Are you just trying to be funny here? I can't tell. If you are serious maybe you should read the article again ...
Like others have said, it's not a good article because he completely ignores the Saints opponents, but here is why he says the Saints will win:
1. HFA is big because of how loud it is in the SuperDome
2. The Saints are averaging a TD more per game in scoring.
3. The Saints offense is deeper than the Patriots.
Yes, I read the article. More than once.
Here's some of his points:
1. "The Patriots have faced only one top-quality quarterback all season. That was Colts QB Peyton Manning, who just happens to be a native of New Orleans, having grown up in the fashionable Garden District, a streetcar ride out St. Charles Avenue from the French Quarter. Manning, after getting off to a slow start two weeks ago against the Pats in Indianapolis, directed a finish that was both frenetic and fantastic (for Colts fans), shredding the New England defense for three touchdowns in the fourth quarter while wiping out deficits of 17 points with 14 minutes remaining, and 13 points with just 4 minutes to go. So worried was Patriots coach Bill Belichick about Manning and the Indy offense that, leading by six points with 2:08 to play, he elected to try to pick up a first down on 4th-and-2 at the N.E. 28, rather than punt the ball to the Colts."
Who cares where the heck Manning's from. He could be from Toledo, from crying out loud. It's totally irrelevant. And Manning is in a class by himself (except for Brady). Several of those passes were against good coverage, and were just perfectly thrown balls with fine receptions. And the Pats D essentially kept Manning under control until the end of the game, when the injured DL ran out of steam and Pees played soft coverages again. And while BB clearly respects Manning, do you think his 4th and 2 was motivated more by fear of Manning, or trust in Tom Brady?
2. "Who dat dey say gonna beat dem Saints? Not the Pats. Not here, anyway. Not in front of a full-throated, full house in the Louisiana Superdome, a raucous crowd that could make a Mardi Gras parade seem as genteel as an afternoon tea party. Not in front of a national television audience in what figures to be a highly rated Monday Night Football game."
And what about any of these factors is likely to make a difference? The Pats have played on the roud in loud domes before, most recently 2 weeks ago. Do you really believe that the Pats will lose the game based on crowd noise?
3. "And the Saints have been piling up points. They lead the NFL in scoring, averaging 36.9 points per game — six more than the next-closest team, Brett Favre’s Minnesota Vikings (30.6). The Patriots can light up the scoreboard, too. They lead the AFC, averaging 29 points a game, which promises to make for an exciting game against New Orleans. But that’s still a TD and a PAT shy of the undefeated Saints."
So the big headliner here is that the Saints can put up points on offense. Big scoop. Everyone knows that. But the Saints have been averaging 5 PPG on defensive scores (not counting offensive scores based on short field position from turnovers). And in the last 5 games the Pats have outscored the Saints 38+ PPG to 35 PPG. The first 5 games they averaged less than 21 PPG, as a result of injuries (Wes Welker), top defensive foes (Jets, Broncos), and TB being rusty coming off of a year on IR. In fact, the Pats have played 4 of the top 10 scoring defenses so far in half their games this year (#1 Indy, #5 5 Baltimore, #6 Denver, and #9 NY Jets twice).
Meanwhile 6 of NO's 10 games have come against the 10 worst scoring defenses in the NFL (#32 Detroit, #31 Tampa Bay, #29 St. Louis, #27 Miami, #26 Carolina, and #24 NY Giants). The Saints have played a top 10 scoring defense only once this year (#9 Jets).
4. "New England also ranks second in the league, behind Indianapolis, in scoring defense, allowing an average of just 16.4 points a game. But that number is deceptive because of the quality — or lack of same — of the quarterbacks the Pats have faced so far. Other than Manning, the best they’ve seen have been promising youngsters Matty “Ice” Ryan of the Falcons and Baltimore’s Joe Flacco, whose teams are muddling along at 5-5. Who else impresses you? The Dolphins’ Chad Henne? Denver’s Kyle Orton? Certainly not Buffalo’s Trent Edwards, the Jets’ interception-throwing rookie, Mark Sanchez, Tennessee’s Kerry Collins — who lost his starting job to Vince Young after the Titans were humiliated in New England, 59-0, nor struggling Tampa Bay’s Josh Freeman. Brees is much better than any of them, and has a supporting cast that’s scary."
No one's going to argue that Henne, Orton, Edwards, Sanchez or Collins are better than Drew Brees. But Orton has played extremely well this season, and is by no means a creampuff. And Flacco and Ryan were two of the hottest QBs in the NFL when we played them. I would call them more than "promising youngsters" at this point. The Pats D have faced the teams ranked 3rd (Indy), 8th (Atlanta), 11th (Miami) and 12th (Baltimore) in scoring so far this year. That's not chopped liver. And Baltimore was ranked 2nd in scoring averaging 34 PPG when we faced them.
The best offense the Saints have faced has been the 7th rated Philadelphia Eagles. Like the Pats, the Saints have faced 28th ranked Buffalo and 27th ranked Tampa Bay. But the Saints D has also faced #31 St. Louis, #25 Detroit, and #23 Carolina, so half of their games have been against bottom 10 offenses.
Everyone knows the Saints are good. Everyone knows they have a lot of weapons. Everyone knows that they could win this game.
But for a NE writer to write this going of homeristic crap ("The Saints haven’t lost anywhere, to anybody. And they’re not going to lose to New England. Who dat dey say gonna beat dem Saints? Not the Pats, it says here) clearly smacks of typical Borgian anti-Pats BS.
Yes, I read the article.
