Better Team Right Now? New Orleans V Pitt V Minnesota

[Dome]

15 minutes ago, RedRider said:

Every team has had just as much injury troubles as NO. No other teams' fans keep using this as a reasoning to not move their team down in rankings. This is the second week now that we've heard this.

First of all, not “every team” has lost a DPOY candidate and top 3 CB (and Crawley who is good in his own regard as well) going against the best offense they’ve faced so far. So you can go ahead and drop that narrative. It’s no excuse because you need depth to compete in the NFL but ignoring it completely doesn’t make any sense either.

Second, how far do you really want to move them down considering they held the Rams to below their offensive average in LA and lost a one score game that came down to the final minutes?

Ignore the injuries, if they’re fully healthy and take the Rams to the 4th quarter in LA and still hold them to below their scoring average while losing by one score, how much does that really drop them? One spot? Two?

[MookieMonstah]

11 minutes ago, RedRider said:

Because football is not about hypotheticals. It's not, "who's best if everyone is healthy?" Injuries are a part of the game and creating good depth is a part of the game. Every team has had just as much injury troubles as NO. No other teams' fans keep using this as a reasoning to not move their team down in rankings. This is the second week now that we've heard this.

What other team was missing both starting CBs, starting DE, starting SS and starting MLB?

 

I'll wait.

[Breesus mode]

16 minutes ago, RedRider said:

Because football is not about hypotheticals. It's not, "who's best if everyone is healthy?" Injuries are a part of the game and creating good depth is a part of the game. Every team has had just as much injury troubles as NO. No other teams' fans keep using this as a reasoning to not move their team down in rankings. This is the second week now that we've heard this.

Yeah, and we have terrible depth at corner, losing #1 and 2 really sucks. Although, you're a horrible poster, and can't get over 2009, so I don't know why any Saints fan should take you seriously.

 

 

[CriminalMind]

Yep, Still #2

[ET80]

18 minutes ago, Breesus mode said:

Although, you're a horrible poster, and can't get over 2009, so I don't know why any Saints fan should take you seriously.

 

 

Please don't attack posters in this fashion.

- ET

[RedRider]

27 minutes ago, MookieMonster said:

What other team was missing both starting CBs, starting DE, starting SS and starting MLB?

 

I'll wait.

I mean, we're onto our 3rd string QB, back-up RB, our best receiver has been hurt half the season, and our two best defensive players - Griffen and Rhodes - have both been injured this year. That's about as terrible as it gets, but we're not complaining.

[Shady Slim]

and if you got beaten by the rams with griffen, rhodes, smith all out we'd take it in to consideration and not say that the vikings are gonna be one and done 

[MookieMonstah]

1 minute ago, RedRider said:

I mean, we're onto our 3rd string QB, back-up RB, our best receiver has been hurt half the season, and our two best defensive players - Griffen and Rhodes - have both been injured this year. That's about as terrible as it gets, but we're not complaining.

Lets be real, Keenum was your backup QB. Bridgewater wasn't expected to contribute. Adam Thielen hasn't missed a game, and Stefon Diggs (not your best WR) has missed 2 games not half the season, Rhodes hasn't missed a single game and Griffen has missed one.

 

That entire sentence was one giant hyperbole. Good lord.

[Raves]

Just now, RedRider said:

I mean, we're onto our 3rd string QB, back-up RB, our best receiver has been hurt half the season, and our two best defensive players - Griffen and Rhodes - have both been injured this year. That's about as terrible as it gets, but we're not complaining.

Actually aren't you on your 2nd string QB?  Not to mention none of the QBs have been considered great by any margin.  It's like revolving door of middling QBs.  I will give your RB argument some merit as Dalvin Cook looked like a beast, but Murray had been a very productive player in the past and is getting the chance to be one again.  Also how many games have Griffen and Rhodes missed and against who?  Unless they are missing against a top offense in the NFL it doesn't matter as it's comparing apples to oranges.  The Saints could've been missing Lattimore and Crawley against the Bears or Dolphins and it wouldn't of mattered, but against a team like the Rams, missing those players actually do matter.

[Raves]

I know the Rams were missing their best WR in Woods, so let's just call the Lattimore/Woods injuries a wash, though I think Lattimore would've had a bigger impact, do you really think Crawley would've given up big play after big play like Devante Harris did?  Do you think Vaccarro would've been getting beat by a #2 WR on the outside if he was allowed to stick with the slot WRs typically on inside slants where he's best at?  I'm not saying the Saints would've beat the Rams if everyone was healthy, but it would've been a much different game and against one of the best, if not the best, offenses in the NFL, defensive health is vital to being able to win those games.

[Breesus mode]

9 minutes ago, RedRider said:

I mean, we're onto our 3rd string QB, back-up RB, our best receiver has been hurt half the season, and our two best defensive players - Griffen and Rhodes - have both been injured this year. That's about as terrible as it gets, but we're not complaining.

That sounds a lot like complaining

[Breesus mode]

2 minutes ago, Raves said:

I know the Rams were missing their best WR in Woods, so let's just call the Lattimore/Woods injuries a wash, though I think Lattimore would've had a bigger impact, do you really think Crawley would've given up big play after big play like Devante Harris did?  Do you think Vaccarro would've been getting beat by a #2 WR on the outside if he was allowed to stick with the slot WRs typically on inside slants where he's best at?  I'm not saying the Saints would've beat the Rams if everyone was healthy, but it would've been a much different game and against one of the best, if not the best, offenses in the NFL, defensive health is vital to being able to win those games.

I mean, if he just keeps running he doesn't get beat

[MookieMonstah]

Its just common sense.

Take away Rhodes, Waynes, Hunter and Kendricks against the Rams. I find it hard to believe the Vikings only allow 7 and win that game.

[CriminalMind]

Starting Qb, S, DE, RT, LG, WR, RB have missed time for Vikings. Teams have injuries, depth matters and are built in to rankings.

[RedRider]

6 minutes ago, Raves said:

Actually aren't you on your 2nd string QB?  Not to mention none of the QBs have been considered great by any margin.  It's like revolving door of middling QBs.  I will give your RB argument some merit as Dalvin Cook looked like a beast, but Murray had been a very productive player in the past and is getting the chance to be one again.  Also how many games have Griffen and Rhodes missed and against who?  Unless they are missing against a top offense in the NFL it doesn't matter as it's comparing apples to oranges.  The Saints could've been missing Lattimore and Crawley against the Bears or Dolphins and it wouldn't of mattered, but against a team like the Rams, missing those players actually do matter.

Case has always been this organization's third QB. You could say he!'snout 2nd strig QB, but that's a bit disingenuous now that Teddy is back and would have replaced Case had he not gone on this run.

 

For just the Rams game last week (the opponet you're calling an important game)... Griffen was out, Rhodes was hurt in the Rams game, and Diggs was questionable for the game, I believe. Of course we had our back up QB and RB.