![]() |
Quote:
Listen, I understand the difference in the success other teams have had. There are teams below us in wins that have had much more meaningful runs. (The Vikes,Giants,Panthers,Falcons.) I GET THAT. NOBODY HAS TO TELL ME THAT WE AREN'T BETTER THAN THESE TEAMS. I WOULD RATHER HAVE BEEN A FAN OF THEM OVER THE PERIOD IN QUESTION THAN A FRUSTRATED FAN OF THE SAINTS. THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE POST. I am a sports stats guy and stats often don't tell the whole story, as we all know. I love the numbers. I majored in stats and I have simulated hundreds of seasons just for the numbers. I am a geek like that. This statement echoes what you said whodat: Quote:
|
Quote:
In order to be great, you must risk everything, and frankly you must fail. Anyone who has ever succeeded at anything knows that failure is a part of success. In high school in LA, I ran track and cross country. Twice I was a State Runner-up. Twice I won State. I must have lost 50 races in two years. I'll take losing 50 for 1 state championship anytime. The same applies here. In order to be great you have to risk it all, and sometimes that means failure. Give me 4-12 followed by 12-4 over persistent mediocrity. There is nothing worse, IMO, than being mired in a standing without any ability to improve. Even the Bengals and Cardinals and Lions have shown improvement and have reason for hope and improvement. I'm not saying that the Saints harbor no hope, but I am saying they are stuck in about the worst position possible - one where they are willing to risk nothing (by making big changes to the players or coaches), and therefore I fear that they will gain nothing either. |
And THAT is the whole bloddy point.
Until we get rid of our "winless" tag; everyone else thinks we are a joke. Just one Super Bowl would do it; perhaps even a Conference Championship. In all sports, very few remember #2, and lower. Remember the Pats 10 years ago? |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 PM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com