View topic - Substitutions

[SoCal Stiller Profile]

I have watched several Saints games this year and the one thing I noticed is that they make a ton of in-game substitutions on both sides of the ball not necessarily related to game situations. You may take a few lumps early in the game when subbing with some younger players, but it is a helluvalot better than being burned at the end when the game is on the line. I don't think that it is a coincidence that the Saints got stronger as the games I watched wore on. Sean Payton makes more substitutions than any other team I have witnessed in recent years. He regularly even rotates out his #1 & #2 receivers! While the Stillers will make some substitutions, they are usually minimal and only based on down and distance as different packages are put in place. An aging team, especially on defense could benefit by keeping experienced players fresher while simultaneously grooming their impending replacements. I believe the benefits of this strategy is threefold...

1. Fresher players at the end of the game. (we all know how that has worked out for the Stillers under the current strategy)
2. Valuable experience for back-up and rookie players in the event someone goes down or for future seasons.
3. It promotes team-building and minimizes complacency. (i.e. It prevents players from thinking they're irreplaceable)

[Hi5Steeler Profile]

saints have what five great receivers....

so we should bench santonio now and then to put in sweed?


we dont have tons of depth this year at many positions....

saints will have problems when they go to resign so many talented players.

teams with depth can rotate players AND go deep into playoffs and win tons of games.

pats always had depth....now they dont and they are playing like steelers.


I guess my point is it is not the fact saints are rotating players that they are winning. it is the fact they have such deep talent that they can plug in different guys and there is no dropoff in talent level.

saints have three very good rbs. about five real good receivers....good TEs....everything.... that will change next year.

[SoCal Stiller Profile]

Have you stopped to think that maybe the reason the Saints back-ups perform is because they do get significant playing time? There is no substitution for game experience, no matter how much practice time you put in. Also, I don't think the Saints' back-ups are significantly better than ours as a whole. They are subbing more than just receivers and tight ends - it's all hands on deck with them. Some Saints games have been close through the 3rd quarter, but they always close the game out - I think their philosophy has much to do with that. Sweed has been killed on these boards, but how many actual opportunities has he actually been given this year? (a critical year for a player's development) Unfortunately for him, his mistakes are magnified because they have come on long bombs that could have resulted in a TD. I sure as hell would feel better about him playing tomorrow night had he had more opportunities this year. Even if the ball isn't thrown his way, at least he would be gaining valuable experience running routes and seeing various defenses.

Maybe now is not the time to implement this philosophy, but I found it interesting as it relates to the success of the Saints this year. You may see it partially employed tomorrow anyway in our secondary from the sounds of things!

[Hi5Steeler Profile]

so playing backups makes them better? disagree


sweed would be better with more opportunites? disagree

You dont play backups for a reason. starters are better. unless the backups are as good as the starters as in new orleans.


sweed has dropped almost every single pass thrown at him. do you really want to work that out in game situations and have him dropping balls all game till he gets it right?

teams practice every week. all year. backups get their chance to shine in practice. if they do well enough the coaches notice.


thats all it is.

you are making up theories without any basis in fact or truth. thats fine and this is just a forum but dont start believing those fantasies bro....until you can provide anything at all to back it up.


go stillers n at im with you. and i want sweed to be a star...or even a serviceable backup ....i was on the sweed train as soon as we drafted him off the longhorns.

but he has faltered. some WRs just cant make the transition to pro ball. I hope sweed can but definitely NOT now when every game is a playoff game.

if we lose another game then go ahead and give him game time...but not until we are mathematically OUT of the playoffs.

[SoCal Stiller Profile]

teams practice every week. all year. backups get their chance to shine in practice. if they do well enough the coaches notice.


thats all it is.

So you want me to provide evidence to back-up my theory? Then I give you James Harrison....
If your theory held true, he would still be backing up or cut by now. He did not become a starter because he performed well in practice and impressed the coaches! How many times was he cut? He only became a starter due to injury. He spent all those years practicing as a back-up, but it wasn't until he had a couple of years of playing time did he become the dominant player he is and become Defensive Player of the Year!! Any coach will tell you that you don't know what you have until you put them in game situations. The division line in talent is very small in the NFL and how players respond in game situations is the difference in being a star or unemployed. I'm sure the dozens of unemployed 1st round picks over the last ten years looked good in practice too, but that doesn't translate to games. Talent is talent, but, I say again, there is no substitution for game experience.

[Coke Oven Profile]

"guess my point is it is not the fact saints are rotating players that they are winning. it is the fact they have such deep talent that they can plug in different guys and there is no dropoff in talent level."

But didn't the Saints get that way by doing poorly all those years and getting top draft choices? Now the Bengals seem to be improving for the same reason.

[SoCal Stiller Profile]

"guess my point is it is not the fact saints are rotating players that they are winning. it is the fact they have such deep talent that they can plug in different guys and there is no dropoff in talent level."

But didn't the Saints get that way by doing poorly all those years and getting top draft choices? Now the Bengals seem to be improving for the same reason.

So it takes 10 years or more of collecting draft picks to become good? The Raiders, Browns, and Bungles are consistent bottom feeders and it sure doesn't seem to help them like you would think? Otherwise, you would think success would be cyclic every 4 to 5 years. Seems to me there is a very fine line of talent in the league and the difference is coaching, scheming, and intelligent drafting.

[Hi5Steeler Profile]

you want me to provide evidence to back-up my theory? Then I give you James Harrison....
If your theory held true, he would still be backing up or cut by now. He did not become a starter because he performed well in practice and impressed the coaches! How many times was he cut? He only became a starter due to injury. He spent all those years practicing as a back-up, but it wasn't until he had a couple of years of playing time did he become the dominant player he is and become Defensive Player of the Year!! Any coach will tell you that you don't know what you have until you put them in game situations. The division line in talent is very small in the NFL and how players respond in game situations is the difference in being a star or unemployed. I'm sure the dozens of unemployed 1st round picks over the last ten years looked good in practice too, but that doesn't translate to games. Talent is talent, but, I say again, there is no substitution for game experience.

you cant use james harrison as your evidence to prove your theory. james harrison was the defensive MVP of the entire NFL. best D player out of 1000 active roster players.


james got cut four times by multiple teams. he had other issues that he worked out till he got focused. by your theory every player that has been cut FOUR TIMES will eventually become the defensive mvp of the entire nfl.

that is false .

james is an exeption to ANY rule. he should have never made it in the nfl period after that many cuts just going by historical stats of players.


playing backups MAY make them more GAME READY by playing them in game. Ill grant you that. BUT...it will not make them a BETTER player. if they are an average receiver they will not become a GREAT receiver by playing.

case in point mike wallace wr..... santonio holmes wr.... those guys were great in their first season. as part timers...rookies.... studs.....sit on the bench half the time dont matter.

sweed....every time he comes off the bench he sucks....cedric wilson...always just an average wr. never flashed greatness or star potential.

playing backups will ALSO hurt your team during the game. why? because you have to bench starters to start backups.....

riddle me this batman....if you bench santonio holmes for a quarter and sub in sweed.....does the offense suffer.....stay the same...or get better?

our entire Offense may shut down almost completely. double team shifts from san tone to hines or wallace then everything falls on sweeds shoulders...can he handle that stress? or will he drop the ball.....?

[SoCal Stiller Profile]

I would not sub any player for a whole quarter. As far as you're concerned we might as well release Sweed now, right?

[Hi5Steeler Profile]

no. i have high hopes for sweed. another training camp and going into your third year is when most WRs finally catch on and the game sinks in and slows down for them.

many many wrs dont do anything first two years because of this. its fact.

sweed may turn out as a good wr.

not great but good. and in the redzone as a tall target he could dominate shorter dbs. his ONLY problem is dropping the ball. that may disappear in his third year.

[SoCal Stiller Profile]

no. i have high hopes for sweed. another training camp and going into your third year is when most WRs finally catch on and the game sinks in and slows down for them.

many many wrs dont do anything first two years because of this. its fact.

sweed may turn out as a good wr.

not great but good. and in the redzone as a tall target he could dominate shorter dbs. his ONLY problem is dropping the ball. that may disappear in his third year.

Agreed. This whole thread started as an observation, not necessarily something I was wanting the Stillers to implement this week. You would have to agree that the Saints have done well with it and we may see some teams follow suit in the very near future. I think you would agree that it would keep player's egos down somewhat and help avoid overpaying for star players.

[Hi5Steeler Profile]

no i still disagree about the bench. I believe the bench should stay there until injury or game is socked away nice and safe.

[StillMill Profile]

SUPERB initial, and follow-on, posts by SoCal. DEAD ON. It is correct that getting PT to youngsters enables much more rapid development, AND player evaluation. (ie, ya don't have to wait 3 years to find out a certain player sucks)

I applaud what the Saints have done in this regard.