NDL Forum

whew. long drive home. great game at the dome. this game, to me, was a mirror image of the first in the flow of the game. in the first, atlanta dominated that game from the start, but the saints had a chance to win in the end because of some big plays and couldn't get over the top. tonight, the saints dominated the tempo of the game, but the falcons had a chance to win in the end and couldn't.

i hate losing, especially to the saints, but i saw what i wanted to see tonight. i saw a defense that can win a championship. we held that team to 17 points, and the first seven was a gift given by the turf monster on the snap. two turnovers, 14 point swing. props to the saints. they sold out to stop the run all night. they had 8 in the box on just about every first down, and we never really looked to take advantage. sucks to lose, but it can be corrected. even though we lost, i like my team better after this game.

the saints are in the dance. congrats. good luck in seattle or st. louis (haven't decided who i'm rooting for next week. seattle provides the tougher home field to deal with, but the rams, i think, are the better team). we'll see you again in three weeks (unless the giants/packers go on the road and beat philly/chicago).

Rams will beat the Saints if thats the first round matchup

nick wrote:Rams will beat the Saints if thats the first round matchup

bandwagon

I'm with you Vicktim. I also was skeptical about the defense, but now not so much either. Man I wish I could have been their last night, I bet the dome was rocking.

id much rather see the seahawks in the playoffs, they stand a better chance at home vs the saints then st louis does. seattle is a tough place to play

Uuaww wrote:id much rather see the seahawks in the playoffs, they stand a better chance at home vs the saints then st louis does. seattle is a tough place to play

Yea. It's a tough call. I'd say the Rams are a better team than the Seahawks, juts my opinion there. But I'd rather not go to Seattle outdoors in whatever weather conditions in January for a playoff game. I'd rather take my chances in the dome in St. Louis.


And how unbelievably ridiculous is it that we could see a 12-4 team traveling to a 7-9 team's homefield for a playoff game. That shit needs to be addressed, but it certainly won't.

Id think the Saints would like to see Seattle if Hasselbeck is still out.

I dont see the Saints losing to either of them no matter who is playing though.

It's amazing the difference one missed 29 yard field goal in OT has on the playoffs.

Make it and the saints are looking at homefield throughout the playoffs and I'm loving our chances.

Instead he misses it and we're likely to be on the road in all 3 playoff games and I'm not feeling confident at all about our chances.

Ah well.

shel311 wrote:

Uuaww wrote:id much rather see the seahawks in the playoffs, they stand a better chance at home vs the saints then st louis does. seattle is a tough place to play

Yea. It's a tough call. I'd say the Rams are a better team than the Seahawks, juts my opinion there. But I'd rather not go to Seattle outdoors in whatever weather conditions in January for a playoff game. I'd rather take my chances in the dome in St. Louis.


And how unbelievably ridiculous is it that we could see a 12-4 team traveling to a 7-9 team's homefield for a playoff game. That shit needs to be addressed, but it certainly won't.

the same thing happened to us two years ago. we had a better record than the cardinals, and we had to go there and play. they win, end up travelling to carolina for jake delhomme to throw them a few balls, and with philly winning as the 6 seed, they ended up hosting the nfc championship game. you just never know when you're playing elimination football on the road. a bad bounce or two, a special teams play or two, and you're sitting at home with a better record. in that cardinals game, we had a fluky bobbled handoff that was returned for a touchdown. that was the difference in the game. they go on to the super bowl.

Im kind of torn on the matter.

If you win your division, you deserve a home playoff game in my opinion. Sure it sucks they are below .500 but they also won their division and all the other teams are garbage.

It does suck for a team to possibly go 12-4, not win their division and not be home for the playoffs.

Cnasty wrote:If you win your division, you deserve a home playoff game

they are below .500 and all the other teams are garbage.

It's almost like college football in that aspect where you can ascend to a good position by playing weaker competition and get rewarded for it, whereas you play a brutal schedule and get left out in the cold because you basically had a good but not great year

Cnasty wrote:Im kind of torn on the matter.

If you win your division, you deserve a home playoff game in my opinion. Sure it sucks they are below .500 but they also won their division and all the other teams are garbage.

It does suck for a team to possibly go 12-4, not win their division and not be home for the playoffs.

i'm all for leaving it the way it is. it's somewhat of a rare situation that this happens, and it's just been magnified this year because of the large disparity between the nfc west winner and the wild card teams. it's one thing to have a record separated by one game, but these teams could be separated by five games. for me, win your division, get a home game. makes sense. you'll have seasons like this, but they'll be few and far between. on the flip side, if you're five games better than the team you're playing, suck it up and go beat the pitiful team or win your division.

i've heard rumblings about expanding the playoffs by adding two more wild card teams to account for seasons like this where you have two or three other teams are out while a .500 or under .500 team could be in. i sure hope they don't consider this. you don't need half of the teams in the playoffs.

vicktim7 wrote:you'll have seasons like this, but they'll be few and far between. on the flip side, if you're five games better than the team you're playing, suck it up and go beat the pitiful team or win your division.

i've heard rumblings about expanding the playoffs by adding two more wild card teams to account for seasons like this where you have two or three other teams are out while a .500 or under .500 team could be in. i sure hope they don't consider this. you don't need half of the teams in the playoffs.

Valid points, solid post

DRWebs wrote:It's almost like college football in that aspect where you can ascend to a good position by playing weaker competition and get rewarded for it, whereas you play a brutal schedule and get left out in the cold because you basically had a good but not great year

Almost being the key word.

In the NFL you cant dictate how good your conference is going to be as well as you cant schedule your own OOC to boost your strength of schedule.

I would like to see the team with the best record host the playoff game, even if they are the wild card team. Its bad enough that a team can get into the playoffs with a losing record, no way should they get to play at home on top of it.

hitem4781 wrote:I would like to see the team with the best record host the playoff game, even if they are the wild card team. Its bad enough that a team can get into the playoffs with a losing record, no way should they get to play at home on top of it.

Biggest co-sign ever.

hitem4781 wrote: no way should they get to play at home on top of it.

So they get basically nothing for winning their division no matter how weak or awesome it is?

That doesnt make any sense. Any sport should reward division winners with something better than a wild card team no matter the record.

Its not that teams fault their division sucked.

I do hate the fact a team under .500 is in the playoffs but I am all for rewarding division winners.

Cnasty wrote:So they get basically nothing for winning their division no matter how weak or awesome it is?

Nothing? They'd get to enjoy being a 6th seed despite having the 8th or 9th best record. That is plenty of reward.

Cnasty wrote:Its not that teams fault their division sucked.

Of course it isn't. But it is there fault that they suck, lol.

But also lose revenue by not having a home playoff game even though they won their division.

I hear both sides of it but winning a division has to hold some water.

Cnasty wrote:But also lose revenue by not having a home playoff game even though they won their division.

I mean, i hear you, but IMO the bigger travesty would be the Saints(or other teams who this has happened to) losing revenue for not having at least 2 home playoff games since they may finish with the 2nd best record in the NFC. It's just coincidence that the best team is in the same conference as them and I don't think they should be punished for that.



I got you 2 posts into a debate. Come on, let's do this!!!