(01-17-2011 08:47 PM)Beef Wrote: I just don't get this. It's really irritating actually. We went 13-3, not 10-6. Winning is winning, period. If the other teams were better than us, they would have beat us more, but they didn't. And no other teams out there played & beat nothing but playoff caliber above 500 teams. Every team in the league played some easy games vs bad teams, so acting like our schedule was easy is ridiculous.
We played 8 games vs. teams with winning records(6 of which we won), 2 of which were the SB champs, 7 of which were against teams who went to the playoffs(4 of which we won), & SF, Cleveland, & Cinci were all dangerous teams who had at least 1 or 2 wins against other playoff teams, so they were by no means guarantees, & of course Seattle was an away game vs a playoff team who ultimately beat the SB champs in the playoffs. I'd actually & easily call that one of the toughest schedules in the league by comparison.
And I agree our offense was extremely stale & predictible, but by no means did we "over-achieve". We controlled the clock & teams couldn't stop us from doing that, which means they played worse than we did, OBVIOUSLY, otherwise they would have had more points at the end of the game than us
And special teams is part of this team & part of our success, so not sure why how good they were is rarely considered in these types of arguments.
The rest of what you said is fine, but I think you're just over the top on the schedule & the fact it's absurd to make statements like "we're really a 10-6 team" when there's obviously no way to prove it while there's overwhelming clear evidence to the contrary... the fact we didn't go 10-6.
I completely agree with this.