PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone here think the Saints are really the best team in the NFC?


Pages : [1] 2

Shiver
12-14-2009, 03:23 PM
Because I don't think they are, I think it is arguable that three or maybe even four teams in the NFC would beat New Orleans if they played right now. I have never seen a team that resembled a paper tiger more than this Saints' team. It is a combination of smoke and mirrors, voodoo, whatever. It is true that a lot of the arguments I am going to make could apply to the Colts as well; in this way these two teams remind me of Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale in The Prestige, a battle as to which illusionist can pull off the more convincing trick.

Let's look at the Saints' schedule, first and foremost:

beat the Lions 47-25 (Matt Stafford's first start)
beat the Eagles 48-22 (Kevin Kolb's first start)
beat the Bills 27-7
beat the Jets 24-10

By the bye week so far so good. Not too much of a challenge. No marquee wins per say, but dominance. Now is where things become unhinged.

beat the Giants 48-27 (doesn't look as impressive now as it once did does it?)
beat the Dolphins 46-34
beat the Falcons 35-27
beat the Panthers 30-20
beat the Rams 28-23
beat the Bucs 38-7
beat the Patriots 38-17 (now this was a big time win)
beat the Redskins 33-30
beat the Falcons 26-23

The games in bold are games they arguably should have lost. In all of the games they were behind or tied at a critical point in the game, and all of these games were against teams that will not be in the playoffs. They have eluded defeat. That is a hallmark of a good team right? True, but can they keep this momentum up against Minnesota, Philadelphia, Arizona or Green Bay? I have a lot of skepticism that they can beat any of those teams. The Saints defense is terrible, they couldn't stop Chris Redman and Jason Campbell at all. Will they be able to slow Favre, Rodgers, Warner or McNabb?

In the first half of the season this Saints' team was 'different' from previous teams that they've had because they had defense and a running game. Both important components have vanished in the second half of the season. Teams will be able to slow Brees in the playoffs, so the onus will be on the run and defense to bail them out ala the 2006 Colts. I wouldn't put my money on it.

yourfavestoner
12-14-2009, 03:25 PM
I buy this more for Indy than NO, but that's just because I annually expect the Colts to lose in the first round of the playoffs.

DiG
12-14-2009, 03:25 PM
good teams find ways to win. doesnt matter if its by 3 points or 20 points in my book. when a team is undefeated at this point in the season the only way you can possible put another team ahead of them is if they were also undefeated. until they lose a game they are the best the nfc has.

bigbluedefense
12-14-2009, 03:25 PM
Like the Pats, they have weaknesses that can be exploited.

The Giants were the perfect team to exploit the Pats. The Saints are an unbelievable team, but they can be had just like any other team.

It remains to be seen if they will match up against anybody who can exploit them.


They are vulnerable to a good rushing offense, and if you can stop the run with 7 and rush the passer with 4, you can take on their offense.

I think Minny could possibly be the team that matches up with them.

TitleTown088
12-14-2009, 03:28 PM
I think Minny could possibly be the team that matches up with them.
I can see how you can think Minny's offense would have some success on the Saints D. However, Brees would absolutely tear Minny's secondary apart, repeatedly.

yourfavestoner
12-14-2009, 03:29 PM
I can see how you can think Minny's offense would have some success on the Saints D. However, Brees would absolutely tear Minny's secondary apart, repeatedly.

Pass rush, pass rush, pass rush.

TitleTown088
12-14-2009, 03:29 PM
Pass rush, pass rush, pass rush.
Saints Tackles can handle it.

The pass rush sacked Rodgers 8 times and he still managed to throw for 380+ yards and a couple TDs. Minnesota's secondary is not good.

CC.SD
12-14-2009, 03:34 PM
I knew this thread would pop up after their recent struggles against teams they really should have dusted. The team is probably just tired and feeling the weight of a perfect record: something I think the Colts are just so used to at this point that it's not as obvious. I think a loss would probably do the Saints some good and think a desperate Dallas team could deliver it.

I actually like their matchup vs. the Vikings more than some of the other NFC teams. They will have to watch out for Philly and AZ more than the Vikings in my opinion, because those are the games where the ball will be flying around and the turnover differential will decide the game. That's the 'any given Sunday' factor. Throw in the fact that they are not exactly playoff hardened and I'm having trouble picking them for the Super Bowl, although they obviously have a ton of respect.

San Diego Chicken
12-14-2009, 03:34 PM
All of the Saints close calls have been in road games, though, and they'll clinch home field here soon. Brees is just deathly accurate in the Superdome and the crowd helps the defense force turnovers. If they were going to play a cold weather game in the playoffs I could see it, but they won't.

Sidenote: Does anyone else see Favre vs. Green Bay III in the second round... and the Packers pulling it off? I can see that. That would really make for an interesting offseason for Favre (again).

SchizophrenicBatman
12-14-2009, 03:34 PM
The Saints should not be undefeated right now. I'm not sure if anyone really debates that. You can't say they should lose every close game they've been in, but I think you could legitimately argue they should have 3-4 losses right now. That still makes them one of the better teams in the NFC

I do think they're going down to any team that's worth half a damn that manages not to turn the ball over a ton. The problem is that they aren't going to run into any of those until the playoffs

bigbluedefense
12-14-2009, 03:35 PM
I forgot about Arizona.

Arizona might be their achilles heal.

princefielder28
12-14-2009, 03:37 PM
I forgot about Arizona.

Arizona might be their achilles heal.

I was thinking Arizona as well. Their defensive backfield has the playmakers in it to give the Saints problems and we all know the points that Arizona's offense can put up.

TitleTown088
12-14-2009, 03:39 PM
Sidenote: Does anyone else see Favre vs. Green Bay III in the second round... and the Packers pulling it off? I can see that. That would really make for an interesting offseason for Favre (again).

I'm not sure the Packers could pull that off in the dome, but destiny seems to say that the game will at least occur.

diabsoule
12-14-2009, 03:39 PM
Pass rush, pass rush, pass rush.

The Saints are 30th in allowing sacks (15 all season) and in QB hits (41 all season).

I think we would match up well with the Vikings, better if the Saints have Tracy Porter, Jabari Greer, and Scott Fujita back. In all honesty, the team that I think would give us the most fits would be the Arizona Cardinals. On offense they have explosive, big, physical wide receivers that can stretch the field and they also possess a decent running game to keep us honest in case we drop too many guys back in coverage.
Their defense is capable of completely bottling up the run and I think their secondary could match up with our wide receivers.

Shiver
12-14-2009, 03:39 PM
I think it is funny that Arizona is arguably better than they were last year and no one talks about them. They have deadly potential in the playoffs.

bigbluedefense
12-14-2009, 03:41 PM
I was thinking Arizona as well. Their defensive backfield has the playmakers in it to give the Saints problems and we all know the points that Arizona's offense can put up.

they can stop the run with 7. thats the key, along with a pass rush. i think they can manufacture a rush.


and they can score like hell.


Arizona is the scariest team in the NFC right now outside the Saints.

CC.SD
12-14-2009, 03:44 PM
they can stop the run with 7. thats the key, along with a pass rush. i think they can manufacture a rush.


and they can score like hell.


Arizona is the scariest team in the NFC right now outside the Saints.

I give it to Philly but it's a coinflip.

princefielder28
12-14-2009, 03:45 PM
they can stop the run with 7. thats the key, along with a pass rush. i think they can manufacture a rush.



Oh, definitely. They showed that against Minnesota and that's what gave Favre so many problems; he's used to see eight men in the box but the Cardinals didn't have to commit more than seven and the Vikings' passing attack suffered because of it.

bigbluedefense
12-14-2009, 03:48 PM
I give it to Philly but it's a coinflip.

Id say Philly, but Andy Reid will find a way to **** it up like he always does.

diabsoule
12-14-2009, 03:49 PM
they can stop the run with 7. thats the key, along with a pass rush. i think they can manufacture a rush.

and they can score like hell.

Arizona is the scariest team in the NFC right now outside the Saints.

I've been thinking that for quite some time now. Arizona looks terrific. Have you noticed this? Last year and this year they start to play their best ball when it counts. That says a lot about coaching and now their team is experienced in dealing with the playoffs. Their going to be scary in the playoffs.

bigbluedefense
12-14-2009, 03:51 PM
I've been thinking that for quite some time now. Arizona looks terrific. Have you noticed this? Last year and this year they start to play their best ball when it counts. That says a lot about coaching and now their team is experienced in dealing with the playoffs. Their going to be scary in the playoffs.

Yeah, theyre a very scary team. The Cardinals aren't the same Cardinals we're used to. We have to acknowledge em and respect now. Whistenhunt really turned this ship around.

Shiver
12-14-2009, 03:51 PM
I still think they need to get Beanie Wells more involved.

diabsoule
12-14-2009, 03:52 PM
Yeah, theyre a very scary team. The Cardinals aren't the same Cardinals we're used to. We have to acknowledge em and respect now. Whistenhunt really turned this ship around.

Yeah, he did. That's why I made the quip in the Week 14 discussion thread that Pittsburgh might be regretting hiring Tomlin over Whisenhunt.

bigbluedefense
12-14-2009, 03:53 PM
I still think they need to get Beanie Wells more involved.

Im surprised they went with Wells. They already had a bruiser in Hightower, a guy like McCoy wouldve fitted their spread offense much better.

Having that said, I think Wells is a good RB. Once he learns how to pass protect better (Hightower is clearly better than him at this right now, which is why Wells is limited), he'll be a beast.

bigbluedefense
12-14-2009, 03:55 PM
Yeah, he did. That's why I made the quip in the Week 14 discussion thread that Pittsburgh might be regretting hiring Tomlin over Whisenhunt.

I agree with you. Whisenhunt is the better HC. Tomlin benefited from being the Steelers HC. Whissy would do just as good if not better as Pitts HC.

You know its eating him up inside that he barely lost to the Steelers in the SB with an inferior team. He wanted that so bad.

Many love Tomlin, but honestly, I think he's an overrated HC. It will show once LeBeau retires.

Boston
12-14-2009, 03:55 PM
Well, looking at the playoff picture right now, the Packers would have to go through the Cardinals, the Vikings, and the Eagles/Saints/Cowboys to reach the Super Bowl. Looking forward.

vikes_28
12-14-2009, 04:25 PM
I don't believe they are because I don't think they are a complete team. I believe that they will fall apart in the playoffs. Even if they do go 16-0. They will lose in the playoffs. I'm not saying this cause I'm a Vikings fan. But I see teams like the Eagles being better than the Saints, because they are complete, they have just had some bumps along the way. But the Saints will meltdown late, and the Eagles will get hot late. NFCCG = Vikings vs. Eagles.

diabsoule
12-14-2009, 04:27 PM
I agree with you. Whisenhunt is the better HC. Tomlin benefited from being the Steelers HC. Whissy would do just as good if not better as Pitts HC.

You know its eating him up inside that he barely lost to the Steelers in the SB with an inferior team. He wanted that so bad.

Many love Tomlin, but honestly, I think he's an overrated HC. It will show once LeBeau retires.

I agree completely. If the Steelers would've went with Whisenhunt they could have kept Russ Grimm who would have continued to coach the OL. I also not a fan of Tomlin's drafting. He goes more BPA than BPA at position of need, which was the Steelers M.O. for years.

vikes_28
12-14-2009, 04:31 PM
The other thing about the Vikings vs. Cardinals game, is that our O-Line was very very banged up. Everyone was hurt during that game, and the pass rush was getting to Favre. Not being a homer, but I still think that the Vikings are a better team than the Cardinals.

Boston
12-14-2009, 04:38 PM
The other thing about the Vikings vs. Cardinals game, is that our O-Line was very very banged up. Everyone was hurt during that game, and the pass rush was getting to Favre. Not being a homer, but I still think that the Vikings are a better team than the Cardinals.

The Packers just played against the Bears with all four of their defensive lineman injured at some point during the week. Injuries happen, it's how you deal with them that determines what kind of team you are.

BuddyCHRIST
12-14-2009, 04:43 PM
The NFC is studded right now, with NO, Arizona, Philly, Minny, GB thats 5 teams who I could see in the SB. And maybe even the Giants if they can run the ball again. I'm a Saints fan so I'm biased, but its not like this matters too much because it will get sorted out in the playoffs.

vikes_28
12-14-2009, 04:47 PM
The Packers just played against the Bears with all four of their defensive lineman injured at some point during the week. Injuries happen, it's how you deal with them that determines what kind of team you are.

Right, but did your defensive lineman get injured during the game? Did the backups have time to prepare for the game? The Vikings O-Line was injured DURING the game. And the Vikings had to put in two backups. Artis Hicks and Ryan Cook. Not favorable.

diabsoule
12-14-2009, 04:48 PM
I don't believe they are because I don't think they are a complete team. I believe that they will fall apart in the playoffs. Even if they do go 16-0. They will lose in the playoffs. I'm not saying this cause I'm a Vikings fan. But I see teams like the Eagles being better than the Saints, because they are complete, they have just had some bumps along the way. But the Saints will meltdown late, and the Eagles will get hot late. NFCCG = Vikings vs. Eagles.

The Eagles are a complete team? Did you watch the Eagles vs. Giants game last night? The Eagles are far from complete. Their run defense is very suspect and they allowed over 500 yards in total offense last night.

The other thing about the Vikings vs. Cardinals game, is that our O-Line was very very banged up. Everyone was hurt during that game, and the pass rush was getting to Favre. Not being a homer, but I still think that the Vikings are a better team than the Cardinals.

And the Saints are playing without their two best cornerbacks, their third string strongside linebacker, and their second string left tackle. We've been playing banged up for quite some time now.

vikes_28
12-14-2009, 04:54 PM
The Eagles are a complete team? Did you watch the Eagles vs. Giants game last night? The Eagles are far from complete. Their run defense is very suspect and they allowed over 500 yards in total offense last night.



And the Saints are playing without their two best cornerbacks, their third string strongside linebacker, and their second string left tackle. We've been playing banged up for quite some time now.

Right, and that's why the Saints have won so many close ones. What I'm saying is that its hard for backups to come in during the game, when they haven't been taking 1st string reps during practice. And luckily, they weren't terrible injuries and they were able to come back this week, and now they look as good as ever. But, like I said, its hard for a backup to come into the game on the drop of a dime. The Vikings really haven't had many injuries this year except for Harvin, and when your whole starting right side of the Line goes down, its obviously going to be hard to fill in. That's why the Vikings couldn't get the rushing game going, and that's why they couldn't protect Favre.

NOLAFan
12-14-2009, 05:03 PM
I don't believe they are because I don't think they are a complete team. I believe that they will fall apart in the playoffs. Even if they do go 16-0. They will lose in the playoffs. I'm not saying this cause I'm a Vikings fan. But I see teams like the Eagles being better than the Saints, because they are complete, they have just had some bumps along the way. But the Saints will meltdown late, and the Eagles will get hot late. NFCCG = Vikings vs. Eagles.

Seriously? Are you dense? Philly is the same team they were back in week 2 and last night pretty much confirms it. Giants aren't that great this year and they manhandled Philly. The Giants lost that game. I love how everyone is getting so high on the Eagles. They are a good team but i don't fear them if the Saints meet them in the playoffs. Same Philly defense from week 2. McNabb doesn't make much difference.

People have to take into account that the Saints are banged up on D and are still winning. A win is all that counts....this ain't the BCS style points mean jack ****.

In all honesty the Cardinals and Vikings are the teams i feel will derail us in the playoffs. This undefeated mess needs to end. A loss would be good for the Saints.

Stranger
12-14-2009, 05:17 PM
Right, and that's why the Saints have won so many close ones. What I'm saying is that its hard for backups to come in during the game, when they haven't been taking 1st string reps during practice. And luckily, they weren't terrible injuries and they were able to come back this week, and now they look as good as ever. But, like I said, its hard for a backup to come into the game on the drop of a dime. The Vikings really haven't had many injuries this year except for Harvin, and when your whole starting right side of the Line goes down, its obviously going to be hard to fill in. That's why the Vikings couldn't get the rushing game going, and that's why they couldn't protect Favre.

If I remember correctly both Loadholt and McKinnie came back into the game not too long after getting injured so it's not like the backups were in that long. At the same time the Cards had a backup LT in for the entire game (although as you pointed out it's different if you have had practice reps).

On topic I think the Saints are the most talented team but I think they have a habit of playing down to their opposition. Regardless, come playoff time I would take the Saints at home over any other NFC team.

vidae
12-14-2009, 05:47 PM
Like someone said earlier, I don't care if you win by 3 or 50, a win is a win, and that's what they've done all year.

I like the fact that they've been tested and I view it as a positive more than a negative. It shows that they can battle back. They are a tough team that can win the hard fought game and the blow out.

There is no one I'd pick over the Saints in the NFC right now.

dpl85
12-14-2009, 06:20 PM
If we lose to the Saints which I would expect our season is pretty much over. I'd say there is about a 20% chance we actually go into the Super Dome and beat them. It would take a near perfect game from our players and coaches but that's unlikely. I think the Cards match up best with the Saints and would probably be the biggest obstacle for NO.

Sniper
12-14-2009, 06:22 PM
Id say Philly, but Andy Reid will find a way to **** it up like he always does.

Indeed he will. While the Eagles are hot right now, it's hard for me to get excited because I've seen this movie a dozen times before.

To answer the original question, yes, the Saints are the best team.

Sniper
12-14-2009, 06:25 PM
Seriously? Are you dense? Philly is the same team they were back in week 2 and last night pretty much confirms it.

Kevin Kolb =/= Donovan McNabb. You're also under the impression that rookies like LeSean McCoy and Jeremy Maclin have remained stagnant, and that Leonard Weaver's and Mike Vick's roles in the offense haven't changed.

Same Philly defense from week 2.

I'll inform Will Witherspoon of this. He should probably be made aware. Witherspoon's the type of LB that you need to shut down, or at least contain, the Saints.

I don't think the Eagles would beat the Saints, but to call the Eagles the same team as they were three months ago is ********.

djp
12-14-2009, 06:26 PM
Give me Arizona over the Saints. Which sucks because we are looking at the Cardinals in the Divisional Round. They're hot, and they match up well with us. However, with Winfield back, I think we do give them a better game.

The Saints are a wildcard, if they play every week like they did vs New England nobody's going to come close to them. But they've disappointed me with the performances surrounding that game. Part of me thinks that they will just be so amped for the playoffs that they will run through everyone, but I don't think anybody knows how they are going to respond with it all on the line (same with the Vikings).

Arizona's been there, they've got the hottest QB in the league, and their defense looks fantastic with the way they've been disguising coverage. Antrel Rolle and Adrian Wilson are absolutely playing great right now.

Auron
12-14-2009, 06:29 PM
Do I think they are the best team in the NFC? Currently? Yes I guess so, 13-0 is 13-0... there have been some close call games but they've managed to come out ahead in all of those and in different ways as well... and that says something for the character of your team.

Is the gap that wide? Definitely No... I can see Minnesota, Arizona, even Philadelphia taking us down in the Playoffs. They all are deadly and the Post season is a completely different beast.

I will say that the Saints are so much more deadly at Home, something about that Dome just electrifies our players and brings out the best in them.... so it's going to take a team on a really hot roll.... and teams like Philly, and Green Bay do scare me because they are so hot right now going into January.

djp
12-14-2009, 06:29 PM
Just a follow up, pretty huge turnaround for the Saints this year.

1st in Offensive Efficiency, 7th in Defensive Efficiency

last year

4th in Offensive Efficiency, 26th in Defensive Efficiency

So why are the Saints 19 places better this year than last year on defense?

diabsoule
12-14-2009, 06:30 PM
Just a follow up, pretty huge turnaround for the Saints this year.

1st in Offensive Efficiency, 7th in Defensive Efficiency

last year

4th in Offensive Efficiency, 26th in Defensive Efficiency

So why are the Saints 19 places better this year than last year on defense?

Gregg Williams defensive scheme and inserting the right players into it has made all the difference.

djp
12-14-2009, 06:31 PM
Gregg Williams defensive scheme and inserting the right players into it has made all the difference.

What's different about Greg Williams scheme from last year's? More man, more zone, what? Sorry, I hardly saw any Saints games last year.

Job
12-14-2009, 06:31 PM
I still have some faith in the Cowboys. We'll see next week I guess.

Job
12-14-2009, 06:32 PM
Just a follow up, pretty huge turnaround for the Saints this year.

1st in Offensive Efficiency, 7th in Defensive Efficiency

last year

4th in Offensive Efficiency, 26th in Defensive Efficiency

So why are the Saints 19 places better this year than last year on defense?

Malcolm Jenkins.

djp
12-14-2009, 06:34 PM
Other teams O/D efficiency numbers

Minnesota 8th offense, 15th defense (thru week 13, should bump up to 12 or 11 when next weeks rankings come out)

Arizona 7th offense, 14th defense

Indianapolis 3rd offense, 8th defense

Cincinnati 17th offense, 16th defense

New England 2nd offense, 17th defense

Green Bay 6th offense, 1st defense

Philadelphia 12th offense, 2nd defense

djp
12-14-2009, 06:36 PM
One cause for concern for the Saints, they are 27th in Special Teams efficiency. If they get into a close game, it could cost them. I know they got a new kicker, but Hartley still missed an XP yesterday.

Vikings have gone from 32nd in 2008 to 2nd in 2009.

diabsoule
12-14-2009, 06:37 PM
What's different about Greg Williams scheme from last year's? More man, more zone, what? Sorry, I hardly saw any Saints games last year.

It's an aggressive blitz scheme that plays more man leaving the safeties in a zone so they can roam and make plays.

It differs from last year because Gary Gibbs was a read and react type of guy. He liked to play soft coverages, straight man-to-man, and barely blitzed or put pressure.

Brent
12-14-2009, 06:38 PM
dont forget Darren Sharper is the ******* man

Splat
12-14-2009, 06:47 PM
It is going to be hard to roll in to NO and walk out with a win I'm not saying it can't be done but if they play their game I don't see any one beating them in the NFC.

Auron
12-14-2009, 06:50 PM
What's different about Greg Williams scheme from last year's? More man, more zone, what? Sorry, I hardly saw any Saints games last year.

Yeah Diab covered it in the post above, but our Defensive coordinator was Gary Gibbs last season and he ran a very passive scheme, that was far too predictable. Greg Williams is more aggressive, and tailors his Defense around the skill sets of the players, and they genuinely like to play for him... the Defense has fallen off in the past few games because they've been plagued with injuries. (Both starting Corners, starting SLB, one of our key DTs, have all been out for extended periods of time)

Darren Sharper is good when he's allowed to sit back and read Quarterback's eyes and freelance, when he's matched up on receivers 1-on-1 though he kind of shows his age... Yesterday he was left out to dry on a Double corner blitz and it left him in single deep coverage with a WR and he had no chance...

dpl85
12-14-2009, 06:54 PM
The great thing is there is no bs bcs to arbitrarily pick the teams for the championship game in the NFL so we'll actually find out definitively.

The Legend
12-14-2009, 07:25 PM
This could turn out to be one amazing playoff season. Packers vs Vikings, Cowboys vs Eagles, and I'm really hoping to see the Vikings vs Saints. Should be one amazing hunt to see who versus the Colts.

fenikz
12-14-2009, 07:26 PM
I personally much rather face the Saints in the playoffs than the Packers or Eagles

Flyboy
12-14-2009, 07:31 PM
*sees thread, backs away slowly*

wicket
12-14-2009, 07:40 PM
Allright, Im not nescesarrily saying that the saints are the best team in the nfc but I have some real issues with the OP.
You can easily say that the schedule has not formed much of a challenge but is just factually untrue.
1st game Detroit was easy and supposed to be easy
2nd game @philly, sure they didnt have mcnabb but the saints scored 48 on them, last I checked mcnabb doesnt play defense.
3rd game @Bills the saints pull out a game where almost everything goes wrong and they do so easily.
4th game Jets Was a very big deal at the time, remember all the best O vs best D talk. Big game, saints showed up bigtime
5th game Giants. Traditional power were going to show saints what real football was and they got emberassed.
6th game Dolphins, recovered from like 20 points down (first time in the season they trailed in a game) to show the team can also fight
7th game Falcons, big solid win against a division rival that was playing really good football at that time
8&9 Underwhelming performances against the Panthers and mainly the Rams
10th Confidence booster against the rams
11th Saints anihalate(sp?) the patriots
12th Fluke against skins
13th mediocre performance against falcons

some stats:
saints total margin of victory 192 pts, the next team (vikings) have 146. This means that the saints win on average by about 16 points. In a 16 game season you will not dominate every game, will never happen but in the OP it seems like winning close games is worse than losing which is just a complete joke.
But thusfar the saints have played 4 truly high profile games, some of them may not seem that primetime anymore but they were at the moment and those 4 games where the best performances by the saints. Also noteworthy is that the teams the saints beat all suffered breakdowns after the game and allthough the OP is argueing that this is the team showing the true colours that is just a very one-sided reasoning fitted for his argument and absent of sense of reality.

Ow yeah and the saints are undefeated and are winning by the largest margin despite some pretty vital injuries.
- Saints have had games where Michael Jenkins and Mike McKenzie started, that are the 4th and 6th corner on the depthchart, no wonder the passing defense suffers.
- Field captain and vital linebacker Scott Fujita has been out for a ton of games
- Sed Ellis, the only DT worth a damn has missed a few games.
- Lance Moore has been injured more than he has been healthy
- Saints have barely played a game with their full running attack
- Ow yeah and they are missing Pro Bowl LT Jamaal Brown the whole season already

sure everybody has injuries but the was they fall in the same position is bound to clutter the defensive performance.

But the main thing that makes me believe in this year saints is that theyve played the best on the biggest games.

NOLAFan
12-14-2009, 07:45 PM
Allright, Im not nescesarrily saying that the saints are the best team in the nfc but I have some real issues with the OP.
You can easily say that the schedule has not formed much of a challenge but is just factually untrue.
1st game Detroit was easy and supposed to be easy
2nd game @philly, sure they didnt have mcnabb but the saints scored 48 on them, last I checked mcnabb doesnt play defense.
3rd game @Bills the saints pull out a game where almost everything goes wrong and they do so easily.
4th game Jets Was a very big deal at the time, remember all the best O vs best D talk. Big game, saints showed up bigtime
5th game Giants. Traditional power were going to show saints what real football was and they got emberassed.
6th game Dolphins, recovered from like 20 points down (first time in the season they trailed in a game) to show the team can also fight
7th game Falcons, big solid win against a division rival that was playing really good football at that time
8&9 Underwhelming performances against the Panthers and mainly the Rams
10th Confidence booster against the rams
11th Saints anihalate(sp?) the patriots
12th Fluke against skins
13th mediocre performance against falcons

some stats:
saints total margin of victory 192 pts, the next team (vikings) have 146. This means that the saints win on average by about 16 points. In a 16 game season you will not dominate every game, will never happen but in the OP it seems like winning close games is worse than losing which is just a complete joke.
But thusfar the saints have played 4 truly high profile games, some of them may not seem that primetime anymore but they were at the moment and those 4 games where the best performances by the saints. Also noteworthy is that the teams the saints beat all suffered breakdowns after the game and allthough the OP is argueing that this is the team showing the true colours that is just a very one-sided reasoning fitted for his argument and absent of sense of reality.

Ow yeah and the saints are undefeated and are winning by the largest margin despite some pretty vital injuries.
- Saints have had games where Michael Jenkins and Mike McKenzie started, that are the 4th and 6th corner on the depthchart, no wonder the passing defense suffers.
- Field captain and vital linebacker Scott Fujita has been out for a ton of games
- Sed Ellis, the only DT worth a damn has missed a few games.
- Lance Moore has been injured more than he has been healthy
- Saints have barely played a game with their full running attack
- Ow yeah and they are missing Pro Bowl LT Jamaal Brown the whole season already
sure everybody has injuries but the was they fall in the same position is bound to clutter the defensive performance.

But the main thing that makes me believe in this year saints is that theyve played the best on the biggest games

Wow you articulated everything i wanted to say. Very nice man.

TitleTown088
12-14-2009, 07:51 PM
The other thing about the Vikings vs. Cardinals game, is that our O-Line was very very banged up. Everyone was hurt during that game, and the pass rush was getting to Favre. Not being a homer, but I still think that the Vikings are a better team than the Cardinals. When the Packers played the vikings both times Clifton and Tauscher were out. Everyone has injuries they're no excuse. Mckinne and landholt both came back in that game anyways.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-14-2009, 07:54 PM
I think they are. They straight dust elite teams. They not only beat them on the field, they destroy their swagger so bad that they fall apart over their next couple of games, too. See: Giants, Patriots. I think they're easily better than the Colts right now. Easily. I know they're AFC, but still.

LonghornsLegend
12-14-2009, 07:54 PM
I think their the best right now, but one that can certainly be beat in the playoffs.


I don't hold it against them that some weeks they started slow or "should have" lost like the Mia game, great teams find ways to battle back and I think it says alot about a team when it's a game they should clearly lose but still find ways to win.


They have always had a potent offense but finally the defense is getting the players needed to make the scheme be effective like Sedrick Ellis, Jabari Greer, Malcolm Jenkins, Darren Sharper, their going to be tough to deal with.


They can also score points so fast in a short span of time, so if you did hold them down all game and your defense starts to go into prevent Brees will eat you alive. I definately think they can be had by the right team but it's hard to argue against them being the best.


If Arizona can committ to Beanie week to week by giving him the ball and keeping defenses honest, it's hard to go against them. I still think they need to get committed more to Beanie, and if DRC can go back to playing at the level he was last playoffs they are going to be tough to beat.

Shiver
12-14-2009, 07:59 PM
I guess that the original title isn't completely indicative of what I want to know: does everyone really think New Orleans makes it out of the NFC Playoffs and into the Super Bowl?

The Unseen
12-14-2009, 08:05 PM
I'm starting to like the Vikings more and more and the Saints less and less.

although I would jizz my pants at a Chargers/Saints Super Bowl

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-14-2009, 08:06 PM
I'm starting to like the Vikings more and more and the Saints less and less.

although I would jizz my pants at a Chargers/Saints Super Bowl

I wouldn't go that far, I'd just cheer my ass of for the Saints. Lesser of two evils.

The Unseen
12-14-2009, 08:10 PM
philip rivers is sex

breesus is sex

they were both chargers

BOOM, marshmallow undies

Splat
12-14-2009, 08:11 PM
philip rivers is sex

breesus is sex

they were both chargers

BOOM, marshmallow undies

It must be nice to let one pro bowl QB walk just to replace him with another.

Sniper
12-14-2009, 08:24 PM
2nd game @philly, sure they didnt have mcnabb but the saints scored 48 on them, last I checked mcnabb doesnt play defense.


K.Kolb pass short right intended for D.Jackson INTERCEPTED by S.Shanle at PHI 27. S.Shanle ran ob at PHI 24 for 3 yards.

(No Huddle, Shotgun) K.Kolb pass short right intended for B.Celek INTERCEPTED by D.Sharper at NO 3. D.Sharper for 97 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

T.Morstead kicks 68 yards from NO 30 to PHI 2. E.Hobbs to PHI 22 for 20 yards (M.Jenkins). FUMBLES (M.Jenkins), RECOVERED by NO-C.Reis at PHI 22. C.Reis to PHI 22 for no gain (E.Buckley).

In addition to a two-play, 49-yard drive. So, yeah, four touchdowns came either courtesy of Kolb or Ellis ******* Hobbs. Philadelphia outgained New Orleans by 42 yards.

Yeah, McNabb doesn't make any difference here. :rolleyes:

sweetness34
12-14-2009, 08:25 PM
If they are playing at the Superdome, yes. If they are playing on the road (especially outdoors), no. Same goes with Minnesota.

keylime_5
12-14-2009, 08:34 PM
Minny, New Orleans, and Arizona I think are the top 3. I think the top 3 NFC East teams are all overrated. New Orleans has been finding ways to win tough games which is a good sign for them.

TitleTown088
12-14-2009, 08:50 PM
I personally much rather face the Saints in the playoffs than the Packers or Eagles

You may get a shot at the Packers two consecutive weeks.

Saints-Tigers
12-14-2009, 09:46 PM
Wow, the Saints can't cover without their two starting CBs. EXPOSED!

Our defense is predicated on the two CBs being able to cover on an island for long periods of time, that way Harper can play up close, and Sharper can roam deep and make plays on the ball.

Seriously, every week is supposed to be "the test", then we dust some team, and all we hear about is how overrated they were.

The only game that the other teams gave to us was Washington. That's the only one that legitimately blew it. The rest of the games, even when we were down, the Saints cranked it up and took over.

I hope everyone keeps thinking we can't cover, and when Porter and Greer come back, we can start forcing turnovers all over.

Any team in NFL history is vulnerable, I don't care who you are.

If your question is, where would I put my money for who is coming out of the NFC, I'm going with the Saints, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion.

djp
12-14-2009, 09:47 PM
You may get a shot at the Packers two consecutive weeks.

Boy, that's gonna be a tough game. Arizona looks sooooooo bad tonight it's concerning, plus this potential Fitzgerald injury changes things as well.

I don't know if anyones playing better ball than the Packers right now.

yo123
12-14-2009, 10:07 PM
Saints Tackles can handle it.

The pass rush sacked Rodgers 8 times and he still managed to throw for 380+ yards and a couple TDs. Minnesota's secondary is not good.


I don't know why you keep saying this. Our secondary is middle of the pack (16th) with our best corner out almost half the year.

Boston
12-14-2009, 10:09 PM
I don't know why you keep saying this. Our secondary is middle of the pack (16th) with our best corner out almost half the year.

16th isn't good. When you consider the fact that New Orleans has the # 1 ranked pass offense, yeah, that's kind of a mismatch.

yo123
12-14-2009, 10:12 PM
16th isn't good. When you consider the fact that New Orleans has the # 1 ranked pass offense, yeah, that's kind of a mismatch.

It's good for not having your #1 corner for half the year. Not to mention we held Cincy to 103 passing yards this week so that ranking will go up a couple spots.

Crazy_Chris
12-15-2009, 12:47 AM
The Saints are having a phenomenal year and could end up going undefeated. Like the 07 patriots they have had some close calls and some lucky breaks that will contribute to the undefeated season. But thats how any season goes teams get lucky breaks can't take anything away because of that... With that said, when I watch the Saints I don't see this unbeatable juggernaut of a team. They are beatable, I don't think it would a be a huge stretch to say any one of the Vikings, Eagles, Cardinals, or Packers could end up beating them in the playoffs.

It will undoubtly be very very tough to do considering barring a meltdown they will get home field advantage. IMO it's going to take a team that will be able to bottle up their run game with just their front seven. That can create just enough pressure(without blitzing too much) to make Drew Bress a bit uncomfortable in the pocket and throw off their precision passing game. Then on Offense that team will need to have a balanced attack. so they can methodically move the ball down the field, control the clock and keep the explosive Saints offense on the sideline. Most importantly they will need to be good in the red zone and score Tds instead of settling for FGs.

TonyGfortheTD
12-15-2009, 01:32 AM
It's good for not having your #1 corner for half the year. Not to mention we held Cincy to 103 passing yards this week so that ranking will go up a couple spots.

When you say "we," you're referring to the Bengals offensive coordinator right?

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-15-2009, 01:34 AM
Wow, the Saints can't cover without their two starting CBs. EXPOSED!

Our defense is predicated on the two CBs being able to cover on an island for long periods of time, that way Harper can play up close, and Sharper can roam deep and make plays on the ball.

Seriously, every week is supposed to be "the test", then we dust some team, and all we hear about is how overrated they were.

The only game that the other teams gave to us was Washington. That's the only one that legitimately blew it. The rest of the games, even when we were down, the Saints cranked it up and took over.

I hope everyone keeps thinking we can't cover, and when Porter and Greer come back, we can start forcing turnovers all over.

Any team in NFL history is vulnerable, I don't care who you are.

If your question is, where would I put my money for who is coming out of the NFC, I'm going with the Saints, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion.

Seriously. I was doubting them a bit, because they seemed to have been playing down to their lesser opponents. I knew the Patriots game would be the real test of the Saints. And they went and kicked their asses. Brutally. It doesn't happen often, but Saints just seem to have the ability to turn it on in important games. They're easily the best team in the NFL right now in my book. Too many weapons on offense, you just can't stop it. And when that home crowd gets behind that defense, even when injured, in a big game, they come to play.

CC.SD
12-15-2009, 01:38 AM
I'm starting to like the Vikings more and more and the Saints less and less.

although I would jizz my pants at a Chargers/Saints Super Bowl

I would basically just become a constant jizz geyser, a freaking firehose. Let's get this done.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-15-2009, 01:42 AM
I would basically just become a constant jizz geyser, a freaking firehose. Let's get this done.

Everyone knows the Broncos are making the Super Bowl. Because 8>7. And 7 won two.

I just took homerism to a whole new level.

CC.SD
12-15-2009, 01:44 AM
Everyone knows the Broncos are making the Super Bowl. Because 8>7. And 7 won two.

I just took homerism to a whole new level.

Broncos win the Super Bowl on the Marshall plan. 30 targets per game minimum FTW do it neckbeaaaard

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-15-2009, 01:45 AM
Broncos win the Super Bowl on the Marshall plan. 30 targets per game minimum FTW do it neckbeaaaard

1. Abandon Running game
2. 40 short passes to Brandon Marshall
3. ????
4. PROFIT!

TitleTown088
12-15-2009, 01:49 AM
It's good for not having your #1 corner for half the year. Not to mention we held Cincy to 103 passing yards this week so that ranking will go up a couple spots.

Where has that pass defense been ranked the past 2-3 years with that #1 corner?

I know people will sasy its because teams only passed on the Vikings because their run d was sooo good, but I don't entirely buy it.

CC.SD
12-15-2009, 01:50 AM
1. Abandon Running game
2. 40 short passes to Brandon Marshall
3. ????
4. PROFIT!

5.
http://dubsism.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/kyle-orton-with-blond.jpg

TitleTown088
12-15-2009, 01:50 AM
Everyone knows the Broncos are making the Super Bowl. Because 8>7. And 7 won two.

I just took homerism to a whole new level.
Nah, I've been saying 12>>>4 for awhile.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-15-2009, 01:53 AM
5.
http://dubsism.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/kyle-orton-with-blond.jpg

6.
http://drunkathlete.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/kyle_orton_chicago_bears_3_drunk_pictures1.jpg

yo123
12-15-2009, 02:03 AM
Where has that pass defense been ranked the past 2-3 years with that #1 corner?

I know people will sasy its because teams only passed on the Vikings because their run d was sooo good, but I don't entirely buy it.



Who the **** cares about the last 2-3 years? Cedric Griffin was one of the worst corners in the league then, he's been great this year. How was Denver's defense last year? Previous years mean absolutely nothing.

TitleTown088
12-15-2009, 08:09 PM
Who the **** cares about the last 2-3 years? Cedric Griffin was one of the worst corners in the league then, he's been great this year. How was Denver's defense last year? Previous years mean absolutely nothing.

Lezlie Franzeir's secondaries are not good. Haven't been since he was in Minnesota. Even under Tomlin. That be my point.

yo123
12-15-2009, 08:44 PM
Lezlie Franzeir's secondaries are not good. Haven't been since he was in Minnesota. Even under Tomlin. That be my point.



And that has nothing to do with the talent he's had...not to mention during Tomlin's time here and Frazier's first year here without Jared allen we had no pass rush at all. In his second year (last year) we were also middle of the pack.

Our safeties suck and our corners are good. Our secondary is average, not nearly as bad as Packer fans make it out to be.

NOLAFan
12-15-2009, 08:50 PM
And that has nothing to do with the talent he's had...not to mention during Tomlin's time here and Frazier's first year here without Jared allen we had no pass rush at all. In his second year (last year) we were also middle of the pack.

Our safeties suck and our corners are good. Our secondary is average, not nearly as bad as Packer fans make it out to be.

I think the Vikes secondary is pretty damn good and that Winfields return helps out in a big way...the man is a beast only reincarnated into a smurf like body

Thumper
12-15-2009, 10:10 PM
Seriously? Are you dense? Philly is the same team they were back in week 2 and last night pretty much confirms it. Giants aren't that great this year and they manhandled Philly. The Giants lost that game. I love how everyone is getting so high on the Eagles. They are a good team but i don't fear them if the Saints meet them in the playoffs. Same Philly defense from week 2. McNabb doesn't make much difference.

People have to take into account that the Saints are banged up on D and are still winning. A win is all that counts....this ain't the BCS style points mean jack ****.

In all honesty the Cardinals and Vikings are the teams i feel will derail us in the playoffs. This undefeated mess needs to end. A loss would be good for the Saints.

Are YOU dense? Apparently...

The Eagles team that played the Giants was the same team that played the Saints? You could not be more wrong, you beat a completely different Eagles team but think what you want even if it is blatantly wrong, whatever floats your boat.

But for those who're actually willing to listen, please read the following.

The key difference between that Eagles team and the one now? Umm... perhaps the fact that Donovan McNabb is the QB and not Kevin Kolb, fairly big difference. If you look back at the Saints game, you'll see the Saints were up 3 and the Eagles were getting the ball after the half, after that Kevin Kolb imploded with 3 interceptions in the second half and Ellis Hobbs fumbled the opening kickoff. That won't happen again, those picks that kept the Eagles offense off the field will not happen, guarun-fucc'n-teed. Need proof? I take you to the record books, Donovan McNabb is proportionally the least intercepted QB in NFL History. D-Mac is great at making good decisions and protecting the ball, occasionally there will be an interception but those are not regular.

Not only that but if you would care to take a look at the box score you'll notice one thing, the Eagles had 69 yards rushing, again that won't happen. In case you haven't noticed the Eagles have ran for 457 yards in the past 4 games and for 5 touchdowns. The wildcat is finally taking hold as Vick gets a better grip on NFL speed, with 3 touchdowns in 2 weeks (inches away from being 4) and he constantly comes up with key first downs. Not only that but the short yardage issues are slowly but surely being cured with the combination of Eldra Buckley, Leonard Weaver and Vick.

Not only that but you have probably seen two Eagles games, the Saints game and the Giants game... how convenient. Prior to the Giants game the Eagles were the #7 defense in the NFL allowing only 3.8 yards a carry and 4.6 yards a play. Not only that but the Eagles are one of the top sack defenses, are third in the NFC in takeaways with 33. You probably missed the previous game where the Eagles nearly shut out the Falcons. And the Eagles can't stop the run? REALLY? REALLY? You must not know who Brodrick Bunkley and Mike Patterson are, you know the second best DT duo in the NFL?

AND THEN there were injuries, I already addressed the injury to Donovan McNabb but the Eagles were also missing... Starting LG Todd Herramens and starting RG Nick Cole (who was starting at LG where he doesn't belong). And the Eagles had yet to acquire Will Witherspoon and yet to start Sean Jones at FS (who typically is a great tackler and great in run support IDK what happened against NY). Also the Eagles had yet to really put Antonio Dixon and Jason Babin in the defensive line rotation, Dixon is a big run stuffer at 6'3" and 325 pounds who has played very well this season and Babin is the second best pass rusher after Trent Cole, that might seem bad but Babin is actually playing well and getting pressure consistently.

The Eagles are team that is a contender, get used to that statement. You don't take my word for it (I am willing to bet 95% of you are writing this entire post off as homer) why don't you read Michael Lombardi (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d814f8116&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true).

After beating the Giants Sunday night, the Eagles are in first place in the NFC East and might be the only team in the conference that can actually beat both the Vikings and Saints on the road. To get to the Super Bowl in the NFC, the road must pass through Minnesota and then possibly New Orleans. Both have loud stadiums and very exciting offenses. Beating them requires a great passing game and ability to score in bunches. The team that best fits that description right now is the Eagles.

They are very similar to the Saints in terms of their offensive mentality: a fast-break team that places pressure on the defense -- not with 4-yard passes, but with throws up the field. This mentality has allowed them to be the best in the NFL at scoring quickly.

Donovan McNabb has been tremendous with his deep-ball accuracy this season, averaging 8.0 yards per pass attempt. That number is comparable to Drew Brees, who is averaging 8.9 yards per attempt. The Eagles' skill level at wide receiver is excellent. DeSean Jackson tied an NFL record for touchdowns of 50 yards or more in a single season with eight, and there are still three games to go.

They can effectively move the ball, and most importantly they can score points at a rapid pace (100 of the Eagles' 372 points have come in drives of four or fewer plays, tops in the NFL). Both qualities are necessary to beat the undefeated Saints.

Much like the Saints, the Eagles do not need to win the time of possession battle to win the game. Sunday night against the Giants, they had the ball only 25 minutes, but still scored 45 points. The Eagles scored 85 points combined in two games against the Giants this year, clearly dominating both affairs.

Not only that but do you honestly think the banged up Saints defense can keep up with the Eagles offense? The defense just finished letting Chris Redman's offense put up 23 points and you think they're going to stop DeSean Jackson, Brent Celek, Jeremy Maclin, Jason Avant, LeSean McCoy, Brian Westbrook, Leonard Weaver, Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb? Brent Celek and DeSean Jackson TORCHED the Saints defense with 205 receiving yards the first time around with Kevin Kolb tossing the football around and that was when Darren Sharper was rested, Jabari Greer was healthy, Tracy Porter was healthy and with a healthy William ***. And now you really expect Mike McKenzie and Malcolm Jenkins to slow down DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin? Oh and btw, in the Saints game Jeremy Maclin was still getting used to the speed of the NFL, it was his first NFL game after playing 2 snaps in the Panthers game and he is clearly a bigger threat now.

I'm not saying the Eagles are the best in the NFC but c'mon, the Eagles are better than they were in week 2 when they were missing several key players, new things have developed on the Eagles and the team is getting hot yet again at the right time. Not only that but the Eagles team has a bunch of playoff experience with Andy Reid having coached this team in numerous playoff game, McNabb having navigated the playoffs numerous times, Westbrook is still on the team and Jeremiah Trotter is a fantastic leader. The Eagles are seasoned playoff veterans for the most part and are a hot team and are a team that is completely capable of beating the Saints or Vikings.

And you're post contradicts itself, in the first part you say:
Giants aren't that great this year and they manhandled Philly. The Giants lost that game.

But then you proceed to say:
A win is all that counts....this ain't the BCS style points mean jack ****.

Hmm... a win is a win but the Eagles are downgraded because of the fact they didn't win in a blowout? Contradictory. So let me get this straight... games where the Saints were 'manhandled' (Dolphins, Falcons x2, Panthers, Redskins) should be thrown out the window but games where the Eagles were manhandled and won should count against them? Double standard much? And the idea that the Giants manhandled the Eagles is flawed, the Eagles had a hold on that game the entire time and were only down for a grand total of :15 seconds in the entire game.

Halsey
12-15-2009, 10:19 PM
The Saints are the best team in the NFC, but in the playoffs a team only needs to finish one 60 minute game with more points than the other. Just because the Saints look vulnerable doesn't mean they aren't the best. They could easily lose to a team like the Eagles or Vikings on a given day.

D-Unit
12-15-2009, 10:31 PM
The Cowboys will take down the Saints this weekend. Lock it up.

Smooth Criminal
12-15-2009, 10:40 PM
NO is very good. Teams don't getto 13-0 without it.

I really think only Minnesota has a shot to beat them in the NFC.

Thumper
12-15-2009, 10:41 PM
I don't think the Saints are the best team, I think that they can and will lose to the Vikings, Eagles, Cardinals and Packers if they meet any of them. The Saints getting by the skin of their teeth against bad teams, imagine what is going to happen when they run into a good team, nothing good. I don't see them winning one game in the playoffs, they're overrated.

They're not battle tested because lets face it, a OT win against the Redskins and a close game against the Falcons isn't preparing the team for a battle against a good team. Just look at the numbers, New Orleans made Jason Campbell look like an all-pro. Campbell completed 30 of 42 passes to nine receivers for 367 yards and three touchdowns. It was his most efficient game of the year. The week before, Campbell threw two picks and misfired on 15 of 37 passes - against the Eagles. And then they made Chris Redman look decent when he threw for 303 yards, a TD and he completed 23/34 passes. In the week prior to the Saints game the Falcons played none other than the Eagles and Chris Redman completed 23/44 passes for 235 yards a TD and 2 interceptions, oh and BTW Chris Redman compiled 88 of those yards and his TD on the final drive of the game after the Eagles had pulled their starters, so in reality against the Eagles starters Chris Redman threw for 147 yards and 2 interceptions against the Eagles starters.

The Saints are overrated, they're a lucky team that keeps barely beating bad teams and the second they play a team that actually has a decent offense (Min, Phi, Arz, GB) they'll get toasted, the Saints defense can't even stop Jason Campell or Chris Redman how does anyone expect them to stop the ariel attacks that are led by Brett Favre, Donovan Mcnabb, Kurt Warner and Aaron Rodgers all of whom are playing pitch and catch with Percy Harvin, Shianco (sp?) Rice and Berrian in Minnesota, DeSean Jackson, Jeremy Maclin, Brent Celek and Jason Avant in Philly, Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin and Steve Breaston in Arizona and Greg Jennings and Donald Driver in Green Bay.

Good luck with that New Orleans, and for those who are going to say Jabari Greer is coming back, he will be very ineffective just ask Kevin Curtis and LJ Smith how their recovery went those things linger and inhibit play especially considering that Greer hasn't played in months. And Tracy Porter has a sprained ligament in his knee, how do you think that will hold up on hard turf or cold weather? Or when he tries to turn and run with the dangerous receivers of the NFC playoff contenders? Not well.

TitleTown088
12-15-2009, 10:41 PM
And that has nothing to do with the talent he's had...not to mention during Tomlin's time here and Frazier's first year here without Jared allen we had no pass rush at all. In his second year (last year) we were also middle of the pack.

Our safeties suck and our corners are good. Our secondary is average, not nearly as bad as Packer fans make it out to be.
How's that talent doing down in New Orleans now? Defensive player of the year candidate. I realize the Vikings don't have the best talent, but with that pass rush ( best in the league if I'm not mistaken) their secondary should be much better.

Like I mentioned before Jared Allen got what 4.5 sacks vs the packers ( 8 total) for the vikings and Rodgers still passed for 385 and 3 TD in the first game.

Jughead10
12-15-2009, 10:43 PM
And Tracy Porter has a sprained ligament in his knee, how do you think that will hold up on hard turf or cold weather?

I guess it's a good thing New Orleans won't ever have to play in cold weather.

Saints are the best team in the NFC. I see you praising the Eagles offense, which is excellent. But the Saints has been consistently better all season. The Saints could easily out score the Eagles in a shoot out. Hell the Giants almost did and our defense is far worse than the Saints.

I've also seen people discredit the Saints for winning close but ugly games against teams like the Falcons and Skins. Would you not rather win those "ugly" games as opposed to getting beat by the Raiders or being absolutely embarassed by the Cardinals?

Thumper
12-15-2009, 10:56 PM
I guess it's a good thing New Orleans won't ever have to play in cold weather.

*facepalm* I forgot about that... the other point still stands.

Jughead10
12-15-2009, 10:59 PM
Anything can obviously happen in the NFL, and probably almost any playoff team could beat any other playoff team. But the Saints have done so much more than any other team in the NFC, that it's almost impossible to argue that they aren't currently the best team in the NFC. Does this mean they'll get to the Super Bowl? No. Anything can happen, but they deserve to be prohibitive favorites in every game they play the rest of the season and into the playoffs. Five weeks is an eternity in the NFL. A lot can change between today and when the Saints play their first playoff game.

Halsey
12-15-2009, 11:02 PM
The Saints getting by the skin of their teeth against bad teams, imagine what is going to happen when they run into a good team, nothing good.

Didn't the Saints throttle the Eagles once this year. And didn't the Eagles lose to the Raiders...

yo123
12-15-2009, 11:13 PM
How's that talent doing down in New Orleans now? Defensive player of the year candidate. I realize the Vikings don't have the best talent, but with that pass rush ( best in the league if I'm not mistaken) their secondary should be much better.

Like I mentioned before Jared Allen got what 4.5 sacks vs the packers ( 8 total) for the vikings and Rodgers still passed for 385 and 3 TD in the first game.



Sharper was terrible here. He's a ballhawk and didn't fit our system so we got rid of him, and as I said Cedric Griffin sucked. Antoine Winfield was the only guy in our secondary worth a damn.

Why do you keep bringing up the Packers game? That was Week 4 and one game out of 13. What about when we held Palmer to 103 yards and Big Ben to 175? Not to mention Rodgers threw for about 130 of that 385 in garbage time when we were in the prevent.

I honestly do not see any logical reason that our secondary can be looked at as any less than average being ranked exactly in the middle of the league and not having a top 10-15 corner in our lineup half of the year.

Thumper
12-15-2009, 11:14 PM
Didn't the Saints throttle the Eagles once this year. And didn't the Eagles lose to the Raiders...

Oh, reading is a good thing you should really try it one time.

As I mentioned in a very lengthy post the Eagles are a better team now than they were in week 2. Why? Donovan McNabb is the starter instead of being injured, Todd Herramens (who missed the first game) and the offensive line are finally gelling after being a makeshift line during the Saints game, Sean Jones is now a starter, Jeremiah Trotter provides veteran leadership now, the Eagles have acquired Will Witherspoon, Jeremy Maclin and LeSean McCoy have developed more, Michael Vick is finally a weapon after scoring 3 times in 2 weeks and was inches away from scoring 4 times, Leonard Weaver is now being used as a ball carrier, Eldra Buckley is being used in short yardage situations, Macho Harris is now a nickel CB, the Eagles have decided to use their depth in the trenches more with Antonio Dixon and Jason Babin etc. etc.

You should really go back and read what I wrote because it explains that in more detail, again, reading is a good thing.

And yes the Eagles lost the Raiders, congrats you can look at a schedule and read (I was shocked to learn you could do that as well). There are a plethora of reasons why the Eagles lost one of them being the played down to the Raiders level and the fact that the Eagles only had two starters playing on the offensive line that day, but that is beside the point. You can look at the negative and I will look at the throttling of the Panthers, Chiefs, Buccaneers, Giants, Falcons and Redskins. Clearly that was an isolated incident.

NOLAFan
12-15-2009, 11:28 PM
Are YOU dense? Apparently...

The Eagles team that played the Giants was the same team that played the Saints? You could not be more wrong, you beat a completely different Eagles team but think what you want even if it is blatantly wrong, whatever floats your boat.

But for those who're actually willing to listen, please read the following.

The key difference between that Eagles team and the one now? Umm... perhaps the fact that Donovan McNabb is the QB and not Kevin Kolb, fairly big difference. If you look back at the Saints game, you'll see the Saints were up 3 and the Eagles were getting the ball after the half, after that Kevin Kolb imploded with 3 interceptions in the second half and Ellis Hobbs fumbled the opening kickoff. That won't happen again, those picks that kept the Eagles offense off the field will not happen, guarun-fucc'n-teed. Need proof? I take you to the record books, Donovan McNabb is proportionally the least intercepted QB in NFL History. D-Mac is great at making good decisions and protecting the ball, occasionally there will be an interception but those are not regular.

Not only that but if you would care to take a look at the box score you'll notice one thing, the Eagles had 69 yards rushing, again that won't happen. In case you haven't noticed the Eagles have ran for 457 yards in the past 4 games and for 5 touchdowns. The wildcat is finally taking hold as Vick gets a better grip on NFL speed, with 3 touchdowns in 2 weeks (inches away from being 4) and he constantly comes up with key first downs. Not only that but the short yardage issues are slowly but surely being cured with the combination of Eldra Buckley, Leonard Weaver and Vick.

Not only that but you have probably seen two Eagles games, the Saints game and the Giants game... how convenient. Prior to the Giants game the Eagles were the #7 defense in the NFL allowing only 3.8 yards a carry and 4.6 yards a play. Not only that but the Eagles are one of the top sack defenses, are third in the NFC in takeaways with 33. You probably missed the previous game where the Eagles nearly shut out the Falcons. And the Eagles can't stop the run? REALLY? REALLY? You must not know who Brodrick Bunkley and Mike Patterson are, you know the second best DT duo in the NFL?

AND THEN there were injuries, I already addressed the injury to Donovan McNabb but the Eagles were also missing... Starting LG Todd Herramens and starting RG Nick Cole (who was starting at LG where he doesn't belong). And the Eagles had yet to acquire Will Witherspoon and yet to start Sean Jones at FS (who typically is a great tackler and great in run support IDK what happened against NY). Also the Eagles had yet to really put Antonio Dixon and Jason Babin in the defensive line rotation, Dixon is a big run stuffer at 6'3" and 325 pounds who has played very well this season and Babin is the second best pass rusher after Trent Cole, that might seem bad but Babin is actually playing well and getting pressure consistently.

The Eagles are team that is a contender, get used to that statement. You don't take my word for it (I am willing to bet 95% of you are writing this entire post off as homer) why don't you read Michael Lombardi (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d814f8116&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true).



Not only that but do you honestly think the banged up Saints defense can keep up with the Eagles offense? The defense just finished letting Chris Redman's offense put up 23 points and you think they're going to stop DeSean Jackson, Brent Celek, Jeremy Maclin, Jason Avant, LeSean McCoy, Brian Westbrook, Leonard Weaver, Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb? Brent Celek and DeSean Jackson TORCHED the Saints defense with 205 receiving yards the first time around with Kevin Kolb tossing the football around and that was when Darren Sharper was rested, Jabari Greer was healthy, Tracy Porter was healthy and with a healthy William ***. And now you really expect Mike McKenzie and Malcolm Jenkins to slow down DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin? Oh and btw, in the Saints game Jeremy Maclin was still getting used to the speed of the NFL, it was his first NFL game after playing 2 snaps in the Panthers game and he is clearly a bigger threat now.

I'm not saying the Eagles are the best in the NFC but c'mon, the Eagles are better than they were in week 2 when they were missing several key players, new things have developed on the Eagles and the team is getting hot yet again at the right time. Not only that but the Eagles team has a bunch of playoff experience with Andy Reid having coached this team in numerous playoff game, McNabb having navigated the playoffs numerous times, Westbrook is still on the team and Jeremiah Trotter is a fantastic leader. The Eagles are seasoned playoff veterans for the most part and are a hot team and are a team that is completely capable of beating the Saints or Vikings.

And you're post contradicts itself, in the first part you say:


But then you proceed to say:


Hmm... a win is a win but the Eagles are downgraded because of the fact they didn't win in a blowout? Contradictory. So let me get this straight... games where the Saints were 'manhandled' (Dolphins, Falcons x2, Panthers, Redskins) should be thrown out the window but games where the Eagles were manhandled and won should count against them? Double standard much? And the idea that the Giants manhandled the Eagles is flawed, the Eagles had a hold on that game the entire time and were only down for a grand total of :15 seconds in the entire game.

Ok first off i will admit i contradicted myself like an idiot, and you burned me on, and i don't write this post off as any type of homerism. Its a good response and your right the Eagles are a contender. My whole point is that i don't see how McNabb helps you defensively. Yeah you guys have a good D put i'm fairly certain Brees would pick you guys apart again IMO. Yeah you acquired Witherspoon and hadn't started Jones but i don't see how that how much that changes anything.

I will say here now if the Eagles play the Saints in the playoffs, the game will be closer but the winner will be the same. As things look now...you guys would pass all over us due to injuries but hopefully come playoffs we will have atleast Porter back...i don't have much faith in Greer coming back 100%.

If my original post comes off as douchy, my bad. Not my intent but its complete BS to me that a 13-0 team is looked down upon. That maybe because we have never been this good before and i want to hold on to it a little longer lol. Until the Saints lose to the ****** teams they have been playing down to IMO i think you say thats the best team in the NFC.

Halsey
12-15-2009, 11:29 PM
Oh, I see. So things have changed since the early part of the season, but there's no way things might change between now and the time the playoffs games are played. As an Eagles fan, you choose to assume the Eagles will stay hot and the Saints will continue to look vulnerable. Got it.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-15-2009, 11:33 PM
Saints running into a good team.... liiiiike the 5-0 Giants? Liiiiiiiiike the 7-3 Patriots who practically beat the unbeaten Colts? And the Saints absolutely demolished both of them? Like, turn the TV off at halftime demolished? That all happened.

Saints-Tigers
12-15-2009, 11:34 PM
Lol. Our injuries don't count,even though we are still eeking out wins, but we put 48 on the eagles and it was all due to injury.

Not that I need validation from fans here, we've beaten every team put in front of us, and smashed every team that was supposed to expose us.

The redskins was our only lucky win, every other game, even when it was close, we clamped down and took the game back.

NOLAFan
12-15-2009, 11:37 PM
Saints running into a good team.... liiiiike the 5-0 Giants? Liiiiiiiiike the 7-3 Patriots who practically beat the unbeaten Colts? And the Saints absolutely demolished both of them? Like, turn the TV off at halftime demolished? That all happened.

Yeah but people don't see it that way. They see the Saints playing close game with inferior teams which in turn makes them think vulnerable team.

Btw willing to bet someone post saying but all those teams you just mentions sans the Colts(Patriots, Giants) are overrated, which is very true but still at the time of those wins it wasn't as widely known lol

Thumper
12-15-2009, 11:43 PM
Oh, I see. So things have changed since the early part of the season, but there's no way things might change between now and the time the playoffs games are played. As an Eagles fan, you choose to assume the Eagles will stay hot and the Saints will continue to look vulnerable. Got it.

Yep you do in fact got it. Are you telling me that I shouldn't believe the Eagles are going to stay hot? Because there is absolutely no reason for me to believe they won't and I'll continue to believe they'll stay hot until they lose. The Eagles go on these streaks almost every year and they've led them to 5 NFC Championship games and 1 superbowl game so yes... I do have confidence the Eagles will remain hot.

And the changes that occurred from the Saints game on were significant, far more significant than any foreseeable change the Eagles are going to make in the coming weeks, the only big change that might occur is an injury to a key player, other than that the Eagles team will stay the same aside from some third and fourth string players.

And why should I think the Saints are going to change? They've given me no reason to think they will, the defense is weak and injured and the running game seemingly gets worse by the week and with each passing week it seems like they get closer and closer to losing, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see them beaten by the Cowboys this week.

Thumper
12-15-2009, 11:50 PM
Ok first off i will admit i contradicted myself like an idiot, and you burned me on, and i don't write this post off as any type of homerism. Its a good response and your right the Eagles are a contender. My whole point is that i don't see how McNabb helps you defensively. Yeah you guys have a good D put i'm fairly certain Brees would pick you guys apart again IMO. Yeah you acquired Witherspoon and hadn't started Jones but i don't see how that how much that changes anything.

I will say here now if the Eagles play the Saints in the playoffs, the game will be closer but the winner will be the same. As things look now...you guys would pass all over us due to injuries but hopefully come playoffs we will have atleast Porter back...i don't have much faith in Greer coming back 100%.

If my original post comes off as douchy, my bad. Not my intent but its complete BS to me that a 13-0 team is looked down upon. That maybe because we have never been this good before and i want to hold on to it a little longer lol. Until the Saints lose to the ****** teams they have been playing down to IMO i think you say thats the best team in the NFC.

Okay, I think the Saints have earned the title on paper but I don't think they're invincible in real life, I think they have flaws that a team can take advantage of.

First I would like to make a point of clarification, the post wasn't directly aimed at you, it was meant for everyone in the thread and I apologize if I came off as abrasive or rude.

My point on Sean Jones and Will Witherspoon is that they are an upgrade over Omar Gaither and Macho Harris who were starting at the time which would in theory at least make the defense at least a little bit tougher than the defense that the Saints abused early in the season.

And the Donovan McNabb point is that the Saints scored 21 points off of Kevin Kolb turnovers IIRC and that won't happen with Donovan McNabb at the helm because Donovan as I pointed out does not typically throw many interceptions.

I'm not trying to spin it as if the Eagles are better than the Eagles all I'm trying to say is that the results of the initial Saints v. Eagles would in all likelihood not be the same if the two were to meet up again in the playoffs.

Flyboy
12-15-2009, 11:58 PM
Heh, I suppose 13-0 in the NFL means absolutely NOTHING these days.

Thumper
12-15-2009, 11:59 PM
Saints running into a good team.... liiiiike the 5-0 Giants? Liiiiiiiiike the 7-3 Patriots who practically beat the unbeaten Colts? And the Saints absolutely demolished both of them? Like, turn the TV off at halftime demolished? That all happened.

Are we really going to sit here and pretend the Giants are the same caliber a team as the Saints would play in the playoffs? Please tell me we're not.

The Giants are a tough team don't get me wrong but clearly they're not the same caliber a team as they were the past two seasons. Their defense is not nearly as good as it once was. And you cite a 5-0 record but you fail to mention who they beat. They beat one good team and that was the Cowboys, other than that they rattled off dominant wins against the following teams all of whom are fantastic... The Redskins, Buccaneers, Chiefs and Raiders, not very hard to go 5-0 with that cupcake schedule (yes I know the Eagles lost to the Raiders). And as the Eagles, Cardinals, Chargers and Broncos have shown, it isn't all that special to blow the Giants out of the water.

And the Patriots, well their defense is awful and as a whole the team is overrated, they never really stood a chance.

NOLAFan
12-16-2009, 12:07 AM
Okay, I think the Saints have earned the title on paper but I don't think they're invincible in real life, I think they have flaws that a team can take advantage of.

First I would like to make a point of clarification, the post wasn't directly aimed at you, it was meant for everyone in the thread and I apologize if I came off as abrasive or rude.

My point on Sean Jones and Will Witherspoon is that they are an upgrade over Omar Gaither and Macho Harris who were starting at the time which would in theory at least make the defense at least a little bit tougher than the defense that the Saints abused early in the season.

And the Donovan McNabb point is that the Saints scored 21 points off of Kevin Kolb turnovers IIRC and that won't happen with Donovan McNabb at the helm because Donovan as I pointed out does not typically throw many interceptions.

I'm not trying to spin it as if the Eagles are better than the Eagles all I'm trying to say is that the results of the initial Saints v. Eagles would in all likelihood not be the same if the two were to meet up again in the playoffs.

Your right like all teams they do have flaw that can and will be exploited and yeah McNabb doesn't typically throw INT.

I agree if the Saints and Eagles play again whole different game. But as a Saints fan i gotta say Saints win in a close one :P lol

diabsoule
12-16-2009, 12:18 AM
Are we really going to sit here and pretend the Giants are the same caliber a team as the Saints would play in the playoffs? Please tell me we're not.

The Giants are a tough team don't get me wrong but clearly they're not the same caliber a team as they were the past two seasons. Their defense is not nearly as good as it once was. And you cite a 5-0 record but you fail to mention who they beat. They beat one good team and that was the Cowboys, other than that they rattled off dominant wins against the following teams all of whom are fantastic... The Redskins, Buccaneers, Chiefs and Raiders, not very hard to go 5-0 with that cupcake schedule (yes I know the Eagles lost to the Raiders). And as the Eagles, Cardinals, Chargers and Broncos have shown, it isn't all that special to blow the Giants out of the water.

And the Patriots, well their defense is awful and as a whole the team is overrated, they never really stood a chance.

If Donovan McNabb would've played.... Fact is, he didn't. Who knows what could have happened. If the Saints would have had the offense we have now to compliment the Dome Patrol defense we had in the 90s we could have won several Super Bowls. We can play the "what if" game all day. I like doing it. It's fun. I'll be here all night. **** it, let's create a "what if" thread and go over "what if" scenarios all night while we're in our jammies.

IIRC, the Giants put up over 500 yards of total offense and 38 points against you this past weekend. That was against the Eagles defense who is so much better with Sean Jones and Will Witherspoon. I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that the Saints offense is more explosive and more potent than the Giants. In week 2, the Saints were starting LT Jermon Bushrod for only the second time, a situation that should have been exposed by the Eagles pass rush but wasn't. We also beat you guys at Philly, one of the toughest places to play. You guys were also playing with Brian Westbrook. I know, I know. You'll keep throwing out if's, and's, and but's, but the fact is this: we're 13-0 without our two best corners, our SLB, and our second string LT. But, ya know, I'm just making excuses here.

It's pretty convenient that you say "well, the [Patriots] defense is awful and the whole team is overrated and they never really stood a chance" now. It wasn't but a week before the Patriots played the Saints that they barely lost to the then undefeated Colts. Everyone at the time was saying how dangerous the team was and how they would be angry after a close loss like that. And if I remember correctly, the Saints beat them. And not just beat them but blew them out of the water. And, oh yeah, we beat them without our two best corners and with Mike McKenzie and Chris McAlister playing significant time. I guess right now you can say that the Pats were overrated but at the time they weren't. Not even close.

Man, haters gotta hate.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-16-2009, 12:34 AM
Are we really going to sit here and pretend the Giants are the same caliber a team as the Saints would play in the playoffs? Please tell me we're not.

The Giants are a tough team don't get me wrong but clearly they're not the same caliber a team as they were the past two seasons. Their defense is not nearly as good as it once was. And you cite a 5-0 record but you fail to mention who they beat. They beat one good team and that was the Cowboys, other than that they rattled off dominant wins against the following teams all of whom are fantastic... The Redskins, Buccaneers, Chiefs and Raiders, not very hard to go 5-0 with that cupcake schedule (yes I know the Eagles lost to the Raiders). And as the Eagles, Cardinals, Chargers and Broncos have shown, it isn't all that special to blow the Giants out of the water.

And the Patriots, well their defense is awful and as a whole the team is overrated, they never really stood a chance.

The Giants were considered elite before the Saints demolished them. The Patriots were considered elite before the Saints demolished them. Saying the Pats are overrated is some nice revisionist history, because they were on a tear, Brady was looking the best he'd looked since the injury, and they were a Kevin Faulk bobble away from beating the Colts.

The Saints don't seem to show up against inferior teams all that well. Normally when a team does that, it bites them in the ass. They had tough games against the Falcons, Dolphins and even the Rams leading up to the Pats game. Looking at it, I was thinking "The Saints are flat, they wait way too long to turn it on against inferior teams and there's no way they're gonna be able to change that on time for the Patriots." Well, I was wrong. The Saints are the exception, they're clearly able to get up for big games against teams that are perceived to be great. They'll continue to do so, and should they meet the Eagles in the playoffs, I'm confident they'll do it again. Quote me, whatever, I don't care, but the Saints will beat the Eagles in the playoffs if the Eagles make it that far. And I don't even like the Saints at all. Brees is a former Charger, and most Saints fans will remember how anti-Bush I've been in the past. But the way they're utilizing him right now alongside their plethora of weaponry, they're pretty much unstoppable unless somehow a team catches them on an off night in the Superdome.

Thumper
12-16-2009, 12:45 AM
IIRC, the Giants put up over 500 yards of total offense and 38 points against you this past weekend. That was against the Eagles defense who is so much better with Sean Jones and Will Witherspoon. I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that the Saints offense is more explosive and more potent than the Giants. In week 2, the Saints were starting LT Jermon Bushrod for only the second time, a situation that should have been exposed by the Eagles pass rush but wasn't. We also beat you guys at Philly, one of the toughest places to play. You guys were also playing with Brian Westbrook. I know, I know. You'll keep throwing out if's, and's, and but's, but the fact is this: we're 13-0 without our two best corners, our SLB, and our second string LT. But, ya know, I'm just making excuses here.

It's pretty convenient that you say "well, the [Patriots] defense is awful and the whole team is overrated and they never really stood a chance" now. It wasn't but a week before the Patriots played the Saints that they barely lost to the then undefeated Colts. Everyone at the time was saying how dangerous the team was and how they would be angry after a close loss like that. And if I remember correctly, the Saints beat them. And not just beat them but blew them out of the water. And, oh yeah, we beat them without our two best corners and with Mike McKenzie and Chris McAlister playing significant time. I guess right now you can say that the Pats were overrated but at the time they weren't. Not even close.

Man, haters gotta hate.

I realize the Giants put up huge numbers, IDK what happened perhaps it was the conditions? IDK but whatever it was the Eagles seemed to refuse to wrap up and tackle people, it was by far the worst tackling effort collectively of the season. That was the worst effort I've ever seen on defense and it was the first time I'd seen anything like it from the Eagles, it was an isolated event. And Brian Westbrook is washed up and I would much prefer to have McCoy starting over him at this point. Okay the Saints were missing their starting LT, I can go to the Saints board and pull numerous quotes about how Bushrod is just as good as Jamaal Brown so clearly that is not a problem. And IDK about you but missing 1 player who's backup is just as good as him is not as significant as missing the starting QB, LG, RG, WR (at the time), MLB and FS.

And for those of you who can't put 2 and 2 together on the whole McNabb thing, the Saints scored points off of Kevin Kolb turnovers, turnovers that in all likelihood will not be there if McNabb is playing. The game with McNabb is much more likely to be a close game like it was in the first half prior to the turnover fest from Kevin Kolb and Ellis Hobbs when it was 17-14. And in that first half prior to Kevin Kolb in his first career start throwing away all momentum the Eagles had actually gained 250 yards on a healthy New Orleans defense.

I'm not even saying that the Eagles are the only team that will beat the Saints, I'm willing to bet the Saints would play and lose to the Vikings, Eagles, Cardinals and Packers.

And the Patriots were overrated regardless of what everyone thought, their running backs suck, their offensive line is average and their defense is young and bad, they didn't stand a chance, I knew that. All of that was true then and it is true now and that near Colts victory only goes to show you how fragile the Colts are as well. IMO The three best teams in the NFL right now are the Chargers, Vikings and Eagles, not the Saints or Colts.

CC.SD
12-16-2009, 01:07 AM
Everyone at the time was saying how dangerous the team was and how they would be angry after a close loss like that. And if I remember correctly, the Saints beat them. And not just beat them but blew them out of the water. And, oh yeah, we beat them without our two best corners and with Mike McKenzie and Chris McAlister playing significant time. I guess right now you can say that the Pats were overrated but at the time they weren't. Not even close.

Man, haters gotta hate.

This is so funny to me, it was not long ago AT ALL that Mike McKenzie and Chris McCallister were the total opposite of excuses like these.

Saints are obviously ridiculous but just like everybody else, they've got cracks in the armor and there are enough good teams in the NFC (Vikes and Eagles in particular) that it's not inconceivable that they are bounced in the playoffs, that's the point of this thread IMO.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-16-2009, 01:19 AM
This is so funny to me, it was not long ago AT ALL that Mike McKenzie and Chris McCallister were the total opposite of excuses like these.

Saints are obviously ridiculous but just like everybody else, they've got cracks in the armor and there are enough good teams in the NFC (Vikes and Eagles in particular) that it's not inconceivable that they are bounced in the playoffs, that's the point of this thread IMO.

Saints definitely have the 2nd best "2004" secondary. Sharper, McAllister and McKenzie. Broncos have the best. Champ, Dawkins and Ty Law. We'd put the clamps on, 5 years ago.

diabsoule
12-16-2009, 01:30 AM
Saints definitely have the 2nd best "2004" secondary. Sharper, McAllister and McKenzie. Broncos have the best. Champ, Dawkins and Ty Law. We'd put the clamps on, 5 years ago.

Saints cut Chris McAlister right after the Washington game. While he made some good plays, he was just too rusty and the coaching staff didn't want to take the time it would have taken for him to get back into decent form.

Saints-Tigers
12-16-2009, 05:19 AM
I don't think any Saints fan thinks we are invincible, and I don't think we will go undefeated, nor do I really want or care if we do.

That said, all these excuses are cracking me up, just admit that the Saints are a much better team than the Eagles are already, because it's making you look very bitter Thumper.

I'm sorry, if Eli and the Giants can put 48 on the Eagles, I feel confident we can carve them up, Drew Brees is throwing for 70% right now, and our rushing attack is 5th in the league.

I really can't wait for Porter and Greer to come back, and yes they will be back, hahha.

hateeee, hateeeeee

diabsoule
12-16-2009, 11:51 AM
I don't think any Saints fan thinks we are invincible, and I don't think we will go undefeated, nor do I really want or care if we do.

That said, all these excuses are cracking me up, just admit that the Saints are a much better team than the Eagles are already, because it's making you look very bitter Thumper.

I'm sorry, if Eli and the Giants can put 48 on the Eagles, I feel confident we can carve them up, Drew Brees is throwing for 70% right now, and our rushing attack is 5th in the league.

I really can't wait for Porter and Greer to come back, and yes they will be back, hahha.

hateeee, hateeeeee

I just find it amazing that after 42 years of mostly losing seasons, terrible draft picks, horrible coaching hires, dismal quarterback play, and some of the most atrocious play on the field I've ever seen out of a NFL franchise that now, for the first in franchise history we are 13-0 and we can't even enjoy it without having to stand-up for our team because fans of other teams don't think we're good enough to have the record that we do. Ya know, I could understand if the flak was coming from a Washington Redskins fan because that game went into OT and outside of a couple of lucky calls it really was anyone's game. That's not the case, though, because we're getting the most **** thrown at us from a Philly fan, which is a team we beat pretty handily already this season. I have absolutely never read or heard of more reasons why a team should NOT be 13-0 than I have now.

Look at it, every team is vulnerable, all teams have weaknesses. The Patriots that went 18-0 were exposed by the New York Giants in the only game that counted for them that season. Every time the Colts have started 12-0 or 13-0, they have been exposed as well. That's what makes having a 13-0 record so special; there's very few teams that even reach that mark much less go perfect (which only one team has managed to do). So, go ahead and **** on our parade, I'm tired of giving a ****. Like I said many weeks ago (before the Giants game), keep doubting us. Even at 13-0 I'd rather be the underdog and have everyone question whether or not we belong because so far we have proven everyone wrong that has doubted us this season.

Gay Ork Wang
12-16-2009, 11:59 AM
http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/8/26/633553695829349661-mad.jpg

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-16-2009, 01:05 PM
Man, haters gotta hate.

Haters gotta hate, lovers gotta looove.
I don't even want, none of the above.

Saints-Tigers
12-16-2009, 01:43 PM
I just hope other teams feel like their fans do, and they give us some bulletin board material.

Sniper
12-16-2009, 01:45 PM
I'm sorry, if Eli and the Giants can put 48 on the Eagles

They didn't.

I feel confident we can carve them up, Drew Brees is throwing for 70% right now, and our rushing attack is 5th in the league.

Transitive property always works so well in football.

terribletowel39
12-16-2009, 02:20 PM
If the road to the Superbowl for the NFC contender goes through The Dome, I don't think anyone but the Saints will be in Miami. Those crazy cajuns seem to be taking Seattle/Texas A&M's title and really being like a 12th man.

If Drew Brees is quarterbacking the Saints, I don't think he will do anything but win in the playoffs in front of their fans. He loves New Orleans. I don't think there are many things on his list higher than bringing a Super Bowl trophy to that city.

Sniper
12-16-2009, 02:24 PM
I just hope other teams feel like their fans do, and they give us some bulletin board material.

Bulletin board material always decides who wins and loses.

Shiver
12-16-2009, 02:28 PM
If the road to the Superbowl for the NFC contender goes through The Dome, I don't think anyone but the Saints will be in Miami. Those crazy cajuns seem to be taking Seattle/Texas A&M's title and really being like a 12th man.

If Drew Brees is quarterbacking the Saints, I don't think he will do anything but win in the playoffs in front of their fans. He loves New Orleans. I don't think there are many things on his list higher than bringing a Super Bowl trophy to that city.


The narrative is compelling and I would much rather hear that story than two (more) weeks of Brett Favre coverage.

Thumper
12-16-2009, 04:56 PM
I just find it amazing that after 42 years of mostly losing seasons, terrible draft picks, horrible coaching hires, dismal quarterback play, and some of the most atrocious play on the field I've ever seen out of a NFL franchise that now, for the first in franchise history we are 13-0 and we can't even enjoy it without having to stand-up for our team because fans of other teams don't think we're good enough to have the record that we do. Ya know, I could understand if the flak was coming from a Washington Redskins fan because that game went into OT and outside of a couple of lucky calls it really was anyone's game. That's not the case, though, because we're getting the most **** thrown at us from a Philly fan, which is a team we beat pretty handily already this season. I have absolutely never read or heard of more reasons why a team should NOT be 13-0 than I have now.

I swear are Saints fans dense? Do none of these Saints supporter have the ability to comprehend what they read? Honest to god, how many damn times does this need explaining? THE EAGLES YOU BEAT IN WEEK 2 DID NOT HAVE 6 OF THEIR CURRENT STARTERS. The ignorant assumption that the Eagles are the same team the Saints beat in week 2 is completely ******* stupid. How many times does it really need to be explained before someone aside from NOLAfan gets it?

Week 2 Eagles ≠ Week 14 Eagles, get it through your skull. Congrats, you beat a team missing their starting QB, WR, LG, RG, MLB and FS! Woo! You should totally dominate them when those players are actually playing! :rolleyes: I'm not even saying the Eagles are better I'm just trying to emphasize the point that the results of the first meeting would not happen again if the two were to meet in the playoffs and to think so is misinformed, naive and moronic.

So, yeah, four touchdowns came either courtesy of Kolb or Ellis ******* Hobbs. Philadelphia outgained New Orleans by 42 yards.

Is it really hard to get, those 4 touchdowns that the Saints scored off of turnovers will absolutely not be there with Ellis Hobbs on IR and Kevin Kolb keeping the bench warm while he studies his clip-board. Again I am going to direct you people to the record books where if you read, you'll see that McNabb is proportionally the least intercepted QB in the NFL and for further proof I take you to this years stats where the Eagles are +15 in the turnover margin and if you take out the Kevin Kolb interceptions the Eagles are +18 so in reality with McNabb in the game the Eagles are +18 in the turnover margin which is tied for NFL's best.

FACT: Those 28 points off of turnovers for the Saints will not occur if they play the Eagles again.

It really isn't a hard concept to grasp, the Saints are a good team, it isn't like I'm implying that they should have gone 0-13 but IMO they're lucky and should be 10-3 or 11-2 because they deserved to lose the Dolphins game, the Redskins game and possibly one of the Falcons games. The Saints are deserving of being a playoff team and are no doubt one of the best teams, but I don't think they are the best because I think that the Vikings and Eagles are of equal or superior talent and that the Packers and Cardinals have a strong possibility of beating them.

wicket
12-16-2009, 05:13 PM
I swear are Saints fans dense? Do none of these Saints supporter have the ability to comprehend what they read? Honest to god, how many damn times does this need explaining? THE EAGLES YOU BEAT IN WEEK 2 DID NOT HAVE 6 OF THEIR CURRENT STARTERS. The ignorant assumption that the Eagles are the same team the Saints beat in week 2 is completely ******* stupid. How many times does it really need to be explained before someone aside from NOLAfan gets it?

Week 2 Eagles ≠ Week 14 Eagles, get it through your skull. Congrats, you beat a team missing their starting QB, WR, LG, RG, MLB and FS! Woo! You should totally dominate them when those players are actually playing! :rolleyes: I'm not even saying the Eagles are better I'm just trying to emphasize the point that the results of the first meeting would not happen again if the two were to meet in the playoffs and to think so is misinformed, naive and moronic.



Is it really hard to get, those 4 touchdowns that the Saints scored off of turnovers will absolutely not be there with Ellis Hobbs on IR and Kevin Kolb keeping the bench warm while he studies his clip-board. Again I am going to direct you people to the record books where if you read, you'll see that McNabb is proportionally the least intercepted QB in the NFL and for further proof I take you to this years stats where the Eagles are +15 in the turnover margin and if you take out the Kevin Kolb interceptions the Eagles are +18 so in reality with McNabb in the game the Eagles are +18 in the turnover margin which is tied for NFL's best.

FACT: Those 28 points off of turnovers for the Saints will not occur if they play the Eagles again.

It really isn't a hard concept to grasp, the Saints are a good team, it isn't like I'm implying that they should have gone 0-13 but IMO they're lucky and should be 10-3 or 11-2 because they deserved to lose the Dolphins game, the Redskins game and possibly one of the Falcons games. The Saints are deserving of being a playoff team and are no doubt one of the best teams, but I don't think they are the best because I think that the Vikings and Eagles are of equal or superior talent and that the Packers and Cardinals have a strong possibility of beating them.


if you subtract those 28 points you should also consider that the saints would have more posessions. And all of the offensive production the eagles had was in garbage time. Surely I agree it will probably be closer but acting like you can just subtract those 28 points and have a good idea of how the game would go is nuts

Thumper
12-16-2009, 05:40 PM
if you subtract those 28 points you should also consider that the saints would have more posessions. And all of the offensive production the eagles had was in garbage time. Surely I agree it will probably be closer but acting like you can just subtract those 28 points and have a good idea of how the game would go is nuts

Right, it isn't like they wouldn't score any of those 28 points because they would but what I'm trying to say is that the Saints wouldn't score that many again because the turnovers wouldn't occur which such high frequency. Those points off of turnovers would have to be earned instead of getting easy points on a short field.

And the yards came in crunch time? Wrong. I direct you to the first half when the game was 17-14, the Eagles actually out-gained the Saints on offense with 250 in the first half and if the entire second half is going to be classified as garbage time that means the Saints got their yards in garbage time as well but let me guess, you will keep those yards in favor of the Saints and discredit the yards that the Eagles gained with Kevin Kolb at the reigns... :rolleyes: In both halves the Eagles out-gained the Saints offense.

wicket
12-16-2009, 06:04 PM
Right, it isn't like they wouldn't score any of those 28 points because they would but what I'm trying to say is that the Saints wouldn't score that many again because the turnovers wouldn't occur which such high frequency. Those points off of turnovers would have to be earned instead of getting easy points on a short field.

And the yards came in crunch time? Wrong. I direct you to the first half when the game was 17-14, the Eagles actually out-gained the Saints on offense with 250 in the first half and if the entire second half is going to be classified as garbage time that means the Saints got their yards in garbage time as well but let me guess, you will keep those yards in favor of the Saints and discredit the yards that the Eagles gained with Kevin Kolb at the reigns... :rolleyes: In both halves the Eagles out-gained the Saints offense.

eagles had 170 offensive yards with under 10 minutes to go in the game when the saints were up 41-20, I call that yards in garbage time

TitleTown088
12-16-2009, 06:27 PM
we held Palmer to 103 yards

How has Palmer been playing as of late? He's thrown 3 TD in the past 5 gives. Stopping the Bengals pass offense right now is no big task.

Sniper
12-16-2009, 06:29 PM
eagles had 170 offensive yards with under 10 minutes to go in the game when the saints were up 41-20, I call that yards in garbage time

Well, all the Saints fans are thumping their chests about dropping 48 on the Eagles, so you don't seem to have a problem with garbage time.

diabsoule
12-16-2009, 06:53 PM
Well, all the Saints fans are thumping their chests about dropping 48 on the Eagles, so you don't seem to have a problem with garbage time.

With 9:36 left in the game, Reggie Bush scored the last offensive touchdown for the Saints. The only scores afterward was a Philadelphia safety with 3:35 left and a Darren Sharper pick 6, which was the icing on the cake.

Since Week 2 (not counting week 2 and week 1), the Eagles have given up 19.5 points a game (let's say 20), while averaging 28 points scored. The Saints, on the other hand, have allowed 20 points a game (20.4 to be exact), while scoring 34 points a game. With that being said, we can expect both teams to give up somewhere around 20 points to the other team, while the Eagles would score somewhere close to 28 points and the Saints somewhere close to 34.

Right now, the stats point to a Saints win if the two were to meet again. I know, stats don't say everything, but it's a decent measuring stick and you can't take into account intangibles like where the game is being played (the Superdome likely if the two were to meet again), injuries (always a mystery), game plans, and in-game execution.

Saints-Tigers
12-16-2009, 07:16 PM
Bulletin board material always decides who wins and loses.


No, making excuses does apparently.

Thumper
12-16-2009, 07:22 PM
No, making excuses does apparently.

oohh, nice dig... or at least it would've been if it would've made any sense.

Saints-Tigers
12-16-2009, 07:39 PM
Only thing that makes sense is the scoreboard, it's the only thing that ever did.

Thumper
12-16-2009, 07:48 PM
Only thing that makes sense is the scoreboard, it's the only thing that ever did.

And I guarantee that the scoreboard won't be the same if the Saints and Eagles meet again, the scoreboard was skewed by Kevin Kolb's turnovers which will not occur with McNabb at QB.

Sniper
12-16-2009, 07:53 PM
And I guarantee that the scoreboard won't be the same if the Saints and Eagles meet again, the scoreboard was skewed by Kevin Kolb's turnovers which will not occur with McNabb at QB.

Eagles +28. I'm taking that bet.

Saints-Tigers
12-16-2009, 08:00 PM
Probably not. but we still be better than you is dawg. Deal with it. Oh, we're a lot better at home too.

Vikes99ej
12-16-2009, 08:05 PM
I don't see the Saints in the Super Bowl. Then again, I don't see the Vikings in it either, so that shows where I stand.

yo123
12-16-2009, 08:06 PM
How has Palmer been playing as of late? He's thrown 3 TD in the past 5 gives. Stopping the Bengals pass offense right now is no big task.


He actually threw for 94, and that's the lowest total of the year for him. Anyways, we're straying from the main point. We're ranked in the middle with Karl freakin Paymah having had to get a decent number of snaps during the year. Making an argument that our secondary is any less than average when it is ranked exactly in the middle of the 32 teams while not being at full strength just makes absolutely no sense. The only thing you have really argued is that we gave up 380 yards to the Packers 10 weeks ago.

Thumper
12-16-2009, 08:18 PM
Probably not. but we still be better than you is dawg. Deal with it. Oh, we're a lot better at home too.

Any given Sunday 'dawg', the Eagles have pulled many playoff upsets in their day and I see no reason why the Eagles can't do it again, they have the play style and talent to best the Saints.

Not saying it will happen but don't sleep on the Eagles, I wouldn't want you to get caught off guard like this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-6Tn0Ie-AQ) was.

Vox Populi
12-16-2009, 09:09 PM
I just find it amazing that after 42 years of mostly losing seasons, terrible draft picks, horrible coaching hires, dismal quarterback play, and some of the most atrocious play on the field I've ever seen out of a NFL franchise that now, for the first in franchise history we are 13-0 and we can't even enjoy it without having to stand-up for our team because fans of other teams don't think we're good enough to have the record that we do. Ya know, I could understand if the flak was coming from a Washington Redskins fan because that game went into OT and outside of a couple of lucky calls it really was anyone's game. That's not the case, though, because we're getting the most **** thrown at us from a Philly fan, which is a team we beat pretty handily already this season. I have absolutely never read or heard of more reasons why a team should NOT be 13-0 than I have now.

Look at it, every team is vulnerable, all teams have weaknesses. The Patriots that went 18-0 were exposed by the New York Giants in the only game that counted for them that season. Every time the Colts have started 12-0 or 13-0, they have been exposed as well. That's what makes having a 13-0 record so special; there's very few teams that even reach that mark much less go perfect (which only one team has managed to do). So, go ahead and **** on our parade, I'm tired of giving a ****. Like I said many weeks ago (before the Giants game), keep doubting us. Even at 13-0 I'd rather be the underdog and have everyone question whether or not we belong because so far we have proven everyone wrong that has doubted us this season.

QQ more. No one cares. Every 13-0 team will get this treatment. People don't talk about the Colts as much because everyone knows that they aren't amazing and are pussies in the playoffs because they are like this every year this decade practically. What is it for them 7 seasons with 12 or more wins in a row now? 1 year where they showed up in the playoffs in the past decade...

Its a competitive game, we're not gonna get our golf shirts on and clap for you guys because your teams been crap for 40 years lol. Its also a thing called jealousy, get used to it if you want to keep being a good team ;) I'm sure Pats fans would love to give you a hand on being everyone's most hated team just because they won games.

diabsoule
12-16-2009, 10:40 PM
QQ more. No one cares. Every 13-0 team will get this treatment. People don't talk about the Colts as much because everyone knows that they aren't amazing and are pussies in the playoffs because they are like this every year this decade practically. What is it for them 7 seasons with 12 or more wins in a row now? 1 year where they showed up in the playoffs in the past decade...

Its a competitive game, we're not gonna get our golf shirts on and clap for you guys because your teams been crap for 40 years lol. Its also a thing called jealousy, get used to it if you want to keep being a good team ;) I'm sure Pats fans would love to give you a hand on being everyone's most hated team just because they won games.

I wish I could have read what you wrote but all I could do was stare at your avatar.

Saints-Tigers
12-16-2009, 11:45 PM
I don't care if people don't respect us or think they can beat us, but not from a team we spanked, and accounts for 50% of our playoff wins in the history of the team.

The Eagles have the style and personnel to beat us. Yea, so did the Eagles last time, along with the Giants, Jets, Pats and everyone else.

I know the Saints could be beaten, but it's hilarious that fans from a team we BEAT(WE BEAT YOU) are saying we are likethe 4th best team in the conference, and they are better than us, with nothing to back it up.

Injuries are the excuse, but teams scoring on us lately because we are injured, that just gets pushed aside.

Sniper
12-16-2009, 11:47 PM
and accounts for 50% of our playoff wins in the history of the team.

Still searching for the relevance of this statement to this thread. Results not found.

Thumper
12-16-2009, 11:52 PM
I don't care if people don't respect us or think they can beat us, but not from a team we spanked, and accounts for 50% of our playoff wins in the history of the team.

Lol I think that makes the Saints look bad not the Eagles, you've won 2 playoff games in franchise history? The Eagles won as many last season. And they've won 10 in this decade alone.

And now you just admitted that the team is inexperienced in the post season, I can see it now lol, it happens almost every year some team gets a bye, their coming off a great season and wham they're beaten because they weren't ready due to either inexperience or weren't ready coming off a bye or a combination of the two.

And IDK what your problem is but I'm not wasting my time again explaining that the team you faced in week 2 isn't even close to the same team now, if you haven't figured that out by now I doubt you ever will.

TitleTown088
12-16-2009, 11:59 PM
The only thing you have really argued is that we gave up 380 yards to the Packers 10 weeks ago.

Flacco 385, ROdgers v1 384 Rodgers v2 287, Waner 285

Seems like every solid QB the Vikings have played has pretty much had their way. Show me a good passing team the Vikings have held in check. I think your only example is Pitt(12th), Cincy is not much of a passing offense this year, 23rd int the league.

Sniper
12-17-2009, 12:02 AM
And IDK what your problem is but I'm not wasting my time again explaining that the team you faced in week 2 isn't even close to the same team now, if you haven't figured that out by now I doubt you ever will.

*Shrugs* He's from the South. They're smart like that.

Saints-Tigers
12-17-2009, 12:28 AM
*Shrugs* He's from the South. They're smart like that.

You mad? Coming down to personal attacks because you have nothing to show that the Eagles are better, except that you are an Eagles fan? I'm sorry that I won't bow to the alter and lick the Eagles' sack. Go over hype some Michigan player if you don't want to add anything but insults, or go masturbate while you correct someone's grammar.

The Saints are the same team as the week we played the Eagles? Team has learned a lot about themselves since then, we didn't even have Pierre Thomas then either, he was still missing, and our running game isn't what it would turn into later.

The Eagles can beat us. The Eagles are my 2nd or 3rd favorite team. The Eagles are really good.

The Eagles aren't better than the Saints when both teams are healthy, they haven't been all year, and there is no reason to really believe they are. We locked up our playoff spot weeks ago, you're still fighting to get in, there is a reason for that.

Are you really going to use the playoff experience card? Does that mean you are going to kick our ass if we meet in the divisional round, but you'll roll over and die in the NFC championship game? history says it's like that.

I dunno, I honestly think the only way to beat the Saints is in a shoot out, and I like our chances if both teams need to keep scoring, I like what we have better.

If we go into the playoffs without our two top CBs, I'd be really worried, but Greer and Porter have shown they can cover anyone, and that makes our entire defense tick and just roll teams.

yo123
12-17-2009, 12:40 AM
Flacco 385, ROdgers v1 384 Rodgers v2 287, Waner 285

Seems like every solid QB the Vikings have played has pretty much had their way. Show me a good passing team the Vikings have held in check. I think your only example is Pitt(12th), Cincy is not much of a passing offense this year, 23rd int the league.

Ummmm Roethlisberger is 8th in the league in passing yards.

Flacco? Sure he destroyed us.

But you haven't even responded to my point that 130 of Rodgers' yards in the first game came after we were up 30-14 and went into the prevent.

Rodgers played solid in the second game and Warner ****** us up. Obviously any defense is going to do better against worse passing teams and worse against better ones. That's how it works.

I can play the same game with your secondary. Favre carved them up both times we played you. A good offense usually beats a good defense in today's league.

And you still haven't responded to why we are ranked in the middle of the league if our secondary is bad. Because we beat up on bad teams? Every team does that, not just us.

Saints-Tigers
12-17-2009, 12:42 AM
As for Vikings Vs. Saints, it's not about the secondary... the way to throw our passing game off is the pass rush. It really doesn't matter who your corners are, if the Vikings can get their pass rush on us, they can slow us, but if they can't, it really doesn't matter who is back there, guys are going to get open and Brees is going to find them.

Key to beating the Saints is ball control on offense, and getting your pass rush hot.

Boston
12-17-2009, 12:49 AM
Ummmm Roethlisberger is 8th in the league in passing yards.

Flacco? Sure he destroyed us.

But you haven't even responded to my point that 130 of Rodgers' yards in the first game came after we were up 30-14 and went into the prevent.

Rodgers played solid in the second game and Warner ****** us up. Obviously any defense is going to do better against worse passing teams and worse against better ones. That's how it works.

I can play the same game with your secondary. Favre carved them up both times we played you. A good offense usually beats a good defense in today's league.

And you still haven't responded to why we are ranked in the middle of the league if our secondary is bad. Because we beat up on bad teams? Every team does that, not just us.

Of course 16th isn't bad for a regular season team playing in a regular season game. But when you get to the playoffs, that immediately becomes a weakness, and it will be exploited, regardless of what kind of pass rush you have.

LonghornsLegend
12-17-2009, 01:30 AM
Geez, for as much flack as Cowboy fans get for supposedly being homers Eagles fans sure are taking the cake in this one, but when Thumper shows up in a thread multiple times that's not even surprising anymore.


Philly lost to Oakland this year with McNabb playing/starting last time I checked, yet everyone keeps playing the what if game like McNabb would of had this wonderful game if he played that game. I agree the dynamics would be different, completely different with him and not Kolb, but the Saints are still a much better team then Philly.


The Saints have beat teams even in their down weeks, whether it be Washington, or Miami or whoever. You can't say the same for Philly, who lost to Oakland when Jamarcus Russell was still the QB might I add.

yo123
12-17-2009, 01:39 AM
Of course 16th isn't bad for a regular season team playing in a regular season game. But when you get to the playoffs, that immediately becomes a weakness, and it will be exploited, regardless of what kind of pass rush you have.


The Eagles, Saints, Colts, Cowboys, Dolphins, Jags, and Cardinals are all ranked below us and are all potential playoff teams. We're middle of the pack when it comes to playoff teams also.

There's no team that's great at every facet of the game.

Crazy_Chris
12-17-2009, 01:56 AM
Of course 16th isn't bad for a regular season team playing in a regular season game. But when you get to the playoffs, that immediately becomes a weakness, and it will be exploited, regardless of what kind of pass rush you have.

What???

As for Vikings Vs. Saints, it's not about the secondary... the way to throw our passing game off is the pass rush. It really doesn't matter who your corners are, if the Vikings can get their pass rush on us, they can slow us, but if they can't, it really doesn't matter who is back there, guys are going to get open and Brees is going to find them.

Key to beating the Saints is ball control on offense, and getting your pass rush hot.

Atleast the Saints fan understands, when you talk about the Vikes pass D it is all about the pass rush.

vikes_28
12-17-2009, 02:14 AM
The Eagles, Saints, Colts, Cowboys, Dolphins, Jags, and Cardinals are all ranked below us and are all potential playoff teams. We're middle of the pack when it comes to playoff teams also.

There's no team that's great at every facet of the game.

Holy ****, this.

No team is the best at EVERYTHING in the game. They can be rated in the top numbers, but no team is ranked best at everything. Thinking that is just silly.

diabsoule
12-17-2009, 02:48 AM
As for Vikings Vs. Saints, it's not about the secondary... the way to throw our passing game off is the pass rush. It really doesn't matter who your corners are, if the Vikings can get their pass rush on us, they can slow us, but if they can't, it really doesn't matter who is back there, guys are going to get open and Brees is going to find them.

Key to beating the Saints is ball control on offense, and getting your pass rush hot.

This, this, and more this.

wogitalia
12-17-2009, 02:55 AM
How's that talent doing down in New Orleans now? Defensive player of the year candidate. I realize the Vikings don't have the best talent, but with that pass rush ( best in the league if I'm not mistaken) their secondary should be much better.

Sharper was horrible for us though, was just a terrible fit for the cover 2 scheme we ran that gave him responsibilities and didn't allow him to free lance. I can't count how many times we got burned because he went off on his own tangent looking to make a pick. New Orleans have designed their scheme around that, maybe that is a criticism of Frazier and Tomlin but the cover 2 has been a great fit for the rest of our talent, just wasn't for Sharper.

Saints-Tigers
12-17-2009, 03:16 AM
Sharper hasn't been himself the lastfew weeks without Porter and Greer, because he is being forced to cover too often.

When we single cover with the corners, Sharper is free to roam and make big hits and break on the ball, it's beautiful :(

wogitalia
12-17-2009, 04:24 AM
When we single cover with the corners, Sharper is free to roam and make big hits and break on the ball, it's beautiful

Yep, he is great at watching and reading a QBs eyes and bringing some good hits, but when he has to cover a man or zone he really struggles because he gets stuck staring in the backfield too much and is just reluctant doing it.

Sniper
12-17-2009, 09:53 AM
You mad? Coming down to personal attacks because you have nothing to show that the Eagles are better, except that you are an Eagles fan? I'm sorry that I won't bow to the alter and lick the Eagles' sack. Go over hype some Michigan player if you don't want to add anything but insults, or go masturbate while you correct someone's grammar.

http://tobi-x.com/c-base/internet-serious-business-cat.jpg

It was a joke. Simmer the **** down. What is it about Southerners and not accepting that their team isn't the best at everything? Yeah, diab, you can give me an infraction for that, too. I don't care. Heaven forbid anyone says remotely not 100% positive about the South and/or its football.

I tried to add to the conversation by pointing out that 28 of the Saints' points against the Eagles, but your head is jammed up so far up the Saints' ass that you're convinced that the Eagles are the same team that they were in week 2 and that Kevin Kolb and Donovan McNabb are the same QB.

Remember this?

Seriously? Are you dense? Philly is the same team they were back in week 2 and last night pretty much confirms it.

Kevin Kolb =/= Donovan McNabb. You're also under the impression that rookies like LeSean McCoy and Jeremy Maclin have remained stagnant, and that Leonard Weaver's and Mike Vick's roles in the offense haven't changed.

Same Philly defense from week 2.

I'll inform Will Witherspoon of this. He should probably be made aware. Witherspoon's the type of LB that you need to shut down, or at least contain, the Saints.

I don't think the Eagles would beat the Saints, but to call the Eagles the same team as they were three months ago is ********.

or this


2nd game @philly, sure they didnt have mcnabb but the saints scored 48 on them, last I checked mcnabb doesnt play defense.


K.Kolb pass short right intended for D.Jackson INTERCEPTED by S.Shanle at PHI 27. S.Shanle ran ob at PHI 24 for 3 yards.

(No Huddle, Shotgun) K.Kolb pass short right intended for B.Celek INTERCEPTED by D.Sharper at NO 3. D.Sharper for 97 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

T.Morstead kicks 68 yards from NO 30 to PHI 2. E.Hobbs to PHI 22 for 20 yards (M.Jenkins). FUMBLES (M.Jenkins), RECOVERED by NO-C.Reis at PHI 22. C.Reis to PHI 22 for no gain (E.Buckley).

In addition to a two-play, 49-yard drive. So, yeah, four touchdowns came either courtesy of Kolb or Ellis ******* Hobbs. Philadelphia outgained New Orleans by 42 yards.

Yeah, McNabb doesn't make any difference here. :rolleyes:


I'm sorry, if Eli and the Giants can put 48 on the Eagles

They didn't.

I feel confident we can carve them up, Drew Brees is throwing for 70% right now, and our rushing attack is 5th in the league.

Transitive property always works so well in football.

I just hope other teams feel like their fans do, and they give us some bulletin board material.

Bulletin board material always decides who wins and loses.

And I guarantee that the scoreboard won't be the same if the Saints and Eagles meet again, the scoreboard was skewed by Kevin Kolb's turnovers which will not occur with McNabb at QB.

Eagles +28. I'm taking that bet.

and accounts for 50% of our playoff wins in the history of the team.

Still searching for the relevance of this statement to this thread. Results not found.

But yeah, all I did in this thread was hype Michigan players and correct grammar (something I haven't done in over six months on here). I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that I haven't gotten an answer from you on most of these.

Kevin Kolb = Donovan McNabb. Hey, they're both QBs for the Eagles, so they must be the same. By that logic, Drew Brees = Mark Brunell.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-17-2009, 10:04 AM
Holy ****, this.

No team is the best at EVERYTHING in the game. They can be rated in the top numbers, but no team is ranked best at everything. Thinking that is just silly.

Except Denver. They're gonna win the Super Bowl easily.

wicket
12-17-2009, 10:16 AM
Well, all the Saints fans are thumping their chests about dropping 48 on the Eagles, so you don't seem to have a problem with garbage time.

yeah cuz saints scored a ton more in garbage time (oh wait only a single td)

seriously if you are going to have this discussion dont take one single point and act like the rest was balanced, once that is disproven take another single point and act like the rest is balanced, this way the argument just becomes silly.

Quick summary
Eagles had a lot of turnovers and saints scored on them:
consequences
- saints score points
- dont have many yards due to short field and little posession
McNabb out was relevant but saints still scored pretty easy on the drives and besides that Kolb was making quite pretty throws.

Saints were up by a lot
- Eagles made tons of yardage due to soft coverages and second line secondary and pass rushers

Influence by McNabb is negligable since Kolb took the throws on offer just fine and besides that according to you that part of the game is irrelevant with regards to the score (but oddly enough not with regards to the yardage that was made in that period)

Conclusion, we dont know what influence having mcnabb in that game would have had but since Kolb was playing pretty well and the margin of victory it is more likely that the saints would have won than the eagles. Anyone claiming otherwise either didnt see the game or is totally biased.

CC.SD
12-17-2009, 10:17 AM
This thread is getting too serious, it needs some Jessica Rabbit.

Q-KiXiKfDV8

Sniper
12-17-2009, 10:21 AM
Kolb was playing pretty well

Ha, good one.

Brent
12-17-2009, 10:24 AM
It must be nice to let one pro bowl QB walk just to replace him with another.
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0917/nfl_g_montanayoung_300.jpg

it's better when both are HoFers ;)

Saints-Tigers
12-17-2009, 10:25 AM
You pulled quotes from other guys and are arguing with me that the Eagles aren't a different team, when I never said they aren't a different team.

Typo on the 48 points, I missed key.

I don't think the Saints are the best at everything, and I don't see how being from the south has any relevance, unless you were calling us homers, which would be hilariously ironic.

So yea, Saints aren't the best at everything, they're just better than the Eagles.

I'm not using transitive property, I didn't say we were going to throw for 70% against the Eagles, but I'm confident we can move the ball, we did it before, and we've done it against everyone.

Find where I said Bulletin board material always wins games, or stop reaching to try and avoid the real argument.

Keep going back to people saying the Eagles are the exact same team and arguing with me, when I never said that to begin with.

The 50% of our playoff wins holds as much relevance as me being a southerner, just a little comment that gets you guys riled up.

Either way, argue all you like, I think the Saints are better than the Eagles, and there is 0 evidence to the contrary until they beat us.

NOLAFan
12-19-2009, 10:34 PM
After the Cowboys just dominated us, i'm pretty sure the Eagles,Vikings and Cardinals would ass rape use

LonghornsLegend
12-19-2009, 10:36 PM
Still the Cards couldn't even make it competitive against SF who isn't even a playoff team this year, I still think it says something that NO can battle back every game and make it a fight.


Vikes and Cards both got rocked, Saints almost made it an OT game.

Saints-Tigers
12-19-2009, 11:10 PM
Pass rush. Good job trying to run the ball too. Reggie Bush was the leading rusher with 1 carry. Hurts himself running. **** up.

Good ass game from Dallas defensively, wow. Glad the Dallas fans on here aren't obnoxious like the ones I know in the real world :(

Hopefully they learn they can't come out flat and just expect to come back on everyone.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-19-2009, 11:30 PM
Yeah, I still think the Saints are the team to beat. One game doesn't mean a lot.

Shiver
12-19-2009, 11:34 PM
Yeah, I still think the Saints are the team to beat. One game doesn't mean a lot.

Team to beat obviously because they will have HFA most likely. That being said I think any team in the NFC, if they play their A game, can beat the Saints. Their "perfect" record, to me, was misleading. A very good football team though.

By the way: am I the only person who has noticed that the NFC has supplanted the AFC as the dominant conference this year? The AFC has the Colts and Chargers, but then there is a huge drop-off to the overrated Patriots and the very beatable Bengals. The NFC is even deeper as well.

TimD
12-19-2009, 11:42 PM
this loss may turn out to be the best thing to happen to the saints.

Job
12-20-2009, 12:29 AM
I still have some faith in the Cowboys. We'll see next week I guess.

I win. (10 char)

diabsoule
12-20-2009, 12:39 AM
I win. (10 char)

Can I use a Philly fan's excuse in debating this?

NOLAFan
12-20-2009, 12:50 AM
Can I use a Philly fan's excuse in debating this?

Only on the defensive side of the ball. The o-line is what hurt us in the end

Job
12-20-2009, 12:54 AM
Can I use a Philly fan's excuse in debating this?

Do as you please.

CC.SD
12-20-2009, 12:56 AM
Called it last Sunday but nice to see. Saints will be okay, they shouldn't have spoken to the media about going for perfection though.

yodabear
12-20-2009, 01:04 AM
As a fan of the only team who gave each Indy and New Orleans two of their 27 wins, I can safely say both of these teams are beatable. As the only common opponet, Indy beat us following their bye week 42-6 and New Orleans beat us 28-23. However, we are a useless football team. So, um, well, I think Green Bay, Arizona, Dallas and Minnesota could all beat New Orleans. Not saying they will, but there are four teams in the playoffs that could beat the Saints. I think there are only two teams that can beat the Colts and those would be the Chargers and Patriots. However, I must say I kinda want Indy to go undefeated, or else I may have to severely hurt Mercury Morris cuz he annoys the living piss out of me every ******* year.

Thumper
12-20-2009, 01:15 AM
Can I use a Philly fan's excuse in debating this?

Please do and IDK what you don't understand about the fact that McNabb didn't play and that it had an effect on the game, I'm starting to think you're not the sharpest tack in the box, clearly comprehending things is beyond you, I haven't made excuses, I've been using logic which appears to be new to some people.

diabsoule
12-20-2009, 01:22 AM
Please do and IDK what you don't understand about the fact that McNabb didn't play and that it had an effect on the game, I'm starting to think you're not the sharpest tack in the box, clearly comprehending things is beyond you, I haven't made excuses, I've been using logic which appears to be new to some people.

I knew you were going to comment with some **** about that... blah, blah, blah. everyone knows you're same old excuse. I can't comprehend. You obviously can't fathom losing. Surpsise! You're ******* team lost several this year. I guess they have excuses as to why they lost those to, huH? No McNabb, no WR, no SS, no LB, etc... against the Saints. What are your excuses as to losing to other teams, eh? This whole old can of worms isn't going to be re-opened. You clearly can't comprehend that you lost a game to a 13-1 team. Who cares if Kolb started. You lost. End of story. Stop bitching. It's really growing old.

dpl85
12-20-2009, 01:30 AM
I had been voting Bushrod for the pro bowl assuming he was really good for the Saints to be so dominant and productive. I still think he's a good player though as there's really no shame in getting abused by one of if not the best defensive players in the NFL.

Jvig43
12-20-2009, 01:31 AM
I knew you were going to comment with some **** about that... blah, blah, blah. everyone knows you're same old excuse. I can't comprehend. You obviously can't fathom losing. Surpsise! You're ******* team lost several this year. I guess they have excuses as to why they lost those to, huH? No McNabb, no WR, no SS, no LB, etc... against the Saints. What are your excuses as to losing to other teams, eh? This whole old can of worms isn't going to be re-opened. You clearly can't comprehend that you lost a game to a 13-1 team. Who cares if Kolb started. You lost. End of story. Stop bitching. It's really growing old.

While I do agree that excuses are just that, A teams starting Qb not playing that game definitely had an effect on it. Not to say that should be the sole reason for it, as the defense didnt do anything against the saints offense, I think the most important thing to remeber is regular season means nothing. I was so stoked when the Pats went 16-0, but then we lost to a very good Giants team and going 16-0 really wasnt all that impressive anymore. Philly will be a different team come January then it was in september, but Mcnabb being out wasnt the only reason they lost that game. Not to add to the fire just throwing my 2 cents out there.

diabsoule
12-20-2009, 01:33 AM
I had been voting Bushrod for the pro bowl assuming he was really good for the Saints to be so dominant and productive. I still think he's a good player though as there's really no shame in getting abused by one of if not the best defensive players in the NFL.

He has been playing very well. DeMarcus Ware pressuring a QB is nothing new, especially when this is Bushrod's first time in trying to protect his QB from a first irst rate 3-4 pass rusher.

Saints-Tigers
12-20-2009, 05:08 AM
Team to beat obviously because they will have HFA most likely. That being said I think any team in the NFC, if they play their A game, can beat the Saints. Their "perfect" record, to me, was misleading. A very good football team though.

By the way: am I the only person who has noticed that the NFC has supplanted the AFC as the dominant conference this year? The AFC has the Colts and Chargers, but then there is a huge drop-off to the overrated Patriots and the very beatable Bengals. The NFC is even deeper as well.

If any team is on their A game, they can beat anyone....

I was thinking about the AFC/NFC powers earlier, and I still hear media heads hyping the AFC, when it's pretty weak to be honest.

Matthew Jones
12-20-2009, 08:33 AM
Following the loss, I'd have to say the Vikings are probably the best NFC team right now, but the Saints are a very close second and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were to make or win the Super Bowl. They lost a pretty close game to a pretty good team last night and otherwise have run the table.

katnip
12-20-2009, 10:36 AM
after last nights game, I'd say the NFC is like this (considering the Saints injuries) my top 6

Vikings
Packers (yes, the Favre-less Packers)
Saints
Eagles
Giants
'Boys/'Cards

really I think the giants/cowboys/cards could be tied.. Who knows, maybe the Cowboys could win 1 more in December. I know they play the Eagles last game.

who am I though..? I'm a Jets fan

Shiver
12-20-2009, 10:57 AM
Following the loss, I'd have to say the Vikings are probably the best NFC team right now, but the Saints are a very close second and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were to make or win the Super Bowl. They lost a pretty close game to a pretty good team last night and otherwise have run the table.


I don't think it was as close as the score indicated. Dallas owned that game, motherfolking folkups notwithstanding.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-20-2009, 11:11 AM
The game was one awful drop by Devery Henderson away from a missed GW-chip shot instead of a game clinching chip shot missed. The Cowboys are really enigmatic though. They can beat anyone, but they can lose to anyone, too. Their offense can be super explosive, or get shut out. They played lights out all around last night, and if they keep it up they're one of the best teams in the NFC. Except Folk, he should be out of a job ASAP.

LizardState
12-20-2009, 11:13 AM
after last nights game, I'd say the NFC is like this (considering the Saints injuries) my top 6

Vikings
Packers (yes, the Favre-less Packers)
Saints
Eagles
Giants
'Boys/'Cards

really I think the giants/cowboys/cards could be tied.. Who knows, maybe the Cowboys could win 1 more in December. I know they play the Eagles last game.

who am I though..? I'm a Jets fan

Interesting that you couple the Cowboys with the Cardinals. The Cards proved they were a house of cards vs. division rival SF, 7 freaking turnovers is uncharacteristic for them of all teams, the Zona overachievers, they know now they may well have handed their otherwise weak division to a .500 team, the 9ers when the playoff slots are assigned based on head to head as the 9ers have now swept them this yr. Normally that would be good enough for a 9ers playoff berth as division winner & they would be talking up Singletary for Coach ot Yr, but that's the weakest division in the NFL so even 8-8 could win the division for the up & down 9ers.

And the Cowboys reminded the Saints of their mortality, even though they are the bst team left in the NFC, Dallas has a way of stopping winning streaks cold, remember the Indy Colts in Dallas a couple of yrs. ago?

Minnesota too s/b looking closely at what happened to Warner in Candlestick Monday night, old QBs who've lost the zip on their long passes & get picked clean by hungry DBs, Favre holds that career INT rcd. for a reason. The Vikes could be the next victim of a late season slump.

Speaking of those, Dallas also proved all that doomstruck December talk was a lot of superstition, a great pass rush can solve a lot of problems for you, including turning around a history of December slumps, just ask Brees about that. If SF somehow beats Philly in snowbound Philly, Dallas will be the next upset beneficiary of regaining their division lead as they already have one win over the Eagles, & they finish with them at home in Dallas. An Eagles loss to the Giants could also be Dallas' gain too. Saturday night's W in NOLA for the Cowboys regained their confidence of course but is paying off in so many ways playoffwise.

katnip
12-20-2009, 11:16 AM
@ LizardState

after last night I wanted to put the Cowboys as the 4th best team in the NFC, with Philly.. Just still have my questions/opinions.

LonghornsLegend
12-20-2009, 11:19 AM
The game was one awful drop by Devery Henderson away from a missed GW-chip shot instead of a game clinching chip shot missed. The Cowboys are really enigmatic though. They can beat anyone, but they can lose to anyone, too. Their offense can be super explosive, or get shut out. They played lights out all around last night, and if they keep it up they're one of the best teams in the NFC. Except Folk, he should be out of a job ASAP.

Good post, that does pretty much describe it. I was just about to say no way people can talk about the December stuff is over at least until we go out and beat Washington, if we lost to them it would be the same old story with us.


I'm more excited that Romo has yet to throw a pick so far this December, but we have been up and down for way too long and Washington will be fired up to play us.

Sniper
12-20-2009, 01:35 PM
I'm more excited that Romo has yet to throw a pick so far this December, but we have been up and down for way too long and Washington will be fired up to play us.

He's saving his turnovers for the Philly game. :D

SaintsMan
12-20-2009, 02:58 PM
After that sad display last night, I doubt Saints make it past the first round.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-20-2009, 03:03 PM
After that sad display last night, I doubt Saints make it past the first round.

Good thing they're already guaranteed to make the 2nd round, then.

SaintsMan
12-20-2009, 03:15 PM
Good thing they're already guaranteed to make the 2nd round, then.

Well, their first game.

Thumper
12-20-2009, 10:09 PM
I knew you were going to comment with some **** about that... blah, blah, blah. everyone knows you're same old excuse. I can't comprehend. You obviously can't fathom losing. Surpsise! You're ******* team lost several this year. I guess they have excuses as to why they lost those to, huH? No McNabb, no WR, no SS, no LB, etc... against the Saints. What are your excuses as to losing to other teams, eh? This whole old can of worms isn't going to be re-opened. You clearly can't comprehend that you lost a game to a 13-1 team. Who cares if Kolb started. You lost. End of story. Stop bitching. It's really growing old.

I'm not even making excuses, I'm just pointing out the reasons why the Eagles lost and why the score won't be 48-20 or whatever it was again, I don't care about the losses, what I care about is some Saints fans ignorantly thumping their chests because they steamrolled the Philadelphia Eagles when in reality it was more like the B team. Clearly comprehension is not my problem because I understand the Eagles lost, that they lost to a good team and all that good stuff so I don't really understand what you're trying to get at, because my whole position in this thread is that if the Eagles play the Saints they will not steamroll them again, reading comprehension is your friend. I'm tired of explaining myself and now I can't wait to see the Saints get smashed in the playoffs just to prove me right again.

Anyways, enjoy the rest of your season. BTW way to blatantly be an dick even though you clearly don't understand what I'm writing.
:rolleyes:

NOLAFan
12-20-2009, 10:21 PM
I'm not even making excuses, I'm just pointing out the reasons why the Eagles lost and why the score won't be 48-20 or whatever it was again, I don't care about the losses, what I care about is some Saints fans ignorantly thumping their chests because they steamrolled the Philadelphia Eagles when in reality it was more like the B team. Clearly comprehension is not my problem because I understand the Eagles lost, that they lost to a good team and all that good stuff so I don't really understand what you're trying to get at, because my whole position in this thread is that if the Eagles play the Saints they will not steamroll them again, reading comprehension is your friend. I'm tired of explaining myself and now I can't wait to see the Saints get smashed in the playoffs just to prove me right again.

Anyways, enjoy the rest of your season. BTW way to blatantly be an dick even though you clearly don't understand what I'm writing.
:rolleyes:

this argument is still going on? ahahaha. Right now the Eagles are catching up on both the Saints and the Vikings in terms of playoff standings. Eagles are hot right now and if they continue that into the playoffs they will be hard to beat. That week 2 game is over and both teams are have changed since then. Both are great teams and will be tough to beat in the playoffs.

Thumper
12-20-2009, 10:24 PM
this argument is still going on? ahahaha. Right now the Eagles are catching up on both the Saints and the Vikings in terms of playoff standings. Eagles are hot right now and if they continue that into the playoffs they will be hard to beat. That week 2 game is over and both teams are have changed since then. Both are great teams and will be tough to beat in the playoffs.

Thank you NOLAFan! This is all I want to get accomplished in here and I'm glad someone realizes it.

MetSox17
12-20-2009, 10:27 PM
I'm not defending the Eagles, much less Thumper, but the Saints have been terribly overrated for the better portion of this season. Dallas exposed them last night, and them having home field advantage just might be a good thing for other teams, cause they get to play inside. They got man handled yesterday.

NOLAFan
12-20-2009, 10:29 PM
I'm not defending the Eagles, much less Thumper, but the Saints have been terribly overrated for the better portion of this season. Dallas exposed them last night, and them having home field advantage just might be a good thing for other teams, cause they get to play inside. They got man handled yesterday.

ahaha no joke. The Cowboys handed us our asses

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-20-2009, 10:41 PM
There's one team that HASN'T been manhandled this year, though, and that's the Colts. Every other team has had someone manhandle them.

The Unseen
12-20-2009, 10:44 PM
Er, define manhandle. The Jaguars played the Colts well twice, the first time on defense but not offense and the second time on offense but not defense. I can't think about what happened in their other close games off the top of my head but I think someone else may be able to verify if they have been manhandled in those.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-20-2009, 10:45 PM
Er, define manhandle. The Jaguars played the Colts well twice, the first time on defense but not offense and the second time on offense but not defense. I can't think about what happened in their other close games off the top of my head but I think someone else may be able to verify if they have been manhandled in those.

Yeah, they've been close to manhandled, but they've managed to win out. Either way, either every team but the Colts has been manhandled, and even the Colts have been almost manhandled regularly, or every team's been manhandled.

D-Unit
12-20-2009, 10:46 PM
Thank you NOLAFan! This is all I want to get accomplished in here and I'm glad someone realizes it.
Why are you getting excited? You'll never win a SB. You never do. Never have. What's the big fuss? We all know you guys choke in the end.

Sniper
12-20-2009, 10:46 PM
Why are you getting excited? You'll never win a SB. You never do. Never have. What's the big fuss? We all know you guys choke in the end.

Bastard. I was slowly getting my hopes up. Thanks for reminding me. ;)

Vikes99ej
12-20-2009, 10:51 PM
I absolutely do not want to face the Eagles in the playoffs. Not at all.

Thumper
12-20-2009, 10:55 PM
Why are you getting excited? You'll never win a SB. You never do. Never have. What's the big fuss? We all know you guys choke in the end.

YAY! THE EAGLES ARE GOING TO WIN THE SUPERBOWL! Woo! (You're a living Jinx and no, not the pokemon)

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-20-2009, 11:00 PM
I absolutely do not want to face the Eagles in the playoffs. Not at all.

As a Broncos fan, I would love to face the Eagles in the playoffs. Even if we did some sort of bizzaro conference swapping. At least then we'd be IN the playoffs.

D-Unit
12-20-2009, 11:12 PM
YAY! THE EAGLES ARE GOING TO WIN THE SUPERBOWL! Woo! (You're a living Jinx and no, not the pokemon)
Says the guy who wants to fire Andy Reid... lmao.

Thumper
12-20-2009, 11:24 PM
Says the guy who wants to fire Andy Reid... lmao.

want-ed

But you should read what I wrote 3 weeks ago to get an understanding of what I think of Andy Reid. (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1903416&#post1903416)
It really is a love/hate relationship with Andy Reid with Philly, you hate him when he refuses to run the damn ball and when he wastes timeouts. But we love him when he constantly wins games, has the team in the height of the playoff race and we love the stability he brings to the Eagles. With 114 total wins in 10 3/4 seasons, I have to say that I am happy with him as a coach. Sure after a tough loss to Dallas I might be fuming but at the end of the day I have to remember that Andy Reid is a great coach who has brought the Eagles from a doormat team in the 90's to a constant contender in this decade.

But regardless, what did that have to do with you being a jinx?

D-Unit
12-21-2009, 12:42 AM
want-ed

But you should read what I wrote 3 weeks ago to get an understanding of what I think of Andy Reid. (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1903416&#post1903416)


But regardless, what did that have to do with you being a jinx?
It's not a love/hate thing. Be honest with yourself. It's a win/loss thing. You win, you love him. You lose, you hate him. C'mon... you know it. Don't deny yourself the truth. At the end of the season you'll be talking about hating him, so enjoy your love now while it lasts. This is the best part of the season for you.

NOLAFan
12-21-2009, 01:07 AM
It's not a love/hate thing. Be honest with yourself. It's a win/loss thing. You win, you love him. You lose, you hate him. C'mon... you know it. Don't deny yourself the truth. At the end of the season you'll be talking about hating him, so enjoy your love now while it lasts. This is the best part of the season for you.

I think everyone at some point in fandom has a win/loss thing for their teams headcoach. Hell last year i was screaming for Sean Payton's head lol

wogitalia
12-21-2009, 01:24 AM
I think everyone at some point in fandom has a win/loss thing for their teams headcoach. Hell last year i was screaming for Sean Payton's head lol

Except for us Vikes fans, we just consistently hate our coach, regardless of whether he is winning or losing.

Saints-Tigers
12-21-2009, 05:27 AM
Since the vikings lost, I have them ranked like 12th in the conference now.

Wait, that's how this works right?

stephenson86
12-21-2009, 08:20 AM
Like the Pats, they have weaknesses that can be exploited.

The Giants were the perfect team to exploit the Pats. The Saints are an unbelievable team, but they can be had just like any other team.

It remains to be seen if they will match up against anybody who can exploit them.


They are vulnerable to a good rushing offense, and if you can stop the run with 7 and rush the passer with 4, you can take on their offense.

I think Minny could possibly be the team that matches up with them.

tennessee are perfect

RealityCheck
12-21-2009, 09:08 AM
I imagine how this conversation would be if the NFL had a poll system.

tjsunstein
12-21-2009, 09:27 AM
Since the vikings lost, I have them ranked like 12th in the conference now.

Wait, that's how this works right?

Something like that but since the Packers also lost and the Vikings beat the Packers, the Packers are ranked below them. Naturally. Leaving the winners from yesterday at the top of the conference like the Falcons, Bucs, Panthers, you know, the deserving teams.

Xonraider
12-21-2009, 09:56 AM
YAY! THE EAGLES ARE GOING TO WIN THE SUPERBOWL! Woo! (You're a living Jinx and no, not the pokemon)

http://prod.static.raiders.clubs.nfl.com/assets/images/history/draft_martin.jpg

wogitalia
12-21-2009, 10:04 AM
Something like that but since the Packers also lost and the Vikings beat the Packers, the Packers are ranked below them. Naturally. Leaving the winners from yesterday at the top of the conference like the Falcons, Bucs, Panthers, you know, the deserving teams.

As long as we are ahead of the Packers and Bears this seems like an entirely accurate and fair system ;)

In reality the NFC is wide open, I can remember saying somewhere about a month ago(possibly not on here) that the Eagles were the "scariest" team in the NFC because they have proven themselves time and time again and this year they have a truly dynamic playmaker that they haven't had since TO, which coincided with their trip to the SB and I still believe that wasn't a coincidence.

That said, the NFC is very even and any team can win on any given day and if match ups suit. Saints are good because they have a lot of weapons but they are certainly vulnerable, the especially don't seem to have enjoyed teams with great speed rushers.

Vikes are really vulnerable to elite WRs and quick QBs. Offensively they rely on the big play a lot and have been really struggling with sustaining drives, which has a lot to do with the fact that the OL is really struggling to do much of anything.

yodabear
12-21-2009, 10:06 AM
As a Broncos fan, I would love to face the Eagles in the playoffs. Even if we did some sort of bizzaro conference swapping. At least then we'd be IN the playoffs.

I am with u......in fact, I'd be happy if my team could win three ******* games in a gosh damn season. Only 1-13 team, in ur faces u all. Good thing I mastered how to pronounce our 1st overall pick's first name. Have not yet mastered the spelling though, so I will continue to go with Ndominate.

Saints-Tigers
12-21-2009, 12:00 PM
If I recall, TO didn't play a game in the playoffs until the Superbowl, the one they lost... haha, just sayin.

CC.SD
12-21-2009, 12:13 PM
As a Broncos fan, I would love to face the Eagles in the playoffs. Even if we did some sort of bizzaro conference swapping. At least then we'd be IN the playoffs.

Are the Broncs really in danger of missing out completely? I thought they had good standing with the tiebreakers. If they lose to the Eagles and beat the Chiefs they're still in, yah?

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-21-2009, 01:09 PM
Are the Broncs really in danger of missing out completely? I thought they had good standing with the tiebreakers. If they lose to the Eagles and beat the Chiefs they're still in, yah?

Maybe. I dunno. We might need some more help on top of that. I sure as hell hope we'd still be in the playoffs. But after seeing this team the last few years, losing to both the Eagles and Chiefs and missing completely wouldn't be shocking. I want Shane-o to change my name to slightlyemobroncosfan.

Thumper
12-22-2009, 04:11 PM
Thank you, confirmation that I'm not crazy on this issue. (http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/week-15-quick-hits-adrian-peterson-prime-time-disappointment/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Andy Reid’s team is having one of its patented late-season runs. Winners of five straight, the Eagles appear to be in command of the East, and are even within reach of Minnesota’s bye week.

Philly soars at a time when the rest of the N.F.C. must answer questions. The Vikings, for example, are experiencing major problems with their offensive line, and defensively, early evidence indicates that the loss of E.J. Henderson is a more significant blow than many (this writer included) thought. The Cowboys disproved their December doubters….for one week, anyway. The Packers just got exposed by Ben Roethlisberger as a team capable of giving up 500 yards through the air. The Cardinals are just plain easier to overlook at this time of year, while the Saints must prove they can bounce back from the disappointment of losing a perfect season (a bounce-back might seem simple, and with a game against the Bucs this week, maybe it will be, but there isn’t a Saints fan alive who can’t say the negative energy after Saturday night’s loss didn’t feel a little unsettling).

Karma, momentum and other vague elements aside, the Eagles simply match up well with the Saints. Philly has explosive receivers who can take advantage of New Orleans’s injury-plagued cornerbacking corps (something the Cowboys did extremely well in the first half Saturday night). In Leonard Weaver, the Eagles have a big downhill runner who can work behind an oversize offensive line to pound New Orleans’s slightly undersize interior front seven. Defensively, cornerback Asante Samuel is having a Pro Bowl caliber season, and his counterpart, Sheldon Brown, is playing even better. These two corners alone wouldn’t be able to stop Drew Brees and the New Orleans passing attack, but factor in Trent Cole against Jermon Bushrod – a matchup that makes Saint coaches shudder – and the Eagles have the perfect recipe for success.

NOLAFan
12-22-2009, 09:10 PM
Thank you, confirmation that I'm not crazy on this issue. (http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/week-15-quick-hits-adrian-peterson-prime-time-disappointment/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Hopefully Tracy Porter and Jabri Greer will be 100% come playoffs because that would make things a little easier if we played the Eagles....or any team really that can throw the ball well.

The comment about Bushrod is a little misleading though. Ware was the first player this season to completely mandhandle him and disturb Brees and lead ways for the other defenders for a full 60min game.

Saints-Tigers
12-22-2009, 10:41 PM
Our slightly undersized D-line is hilarious too. Even with Ellis hurt, we aren't undersized.

I guess teams better count on us being banged up, I mean, didn't Bushrod play against Trent Cole last time? I guess he was adequate.

CC.SD
12-22-2009, 10:57 PM
Our slightly undersized D-line is hilarious too. Even with Ellis hurt, we aren't undersized.

I guess teams better count on us being banged up, I mean, didn't Bushrod play against Trent Cole last time? I guess he was adequate.

Missing Ellis is also a bigger deal than people are dishing out credit for. He is a difference maker at DT, which is a) rare and b) srs bizness.

holt_bruce81
12-22-2009, 11:25 PM
I think right now the Eagles are the best team in the NFC. I may even rank Arizona as my 2nd NFC team.

Saints-Tigers
12-22-2009, 11:27 PM
Missing Ellis is a huge deal, considering our guys next to him are crap as is, then when you have to play double crap in the middle, guys gash you all day.

When Ellis is out,, Hargrove plays a lot in the middle, and he's a good player and all, but he's a damn 260 pound end....

Could definitely do with our best CB and DT coming back.

PoopSandwich
12-22-2009, 11:35 PM
Missing Ellis is a huge deal, considering our guys next to him are crap as is, then when you have to play double crap in the middle, guys gash you all day.


are you saying jerome harrison would run for 286 yards against you

Thumper
12-22-2009, 11:42 PM
are you saying jerome harrison would run for 286 yards against you

well they have given up an average of 130 yards on the ground the past 8 weeks.

Shiver
12-27-2009, 03:09 PM
http://www.blavish.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/stephen-colbert-loves-the-wii-11-28-2006-ii.jpg

Checkmate

NOLAFan
12-27-2009, 03:17 PM
http://www.blavish.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/stephen-colbert-loves-the-wii-11-28-2006-ii.jpg

Checkmate

ahahaha touche

Wheres Thumper? That man has successfully made me want to root for the Eagles now.

CC.SD
12-27-2009, 04:14 PM
http://www.blavish.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/stephen-colbert-loves-the-wii-11-28-2006-ii.jpg

Checkmate

3 Colberts in a row? Checkmate

Nitschke-Hawk
12-27-2009, 05:15 PM
The bottom four seeds in the NFC are playing better than the top 2 seeds right now. And that's a fact.

zachsaints52
12-27-2009, 05:20 PM
The bottom four seeds in the NFC are playing better than the top 2 seeds right now. And that's a fact.

Very true :/ Ever since Ellis went down and now Porter/Greer health we've been hurting on D. But this game was on the running game I think. We just couldn't run effective in the second half/ especially in the third quarter. But am I the only one who thinks the TB player was offsides on the last punt?

NOLAFan
12-27-2009, 05:29 PM
Very true :/ Ever since Ellis went down and now Porter/Greer health we've been hurting on D. But this game was on the running game I think. We just couldn't run effective in the second half/ especially in the third quarter. But am I the only one who thinks the TB player was offsides on the last punt?

todays game had nothing to do with injuries. We had them at 17-3 going into the half and the Saints came out and just played lazy. And when they did try on one side of the ball the other side would **** up. This was a pure case of playing with no urgency and playing like ****. Today the Saints turned into the Saints of old

SaintsMan
12-27-2009, 05:33 PM
I sure hope we don't play like this in the playoffs. Right now, it looks like we don't deserve to be there.

CJSchneider
12-27-2009, 06:06 PM
todays game had nothing to do with injuries. We had them at 17-3 going into the half and the Saints came out and just played lazy. And when they did try on one side of the ball the other side would **** up. This was a pure case of playing with no urgency and playing like ****. Today the Saints turned into the Saints of old

^^^^. The Saints came out flat of both sides of the ball that 2nd half.

Saints-Tigers
12-27-2009, 08:16 PM
This was the same Saints we've seen since the Patriots game, but instead of playing a flat first half, we played a flat second half.

Lol Saints, this is the you I know and love.

MetSox17
12-27-2009, 08:32 PM
Oh-vurr-ray-ted!

*clap*clap*, *clap clap clap*

Saints-Tigers
12-27-2009, 09:05 PM
not playing as good as you were=/= overrated

yo123
12-27-2009, 10:15 PM
Being anointed as the best team in the NFC and then losing to the Bucs=overrated though.

CC.SD
12-28-2009, 12:48 PM
Um the bottom line here is that the Saints could easily get trucked by Carolina's running game based on what I've seen the last few weeks. If that happens:

1. They will have lost 3 straight going into the playoffs. This is the train careening off the tracks.

2. They will be the #2 seed. This is the moment where the train goes over a cliff.

3. They will face the #3 seed Eagles in the divisional round, their first playoff game, and that's the lava at the bottom of the cliff.

So yah, they better beat the Panthers.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
12-28-2009, 01:18 PM
I'm not that impressed with any NFC team right now. Saints are cooling off, Vikings are cooling off, Eagles barely beat Denver, Cardinals are hot and cold, Packers maybe but they're still beatable, Cowboys are hot and cold as well. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on the Chargers winning the Super Bowl. They're the hottest team in the league AND they have the Colts number. I don't see them losing in the AFC and I don't see any of the NFC teams beating them unless the Saints get back in the right direction very quickly. Sucks.

CC.SD
12-28-2009, 02:41 PM
I'm not that impressed with any NFC team right now. Saints are cooling off, Vikings are cooling off, Eagles barely beat Denver, Cardinals are hot and cold, Packers maybe but they're still beatable, Cowboys are hot and cold as well. If I were a betting man, I'd bet on the Chargers winning the Super Bowl. They're the hottest team in the league AND they have the Colts number. I don't see them losing in the AFC and I don't see any of the NFC teams beating them unless the Saints get back in the right direction very quickly. Sucks.

To avoid the wrath of Damix and Geo I think you have to throw out the history of Bolts/Colts. I still would take my team because I don't think the Colts secondary can match up and the Colts offense lacks the tools to take advantage of the Chargers run defense, which admittedly has been better lately but still not top tier. The idea of a Super Bowl run is tantalizing to think about but nothing's a gimme and I refuse to perform any sort of jinx.

Patriots are my sleeper super bowl squad. I know the D is supposedly not good but if anyone can pull something out of nothing it's them.