The New Orleans Saints beat the Redskins recently with heart and skill, not luck

First off, I just want to say that I am NOT a Redskins fan and have no ties to either division, so any attempt to show me as "biased" towards either team should be read as desperation or out and out lies. Also, good luck to my opponent and best of luck to the Saints in their quest for an undefeated regular season. On the question of the referees, I wholeheartedly agree. The refs did a fine job of officiating and did not make any calls that significantly changed the outcome of the game. But I am taking the position that the Redskins DID, in fact, outplay the Saints and that they should have won the contest, it was simply a few bad breaks that went against them that sealed their fate. Now, my opponent has brought up the total yardage stats. I think that is a skewed statistic, as the Saints also benefited from, as mentioned earlier, the superior end of the turnover margin. However, they also punted 3 times, twice more than the Redskins, which did give them two more drives in which to accumulate what I will from now on refer to as "garbage yards": yards that resulted in nothing more than statistical gain for the players. The reason I believe this is that in Week 2, the Oakland Raiders were out-gained by the Kansas City Chiefs more than 2 to 1, with a total gain of under 200 yards while the Chiefs broke the 400 yard margin. Now, to the time of possession statistic. It is a long-standing belief that TOP (time of possession) is usually one of the factors that determine who wins, as it can often show how long a defense was on the field and also it can show that one team held the scoring chances of the other to a smaller amount than their own because their offense (the principal scoring side of the ball) was on the field for less time. However, such a belief is flawed, as a big play can accomplish a very large amount of forward progress in a very short time, as did occur in this game several times. First, two of Washington's receivers had gains of over 40 yards. Secondly, NONE of Washington's drives that resulted in scoring lasted longer than 5 minutes. THIRDLY, they scored touchdowns on 2 drives that lasted 4 minutes OR LESS. This is an indicator both of poor defensive play on the part of the Saints AND the ability of Washington to move the ball quickly and easily down the field thanks to effective play calling and execution. Time of possession was in truth NOT a factor in this game. My opponent mentioned the turnover margin, ANOTHER statistic that is believed to have a large impact on the outcome of professional football games, and in this case it was one turnover in particular, Mike Sellers' fumble in overtime, that cost the Redskins the game. Here's the problem with applying that rule in this game - The Redskins were in a position to win the game DESPITE being on the wrong end of the turnover margin. It was only a bad break, a missed field goal near the end of regulation, that led to said fumble which led to the winning field goal by New Orleans. We can clearly see that turnovers were in fact NOT the determining factor in this game. Also my opponent mentions penalties and how the yardage and total amount of penalties favored the Redskins, which is true. But in the same argument, he claims that the calling was unbiased and fair. Winning despite committing penalties means almost nothing, especially considering that the Saints gave up over 400 yards and 30 points while scoring 33 themselves and attaining over 400 total yards. Penalties were not a factor in this game. That's the simple truth. Next, he mentions the kicker and how he should have made that 23 yard field goal that for all intensive purposes would've iced the game and made it virtually impossible for the Saints to mount a successful comeback. This is true. But the reality is that kicking is NOT a 100% art, and that more often than not a kicker has very little to do with where the ball ends up. A bad hold by the holder, a poor snap by the long snapper, wind speed and direction, dozens of variables can affect a kick. However, it should be noted that Shaun Suisham, the man who missed the kick, has a career average of 80% made, and is ESPECIALLY accurate at the distance in question, the 20-29 yard range, where he has made 29 of 30 field goals in his professional career. Guess what his only miss is? That's right ladies and gentlemen, his ONLY miss came last weekend from 23 yards out to seal the Saints' fate. Did he crack under pressure? I doubt it. He's an accurate kicker with a strong leg and a good eye. Also, the Saints at no point touched the ball, so we can CLEARLY see that Suisham was neither hurried nor was he in any danger of having the kick blocked. We cannot know why the kick was missed. Suisham's career average shows he is quite literally automatic at that range, so really we can't say with certainty that his miss was not simply a bad break for the Redskins. The Saints didn't block the kick, they didn't influence it at all. Bad luck was the probable cause for Suisham's miss. Lastly my opponent mentioned the overtime period, which I believe only strengthens my argument that it was a bad break that caused the Redskins to be defeated. If everyone here were to watch that hit from McAlister a dozen times, you can CLEARLY tell he wasn't attempting to cause a turnover. He was simple applying the correct tackle with which to bring down someone bigger and stronger than he was, going low. The fact that the receiver fumbled is blind luck. Players take dozens of those hits every week, and 99 times out of a hundred they won't cough it up. The plain truth is that the Saints got (forgive the pun) ungodly lucky and came away with the turnover. This led to an 8 play 36 yard drive followed by the winning field goal, which if the Saints had missed we would be saying "How unfortunate, they were given a chance to win the game and it just didn't come out the way they wanted." That's what happened to the Redskins this weekend, God, luck, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, maybe even The Great Pumpkin itself intervened on the Saints' behalf and they dodged the upset. However, it should be noted that the Redskins DID outplay the Saints for the entirety of that game, and that it was only a few significant breaks that went the Saints' way that led to their victory.