NFL: WhoDats on Saintsreport going ape shit

[ATLBound]

(06-13-2012 05:13 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  No. The team was behind by more than the final margin when Carmichael took over. That isn't a negative. Besides, I don't care where Payton was standing. Carmichael still called 100% of the offensive plays over the final nine games of last season while the Saints went 8-1. The guy knows what he is doing. That's why he will probably have his own team next season.

So it is of no significance to you that he failed to produce a winning record against bottom dwellers in the league without Payton standing beside him?

That doesn't mean anything at all? If you don't think Payton wasn't involved in calling plays at all during that timeframe, then you are being EXTREMELY naive and only for the benefit of trying to win a forum debate. Reality will settle in during the bye week and beyond.

It's sad because there are plenty on this forum who can admit that most likely Brees will sign, and the Saints are a formidable opponent, and Brees is a great QB. We have fans who are not so delusional to recognize things that sre against us but still great. But for you it's difficult to get a common and real answer out of you about the absence of Payton. At one point Payton's absence will not affect the offense and then at another point Payton's absence will cost you 2 games (14 to 12). And at one point Spags will run the whole defense. So if Spags runs the whole defense with no input from Payton and your offense won't be affected by Payton's absence...them why will Payton's absence reduce your game win total from 14 to 12.

Oh wait I forgot...Payton is soooo important to the Special Teams play. Duh...what the fuck was I thinking?