´óÏó´«Ã½

Interesting to see Payton took a pay-cut to get Williams but he is the kind of defensive co-ordinator the Saints needed. Add to that the acquisition of veteran leader like Sharper the defense looks ready for a play-off (and possibly a Super-bowl) run.

The offense have got much more balance to the attack and this is keeping the defense rested which was a problem last year when the offense would score in barely no time.

Looking at their schedule its not the toughest after the Giants at home and Miami away (the Saints dont tend to travel well). Week 14 versus Atlanta is looking like a match-up to decide the division.

No question that the Saints defense is a marked improvement on last year's. But hold the pom-poms.

They have get to face a genuinely physical, power rushing team. None of the Lions, Eagles, Bills (without Lynch), or Jets are anywhere near top of the smash-mouth league. And all of them fell behind to the Saints early and by the 3rd quarter or sooner had to start airing it out which exposed them to the blitz and Sharper.

After next week's bye, the Saints have the Giants, Dolphins, Falcons and Panthers. All of whom will surely test the Saints down the middle. After this stretch, that's when we should know if the Saints are the real deal. I am very sure they will make it to the post-season, because even if they start to creak against the run, they always look like scoring plenty quickly. But that Giants contest will be awesome, that's the complete test the Saints need, and if they can cope with Jacobs and Bradshaw, they'll win and look like a serious Superbowl contender.

Two teams not 4-0 worthy of a shout-out - the Bears, where Cutler is getting warmed up; and the Jaguars, totally unfancied at the start of the season but now looking like a real handful.

Yep, there's no doubting the Saints crudentials.
People say they have a soft schedule but as Eddie-George says, we'll know alot more in another month or so.
I would be concerned at leaking ponts v Lions and giving up so many yards v Phillys second string offence, but you can't argue with 4-0.
I bet Payton wishes he had a few more weeks of this team before entering a bye.
Interesting comments too regarding Payton subsidising Williams salary, I wasn't aware of that but no doubt he was worth it.
For the first time in a while the group of death looks a straight fight between two, the Saints and Falcs, but their crudentials as a superbowl candidate will be fully tested week 6-9

On the pay "subsidies", didn't Tom Brady pass up a few mil to make sure the Pats could sign Randy Moss? Not strictly a subsidy, but along the same lines...

Good comments Eddie-george, but maybe my Giants aren´t so tough either. They´ve played mediocre teams and I hate to think of what Drew Brees will make of our secondary if the defense is still so banged-up in a few weeky time.

Not only would NFL head coaches run over their own grandmothers to win a game, they would pass over their grandmothers too !!! (Peyton, be a good boy, throw it little lower please, my wheelchair´s got a puncture ;D

Oh no. I see that Eli Manning (NYG) is now suffering from . Thats a complete disaster for the Giants. I wonder how they will cope without him if he is out injured?

Nailbiterblood - it's the Giants pass-rush that's the business, but obviously if the New Orleans offensive line does its job, even the best secondary will be in for a very long afternoon.

Where I think you guys match up well is Jacobs running at the heart of the Saints defense. Fred Jackson, no Jacobs, averaged 4 yards a carry for the Bills, and if the Saints start bringing extra men into the box - as they will surely have to - then Eli gets space to pass into. But it's one of those games which could be a real thriller, and certainly for the Saints, helpful for them to have two weeks to prepare and be playing at home.

I'd like to see if Neil will follow up on last weeks' posts... where he trashed Derek Anderson (who ended up doing okay for the Browns) and then called an easy win for Dallas... (which it perhaps would have been had the lunkhead Cowboy play-callers told Romo throw to Witten and away from Champ Bailey)

Glad we agree on the Cowboy trainwreck! Didn't realise 40% of throws went in Bailey's direction, that should be a sackable offence.

No question, on the face of it, that having invested in Brady Quinn the Browns should be giving him a decent run. But I think that overlooks turnover in coaching staff, it's not really feasible for an owner (Al Davis excepted) to hire a coach and tell him who he should start. And if Mangini has only a year to prove himself, you can surely understand why he might turn to Anderson.

I guess I see Anderson a little like Pennington, not someone you would ever imagine can go out and win games for you; but can do a job if you play-call with his limitations in mind. Having a younger Jamal Lewis would obviously help... which just shows again what sort of a mess this franchise is in.

Neil, loving the responses.

Jason Garrett - People have worked him out a little bit & he also believes his own (and Romo's) hype. Garrett play calls as if he is the great offensive guru and to feed the ego.
If Dallas had beaten Denver by throwing at Bailey the media would have loved Garrett and Romo and been all over them.
As it was Champ showed why offensive co-ordinators don't throw at him that often, he is prone to get beat on the odd double move and good pump fake.

I remember last year Dallas went for Ed Reed in the Baltimore game and got the same outcome (although the defense had to take a lot of blame in that one).

In terms of the Head Coaching job, Baltimore were one of the teams pushing to get Garrett and im very happy he rejected the approach and settled with Harborough (whose personality fits exactly what Baltimore are about). I dont think Jerry Jones will give him the HC job and will go for a experienced coach.

Romo - He makes poor decisions at crucial times (why he didnt attack Goodman on the other side i dont know) and always takes unneccessary risks. Im not convinced by his ability to throw the deep ball, they were quite a few wayward throws on Sunday.

Neil - I'm no Romo fan but you have to acknowledge that he has talent.
As for his performance last week we will never know how many of attempts covered by Bailey were his doing and how many were called from the sideline.
I doubt we'll ever see a press conference where a coach openly says his QB ignored the play x times, but he's a QB under pressure playing in a team that's under pressure, following through the coaches call somehow passes the buck.
Not many coaches have a Brady/Manning like QB where your only instruction is 'go find the end zone'

Grizzly - I think with the Dallas, as Ravens above hinted, a problem is that they believe their own hype. They do have plenty of talent, but they marched into Denver, opened up a 10-0 lead, and then played like millionaires only to end up getting a nasty shock.

Pretty hard from the outside to say if Garrett or Romo shoulders more blame, but you shouldn't need a Brady or Peyton Manning to know not to throw at Champ Bailey more than once or twice a game.

Just as a contrast don't know if you saw Flacco leading the Ravens on a late drive v my Pats, now there was an offense doing all the right things (until Mark Clayton dropped a proverbial sitter on 4th down). Romo and Garrett could do a lot worse than taking a leaf out of that book.

Eddie - yes I did see Flacco's drive and I couldn't agree more.
He showed great composure and exectued the plays very well, change the shirts and helmets and you would have thought you were watching a Brady or Manning.
My point is that if Garrett is calling a rout that brings Bailey into play then who is Romo to say 'hang on coach, I don't agree with that', there's a very limited opportunity to communicate between plays and I've not known a QB go against co-ordinators advice.
As I said, we will never know, if the offensive co-ordinator calls a screen and Romo thinks there's a better opportunity downfield I reckon the coaching team will suffer that maybe once a week, so if as Neil says Bailey is brought into play 16 times then either Romo is currently job hunting or the play caller needs shooting !

Grizzly, they both are responsible for the entire game. Once or twice is fine but 16 times in on both of their heads.

Neil, i dont know how much involvement/ knowledge (not ment in an offensive manner) you have on an offenses game planning in the week upto an NFL game.
Do the offense work on attacking individual players on the opposition? Do they do this for specific situations? So for example would Dallas have worked on specifically running the quick slant and throwing at Bailey in the redzone?

Thanks Neil, Im not sure i would have left it. The player would have got in more trouble for leaving it lying around. BTW - the Dolphins either didnt do their homework or got poor advice because the Pats hammered them both times in 2007.

The whole team can take the rap for those calls in that case. Garrett and Romo for calling those specific plays. Austin for not telling Romo that him versus Goodman was a better match-up, Witten for not complaining after being left to block twice in a row.

P.S. Breaking News - /dna/606/A58108647

Do you not think that Garrett is trying to change the way Romo plays?

I mean Tony Romo of a few seasons ago use to love moving about and out of the pocket making throws on the move, etc, but in the this season and some of last season he is trying to become a more pocket passer like a Brady or a Manning, but this is leading to him coming under more pressure and probably leading to more rash throws.

As for the Saints I am really hoping the Giants can prove they are only human in a few weeks. I think what has impressed me more is that Drew Brees hasn't been superhuman in the past few weeks but the ground attack and, on sunday, the defence are good enough to win games.

As a Falcons fan I would love to think we could go toe-to-toe with them but as we proved at New England that defence needs some work on the big plays; as our powerful offensive can't do much damage if its on the sidelines.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.