Poor Vikings.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Dargone

Yeah, football is a much different animal than baseball when it comes to statistics. Who was injured? Who did they play? Were they home or away? On grass or on turf? What about playcall selection? Was the defensive line scheme changed? What about blitz packages? How about secondary coverage? I could go on and on. There are far, far more "fuzzy" statistics in football than in baseball.

Also, I would always take the great defense and medicore offense. See '85 Bears and '00 Ravens. The '91 giants combined a solid running game and a great defense to beat an explosive offensive team (and the most lopsided time of possession ever).

The Niners of the 80s and the Cowboys of the 90s had both of course.

I pretty much agree with what you said. But what I would have liked to see is what would have happened if the '93 Oilers met the Cowboys in the SB. I'm not sure how the Cowboys would have done. Remember, in those years Aikman ran all plays under center.

In the playoffs the Oilers were up 10-0 midway or late in the 3rd. They were in KC's redzone about to stuff it in again. Their crappy run and shoot caused moon to get sacked and fumble, changing the game. That was when Buddy Ryan threw a lame punch at the O coordinator.

I think they would have beaten Buffalo and went to the SB......that team had me worried as a Cowboys fan. And it had nothing to do with their offense.

[Dargone]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I pretty much agree with what you said. But what I would have liked to see is what would have happened if the '93 Oilers met the Cowboys in the SB. I'm not sure how the Cowboys would have done. Remember, in those years Aikman ran all plays under center.

In the playoffs the Oilers were up 10-0 midway or late in the 3rd. They were in KC's redzone about to stuff it in again. Their crappy run and shoot caused moon to get sacked and fumble, changing the game. That was when Buddy Ryan threw a lame punch at the O coordinator.

I think they would have beaten Buffalo and went to the SB......that team had me worried as a Cowboys fan. And it had nothing to do with their offense.

Ahhh, good ol' Buddy Ryan. The '93 oilers were a good team and probably better than the Bills. However, the Cowyboys were a powerhouse on both sides of the ball and I think they would have dispatched them as well.

[phightin]

wow don't look now but the vikings are floundering and look terrible, saints dont look too great either. There's a decent chance they'll lost the first round bye they had pegged for themselves weeks ago too. I think the NFC is going to come down to the eagles, packers, or cowboys. besides favre the vikings look similar to how they looked last year when they got stomped in the first round, the secondary looks terrible.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by phightin

wow don't look now but the vikings are floundering and look terrible, saints dont look too great either. There's a decent chance they'll lost the first round bye they had pegged for themselves weeks ago too. I think the NFC is going to come down to the eagles, packers, or cowboys. besides favre the vikings look similar to how they looked last year when they got stomped in the first round, the secondary looks terrible.

So the two teams(Eagles and Cowboys) that have a combined 2-4 record against winning teams from other divisions one of which was destroyed by the Saints at home when the games were important. About the only thing the NFC East has proved to me this year is they have no clue how to play defense.

And another team that was beaten twice by the Vikings.

Are the teams to beat in the NFC? Over the defending NFC Champ and the team with home field advantage??? Very interesting.


Kind of funny how fast people forget about more meaningful games for less meaningful games. Saints and Vikings and to an extent Cardinals have been on cruise contol for a month or more.

Its kind of like saying the Yankees are in trouble despite leading the AL East by 20 games in September because they just lost a series to the Royals.

Its pretty apparent to me that the Saints and Vikings kind of let up and are now getting caught by teams that have had to play out the entire season. Yes its hard to just turn it back on which makes football a very unpredictable game but its hard to say anyone other than the Saints have a clear advantage in the NFC because they have been the best team in the NFC YTD and they have home field. They lost a difficult game to the Cowboys and took the Bucs for granted after a 14-0 lead. It was a mental issue not physical that I wouldnt expect to happen in the playoffs.

The Vikings have bigger problems. They have an idiot coach that thinks they are a running team when they have had most of their success this year through the air. Whether or not that fool got conservative because they clinched their division 2 weeks ago and wanted to try and get the run game going before the playoffs OR if that is actually how they plan on playing in the playoffs is the great unknown. If its the latter the have 0 chance of winning a playoff game ifs its the former they are capable of beating anyone.

1. Saints
2. Cardinals
3. Vikings
4. Eagles
5. Packers
6. Cowboys

with the Cowboys have very little chance is how Id rate their chances.

Eagles have 0 wins vs top 10 teams this year while the Vikings are 3-0 and the Saints are 3-1.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagar...terstitialskip

[molarmite]

Originally Posted by phightin

wow don't look now but the vikings are floundering and look terrible, saints dont look too great either. There's a decent chance they'll lost the first round bye they had pegged for themselves weeks ago too. I think the NFC is going to come down to the eagles, packers, or cowboys. besides favre the vikings look similar to how they looked last year when they got stomped in the first round, the secondary looks terrible.

Agreed to an extent. No way the Packers will make any noise in the playoffs, they will struggle against a playoff caliber team. I would give the #1 team to whoever wins the Dallas/Philly game. Obviously if Philly wins, they have to be the team to beat and I just hope we don't play them in the playoffs because our safeties will do nothing against Jackson.

Vikings do need a new OC or something, we need to do what we did in the 2nd half all game, but next week, I bet we'll start out just like this game and the Panthers game because our playcalling is terrible.

Should be an interesting playoff overall though.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molarmite

Agreed to an extent. No way the Packers will make any noise in the playoffs, they will struggle against a playoff caliber team. I would give the #1 team to whoever wins the Dallas/Philly game. Obviously if Philly wins, they have to be the team to beat and I just hope we don't play them in the playoffs because our safeties will do nothing against Jackson.

Vikings do need a new OC or something, we need to do what we did in the 2nd half all game, but next week, I bet we'll start out just like this game and the Panthers game because our playcalling is terrible.

Should be an interesting playoff overall though.

Cowboys have a decent defense but their offense it one of the most inconsistent in the NFL. They are basically the Eagles Jr when it comes to offense. They either make a big play or they dont score. They havent established the run in a very long time.

I like the exposive Eagles offense but they have been explosive against same bad teams.

Against playoff teams this year the Eagles
New Orleans 22-48
@San Diego 23-31
Dallas 16-20
Denver??? 30-27

Them results dont really strike me as a team destined to win the NFC. Losing 2 home games and beating a borderline playoff team at home by 3.

[Jason Moyer]

I dunno how much weight I'd put on the Saints game since they were playing it without their Quarterback.

[marc]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Cowboys have a decent defense but their offense it one of the most inconsistent in the NFL. They are basically the Eagles Jr when it comes to offense. They either make a big play or they dont score. They havent established the run in a very long time.

I like the exposive Eagles offense but they have been explosive against same bad teams.

Against playoff teams this year the Eagles
New Orleans 22-48
@San Diego 23-31
Dallas 16-20
Denver??? 30-27

Them results dont really strike me as a team destined to win the NFC. Losing 2 home games and beating a borderline playoff team at home by 3.

The Eagles have been without Westbrook for nearly half the season, they didn't have McNabb for a couple of weeks, they have had injuries all over their offensive line and have played nearly a dozen different linebackers. They are just now starting to get even remotely healthy.

Despite that, they are 11-4. I'm biased but that's the last team I'd want to play right now if I'm a fellow NFC playoff qualifier. This is a much improved team from the one that put a beat down on the Vikings last year in the playoffs.

[phightin]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

So the two teams(Eagles and Cowboys) that have a combined 2-4 record against winning teams from other divisions one of which was destroyed by the Saints at home when the games were important. About the only thing the NFC East has proved to me this year is they have no clue how to play defense.

Interesting you're so quick to trash the NFC East where from top to bottom by win loss record they've out performed the NFC North this year. Very interesting indeed. If you can't make the case that the lions and bears are both better than the redskins and giants (which would be idiotic) the only other one you would have would be that the packers and vikings are vastly superior to the eagles and cowboys (again idiotic). So in essence the NFC North is by no means better than the NFC East it's in fact probably slightly worse. pot calling the kettle black eh?

Kind of funny how fast people forget about more meaningful games for less meaningful games. Saints and Vikings and to an extent Cardinals have been on cruise contol for a month or more.

Ummm maybe you can make a case of this for the saints but considering the vikings and cardinals have been playing for home field advantage and have looked flat out terrible at times this past month doesn't make any sense. if your genius theory is right though then the vikings may have just cruised themselves out of a first round bye. interesting and well thought out point.

Its kind of like saying the Yankees are in trouble despite leading the AL East by 20 games in September because they just lost a series to the Royals.

ummm because one series in baseball is equal to an nfl 16 game schedule???? Last time I checked, and im not sure maybe you can look this up for me, there were 16 games in an nfl season so each one met a tremendous amount etc etc etc. In the nfl you're not in trouble because of who you lost to it's more of a fact because you lost in general and each one hurts that much more. and to compare the vikings to the best team in baseball is laughable anyway.

1. Saints
2. Cardinals
3. Vikings
4. Eagles
5. Packers
6. Cowboys

with the Cowboys have very little chance is how Id rate their chances.

Eagles have 0 wins vs top 10 teams this year while the Vikings are 3-0 and the Saints are 3-1.
USATODAY.com

So if the eagles should be looked down because 3 out of their 4 losses were to top 10 teams while the vikings and the other teams in the nfc should be held in a higher regard because????? If anything it looks better that they won all the games they should have and lost to quality teams except for the raiders.

Now if we go by your logic though let's look at who the vikings have lost to so far the steelers, (destroyed) by the cardinals, (destroyed) by the panthers, and beaten by the bears. their losses besides arizona have come against subpar teams so what does that say about them? I'm sure they won't play against better teams in the playoffs than the steelers, cardinals, panthers, and bears though and it looks a lot better than losing to the cowboys, chargers, raiders, and saints you're so right jbergey. Now considering the Eagles beat the bears, destroyed the 49ers who beat the cardinals, and destroyed the panthers what does that say about the vikings? sorry can't have it both ways : laugh:

Now you mention that the eagles have trouble scoring and while their offense is explosive it's inconsistent etc. Other seasons this has held true but not even close this year. Their third in points per game scored (ahead of the vikings i might add) with 28 pts per game. In fact the last time the offense has been this good was the year they went to the super bowl with T.O. . The problem this year has been the inconsistent defense at times so if you want to make that case then maybe you can come back and hold your own but until you do please read up on certain things first before wasting my time.

[jbergey22]

Do you read what other people actually say???

I NEVER said the Eagles have problems scoring points. I actually said they have an explosive offense. They score most of their points via the big play which I dont like against better teams as better teams tend to not allow the big plays near as much.

When did I say the NFC North was better than the NFC East top to bottom??? I said the NFC East doesnt know how to play defense. Check out the scores of some of the games. The top 2 teams in the NFC East are 2-4 against teams from other divisions with winning records the NFC North top 2 teams are 4-4 against teams from other divisions with winning records. Its a very small sample size but its our only way to campare the divisions at this point. The truth of the matter which may hard for you to accept is the Eagles have been beating up on bad teams most of the year. You cant get to the Super Bowl by beating up on bad teams. Competition level gets higher and teams that look great tend to look pretty average.

You said the Packers, Eagles, and Cowboys are the teams to beat in the NFC which makes little to no sense. Saints are 5-1 vs top 10 teams, Vikings are 3-0 vs top 10 teams and Cardinals are 1-1 vs top 10 teams. Eagles are 1-3, Cowboys are 3-1, Packers are 2-2.

Why is that important? Who do you think is in the playoffs? Top 10 teams or teams like the Bears and Panthers? Most teams tend to play their best against higher quality opponents. If a team cant beat top competition what suddenly makes them able to beat top competition now? I guess maybe I am way out of line but Id like the Eagles be able to win a game against a top team to consider them a Super Bowl contender. It's not as if McNabb and Reid have proven to be a successful playoff combination where we can just throw stats out the window.

I can tell you have never played competetive sports as you dont appear to appear to grasp the mental side of it. The Vikings problems started the night they clinched the NFC North. The Saints problems started the same week they all but locked up home field. If you think that is purely random that is your own problem. football is the most emotional game there is and if you arent emotionally into the game you can lose to anyone at the NFL level.

Back to comparing baseball and football. Did I ever compare the Vikings to the best team in baseball? I was talking about the Saints FYI. You need to use common sense to understand the comparison which some people lack. I completely understand. Why would I use that comparison in the first place? I figured it would be easier to get you to understand that some games just arent that important to the team and therefore they dont put in their A effort. Kind of like the Eagles losing to the Raiders. Remember that? It really doesnt mean the team has gotten any worse it just means they played a bad one. Obviously I failed to get that point accross.

And why do you keep comparing everything to the Vikings? I put two teams ahead of the Vikings. Compare the Eagles to the Saints if you want to continue this debate. I'm sure you know about as much about the Vikings as you do the Big Ten so its really a waste of time discussing that with you.

Vikings are great when they are passing the ball they suck when they try to run the ball. I know within 5 minutes of every game whether on how they will play that game. Right now they couldnt beat anyone in the playoffs. If the coach moron decided to give his oversized ego a rest they will be right there at the end.

Just to add you could very well be right that the Eagles are the best team in the NFC but to short change the Saints and Vikings who have been better teams 75 percent of year makes your opinion seem very strange. And to have the Packers and Cowboys in the discussion is yet even stranger yet considering the Cowboys havent even won a playoff game since 1996 and they have been pretty ordinary most of the year while the Packers have one of the worst O lines in the NFL. Rodgers is a great QB but I dont think he can lift the entire offense on his back against top teams. I dont comment much about the Cards because you are pretty much right on with them I just wont dismiss them because they are the defending NFC champs and have shown the ability to play very well again this year.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by marc

The Eagles have been without Westbrook for nearly half the season, they didn't have McNabb for a couple of weeks, they have had injuries all over their offensive line and have played nearly a dozen different linebackers. They are just now starting to get even remotely healthy.

Despite that, they are 11-4. I'm biased but that's the last team I'd want to play right now if I'm a fellow NFC playoff qualifier. This is a much improved team from the one that put a beat down on the Vikings last year in the playoffs.

They are a scary team without a doubt. I guess the biggest problem I have with them is it seems they are too dependent on the big play. I am certain they lead the league in 30+ yard plays. It seems when the big plays aren't working they tend to struggle having longer drives. Westbrook will make a huge difference with this I am sure if he can stay healthy.

I am also basing a lot of this on a few games when I thought they looked real bad without considering as much the games they looked great. The Giants game where it seemed both secondaries forgot to guard anyone is always in my head.

I think there will be some great games. Its going to be tough to beat the Saints at home though.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by phightin

Now if we go by your logic though let's look at who the vikings have lost to so far the steelers, (destroyed) by the cardinals, (destroyed) by the panthers, and beaten by the bears. their losses besides arizona have come against subpar teams so what does that say about them? I'm sure they won't play against better teams in the playoffs than the steelers, cardinals, panthers, and bears though and it looks a lot better than losing to the cowboys, chargers, raiders, and saints you're so right jbergey. Now considering the Eagles beat the bears, destroyed the 49ers who beat the cardinals, and destroyed the panthers what does that say about the vikings? sorry can't have it both ways : laugh:

The defending Super Bowl Champs that CAN still make the playoffs are a subpar team? Maybe you slept through last Sunday but the Panthers kicked the crap out of your NFC East rival the Giants. Since Delhomme went down the Panthers are playing like one of the top teams in the NFL FYI.

Id agree that these losses are all bad in some way or another but is it really much different that the Eagles losing to the Raiders or getting beat by 26 to the Saints at home?

Here are a couple box scores for you to take a look at 4 weeks apart against the same team. One game the Vikings still hadnt clinched the division and one in which they did. Do you think it is possible for a team to get 5 TDs worse and 350 yards worse in a matter of 4 weeks unless there isnt something bigger going on?


http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore...id=20091129016
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20091228003

[marc]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I think there will be some great games. Its going to be tough to beat the Saints at home though.

Definitely. My whole thing with the Eagles has been if they can avoid having to go to Minnesota and New Orleans in back to back weeks, that they have as good of a shot as anybody in the NFC.

Back to back road games in the domes would be pretty impossible IMO.

In a perfect world, they could nab the two seed and New Orleans gets taken out in the second round against a team like Arizona or Dallas (both match-up very well with them IMO).

[phightin]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Do you read what other people actually say???

Yes and I'm able to respond with logic and reason to counter ridiculous comments. I'm glad it angers you though.

I NEVER said the Eagles have problems scoring points. I actually said they have an explosive offense. They score most of their points via the big play which I dont like against better teams as better teams tend to not allow the big plays near as much.

That would depend on the team and the defense they're going up against. The bottom line is points are points no matter how you add it up. You love baseball to football analogies so it's almost like the disproven manufacturing runs is better than hitting homers theory. And FYI against the Vikings secondary right now probably the Saints too I like the Eagles chances of going down field.

When did I say the NFC North was better than the NFC East top to bottom??? I said the NFC East doesnt know how to play defense. Check out the scores of some of the games. The top 2 teams in the NFC East are 2-4 against teams from other divisions with winning records the NFC North top 2 teams are 4-4 against teams from other divisions with winning records. Its a very small sample size but its our only way to campare the divisions at this point. The truth of the matter which may hard for you to accept is the Eagles have been beating up on bad teams most of the year. You cant get to the Super Bowl by beating up on bad teams. Competition level gets higher and teams that look great tend to look pretty average.

First off you're original quote was the ONLY THING the NFC East has proven to me this year is that they don't know how to play defense key word ONLY. I've checked out the scores from the games but you should check out more importantly the wins and losses of the various teams each has played. If you're going to hold the NFC East to such a lower standard than be prepared to be countered on a bs argument.

Secondly, the whole notion of judging such a small sample size and holding the eagles to a lower standard because of winning the games they should have won and losing to good teams makes sense because???? Again, I'll ask you to justify the vikings loses over the eagles, and again you won't be able to because the matter of fact is the vikings losses, besides the cardinals who still are above average at best, are all terrible compared to theirs. They lost to terrible teams and there's no way to justify or work around it, and yes the steelers are terrible. I would rather have a team going into the playoffs that has won all the games they should have then one who has been flat out destroyed by some terrible ones.

And you can't get to the super bowl by only beating up on weak teams during the season?? Ummm I dunno but there was a team last year that went 9-7 in what was probably the weakest division in football. Umm can you tell me if they made the playoffs last year??? Did they end up going to the super bowl I'm not sure. Here's the link though so you can see how ridiculous you look... again... Arizona Cardinals Schedule - NFL Football - ESPN

The cardinals last year actually remind somewhat of the eagles this year in that they won all the games except for a couple they should have won and lost others to good teams. They did pretty well for themselves if I remember correctly.


[QUOTE]You said the Packers, Eagles, and Cowboys are the teams to beat in the NFC which makes little to no sense. Saints are 5-1 vs top 10 teams, Vikings are 3-0 vs top 10 teams and Cardinals are 1-1 vs top 10 teams. Eagles are 1-3, Cowboys are 3-1, Packers are 2-2. [QUOTE]

And the Vikings have lost to teams with a combined win loss total of 31-33 while the saints have lost two weeks in a row, one of which was to a terrible team and the other, oh god forbid prepare yourself for this before you explode with anger jbergey...a team from the NFC East...oh no. And the cardinals I won't even argue cause it would be a waste of time. The Eagles meanwhile have lost to teams with a combined win loss total of 40-20. Meaning 1. not only have the eagles out performed the Vikings and Saint when they had to throughout the season but they have had a tough road along the way and 2. Their schedule was considerably more difficult than the vikings maybe even the saints too although I would have to check on that.

[QUOTE]Why is that important? Who do you think is in the playoffs? Top 10 teams or teams like the Bears and Panthers? Most teams tend to play their best against higher quality opponents. If a team cant beat top competition what suddenly makes them able to beat top competition now? I guess maybe I am way out of line but Id like the Eagles be able to win a game against a top team to consider them a Super Bowl contender. It's not as if McNabb and Reid have proven to be a successful playoff combination where we can just throw stats out the window. [QUOTE]

Throw stats ou the window here's one for you to chew on...Andy Reid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reid's Post season record is an impressive 10-7. While the super bowl has eluded them you can't argue that he and mcnabb have done well in the playoffs. They've never lost a first round game, and besides the Patriots and Steelers there really isn't a team this decade who has had the kind of success on a consistent basis both in the regular post season than the eagles have. Their expected to win a super bowl everytime they make it now because of what they've accomplished on a consistent basis while the vikings need to be able to beat them first as they never do in the playoffs if you're going to talk about post season success. And congrats on having Reid's right hand man as your head coach.

I can tell you have never played competetive sports as you dont appear to appear to grasp the mental side of it.

I won't waste my time again responding to personal insults by explaining my athletic background and what I've accomplished as an athlete and now a coach. I coach collegiately for a living, that's my full time job. I'm not sure what you do or have ever done but I've been to an NCAA Final 4 both as a player and coach if that means anything. Were you one of the high school football/baseball heroes that weren't athletic/talented to continue to play at a higher level? There seems like a lot of anger and vindiction with this comment.

[phightin]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The defending Super Bowl Champs that CAN still make the playoffs are a subpar team? Maybe you slept through last Sunday but the Panthers kicked the crap out of your NFC East rival the Giants. Since Delhomme went down the Panthers are playing like one of the top teams in the NFL FYI.

Id agree that these losses are all bad in some way or another but is it really much different that the Eagles losing to the Raiders or getting beat by 26 to the Saints at home?

Here are a couple box scores for you to take a look at 4 weeks apart against the same team. One game the Vikings still hadnt clinched the division and one in which they did. Do you think it is possible for a team to get 5 TDs worse and 350 yards worse in a matter of 4 weeks unless there isnt something bigger going on?


NFL - Chicago Bears/Minnesota Vikings Box Score Sunday November 29, 2009 - Yahoo! Sports
NFL - Minnesota Vikings/Chicago Bears Box Score Monday December 28, 2009 - Yahoo! Sports

In the nfl things change drastically on a year to year basis it's not baseball or basketball fyi. You're seriously going to make an argument that the steelers are a strong team this year with losses to the bears, chiefs, raiders, and browns???? The only reason they have a shot at the playoffs is because of how much of a down year the AFC is having, and I wouldn't imagine them making much noise if and when they got in. There's no arguing this one any further I'll leave it at that because of how much of a waste it would be.

[jbergey22]

In other words you didnt understand a word of what I said. Discussion over.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by phightin

In the nfl things change drastically on a year to year basis it's not baseball or basketball fyi. You're seriously going to make an argument that the steelers are a strong team this year with losses to the bears, chiefs, raiders, and browns???? The only reason they have a shot at the playoffs is because of how much of a down year the AFC is having, and I wouldn't imagine them making much noise if and when they got in. There's no arguing this one any further I'll leave it at that because of how much of a waste it would be.

The Steelers are 3-1 vs Top 10 teams this year according to the Jeff Sagarin rankings. I speculate that we will be seeing more of the top 10 teams in the playoffs and less of the Bears, Chiefs, Raiders, and Browns in the playoffs. But who cares about actual stats when we can just listen to how smart you are.

[phightin]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The Steelers are 3-1 vs Top 10 teams this year according to the Jeff Sagarin rankings. I speculate that we will be seeing more of the top 10 teams in the playoffs and less of the Bears, Chiefs, Raiders, and Browns in the playoffs. But who cares about actual stats when we can just listen to how smart you are.

I listed actual stats such as all the horrendous teams they lost to, their overall record of 8-7, and how mariginal the afc is this year. I also listed the eagles combined win-loss record of opponents they lost to, reid's playoff record etc etc etc etc etc etc. Ignorance is bliss I guess. And I'm a smartass know it all??? If I'm that then I hate to know what that would make yourself lol. Pot calling the kettle black...again.

I'll tell you what. Since I enjoy coming on the talks sports section but at the end of the day don't really care as it's not the end and all be all of my life, and don't feel the need to troll over people's responses as you love to respond to me , I'll take your bet that the Eagles, Packers, or Cowboys will make it out of the NFC. If you win I'll never come on the talks sports section again like you want, but if I win you don't have to leave or banish yourself you can stay on here, so you have nothing to lose.

[jbergey22]

I called off the bet as I dont mind what you have to say some of the time. Sometimes I think you just say things just to get reactions from people which bother me but i will be able handle it.

You posted negative things in a thread that you knew a lot of Vikings fans would come in and see and you KNEW you would get a reaction.

Its like me going into a Phillies thread and saying they suck. Kind of "trollish" if you ask me.

[Ragnar]

The one thing you can never count on is a gaurantee that a team will go all out for home field advantage. You just can't. I guess the intensity isn't there. So I can see the Saints letting up in the last few games.

The Vikings on the other hand are a different story. There defense hasn't been that good all season. Sure they have had a few good shows on D, but certainly not consistant.

Cowboys and Eagles. The winner wins the division. Since they are actually playing eachother, they'll go all out.

Don't go too much by what teams did weeks ago. Try and focus on the teams playing best at the moment.

My guess is that the Saints will go to the SB. The only thing that can stop them is a team that finds a D and keeps it in the playoffs.

I think Green Bay will lose to either Philly or Dallas if they play them away. Nor do I give the Vikings much of a chance if they are playing away in the playoffs. However at home, you have to respect their chances.

My prediction....Saints/Colts, or Chargers. All this playoffs talk about who's in and not in is just crap. The Colts or the Chargers will represent the AFC. There is an outside shot that the Saints won't get there, but not a big one.