What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is a Denver vs Seattle Super Bowl inevitable? (1 Viewer)

Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)
:lmao: One 0-fer team and a team that quit = a good division? I guess as long as the Jets aren't in the NFC the Saints might be safe.

 
HFA has inside track and I think it goes as follows:

Saints Lose (@SEA) Possible Loss (@ATL - division game on road)

Packers Lose (NONE) Possible Loss (@DET - division game on road)

Seattle Lose (@ATL, @SF) Possible Loss (@NYG - east coast)

49ers Lose (@NO) Possible Loss (@WAS - RG3 Back in form???) - as a note I picked upset of the week as Jax over 49ers this weekend but I am not counting on it

In the end:

#1 Saints (3 Losses) - 2 conference losses - common opponents (4-1 / ATL, @ATL, DAL, @CHI, 49ers) - Strength of Victory (Very Similar) - Overall Strength (NFC West Strong)

#2 Packers (3 Losses) - 2 conference losses - common opponents (4-1 / ATL, DAL, CHI, @CHI, @49ers) - Strength of Victory (Very Similar) - Overall Strength (NFC EAST Weak)

Seattle (4 Losses)

49ers (4 Losses)
So far in the last couple weeks this doesn't look so good. But hey, at least you've got NYG beating the Hawks, and they've been playing better

 
Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)
:lmao: One 0-fer team and a team that quit = a good division? I guess as long as the Jets aren't in the NFC the Saints might be safe.
You do realize that was a short week for the Saints, A thursday night game after playing a physical game against the Pats. The Saints were missing important starters. Colston, Sproles, and Graham saw limited snaps and played hurt. If you think that is the Saints team you will see the rest of the season hopefully you got a wakeup call tonight on Sunday night football.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)
:lmao: One 0-fer team and a team that quit = a good division? I guess as long as the Jets aren't in the NFC the Saints might be safe.
You do realize that was a short week for the Saints, A thursday night game after playing a physical game against the Pats. The Saints were missing important starters. Colston, Sproles, and Graham saw limited snaps and played hurt. If you think that is the Saints team you will see the rest of the season hopefully you got a wakeup call tonight on Sunday night football.
Uh, what? The Saints had a bye after the Patriots game. :lol:

 
Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)
:lmao: One 0-fer team and a team that quit = a good division? I guess as long as the Jets aren't in the NFC the Saints might be safe.
You do realize that was a short week for the Saints, A thursday night game after playing a physical game against the Pats. The Saints were missing important starters. Colston, Sproles, and Graham saw limited snaps and played hurt. If you think that is the Saints team you will see the rest of the season hopefully you got a wakeup call tonight on Sunday night football.
Every team plays on a short week or two. Every team gets banged up. Not every team loses to the Jets, which is apparently better than beating teams after playing poorly a few times.

 
Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)
:lmao: One 0-fer team and a team that quit = a good division? I guess as long as the Jets aren't in the NFC the Saints might be safe.
You do realize that was a short week for the Saints, A thursday night game after playing a physical game against the Pats. The Saints were missing important starters. Colston, Sproles, and Graham saw limited snaps and played hurt. If you think that is the Saints team you will see the rest of the season hopefully you got a wakeup call tonight on Sunday night football.
Uh, what? The Saints had a bye after the Patriots game. :lol:
:lmao: x 10,000,000!!!

Plus they played the hapless Bills after the bye. Thanks for the heads up. I foolishly believed he actually knew the schedule since he had all his excuses lined up in a row. What a gigantic pile of horse crap. :lmao: That Patriot game hangover lasted over 2.5 weeks!!!!

 
Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)
:lmao: One 0-fer team and a team that quit = a good division? I guess as long as the Jets aren't in the NFC the Saints might be safe.
You do realize that was a short week for the Saints, A thursday night game after playing a physical game against the Pats. The Saints were missing important starters. Colston, Sproles, and Graham saw limited snaps and played hurt. If you think that is the Saints team you will see the rest of the season hopefully you got a wakeup call tonight on Sunday night football.
Uh, what? The Saints had a bye after the Patriots game. :lol:
Nevermind my confusion its late and perhaps a few too many brewskys are working at this point. Anyhow besides all that the Saints were still missing key offensive players to injury. That was the main point . How do you replace your top TE, top WR and top RB against a defense like the Jets? Look who made the big plays in tonights game, the very players who were out for the Jets game. Sproles would have been huge if he had been in for the Jets game. Never mind though. On to sustaining our win streak and stealing home field away from the Sea Hawks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)
:lmao: One 0-fer team and a team that quit = a good division? I guess as long as the Jets aren't in the NFC the Saints might be safe.
You do realize that was a short week for the Saints, A thursday night game after playing a physical game against the Pats. The Saints were missing important starters. Colston, Sproles, and Graham saw limited snaps and played hurt. If you think that is the Saints team you will see the rest of the season hopefully you got a wakeup call tonight on Sunday night football.
Uh, what? The Saints had a bye after the Patriots game. :lol:
Nevermind, They were still missing players to injury. That was the main point . How do you replace your top TE, top WR and top RB against a defense like the Jets?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Everybody is missing players, but that only seems to matter when it's the Saints. Winning games against bad teams doesn't count for other teams, but losing to a bad team apparently counts for the Saints. Your main point wasn't injuries, it was the short week that never happened. Jesus, you almost make ITS look like an objective non-homer, yet you call out other fans. Your backpedaling here is as massive a fail as your inane, fabricated excuses.

PS- good teams find a way to win, whether because of injuries, mistakes, or playing bad games.

 
Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)
:lmao: One 0-fer team and a team that quit = a good division? I guess as long as the Jets aren't in the NFC the Saints might be safe.
You do realize that was a short week for the Saints, A thursday night game after playing a physical game against the Pats. The Saints were missing important starters. Colston, Sproles, and Graham saw limited snaps and played hurt. If you think that is the Saints team you will see the rest of the season hopefully you got a wakeup call tonight on Sunday night football.
Uh, what? The Saints had a bye after the Patriots game. :lol:
Nevermind, They were still missing players to injury. That was the main point . How do you replace your top TE, top WR and top RB against a defense like the Jets?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Everybody is missing players, but that only seems to matter when it's the Saints. Winning games against bad teams doesn't count for other teams, but losing to a bad team apparently counts for the Saints. Your main point wasn't injuries, it was the short week that never happened. Jesus, you almost make ITS look like an objective non-homer, yet you call out other fans. Your backpedaling here is as massive a fail as your inane, fabricated excuses.

PS- good teams find a way to win, whether because of injuries, mistakes, or playing bad games.
Get over yourself. I don't have to waste my breath on you any more troll. The Saints have 1 less win than the Seahawks so we must know how to win too. Don't go acting like your team could never lose to the Jets. They could, your team could lose to anyone in this league any given Sunday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)
:lmao: One 0-fer team and a team that quit = a good division? I guess as long as the Jets aren't in the NFC the Saints might be safe.
You do realize that was a short week for the Saints, A thursday night game after playing a physical game against the Pats. The Saints were missing important starters. Colston, Sproles, and Graham saw limited snaps and played hurt. If you think that is the Saints team you will see the rest of the season hopefully you got a wakeup call tonight on Sunday night football.
Uh, what? The Saints had a bye after the Patriots game. :lol:
Nevermind, They were still missing players to injury. That was the main point . How do you replace your top TE, top WR and top RB against a defense like the Jets?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Everybody is missing players, but that only seems to matter when it's the Saints. Winning games against bad teams doesn't count for other teams, but losing to a bad team apparently counts for the Saints. Your main point wasn't injuries, it was the short week that never happened. Jesus, you almost make ITS look like an objective non-homer, yet you call out other fans. Your backpedaling here is as massive a fail as your inane, fabricated excuses.

PS- good teams find a way to win, whether because of injuries, mistakes, or playing bad games.
Get over yourself. I don't have to waste my breath on you any more troll. The Saints have 1 less win than the Seahawks so we must know how to win too. Don't go acting like your team could never lose to the Jets. They could, your team could lose to anyone in this leugue any given Sunday.
How does 9-7=1? Is that the same type of math that makes a bye week equal a non existent Thursday game?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Panthers are the biggest challenge to the Saints in the NFC. They are looking tough. SEC south may be what folks thought the NFC west was. With exception of the team that has obviously quit. (Failcons)
:lmao: One 0-fer team and a team that quit = a good division? I guess as long as the Jets aren't in the NFC the Saints might be safe.
You do realize that was a short week for the Saints, A thursday night game after playing a physical game against the Pats. The Saints were missing important starters. Colston, Sproles, and Graham saw limited snaps and played hurt. If you think that is the Saints team you will see the rest of the season hopefully you got a wakeup call tonight on Sunday night football.
Uh, what? The Saints had a bye after the Patriots game. :lol:
Nevermind, They were still missing players to injury. That was the main point . How do you replace your top TE, top WR and top RB against a defense like the Jets?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAEverybody is missing players, but that only seems to matter when it's the Saints. Winning games against bad teams doesn't count for other teams, but losing to a bad team apparently counts for the Saints. Your main point wasn't injuries, it was the short week that never happened. Jesus, you almost make ITS look like an objective non-homer, yet you call out other fans. Your backpedaling here is as massive a fail as your inane, fabricated excuses.

PS- good teams find a way to win, whether because of injuries, mistakes, or playing bad games.
:lmao:
 
Green Bay is 1/2 a game out of the lead in the North. If Rodgers and Cobb can come back on schedule they'll be in the playoffs. At that point they roll. Just like a few years ago they'll be the hottest team in the NFL entering the playoffs and brush aside the pretenders with relative ease.

 
Green Bay is 1/2 a game out of the lead in the North. If Rodgers and Cobb can come back on schedule they'll be in the playoffs. At that point they roll. Just like a few years ago they'll be the hottest team in the NFL entering the playoffs and brush aside the pretenders with relative ease.
As a Lions fan, I'm livid about their play this week. They clearly don't have the intestinal fortitude to make it far. Talented as anyone, but when you lose to the Bucs, you don't deserve to go to the playoffs.

That said, the Packers can't be feeling too good either right now, tying a worse team than the Lions lost to. It doesn't sound like Rodgers will play Thursday, which should put them 1.5 games back after this week.

Even with Rodgers and Cobb, you aren't going to stop New Orleans or Seattle. Carolina would be interesting (assuming they play better than they did early against Miami)

 
The more you talk the bigger a jerk you become Sweeny. You stopped being funny several posts ago.
The more you whine the less I feel sorry for you. I'm sure you will be full of excuses when the hawks win the Super Bowl.
What are you willing to wager?
A hand full of magic beans.
That's what I thought. All talk, no balls.
What odds are you willing to lay down? There are 6 legitimate contenders so are you doing 6:1?

 
The more you talk the bigger a jerk you become Sweeny. You stopped being funny several posts ago.
The more you whine the less I feel sorry for you. I'm sure you will be full of excuses when the hawks win the Super Bowl.
What are you willing to wager?
A hand full of magic beans.
That's what I thought. All talk, no balls.
What odds are you willing to lay down? There are 6 legitimate contenders so are you doing 6:1?
What do odds have to do with a straight up bet? Nowhere did I assure a Saints Superbowl victory. Seems to me he's saying the Seahawks are winning it. Just wanted to see how confident he was. Doesn't seem he's as confident when it comes to a wager.

 
The more you talk the bigger a jerk you become Sweeny. You stopped being funny several posts ago.
The more you whine the less I feel sorry for you. I'm sure you will be full of excuses when the hawks win the Super Bowl.
What are you willing to wager?
A hand full of magic beans.
That's what I thought. All talk, no balls.
What odds are you willing to lay down? There are 6 legitimate contenders so are you doing 6:1?
What do odds have to do with a straight up bet? Nowhere did I assure a Saints Superbowl victory. Seems to me he's saying the Seahawks are winning it. Just wanted to see how confident he was. Doesn't seem he's as confident when it comes to a wager.
I don't want to defend ITS, but this is a dumb argument. His belief that the Seahawks will win is no good reason to take much worse odds than are available at any book. I know you think you've got him, but you don't.

 
Green Bay is 1/2 a game out of the lead in the North. If Rodgers and Cobb can come back on schedule they'll be in the playoffs. At that point they roll. Just like a few years ago they'll be the hottest team in the NFL entering the playoffs and brush aside the pretenders with relative ease.
As a Lions fan, I'm livid about their play this week. They clearly don't have the intestinal fortitude to make it far. Talented as anyone, but when you lose to the Bucs, you don't deserve to go to the playoffs.

That said, the Packers can't be feeling too good either right now, tying a worse team than the Lions lost to. It doesn't sound like Rodgers will play Thursday, which should put them 1.5 games back after this week.

Even with Rodgers and Cobb, you aren't going to stop New Orleans or Seattle. Carolina would be interesting (assuming they play better than they did early against Miami)
I could see Flynn throwing the ball all voer the lions, however, no way that GB would win @NO and /or @seattle, even with rodgers this year. that Defense is awful

 
The more you talk the bigger a jerk you become Sweeny. You stopped being funny several posts ago.
The more you whine the less I feel sorry for you. I'm sure you will be full of excuses when the hawks win the Super Bowl.
What are you willing to wager?
A hand full of magic beans.
That's what I thought. All talk, no balls.
What odds are you willing to lay down? There are 6 legitimate contenders so are you doing 6:1?
What do odds have to do with a straight up bet? Nowhere did I assure a Saints Superbowl victory. Seems to me he's saying the Seahawks are winning it. Just wanted to see how confident he was. Doesn't seem he's as confident when it comes to a wager.
Sounds like you're not very confident. Do we need to start discussing your manhood or are you ready to admit this is a stupid way to win an argument?

 
Green Bay is 1/2 a game out of the lead in the North. If Rodgers and Cobb can come back on schedule they'll be in the playoffs. At that point they roll. Just like a few years ago they'll be the hottest team in the NFL entering the playoffs and brush aside the pretenders with relative ease.
As a Lions fan, I'm livid about their play this week. They clearly don't have the intestinal fortitude to make it far. Talented as anyone, but when you lose to the Bucs, you don't deserve to go to the playoffs.

That said, the Packers can't be feeling too good either right now, tying a worse team than the Lions lost to. It doesn't sound like Rodgers will play Thursday, which should put them 1.5 games back after this week.

Even with Rodgers and Cobb, you aren't going to stop New Orleans or Seattle. Carolina would be interesting (assuming they play better than they did early against Miami)
Maybe, I think Flynn with a week to game plan played pretty well against the Lions last time he had a shot at them. I expect a similar game. Maybe not record setting but he drove the Packers to 4 scoring drives in a quarter. Going to be a fun game to watch on Thanksgiving. Especially where I live in Upper Michigan. Half Lions fans and half Packers fans.

 
Green Bay is 1/2 a game out of the lead in the North. If Rodgers and Cobb can come back on schedule they'll be in the playoffs. At that point they roll. Just like a few years ago they'll be the hottest team in the NFL entering the playoffs and brush aside the pretenders with relative ease.
As a Lions fan, I'm livid about their play this week. They clearly don't have the intestinal fortitude to make it far. Talented as anyone, but when you lose to the Bucs, you don't deserve to go to the playoffs.

That said, the Packers can't be feeling too good either right now, tying a worse team than the Lions lost to. It doesn't sound like Rodgers will play Thursday, which should put them 1.5 games back after this week.

Even with Rodgers and Cobb, you aren't going to stop New Orleans or Seattle. Carolina would be interesting (assuming they play better than they did early against Miami)
I could see Flynn throwing the ball all voer the lions, however, no way that GB would win @NO and /or @seattle, even with rodgers this year. that Defense is awful
Flynn might have a big game, but Calvin isn't going to be stopped by the Green Bay DBs. This likely won't be Denver/Dallas esque, but it will be fun to watch.

 
The more you talk the bigger a jerk you become Sweeny. You stopped being funny several posts ago.
The more you whine the less I feel sorry for you. I'm sure you will be full of excuses when the hawks win the Super Bowl.
What are you willing to wager?
A hand full of magic beans.
That's what I thought. All talk, no balls.
What odds are you willing to lay down? There are 6 legitimate contenders so are you doing 6:1?
What do odds have to do with a straight up bet? Nowhere did I assure a Saints Superbowl victory. Seems to me he's saying the Seahawks are winning it. Just wanted to see how confident he was. Doesn't seem he's as confident when it comes to a wager.
I don't want to defend ITS, but this is a dumb argument. His belief that the Seahawks will win is no good reason to take much worse odds than are available at any book. I know you think you've got him, but you don't.
Well, you're entitled to that opinion. Doesn't mean it's a valid one. Again, I just wanted to see how confident he was with that statement. He showed me.
 
The more you talk the bigger a jerk you become Sweeny. You stopped being funny several posts ago.
The more you whine the less I feel sorry for you. I'm sure you will be full of excuses when the hawks win the Super Bowl.
What are you willing to wager?
A hand full of magic beans.
That's what I thought. All talk, no balls.
What odds are you willing to lay down? There are 6 legitimate contenders so are you doing 6:1?
What do odds have to do with a straight up bet? Nowhere did I assure a Saints Superbowl victory. Seems to me he's saying the Seahawks are winning it. Just wanted to see how confident he was. Doesn't seem he's as confident when it comes to a wager.
Sounds like you're not very confident. Do we need to start discussing your manhood or are you ready to admit this is a stupid way to win an argument?
Talk about whatever you'd like. It's funny you question my confidence when I'm the one who asked him to put his money where his mouth is. People like you and ITS make it easy to want to see your team fail, and I like the team. Wilson is my starter in 2 leagues yet you 2 plus a couple others ruin it.
 
The more you talk the bigger a jerk you become Sweeny. You stopped being funny several posts ago.
The more you whine the less I feel sorry for you. I'm sure you will be full of excuses when the hawks win the Super Bowl.
What are you willing to wager?
A hand full of magic beans.
That's what I thought. All talk, no balls.
What odds are you willing to lay down? There are 6 legitimate contenders so are you doing 6:1?
What do odds have to do with a straight up bet? Nowhere did I assure a Saints Superbowl victory. Seems to me he's saying the Seahawks are winning it. Just wanted to see how confident he was. Doesn't seem he's as confident when it comes to a wager.
Sounds like you're not very confident. Do we need to start discussing your manhood or are you ready to admit this is a stupid way to win an argument?
Talk about whatever you'd like. It's funny you question my confidence when I'm the one who asked him to put his money where his mouth is. People like you and ITS make it easy to want to see your team fail, and I like the team. Wilson is my starter in 2 leagues yet you 2 plus a couple others ruin it.
I think you pulled out the wrong part of my retort. I wasn't really questioning your confidence, just your approach to winning that argument via money. There is probably someone else in this forum that can offer you into a monetary bet out of your comfort zone and it really is more about risk mitigation instead of confidence. That's why a bet for money is generally a pretty stupid way to win an argument.

But if you want to keep talking about balls go right ahead. The rest of the thread will continue on with a more interesting point of view.

 
Denver loses at NE by 3 in OT.

Saints lose at NE by 3 with 5 seconds left.

Denver's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Saints beat ARI 34-7 in NO.

Seattle beats ARI 34-22 in AZ.

Seattle's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Check.

 
Denver loses at NE by 3 in OT.

Saints lose at NE by 3 with 5 seconds left.

Denver's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Saints beat ARI 34-7 in NO.

Seattle beats ARI 34-22 in AZ.

Seattle's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Check.
Saints beat Falcons in Atlanta 17-13.

Seahawks beat Falcons in Atlanta 33-10.

And before you get into the "divisional" excuse...

Saints beat 49ers in New Orleans 23-20.

Seahawks beat 49ers in Seattle 29-3.

Check.

 
Denver loses at NE by 3 in OT.

Saints lose at NE by 3 with 5 seconds left.

Denver's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Saints beat ARI 34-7 in NO.

Seattle beats ARI 34-22 in AZ.

Seattle's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Check.
Saints beat Falcons in Atlanta 17-13.

Seahawks beat Falcons in Atlanta 33-10.

And before you get into the "divisional" excuse...

Saints beat 49ers in New Orleans 23-20.

Seahawks beat 49ers in Seattle 29-3.

Check.
Yeah, I thought the 9er game would get shot back at me. The Falcon game was just how it always is, good or bad, two old rivals, typical.

The NE game will stand up over time though - if NO holds its own in Seattle.

Btw, the point should be other teams belong in the conversation and that SEA & Denver are anything, including playoff favorites, but not "inevitable."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Denver loses at NE by 3 in OT.

Saints lose at NE by 3 with 5 seconds left.

Denver's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Saints beat ARI 34-7 in NO.

Seattle beats ARI 34-22 in AZ.

Seattle's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Check.
Saints beat Falcons in Atlanta 17-13.

Seahawks beat Falcons in Atlanta 33-10.

And before you get into the "divisional" excuse...

Saints beat 49ers in New Orleans 23-20.

Seahawks beat 49ers in Seattle 29-3.

Check.
Yeah, I thought the 9er game would get shot back at me. The Falcon game was just how it always is, good or bad, two old rivals, typical.

The NE game will stand up over time though - if NO holds its own in Seattle.

Btw, the point should be other teams belong in the conversation and that SEA & Denver are anything, including playoff favorites, but not "inevitable."
Absolutely agree. Getting into the playoffs takes skill and some injury luck. Going to and winning the Superbowl is a different beast which is why a majority of the Superbowl winners in the past decade weren't the best team during the regular season.

 
Denver loses at NE by 3 in OT.

Saints lose at NE by 3 with 5 seconds left.

Denver's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Saints beat ARI 34-7 in NO.

Seattle beats ARI 34-22 in AZ.

Seattle's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Check.
Saints beat Falcons in Atlanta 17-13.

Seahawks beat Falcons in Atlanta 33-10.

And before you get into the "divisional" excuse...

Saints beat 49ers in New Orleans 23-20.

Seahawks beat 49ers in Seattle 29-3.

Check.
Every game is a separate organism. The Saints have had blow out games this season as well like the Miami game, Cowboys, etc. There are too many factors to consider when looking into the ebb and flow of each individual game. I hope that the Seahawks draw the same conclusions about the scores that you have put up because believe me, even against an opportunistic defense like Seattle playing in Seattle, they will be one of the highest scoring teams your squad has faced this year. If turnovers happen that equals the playing field for sure but that goes without saying. When the Saints do reach the playoffs and hopefully they arrive healthy, they will have faced some of the NFL's top defenses this season. They will be battle tested hopefully.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The more you talk the bigger a jerk you become Sweeny. You stopped being funny several posts ago.
The more you whine the less I feel sorry for you. I'm sure you will be full of excuses when the hawks win the Super Bowl.
What are you willing to wager?
A hand full of magic beans.
That's what I thought. All talk, no balls.
What odds are you willing to lay down? There are 6 legitimate contenders so are you doing 6:1?
What do odds have to do with a straight up bet? Nowhere did I assure a Saints Superbowl victory. Seems to me he's saying the Seahawks are winning it. Just wanted to see how confident he was. Doesn't seem he's as confident when it comes to a wager.
Sounds like you're not very confident. Do we need to start discussing your manhood or are you ready to admit this is a stupid way to win an argument?
Talk about whatever you'd like. It's funny you question my confidence when I'm the one who asked him to put his money where his mouth is. People like you and ITS make it easy to want to see your team fail, and I like the team. Wilson is my starter in 2 leagues yet you 2 plus a couple others ruin it.
I think you pulled out the wrong part of my retort. I wasn't really questioning your confidence, just your approach to winning that argument via money. There is probably someone else in this forum that can offer you into a monetary bet out of your comfort zone and it really is more about risk mitigation instead of confidence. That's why a bet for money is generally a pretty stupid way to win an argument.

But if you want to keep talking about balls go right ahead. The rest of the thread will continue on with a more interesting point of view.
Jesus, is your depth of perception that bad? There was never an argument, and this has nothing to do with $. Im not much of a gambler. This was about ITS running his mouth and then being a coward. Get over it. You have your panties in a bunch over something that doesn't concern you and making up things here for no reason. Learn to read.
 
Denver loses at NE by 3 in OT.

Saints lose at NE by 3 with 5 seconds left.

Denver's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Saints beat ARI 34-7 in NO.

Seattle beats ARI 34-22 in AZ.

Seattle's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Check.
Saints beat Falcons in Atlanta 17-13.

Seahawks beat Falcons in Atlanta 33-10.

And before you get into the "divisional" excuse...

Saints beat 49ers in New Orleans 23-20.

Seahawks beat 49ers in Seattle 29-3.

Check.
Every game is a separate organism. The Saints have had blow out games this season as well like the Miami game, Cowboys, etc. There are too many factors to consider when looking into the ebb and flow of each individual game. I hope that the Seahawks draw the same conclusions about the scores that you have put up because believe me, even against an opportunistic defense like Seattle playing in Seattle, they will be one of the highest scoring teams your squad has faced this year. If turnovers happen that equals the playing field for sure but that goes without saying. When the Saints do reach the playoffs and hopefully they arrive healthy, they will have faced some of the NFL's top defenses this season. They will be battle tested hopefully.
The Saints' closing schedule is just getting more absurdly difficult:

Surging Carolina twice + @ the Rams who are currently wailing on teams + TB which has decided to start winning games, fun fun fun.

 
Jesus, is your depth of perception that bad? There was never an argument, and this has nothing to do with $. Im not much of a gambler. This was about ITS running his mouth and then being a coward. Get over it. You have your panties in a bunch over something that doesn't concern you and making up things here for no reason. Learn to read.
You should take the time to re-read some of your comments and pick out the parts that stem from an adolescent view of what it means to be "manly". It's kind of comical.

I'm sure your reply will be about me being a "#####", "can't man up", "I need more balls", "panties, panties, panties", or something equivalent instead of actually reading them.

Now go ahead and get in the last response--it's the manly thing to do. Yikes.

 
We get Tampa in the Dome, I don't think they win unless the Saints completely underestimate them and I don't think that happens now that they beat the Lions. We will not sweep the Panthers, I think we split there. The Rams are tough but we will win that game as well even if we do take a pounding. The Season is far from a lock for either team quite frankly. Both the Seahawks and Saints have gotten off to a great start but every team in the NFL can beat you any given Sunday. Luck , injuries, all will be a factor in the end.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Green Bay is 1/2 a game out of the lead in the North. If Rodgers and Cobb can come back on schedule they'll be in the playoffs. At that point they roll. Just like a few years ago they'll be the hottest team in the NFL entering the playoffs and brush aside the pretenders with relative ease.
As a Lions fan, I'm livid about their play this week. They clearly don't have the intestinal fortitude to make it far. Talented as anyone, but when you lose to the Bucs, you don't deserve to go to the playoffs.

That said, the Packers can't be feeling too good either right now, tying a worse team than the Lions lost to. It doesn't sound like Rodgers will play Thursday, which should put them 1.5 games back after this week.

Even with Rodgers and Cobb, you aren't going to stop New Orleans or Seattle. Carolina would be interesting (assuming they play better than they did early against Miami)
I could see Flynn throwing the ball all voer the lions, however, no way that GB would win @NO and /or @seattle, even with rodgers this year. that Defense is awful
Flynn might have a big game, but Calvin isn't going to be stopped by the Green Bay DBs. This likely won't be Denver/Dallas esque, but it will be fun to watch.
You aint just a ####ting there. They can't stop anyone. Calvin could be in line to break the single game record. Could be a shootout.

 
Denver loses at NE by 3 in OT.

Saints lose at NE by 3 with 5 seconds left.

Denver's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Saints beat ARI 34-7 in NO.

Seattle beats ARI 34-22 in AZ.

Seattle's presence in the SB is "inevitable."

Check.
Saints beat Falcons in Atlanta 17-13.

Seahawks beat Falcons in Atlanta 33-10.

And before you get into the "divisional" excuse...

Saints beat 49ers in New Orleans 23-20.

Seahawks beat 49ers in Seattle 29-3.

Check.
Saints lose to Jets. Checkmate.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top