Super Bowl XLIV: New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts

Of those six second-half drives, two - or 33% - ended in points. Yes, I understand that four ended in turnovers, but let's not make it out to where a team that allowed points on only two of six possessions (to an elite offense) didn't play well for that half. And as I said earlier, the total yardage figure for a specific game can get easily skewed based on turnovers - if you set the other team up with first and goal on the 7, they're not going to get many yards because they don't have far to go. You're going to have a lot of yards simply because you run more plays, courtesy of the other team not taking time off the clock.

 

DAMN YOU, IP trackin' software...

's OK, man. 'S OK.


I have correctly predicted ONE WINNER (Cowboys 2 TDs over the Eagles, then NO over the Cards, then NO over the Vikings) out of all the games these past playoffs, and I won't be wrong again: I will bet the house on the S Ain'ts.

And I am tired of all this "the city deserves it" and "do it for Haiti" *****. If you're good, you're good. F all that crap.

 

The yardage statistic can certainly be manipulated by short fields, but that's not what happened here. NO had 6 drives in the 2nd half - none lasted more than 4 plays. 2 were TD's (37 yards and 7 yards), but the other 4 were 3-and-outs followed by punts.

Minnesota had 6 drives in the 2nd half. One went 21 yards (fumble); another went 41 yards; the others were 56, 57, 70, and 80. These were all extended drives that ended due to turnovers or TD's - the Saints defense wasn't coming close to stopping the Vikings in terms of moving up and down the field on a per-play yardage basis.

In the 2nd half, Minnesota had 5 drives that went longer than NO's longest. NO had 64 total yards in the 2nd half, and most of NO's drives started on their own side of the field, so it wasn't a result of short fields.

To clarify - I'm not saying they didn't play well. Forcing 4 turnovers is good. but I'm just saying that yards-per-play is not a good stat here and that NO's pass defense didn't do well on a per-play basis because they never could stop the chains from moving. They did, however, make two very critical INTs so it all worked out well.

 

So Cat, which is it? Yardage Average against the Colts isn't skewered by 2 flukey passes by the Jets, or Yardage Average is skewered because of the Vikings turnover woes?

 

As an aside - the Saints kicker/punter (Morstead) has a freekin cannon of a leg.

 

He's no Lechler.


2nd punter in NFL history to post an average punt of over 50 yards.



You damn right.

 

If you think the Braylon Edwards play was a fluke, more power to you. It was a simple route and the Colts' DB got burned, badly, and Sanchez put it right on the money. Not nearly the same as a turnover that gives you the ball on the seven for a first and goal.

And in the yards-per-pass category, I was using numbers for only Sanchez - so I was already not counting the Brad Smith play.

 

So you're manipulating the stats in favor of the teams you wanted to win.


Got it.

 

I think yards-per-play is a terrific stat, because when you compare the full games, the Saints' defense did a superior job to Indianapolis - even against a much superior opponent. Also, I know we're talking in the context of pass defense, but since you mentioned the Saints' offensive numbers - you have to remember the first TD of the second half came off an enormous kick return, thus limiting another potential chance in terms of yards.

You also have to consider the game situations. When you play with a lead, which the Saints did for much of the second half, defensively you tend to play lax in the middle of the field and not take as many chances, simply because you don't want to allow the big play to get them back in it. On two of those four drives you cited, that was the exact scenario. Saints played soft, avoid the big-play defense until the Vikings got into field goal range... then became more aggressive and forced turnovers.

It's not to say that the Saints played a great defensive game. But, on the whole, they were very good (better in the first half, of course) and imo superior to the Colts' effort on that side of the ball.

 

What stat did I manipulate? The only number I changed at all was the overall yards per attempt, to take out the Smith trick play - which makes the COLTS look BETTER! So, unless you're accusing me of being a Colts fan, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm not the one manipulating anything. If you look back, what I posted was that the Saints' per-play averages on defense yesterday - both overall and against the pass - were superior to what the Colts did. Moreover, the Saints played a much better opponent on offense.

Then, other people started trying to alter the raw numbers into "by half" and other segmentations, and suddenly, I'm the one trying to manipulate? What the hell are you talking about?

 

will be an early mardi gras in Miami in few weekends I am sure.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ohyvHQKqbuU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ohyvHQKqbuU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

I read your posts and all I see is "I hate Peyton Manning and I hate Brett Favre"

 

You know I have a special place for Reggie hate too.

 

Morstead graduated from Pearland High Sschool, just outside of Houston. Just one year after I did. He only played one year of varsity IIRC, because we had a pretty good kicker right before him. I saw plenty of games his senior year and don't ever recall thinking he was that great of a punter (to the extent that he would go on to such success), but I must have not been paying attention.

 

Colts 42
Saints 20

 

Saints beat an overconfident Colts team.

Saints: 35
Colts: 31

 

He went to my mom's church - all I remember of him is him being a really scrawny kid about 10 years younger than me. I saw him before the season at a party - he's freekin enormous now.

 

I don't like either team, I rather see Peyton lose because I just can't stand what he does to the Texans! But I still think Colts will win

NO 27
IND 34

 

I am rooting for the Saints, but this is Peyton Manning's game to lose.

Close early, blowout in the 2nd half.

27-13 Colts.

 

Funny things happen in the Super Bowl, but I'd be shocked (and impressed) if the Colts held the Saints to 13 points. I still think the Colts will win, but they'll have to hold off a comeback by the Saints.