Position Breakdown against the Falcons.

[Fenrir]

You're going to try to make the point to me that the Panther's corners, or their secondary in general, is better than the Saints? I'm listening...

Just because one of your corners had an INT on Manning in the Super Bowl doesn't make your secondary superior to ours which I'm sure your simpleton mind believes. Gamble and Marshall are more solid than Greer and Porter and I'm slightly biased on my feelings of Greer because he is a former Vol too.

[Fiz]

You're going to try to make the point to me that the Panther's corners, or their secondary in general, is better than the Saints? I'm listening...

well health is a skill and let's just say it's not a skill the saints secondary has a lot of

[MadHatter]

Please just admit you are outclassed here and give up.

The logic you employ is even an embrarsssment on the Saints Report....and that is damn near impossible to do.

[Cargojon]

your supposed logic is pretty weak. Maybe it works on Sanits report but not here. I also pointed that even if you compare attempts and completions the Panthers were still better in every category. I even brought up TDs but your logic was inaccurate here as well. You don't use attempts as a comparison but completions so to follow your logic the Panthers gave up 14 TDs in 305 completions for a ratio of 1 TD for every 21.7 completions. The Saints allowed 15 TDs in 330 completions for a ratio of 1 TD for every 22 completions. So that supposed picking apart was a wash as well.

So lets review - the Saints gave up 44 yards more a game, they gave up almost a half a yard per completion than the Panthers secondary, gave up more first downs as a function of completions, Gave up more + 20 yard plays, viritually the same number of TDs, and collected virtually the same number of interceptions, Your whole supposed argument about attempts is largely irrelevant except as function of completions which we already discussed. Attempts are rarely used in defensive comparisons because there really is no way to distinguish between attempts that were influenced by something the defense did for example versus just a poor pass, or a drop or other issue that are a function of the offense. That is why attempts count in quarterback ratings but not defensive stats except as noted regarding completion percentage. And we already discussed that the Panthers by virtue of the cover 2 allow more completions but they are for less yards, less first downs, and less longer passes of over 20 yards.

So again you have nothing objective to prove your point that the Saints secondary is better than the Panthers secondary but there are lots of stats to prove that the Panthers secondary is better than the Saints even when more completions are factored in.

On another note part of the reason you only gave up 15 TDs in the air is because it was easier to run on you where you gave up 19 TDs on 435 attempts for a ratio of 1 TD for every 23 rushes. Compare that to our defense which gave up 15 TDs on the ground in 450 attempts for a ratio of 1 Td in every 30 rushes. Meaning teams were more likely to run it in on you guys in the redzone. So you gave up more TDs in the air and more TDs on the ground. Tell me again how you gave up yards but not as many TDs. Your defense gave up 21.3 points a game and we gave up 19.2, anyway you slice it your defense was worse than ours in the air and on the ground.

You really ought to do some homework before you go trolling on other team's boards. Maybe you should bring up a few more trolls to help you. You seem in over your head.

So let's review for the rest of the class, since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake.

1. You think that since the Panthers gave up the virtually the same number of touchdowns passing as the Saints (especially considering that garbage TD of Moore week 17 against the Saints third string), despite the Saints being thrown on an equivalent of two games worth of additional passes, that somehow Carolina was a more stingy secondary. Ok.

2. You think that even though the Saints has an opposing QB rating a full 3 points lower than the Panthers, that somehow the Panthers have a more stingy secondary.

3. You that that our starting CB's being out several weeks during the year and guys off the street like McAlister and McKenzie playing CB - and we still had stats that were in many, many ways better than your starters...and that means your starting secondary is marginally comparable to our backups and Tuesday street signings is a sign that the Panthers have some kind of "elite" secondary in this division? laughable

4. Let's take a look at when the starting secondary was intact for a few games in a row and see how they compare to other elite teams in the league. Hey, how bout the postseason. Turns out the Saints had the 4th lowest QB rating allowed among the 12 playoff teams....while playing 3 hall of fame quarterbacks. They allowed 2 passing TD's vs. 4 INT's in 3 games....to 3 HOF quarterbacks.

You might want to compare apples to apples before trying to show off and run your mouth for your online buddies. Comparing your starters stats to a patchwork secondary throughout the year isn't exactly the most objective look at things either. It's pretty obvious that when the Saints starting secondary was intact, there were few if any that were better. Hell, even on Manning's TD pass in the Super Bowl, Jabari Greer had gone out hurt on the play and Manning went right to his last-second replacement Usama Young...who is probably more suited to play safety than CB anyway.

As far as trolling goes - nobody's trolling. If you want to have intelligent discussion on football, that's not trolling. Stroll on over to a Saints board of your choice and try to pass off your half-baked statistical analysis and see how you fare. It's easy in your own house...takes some stones to do it on somebody else's turf.

Watch more football, you might learn something someday.

[Fenrir]

So let's review for the rest of the class, since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake.

1. You think that since the Panthers gave up the virtually the same number of touchdowns passing as the Saints (especially considering that garbage TD of Moore week 17 against the Saints third string), despite the Saints being thrown on an equivalent of two games worth of additional passes, that somehow Carolina was a more stingy secondary. Ok.

2. You think that even though the Saints has an opposing QB rating a full 3 points lower than the Panthers, that somehow the Panthers have a more stingy secondary.

3. You that that our starting CB's being out several weeks during the year and guys off the street like McAlister and McKenzie playing CB - and we still had stats that were in many, many ways better than your starters...and that means your starting secondary is marginally comparable to our backups and Tuesday street signings is a sign that the Panthers have some kind of "elite" secondary in this division? laughable

4. Let's take a look at when the starting secondary was intact for a few games in a row and see how they compare to other elite teams in the league. Hey, how bout the postseason. Turns out the Saints had the 4th lowest QB rating allowed among the 12 playoff teams....while playing 3 hall of fame quarterbacks. They allowed 2 passing TD's vs. 4 INT's in 3 games....to 3 HOF quarterbacks.

You might want to compare apples to apples before trying to show off and run your mouth for your online buddies. Comparing your starters stats to a patchwork secondary throughout the year isn't exactly the most objective look at things either. It's pretty obvious that when the Saints starting secondary was intact, there were few if any that were better. Hell, even on Manning's TD pass in the Super Bowl, Jabari Greer had gone out hurt on the play and Manning went right to his last-second replacement Usama Young...who is probably more suited to play safety than CB anyway.

As far as trolling goes - nobody's trolling. If you want to have intelligent discussion on football, that's not trolling. Stroll on over to a Saints board of your choice and try to pass off your half-baked statistical analysis and see how you fare. It's easy in your own house...takes some stones to do it on somebody else's turf.

Watch more football, you might learn something someday.

In your earlier post you stated that Gamble, Marshall and the Statue of Sam Mills were our CBs and that the saints DBs were better than those "cats."

How in the f**k is that intelligent discussion and not trolling? Your idiocy truly knows no bounds does it?

[panthers55]

So let's review for the rest of the class, since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake.

1. You think that since the Panthers gave up the virtually the same number of touchdowns passing as the Saints (especially considering that garbage TD of Moore week 17 against the Saints third string), despite the Saints being thrown on an equivalent of two games worth of additional passes, that somehow Carolina was a more stingy secondary. Ok.

2. You think that even though the Saints has an opposing QB rating a full 3 points lower than the Panthers, that somehow the Panthers have a more stingy secondary.

3. You that that our starting CB's being out several weeks during the year and guys off the street like McAlister and McKenzie playing CB - and we still had stats that were in many, many ways better than your starters...and that means your starting secondary is marginally comparable to our backups and Tuesday street signings is a sign that the Panthers have some kind of "elite" secondary in this division? laughable

4. Let's take a look at when the starting secondary was intact for a few games in a row and see how they compare to other elite teams in the league. Hey, how bout the postseason. Turns out the Saints had the 4th lowest QB rating allowed among the 12 playoff teams....while playing 3 hall of fame quarterbacks. They allowed 2 passing TD's vs. 4 INT's in 3 games....to 3 HOF quarterbacks.

You might want to compare apples to apples before trying to show off and run your mouth for your online buddies. Comparing your starters stats to a patchwork secondary throughout the year isn't exactly the most objective look at things either. It's pretty obvious that when the Saints starting secondary was intact, there were few if any that were better. Hell, even on Manning's TD pass in the Super Bowl, Jabari Greer had gone out hurt on the play and Manning went right to his last-second replacement Usama Young...who is probably more suited to play safety than CB anyway.

As far as trolling goes - nobody's trolling. If you want to have intelligent discussion on football, that's not trolling. Stroll on over to a Saints board of your choice and try to pass off your half-baked statistical analysis and see how you fare. It's easy in your own house...takes some stones to do it on somebody else's turf.

Watch more football, you might learn something someday.

Actually you need to understand the game and follow the argument and perhaps we could be talking apples and apples. When you lost the argument across the board on a number of stats, instead of addressing my point which was that for example you gave up more points, as many TDs, more yards, more first downs, and more yards per pass even when the difference was accounted for as a percentage of completions, you ignore all that because you have no answer. Then you ignore the fact that you gave up only 15 TDs in the air because you gave up 19 on the ground and teams could easily run on you in the redzone. The whole argument about more attempts is irrelevant because for example you gave up more completions and more first downs and most other category but TDS which I just discussed above.

So when you have nothing else you go on another redherring which is opposing quarterback passer rating. That stat is a measure of the offense's success not necessary the prowess of your secondary. And it is a function of the scheme you run. Zone teams don't emphasize man coverage and trying to stop completions as much as kepping everything short, stopping first downs and limiting YAC. So they give up more completions which is a major factor in calculating opposing quarterback rating. But you see what happened, we gave up less yards per catch, fewer big plays, fewer first downs as a percentage of completions, etc. And the most important stat of all was points surrendered. Yeah we gave up less. The difference in passer rating is also affected by the effectiveness of the offense which is not solely a function of the secondary. Teams passing to catch up will trade off incompletions, short passes, and less efficiency in order to try and move the ball. It also makes them one-dimensional and easier to defend.

As for injuries, that is a measure of your secondary now isn't it. If your starters are so old or fragile they can't stay on the field due to injury then the replacements have to take over. Do you think you were the only team that had injuries in the secondary? Difference is that we aren't using it as an excuse. Did I mention we started a rookie at free safety four games due to injury or that our starting 3rd corner was a rookie all season? NO because that doesn't matter. What is laughable is that you have to make excuses.

And then you cherry pick a few games when your starters were intact and try to make an argument they are better players because when they were in there, they did good. Seriously???? I can do the same thing. In weeks 14, 15, 16 we faced Tom Brady, Brett Favre, and Eli Manning all guys who have won a Superbowl and guys who have been All-pro. Combined we gave up 2 TDS and made 4 INTs. We kept their passer rating almost 30 points below where it was for the season. For that matter against Brees we kept him below all his season averages. While Jake as bad as he was elsewhere was 20 points above his season average against you guys. Amazing how easy it is to pick stats and do what you want with them.

As for the rest, I have been on the saintsreport board but they don't allow opposing opinions or discussion. After pwning your posters for weeks I got banned because the head mod found it annoying. Truth is that there isn't a Saints site anywhere that wants to do hear anything but pro Saints posts and ban people as soon as they get pwned. As bad as the Tampa Bay message board is, I have been on there since 2005 and never gotten banned. As for coming here, as you can see you are welcome to express your opinions as we welcome discussion and opposing views. But it is still trolling and make sure you keep your end up on the intelligent conversation, you seem to be flagging a bit.

[Cargojon]

Actually you need to understand the game and follow the argument and perhaps we could be talking apples and apples. When you lost the argument across the board on a number of stats, instead of addressing my point which was that for example you gave up more points, as many TDs, more yards, more first downs, and more yards per pass even when the difference was accounted for as a percentage of completions, you ignore all that because you have no answer. Then you ignore the fact that you gave up only 15 TDs in the air because you gave up 19 on the ground and teams could easily run on you in the redzone. The whole argument about more attempts is irrelevant because for example you gave up more completions and more first downs and most other category but TDS which I just discussed above.

So when you have nothing else you go on another redherring which is opposing quarterback passer rating. That stat is a measure of the offense's success not necessary the prowess of your secondary. And it is a function of the scheme you run. Zone teams don't emphasize man coverage and trying to stop completions as much as kepping everything short, stopping first downs and limiting YAC. So they give up more completions which is a major factor in calculating opposing quarterback rating. But you see what happened, we gave up less yards per catch, fewer big plays, fewer first downs as a percentage of completions, etc. And the most important stat of all was points surrendered. Yeah we gave up less. The difference in passer rating is also affected by the effectiveness of the offense which is not solely a function of the secondary. Teams passing to catch up will trade off incompletions, short passes, and less efficiency in order to try and move the ball. It also makes them one-dimensional and easier to defend.

As for injuries, that is a measure of your secondary now isn't it. If your starters are so old or fragile they can't stay on the field due to injury then the replacements have to take over. Do you think you were the only team that had injuries in the secondary? Difference is that we aren't using it as an excuse. Did I mention we started a rookie at free safety four games due to injury or that our starting 3rd corner was a rookie all season? NO because that doesn't matter. What is laughable is that you have to make excuses.

And then you cherry pick a few games when your starters were intact and try to make an argument they are better players because when they were in there, they did good. Seriously???? I can do the same thing. In weeks 14, 15, 16 we faced Tom Brady, Brett Favre, and Eli Manning all guys who have won a Superbowl and guys who have been All-pro. Combined we gave up 2 TDS and made 4 INTs. We kept their passer rating almost 30 points below where it was for the season. For that matter against Brees we kept him below all his season averages. While Jake as bad as he was elsewhere was 20 points above his season average against you guys. Amazing how easy it is to pick stats and do what you want with them.

As for the rest, I have been on the saintsreport board but they don't allow opposing opinions or discussion. After pwning your posters for weeks I got banned because the head mod found it annoying. Truth is that there isn't a Saints site anywhere that wants to do hear anything but pro Saints posts and ban people as soon as they get pwned. As bad as the Tampa Bay message board is, I have been on there since 2005 and never gotten banned. As for coming here, as you can see you are welcome to express your opinions as we welcome discussion and opposing views. But it is still trolling and make sure you keep your end up on the intelligent conversation, you seem to be flagging a bit.

I'm not a member of SR.com either, for much of the same reasons you stated. However, using "pwned" confirms my suspicion that you are about 19 and since school ended you don't have much else to do but sit around and post on the internet, and when you don't get a response in 10 minutes, declared that you have "pwned" the other poster. :hand: I'm shocked you have time to post in between rounds of EverQuest.

Really? You're going to call passer rating a "red herring", that "That stat is a measure of the offense's success not necessary the prowess of your secondary". Ummm...no....the passer rating is a formula created to measure the efficient of.....are you ready? The PASSING GAME. To say that it's a measure of the offense's success is retarded because the passing game is only half the offense (unless of course you're Mike Martz LOL). You throw away the #1 overall statistical indicator of the passing game's effectiveness because you don't like the number and it doesn't further your lame argument.

And I didn't pick a few random games that furthered my case...I picked three successive game, at the end of the season, against top teams, in which all of our defensive players were healthy. Big difference.

[Wither]

Really? You're going to call passer rating a "red herring", that "That stat is a measure of the offense's success not necessary the prowess of your secondary". Ummm...no....the passer rating is a formula created to measure the efficient of.....are you ready? The PASSING GAME. To say that it's a measure of the offense's success is retarded because the passing game is only half the offense (unless of course you're Mike Martz LOL). You throw away the #1 overall statistical indicator of the passing game's effectiveness because you don't like the number and it doesn't further your lame argument.

So, what you are saying is that the passer rating is a measure of... the offense's success?

[Cargojon]

So, what you are saying is that the passer rating is a measure of... the offense's success?

No, the passing game's success. The offense consists of the running game and the passing game. Stating that a statistic measures the offense's success when in fact it only measure's the passing game success is just plain inaccurate.

For example, Mark Sanches had the 28th ranked passer rating in the league. However, the Jets had the 17th ranked offense in the league based on points scored, 20th based on yards. While Sanches was just about at the bottom of the league in passer rating, the Jets had an offense that was in the middle of the league. Hence why passer rating isn't an indication of the performance of the offense.

[Fiz]

So, what you are saying is that the passer rating is a measure of... the offense's success?

I will.

[theDIRTYcode]

That was a surprising *fairly* objective breakdown. Though I will put Roddy White's last 3 seasons up against Smitty's all day. I know you all love the guy, but believe it or not, Roddy is just as good and much younger at this point.

[Fiz]

younger yes.

no one in the world would say he's just as good.

[Wither]

No, the passing game's success. The offense consists of the running game and the passing game. Stating that a statistic measures the offense's success when in fact it only measure's the passing game success is just plain inaccurate.

For example, Mark Sanches had the 28th ranked passer rating in the league. However, the Jets had the 17th ranked offense in the league based on points scored, 20th based on yards. While Sanches was just about at the bottom of the league in passer rating, the Jets had an offense that was in the middle of the league. Hence why passer rating isn't an indication of the performance of the offense.

So... you are saying that it is indicative of half of the offense's success?

[theDIRTYcode]

younger yes.

no one in the world would say he's just as good.

Then I will say we have gotten just as much if not more production out of White the last 3 years.