http://blackandgold.com/blogs/mike27/ en Wed, 22 May 2013 11:13:01 GMT vBulletin 1 http://blackandgold.com/bngforum/misc/rss.jpg http://blackandgold.com/blogs/mike27/ http://blackandgold.com/blogs/mike27/288-some-interesting-me-stats-no-gb-sf.html Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:01:47 GMT Teams SF played won 115 games, teams GB played won 117 games, and teams our Saints' played won 113, so the schedules are pretty much statistically even in strength.

Interesting weirdness on same teams played. It plays to the Saints' doing poorly against teams with really bad records, for some reason, less practice perhaps, don't have to win? Whatever.

Anyway, San Francisco beat Tampa 48-3, the Saints' lost 26-20, in their first meeting, playing as if drugged, and won 27-16 in their second.

Saints lost to St. Louis 31-21, another hapless contest, while SF won twice, 26-0, and later 34-27--did SF get worse, or St. Louis get better? You decide.

Games that mattered--Detroit, SF won 25-19, and the Saints' won with 31-17 first, then 45-28 which would've easily been 52-28 without the kindness of taking three knees, and ending the game mercifully. Plus, the late Detroit game shows much improvement, against a stronger, more healthy Detroit team.

Finally, SF beat the Giants 27-20, and the Saints smoked them 49-24, and if I remember correctly, they could've probably run that score up a bit too.

I tend to dismiss the teams that aren't doing well, as for whatever reason, perhaps they just rest a bit during weeks where they play teams they feel are inconsequential. But against the better teams, the Saints' did better, and they made a run at the end that looks better than SF did, who appears to be closer to where the Saints' were during their sag-period, losing to Tampa and the Rams.

Working on GB, v. Saints' comparison of same opponents played now. ]]> mike27 http://blackandgold.com/blogs/mike27/288-some-interesting-me-stats-no-gb-sf.html http://blackandgold.com/blogs/mike27/287-atlanta-steelers.html Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:41:10 GMT I didn't bet on either, nor do I bet anymore, but yesterday reminded me of when I used to place a wager once and a while. I liked Atlanta and the Steelers', so...

But seriously, the Steelers' kind of had the feel of the Saints' loss at Seattle last year--they were just beaten down, and injured, limping along. But Atlanta--WTF was that? Seriously?

I'm beginning to think they peaked out during the Saints' first game, when they barely lost 26-23. Maybe they just felt like "why bother." "Why lose again to the Saints', and what chance is there to beat Green Bay, even if we win against the Giants'?

But didn't the Giants' barely lose to Green Bay by 3 points a few weeks ago? They are such a skitzy team, from somewhere near awful to nearly good one week to the next. I don't know, but maybe if the Saints' do beat San Francisco, and I think they will, perhaps the Giants' will do a better job of beating down Green Bay, and tenderizing them for the Saints' contest.

Good luck Saints' and make sure and get some turfy practice outside. Does anyone know if teams do that, do they actually practice on grass, when they know they are going to be playing on grass, or practice in cold and windy temperatures, when they know they are going to encounter wind and cold? Even so, if Brees has a breeze, I feel like our runners can do the job if necessary, they are a great bunch. I frequently feel like they are underutilized.

Well I hope they win, I feel like they can win. And even though we can all count on 60 minutes, which we all really felt during that game with the Lions', it makes all the difference when they get out of the box without a penalty, a fumble, or interception. Nothing like getting a quick TD to bolster their success. Good luck fellow fans--we're now reaping the results we've been watching for 40 or so years to harvest, and I for one am really, really enjoying it!! ]]> mike27 http://blackandgold.com/blogs/mike27/287-atlanta-steelers.html