2011 New Orleans Saints Training Camp: Pat Y. Comes To Town

by Hans Petersen on Aug 13, 2011 2:00 PM CDT

Earlier this week, the espn.com NFC South blogger Pat Yasinksas (or as the great enunciator Bobby Hebert calls him, "Pat Yasinsky"), spent some time at the Saints Training Camp, and today he posted this piece on the Saints as part of his Camp Confidential series.

Not much new here that many of us don't already know, and I think Yasinskas has a bit more insight than your typical national media member. The article includes links to the Panthers and Falcons Camp Confidential stories (the Buccaneers one hasn't been posted yet) that you may be interested in reading, as well as a link to espn.com's NFL Training Camp page.

Make the jump for my personal highlights of his story...

Yasinskas quotes much "Vilma-talk" in his opening, including this bold assertion:

"It's really very, very simple,'' the middle linebacker for the New Orleans Saints said. "If we want to get back to being the Super Bowl champions, we have to play defense the way we played it in 2009, not the way we did in 2010. We have to go out there and start making turnovers happen again.''

Vilma continues and expands on this here...

"Look, we still had [quarterback] Drew Brees and all sorts of weapons on the other side of the ball,'' Vilma said. "Last year's problem wasn't our offense. It was our defense. We just didn't make things happen the way we did in 2009. We played well at times, but we also left a lot of big plays on the field because, for whatever reason, we just didn't make the same plays we did the year before.''

I find this to be an interesting point, as I have always believed that for the most part (aside from the horrendous showing by the defense vs. Seattle in January), that it was the offense's shortcomings and inconsistencies that were more to blame for the 2010 dropoff than the lack of turnovers (to his credit, Pat Y gets in to this a bit later in the article). More takeaways would have helped the Saints win more, of course, but I just think the offense's lack of an effective running game, increased INTs, and lower scoring output had more to do with it than the lack of turnovers. (This would be a great point of discussion for the comment area.)

Pat then addresses these Three Hot Issues (I have only included his main idea response for each in the quote box):

1. Can the defense really get back to 2009 form? Yes, it's very possible.

2. Is the defense really to blame for last year? Not quite as much as Vilma claims.

3. How will the Saints use their running backs? Whether you loved him or not, Reggie Bush is gone, and that's going to have an impact.

There's more detail/rationale that you can find in the article itself, so definitely check it out.

Yasinskas names Will Herring as his Biggest Surprise, and Tracy Porter as his Biggest Disappointment of camp so far, and he also highlights Robert Meachem, Shaun Rogers, Alex Barron, Thomas Morstead, and the linebackers in a bullet point section.

He stops short of making a "List-Worthy" prediction or even a weaseling and waffling "possible outlook" statement, so you'll have to write your own based on what he covered in the story.

In fact, that's what I'd love to see you provide in the comment section - write what you think Yasinskas would have written as a concluding paragraph or wrap-up prediction. Go!

Poll

What do you think was the most significant reason for the Saints dropoff in performance from 2009 to 2010?

Lack of takeaways by the defense.

65 votes

Ineffective running game.

277 votes

Not enough running the ball.

31 votes

More INTs by the offense.

49 votes

Less scoring. (Duh.)

11 votes

Other/some combination of the above.

133 votes

566 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 35 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Can the defense really get back to 2009 form?

Need to find a time machine for Sharper. And all those rookie QB’s.

Samantha Mumba!

Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allen Poe

by stujo4 on Aug 13, 2011 2:24 PM CDT reply actions

I like her shirt.

"The Colts were punching at it and grabbing for it, trying to get it out. But I didn't care if they broke all my fingers. There was absolutely no way in the world I was going to let go of that ball. That was our ball.''-Chris Reis

by FuSoYa on Aug 13, 2011 3:22 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

can't

really find fault with anything!

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Aug 13, 2011 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Ineffective Running Game

At the risk of getting a TOP tirade going here, the biggest problem was the ineffectiveness of our running game. The lack of a true running threat caused us problems in passing and scoring on offense. It mean defenses didn’t have to respect the run and we couldn’t force them to be honest. They were able to key on our passing game leading to more INTs and lower scoring. The lower scoring and general offensive struggles directly affected our turnover rate. Because teams were not forced to play catch up in the games, unlike in 2009, there were less turnovers. Blame it on injuries or lack of attempts but ultimately the running game productivity, as well as infrequent attempts caused both a fall-off in points scored, as well as opportunities for turn-overs.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Aug 13, 2011 2:27 PM CDT reply actions

Give me the 2010 defense over the 2009 defense any day.

4th in the league in total defense, 7th in the league in scoring defense. The best Saints defense in 18 seasons. Since the Dome Patrol. It wasn’t flashy, it was just effective. Very much so.

The 2009 defense was 25th in the league in total defense and 20th in scoring defense. That’s nothing to aspire to.

Takeaways are great. Sweet, sweet gravy. You’d rather have them than not have them. The Saints should aspire to as many takeaways as they can get. But ultimately, takeaways aren’t really a weapon because they can’t be wielded. You can’t just draw up a turnover anytime you really need one. They happen when they happen. And they’re certainly not what a sane person would build a defense upon, for the same reason.

The goal of a sound defense is to limit the opponents’ scoring (first) and yardage gained (second) and time of possession (third.) To turn touchdowns into field goals, to turn field goal attempts into punts, and to turn punts from midfield into punts from inside the 20. The 2010 defense did those things better than any Saints defense in almost two decades.

The 2010 defense CARRIED the team to a win in week 1 by holding the Vikings to 9 points when the offense scored only 14. They CARRIED the team to another win in week 4 when the offense only scored 16 against Carolina. They CARRIED the team to a 17-14 win against Atlanta in week 16. And they held Pittsburgh to 10 points when the offense only scored 20.

Meanwhile, Hartley failed to win the week 3 game against Atlanta (he didn’t “lose” that game, but he failed to win it… the winning kick was in the air and it was a chip shot.) The Arizona and Cleveland games were decided by two giveaways (in each game!) by the offense returned for touchdowns.

I respect Vilma’s willingness to throw himself (and his defensive teammates) on their own sword for last year. But if he actually believes that (and I suspect that he doesn’t) he’s dead wrong.
Win those three games in which the defense was let down by the offense and Hartley, and the Saints are 14-2 heading into the playoffs as the #1 seed and quite possibly go to a second straight Super Bowl, despite all the other issues we’ve been overanalyzing since this time last year.

by Grandmaster Wang on Aug 13, 2011 3:50 PM CDT reply actions 8 recs

EXACTLY - I agree 100% with everything you said there, Wang

Thumbs up, everybody...
For rock and roll!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Aug 13, 2011 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions

x2

by FuSoYa on Aug 13, 2011 4:14 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Grandmaster Wang pretty much nailed it out the park. The only thing I’ll add (if we are going to focus on the defense) is that you can’t rely on turnovers and overwhelming numbers of blitzes. More to the point, scheme can only carry you so far; sooner or later you have to bring in more talented guys at play-making positions. It seems the Saints have done that this year with Rogers, Franlklin, Jordan, Wilson, and Herring.

I’m not on the Herring bandwagon (yet), and Jordan/Wilson are unproven at this point, but all acquistions are a step in the right direction of replacing mediocre talent will potential upgrades. Just the type of moves that will allow those blitzes to become more EFFICIENT. It does little good to send 30 blitzes and only generate pressure on 8 of them. Upgrading the talent gets the job done better, so that you don’t have to force a blitz. It’s exactly why I’m excited. The unique RFA rules in place in 2010 as well as picking 32 in the draft limited the Saints options. So I’m not pointing the finger at “not addressing weak positions”. This year they were in a better position to do so, and it seemed they did so aggressively.

The 2009 defense was effective more because the Saints offense put them in Nickle and gave them a lead to defend. Yes, Sharper had some pick 6’s, but look who they came against— QB’s witn no experience who in many cases (not all) were trying to overcome a deficit and playing one dimensional. The biggest difference in what the 2010 defense had to work with wasn’t a lack of turnovers, but a lack lead to defend.

I think the 2011 defense will have more TALENT to create pressure on its own accord— despite whether the offense has built a lead or not, and the TALENT to shut down the interior run and force the opposition to become more one dimensional— despite the lead our offense may or may not have. Those two factors will inherantly lead to more turnovers. So the end result will look like a more disciplined and wiser to the system group like 2010, who looks good in yards/pts given up, as well as a turnover machine akin to the 2009 group. Translation— with the talent the Saints added, the defense will have the best of both 2010 and 2009.

Stop wearing a wishbone where your backbone ought to be. Would you be convicted in court of being a Christian? Happiness is shared, and comes from sharing.

by Preston J. Gary, Jr. on Aug 13, 2011 9:58 PM CDT up reply actions

The biggest difference in what the 2010 defense had to work with wasn’t a lack of turnovers, but a lack of a two score lead to defend.

Stop wearing a wishbone where your backbone ought to be. Would you be convicted in court of being a Christian? Happiness is shared, and comes from sharing.

by Preston J. Gary, Jr. on Aug 13, 2011 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions

how did we get that two score lead?

a. We got a turnover early that turned into points and/or
b. The defense actually scored some of those points.

:-)

"It ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and KEEP MOVING FORWARD. That's how winning is done!" - Rocky

by Dan Kelly on Aug 14, 2011 7:40 AM CDT up reply actions

i think the real reason the saints did not reach thier true potential is...

injuries. some other things but mainly injuries

by bannor d on Aug 13, 2011 5:30 PM CDT reply actions

Just wanted to say hello, have been reading da chronic for a coupla years now almost daily. Never made an account till now. I really appreciate the work done here and hope to contribute some in the future.

by Black and Gold Panda on Aug 13, 2011 5:43 PM CDT reply actions

Welcome. Cant wait for another 3 and 1/2 hrs til the saints game is on replay for us out of town fans. Who Dat?!

by saints fan in cowboyland! on Aug 13, 2011 5:59 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Welcome to CSC!!!

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

by Dave Cariello on Aug 13, 2011 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Welcome to CSC!! Thanks for contributing.

May I suggest a profile pic for you?

"It ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and KEEP MOVING FORWARD. That's how winning is done!" - Rocky

by Dan Kelly on Aug 14, 2011 7:42 AM CDT up reply actions

SCRATCH THAT....

I didn’t see the PhotoShopped face until I clicked POST.

How about…

Or..

"It ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and KEEP MOVING FORWARD. That's how winning is done!" - Rocky

by Dan Kelly on Aug 14, 2011 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions

Yes welcome B&G Panda

But maybe this one would fit it here better. He,He.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Aug 14, 2011 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions

The one with the pissed off panda

The beer and popcorn flying around, fangs. may just have to consider that one.

by Black and Gold Panda on Aug 14, 2011 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions

U knee'd to photo shop it first

and get rid o dat green.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Aug 14, 2011 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions

What if he/she went to Tulane? :-)

"It ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and KEEP MOVING FORWARD. That's how winning is done!" - Rocky

by Dan Kelly on Aug 14, 2011 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions

quess

it would fit in on Saint Patty’s day.

INGRAMANIA equals LOMBARDI 2012

by cajuncommando58 on Aug 14, 2011 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions

What was that Jon?

“If we want to get back to being the Super Bowl champions. We have to go out there and start making turnovers happen again.

Thanks, Jon!

I get it now. I see the light.

"It ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and KEEP MOVING FORWARD. That's how winning is done!" - Rocky

by Dan Kelly on Aug 13, 2011 6:13 PM CDT reply actions

INTs, ineffectiveness of rushing, lack of rushing, less scoring .... all miss the point

The single biggest problem for the Saints last year, and I was harping on it from week 1, was the offensive line. The didn’t protect Brees nearly as well as in years past, and he made a lot more rushed/errant throws, some of which turned into INTs. The line was also much worse at opening holes for the running game, and this was a problem for the original RBs as well as the guys signed later in the year.

And if last night’s game is any indication of how the offensive line is going to play this year, I’ll be surprised if the Saints even make the playoffs. Brees and Daniel both had consistent pressure in their face, from right up the middle. I don’t know if that’s because Kreutz is not as good as he used to be, or if it’s a matter of getting all 5 guys in sync. I hope it’s the latter and they can get their sh*t together before the regular season starts.

by HB-NOLA on Aug 13, 2011 9:33 PM CDT reply actions

Even if you took away all of Brees’ extra INT’s, we still had a better turonver ratio in 2009.

If last night’s game is any indication of how the defensive line and defense is going to play this year, I’ll be surprised if the Saints don’t make sure Super Bowl… despite what the offensive line does.

"It ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and KEEP MOVING FORWARD. That's how winning is done!" - Rocky

by Dan Kelly on Aug 14, 2011 7:49 AM CDT up reply actions

~~sure~~ → the

"It ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and KEEP MOVING FORWARD. That's how winning is done!" - Rocky

by Dan Kelly on Aug 14, 2011 7:49 AM CDT up reply actions

But if you take away half of Brees’ INT’s, we win at least 2 more games last season, based solely on the points directly from turnovers. Then we have homefield advantage in the playoffs. Then we don’t lose to the worst playoff team in the history of the sport.
Long story short, if Brees has to do near the amount of dancing he had to do last year just to have 2 seconds to pass, the Saints are in trouble, with or without extra turnovers. And the O-line has just as much to do with that as the RB’s, if not more.

by FuSoYa on Aug 14, 2011 8:46 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

Has the repositioning of the umpire affected our O-line? last year Evans was pinged
plenty of times and this could be a part of Drews drop-off .
I think the Colts struggled in the same area last year as well.

That could`ve been me,a useless gnome* fishing
for turds in a birthing pool.

by saint_chew on Aug 14, 2011 6:57 AM CDT reply actions

X3

GM Wang, I think you nailed it. What I like about the Vilma comments is the sense of ownership. You know that Vilma knows they had a solid Defense last year, but he still said the failings were on him and his side of the ball. We know that Drew would have said the same if asked the same question. It is nice to see that the two biggest leaders on this team have the drive to get better. That is something that you don’t see across the league and only boade well for our boys.

by Paul Harris on Aug 14, 2011 7:03 AM CDT reply actions

Drew's increase in INT's (11) was a big factor, but the drop in Defensive takeaways was a bigger factor.

Giveaways: http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/giveaways-per-game

1.5 in 2009
1.9 in 2010

Takeaways: http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/takeaways-per-game

2.5 in 2009
1.5 in 2010

The increase in offensive turnovers per game was 0.4 per game, but…

The decrease in defensive turnovers per game was 1.0 per game.

Which gives you a turnover differential of…
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/turnover-margin-per-game

+.9 in 2009
-.4 in 2010

Winning boils down to giving your offense more opportunities to score points* (no matter how long it takes them to score those points), and limiting your opponents opportunities (not time, but number of possessions**) to score.

*This was the reason for “Ambush”. SP said “We needed to find a way to steal a possession.”

**The reason it’s not time is because teams can score in 10 seconds, and often do when their backs are against the wall.

"It ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and KEEP MOVING FORWARD. That's how winning is done!" - Rocky

by Dan Kelly on Aug 14, 2011 8:01 AM CDT reply actions

i think both defenses were equal

very different, but equal. turnovers are always huge so that’s what propelled the 2009 defense. That’s hard to do year in and year out at the high level they performed at. The 2010 defdense was more stable and balanced and actually the kind of defense you really want as that is a little easier to rely on than one lie the 2009.

But, as far as the differences between 2009- 2010 in terms of success – it all boiled down to the running game and specifically the injuries. We had injuries (significant) to PT, Bush, Ivory, Hamilton, J Jones, L Betts, Evans (I think) and we were running with guys who had very little practice time and were signed mid season. We also had a guy from Green Bay who’s name I forget.

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 Aug 14, 2011 9:43 AM CDT reply actions

DaShawn or Deshawn Wynn, I believe

Thumbs up, everybody...
For rock and roll!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Aug 14, 2011 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions

a guy from Green Bay who’s name I forget.

Chris.

Liberals shout and cause concern, forget next week while we all burn

by stujo4 on Aug 14, 2011 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions

Vince Lombardi?

Thumbs up, everybody...
For rock and roll!!!!

by Hans Petersen on Aug 14, 2011 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions

that's it Wynne. Thanks. It's pretty hard to have an explosive offense with that rotating door of RBs

and this team was built to have a potent,explosive offense so I think it affected the defense significantly even though the defense had a pretty darn good year.

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 Aug 14, 2011 11:33 AM CDT reply actions