Why the Saints Lost: From the Bird's Nest

[Just1More]

This lost had nothing to do with PT going out in the first drive. It also had nothing to do with who is the toughest team. It again, had nothing to do with a running game. The offense turned the ball over and had to fight to come from behind. The defense actually played well until the last 4 minutes of the game. Once Drew and the offense gained the lead, it was the defense that failed against a mediocre 49ers offense. The game will have ups and downs all during the 4 qtrs. The time that really matters is at the end of the game when the good players make the good plays. The Saints Defense, twice, had the chance to seal the deal and failed to do so. None of the other stuff matters, in my opinion of course.

It all mattered. The PT knockout did change the playcalling... as did getting behind on early turnovers. Roby taking the kick that he fumbled was another domino that fell as a result of PT getting knocked out. They dug themselves out of that hole and ended up in a sprint to the finish... where I believe the Saints defense (and DC) didn't adjust to... and double up... the "man of the game"... Vernon Davis. Obviously... in conclusion... the TOs did cause the loss of the game. The Saints would normally have gotten the lead... and certainly with a full arsenal of RBs would have run more... and our defense wouldn't have been on their heels against that home game inspired 49er offense. It didn't hurt that Alex Smith played like a probowler.

[CajunEXPRESS]

No doubt 5 turnovers were a big part. No doubt Thomas fumble was a caused by a violent hit, that in some games gets a flag in today's NFL. Roby and Sproles misplaying the punts and kickoffs had almost nothing to do with the 49's, those are simply bad plays.

Fact, in spite of all that Brees had the Saints up by one and then up by three late in the game. Now I think anyone might expect the 49"s to take the lead late with only a one point game, but they simply went though the Saint's defense like a hot knife though butter, and then a three point lead, again a hot knife though butter did not even run out of time outs.

No matter what BOP or anyone else says, when you let two touchdowns come in the final two plus minutes of the game by a team that scored hardly any all year long. That my friends belongs to the defense. They needed to stand up one time and did not when it mattered most.

The Saints defense, this year, was run by the same guy who won a Super Bowl, but it was being playred without two of it's major play makers of that year, and they never came close to replacing those guys.

[RaginFan2]

No doubt 5 turnovers were a big part. No doubt Thomas fumble was a caused by a violent hit, that in some games gets a flag in today's NFL. Roby and Sproles misplaying the punts and kickoffs had almost nothing to do with the 49's, those are simply bad plays.

Fact, in spite of all that Brees had the Saints up by one and then up by three late in the game. Now I think anyone might expect the 49"s to take the lead late with only a one point game, but they simply went though the Saint's defense like a hot knife though butter, and then a three point lead, again a hot knife though butter did not even run out of time outs.

No matter what BOP or anyone else says, when you let two touchdowns come in the final two plus minutes of the game by a team that scored hardly any all year long. That my friends belongs to the defense. They needed to stand up one time and did not when it mattered most.

The Saints defense, this year, was run by the same guy who won a Super Bowl, but it was being playred without two of it's major play makers of that year, and they never came close to replacing those guys.

In regards to the DC, it just goes to show that "players make plays" and "big time players make big time plays when it counts". I am a firm believer that the plays that are so vital at the end of the game are set up during the entire course of the game. It looked to me that the early problems the Saints had put added pressure on the defense, and they got worn down (mentally & emotionally) at the end.

[Turbine]

I don't want to lose him so I won'tname him in this post . . . but what the Saints needed at the end of thegame was an S&C coach with blood dripping down his forehead.

They needed him (or one like him) in the off season when he could have performed bloodless surgery on the team.

[RaginFan2]

I don't want to lose him so I won'tname him in this post . . . but what the Saints needed at the end of thegame was an S&C coach with blood dripping down his forehead.

They needed him (or one like him) in the off season when he could have performed bloodless surgery on the team.

Shhhhh!!! We don't want the Saints coming over here and talking with Coach Witt!!! What are you trying to do, Turbine??? LOL

[axg8750]

No doubt Thomas fumble was a caused by a violent hit, that in some games gets a flag in today's NFL.

My friends were all begging for this call during the game and I have heard this argument several times since the game.

There is ansolutely NO WAY thta hit should have drawn a flag! It was a violent hit but it was totally legal! I am surprised how many hardcore football fans do not understand the helmet to helmet rule and what constitutes a defenseless reciever. It is a defenders job to hit a ball carrier hard enough to make him drop the ball. The helmet to helmet rule is in place to protect a guy while he is making a catch.

[CajunRage]

There are two possible reasons why we lost to the 49ers and they were not on the field that day.

Sun, Oct 16 @Tampa Bay L26-20
Sun, Oct 30 @St. Louis L31-21

Take care of business during the regular season and we play the 9ers at home and NYG at home on our way to another super bowl.

[CajunEXPRESS]

My friends were all begging for this call during the game and I have heard this argument several times since the game.

There is ansolutely NO WAY thta hit should have drawn a flag! It was a violent hit but it was totally legal! I am surprised how many hardcore football fans do not understand the helmet to helmet rule and what constitutes a defenseless reciever. It is a defenders job to hit a ball carrier hard enough to make him drop the ball. The helmet to helmet rule is in place to protect a guy while he is making a catch.

NO, NO we understand and we saw the call many times after a receiver took a couple of steps. Reality I think the proper call was made, I just think the "rule" is almost impossible to administer properly on the field. The refs are told to protect these guys and always lean towards throwing a flag not deserved vs missing one deserved. That is why I was hoping for a flag.

[axg8750]

Ok I understand. Some of the guys I was watching the game with did not have such a level headed opinion about it as you CajunExpress.