SB Nation User Blog: MtnExile

Random Musings at 7-0

MtnExile — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:20:46 -0000

I don't know about you, but I had a hard time enjoying this game. I expected Atlanta to score first; but I also expected New Orleans to come roaring back, grab the game by the throat, and drag it away kicking and screaming. Then Drew fumbled, Atlanta recaptured the lead, and it became obvious the Falcons were determined to do the exact same thing.

When the Saints went up by two scores at halftime, it seemed the universe had worked out its cramp, come to its senses, returned to its sense of duty...call it what you will. The Saints would take the second-half kickoff, ram the ball down the Falcons' throats, go up by three scores, and coast. Uh uh. Didn't happen; and even when they finally put the game away with Pierre Thomas' Reggie impression, Payton, Mike Bell, David Thomas, and the refs tried their damnedest to hand it right back to the Falcons. Our only hope, Obi-wan Sharper, saved us again (well, he had help), but it was waaaaaaaayyyy too close at the end.

Since that game, I haven't been able to really savor 7-0 because of worry. I'm not usually a worrywart when it comes to things like this; but first the Dolphins game, and then the Falcons game, exposed some flaws in Fate's plan to put Drew Brees on the podium in Miami come February.

THE DEFENSE
A comment on The Falcoholic by iRonin summed up perfectly what I have been thinking: "Williams and Sharper have turned that leaky D into a leaky D with ballhawking skills."

We make a lot out of the year Sharper is having, as we should: if he continues like this, he'll make not only All-Pro, but likely the Hall of Fame. But Sharper is only one player, representing only one aspect of the defense. The Saints lead the NFL in interceptions, and are tied with the Eagles for the overall lead in takeaways. And it's done us a heap of good. But what if the turnovers stop? Is the Saints' defense good enough to win games when they can't win the turnover battle?

And yes: I realize most of those turnovers were earned. Still, everything has to go right for a turnover to occur, and sometimes things don't work out. We saw Sharper actually drop an interception Monday night, and the entire solar system nearly jumped the tracks (admit it, you felt it). What if things stop working out quite so well? What if the Saints' best ballhawking games are already past? Can they stop other teams without the turnovers?

If you look at how many yards they give up, you might begin to worry, too. The Saints are only the 15th-best defense measured by yards allowed. They're 11th against the run, 17th against the pass, and 17th in total points. That's practically the definition of mediocrity. Once again, the defense is being bailed out by the most prolific offense in the NFL...and by Darren Sharper.

What if something happens to Sharper? What then?

INJURIES
Which brings us to the subject of injuries.

It might seem that the Saints have been lucky with injuries so far this year; and in one sense, we have been. Few starters have been lost. Jammal Brown remains the only true starter to be placed on injured reserve, but he's been joined since opening day by critically important role players like Billy Miller and Heath Evans. Practically the entire 2009 draft class has been lost to us, with Chip Vaughn and Stanley Arnoux on injured reserve and Malcolm Jenkins sidelined by a lingering ankle injury. Scott Fujita has been out for weeks; Jermon Bushrod has missed time; and now Jonathan Goodwin has been hurt. And everyone is waiting for Jeremy Shockey to finally go down (do you really want David Thomas as your starter?).

But the scary thing is this: what if we lose anyone in the secondary? Who can replace Sharper? Porter and Greer have been magnificent as a tandem...would Porter and Gay be as good? Or if Roman Harper went down...who could play strong safety at the same level? The answer is, nobody. We have a deep receiver corps, and a pretty good crop of running backs. We have almost no usable depth in the secondary, in the linebacking corps, in the offensive line. I wrote awhile back that the Saints remind me of a winning lottery check: worth a million bucks, and paper thin.

It's going to take an enormous amount of luck to get through this season healthy enough to withstand the playoffs.

GAME MANAGEMENT
Rarely do you see an injury that can be even indirectly attributed to a game decision, but Goodwin's knee contusion came about because of one of the worst tactical blunders I have ever seen a coach commit. With only 1:42 on the clock, up by 11 points, and with Atlanta down to its last timeout, the Saints opted to run a play instead of simply kneeling. Now, it's nowhere near a certainty that someone will be injured if you do this; but I've never seen anyone injured on a kneeldown. Instead of burning all but about 15 seconds off the clock and handing the ball back to the Falcons in an impossible situation, Payton's strategy of running plays resulted in a knee injury, a lost fumble, and only 19 seconds drained from the clock. The Falcons were able to kick a field goal, recover the subsequent on-side kick, and have a shot at tying the game in the end.

All of that was totally unnecessary; and the worst part is, I can't for the life of me figure out what Payton thought he sensed that made running handoffs the proper thing to do in that situation. As I wrote earlier, kneeling at that point should have been a reflex action, literally a no-brainer. This happened not because Payton didn't think, but because he did...badly. Very, very badly.

We can only hope it was a passing brain fart; but with his history of impulsive challenges and game plan stubbornness, you have to wonder if Payton isn't having a relapse after a pretty good first half of the season.

SPECIAL TEAMS
Of course, it would have been more forgivable if the Saints had been up by 14 instead of 11—and they would have been, if John Carney hadn't missed a 37-yard field goal. To put it in perspective, a 37-yarder means your line of scrimmage is the 19—you're in the red zone. There is no excuse for not scoring if your offense penetrates that far.

John Carney is currently 28th in the league in field goal percentage, making only 73% of his kicks. That's worse than Olindo Mare. Between the 30 and the 39 he's already missed 3 out of 8 attempts. He's even missed a PAT, one of only eight kickers so far to fail to convert.

What's more, it might not even be Carney's fault. We know he doesn't have a strong leg anymore, but he's always been accurate. But it seems to me that Jason Kyle's snaps are consistently low and inside, causing holder Mark Brunell to bobble the ball and disrupt the timing. Replacing Carney with Hartley won't solve this problem; nor will it produce better protection. The Saints have already had two kicks blocked this season.

Nor will it do anything to improve the blocking in the return game, which may be an even bigger problem. The Saints are wasting the talents of Reggie Bush because they can't open up running lanes on punts (if it weren't for the Oakland Raiders, we'd be dead last in the league in punt returns). To some extent this isn't too terribly bothersome, since the offense is perfectly capable of long drives; but it will take a toll on the defense if we get into a field-position battle.

As for our kick and punt coverage, I can't assess that because I can find nowhere on NFL.com where special teams coverage stats are compiled. Which segues neatly into my last thought...

THIS IS IT
The Saints must win the Super Bowl this year, because I don't know if I can stand this much longer. I still love football and always will; but the league itself has become a haven for incompetents, clowns, and fascists*. No matter how badly the officials blow their game calls, they're always upstaged by the stupid greed of the owners and the pompous authoritarianism of Roger Goodell. They've all but ruined the sport already; and another year or two will finish the job. I just can't watch. Please guys: seal the deal this season.

*I use the term in its broadest, most deliberately insulting sense. No, I'm not suggesting Roger Goodell wears a black shirt...although maybe he does. A lot of people wear them nowadays.

Random thought regarding fullback

MtnExile — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:45:44 -0000

What member of the Saints is 5-11 and 237 lbs? And what member of the Saints is 6-0 and 235 lbs?

If you guessed Kyle Eckel as the answer to the first question, you'd be right. And the answer to the second? Lynell Hamilton. Forgotten Mr. Photo Op.

Eckel gives away an inch and fifteen pounds to Heath Evans. That's a significant amount of mass for a lead blocker not to have. He's played more than Hamilton, so Photo Op's stats are kinda questionable in comparison...but here goes anyway. Eckel, 3.0 per carry. Hamilton, 4.8.

The big question would be, can Hamilton play fullback? Could he take the pounding of being a lead blocker, and can he pass protect? Maybe, maybe not...don't know. But it sure would be interesting to have Thomas (or Bell, or Bush) share the backfield with Hamilton in a T-formation, rather than an I. Who do you key on?

Just thinking out loud...

What's going on in Reggie's head?

MtnExile — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:07:22 -0000

Check out this story in Sporting News. Forget the undefeated season angle...they're trying to make too much of it. Of course the Saints could go undefeated; so could Colts or the Broncos. So could any team that hasn't been defeated yet. Big deal (unless Reggie has just jinxed us).

No, the interesting part is this:

Bush also addressed the criticism he’s received for not living up to expectations as a pro.

"Once I do win an NFL MVP, once we do win a Super Bowl, once I am in the Pro Bowl, it's going to be that much more special because of the criticism that I had to come through. Because of the work I've put into it, it'll mean that much more to me," Bush told Montemayor.

I must admit, I'm floored. Reggie has been regressing all season. The criticism is all valid. He looks less like a potential MVP than he ever has—and apparently, based on his playing time, Sean Payton agrees.

So what is going on in Reggie's head? Is he really delusional? Or is he just putting up a front, saying what needs to be said to keep those marketing contracts coming?

Because I gotta say, Reggie: it looks more and more like your train left the station long ago. Maybe you should stop pacing and call a cab.

You're Welcome

MtnExile — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:59:35 -0000

It isn't often that I take credit for a Saints win, but I have to humbly claim responsibility here. Well, my wife and I, together, so I suppose it wasn't just me.

After a long weekend of putting in 50 ft of PVC drainpipe, we finished about 3:00 and decided we'd earned a reward. So it's downtown to the Bier Garden to watch the Saints kick ass on the big screen.

Except that it didn't turn out that way. Drew looked sick. The offensive line looked sick, and the defensive line wasn't much better. Ricky Williams was running roughshod over the Saints, and after two quarters and a couple of Hirschbraus (ale and lager, good stuff), we decided that the Saints were losing because we were watching them. It was a big sacrifice to make, but we decided to go home and let the Saints catch up and win an epic victory without our involvement.

Which is just what happened.

So...our voluntary non-involvement in the second half--plus gold pants--proved to be enough to give the Saints the win. I know you all feel you should get together and do something to show your appreciation, but honestly...just being 6-0 is enough for me. Great win, and the knowledge that we had something to do with it will be enough to warm our hearts even when we're 90 and in a nursing home and it hurts to chew banana pudding.

WHO DAT!

An observation about the Saints' run defense

MtnExile — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:43:04 -0000

I've been reading lately a lot of people dismissing the Saints' run defense on the ground that most teams don't try to run much, since they have to pass to catch up. The latest to say this was Dolphins' OC Dan Henning.

"We're not going to have much running against New Orleans when they're ahead by 20 points in the middle of the second quarter," he said.

That makes sense if you're rating a team by total rushing yards per game, in which category the Saints are 5th. Teams, indeed, simply don't rush against them as much as they might if they were ahead.

But if you rank teams according to per-rush average, the Saints are still a top-10 defense. They're giving up 3.8 yards per rush. And actually, they may be better than that: since teams are forced to pass more, the defense is forced to defend against the pass first and the run second. Yet they're still ranked 10th against the run.

My guess—and it may just be wishful thinking, of course—is that the Saints' run defense will hold up just fine against the Dolphins. We've already played the 3rd (Jets) and 6th Giants) teams ranked in order of rushing average. The Dolphins are 5th. The Wildcat may be a different formation, but the secret to stopping the run is still the same: gap discipline. The Saints' defense has held up so far, and there's no reason to think it will suddenly break in Miami.

The more things change, the more they change out of all recognition

MtnExile — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:00:35 -0000

Go to the home page of NFL.com, scroll down to the middle of the page, and look to the right. You'll see the Reader's Poll, which this week (is this thing weekly?) concerns itself with running back tandems.

"Which is the best running back duo in the NFL?" is the question, and the first group mentioned is the answer: Ronnie Brown and Ricky Williams of Miami. No contest, 58% as of now. What's amazing is who comes next: not Marion Barber and Felix Jones, not Brandon Jacobs and Terry Bradshaw's cousin Ahmad, not LaDainian Tomlinson and Darren Sproles. Not even Adrian Peterson and any random guy off the street (which is actually probably the correct answer).

No, the next choice is: Mike Bell and Pierre Thomas.

And at this point, they're tied with the other two pairs (Thomas Jones/Leon Washington and Rashard Mendenhall/Willie Parker) at 14%. The Saints are getting some love for their running game, and nobody is even mentioning the Panthers, the Falcons, the Giants, the Cowboys...

Did I wake up on the planet of Dreams Come True? (Still too cold here for coeds to wander around naked, must still be Earth...)

The Incredibles

MtnExile — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:32:02 -0000

We were watching the replay of the Saints game on NFL.com tonight, and my wife made an interesting observation.

"It's like watching a game where one of the teams isn't human," she said.

"You mean New York is playing like a bunch of monkeys?"

"No, more like the Saints are superhuman, but they're trying to hold back just enough so that nobody catches on. It's like watching The Incredibles."

She's right. Watching some of the plays being made, you can easily imagine the conversations on the sideline. "Marques, don't go so high, man, someone's going to catch on."

"Well, you threw it there! What am I supposed to do?"

"Just let it go, dude! I'll get it back to you on the next play."

The Beat-Down, Part 5

MtnExile — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:54:24 -0000

More photos » by Bill Feig - AP

Roman Harper strips Eli Manning of the ball late in the second quarter. The Saints recovered, and Reggie Bush scored a TD just before halftime.

Browse more photos »

This morning, I decided To hell with it...I'm going to SEE this game. So I bit the bullet and went to a local sports bar, prepared to sit through three hours of cigarette smoke and obnoxious drunks in order to get my Saints fix. In the end, it was more like spending the afternoon at the Prytania, watching a double bill of The Professional and Clueless.

What can I say? Other than, "Never bet against Drew Brees after two sub-par weeks." If there's a definition of "superhuman" in the dictionary, the first entry would say "See under: Drew Brees." The second would say: "See under: Marques Colston." And the third would say: See under: "oh, f#%$ it, just look up 'New Orleans Saints.'"

In all seriousness—and at the risk of committing the same cockiness I called a Giants fan out for—this may be one of the best teams I've ever seen. So far, they look 49ers good. They look Patriots good. Their offense is unstoppable, and their defense plays like hungry wolves. The game should never have been this close, but for a bullshit call on Vilma and a garbage-time touchdown. The only thing that kept New York in the game during the first half was the kick return prowess of Domenik Hixon. Other than that, to quote Antonio Pierce after the Giants' game against Oakland: "it was like a scrimmage." That's how much the Saints dominated. (And for the Giants fans who may be reading this, please understand: I am as amazed by it all as you must be. Just in a much happier way.)

Check this out: Pierre Thomas had a 4.8 rushing average. Colston caught 8 passes for 166 yards. (Who was covering him? Anybody? Anybody? Beuller?) And Drew Brees...I predicted he'd have a passer rating above 90, say somewhere around 95.9. Instead, that's how much higher than Eli's his rating was. People are going to start saying "Brady is playing like Drew Brees today."

And the defense? They kept the Giants befuddled and bewildered and behind the entire length of the game. Though the stats won't show it, Greer and Porter were amazing. They may be the best tandem of cornerbacks in the league. (Yes, I said that. The best. In the league. Cornerbacks.) Roman Harper played lights out. And even though they rarely got to Eli, the pressure on almost every pass play looked like a jailbreak. Gregg Williams said when he came to New Orleans that he wasn't a savior. Well, saviors apparently lie like rugs.

Here, in no particular order, are my still starry-eyed observations on this fantastic win:

• Reggie was kind of quiet today, but had a respectable game. One bad loss on a running play; other than that, he ran well: one nifty touchdown, and an impressively tough run up the middle for a first.

• Mike Bell didn't rush for all that much; but he runs harder than just about any running back I've ever seen. I can't recall any other rusher who leads with his head so much. He looked like a bighorn sheep on every play.

• If Colston wasn't The Man, Lance Moore would be. He was awesome in the first drive.

• Drew Brees was hitting on all cylinders today, including the one labeled "luck." Several of his passes, especially early, looked forced into good coverage. But they were caught nevertheless.

• The officiating wasn't great, wasn't terrible. I predicted Darren Sharper would have an interception, and I maintain I was right, because the roughing the passer call against Vilma was a perfectly clean hit. But it evened out in the end: for instance, Roman Harper absolutely mugged Hakeem Nicks and wasn't called for it. And I didn't see any interference against Colston in the second quarter.

• Courtney Roby is no better a return man than Pierre Thomas was. Our kick return and punt return units have been the weakest parts of the team by far this year.

• Tom Brady threw five TD passes in one quarter against Tennessee. The Saints probably won't even lead the sports news tonight.

Nevertheless...Drew Brees is a bawcock, and a heart of gold, a lad of life, an imp of fame, of parents good, of fist most valiant. I kiss his dirty shoe.

Poll

Other than Drew Brees, who was the MVP?

Marques Colston

390 votes

Lance Moore

62 votes

Pierre Thomas

7 votes

Roman Harper

20 votes

Jabari Greer

29 votes

Tracy Porter

8 votes

516 votes | Poll has closed

King of the Hill

MtnExile — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:27:32 -0000

Can Darren Sharper figure out Eli Manning? Can Manning figure out Sharper?

View full size photo »

The opponent the Saints face this weekend may be the most formidable of this season, and the consensus—here and elsewhere—seems to be that this game will answer the question: are the Saints for real? But it will also answer another question, every bit as much up in the air and being studiously ignored by the national media: are the Giants for real?

When you watch the New York Giants play, you come away with the overwhelming conviction that this team is really good: talented, aggressive, disciplined, and supremely confident. They've been to the mountain before, and they see no reason why they shouldn't return. They're the darlings of the media, of course (they're from New York), which makes them the default media favorite to return to the Super Bowl.

When you look closer, though, it seems as though something just doesn't add up. And the more you look, the more questions you come away with. Are the Giants really this good...or have they feasted on a weak schedule?

Schedule

That, of course, is precisely what the Saints have been accused of in some quarters. But if you start your statistical enquiry with a stat the NFL doesn't keep track of—quality of wins—you find that the Giants are far and away the luckier team. Their five opponents so far have a combined record of 6-19—a .240 win percentage! Granted, part of that was damage done by the Giants themselves; but if you account for that by subtracting five losses, a 6-14 combined record (.300) against opponents other than New York still doesn't look too good. By contrast, the Saints' four victims so far have a combined record of 8-11 (.421). Take away those losses to the Saints, and they look much better: 8-6 (.571). We have, after all, beaten the Eagles and the Jets. By contrast, the Giants seem to have based their reputation on dispatching the hapless: Washington, Tampa, Kansas City, Oakland, and Tony Romo in a big game.

Pass Defense

Still...they do have one hell of a pass defense. They're only allowing an average of 105 yards per game. But again, look who they've played. The 0-5 Chiefs gained only 88 yards through the air; the 1-4 Raiders gained 64; and the 0-5 Bucs gained just 58 yards. The Giants have held opposing quarterbacks to an average passer rating of just 60.4, third-best in the league (in first place, at 51.3, is...New Orleans). But Matt Cassel actually played very close to his average against the Giants, and Jamarcus Russell actually had his best game so far this year against New York!

The real difference-maker was Romo, who stunk up the joint with a putrid 29.6 rating—his worst outing since 2007. But a lot of people believe Romo to be overrated: not really a top-notch quarterback. How the Giants' secondary will fare against a top-notch quarterback is one of the season's unanswered questions...because they haven't faced one yet.

Pass Offense

Then again, neither have the Saints. Matt Stafford, Kevin Kolb, Trent Edwards, and Mark Sanchez aren't exactly Murderer's Row. And even if you're like me, and still not sold on Eli Manning, you have to admit he's a solid step up from what the Saints have faced so far. He's even having a Peyton-like year so far: 10 TDs, 2 interceptions, a passer rating of 111.7, which blows away his career average (78.1) and his best previous year (2008, 86.4). Of course, it helps when you have Steve Smith to throw to...apparently, even if it's not that Steve Smith.

But the Saints don't give away much statistically. New York has nine yards more per game through the air; but the Saints have a higher completion percentage. The Giants have a better percentage of first downs; but the Saints have a better percentage of touchdowns. Drew Brees has a better passer rating; Eli Manning has been sacked less. When you ask who has the better pass offense, overall it's a wash...except that the Saints have a longer history of excellence. If one team is fated to cool down, you wouldn't expect it to be New Orleans.

So Manning assuredly represents the toughest test the Saints' secondary has faced so far this season. But there's an unanswered question here, as well, because he's suffering from the sort of nagging injury that has the potential to wreck this game for him...if not the entire season.

"Plantar fasciitis" is what's it's called; and what it is, is a very sore foot. It hurts every time you take a step, every time you shift your weight, every time you push off or land on it. It changes your mechanics, even if only slightly and subtly. A single flinch, and the 50-yard pass only goes for 48...into the waiting arms of Darren Sharper? Maybe.

Against the Raiders, Eli looked efficient. But he only played the first half; and in the second half, David Carr didn't look nearly as sharp. If Manning's injury affects him to the point where Carr has to quarterback for the Giants in the Dome, they might as well just run the ball.

Run Offense

Can the Giants run the ball? That sounds like the sort of question a crazy man would ask. They're ranked 4th in the NFL right now, and under Tom Coughlin they've always been a run-oriented team...and usually one of the best. But bear with me a moment.

We know the Saints can run the ball well; we've seen them do it. And they've done it against a couple of good teams, too: the Eagles and Jets are ranked 13th and 14th in rushing defense (yards per game). The best rushing defense the Giants have faced belongs to the Cowboys, who are ranked 17th. The Chiefs, Bucs, and Raiders are ranked 25th, 28th, and 31st respectively.

Yet even against such inferior competition, the Giants rank only 4th in rushing yards per game. I say only, because while 4th place seems pretty good, the Saints rank 2nd. Once again, the Saints are better at something than the Giants are, and against better competition, too.

There's also the matter of Brandon Jacobs. If you check out any of the Giants' blogs (such as Big Blue View), you'll see there's a controversy brewing over whether Jacobs should continue to be the official "starter" (for however much that terms counts anymore). Jacobs is way off his average of the past couple years—he's dropped from 5.0 per carry to 3.6. Sounds like someone who just signed his big contract.

Meanwhile, Terry Bradshaw's cousin Ahmad is torching the competition with a 6.5 average. That includes a 7.4 ypc against...wait a minute, the Chiefs, and a 10 ypc against...wait a minute, the Raiders. How would Bradshaw fare against a better defense? Well, against the 22nd-best (the Redskins) he gained 5 yards per carry. Against the 17th-best (Dallas), he gained 4.1. Against the 7th best (New Orleans)? I guess we'll see. But once again, it looks as though the Giants have been getting fat off a steady diet of bottom feeders.

Run Defense

And this brings us to the most puzzling aspect of the Giants: can they stop the run?

Until they played the Raiders, the Giants were tied for 31st—last in the league!—for average yards per rush allowed: 5.5. Somewhere, somehow, the picture of the bruising juggernaut that wins championships by rushing and stopping the rush seemed to have totally broken down.

But a closer look at the stats turns up something a bit different. First of all, playing Oakland helped the Giants zoom upward in the rankings: they're now a middle-of-the-pack 16th, with a 4.8 ypc. And what puts them even that low is the game against the Cowboys.

Romo may have been inept, but Dallas' running game torched New York for 251 yards—an 8.7 ypc. But even that is deceiving. Nearly half their output—111 yards—came on three long runs. Take away those runs, and the Cowboys averaged only 3.9 ypc. Take away the Cowboys game, and New York has averaged 3.4 ypc...good enough to make them the 9th-place run defense.

Two slots below the Saints, at 7th.

Who will be King of the Hill?

The picture that develops is that of a complete team, a team better in almost every category than its upcoming opponent. Better at running the ball and stopping the run; better at passing the ball (by some measures, anyway) and (again, by some measures) stopping the pass. And that team isn't the Giants...it's the Saints.

This is not at all meant to dismiss New York: they remain perhaps the most formidable opponent left on the Saints' schedule, including New England. (And the Saints may very well be the most formidable opponent the Giants face for the rest of the year...including those NFC East tilts.) But it's difficult to make a case that they remain on a plateau above the Saints, a plateau the Saints must reach over the defeated bodies of the Giants. Rather, both teams are now on the same plateau; and Sunday, one of them is going to get kicked over the edge.

* * * * *

Addendum

I don't often add to something after it's already been published, but in this case I'm going to make an exception.

I'll admit that in writing this I had hoped to get a rise out of Giants fans—which strategy seems to have worked. What I didn't expect was for everyone to miss the fact that all I did to the Giants was what everyone else is doing to the Saints right now: asking "Are they for real?"

What more do the pundits want? The Saints have beaten better teams than the Giants have, and they've done so in convincing fashion. They're ahead of the Giants in many statistical categories. If you have to ask, "Are the Saints for real?" why don't you have to ask the same thing regarding the Giants?

The consensus among New York fans seems to be, "Because of our history." This is one of those instances where Henry Ford was right: history is bunk. The Giants' record last year has no effect on this year's standings; and the fact that they beat up on teams last season doesn't mean they have a better chance of beating up on the Saints Sunday. The Giants are a different team; their roster has experienced a certain amount of turnover, and some players have regressed (Brandon Jacobs) while others have improved (Eli Manning). Some aren't even on the team anymore...either on IR (Kenny Phillips), on another team (Derrick Ward), or removed from the general population (Plaxico Burress).

The Saints, too, are a different team. They're no longer the poncy passers who finesse the weak teams and get smashed by all the others. So far this year, they've been one of the smashers. So why all this talk of "Aints," except to get a rise out of us? It may be fun...but it's not an argument.

I can't help but feel the answer is that New Yorkers feel like football royalty...as though the Giants have proven, for good and all, that they deserve to be respected as an elite team. That also, of course, is bunk: no team is either permanently good, or permanently bad. It's not only bunk, it's obnoxious bunk, which New Yorkers understood viscerally when the Patriots were universally anointed as the official team of the Archangel Michael before Super Bowl 42. We know how that one turned out. Kudos to the Giants: they proved my point. Were the Patriots for real? Did they not have certain chinks in their armor that made them, after all, not perfect? The answer, of course, was "yes."

Why be so affronted, then, when the question is turned against their own team? Is it possible that there are chinks in their armor that might be exploited by a team several notches better than the Bucs, the Raiders, the Chiefs? Is it possible that evidence of those chinks might show up in the stats? Those are the only questions that I tried to ask and answer, and they're not inherently irrational. Maybe I did a poor job of answering them...but that doesn't make the questions themselves bad, or irrelevant, or insulting.

For the record, and to repeat: I have enormous respect for the Giants. I think this is the toughest game the Saints face this year. Before the season, I had it penciled in as a loss. Given how the Saints have played this season, though, I'm more optimistic. Because, despite what happened last year, this season we're for real.

"Defensive Hog Index": Saints rank 4th

MtnExile — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:56:42 -0000

"Defensive Hog Index": Saints rank 4th

Intereresting statistical analysis. Rushing average, negative pass plays (sacks and INTs), and 3rd down percentage taken together. The best defenses in the NFL, in order: Denver, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans.

And if Philly is really that good...doesn't that mean that week 2 was maybe the best quality win of this NFL season?