Interesting/Frustrating Stat
 

With everyone either out of town or under water....I crunched some numbers. (By the way, all the best to everybody's friends and family...I hope you're all doing well.)

Basically, I get tired of listening to people reference the Saints as if they are one of the worst teams in the league. Even though we are consistently mediocre :) , we are referred to as if we are the worst team in the NFC.

So...I wanted to see how the total wins panned out in the Haz era (also the new millineum) vs. the rest of the NFC.

Here it is:

1st place: Philly(59 wins). No surprise here. Good organization, good personnel. Top notch franchise.

2nd place: Packers(53 wins). Favre has caught hell lately...and deservedly so. But the fact remains that this team wins every year...and then sux in the playoffs.

3rd place: Rams(51 wins). No really bad years and a couple of really good ones. We own them...but they got a ring and an NFC championship while we got poop. Video game coaching.....great talent....but they win consistently.

4th place: Bucs(43 wins). Really just came to earth over the last 2 years. Before that, they were like the Eagles...great every year, but can't win the big one. Well run org under McCay. Amazing defense. Typical that we took em down twice the year they won it all.

5th place: Saints(42 wins). That's right. If you look at the overall numbers, we are the fifth most successful NFC franchise of the new millenium. Consistent play around 500, while teams like the vikes, panthers,giants, and falcons have layed some eggs and haven't won as many ballgames over five years.

Not saying that we rule or anything. Just thought the numbers were interesting. This coach that drives us all crazy has posted the fifth best record in the NFC over his tenure (out of 16 teams).

If I told you these stats in a vacuum, you would think we were happy fans with a team to be proud of. But....in reality, we're frustrated and tired of underachieving, :bang2:

RE: Interesting/Frustrating Stat
 

That is pretty wild. It's so contradictory. As inconsistant as our play is on field, it is actually consistant. We, lately, have always seemed to finish around .500. Other teams have a mix of medicore, bad, and good years. Other NFL teams are the inconsistant ones. That fact alone is incredible.

RE: Interesting/Frustrating Stat
 

I'm not sure how this is relevant. So that means we consistently play the best or the worst? All the other teams on that list have one thing in common - SIGNIFICANT playoff appearances.

Philly and the Bucs have been in the Super Bowl. The Rams and Pack have each been to the Playoffs multiple times and won games in that same time period. All this means to me is that the criticism is dead on. The Saints are far too talented to be this CONSISTENTLY unsuccessful.

It also means while Atlanta gets to draft Michael vicks every other year, and Ginats get Eli Mannings, we don't. We are always just outside of the elite players in the draft due to out mediocrity. No thanks. Give me an up swing or a down swing here and there. Would tou rather make the playoffs every other year for 6 years, or make the playoffs once in 6 years but be mediocre?

I think the point here is that the team doesn't completly suck.

I think the counterpoint here is that's a matter of opinion. Not making the playoffs for 4 straight years definitely counts as sucking in my book. We are in such elite company as Detroit, and Arizona, and Cincinnati. Hell even the new Browns have made the playoffs once.

Believe me I want to become apart of the playoff elite more than anything but averageing 3-13, 1-15, 2-14, those were just horrible years and even finishing with those records still didn't get the Saints in the Playoffs.

Maybe not, but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about mediocrity verses being up and down. I am saying I would rather be up and down than be mediocre. Noone wants to be consistentently down.

this was the quote I am talking about. How many times have these teams been in the playoofs recently as opposed to us? NFC champ game? Etc.

Like I said whodi, I'm not saying we're awesome for these numbers.

But when you talk about good drafts....those aren't a given for producing winners either. (See the browns, bengals, cardinals.) And look at our high draft pick...Sully. (Fingers crossed...hoping for the best.)

Teams like the Eagles/Pats/Packers/Steelers/Ravens prove that it is possible to be good every year and still have productive offseasons. The Saints drafts seem to be getting better, but we still can't get a linebacker.

Getting better in the offseason is more about having a good GM than it is a bad record. Our GM (as you know) is a cap guy and nothing more.

I see your point. If you're going to underachieve, might as well get something for it. But, I think we got a football player in the middle of the 1st and I think it's possible to build a winner through smart FA and mid to late 1st rounders.

My main point is that the perception of our team is still that of a loser even though we are one of the winningest NFC teams over 5 years. Couple that with the fact that we would be a perennial playoff team with ONE more win in each of the last few years and it really shows you how bad throwaway games against the Bengals, Browns, Cards, etc have hurt this franchise's rep.

They aren't a given for producing losers either. See Colts, Chargers, Falcons, Bengals. But I get your point.

Agreed.

Would be, doesn't change perception. We can only go by what we have done. and what we have done is play .500 ball and not make the playoffs for 4 staright years. That, for now, makes us losers IMO.