Well I find them encouraging, but they don't count much for emotion, or turf, or location, or enthusiasm. But I don't think the Saints' are short on that either, so...I feel pretty good about it.

I just hope they've been practicing on turf a bit, doing some running, getting those cleat sizes just right, etc....like I suggested in another forum, after that Steelers game, they might want to take some lights and a generator, but then I don't remember, the game might be in the daytime anyway.

I feel like a lot of the commentary has been discounting the Saints' running game too. I think it's pretty damn good myself. Personally I like Ivory as much as Ingram, and Arrington is stepping in for Moore, and he's good too.

Wow! That's a slam-dunk ... I can't even come up with an argument for argument's sake ... stats don't lie.

1 minute into video LOL

NBA Players, Owners Fail To Reach Agreement Where They Would Beat Each Other With Chains | The Onion Sports Network

Thanks.

Good stuff Mike. Lot of research.

Here is the link:

http://blackandgold.com/blogs/mike27...-no-gb-sf.html

I actually compared the wins of opponents, and found GB had the hardest, SF the next hardest, and the Saints' third, with 117, 115, and 113 wins, so that's pretty much statistically insignificant.

I did some same-opponents comparisons on a blog--I'm sure they are not totally significant, but it's worth a look-see, and I felt like the Saints' might have come out, for the most part, with a slight plus and form advantages. Check it out if you like.

Kind of double-posted--how do I delete one of them, or is done, done?

Good game break down, Slomo.

Great post SF. Pleasure to read. Keep it coming.

I'm not much of a religionist, and I really don't care for his basic theft of the pose, sans seat, of the sculpture "The Thinker." (google it)

The irritating thing with religion is, you never get any credit for your hard work, or effort, yet if things go bad, you get all the blame. So, where is the self-esteem in that? To play in the NFL, or do anything successfully, you've got to have self-esteem, and you've got to accept that when good things happen you should get the credit, and when bad things happen, usually they are somewhat your fault, though certainly exceptions occur both ways.

I do like the way he'll run the ball once and a while. I think that makes the game more interesting, though I certainly understand why quarterbacks don't.

Like the SNL skit said, with Brady and the Patriots, I think Jesus is going to say "You're on your own!" Not only is his ride over, at least for this year, but I think there is going to be some substantial running up of the score.

Plus I find proselytizing of religion really, really irritating. If you want to believe, fine. Don't spew that stuff all over the place, keep it in the closet as the bible directs, or one might think you hope to glean some sort of advantage with your holy-roller antics.

Tim Tebow is what you would call an 'enigma', a puzzling or inexplicable occurrence or situation. He's the worst QB in the league, but he's pure money when the game is on the line. Can't do anything but win. My prediction? In the off-season, John Fox contacts Urban Meyer for his Florida playbook and Denver scraps their offense so Tebow can run the Florida offense for the Broncos. Bet.

After doubting Tebow since his college days, I begrudgingly give him his props, you gotta' love a scrapper. :SloMotion does the 'Tebow' pose:

go Lions.

Blessed are you when men curse and revile and say all manner of
evil against you, falsely... (because you are Mine?)

He's the GW Bush of football.
I love him.

great read, SF.

I'm a non-believer but I do like Tebow for the work ethic reasons. Kind of like Doug Flutie he is a total underdog, one that is fun to watch and keep tabs on even if you're not necessarily a fan.

And boo to Mike Tomlin. He should know by now ... NO ONE can escape overtime a victor against Tim Tebow. You go for two to win the game in regulation if there is any chance for overtime. Tebow will win coin flip and will win the game, and just watch because he will do it again. (Half-kidding here)

I hated Tebow as a collegiate player and I hate him as a quarterback. But for some strange reason, I can't help but root for Timmy Tebags.

Yea, I kind of thought that was the case with the attempt at the fourth down early--but it made sense when the Saints' did it, with Detroit scoring almost at will. Early in the game, well, it just didn't cut it. Kick the field goal, and who knows. Three points is three points early.

I noticed something about Eli--he plays a whole lot better once he gets pissed off, after that sack.

I just think they peaked early, and have been on the decline for a while, and had a bit of that "we aren't quite good enough," despair.

I guess it's old news. Steelers were like the Saints' last year, just too damn beaten up to compete.

OK, first I'd like to say it looks like you couldn't get a piece of paper to slide between the abilities of the teams. That said, the same oddness occurs with teams with losing records, or fairly inconsequential teams with GB.

Head to head, remember the first game, Saints' lose 42-34. I never took that one hard, as Green Bay was of course last years' superbowl champs, and the Saints' were on the half-yard line, a touchdown and a two point conversion from tying. That game, like much of what is to follow here, just showed a nearly identical strength. Green Bay just happened to get a bit of an advantage from an early mistake, a fumble, and managed to be a bit ahead at the end. The Saints outplayed them for almost the rest of the game.

Chicago was beaten 27-17 and 35-21 by GB, and the Saints' beat them 30-13, maybe slightly favoring our team.

Carolina was beaten 30-23 by GB, and the Saints' two divisional games were 30-27, and 45-17, edge goes to N.O. I think on that one, especially since the last game represents the current strength.

Atlanta lost to Green Bay 25-14, and the Saints beat Atlanta 26-23 away, and 45-16 at home. I think Atlanta was on the wane already in the second game, and the Saints' were just getting stronger. So this one is somewhere between a toss-up and a slight favoring of the Saints'.

Minnesota, an inconsequential team, that the Saints' nearly always do poorly with (still not sure why, but I know there is a reason), lost to the Saints 42-20. Green Bay beat them twice, 33-27, and 45-7 later. Got to give this one to Green Bay. I wish the Saints' could address their weak-team problem, but maybe it's just a try not to get injured strategy, or practice less and try to recover, or I don't really need to win this one.

Tampa lost to Green Bay 35-26, and the Saints split 20-26, and 27-16 later at home. Is it turf? I hope they get some practice time in on grass, hopefully trying to simulate San Francisco. Maybe they should bring some lights with them, or generators after the SF, Steelers game.

Detroit, both played two games, both won two games, GB 27-15 and 45-41, and N.O. 31-17 and 45-28. That's 72-56 and 76-45, so this one goes to the Saints', tho GB was using a second string quarterback, New Orleans clearly would have likely scored yet another touchdown, and run it up to 52-28, which I sort of wanted them to do, but I guess it made sense to be nice.

(whew, lots of common games) The New York Giants, a very inconsistent, skitzoid team, Green Bay 38-35, the Saints' 49-24--got to give this one to the Saints' for a couple of reasons, the drubbing in the score, which also could've been run up if I remember. And the Giants, maybe playing Green Bay again, with their strong, hard hitting defense may ding them up a bit more.

So, if Colston or some other receiver doesn't gift them a lead with a fumble early, or Brees doesn't throw an interception early, I think the Saints' have every possible chance to beat Green Bay, even at home. And even if it's windy and snowy, I'd have to give our runners the advantage in inclement weather, so we're healthy. Maybe they should not only practice on turf, but in a cold, cold place. Winter may not have completely arrived yet, but by the Super Bowl it might just get here.

OK, call me wrong on that one. Teams SF played won 115 games, teams GB played won 117 games, and teams our Saints' played won 113, so...pretty much statistically even.

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.

I expected a shootout to be honest. I didn't expect ATLANTA to win, but I thought JULIO JONES, RODDY WHITE and TURNER to do their usual damage and have at least a decent game. MAYBE SMITH SAW WHAT THE SAINTS DID AND TRIED TO COPY THE AGGRESSIVE SCHEME. I don't know.

I think you mean "who's that," joker-saint. (who is)

Yea, you really hit on something, which is WEAK SCHEDULE at the 49ers. Actually, that might be a better tiebreak than the conference record, just add up all the wins of the opponents. Give me some time and I might just do that myself.