “facts” simply for the sake of distracting you from the real argument. And, I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth or twisting the debate to make myself right.

-

Like I said to HB… If you believe our run game is currently effective, then I can certainly see how’d you and others want to run it (the same way) more often. I would too.

I have a differing opinion on the current state of our run game. IMO, it is currently not effective enough to simply add more runs and improve the offense. I believe that if we added more crap-tastic runs to the gameplan, we would punt more and give the other team more opportunities to score.

by Dan Kelly on Nov 2, 2011 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

That was low

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Nov 2, 2011 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

are you agreeing with me… “That WAS low”

or, are you saying that the first part of comment was low?

by Dan Kelly on Nov 2, 2011 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

When you run MORE it does not necessarily make future runs more EFFECTIVE.

This is the one thing we really disagree on. I’ve compiled some numbers from each of the Saints games and sorted the list by runs as a percentage of offense. (I wish we could use tables in comments – I had to use a crap load of nonbreaking spaces to hopefully make this readable.)

Opponent    # runs    % off    ypc    long    tfl (#-yds)    result

Rams          19           27%     3.0      9        3-4            L 21-31
Packers       21          29%     3.9     21       1-2            L 34-42
Texans        20           30%     5.1     30       2-4            W 40-33
Bucs           20           31%     3.5     16       2-7            L 20-26
Panthers     28           37%     3.6     23       2-4            W 30-27
Jaguars       33           41%     5.4     34       1-1            W 23-10
Bears          29           43%     4.1     12       2-6            W 30-13
Colts           38           51%     6.2     20       2-2            W 62-7

Now, there’s quite a few things you can notice about these numbers. First, they lost 3 out of 4 games when running less than 33% of the time. And that’s not really a function of being down by excessive margins and needing to pass to get back into the game. During most of the first half of the game against the Rams, the Saints were down by 10 or less, and yet only called 8 rushing plays the entire half – against the absolute worst rushing defense in the league.

Another important fact is that regardless of how many times they run, the number of tackles for loss remains nearly constant. And while I know you’re not a fan of yards/carry, it is a useful, if not all-encompassing, statistic. It can be skewed by a couple of big runs, as it was in the Texans game, but overall, it is reasonably well correlated with the number of runs.

Perhaps the most important thing to note is that the three most dominant wins all occurred when they had at least 40% rushing. And the only one of those games in which the Saints went completely run heavy to wind down the clock was against the Colts, but they were running about 40-45% throughout the first half as well.

Running the ball more often will produce overall better rushing performance. It wears down a defense, making it harder for them to cover sideline to sideline on outside runs, and harder to tackle on all of them. This is especially key for a team like the Saints who have three good RBs active for every game. Running more often should also decrease predictability, but that is dependent on tendencies with personnel groupings. If they only ever run with Ivory in the backfield, that’s not going to help. With Pierre and/or Sproles in the backfield, though, the defense will have no idea what’s coming. The same will hold true for Ingram the more they incorporate him into the passing game. Lastly, running more often also gives them access to a wider variety of running plays. If they only run 8 times in the first half, chances are the variety of running plays is pretty limited. If they run 12-15 times, though, they have more opportunities to use different plays, again decreasing predictability.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -Albert Einstein

by HB-NOLA on Nov 2, 2011 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

I’ve saved this one to my desktop to reply to later, I have something I need to finish at work.

But, you can remove the Colts game from that list.

Our game winning, game sealing, nail-in-the-coffin points were all scored in the first half… 60% pass. And, the 40% runs were very effective. I WANT MORE RUNNING LIKE THAT.

The second half runs, that put us over the 50% mark were all “time wasters”… we were not really trying to score because we didn’t need to. We were trying to run out the clock.

-

And why was the % so low against the Packers???

Because the runs that were called SUCKED A$$.

Instead of calling better runs, SP decided to call more passes. We were behind, and especially toward the end, we needed to score more quickly.

by Dan Kelly on Nov 2, 2011 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

Do you believe that our runs ARE effective and we need to call more of them? If so, that may be the breakdown in our communication.

You don’t think they need to be more effective, because you think they already are effective. Is that the case?

I do believe they are more effective than you are giving them credit for, but I certainly won’t argue against better production. But that’s my point – they get better production just by using it more often, and the numbers and eye-test bear that out.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -Albert Einstein

by HB-NOLA on Nov 2, 2011 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions  

Before the Rams game, our rushing attack was 4th in the league when adjusted for strength of opponent. Our ground game is far from a finished product, but to say it’s been totally ineffective is just as inaccurate. I’ll look for the link for confirmation of the 4th place thing.

by sammasaaron on Nov 2, 2011 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

There’s the link. Couldn’t find it from before the Rams game, but even after that debacle we’re still 9th.

by sammasaaron on Nov 2, 2011 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

Which numbers should I be looking at? (I’m not being sarcastic.)

by Dan Kelly on Nov 2, 2011 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

Rush Offense and Rush Rank. I’m not trying to argue that our run game is anywhere near where it needs to be or where I’d like it to be, but I think it hasn’t been all that terrible so far this year.

by sammasaaron on Nov 3, 2011 8:45 AM CDT up reply actions  

“I do believe they are more effective than you are giving them credit for”

Then I can honestly see why you want to run it more. I do.

If that’s the way you see it, then don’t let anyone stop you from arguing your side.

I see it differently.

by Dan Kelly on Nov 2, 2011 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

I was glad for a healthy Brees too. I commented to a friend about that during the game… hoping he would not get hurt.

by Dan Kelly on Nov 1, 2011 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

Don't know what button I pushed but obviously the wrong one.

Anyway, it was nice to have something to be happy about (the TD completion) in the midst of otherwise pure misery.

by catfishslime on Oct 31, 2011 2:11 PM CDT reply actions  

God it was awful

One thing after another. They went into complete and utter panic mode at the end of the 2nd half. I just wanted it to end.

Tiger's blood!!

by SarahT on Oct 31, 2011 4:24 PM CDT reply actions  

You know what REALLY pissed me off? Going for Drew's TD streak when the game was over.

That’s complete bulls***.
Nobody’s individual record should be put above the team.
The game was over. Brees should have been taken out of the game. What if he had been injured while trying to score a meaningless TD with 6 seconds left? If you can’t get it done when it matters kiss your stupid personal streak goodbye. Damn that pissed me off.
And yes, Dave, I agree 100% with your post.

In Breesus' name we play

by Breesus Christ Superstar on Oct 31, 2011 5:02 PM CDT reply actions  

Wait…..so you’re pissed off we kept Drew Brees in the game instead of giving up and crying and taking a knee in defeat for the last minute? Yea….and you bitch about me thumbs up.

-Lombardi was wrong...it's the internet, not fatigue that makes cowards of us all. But then again, what do you expect. Not like the guy could see the future.

by jeff.l.b on Oct 31, 2011 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

i agree with jeff.l.b. here. my initial reaction was "team play over personal stats/records"...

but in this case… his personal stats/records was the only thing that KEPT the team going. Plus, I don’t think they kept brees in so he would get the passing TD. Why did they let pierre thomas run the ball in for the first TD if that was the first and foremost in their mind?

 If not giving up and trying to get a touchdown and him keeping his personal streak happen to result in the same play-calling, then I see no foul in it whatsoever.

by pvinet on Oct 31, 2011 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions  

Nobody was crying, and I stand by my statement.
It was reckless. Brees injured = season over (see: Manning injured = Colts winless).
Put Chase Daniel in for garbage time. If the offensive line keeps playing like they did, he’ll need the reps.
I bitch about you for completely different reasons.

In Breesus' name we play

by Breesus Christ Superstar on Oct 31, 2011 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

Remember how we dumped on the Pats when they pulled Brady on Monday night (2009)?

That’s how pulling Drew would have been seen.

As for the TD streak? That’s Hall of Fame material. You don’t mess with that.

(Oh God I’m glad I missed that game!!!)

Alimony is like buying hay for a dead horse.

by Just 'Nother Day on Nov 1, 2011 12:56 AM CDT up reply actions  

Drew BREEESSS!! would trade all his streaks for a win. I really do believe that.

Now something's wrong
Where the Sherwood used to be

by stujo4 on Oct 31, 2011 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

yep yep

(see my post above for a more long winded agreement)

by Dan Kelly on Nov 1, 2011 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

the team was just trying to play as if the game was in reach..

the offense had sucked for 57 solid minutes.. it is important to attempt to finish on a better note..
it may have some carry over effect.. it does not matter that the defense was playing real soft.. the saints knew that.. it’s a simple matter of taking some sort of positive out of the outcome.. it is good practice for a 2 min. drill (live action practice) & red-zone offense..
if you going to concede.. why on-side kick down by 2 scores & less than a minute..?
didn’t NE attempt an on-side kick last night after surrendering a safety with just a few seconds left..?

by the 9th plague on Oct 31, 2011 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

If you don’t want to give up, then run a hurry up offense in the 4th quarter and certainly don’t punt down two scores with under 6 minutes to go. That was game over right then and there. Should have just put in the scrubs from that point on

In Breesus' name we play

by Breesus Christ Superstar on Oct 31, 2011 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

Once again, you can’t force plays and you’ve got to take what you’re being given by the defense.

When Drew BREEESSS!! forces a bullet into coverage for a completion or especially a touchdown, no one says “He shouldn’t have forced that one.” Except Frenchie.

Now something's wrong
Where the Sherwood used to be

by stujo4 on Oct 31, 2011 5:55 PM CDT reply actions  

You're referring to one specific play

I’m talking in more general terms throughout the course of a game. Yesterday, Drew tried too hard to make something out of nothing or out of very little. That’s okay to do every once in a while. But it’s not something that should be done regularly.

Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!

by Dave Cariello on Oct 31, 2011 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

Drew tried too hard to make something out of nothing

He looked around and saw his team mates weren’t going to do it, so he put the team on his shoulders AGAIN. It’s a well documented pattern. I guess they weren’t even motivated by their quarterback. Maybe he should have said “Don’t even send Devery out here. He can help us more if he’s on the bench. Any of you other overpaid punks want to go sit on the bench with Devery? Well, DO YA???” You have to get their attention. Dad’s up in the booth with his hotdogs and pills.

Now something's wrong
Where the Sherwood used to be

by stujo4 on Oct 31, 2011 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

He looked around and saw his team mates weren’t going to do it, so he put the team on his shoulders AGAIN. It’s a well documented pattern.

I agree 100%. Happens all the time. Sometimes it works out well. Sometimes it doesn’t.

My only point is that throwing the ball deep into coverage isn’t the only way to put the team on your shoulders and pick up the big chunks of yardage he necessary. If Drew opts to throw the ball into coverage for an incompletion as opposed to hitting his check down receiver, he’s only continuing to hurt his team. Have we all forgotten that slow and steady wins the race?

The first interception is a perfect example of this. With only a minute left in the 2nd quarter and down by multiple scores, I get the impression Drew was hungry for a TD before the half. So he forced a poor throw to Henderson as opposed to hitting a wide open Pierre Thomas with room to run. It’s poor decision making, plain and simple. I’m sure Drew will look at the tape this week, see the same thing and agree with me.

And if he doesn’t think his teammates are helping him out, why make one of those teammates (Henderson) try to make a back shoulder catch along the sidelines as opposed to tossing a sure thing to another teammate (Pierre)?

Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!

by Dave Cariello on Oct 31, 2011 8:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

HA!
“that slow and steady wins the race decline”

There. Fixed…

Amazing how you don’t get the heat we “slow-decline” fans are getting for stating the obvious. Must be your PR’s skills…

But as you eloquently demonstrated it, Brees played poorly. Might I add again? Is high-risk decision have been a catastrophy since 2010. Can a bad streak that long be fix? I doubt it…

 

Repeat? Under construction...

by FrenchFreak on Oct 31, 2011 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

Pre-reply

Just a little comparison to try and better illustrate my point: if you wanted to be rich, what’s the best way to do it? You can keep buying lottery tickets and hope you finally hit it one day (forcing deeper throws into coverage) which has a low percentage of happening and actually wastes money. Or you can save a little bit over time and know you’ll get there eventually, making your money work for you in the process (short, high-percentage completions).

Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!

by Dave Cariello on Oct 31, 2011 8:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

I’m already on record for my feelings regarding Brees. I’m just not a wise ass about it so feathers don’t get as ruffled.

Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!

by Dave Cariello on Oct 31, 2011 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

I’m just not a wise ass about it so feathers don’t get as ruffled.

But it’s so much fun…

Repeat? Under construction...

by FrenchFreak on Oct 31, 2011 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

Moody? No.

Hopelessly hopeful? Pretty much…

You guys want to see improvement week by week? That’s you’re prerogative. I want to win now and win as much game as I can cause that window is closing pretty fast. Specially when it’s pretty clear Brees isn’t getting any better…By the way, tag him…

To lazy to link you to 2008/09 posts of mine but be my guest.

Repeat? Under construction...

by FrenchFreak on Oct 31, 2011 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ha ha!

Rec’d!

Repeat? Under construction...

by FrenchFreak on Nov 2, 2011 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions  

Greened

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Nov 2, 2011 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

Fun and feather rufflin...

It’s fun for the other side too, to have their counter moments, like that Brees, until St. Louis, was completing 70.9% of his passes. Superbowl territory.

And then Sunday happened.

I’m on both sides, really. The beauty of the LSD ha (long slow decline) prediction is that it is an eventuality that is going to eventuate. Time tested and true. But, when it began and does he have more good than bad left, that’s all that’s debatable.

Do you remember the Chicago game where you credited Drew for making good decisions? Or maybe it was a combination of Green Bay and Chicago? I laughed along with my husband watching Drew throw the ball away with as much precision, effort, and crispness as an awesome completion.

You could almost tell where the practice focus had been. And now this?

I’m completely and fully on board the CTBAAA wagon. Carries Team On Back Again! Again! Again! Unless the game’s in the bag or effortless early on they’re basically just waiting on Brees to save the day.

I’m not knocking the rest of the team so much as hoping someone points to this as a tendency and with the aim at correcting it.

"I am a Saints player. Look, sir" Patrick Robinson

by CrazyforColston on Oct 31, 2011 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

Gotta say I agree mostly with Stujo

It is true that Drew may have been guilty of trying to make something out of nothing.. On the other hand, it looked like most of his offensive teammates were doing their best to make Nothing out of Something..

Meacham and Henderson are not earning their keep. Period. Full stop. But they are not alone because similar condemnation can be given to others. Graham has been great, Sproles has been unbelievable. Brees has had a lot more fine moments than uggh moments. The guards have generally been good to excellent. Until yesterday, Bushrod has been pretty reliable. Fullback has been an upgrade. So not all is a downer by any stretch.

But the truth in the NFL is that unless you at least bring your B game on Sunday, anyone can beat you. Yesterday, the Saints left their A, B, C and D game in New Orleans.

I am pretty confident this team will bounce back strong. Real strong.

"I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it." Groucho Marx

by BenDerDonDat on Oct 31, 2011 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

greggrosenthal gregg rosenthal

Drew Brees already has been sacked 19 times with 10 ints. Sacked 20 times with 11 picks all of 2009.

Now something's wrong
Where the Sherwood used to be

by stujo4 on Oct 31, 2011 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

dave.. you just can't play in this offense thinking "omg i may throw an interception.."

there’s the baltimore offense for that..
there are some risks that are taken every other down.. that since brees is more times successful than not, go totally unnoticed..
there is a confidence that you gotta have to pull the trigger and try to squeeze it those tight windows..
when a defense is taking away your 2-3 receivers with 6-7 men in zone coverage.. & still disrupting or even sacking the QB with a 3-4 men rush.. there in nothing but just punting or interceptions.. and we don’t like to punt a lot..
i thought brees played badly, yesterday.. not dismal bad.. just bad..

by the 9th plague on Oct 31, 2011 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Soooooo

It was YOU!

Alimony is like buying hay for a dead horse.

by Just 'Nother Day on Nov 1, 2011 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions  

AND

Your prediction!!

PLEASE, IN ALL HONESTY, DON’T DO THAT AGAIN!

by Dan Kelly on Nov 1, 2011 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well I'l share my part of the game.

I didn’t make my game day gumbo, and instead when with a cajun style Pork roast and white beans and ham. Wanted to try something different because my game day gumbo didn’t have the same majic as usually. Or so it seemed. I just didn’t know.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Nov 1, 2011 2:17 AM CDT reply actions  

Game = Blame

Same difference I guess.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Nov 1, 2011 2:17 AM CDT up reply actions  

im a rams fan

What i don’t get is why all you guys are blaming your team so much for this loss. Your clearly the better team but the Rams put together 60 better minutes of football on sunday its no ones “fault” that you lost. You had an off Sunday I’m sure you guys will be solid when you hit the field again. Honestly, this game coulda been 50-20 with Sam Bradford back there. Feeley missed lloyd 3x open deep for TDs early in the game that would’ve blown it open.

You had a bad week but it doesn’t mean your team is incompetent or incapable of winning. The Rams just managed to put a great game together thats it nothing to pout about.

by zaviex on Nov 1, 2011 11:17 AM CDT reply actions  

We are just frustrated by the play calling mostly.

You had a great game plan for us and we didn’t adjust to it. That’s what makes us so mad. We can’t let Drew get sacked 6 times, and just keep doing the same things over and over. We have quality running backs and just don’t use them. We don’t mind losing as good game, but when we see one like we played Sunday we get pissed. Don’t worry we’ll blow off steam and move on. I can’t believe how much I’ve let this game get under my skin. I’m usually one of the voices of reason here after a loss, but this one stunk. Thanks for your kind words of encouragement though. Hope your season turns around for you and this one doesn’t sting some much down the road.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Nov 1, 2011 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions  

Then...

when they started getting to Drew, he was deer in the headlights of a freight train.

by Dan Kelly on Nov 1, 2011 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

And...

I question how much input SP had in practice and gameplanning.

by Dan Kelly on Nov 1, 2011 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yo where has that Preston guy been?

Haters gon' hate...

by TAYDIGGA on Nov 3, 2011 4:00 PM CDT reply actions  

Must be working a lot lately.

Self-employed I think. Has to get it when it’s hot.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Nov 4, 2011 2:23 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