So: Were the Falcons as good as 13-3 or as bad as 48-21?

[Paulitik]

Sorry to sound negative, but at this point, I could care less about record. We have proved we are a good enough team to be in the playoffs. We need to learn how to win in the playoffs. We need to hold people accountable. I do not want Coach Smith to become Leeman Bennett or Jim Mora. Stubborn loyalty to mediocre coaches, staff, or players need to be addressed. Addressed swiftly, but thoughtfully. Robiskie, Anderson, Mularkey, and Van Gorder's importance to this team's success needs to be evaluated. Players like Biermann, Owens, Jenkins, Baker need to also be evaluated whether they need to take lesser roles or be shipped out completely.

[Beef]

We're a 13-3 team, that's indisputable.

And the answer to everything else is, "Any given Sunday...."

People seem to forget we beat the Packers earlier in the season. Do people honestly think if we played them 10 games we'd lose by 27 points & give up 400+ yards 9 out of 10 times? Do people think the Seahawks could beat the Saints 9 out of 10 times too?

This is all nonsense because none of us is psychic & knows the actual answers. Except for the fact we went 13-3 this season & had the best record in our conference, & shitty teams can't do that, so it's clear we're certainly not a shitty team who normally gives up 48 points & 400+ yards & loses a lot.

[AsylumGuido]

(01-17-2011 08:31 PM)Penumbra Wrote:  You are obsessed with the Falcons,...and you make great points but at your benefit.

That only helps support my beliefs means you have set it in stone you know what you're talking about,...when sometimes you don't. A Saints tool in a Falcons forum.

I know exactly who and what you are.

If you would read between the lines I said that the Saints were lucky to win it all last year. And, no, not at all obsessed with the Falcons. I just happened across a quality board where logic and fun apply.

I hate the Falcons no more than any of you hate the Saints. But, as fans we are only an extension of our teams and should understand each others frustrations and aggressions and where they should be directed.

I'm sure you don't know who and what I am yet. Stick around and you will.

[Penumbra]

(01-17-2011 09:02 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  If you would read between the lines I said that the Saints were lucky to win it all last year. And, no, not at all obsessed with the Falcons. I just happened across a quality board where logic and fun apply.

I hate the Falcons no more than any of you hate the Saints. But, as fans we are only an extension of our teams and should understand each others frustrations and aggressions and where they should be directed.

I'm sure you don't know who and what I am yet. Stick around and you will.

And you're sure that helps your beliefs,...and you are obsessed with the Falcons but yes this board has some great stuff. The aints are our "sister team" from the mid 60's. It was fun to watch them win a SB last year. I know more about your team than you do. But I'm not in the Saints forum much,...obsession.

[AsylumGuido]

(01-17-2011 09:13 PM)Penumbra Wrote:  And you're sure that helps your beliefs,...and you are obsessed with the Falcons but yes this board has some great stuff. The aints are our "sister team" from the mid 60's. It was fun to watch them win a SB last year. I know more about your team than you do. But I'm not in the Saints forum much,...obsession.

I'll guarantee you that you do not know more about my team than me. I have followed it religiously since I was nine years old in 1967.

As for obsession, I spend time in forums all around the league. Right now we are both in a transitional mode so it is that much more interesting to listen in.

[ChrisD]

Both. Good enough to win 13 games, but not good enough to beat a Packers team with a strong running game.

[Radical]

(01-18-2011 04:19 PM)ChrisD Wrote:  Both. Good enough to win 13 games, but not good enough to beat a Packers team with a strong running game.

Yeah... that future HOFer James Starks sure showed us.

[ChrisD]

Not that he "showed us" or played great against us, but the threat was there. It's hard enough to defend 2 aspects of the game without defending 3. We had to defend the deep pass, the running game, and Rogers taking off.

[Peyton]

(01-18-2011 04:56 PM)ChrisD Wrote:  Not that he "showed us" or played great against us, but the threat was there. It's hard enough to defend 2 aspects of the game without defending 3. We had to defend the deep pass, the running game, and Rogers taking off.

I hear ya, but I think the Packers could have come out in 5 wide on every play of the game, and the result would have still been the same.