Football Gameplan's 2013 Seahawks vs Saints Video Preview

Dtowers

New member
Joined
Sep 25, 2013
Messages
846
Reaction score
0
I would take RW over Brees everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
 

Polaris

Active member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,206
Reaction score
0
AsylumGuido":2fo1r3t9 said:
And that is why they play the game. You can think the Hawks defense, running game and QB are better, but until the game is played it is only speculation. And, by the way, a better defense and/or running game does not guarantee anything. And I honestly doubt many here, or anywhere, would believe that Russell Wilson is a better QB than Drew Brees at this point in time.

In Century-Link I think that Russell Wilson is a better QB. I'm not saying so either. The numbers do.
 

lukerguy

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
20
AsylumGuido":krdk8t1d said:
Polaris":krdk8t1d said:
EmDiggy":krdk8t1d said:
Wow! This is some awesome back-n-forth discussion! Here's how I came to the conclusionTo me Home/Away/Weather is irrelevant to an outcome of a game. It's going to be close.. I see maybe a 17-13 type game

I don't know how you can say this, especially since the numbers say otherwise and remember that the Saints did face on the road a similiar sort of team (although I think we'd agree nowhere as good) in the NY Jets, and the Saints flunked that test.

As for counting two people out, Browner wasn't going to play anyway because of his groin injury (the suspensions have nothing to do with it), and Maxwell in particular is probably as good as Thurman.

The Saints faced the Jets without Marques Colston and Darren Sproles was injured on his first touch of the game. That is two of the three match-up nightmares that the Saints present. Roman Harper was also out that game. The current Saints roster is the healthiest it has been all season long. As for flunking the test, they lost by 6 points. Not bad with a depleted lineup.
I would hardly consider Colston a nightmare any more. I fear Stills more than him. I'll give you Sproles, though.

You mean the Harper that was the primary reason why we beat you as a 7-9 team a few years ago? Roman "over the top" Harper?
 

lukerguy

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
20
AsylumGuido":29u1qt7g said:
Dtowers":29u1qt7g said:
I would take RW over Brees everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.

That's fine.

I wouldn't go that far. The guy just broke the single season record for passing...

If we are taking into account age, then I would say RW, but for a 1 game today. I think the Saints have the edge at QB.
 

EverydayImRusselin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
898
AsylumGuido":1ljlp3qf said:
And that is why they play the game. You can think the Hawks defense, running game and QB are better, but until the game is played it is only speculation. And, by the way, a better defense and/or running game does not guarantee anything. And I honestly doubt many here, or anywhere, would believe that Russell Wilson is a better QB than Drew Brees at this point in time.

I doubt many of us would say Wilson is better than Brees, but I think the gap between the two is much smaller than most people want to give Wilson credit for. If he threw the ball 35-40 times a game like Brees does, he would probably have very similar numbers.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
18,575
Reaction score
1,511
Polaris":e7k7uo0m said:
Lane and Maxwell are nearly as good as Thurman and Browne...

What follows is an honest question: Can anyone point me to material that indicates Lane and Maxwell can be relied up on to play at a borderline Pro Bowl level against elite quarterbacks? I mean, maybe I missed something, but it's bizarre how missing 2/5 of the Legion of Boom is so casually regarded around here. Only Lane has started, and most of these two's action was last year against Ryan Fitzpatrick, Colin Kaepernick, and Sam Bradford. Not horrible, but hardly on par with Drew Brees and his slot options. This is the foremost reason I don't feel good about this game - I don't want Seattle to find out the hard way how much Browner and Thurmond have been bringing to this team (and I don't even think Browner is all that amazing, more worried about Thurmond really).

The guy I'm concerned about is Lance Moore. He's been quiet, but that means nothing for WRs on any given Sunday. He's a good slot option and well-primed to come back today against a depleted slot CB.
 

AsylumGuido

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
1,093
Reaction score
31
Location
Bossier City, LA
lukerguy":2gd3vmam said:
AsylumGuido":2gd3vmam said:
Polaris":2gd3vmam said:
EmDiggy":2gd3vmam said:
Wow! This is some awesome back-n-forth discussion! Here's how I came to the conclusionTo me Home/Away/Weather is irrelevant to an outcome of a game. It's going to be close.. I see maybe a 17-13 type game

I don't know how you can say this, especially since the numbers say otherwise and remember that the Saints did face on the road a similiar sort of team (although I think we'd agree nowhere as good) in the NY Jets, and the Saints flunked that test.

As for counting two people out, Browner wasn't going to play anyway because of his groin injury (the suspensions have nothing to do with it), and Maxwell in particular is probably as good as Thurman.

The Saints faced the Jets without Marques Colston and Darren Sproles was injured on his first touch of the game. That is two of the three match-up nightmares that the Saints present. Roman Harper was also out that game. The current Saints roster is the healthiest it has been all season long. As for flunking the test, they lost by 6 points. Not bad with a depleted lineup.
I would hardly consider Colston a nightmare any more. I fear Stills more than him. I'll give you Sproles, though.

You mean the Harper that was the primary reason why we beat you as a 7-9 team a few years ago? Roman "over the top" Harper?

No, there were many reasons why the Saints lost that game with one of the most important being the fact that the Saints were playing with Julius Jones as their primary back. That team was decimated. The Seahawks had better overall personnel at that time. Brees did all he could passing for over 400 yards, but it was a bad defense and a skeleton crew on offense. Harper was forced to play out of position. He never has been a cover safety and he is not used as one in Ryan's defense.
 

EverydayImRusselin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
898
In fact I went back and looked at Wilson's numbers over the 1st 2 years compared to Brees in 2011 (throwing out last year and this season is not finished). This gives them a very similar number of attempts.

Brees 657 Attempts, 71.2% completion, 5,476 yds, 8.34 YPA, 46 TD 14 INT 110.6 QB rating
Wilson 668 Attempts 64.1% completion, 5,480 yds, 8.20 YPA, 45 TD, 16 INT 102.1 QB rating


Almost eerily similar numbers across the board.
 

CANHawk

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
12,041
Reaction score
0
Location
PoCompton, BC Canada
AsylumGuido":5ogka05m said:
Polaris":5ogka05m said:
AsylumGuido":5ogka05m said:
MissoulaHawkFan":5ogka05m said:
Has Harper improved on his reads / keys from when we met in the Playoffs a couple years ago? Because he got smoked pretty bad on play-action a couple times, and we're even better at it with RW at QB now...

Harper will not be involved in pass coverage. He will be playing run coverage. Watch Em's video to see how Harper is used.

I saw the video. If they try a modified 3-3-5 against a back like Lynch, the Saints will be eaten alive....just like Ivory did in Week 9.

I am actually expecting something more along the lines that Ryan used to shut down the 49ers' run game using more of a 3-5-3 and a 2-5-4 at times. That contained Kaepernick and shut down Gore. Although, having Harper back will allow him to act as that fifth LB on occasion.

Wilson/Lynch >>>>>>>>> Kap/Gore

If Robbie focuses too much on shutting down the run, Wilson will torch that D over the top. You can only scheme your way to so much. I'm actually expecting one of those huge bombs to Lockett off of play action at some point in this game. That dude has SICK speed and if that D bites too hard on the play action (which they're going to start doing eventually), he'll get behind (giggle) Roman Harper with ease...

We pound the rock to open up the explosive play. Then play great defense. It's the Pete Carroll way.
 

lukerguy

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
20
AsylumGuido":2nri8pnc said:
No, there were many reasons why the Saints lost that game with one of the most important being the fact that the Saints were playing with Julius Jones as their primary back. That team was decimated. The Seahawks had better overall personnel at that time. Brees did all he could passing for over 400 yards, but it was a bad defense and a skeleton crew on offense. Harper was forced to play out of position. He never has been a cover safety and he is not used as one in Ryan's defense.
Did Julius Jones allow 41 points? Harper was still playing SS? I don't know what you mean.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
18,575
Reaction score
1,511
Heh, Harper did get repeatedly abused that game. Hasselbeck was far more responsible for the win than Lynch was, frankly.
 

AsylumGuido

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
1,093
Reaction score
31
Location
Bossier City, LA
MontanaHawk05":3e7smkmu said:
Polaris":3e7smkmu said:
Lane and Maxwell are nearly as good as Thurman and Browne...

What follows is an honest question: Can anyone point me to material that indicates Lane and Maxwell can be relied up on to play at a borderline Pro Bowl level against elite quarterbacks? I mean, maybe I missed something, but it's bizarre how missing 2/5 of the Legion of Boom is so casually regarded around here. Only Lane has started, and most of these two's action was last year against Ryan Fitzpatrick, Colin Kaepernick, and Sam Bradford. Not horrible, but hardly on par with Drew Brees and his slot options. This is the foremost reason I don't feel good about this game - I don't want Seattle to find out the hard way how much Browner and Thurmond have been bringing to this team (and I don't even think Browner is all that amazing, more worried about Thurmond really).

The guy I'm concerned about is Lance Moore. He's been quiet, but that means nothing for WRs on any given Sunday. He's a good slot option and well-primed to come back today against a depleted slot CB.

Much of Moore's thunder has been stolen by Kenny Stills recently. Stills is the real thing.
 

AsylumGuido

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
1,093
Reaction score
31
Location
Bossier City, LA
lukerguy":o1aiuhgx said:
AsylumGuido":o1aiuhgx said:
No, there were many reasons why the Saints lost that game with one of the most important being the fact that the Saints were playing with Julius Jones as their primary back. That team was decimated. The Seahawks had better overall personnel at that time. Brees did all he could passing for over 400 yards, but it was a bad defense and a skeleton crew on offense. Harper was forced to play out of position. He never has been a cover safety and he is not used as one in Ryan's defense.
Did Julius Jones allow 41 points? Harper was still playing SS? I don't know what you mean.

Harper does not play the SS in Ryan's defense. He has no WR coverage responsibilities as he did in the 2010 defense. Vaccarro is the SS and Jenkins is the FS. Harper is a third safety who plays the run, assists in the flat and rushes the QB.
 

AsylumGuido

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
1,093
Reaction score
31
Location
Bossier City, LA
MontanaHawk05":2faz018p said:
Heh, Harper did get repeatedly abused that game. Hasselbeck was far more responsible for the win than Lynch was, frankly.

Actually, it was the CB's who were burned forcing Harper into coverage which is not his strength at all.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
18,575
Reaction score
1,511
IIRC, both of John Carlson's touchdowns came because Harper lost track of him near the goal line while having nobody else to cover.
 

CANHawk

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
12,041
Reaction score
0
Location
PoCompton, BC Canada
MontanaHawk05":1rcnylxd said:
IIRC, both of John Carlson's touchdowns came because Harper lost track of him near the goal line while having nobody else to cover.

LOL. I totally remember Harper running around in near circles looking for somebody to cover. Pure comedy...
 

SalishHawkFan

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
0
MontanaHawk05":4eml679m said:
Polaris":4eml679m said:
Lane and Maxwell are nearly as good as Thurman and Browne...

What follows is an honest question: Can anyone point me to material that indicates Lane and Maxwell can be relied up on to play at a borderline Pro Bowl level against elite quarterbacks? I mean, maybe I missed something, but it's bizarre how missing 2/5 of the Legion of Boom is so casually regarded around here. Only Lane has started, and most of these two's action was last year against Ryan Fitzpatrick, Colin Kaepernick, and Sam Bradford. Not horrible, but hardly on par with Drew Brees and his slot options. This is the foremost reason I don't feel good about this game - I don't want Seattle to find out the hard way how much Browner and Thurmond have been bringing to this team (and I don't even think Browner is all that amazing, more worried about Thurmond really).

The guy I'm concerned about is Lance Moore. He's been quiet, but that means nothing for WRs on any given Sunday. He's a good slot option and well-primed to come back today against a depleted slot CB.
You bring up a good point. Browner has had an off year. Thurmond has been pretty good, IMO, but not Pro Bowl level. Which begs the question: How far are we really going to drop off? I mean, the defense has been excellent. We still have the three most important and talented people of the LOB: Kam, Sherman and ET.

I really don't think NO's will score much in the red zone. They're going to have to settle for FG's.
 

CANHawk

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
12,041
Reaction score
0
Location
PoCompton, BC Canada
SalishHawkFan":263csajb said:
MontanaHawk05":263csajb said:
Polaris":263csajb said:
Lane and Maxwell are nearly as good as Thurman and Browne...

What follows is an honest question: Can anyone point me to material that indicates Lane and Maxwell can be relied up on to play at a borderline Pro Bowl level against elite quarterbacks? I mean, maybe I missed something, but it's bizarre how missing 2/5 of the Legion of Boom is so casually regarded around here. Only Lane has started, and most of these two's action was last year against Ryan Fitzpatrick, Colin Kaepernick, and Sam Bradford. Not horrible, but hardly on par with Drew Brees and his slot options. This is the foremost reason I don't feel good about this game - I don't want Seattle to find out the hard way how much Browner and Thurmond have been bringing to this team (and I don't even think Browner is all that amazing, more worried about Thurmond really).

The guy I'm concerned about is Lance Moore. He's been quiet, but that means nothing for WRs on any given Sunday. He's a good slot option and well-primed to come back today against a depleted slot CB.
You bring up a good point. Browner has had an off year. Thurmond has been pretty good, IMO, but not Pro Bowl level. Which begs the question: How far are we really going to drop off? I mean, the defense has been excellent. We still have the three most important and talented people of the LOB: Kam, Sherman and ET.

I really don't think NO's will score much in the red zone. They're going to have to settle for FG's.

Yep. Not to deminish Kam's contributions in any way (because they are great and numerous) but the two pieces that make the LoB special are Sherman and Thomas. Sherm can totally be left on an island. Earl makes up for everything else with his amazing range. As long as whoever we have as the other corner can get a half decent jam to screw up the timing of the play, Earl can swoop in to clean up any messes. The depth guys are more than good enough to fill in as long as nothing happens to Earl.
 
Top