xan

Don't get your panties in a bunch over self-important dweebs who are paid to stir the pot. The only thing to believe is your eyes and the current record. Nothing or anybody else matters.

msudawg1200

They were saying the same about the Steelers this time last year and we know how that turned out.

dbag

You'll be happy to know, folks, that the "Cold, Hard Football Facts Takes Its Medicine Tour" continues Friday afternoon on WWL in New Orleans.

It's been a tough week in the cardboard-box world headquarters:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com...amp;Category=1

But let it never be said that the CHFF don't have the stones to face the music.

SaintPauly

I'm going to post this, because it's just too funny. I even found my letter in there. Crazy.


When trolls attack
Cold, Hard Football Facts for December 14, 2006

Want to make friends all over the country? Insult not one but two teams with the same article, which is what we did last week with our look at the schedules the Saints and Cowboys had faced heading into their Week 14 Sunday night showdown. No article in the brief, shameful history of Cold, Hard Football Facts.com has engendered so much wrath.

At first, we were assaulted in the most colorful terms primarily by Cowboys fans. These trolls snuck back under their bridges when Dallas got hammered by New Orleans. But that prompted Saints fans to come out in full celebratory force, like worms climbing up out of the earth on the first warm day of spring. What follows is a compendium of some of the most entertaining and most colorful responses we've received from people this week.

The Cold, Hard Football Facts will take another beating Friday night when publisher Kerry J. Byrne appears with former Saints running back Hokie Gajan on WWL in New Orleans. Details are mixed below in the Mail Pouch. You'll enjoy looking for it.

This section is rated PG-13.

TO: Kerry Byrne
RE: BOYS/Saints Pretenders.

Nice piece of facts you wrote. You had some very good points. I don't think the ‘Boys are contenders either since they haven't won against quality teams. However you might want to look in the mirror, "Cold Hard Football Facts" is in fact a pretender as well. This site reminds me of XFL. Get a real job at Fox Sports or if you’re really good: ESPN. I'll be waiting to read your articles there. Granted, we all have to start somewhere. – Ryan Gripp

CHFF: That was downright polite, folks. They get much worse.

Kerry Byrne has A BIG STEAMY PILE OF **** FOR BRAINS!!! You might want to do a better job editing the garbage he spews in his articles! – Steve Oullette

CHFF: That’s more like it.

Your theory about the Saints and Cowboys being overrated based on lack of "quality opponents" is flawed and makes no sense. You state that every other team has faced at least three "quality opponents." Ironically, anyone who has played the Saints or Cowboys has a "quality opponent" on their schedule - how do you explain that? – Michael Estes

CHFF: Do we really have to explain that part?

Re: Quality Opponents

Dear Mr. Byrne, Are you retarded? Sincerely – Andrew S. Michaelson, Maplewood, NJ

CHFF: We prefer to call him “handi-capable.�

As a Saints fan who heard you on the Jerry V. show this week, I said at the time that your process to rate teams was flawed. Today and especially tonight proved it. The Saints, according to you, were 0-2 against quality teams and were still the “’Aints.� After today all of a sudden they are now 4-2 against "quality teams" because Atlanta and Philadelphia won and now are "quality teams" since they have winning records. Quality teams don't appear and disappear in a matter of one game. Not to mention the ass whipping that the Saints just put on the great, awesome, incredible Dallas Cowgirls. Your process can be used at the end of the season but not during the season. This is a much nicer post than I really wanted to tell you. GO SAINTS!!!!! – Brad Prendergast

CHFF: It was an unusual situation. The Saints had three wins over Atlanta (twice) and Philly. Both were 6-6 heading into the week. Both won, so the Saints instantly got three quality wins, plus their victory over Dallas. There’s a good chance that Atlanta and/or Philly could finish at .500. So, at the end of the season, those may not count as quality wins. But you gotta draw the line somewhere when defining a quality opponent. We define it as a team with a winning record. It’s a pretty solid definition.

The Saints aren't pretending to be anything anymore. We are, for the first time since 1967, a football TEAM. Yes, we the fans are having a great time. Please allow us that. – Buckie

CHFF: Thanks for the note. Loved your work on American Idol.

Tell Kerry Byrne to eat his words. The Saints are coming, the Saints are coming! WHO DAT?!!!! Eat that, Kerry. What are you, a bitter Panthers fan?? You should be ashamed of yourself! Just look at that game last night!! Eat it. – Katharine Boylan

CHFF: He’s eaten worse, and has the body to prove it.

Please contact me for an on-air interview about the recent article on your web site claiming the Saints have not yet beaten a team with a winning record. – Kristian Garic, producer, WWL Radio, New Orleans

CHFF: We’ll be on WWL Friday (Dec. 15) at 6:30 p.m. (ET) with Garic, Bob Mitchell and former Saints star Hokie Gajan. Should be colorful radio, to say the least.

Hey does this mean that San Diego's 10 wins against teams with a combined record of 47-73 makes them a pretender? Or the fact that NE & Baltimore's nine wins don't get much better at 50-58 combined records for the teams they beat( in the “dominant� AFC)? Or that the Colts 10 wins are against 60-60 combined record teams (and they lost to the Cowboys)???? How is a 7-5 team a "quality team" with four games left, when some/all of them could still end up with 7-9 records at the end of the season making them bunk like your article. Please enlighten us all with what teams are not pretenders when writing an article about the ones that are? – Big Fan Chris Miner

CHFF: The numbers are what the numbers are. We don’t massage them. We just report what they tell us. If people don’t like it, well … tough ****.

Cold Hard Fact: Your website sucks!!! So much for Saints being the Aints!!! Quality wins, huh!!! – Michael Estes

CHFF: Our website also blows. It’s a Christmas miracle!

With all due respect, you sound like a whining petulant college student who feels his team got ripped in the BCS poll. Go cry somewhere else. Neither team has made a claim that required your angst. I've sent to the address of CHFF.com, a PISS REMOVER to fix your cereal. Sincerely – Brad Dickey

CHFF: Nice, a piss remover. We can cross that off our Christmas wish list.

Your system is flawed. Strength of opponent should be based on the opponent record at the time of the game, not 3 weeks or so later. Also, your system is flawed because If team A is (3-0) and plays team B (2-1), the only team that can get a Quality win is Team B. If team A wins, B is now 2-2 and no longer Quality. But if B wins, team A is suddenly 3-1 and B gets a Quality mark for it. Same thing happens with 3-2, 4-3, 5-4, 6-5, 7-6. Just so you know... – Mike Watson

CHFF: No, a system that's based on the record at the time of the game is flawed. If a team’s 3-0 and you beat them, and they go on to lose every other game, it tells us they weren’t very good to begin with.

How does one interpret saying Cowboys and Saints are not Super Bowl contenders but have them ranked highly in the Dominant Dozen? – Jonathan Kwoh

CHFF: They’re behind several more likely Super Bowl contenders.

In response to your recent article "The Great Pretenders," your methodology for determining quality opponents is pretty absurd. The Cowboys have beaten two teams (the Panthers and Giants) who are currently 6-6 overall. Those teams aren't above .500, and therefore, aren't quality opponents by your definition, BECAUSE the Cowboys beat them. If Dallas had lost both of those games, you'd say they'd played 4 quality teams. It's ridiculous to count a team's own wins against them when calculating a measure of strength-of-schedule. It's much more reasonable to factor out a team's own results when determining their quality opponents, like virtually everybody else does. That way, you're not punishing a team for winning or rewarding a team for losing. – Dan Thaler, Comstock Park, MI

CHFF: How do you explain the other five losses each team suffered?

Regarding the Saints, obviously Kerry Byrne doesn't know what he's talking about. Must be some kind of homo who never played a game in is life. – Marc Q

CHFF: Oh, you’ve met him.

Are you kidding me about the Cowboys being only 1-1 against "quality" opponents? Carolina was 4-3 when they got whooped by the Boys. The Giants were 6-5 when their season was taken away from them by Dallas last week. Get your damn facts straight, dip ****s. – Wade Brown

While it is true that Dallas has played as of right now 2 quality opponents going 1-1, you are missing another point. After the Saints game this week adds another quality opponent to their list, the Giants and Panthers who are both 6-6 are playing each other. Since Dallas beat the Panthers and split 2 games with the Giants, whichever team wins that game will add to the Dallas total as well. If it's the Giants that win, then Dallas assuming they beat the Saints will then have a record of 3-2 against quality opponents. – Mark Rosenthal

Kerry Byrne, here are some facts for you. New Orleans is lucky to even have an NFL team. The Saints won three games last year and the city was destroyed by Katrina. The fact that the Saints won't win the Super Bowl is hardly anything to cry about. That the Saints won nine games and that is unreal. I don’t care if they beat blind teams. So you can kiss our happy asses down here. – Paul LaNoue

To Mr. Kerry Byrne: I remember a few teams winning the Super Bowl that had what you would term as a "cupcake" schedule, in the history of the NFL. This isn't college ball, this is the NFL. The BCS computer system has already wrecked quite a few title games in the past few years, so your analysis doesn't hold water with me at all. This is the Pro Football league. Last time I checked, there is no NFL Master's Degree program anywhere, so to assume the role of a football expert, is pretty much as arrogant as one person can be.

The amazing thing to me I guess, is that you get paid to do this, which tells me that snake oil salesmen are alive and well in 2006. I have an idea that will save your journalistic integrity, if you ever had any to begin with: Let the teams play the game, and then write about it, after it's over. Anything you do before that is nothing more than what I can hear down at the barber shop, on Friday morning.

I will keep this article you wrote on hand, so when the Super Bowl is over, I will write you back, and wait to read what you have to say then. I'm sure it will be more of an excuse piece for yourself, than an intellectual piece of sports journalism. Thank you for your time. – Hard Reality

CHFF: Kerry got fired from his job as a snake oil salesman. That’s how he ended up with this ****ty gig.

Friends, football fans, Romans, countrymen, Lend me your ears. I come not to praise the Saints but to, sort of, defend the Cowboys. That 1-1 vs. quality opponents includes a loss during the Bledsoe era. Yes, they are untested. So were the 1972 Dolphins at this point. There is a difference between untested and failed (or fraudulent). – William Berry

What easy schedule? It's not like The Boys played the Jets you know. What I can't figure out is how the Jets have a winning record, forget about the Dallas question. – Pops

Now that the Saints have the most quality wins in the NFC, does that make them contenders to win the Super Bowl? Don't mean to rag on your theory but it's pretty weak that an article written last week calls out the Saints record and your very same formula a week later suggests they're the best team in the conference. – Jeff Asher

Pretenders? Here’s why your article has no merit: 1) The NFC has only four teams with winning records; 2) four teams the Cowboys played and beat are 6-6, all could be 7-6 come Sunday. Now the Cowboys have a 5-2 vs "Quality wins" as you put it?; 3) Next week your contenders are pretenders and the pretenders are contenders??? Not consistent enough to even care about. Point is, this changes from week to week in HUGE margins and to use this to identify who the better teams are is just well ... stupid. – Tony Welch

CHFF: So the No. 1 reason this article has no merit is because most of the teams in the NFC suck?

Stats are for Fantasy Dorks that can't tell the difference between numbers and reality. Stats tell me one thing - there are idiots out there writing all that crap down so they can justify their meaningless life with silly prognostications like yours. Watch how wrong you become in eight weeks then look for a career as a weather forecaster where mediocrity is the norm and 50/50 is right on the nose. Do it before your ass wrecks another Lazy Boy. – Roth Towers

CHFF: So you’ve seen our furniture?

I suggest that you make an adjustment to the way your power rankings are computed. If you’re going to reward teams for quality wins, then you should also penalize teams for non-quality losses (losses to teams with below .500 records). I don’t like the word non-quality though, so I suggest that these kinds of losses be called "odious" losses. However, there are a bunch of synonyms from which to choose, here are some:

abominable, amiss, atrocious, awful, bad news*, beastly, blah*, bottom out, bummer*, careless, cheap, cheesy*, crappy*, cruddy*, crummy*, defective, deficient, diddly*, dissatisfactory, downer*, dreadful, erroneous, fallacious, faulty, garbage, god-awful, gross*, grungy*, icky*, imperfect, inadequate, incorrect, inferior, junky*, lousy*, not good, off, poor, raunchy*, rough, sad, scuzzy, sleazeball, sleazy, slipshod, stinking, substandard, synthetic, the pits*, unacceptable, unsatisfactory, abhorrent, abject, abominable, bad, base, beggarly, cheap, currish, degenerate, despicable, despisable, detestable, dirty, disgusting, fink, hateful, heel, ignoble, ignominious, inferior, low, low-down*, lowest, mean, odious, outcast, paltry, pitiable, pitiful, poor, rat, sad, scummy*, scurvy*, shabby, shameful, sordid, sorry*, swinish, unworthy, vile, worthless, wretched

I enjoy your site very much. Keep up the good work. – TipRoast

CHFF: For a second there, we thought you were describing us. But apparently you like us. You really, really like us.

You really should not let writers like Kerry Byrne represent you publication if you expect to gain any amount of respect. I guess there is a reason I have never heard of your site. Kerry is a complete idiot. His article is unsupported by any facts of credit and is a disgrace to professional journalism. Keep it up please, so I never have to worry about him or anyone else affiliated with this site getting a job with a respectable publication. – John Alford

CHFF: Ahh, our fans. That's more like it.

SapperSaint

Jesus Christ, post an address next time. my eyes hurt. good stuff though.