Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

pauliwood · 06-13-2012, 12:32 PM

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ532zg9CI-HGgpZnIokLk...W9_XFcsNzA]

ATLBound · 06-13-2012, 01:44 PM

(06-13-2012 11:01 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: I had posted game by game in another thread how I felt the Saints would do. I am expecting 12 wins. The Saints are going to be one of the top scoring teams in the league again this year. The defense will be much, much better and Payton's absence will not affect that side of the ball at all. I feel 11 wins will win the division as the second place team would not be likely to have more than 10 wins.

Which of the following do you expect the Saints to lose? I know Vegas has them favored in 11 of the first 15.

Week 1 9/9: New Orleans Saints vs. Washington Redskins 1 p.m. EST, FOX
Week 2 9/16: New Orleans Saints at Carolina Panthers 1 p.m. EST, FOX
Week 3 9/23: New Orleans Saints vs. Kansas City Chiefs 1 p.m. EST, CBS
Week 4 9/30: New Orleans Saints at Green Bay Packers 4:14 p.m. EST, FOX
Week 5 10/7: New Orleans Saints vs. San Diego Chargers 8:20 p.m. EST, NBC
Week 6: BYE
Week 7 10/21: New Orleans Saints at Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1 p.m. EST, FOX
Week 8 10/28: New Orleans Saints at Denver Broncos 8:20 p.m. EST, NBC
Week 9 11/5: New Orleans Saints vs. Philadelphia Eagles 8:30 p.m. EST, ESPN
Week 10 11/11: New Orleans Saints vs. Atlanta Falcons 1 p.m. EST, FOX
Week 11 11/18: New Orleans Saints at Oakland Raiders 4:05 p.m. EST, FOX FOX
Week 12 11/25: New Orleans Saints vs. San Francisco 49ers 4:15 p.m. EST, NFL Network
Week 13 11/29 New Orleans Saints at Atlanta Falcons 8:20 p.m. EST, FOX
Week 14 12/9: New Orleans Saints at New York Giants 4:15 p.m. EST, FOX
Week 15 12/16: New Orleans Saints vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1 p.m. EST, FOX
Week 16 12/23: New Orleans Saints at Dallas Cowboys 1 p.m. EST, FOX
Week 17 12/30: New Orleans Saints vs. Carolina Panthers 1 p.m. EST, FOX

I really think your reading comprehension isnoff sometimes because I answer questions that I know you are going to ask before you ask them because you run the same game in eveey thread.

The point of this discussion is not to look at the Saints vs. Whomever and say win/loss. The whole point is if your team DID NOT have all these things looming over them then I would mostly agree with you. I could see them winning the division and getting to 11/12 wins, not saying it would happen but I can understand the logic.

But in this case its not just Saints vs. Whomever...It's Saints vs. Team, Media, Bountygate, Payton's absence, suspensions, etc. So to go down a list and say Saints win or lose will not do the issues looming over your heads justice. I can't take into account which games the issues will affect. I just have the belief that it will affect a few games. To put it easily I see on a normal basis the Saints as a 11-12 win team. I think with all the factors involved it will negatively impact 8 games. Some of those games the Saints will pull out and win and some they won't. If they pull out half of those games, then we are looking at a 8-9 win team.

Now because of your post we have you on record as saying that Payton's absence WILL NOT affect the offensive side of the ball in anyway, which means his absence will not have an affectbon your team at all because Spags will be taking over the defense. If you don't think there won't be ANY impact at all from Payton's absence then you should be checked into a mental hospital immediately. I would be fine with you hoping it doesn't impact the Saints but you're speaking it as fact. You seem to believe that if I say it enough, then it will come true.

ATLBound · 06-13-2012, 01:57 PM

(06-13-2012 11:03 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Yet you ignore the next seven games where he went 7-0, including sweeping your Falcons. That is more than fine.

Once again the readong comprehension is lacking....

We are ignoring the 7-0 record, including sweeping us Falcons, because PAYTON WAS ON THE SIDELINE DURING THOSE GAMES.

BUT

In games where PAYTON WAS NOT ON THE SIDELINE Carmichael went 1-2 against the likes of Tams, Bucs, and Colts.

How have I said this 3 times and you have yet to understand it? You are comparing apples to oranges. Let's try to stick with Apples here.

The only example we have of Carmichael running the offense without Payton by his side are those 3 games and he has a 1-2 record against 3 of the worst teams in the league last year.

Like I said before, you don't have to agree but the logic behind it is solid. This is regardless of any EXCUSES you want to give about the team losing. And yes a whopping 10-6 in the second half is funny because you knew the second half scoring difference was all of....4 points but you tried to use it as some claim of Carmichael's greatness and you got called out.

Drathdon · 06-13-2012, 02:49 PM

Saints are down another QB

Quote:New Orleans head coach Joe Vitt just met with the media and explained why quarterback Chase Daniel didn’t practice Wednesday and cleared up the mystery that surfaced when Daniel showed up at a charity event with his right (throwing) hand in some sort of brace.

Vitt said Daniel has a hairline fracture on his thumb. Vitt said the injury happened when Daniel hit the thumb on a helmet.

Daniel had been getting all of the first-team work this offseason because starter Drew Brees has been away from the team while trying to work out a long-term contract. Vitt said Daniel will be fine for training camp, but won’t be allowed to throw for the next few weeks. Sean Canfield and recently signed Luke McCown ran the offense in Wednesday’s session.

I don’t think Daniel’s situation adds any urgency to getting the Brees deal done. The Saints can finish their offseason program with Canfield and McCown. I’m still expecting Brees will get a new deal shortly before the July 16 deadline for franchise players to sign long-term contracts.

Vitt also announced that defensive end Greg Romeus recently suffered a torn ACL. The Saints had high hopes for Romeus, who sat out his rookie season after tearing his other ACL while still in college. Without Romeus, the chances of converted linebacker Martez Wilson and Junior Galette getting more playing time at defensive end will increase.

Just another reason for Drew to resist that tag. Don't sign Drew! One hit, and your career is over if you take the 1-year deal! Hold out for the moon, and sit a year so you can sign the biggest contract ever next year with any team you want! (I'm just trying to help!) Angel

Dale4Saul2Red0 · 06-13-2012, 02:52 PM

^ Don't think Drew doesn't think in the back of his mind there are going to be some guys probably trying to take shots at him this year too. He knows they are coming. The Saints fucked with the fraternity and while the league laid down the law don't think some of the players won't do so either.

AsylumGuido · 06-13-2012, 05:09 PM

(06-13-2012 01:44 PM)ATLBound Wrote: I really think your reading comprehension isnoff sometimes because I answer questions that I know you are going to ask before you ask them because you run the same game in eveey thread.

The point of this discussion is not to look at the Saints vs. Whomever and say win/loss. The whole point is if your team DID NOT have all these things looming over them then I would mostly agree with you. I could see them winning the division and getting to 11/12 wins, not saying it would happen but I can understand the logic.

But in this case its not just Saints vs. Whomever...It's Saints vs. Team, Media, Bountygate, Payton's absence, suspensions, etc. So to go down a list and say Saints win or lose will not do the issues looming over your heads justice. I can't take into account which games the issues will affect. I just have the belief that it will affect a few games. To put it easily I see on a normal basis the Saints as a 11-12 win team. I think with all the factors involved it will negatively impact 8 games. Some of those games the Saints will pull out and win and some they won't. If they pull out half of those games, then we are looking at a 8-9 win team.

Now because of your post we have you on record as saying that Payton's absence WILL NOT affect the offensive side of the ball in anyway, which means his absence will not have an affectbon your team at all because Spags will be taking over the defense. If you don't think there won't be ANY impact at all from Payton's absence then you should be checked into a mental hospital immediately. I would be fine with you hoping it doesn't impact the Saints but you're speaking it as fact. You seem to believe that if I say it enough, then it will come true.

I said I feel the Saints will win at least 12 games under the current circumstances. If Payton was around could they win 14? Perhaps. There is more talent on this year's roster than last year's which went 13-3 But, because Payton already installed 100% of his offense before he went on vacation the impact of his absence during the regular season will be minimal. It would have been FAR worse had he not been around for those two months following the end of the season.

AsylumGuido · 06-13-2012, 05:13 PM

(06-13-2012 01:57 PM)ATLBound Wrote: Once again the readong comprehension is lacking....

We are ignoring the 7-0 record, including sweeping us Falcons, because PAYTON WAS ON THE SIDELINE DURING THOSE GAMES.

BUT

In games where PAYTON WAS NOT ON THE SIDELINE Carmichael went 1-2 against the likes of Tams, Bucs, and Colts.

How have I said this 3 times and you have yet to understand it? You are comparing apples to oranges. Let's try to stick with Apples here.

The only example we have of Carmichael running the offense without Payton by his side are those 3 games and he has a 1-2 record against 3 of the worst teams in the league last year.

Like I said before, you don't have to agree but the logic behind it is solid. This is regardless of any EXCUSES you want to give about the team losing. And yes a whopping 10-6 in the second half is funny because you knew the second half scoring difference was all of....4 points but you tried to use it as some claim of Carmichael's greatness and you got called out.

No. The team was behind by more than the final margin when Carmichael took over. That isn't a negative. Besides, I don't care where Payton was standing. Carmichael still called 100% of the offensive plays over the final nine games of last season while the Saints went 8-1. The guy knows what he is doing. That's why he will probably have his own team next season.

AsylumGuido · 06-13-2012, 05:17 PM

(06-13-2012 02:49 PM)Drathdon Wrote: Saints are down another QB

Just another reason for Drew to resist that tag. Don't sign Drew! One hit, and your career is over if you take the 1-year deal! Hold out for the moon, and sit a year so you can sign the biggest contract ever next year with any team you want! (I'm just trying to help!)

Don't worry. Nobody wants Drew to sign the tag. The Saints have no more team activities until July 27th so whether Brees gets his deal done today or on July 16th is a moot point.

ATLBound · 06-13-2012, 05:32 PM

(06-13-2012 05:13 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: No. The team was behind by more than the final margin when Carmichael took over. That isn't a negative. Besides, I don't care where Payton was standing. Carmichael still called 100% of the offensive plays over the final nine games of last season while the Saints went 8-1. The guy knows what he is doing. That's why he will probably have his own team next season.

So it is of no significance to you that he failed to produce a winning record against bottom dwellers in the league without Payton standing beside him?

That doesn't mean anything at all? If you don't think Payton wasn't involved in calling plays at all during that timeframe, then you are being EXTREMELY naive and only for the benefit of trying to win a forum debate. Reality will settle in during the bye week and beyond.

It's sad because there are plenty on this forum who can admit that most likely Brees will sign, and the Saints are a formidable opponent, and Brees is a great QB. We have fans who are not so delusional to recognize things that sre against us but still great. But for you it's difficult to get a common and real answer out of you about the absence of Payton. At one point Payton's absence will not affect the offense and then at another point Payton's absence will cost you 2 games (14 to 12). And at one point Spags will run the whole defense. So if Spags runs the whole defense with no input from Payton and your offense won't be affected by Payton's absence...them why will Payton's absence reduce your game win total from 14 to 12.

Oh wait I forgot...Payton is soooo important to the Special Teams play. Duh...what the fuck was I thinking?

ATLBound · 06-13-2012, 05:37 PM

(06-13-2012 05:13 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: No. The team was behind by more than the final margin when Carmichael took over.

No shit Sherlock. That's what happens when you are down at the half and score more than the opposition in the second half. Of course the margin lessens but the key thing is that it was 4 points. Congrats...he got a field goal and an extra point. But was it enough to win the game?