Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mdonnelly21

Would the Saints have given the 9ers a better run for their money than GB did?

Saints/49ers  

48 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think the Saints would have given the 9ers a better run for their money? 



Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

But the Falcons were legitimately good to end the season. A team with playoff hopes next season. 

Were they? The 6-2 run was fun, but I see waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many red flags to be positive about 2020. That may sound like I'm being too negative, but this organization has historically trained me to see red flags where others may not. I think the Buccaneers are the team that's significantly closer to being a surprise playoff team in the NFC South.

The pass coverage even during the 6-2 streak had WRs wide open all day long, even in games that statistically looked great. The defense imo was really getting carried by an insane performance from Grady Jarrett, and I don't know how sustainable that is. Corners consistently looked completely lost in coverage even during the 6-2 streak, and that's a major red flag to me. For the defense to play like it did in the 2nd half of the year, the Falcons are going to have to have an insanely good pass rush and I don't know if they can do that. The two games during the 6-2 stretch where I thought the pass rush under-performed? The defense regressed back to being terrible again (thanksgiving vs. saints/vs. tampa bay) and they basically got completely blown out in both of those games. That's just way too big of a red flag for me to ignore. The defense will likely improve on paper in 2020 from the historically bad pace it was on during the 1-7 stretch of the season, but it won't be any better than mediocre.

The offense... I honestly don't expect much good to come from it. Yes there's talent at QB and skill positions, but Dirk Koetter's Air Coryell offense is an archaic, dated dinosaur that has no business being the NFL in 2019 or 2020. The only way the offense is successful in 2020 is if we have all-pro's at literally every position (and even then, we'd just be decent). Since we've moved to a power/gap blocking scheme, and our offensive line isn't built for it (they're built for ZBS), we've destroyed any ability that we have to run the football. What this means is, yet again, we're going to lead the NFL in pass attempts because every time a RB gets the football they're tackled for -3 yards in the backfield. Dirk Koetter will also refuse to incorporate modern concepts into his Air Coryell offense, refuse to scheme WRs open (especially against teams with good secondaries), refuse to allow WRs to gain significant YAC - and with his offense emphasizing deeper routes, will put undue stress on an offensive line that wasn't great to begin - making a mediocre pass blocking line look even worse than they are. Dirk Koetter is not a man who who has historically adapted his archaic offenses to a changing landscape either so you can expect the same round peg into a square hole nonsense that was 2019. My prediction is that the offense will be average to below average, despite the talent that exists on it - and people will continue to be shocked by it, but I won't.

The Falcons also have one of the hardest potential schedules in the NFL in 2020. @ DAL, @ KC, @ NO, @ TB, @ GB, @ MIN, vs. SEA, vs. NO, vs. TB is going to be death row. I know schedules can change and all, but I don't really see any of those teams being bad next year. I just don't see Dan Quinn and the rest of the coaching staff being able to install the necessary elements to allow this team, as flawed as it is, to flourish with a death row of a schedule looming in on them. Don't be shocked if they start 0-4, 0-5, etc. because I won't.

Edited by Hukos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bolts223 said:

It's hard to project that tbh.

  • Rams are on a decline and have no first round picks for the forseeable future and will be putting half their cap space to 5-6 players. I see them being mediocre tbh.
  • If Russell Wilson declines even a little bit the Seahawks are 7-9/8-8. They were pretty lucky with the amount of close games they won this year and I don't think it's sustainable.
  • Cardinals have promise but they have to add a serious amount of talent to the roster before they start contending.
  • 49ers have a great coach and Jimmy is a good QB but pretty much no team other than the Patriots is this good every year.

 

I like the bolded the most and hope it comes true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Its hard to play better when watching from the couch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

Would the Saints have given San Francisco a better game?  Maybe, but maybe not.  As a Vikings fan, I watched us go into the Saints' house and beat them.  I also watched us lose to the Packers not once, but twice this season. 

its all about match ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

Let's not forget that the Saints did take some shortcuts that year.  This has nothing to do with Drew Brees, however.  He is a class act.

beating the crap out of farve isn't a shortcut its football

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ILoveTheVikings said:

No. Our defense handled the Saints just fine and you saw what the 49ers did to us and GB.

This is not how it works bro. NFL is all about matchups. 
 

Vikings are a terrible matchup for the Saints. 
 

49ers are a terrible matchup for the Packers. 
 

49ers are a terrible matchup for the Vikings 
 

Saints are an almost even matchup with the 49ers. 
 

Saying one team can beat another team cause they beat a different team is how Vegas makes their money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MrnastiesNO said:

beating the crap out of farve isn't a shortcut its football

A coach doesn't get suspended for an entire season for "football". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the way SF played and the way the Vikings were able to mostly hammer away at the Saints.....

 

No chance. I did a long breakdown of why I thought the Vikings had a shot at keeping it close with New Orleans (didn't think they'd ultimately win) and it played out almost exactly as I thought, minus who the winner was. Had it been SF instead of Minnesota, the same general concepts would have applied, but I would've taken SF by 20. At this point, I'm taking SF by 30 and I don't even feel bad about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

A coach doesn't get suspended for an entire season for "football". 

If a coach pretends to not know anything about football, he wouldn't be coaching. 

If a coach pretends to not know his team is running a bounty scheme and goes against his team's owner's own calls to put a stop to such activities when the league is sniffing around, he gets suspended. 

It's as easy as that. And that taint is going to follow that franchise until anyone with a role is gone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×