NFL Thread

[wofford29]

You don't have to think so. I know so. Falcons won 9 games this year (Should have beat the Aint's twice) how many fingers do you have on your hand? And FYI statistics show that Superbowl teams rarely make the playoffs the following year. The Saints will keep that trend up aided by a massive dumping on the chocolate city by the Falcons in 2010.

 

[King Darkness]

I'll be picking the Colts to win the Superbowl but I'll be pulling for the Saints just because they've been bad so long. But either way it doesn't matter to me personally, I just hope it's a good game.

PS. ____ You Nick Saban!

Agree 110% with this statement.

 

[karamazov80]

And FYI statistics show that Superbowl teams rarely make the playoffs the following year.

Especially in the NFC South, where no team has ever won the division in back to back years, I think. As for taking a dump on the streets or whatever, I don't know what you guys do in Atlanta, but only the homeless or drunk are allowed to do that in N.O.

As an aside, I do love how racial politics are a lot more explicit in Louisiana than elsewhere. I mean, it happens everywhere at some level, but here, these people will just come out and say it. Being subtle won't get you too far in Louisiana politics.

 

[JediMike71]

You don't have to think so. I know so. Falcons won 9 games this year (Should have beat the Aint's twice) how many fingers do you have on your hand? And FYI statistics show that Superbowl teams rarely make the playoffs the following year. The Saints will keep that trend up aided by a massive dumping on the chocolate city by the Falcons in 2010.

I just checked. I have 10 fingers. Ummm...five on each hand.

Okay, the Falcons won 9 games this season. The Saints won 15 total. 13 games in a row in the regular season, and the 2 post-season playoff games they needed to win. Oh you should have beat the Saints (The "Aints" are NOT this team! That was MANY years ago. Stop using that stupid metaphor for them! )? But you didn't. Not ONE TIME this season. Breaking out the stats huh? Well those are meant to be broken and changed. And they will be. Predict what you want man. It doesn't mean that it will happen.

THE SAINTS ARE GOING TO THE SUPER BOWL! THE FALCONS ARE NOT! THEY WILL BE SITTING ON THEIR "DIRTY BIRD" ______ WATCHING IT ON TV!

 

[BadMoon]

Now we have to deal with the Favre show again this off season. Will he retire? Wont he retire? What color was his poop this morning? Time will tell.

 

[316what]

I agree. I couldn't believe they kept him in the game, but then. . .he did score 3 times. Just like Reggie Bush--high risk/high reward, and I guess the coach figures the upside outweighs the downside. But personally, I would be a bit more conservative and sit his ass on the bench for good after the second fumble, anyway.

You don't bench a player like Peterson....it would be similar to benching Favre after a couple of INTs...it just isn't going to happen.

 

[316what]

Now we have to deal with the Favre show again this off season. Will he retire? Wont he retire? What color was his poop this morning? Time will tell.

The "smart" thing for Favre to do is just come out and say "I'll let you know in July."

 

[BadMoon]

The "smart" thing for Favre to do is just come out and say "I'll let you know in July."

More like September. That way he can skip training camp again.

 

[bagelsncheesey]

 

[Darth Cruel]

I just checked. I have 10 fingers. Ummm...five on each hand.

Must be a birth defect. Most people have 8 fingers and 2 thumbs.

 

[choopie]

WHO DAT!!!!!!!

I'm still freakin' pinching myself.

Well it didn't take long for the Saints haters to come out of the woodwork and whine about how crappy the officiating was in the game. Hey, it was crappy for both sides. There were poor calls and there were missed calls. Saints penalties hurt and there were some pretty bad mental mistakes. Statistically speaking, the Vikings should have won, but turnovers will hurt you. The Saints made them pay and, sorry, but Favre threw the game away at the end of regulation with that interception.

Just the way the ball bounces. The Saints have their work cut out for them in the next two weeks to get ready for the Colts. But it should still be a good matchup.

 

[LOTRFan]

Officiating doesn't cause 5 turnovers though.

 

[Fritz]

I'm not a big hockey fan but I like that the refs put the whistle in their pocket during the playoffs in overtime unless something blatant happens. To me the pass interference in overtime was ticky tack. I'm not going to argue that it wasn't called correctly but I personally don't think anything there stopped Thomas from catching the ball and therefore IMO they should have let it go.

 

[wofford29]

I think the entire OT series was debatable. I personally don't think they made the 4th and 1. You can clearly see the ball move back down around Thomas' knees, which when you lose control of the ball forward progress goes out the window. I don't think the WR made that catch that put them closer to field goal range. Looked like he trapped it between the ground and his leg. The pass interference was uncatchable even if the linebacker did touch him, which he didn't. It certainly could have been called offensive though with the push off from the reciever and even a holding back at the line where Jared Allen was freaking tackled.

In the end it doesn't matter because it's over and done with and the Vikings had their chances and fumbled them away. It's just a shame that officials determined the end result instead of just letting them play.

 

[p!tu]

Nuff Said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[karamazov80]

In the end it doesn't matter because it's over and done with and the Vikings had their chances and fumbled them away. It's just a shame that officials determined the end result instead of just letting them play.

Well, I won't argue the pass interference call, but the others were called a certain way on the field, and were not overturned by replay review. So, the teams were "allowed to play" in that sense. Yeah, the officials made those calls to begin with, but either way the officials called it, they had to call something. You can't just refuse to call a pass completed or incomplete, or refuse to spot the ball anywhere and let the players decide. How could the refs had better "let them play" with the exception of the pass interference call? They weren't calling personal fouls or anything in OT.

 

[wofford29]

Well, I won't argue the pass interference call, but the others were called a certain way on the field, and were not overturned by replay review. So, the teams were "allowed to play" in that sense. Yeah, the officials made those calls to begin with, but either way the officials called it, they had to call something. You can't just refuse to call a pass completed or incomplete, or refuse to spot the ball anywhere and let the players decide. How could the refs had better "let them play" with the exception of the pass interference call? They weren't calling personal fouls or anything in OT.

Saints ran the ball on 4th and 1. Vikings stopped them. It was called a first. Replay showed he lost control of the ball. No longer the right spot. Letting them play would have been to over turn the call because it was played but it was incorrectly called on the field. Extend the drive, lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[karamazov80]

Saints ran the ball on 4th and 1. Vikings stopped them. It was called a first. Replay showed he lost control of the ball. No longer the right spot. Letting them play would have been to over turn the call because it was played but it was incorrectly called on the field. Extend the drive, lather, rinse, repeat.

Letting them play was not over-turning the call on the field. Letting the refs review every call is the opposite of "letting them play," IMO.

 

[wofford29]

I'm sure you'd agree that if a defense stops an offense on a 4th down. The end result is a change of possession. That's the play no? Well now throw in a wrong call by the official that wrongly gives the offense the first down. That's directing the game. It's not letting them play, it's taking away the play. Like I said. It WAS in fact played. It was just called wrong. And letting them play is a figure of speech that has nothing to do with the literal stopping of time so that something can be reviewed. It needs to be looked at so they can get it right.

 

[karamazov80]

The camera angles didn't provide absolute proof to the ref, and without absolute proof, the ref couldn't overrule the call. Same with the catch that could have hit the ground. Neither was clear cut, so they deferred to the call on the field. That's the way the replay system works. You are suggesting that the refs should only "let them play" (defined as making the "correct" call) when it is to the Saints disadvantage, as I see it.