Will the SAINTS turn into a dynasty?

Crnjak · 02-08-10, 07:49 AM

they look realy good in win over indy!!

Ace_of_Spades · 02-08-10, 07:52 AM

Star studded offense.

Fishhead · 02-08-10, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Ace_of_Spades

Star studded offense.

True, and very underrated.

WileOut · 02-08-10, 08:08 AM

Yes they are going to be a dynasty.

But I have to disagree with the underrated part. They finished 1st in total offense and 1st in points scored. I don't think you can be underrated when you put up numbers like that.

The entire game last night was won on 1 play, the onside kick. 80% of the time the colts recover that kick. With only a 40 yard field to work with they probably would have scored a TD to make it 17-6 and probably gone on to win the game.

Despite what everyone is saying about how Saints coach is a genius, the play was incredibly stupid.

Fishhead · 02-08-10, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by WileOut

Yes they are going to be a dynasty.

But I have to disagree with the underrated part. They finished 1st in total offense and 1st in points scored. I don't think you can be underrated when you put up numbers like that.

The entire game last night was won on 1 play, the onside kick. 80% of the time the colts recover that kick. With only a 40 yard field to work with they probably would have scored a TD to make it 17-6 and probably gone on to win the game.

Despite what everyone is saying about how Saints coach is a genius, the play was incredibly stupid.

Ace_of_Spades · 02-08-10, 08:13 AM

Teams have like 2,3 good players, the Saints have a shitload of great players and an awsome QB.

daneblazer · 02-08-10, 08:14 AM

They should hope that Favre retires and doesn't go back to Minnesota and McNabb stays in Phille.

WileOut · 02-08-10, 08:15 AM

Fisher its statistics. Receiving team recovers 80% of onside kicks. So the Saints put the entire game on a 1 in 5 shot.

Ace_of_Spades · 02-08-10, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by daneblazer

They should hope that Favre retires and doesn't go back to Minnesota and McNabb stays in Phille.

Vikes and Saints are so similiar its unbelievable.

ehp6737 · 02-08-10, 08:18 AM

They're a great team but becoming a dynasty now a days in the NFL is near impossible.

MonkeyF0cker · 02-08-10, 08:20 AM

No. One and done.

WileOut · 02-08-10, 08:23 AM

ehp look at the Colts, New England, I would say both of these teams are dynasties. Even though the Colts have only won 1 SB, they are still a dynasty, in the race every year.

And the Saints did it with 1 big name player, their QB. No top notch players at all. Reggie Bush is not a big time player. They just have a lot of good players and 1 great QB. Thats it. The vast majority of their success is because of their play calling on offense and their QB. The other players are expendable and can be replaced over and over.

They have a system like NE did with Belichick. When your team's success is due to your coach and QB, you can become a dynasty.

Outlawdino · 02-08-10, 08:28 AM

I am curious to see how Bill Parcells builds the Dolphins...I am not a Dolphins fan

Ace_of_Spades · 02-08-10, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by WileOut

And the Saints did it with 1 big name player, their QB. No top notch players at all. Reggie Bush is not a big time player. They just have a lot of good players and 1 great QB. Thats it.

The QB can't run routes and catch the ball or be a RB and dodge and run through defenses. Brees is great, but don't count out the players around him. They have alot of great players imo.

MonkeyF0cker · 02-08-10, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by WileOut

ehp look at the Colts, New England, I would say both of these teams are dynasties. Even though the Colts have only won 1 SB, they are still a dynasty, in the race every year.

And the Saints did it with 1 big name player, their QB. No top notch players at all. Reggie Bush is not a big time player. They just have a lot of good players and 1 great QB. Thats it. The vast majority of their success is because of their play calling on offense and their QB. The other players are expendable and can be replaced over and over.

They have a system like NE did with Belichick. When your team's success is due to your coach and QB, you can become a dynasty.

The definition of dynasty would argue otherwise. Dynasties are teams like the 60's Packers and 70's Steelers. They must win multiple championships to be considered so. The 70's Vikings and 90's Bills were not dynasties.

WileOut · 02-08-10, 08:42 AM

So the Braves of the 90's and early 2000's were not a dynasty? They won like 14 straight division titles! But only 1 WS. They have to be considered a dynasty. I agree the Bills and Vikings were not dynasties. Bills didn't win even 1.

Whether the Saints will become a dynasty will be determined in the future. I think they will. If their defense simply improves to become average they will really dominate.

floridagolfer · 02-08-10, 08:44 AM

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

jjgold · 02-08-10, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by ehp6737

They're a great team but becoming a dynasty now a days in the NFL is near impossible.

I agree, free agency and injuries make it very hard. They need a better running game also. Bush needs to be more dominant also.

WileOut · 02-08-10, 08:48 AM

jj they were 6th in the league in rushing yards.

My point was that free agency does not affect a team like the Saints that much. They will keep Brees and interchange other parts because they don't have any other big name players. They have a system and QB that makes them successful.

MonkeyF0cker · 02-08-10, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by WileOut

So the Braves of the 90's and early 2000's were not a dynasty? They won like 14 straight division titles! But only 1 WS. They have to be considered a dynasty. I agree the Bills and Vikings were not dynasties. Bills didn't win even 1.

Whether the Saints will become a dynasty will be determined in the future. I think they will. If their defense simply improves to become average they will really dominate.

No. The Braves were not a dynasty. The Yankees were though. They won 3 out of 4 championships and two against the Braves.

WileOut · 02-08-10, 08:53 AM

We will have to disagree on that. The Braves part. Of course the Yankees were/are a dynasty.

Fishhead · 02-08-10, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by WileOut

So the Braves of the 90's and early 2000's were not a dynasty? They won like 14 straight division titles! But only 1 WS. They have to be considered a dynasty. I agree the Bills and Vikings were not dynasties. Bills didn't win even 1.

Whether the Saints will become a dynasty will be determined in the future. I think they will. If their defense simply improves to become average they will really dominate.

The BRAVES a dynasty???

Their ONE and ONLY World Championship came in a strike shortened season...........they are no dynasty.

WileOut · 02-08-10, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Fishhead

The BRAVES a dynasty???

Their ONE and ONLY World Championship came in a strike shortened season...........they are no dynasty.

Incorrect. 1994 was the strike shortened season. Braves won it in 1995.

They are not a dynasty anymore but the were. Nobody will ever win as many consecutive division titles as they did again.

Fishhead · 02-08-10, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by WileOut

Incorrect. 1994 was the strike shortened season. Braves won it in 1995.

They are not a dynasty anymore but the were. Nobody will ever win as many consecutive division titles as they did again.

It is AMAZING how many people do not realize that the year the Braves won the Championship, that a full 160+ game schedule WAS NOT PLAYED..................the strike/stoppage of 1994 carried into the 1995 season, thus the 1995 season was not a full year.

WileOut · 02-08-10, 09:03 AM

Ok so they played 144 games instead of 162. The Mets finished 21 games back in 2nd place so they would not have been caught, and the playoffs went as they always do. It was a legit WS win.

1994 is considered the real strike season because there was no WS champion crowned.

MonkeyF0cker · 02-08-10, 09:05 AM

You don't become a dynasty by losing championships. NL East divisional titles don't make dynasties. You can call them an NL East dynasty, but not an MLB dynasty.

WileOut · 02-08-10, 09:07 AM

This Braves homer calls them a dynasty

Fishhead · 02-08-10, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by WileOut

Ok so they played 144 games instead of 162. The Mets finished 21 games back in 2nd place so they would not have been caught, and the playoffs went as they always do. It was a legit WS win.

1994 is considered the real strike season because there was no WS champion crowned.

They DID NOT win their ONLY Championship in a legit year........and they certainly are no dynasty...........not even close.

WileOut · 02-08-10, 09:19 AM

Have a wonderful day Fishhead

Fishhead · 02-08-10, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by WileOut

Have a wonderful day Fishhead

Same to you homer............

ZBOIZ · 02-08-10, 09:23 AM

As long as the Saints keep there core players they will be fine. They have a system in place and they will be tough to stop. As long as they continue to build the defense. I say now you build the defense off of depth. We need backup secondary help big time.

ZBOIZ · 02-08-10, 09:25 AM

Core players are:

Vilma
Brees
Shockey
Bush
Colston
Sharper

And of course our great O line

daneblazer · 02-08-10, 03:43 PM

Braves were a dynasty. Hate on haters...

Saints have some big moves to make in f/a. Their schedule will be ten times tougher next season. I think the Saints will need home field to win the NFC again...they will be in trouble if Green Bay or Minnesota gets it.

Home games against Carolina, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Seattle and St. Louis. Their eight road games will be at Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Cincinnati, Baltimore, San Francisco, Arizona and Dallas.

DOMINATER · 02-08-10, 07:04 PM

LISTEN SIR, your much to wise for that, I understand sometimes you have to look the fool to get the question out there, last week I had to look like a real mark ,and a mike pulled the covers on me, fish I was posing like I WANTED TO BUY A PISTOL,and asked the stupidest questions just to start a thread to keep things going, I am new to this stuff and didn't realize mike had read past Military history and I ended up looking so stupid,like they say with egg on my face I had to apologize to him for trying to pull a fast one , u don't look as bad ,but you are way to sharp for that lol