Saints could shatter single-season scoring record

Two years ago, the Patriots established a new single-season high-water mark for points, with 589.

In 2009, the Saints are on pace to best that record by nearly 50.
With 238 points in six games, the Saints are averaging a hair under 40 for each 60 minutes of action.  At that pace, the Saints will score more than 634 points over the full year.
A lot can happen over the final ten games, but given that the Saints have scored 48 against the Giants, 48 against the Eagles, and 46 against the Dolphins — three playoff teams from 2008 — how many will New Orleans put on the board when they play the Buccaneers, the Rams, and the Buccaneers?
Of course, the single-season scoring record is meaningless.  And the teams that have put together the top three scoring seasons (2007 Pats, 1998 Vikings, and 1983 Redskins) failed in their quest for the most meaningful annual achievement.
Winning the Super Bowl.

23 responses to “Saints could shatter single-season scoring record

  1. But isnt that a record of arrogance, and a lack of class??? Surely Sean Peyton isnt “classless” enough to break arrogant Bill’s scoring record, right? Surley Drew Brees, who doesnt have a bastard child, wouldnt throw as many TD passes as that jerk Brady, right?……………
    On the other hand, in Peyton’s post game press conference over the weekend, he did look a little bit like Belichick, any chance he owns a sleeveless hoodie?

  2. Yeah true but look at how those teams finished:
    ’07 Patriots – 16-0, lost Super Bowl in the final minute
    ’98 Vikings – 15-1, lost NFC Championship game in OT due to a fluke missed FG by their kicker in regulation
    ’83 Redskins – 14-2, lost to Raiders in the Super Bowl
    I’d take those odds any day.

  3. Mike, I assume this little tidbit will be followed with a damning article about how the Saints are “running up the score” on their hapless opponents, as you did when the Patriots were blowing out opponents in 2007?

  4. actually being a “Domed Team” they have a rather large advantage and if they don’t I would be surprised.
    It is kind of funny though that the “running up the score comments” only surface with regard to one team.

  5. As soon as the other team stops trying to score points, I’m sure sean peyton will agree to the same/

  6. “how many will New Orleans put on the board when they play the Buccaneers, the Rams, and the Buccaneers?”
    Don’t forget about the Buccaneers!

  7. Pats had 231 after six games in 2007, so it’s pretty comparable. After the first six games, the Pats then scored 48 49 52 and 56 in 4 of the next 5 games, but things will probably cool down for the Saints.

  8. ’07 Pats were beat by a front 7 for the Giants that had the best 4 game run in the history of the NFL.
    ’98 Vikes would love to blame a kicker when truth of the matter is they still held a touchdown advantage in that game only to give up a late drive to tie it, then give up a field goal in OT as well.
    ’83 Skins suffered what is realistically(considering their 14-2 record, Riggins monster year and the team scoring record) the worst beat down in Super Bowl history 38-9.
    Offense scores points defense wins games, complete teams win Super Bowls.

  9. runupthescore says:
    October 27, 2009 9:27 AM
    Mike, I assume this little tidbit will be followed with a damning article about how the Saints are “running up the score” on their hapless opponents, as you did when the Patriots were blowing out opponents in 2007?
    —————————
    So far this season, New Orleans has won two games by 3 or more scores. By week 7 in 2007 New England had won 6 games by 3 or more scores.
    It’s not a simple function of how many points they’re scoring. It’s a function of the margin. Would you blame the Saints for scoring 46 points last week even though they were down 24-3 late in the first? That game wasn’t a blowout from the start.
    But it’s still something to watch as the season progresses. I think part of it is Belichick’s image. He’s not seen as a guy who cares about stuff like that.

  10. Points Don’t mean anything….
    1990 Giants Super Bowl Champs……
    Super Bowl XLII
    Giants (14–6) 17
    Patriots (18–1) 14
    What is next stories about Dan Marinos accomplishments er failures?

  11. I’d say these Saints are hungrier than the Patriots. Pats squad had a lot of players with rings already, I’d take these Saints over those Pats.

  12. I can see a game in the future where the Saints are basically in the “Victory Formation” – taking a knee – towards the end of the third quarter. Either that or some team will have WAY MORE than half a hundred laid on them. I don’t see Sean Payton trying to do that to anybody. But, I wouldn’t mind putting 70+ on the Dirty Birds if we get the chance! Sorry, but I hate the Falcons!
    And in the Giants game, the Saints did take their foot off the gas towards the end of the game. They pulled Brees and basically stopped trying to move the ball. They probably could have scored one or two more times against the Giants if they had tried.

  13. all you guys sarcastically commenting on running up the score aren’t considering the circumstances. the 2007 Patriots had a great defense and they were blowing people out, winning by margins of over 40 points at times.
    The Saints, while scoring a lot of points, don’t have as stout of a defense, so they are winning, but they’re not blowing out the other teams. The Saints just beat the Fins 46-34 – that’s not running up the score, that’s just a shootout because the defenses aren’t doing their jobs very well.
    apples to oranges.

  14. @SmackMyVickUp says: October 27, 2009 11:14 AM
    “I’d say these Saints are hungrier than the Patriots. Pats squad had a lot of players with rings already, I’d take these Saints over those Pats.”
    _________________________________
    Great point, I am sure BB feels the same way and he’s lost the “hunger”. In fact I don’t know why the hell the NE organization even shows up every Sunday.

  15. @texasPHINSfan
    Are you really going to interject logic into Patsfans’ whine festival? I mean, they are already dealing with the fact that their team isn’t the dominant team that they used to be, and now you want to actually think? Dude, that’s low.
    I hope the Saints decimate the record.

  16. # texasPHINSfan says: October 27, 2009 11:44 AM
    all you guys sarcastically commenting on running up the score aren’t considering the circumstances. the 2007 Patriots had a great defense and they were blowing people out, winning by margins of over 40 points at times.
    The Saints, while scoring a lot of points, don’t have as stout of a defense, so they are winning, but they’re not blowing out the other teams. The Saints just beat the Fins 46-34 – that’s not running up the score, that’s just a shootout because the defenses aren’t doing their jobs very well.
    apples to oranges.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I agree that the Pats played better defense, and thus produced a larger margin of victory, but that doesnt matter. If you want a team to stop “trying” on offense, why dont you want them to stop “trying” on defense.
    The Pats could have scored 90 on the Titans a few weeks ago, because the Titans quit. How many of those teams in 07′ quit against the Pats?
    I just dont think it makes any sense. The Saints defense gives up too many points, so that means that their offense is allowed to keep scoring. But the Pats defense didnt give up enough points, so that means that they arent allowed to play offense…..
    *Side note, did anyone notice that Sean Peyton, went for it on fourth down, inside the Giants 20 yard line 2 weeks ago, with a 2 TD lead, and less than 5 minutes to play. When the Pats do that, it is “running up the score”, but when the Saints do that, it is “giving the defense a chance to stop you”. Peyton did exactly the same thing Belichick did, the difference was that the Saints failed on 4th down. That is the point. Kicking the field goal is rubbing it in, going for it on fourth down, giving the defense a 50/50 chance of keeping you off the scoreboard is the whole point. Kicking a field goal is giving the offense a 90% chance of scoring (if not higher). The Giants probably werent offended when they kept the Saints off the scoreboard….

  17. Bill Cowher’s Chin says:
    October 27, 2009 12:51 PM
    *Side note, did anyone notice that Sean Peyton, went for it on fourth down, inside the Giants 20 yard line 2 weeks ago, with a 2 TD lead, and less than 5 minutes to play. When the Pats do that, it is “running up the score”, but when the Saints do that, it is “giving the defense a chance to stop you”.
    —————————–
    Please research your facts before making yourself look like a monkey.
    Here are the last plays in the Saints’ final 3 drives of that game:
    #1 – Heath Evans TD from 2 yards out with 7 minutes left.
    #2 – Morstead punts to Giants 26 yard line with 4:15 left.
    #3 – Morstead punts to Giants 20 with 1:05 left.
    Hmmm.. I’m not seeing a 4th down attempt in there. And Drew Brees didn’t play the last two drives. And his backup (Marc Brunell) didn’t ATTEMPT A PASS.
    Nice try, Pats fan. Spin it however you want, but the Saints have not run up the score like you’d have us believe.
    And this BS “I just dont think it makes any sense. The Saints defense gives up too many points, so that means that their offense is allowed to keep scoring. But the Pats defense didnt give up enough points, so that means that they arent allowed to play offense…..”
    Is absolute BS. As I said, it’s not how many points you’re scoring. It’s what the margin of the game is. If you’ve scored 50 points and your opponent has scored 48, do you consider it running up the score? No. But if you’ve scored 50 and your opponent has scored 10, that is running up the score.
    The second scenario is what the Pats were doing in 2007.

  18. Adam-Chris Scheftersen – “But if you’ve scored 50 and your opponent has scored 10, that is running up the score.”
    Thank you so much for clarifying the rules on teams running up the score. I’ve been trying to find the official NFL Rules of Etiquette pertaining to this matter, but have not yet been successful in this quest, and your explanation has helped me better understand this intricate facet of the “professional” game.
    Would it be possible for you to elaborate a little more for those of us morons who can’t quite grasp when the “rules” apply?
    For instance, at what point do these special rules kick in? Do they apply only in the second half? Is there a specific point differential involved, or is it some complex matter of time remaining in the game AND scoring differential? If the losing team quits, is it then incumbent upon the winning team to also quit no matter the time remaining in the game? If the losing team catches up do both teams start trying again?
    How is this best done by the winning team? Do they take knees to quickly get the ball back to the losing team, or does the winning team revert to a pretend game, kind of like pro wrestling, where the players intentionally fumble or miss a tackle then act surprised and disappointed, returning to the sidelines to receive a pretend tongue-lashing from the coach?? Is it mandatory that acting lessons for these occasions are conducted during practice sessions so that it all seems semi-legitimate?
    Is this what went on recently when it appeared Miami would rout the Saints? Did the “rules” kick in and require Miami to start the pretend game? Is that how the Saints caught up and won? Or did the Saints just suck it up and play their hardest?
    Finally, what measures are taken to ensure that the people sitting in the stands get their money’s worth and time’s worth for attending the “professional game” (wink, wink)?
    I think I’d rather see at least one team play it’s absolute best up until the two minute warning anyway – maybe see some records set and have something to talk about after it’s over, even if it were my team that got crushed.
    Go Saints.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.