If Sean Payton Had a Time Machine...

by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 23, 2011 4:46 PM CDT

We all remember the last game the Saints played in 2010. It was a surprising playoff upset delivered to us by the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks. We mainly remember how poorly the defense performed as Matt Hasselbeck and his tight ends seemingly scored at will. Was this loss a result of overconfidence or more of the injuries suffered in the regular season finale against the Bucs when our hopes of attaining the no. 1 seed were riding on the lowly Panthers somehow defeating the Falcons?

Yesterday, Coach Payton expressed some regrets over how he approached this game. You'll remember that Malcolm Jenkins, Jimmy Graham, and Chris Ivory were all injured against the Bucs and were then unavailable to face the Seahawks the week after. These key injuries have Coach kinda second guessing his strategy for the regular season finale.

"We thought, hey, it would be easy enough to get in there (in the Bucs game), pay attention (to the Falcons-Panthers score) and then very quickly if we felt it went a certain direction, we could begin to rest our guys," Payton said. "That didn't happen quick enough. A lot of these injuries happened early. But still, though, looking back at it, that's something we think about, something I think about."

"I don't know that we felt like Carolina had a chance to win that game," Payton said. "It's hard to say that. But it would have been a game three years ago if Jake Delhomme is the quarterback. Then maybe they might have had a chance. ... I 'what-if' that a little bit."

Pat Yasinskas has this additional Payton quote:

“I beat myself up or what if the last game of the year where Atlanta is playing Carolina at the same time we’re playing Tampa,’’ Payton said. “There’s always that outside chance that you feel like something could happen differently and the fact that that involved a No. 1 seed was pretty significant. It was played at the same time but playing that game differently and resting some guys.’’
Payton’s voice trailed off as he mentioned the fact Malcolm Jenkins, Chris Ivory and Jimmy Graham all got hurt in that game and had to miss the playoff game at Seattle.

Hindsight is always 20/20, so I don't blame Payton for the decisions he made against the Bucs. In the NFL, surprising upsets can happen any week. That said, everyone on the planet (including John Fox) pretty much thought the Panthers had no shot against the Falcons that week, so I'm not sure what Payton was thinking.

Losing Jenkins, Graham, and Ivory certainly didn't help us against the Hawks. Perhaps the biggest loss was Jenkins as the Saints secondary looked lost against what Hasselbeck was doing to them. Roman Harper has kinda been labeled the goat of this game and I have to believe that not having Jenkins on the field with him may be partly to blame. After all, he didn't suck that much during the regular season.

Poll

The loss of which player hurt the Saints the most against Seattle?

Malcolm Jenkins

183 votes

Jimmy Graham

11 votes

Chris Ivory

69 votes

263 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

voted for Jenkins

with Ivory as a strong second

Atheists just take a pass,
Watch football in their underpants.

by Hans Petersen on Mar 23, 2011 5:59 PM CDT reply actions 3 recs

I second that!

"It's more than a handful. It's a handsful."

by Dan Kelly on Mar 23, 2011 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions

boom rec'd it

Have to believe that Malcolm Jenkins would have straightened up the defense, by the second half anyway.

I'm loud and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because somebody's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not.

by stujo4 on Mar 23, 2011 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions

he would have maljenked

or jenkpalmed a couple of Seahawks for sure.

Atheists just take a pass,
Watch football in their underpants.

by Hans Petersen on Mar 24, 2011 8:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Can't believe I missed this the first time through...

I think Payton wants more than a time machine.

He wants one of these bad boys:

Atheists just take a pass,
Watch football in their underpants.

by Hans Petersen on Mar 23, 2011 7:07 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

If you ask me

All of them.

by BigTMill on Mar 23, 2011 7:33 PM CDT reply actions

Injuries played a big factor as well as "Overconfidence"

That's interesting. You know what makes me sad? YOU DO!!! Maybe we should chug on over to mambypandyland...or maybe we can find some self confidence for you YA JACKWAGON!!!!!!

(tears) Tissue?.....Crybaby.

by Jricky70 on Mar 23, 2011 9:00 PM CDT reply actions

I voted for Jenkins

Like you said, Harper didn’t suck that bad all year. In fact, he played really good most of the season. Losing Jenkins meant Sharper started. Man, I’m kind of glad they lowballed Sharper last year because he didn’t earn his money this year. He always seemed to be a step slow. Two steps in Seattle.

Peyton, I can eat Oreos faster than you!!!!

by mknkachow on Mar 23, 2011 10:51 PM CDT reply actions

Definitely Jenkins. Aside from his fumble, I thought Julius Jones played his a** off in that game. To expect any more out of Ivory on a per touch basis is wishful thinking, though the spells in rotation would have helped a little.

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

by coldpizza on Mar 24, 2011 7:35 AM CDT reply actions

I think the biggest thing that hurt you guys was the lack of tackling

your offense played well enough to win, you all were just couldn’t tackle to save your life.

Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Jack Butler, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene, Curtis Martin, Willie Roaf, Andre Reed and Jerry Kramer
"Any statement beginning with the words 'In truth' is almost always a lie." Mordred Deschain
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan

by WVPiratesfan on Mar 24, 2011 8:48 AM CDT reply actions

Agreed. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Takeaways carried a mediocre defense the season prior. That defense improved on the whole in 2010, but it still isn’t where it needs to be, in terms of raw talent and basic fundamentals. It still relies too heavily on the strip and when that doesn’t come, they’re exposed for what they were all along. Of course, failure to sustain drives on offense also plays into that. Just not so much in the Seattle game. Put it this way … had the offense played that efficiently over the course of 16 games, we would have never been in Seattle (i.e., on the road in a playoff game) to begin with. More reliable backs, better blocking up front, a more balanced pass-run ratio and an improved front seven, in terms of personnel (can’t get blood from a turnip).

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

by coldpizza on Mar 24, 2011 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions

Takeaways carried a mediocre defense the season prior. That defense improved on the whole in 2010.

UGH! Dude.

Takeaways made a mediocre defense a very good defense the season prior.

That defense improved in some areas in 2010, but had a “steep decline” in one of the most important areas – yes, turnovers.

I’m not the only one that thinks they’re important. Two other people who think they are one of the most important things for a team to win… any guesses?

A: SEAN PAYTON & GREGG WILLIAMS!

"It's more than a handful. It's a handsful."

by Dan Kelly on Mar 24, 2011 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions

Who’s saying they’re not important? Variance in turnover ratio from one season to the next is to be expected. Trust me, I run a FF league that awards defensive points based on turnovers alone. The leaderboard is different every year. The same can’t be said of team defenses that are talent laden and/or fundamentally sound, in terms of sure tackling, breaking up passes, etc. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Baltimore, San Diego … THAT’S where other DCs aspire to be. Gregg Williams is no exception. Generally speaking, the teams that limit yardage CONTINUE to limit yardage. That’s barring any major personnel changes. That’s why emphasis should always be placed on forcing three and outs, rather than on takeaways. Sure, both are important … you just can’t hang your hat on your opponent succumbing to errors, forced or unforced. If you can force them ON TOP of being a stout defense, that’s outstanding. Compare the Jenkins strip of Roy Williams on Thanksgiving, to the non-strip of Marshawn Lynch all the way down the field. Once the first down is attained, both are acts of desperation. One worked, one didn’t. If Williams doesn’t catch the ball in the first place and Shanle wraps up at the line of scrimmage, BOTH work. We in essence force TWO turnovers in the form punts and take over at roughly the same point on the field Jenkins recovered the fumble each time.

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

by coldpizza on Mar 24, 2011 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions

The MOST important aspect of any defense is the exact opposite of the most important aspect of any offense … limiting your opponent’s number of snaps (basically TOP). Yardage surrendered, points surrendered … all of that can be overcome by a potent offense, provided they’re afforded the time with which to do so. So yes, if your defense is able to decrease snap counts more substantially by forcing turnovers than they are by forcing three-and-outs, more power to them. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a defensive unit that adept at generating takeaways — or that pourous otherwise (depnding on how you look at it) — for that to be considered a sound M.O. Great crutch, lousy mantra.

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

by coldpizza on Mar 24, 2011 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions

Points win and lose games, not yardage or snaps.

Colts won a game with 20% of possession this year. Pats won a game with something like 20% of snaps.

You cannot, by definition, win a game if you surrender more points than you score. Scoring D is most important, for the glaringly obvious fact that you can with even if you score 2 points on a solitary safety… as long as you stop the other team from scoring at all.

In saying that, one of the easiest ways of stopping the other team from scoring is making it so they don’t have the ball to score with, and that’s O as much as anything.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Contributing Writer at PatsPulpit

by Comedic.Sans on Mar 27, 2011 3:40 AM CDT up reply actions

Agreed. The defense was incredibly awful that game

36 points should be plenty enough to win. But not on that day.

That's interesting. You know what makes me sad? YOU DO!!! Maybe we should chug on over to mambypandyland...or maybe we can find some self confidence for you YA JACKWAGON!!!!!!

(tears) Tissue?.....Crybaby.

by Jricky70 on Mar 24, 2011 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions

Williams

I still think the defense was so bad and we lost because Williams had his mind on coaching in Denver. His mind wasn’t anywhere near coaching the Saints defense that day.

by tommy v on Mar 24, 2011 1:38 PM CDT reply actions

i voted for Jenkins because if Jenkins is there

then they probably pull Harper off of the TE and put Jenkins on him

Let's have a 2011 season. Get a deal done

by skinnykinney on Mar 24, 2011 4:40 PM CDT reply actions

Your sentence makes me wish TE was the abbreviation for field.

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

by coldpizza on Mar 25, 2011 8:23 AM CDT up reply actions

Voted for Ivory

The way Hasselbeck was throwing the ball around that day i’m not sure Jenkins would have had near the impact he would have had otherwise. Some of those throws that beat us would have beat deion sanders and ronnie lott. When you watch that game the thing that stands out to me was that despite the score we never really had control of the game. IMO ivory would have been the difference maker in that game. Check the plays that cost us the most: reggie’s dropped TD, JUJO’s inability to convert short yardage or on the screen pass, those things were killers and i firmly believe that had Ivory been around we’d have faried much better.

by jray2000 on Mar 25, 2011 12:54 AM CDT reply actions

Check the plays that cost us the most: reggie’s dropped TD, JUJO’s inability to convert short yardage or on the screen pass, those things were killers and i firmly believe that had Ivory been around we’d have faried much better.

Check the plays that behooved us most, all by JUJO: four first downs converted (as opposed to one failure), two touchdowns (one of which would have been a fifth first down conversion, had he not broken the plane), one fumble recovery/advancement (by Brees, offsetting the one Jones lost), gains of 8, 11 and 33 yards on screen passes (defying your assertion of his ineffectiveness in that dept). All told, 120 all-purpose yards and 12 points.

I'm sure Ivory would have improved on that performance by leaps and bounds.

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

by coldpizza on Mar 25, 2011 8:50 AM CDT reply actions

whoa...

I agree with your contention that dude performed well AND i did not hear you disagree that WE NEVER HAD CONTROL of the game even with a 10 point lead. Despite JJ’s fantastic yardage totals, TD’s, receptions and 1st down conversion-rate-%-ratio could, woulda, shoulda, blah- blah- blah we still lost and i have not heard one person you included remark that we would have won by providing more handoffs to JJ.
You surprise me CP, simply spouting off JJ’s highlights as though they existed in and of themselves does nothing to place them in the context of the game other than to say that they existed. The undercurrent being and you must be right becasue…well, look at his cumulative performance. Whether or not Ivory “would have improved improved on that performance by leaps and bounds” is not relevant. What is compelling is that Ivory’s strength is that his running style lends more to that run-pass-balance-3 and out- T.O.P. ratio thingy your always complaining we lack….WIN OR LOSE.
As good as jenkins is, his pressence would not have changed harper’s coverage and tackling ability or even prevented any of those completions muchless influenced offensive balance. from what i saw in that game defense was not going to win it for either team…better offense was and did.

by jray2000 on Mar 26, 2011 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions