- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Saints record without Reggie Bush
Posted on 9/21/10 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 9/21/10 at 10:50 pm
Anyone know what it is?
And I'm not trying to say that it wasn't a big loss.
And I'm not trying to say that it wasn't a big loss.
3
Posted on 9/21/10 at 10:52 pm to TigerBait1127
8-4 by my calculations
Posted on 9/21/10 at 10:57 pm to Lester Earl
Thanks 
Posted on 9/21/10 at 11:07 pm to TigerBait1127
and...
Bush has missed a total of 12 games over the past 4 seasons (2006-09). Over that time New Orleans has averaged 25.3 points per game with him in the lineup, and 32.7 points per game without him. While strength of schedule, and random chance helps explain the difference there, it does show that the team is perfectly of continuing to perform at a high level without Bush.
LINK
Bush has missed a total of 12 games over the past 4 seasons (2006-09). Over that time New Orleans has averaged 25.3 points per game with him in the lineup, and 32.7 points per game without him. While strength of schedule, and random chance helps explain the difference there, it does show that the team is perfectly of continuing to perform at a high level without Bush.
LINK
Posted on 9/21/10 at 11:11 pm to blueslover
the Pats game last year was one he missed. The offense looked kind of OK in that game.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 9:35 am to Lester Earl
quote:
8-4 by my calculations
Yep...that's what they said on Mike and Mike.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 10:35 am to blueslover
Yeah, but what people aren't talking about is that the bulk of those missed games were during the 2007 and 2008 seasons. LINK
We had shitty defenses those years and were constantly playing catch-up...thus the higher scoring average.
To quote numbers without context like Mike and Mike or the gentleman from the link is misleading.
It'd be like me saying the two full years Bush was healthy were 2006 and 2009...then correlating that to our position at the end of those years (i.e. NFCCG and SB). True, but misleading.
We had shitty defenses those years and were constantly playing catch-up...thus the higher scoring average.
To quote numbers without context like Mike and Mike or the gentleman from the link is misleading.
It'd be like me saying the two full years Bush was healthy were 2006 and 2009...then correlating that to our position at the end of those years (i.e. NFCCG and SB). True, but misleading.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 10:54 am to Farva
quote:
To quote numbers without context like Mike and Mike or the gentleman from the link is misleading.
Precisely my point from yesterday...
That said, we are a solid offensive team, so we will overcome the temporary loss of Bush.
This post was edited on 9/22/10 at 10:55 am
Posted on 9/22/10 at 10:57 am to Farva
quote:
We had shitty defenses those years and were constantly playing catch-up...thus the higher scoring average.
To quote numbers without context like Mike and Mike or the gentleman from the link is misleading.
and? that just means we have no problem scoring regardless of bush playing or not.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:00 am to diat150
That wasn't your argument yesterday...
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:01 am to Sophandros
quote:
That said, we are a solid offensive team, so we will overcome the temporary loss of Bush.
I forgot to say this.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:08 am to TigerBait1127
saints will do just fine without him even though with him on the field it is a defensive coordinators nightmare. Brees knows how to spread the ball around and bettes should provide stability in the back field. reggie is a huge part of our offense even when he doesnt touch the ball. i hope he comes back within 6 weeks and makes a good impression so the will resign him!
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:08 am to Sophandros
quote:
That wasn't your argument yesterday...
what was my argument yesterday?
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:16 am to diat150
quote:
and? that just means we have no problem scoring regardless of bush playing or not.
No, it doesn't. So if PT is hurt or doesn't get any touches, and we hang 40 on a team, do we not need him? Ridiculous.
I'm just saying, to marginalize the loss of Bush by quoting misleading numbers (or buying into them) is lazy. In your case, it may be revealing about allegiances to certain players.
In any event, I think we make it through this stretch because of great players (like PT, among many, many others). But the loss of Bush will hurt, and not help this offense.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:24 am to diat150
You were arguing yesterday (and other times) that the Saints are better without Bush, which is why you chose to ignore strength of opposition and made up your nonsense about a typical NFL schedule having half of its teams in the bottom third of the league.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:25 am to Farva
quote:
No, it doesn't. So if PT is hurt or doesn't get any touches, and we hang 40 on a team, do we not need him? Ridiculous.
I'm just saying, to marginalize the loss of Bush by quoting misleading numbers (or buying into them) is lazy. In your case, it may be revealing about allegiances to certain players.
In any event, I think we make it through this stretch because of great players (like PT, among many, many others). But the loss of Bush will hurt, and not help this offense.
we have plenty of very good players capable of making plays. the offense will truck along as long as brees is healthy and the line is blocking for him.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:27 am to diat150
No one is disputing that.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:32 am to Sophandros
quote:
You were arguing yesterday (and other times) that the Saints are better without Bush, which is why you chose to ignore strength of opposition and made up your nonsense about a typical NFL schedule having half of its teams in the bottom third of the league.
you must have been mistaken(as usual). I said that it has been shown that we can win and win big when bush doesnt play. thats a fact, despite your manlove for bush, that doesnt change.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:33 am to Sophandros
quote:
No one is disputing that.
what what in the hell are you disputing? that the saints offense has lit up the scoreboard regardless of if bush played or not? thats a dumb argument for you to take, since it is a fact. but hey, with you it wouldnt surprise me.
Posted on 9/22/10 at 11:54 am to diat150
Since you (yet again) ran away from the discussion and resorted to fallacies, I'm done with you, again.
I wish we had an ignore feature on here, as they have on SR.com
I wish we had an ignore feature on here, as they have on SR.com
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News