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.
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.
I would hardly consider Colston a nightmare any more. I fear Stills more than him. I'll give you Sproles, though.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.
Dtowers":36h4s4wm said:I would take RW over Brees everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
AsylumGuido":29u1qt7g said:Dtowers":29u1qt7g said:I would take RW over Brees everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.
That's fine.
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.
Polaris":e7k7uo0m said:Lane and Maxwell are nearly as good as Thurman and Browne...
lukerguy":2gd3vmam said:I would hardly consider Colston a nightmare any more. I fear Stills more than him. I'll give you Sproles, though.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.
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?
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.
Did Julius Jones allow 41 points? Harper was still playing SS? I don't know what you mean.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.
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.
lukerguy":o1aiuhgx said:Did Julius Jones allow 41 points? Harper was still playing SS? I don't know what you mean.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.
MontanaHawk05":2faz018p said:Heh, Harper did get repeatedly abused that game. Hasselbeck was far more responsible for the win than Lynch was, frankly.
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.
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.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.
SalishHawkFan":263csajb said: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.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.
I really don't think NO's will score much in the red zone. They're going to have to settle for FG's.