The Instigator
maddoxparadox
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Nobody
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The New Orleans Saints will make the playoffs next year.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,378 times Debate No: 6398
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

maddoxparadox

Pro

This is for any football fan. This is my first debate, so I'm testing this place with this one.

I affirm the resolution, Resolved, the New Orleans Saints will make the playoffs in the NFL next year.

Contention 1- In the last six seasons, the last placed team in the year before won the division or made the playoffs, in the case of this year where the Falcons were second by one game.

Carolina finished last in 2002, and first in 2003

Atlanta finished last in 2003, and first in 2004

Tampa Bay finished last in 2004, and first in 2005

New Orleans finished last in 2005, and first in 2006

Tampa Bay finished last in 2006, first in 2007

Atlanta finished last in 2007, second in 2008 (They still made the playoffs.)

Since the Saints finished last place this year, there is a good chance that they will do good next year.

Contention 2- The Saints have the top offense in the league, so they need to work on the defense. They will seal up the holes in the secondary with draft picks and trades as this is what Sean Peyton has said he will focus on in the postseason. Like last year, when almost all of the draft picks and trades went toward the defense such as Jonathan Vilma and Sedrick Ellis. Another year of rebuilding the defense would do wonders to help it.

Contention 3- This year, one of the main reasons the Saints did not do well was because of injuries. Just on the injured reserve alone, there are 17 names. These include 2 CBs, 4, DTs, a S, a DE, and a LB. If the Saints did not have these injuries they could have been a playoff team. For example, if Deuce McAllister, Reggie Bush, Pierre Thomas, and Aaron Stecker had not been injured our running game may have been much improved, such as the 2006 season when we had 1,761 rushing yards and healthy runningbacks as apposed to 2007 when we had 1, 466 and 1,594 in 2008 and in both seasons we had to go to their 4th string runningback.

Contention 4- The Saints currently have the best offense in the league with 28.9 points per game, 410.7 yards per game, and 311.1 passing yards per game. As stated above in Contention 3, if the runningbacks were healthy we would have a even better offense.

Contention 5- The Saints this year had 6 games they lost that had been won in the last minute and some on the last play. They lost 2 games by 2 points, 3 by 3 points, and 1 by 5 points.

Quote from Sean Payton saying that he will work on closing out games during the postseason:

Reporter: "What can you do during the offseason to get better at finishing games?"

Sean Payton:"I think you have to emphasize that in every aspect of your program as it pertains to finishing practice the right way, finishing the weight workout the right way. You bring it up and talk about three-quarters of the game not being good enough or putting ourselves in a position like yesterday with three minutes left isn't good enough. We have to complete the game and I think our players understand that. We talked about it already prior to this offseason and where we're going with this offseason. We talked about it really as it pertained to the games we've played. You look back to the Washington game where we're ahead by nine in the fourth quarter and that was the first time that it really came up and we had a chance to go 2-0 there. It's something that will be emphasized and something that we have to – starting with me – create that environment a little more in every aspect that these guys are here. With the OTAs and the training camps, those are the things that we'll try to do."

If the Saints can improve on this during the offseason, then they will win more games during the 2009 season.

That is why I believe that the Saints will make the playoffs next year. Please vote aff!

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://neworleanssaints.com...
http://www.nfl.com...
Nobody

Con

>I would like to thank my opponent, maddoxparadox, for starting this debate. I hope it will be enjoyable for both of us. My opponent says that he hopes to test the debate.org community with this debate. I am glad to partake and I only hope to enforce his liking of this site.

>I would like to observe that my opponent has the burden of proof to prove that the New Orleans Saints will make the playoffs next year. If he fails to do this, your vote should be for CON.

>My opponent's first contention addressed recent success in the NFC South, and its correlation to the results from the year before. He cites examples from the six most recent seasons. I accept all of my opponent's evidence as valid, but it proves absolutely nothing. He has failed to show us why this means that the New Orleans Saints will have any success next year. My opponent cannot adequately prove that the same trend will repeat next season.

>In his second contention, my opponent addressed the needs of the New Orleans Saints. I agree that the largest problem for the Saints is currently their defensive unit. This does not, however, justify my opponent's claims. He says that off season focus will be on the defense, and that defensive players will be drafted. He cannot prove this, it is merely a prediction.

>I found my opponent's third contention rather confusing. He cited perfectly valid reasons for a lack of success for the New Orleans Saints this year. We are discussing the next season, how is problems from the current season (in which the Saints failed to make the playoffs) relevant? To put this bluntly, it isn't.

>My opponent essentially repeats his third contention in his fourth contention. He says that player health would have promoted a better offense this year. I agree, but the debate topic clearly reads: The New Orleans Saints will make the playoffs next year. Not this year. Next year.

>Again, my opponent addresses the current season in his contention. This time his fifth. He cites the margin of victory in the games played by the Saints. He also says that the Saints will work on late game performance in the off season. Though he provides a quote, his logic is faulty. If we are to go by this season's statistics to predict next year, we must look at the margin of victory for all NFC teams. The average margin of victory/defeat in Saints games was 4.3 this year (http://sports.yahoo.com...). That is very close. But what about other teams? The margin for the Atlanta Falcons was 4.1 (http://sports.yahoo.com...). For Tampa Bay it was 2.4 (http://sports.yahoo.com...). 1.5 for Chicago (http://sports.yahoo.com...). 2.9 for Minnesota http://sports.yahoo.com...). By my opponent's own logic (teams who play in close games will make the playoffs the next year), the Saints cannot make the playoffs. Six total teams make the playoffs from the NFC. Four total NFC divisions. Since the Falcons played in closer games than the Saints, they would win the division. Any team could win the East or West. Chicago would win the North. This leaves two wild card spots. These would go to Minnesota and Tampa Bay. My opponent's own logic sees the New Orleans Saints not making the playoffs next year.

>For my opponent (unrelated to the topic): Resolutions are not needed in free form debates (which this is). They are for LD, Policy, Public Forum, etc. We'll make do, I just wanted to let you know.

>I eagerly await my opponent's next response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
maddoxparadox

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this round.

I accept the burden that I have to prove the Saints will make the playoffs next year, but to make this a fair round, then the opponent has to accept the burden that they have to prove that the Saints will not make the playoffs.

His answer to my first contention.

> Since this trend has repeated for 6 seasons in a row, there is a big chance of it repeating again. In most other divisions, this occurrence never happens so the chances of it happening 6 times in a row means it is a meaningful trend. This is not total proof, but it merely increases the chances of the Saints continuing the trend. Like the Curse of the Madden Cover, we all expect it to happen and it usually happens. The Saints mindset could change, and as shown in the 2006 season, when the Saints are playing for something special that only happens occasionally, the Saints play better.

His answer to my second contention.

>First off, you agree that the defensive unit is the Saints' largest problems. Do you think that a sane-coach would focus on the defense during the off season? Of course, but that is not enough proof, so I will provide some more:

1. Last year, when their defense was just as bad, they added MLB Jonathan Vilma, CB Randall Gay, DE Bobby McCray, DT Sedrick Ellis and CB Tracy Porter to their starting lineup during the off season. I'm pretty sure Sean Payton will try to do the same thing this year.

2. "On the bright side, the Saints will be entering the off season well under the salary cap, putting them in an enviable position in lure free agents to the Cresent City. Most of the moves will likely be to help shore up a leaky defense that ranked 26th in the NFL in points allowed and 23rd in yards allowed."- The Sports Network

3.""In the last four or five weeks, there were some things that were encouraging. In the end, the thing that was probably most concerning were the pass plays thrown up, plays made above our head that we were not able to make. I think that's most frustrating.""- Sean Payton, Head Coach of the Saints
He added that the pass rush needs to improve and that during the off-season they would analyze the positions that need improving and the best fits in free-agency and the draft. My opponent said it himself that the defensive unit was the largest problem.

His answer to my 3rd/4th contention.

>The reason why I cited reasons for lack of success this season was to show that the Saints could have made the playoffs if chance hadn't been against them. This is to show that the Saints are a playoff team, and that they are totally capable of making the playoffs, unlike teams like the Lions.

His answer to my 5th contention.

>My logic is different from what my opponent used as a example. First, he cites the average margin of victory/defeat. That is flawed because what if some games the Saints won by a huge amount such as the win against the Packers and the Lions. The Saints have the best offense and a terrible defense and so the score in some games is obviously going to be far apart. I was talking about the number of games the Saints lost that could have been won easily if the Saints work on finishing games in the off season. Second, these teams that have a close average have not said they will work on finishing games during the off season. The Saints have said specifically that they will work with that (quote from Sean Payton) and so they have a better chance of winning those close games. Third, since the statistics my opponent cited were loss and defeat margins, the teams he mentioned could have had a lot of games where they won by a few points but the other team had no chance of coming back in the last minute, so they could not improve that this season.

>My opponent also does not have any proof that the Saints will not make the playoffs, so you should vote pro if any of my points still stand by the end of the round or if my opponent still has not answered hi
Nobody

Con

>I thank my opponent for his final rebuttal.

>I will accept the burden that my opponent has given me. Sort of. I will discuss it below.

>My opponent has clearly changed his mind a bit about his first contention. In his initial argument, he said that " there is a good chance," but now he says that "this is not total proof." If it is not "total proof," then it is not relevant to the debate. My opponent has agreed to a burden of absolute proof, not a burden of probability.

>To rebut his second contention, my opponent cites evidence that the New Orleans Saints, in fact, will work on their defense. I agreed last round that defense is an important issue for the Saints, but this does not mean that they will fix their defense. The Broncos had the same problem from last year into this season. They allowed 28 points per game (http://sports.yahoo.com...), worse than the Saints. We are provided no guarantee that the Saints will improve at all defensively.

>I wholeheartedly agree with my respected opponent's third and fourth contentions, injuries were a problem for the Saints this year. But what does this mean? All teams have players get injured, that is just the way football works. Let's look at the Baltimore Ravens (http://sports.yahoo.com...). They had more injuries than the Saints (http://sports.yahoo.com...) and still made the playoffs. They lost key players such as Chris McAllister and Donnie Edwards for the season. Todd Heap, Matt Stover, and Ed Reed are all questionable. Injuries are unpredictable and do not raise the chances of the Saints making next year's playoffs.

>As previously stated in my first response to my opponent's fifth contention, the average margin of victory/defeat is what tells us how close the games were. It means that if we pick a random game from the schedule, the margin will most probably be that number. Since it does show how close the games were, my opponent's logic remains flawed. As can be seen from his second contention, what a team PLANS to work on will not always make it better. My opponent's third point is irrelevant given my rebuttal to his first.

>I shall not specifically accept the burden of proof designated by my opponent, the CON burden of proof is simply to prove that PRO cannot fulfill his. So let's look at his: "my opponent has the burden of proof to prove that the New Orleans Saints will make the playoffs next year." So has he proved this? We must first define will:

Used to express futurity (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

So will expresses what shall happen in the future. So has my opponent proved that the Saints WILL make the playoffs? I think not. CON has then filled his (my) burden.

>I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to debating him again.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
Also, every other team in the division should have an improved offense next year. Matt Ryan will have much more Pro experience, the Panthers' offesive line will be more cohesive and Stewart should be better after his first year. The Bucs, though, might not improve; I'm sure they'll try too, but I have trouble seeing it happen.
Posted by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
This is for maddox.

In the second round you say "Since this trend has repeated for 6 seasons in a row, there is a big chance of it repeating again." This is not true. There will and there will always be a 1 in 4 chance of the last place team winning the division or making the playoffs the next year (Unless more teams are added or taken away, of course). Also, the numbers decrease for the last place team each consecutive year this occurs in a row. After two seasons of this happening in a row, it becomes a 1 in 64 chance for the third.

Although history supports that claim, the numbers do not.
Posted by maddoxparadox 8 years ago
maddoxparadox
oops i got cut off it says his burden.

also, my sources got cut off

http://neworleanssaints.com...

http://www.sportsnetwork.com...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Brock757 8 years ago
Brock757
maddoxparadoxNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by VoodooChild 8 years ago
VoodooChild
maddoxparadoxNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
maddoxparadoxNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
maddoxparadoxNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
maddoxparadoxNobodyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00