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

I would like to begin my second round by first extending a thanks to my opponent for taking up the Con position of this debate. As previously mentioned, this is my first debate on this website and I am enjoying it immensely. Thank you. The statistics I asserted were not intended to display how the Saints were able to win the game by dominating in any one area, but rather to display that the Saints won because they came out ahead (albeit slightly) in essentially all of the vital statistics usually considered the cornerstones of victory on a football field. My opponent has dismissed the Saints total accumulated yardage as "garbage yards", implying that the Redskins took the strategic position to allow the Saints to drive down the field in order to run time down. I completely disagree with that assertion. The game was extremely close at all times, thus both teams played defense with the intention of minimizing yardage and (most importantly) scoring. I concede that on occasion in the NFL, teams do amass yardage which could be considered "garbage". This normally occurs when one team is ahead by a comfortable margin and the other is attempting to mount a come back. The team which is ahead will field what is known as a "prevent" defense. This particular defensive scheme makes short gains easy while protecting effectively against large (potentially score generating) plays. What occurs is the team trying to come back will move across the field in a seemingly efficient manner, all the while wasting precious time. At no time were the Redskins allowing any kind of yardage at the expense of long plays. The game was way too close to attempt such a strategy. Thus it must be logically concluded that both teams earned every single inch recorded. In this case, the Saints were able to record 8 more than the Redskins, thus outplaying them offensively and defensively (with strict regards to yardage). I concede the point that the time of possession was not an overwhelming determining factor in the outcome of the game. In truth, the TOP of both teams were very close. I will, however, assert that it is the goal of any team to keep possession of the ball for longer than the other team. My opponent has outlined very well the reason that such a strategy is desirable. In this regard, the Saints were able to outplay the Redskins by keeping possession of the ball for a longer period of time, thus successfully completing one of the prime goals to winning a football game. I concede the point I made regarding penalty yards. Admittedly I was attempting to show that the Saints played in more "adverse conditions" than the Redskins due to the grossly skewed penalty yardage. The truth of the matter is this proves nothing but a bit of sloppiness on the Saints team. That being said, they were able to battle forth and win despite their acute lack of poise. I do not agree with the assertion that the Saints had nothing to do with causing Suisham to miss. Obviously this point would be extremely hard to prove either way, thus I will concede that the Saints MIGHT have not been able to influence the outcome of that particular kick. What I do not concede is the assertion that this kick would have sealed the game. My opponent made no attempt to prove how it would have, thus I cannot make an attempt to refute any such claims, although I made a brief commentary on this particular scenario in my opening argument. My opening position was that the Saints outplayed their opponents. The kicking phase is not an exception to this assertion. Prior to overtime, the Redskins and Saints had attempted and made the same number of field goals. The 'Skins missed one from quite close and the Saints missed one from 50+ yards ( i do not recall the exact distance). In overtime, the Saints were able to attempt one more and made it. This is the very definition of outplaying your opponent. Whether you come away with more points because you had more opportunities, or because you were better able to take advantage of those opportunities afforded to you (ie not missing field goals), it makes no difference. Finally, my opponent seems to have contradicted himself in his argument regarding turn overs. In one sentence he states: ".. it was one turnover in particular, Mike Sellers' fumble in overtime, that cost the Redskins the game." Then later goes on to state: "We can clearly see that turnovers were in fact NOT the determining factor in this game." So in one breath we are told that the entire game was determined by a turnover, then in the next we are expected to accept that turnovers did not play a deciding factor in the outcome of this game. I completely disagree with the assertion that turnovers were not a deciding factor in the outcome of the game. I will examine two of the turnovers in particular to illustrate why I feel this way. The first is when Saints wide receiver, Robert Meachem, stripped the ball from an opponent and ran it back for a touchdown. Directly prior to this happening, Drew Brees had been intercepted and the Saints hope of scoring on that particular drive were finished. Instead, New Orleans was able to turn a potentially game costing play into a score. Without Meachem's turnover (and subsequent touchdown) the Saints may have very well lost the game. What is key to note here, is that this turnover was NOT caused by some blind luck. Robert Meachem made an amazing play, period. The next very important turn over is the one in overtime which my opponent already discussed. The Saints were on the extremely disadvantageous defensive side of the ball during overtime and this turnover lead directly to the game winning field goal. Up to that point, both teams displayed very little ability to stop the other defensively, thus the ability to regain possession of the ball greatly increased the Saints chances of winning. Again, the turnover was not the result of blind luck. The Redskins played sloppy with regards to ball control while the Saints were able to hustle and make turnovers. As with the other key stats I mentioned, turnovers are extremely important to winning a football game. In this case, we can see that the Saints clearly outplayed their opponents in that regard. They were able to turn the ball over more times, and capitalize on the opportunities afforded by those possessions. Without any one of them, and certainly the two in particular I mentioned, the Redskins would almost certainly have won. In the end, I believe it was the turnovers, more than any other key statistic, which gave the Saints their victory. Last, I would like to once again extend my most sincere thanks to my opponent. I have enjoyed this debate very much, and I look forward to seeing how the votes turn out.