Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 8)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
results are results, and thats all that matters for these rankings.

[/ QUOTE ]

If results are results then why were you saying they were decent when they were 0-4? At least be consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
this was AFTER they beat seattle.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 8)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
results are results, and thats all that matters for these rankings.

[/ QUOTE ]

If results are results then why were you saying they were decent when they were 0-4? At least be consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
this was AFTER they beat seattle.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you were saying they should be middle of the pack when they were 1-4?

Funny how 2-3 weeks ago you said you weren't sold on the Patriots because they hadn't played anybody good.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 8)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
results are results, and thats all that matters for these rankings.

[/ QUOTE ]

If results are results then why were you saying they were decent when they were 0-4? At least be consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
this was AFTER they beat seattle.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you were saying they should be middle of the pack when they were 1-4?

Funny how 2-3 weeks ago you said you weren't sold on the Patriots because they hadn't played anybody good.

[/ QUOTE ]
so i guess i'm 1-1 then

EDIT and you were the one who said what the patriots were doing at the end of games was completely standard, i guess that makes me 2-1. and saying i am not sold on a team doesn't mean i think they suck.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 8)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
results are results, and thats all that matters for these rankings.

[/ QUOTE ]

If results are results then why were you saying they were decent when they were 0-4? At least be consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
this was AFTER they beat seattle.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...but according to you it doesn't matter who they beat, so we can't give them extra credit for beating a good Seattle team on the road. Their results were 1-4 so they should've been ranked right next to Atlanta.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 8)
 

You should be at the bottom of the rankings.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 8)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
results are results, and thats all that matters for these rankings.

[/ QUOTE ]

If results are results then why were you saying they were decent when they were 0-4? At least be consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
this was AFTER they beat seattle.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...but according to you it doesn't matter who they beat, so we can't give them extra credit for beating a good Seattle team on the road. Their results were 1-4 so they should've been ranked right next to Atlanta.

[/ QUOTE ]
but these are projective rankings. i looked at new orleans absurdly easy schedule, saw that they were finally playing up to their potential (they were not a bad team), and projected them to finish somewhere in the middle of the pack, maybe even catching carolina to finish 2nd in the division. so far its looking like thats going to happen.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 8)
 

They were finally playing up to their potential because of one game after getting shellacked in their first 3 games and then losing at home to a divisional foe?

yeah, I can see where you thought they'd be middle of the pack.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 8)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure Childress has 4 bad challanges in 2 weeks now.

[/ QUOTE ]

What were the ones last week? I didn't see the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know he challenged a 2nd and goal, 1 yard TD run that looked like a TD on TV, but I can't remember another one now.

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly it feels like he gets EVERY DECISON wrong, the entire game

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel this way too. He does do some things I like, but he overshadows them by doing so many things that just seem terribly wrong. I'm hoping the Vikings can be the next team to steal a Pats coordinator, specifically Josh McDaniels.

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 8)
 

[ QUOTE ]
They were finally playing up to their potential because of one game after getting shellacked in their first 3 games and then losing at home to a divisional foe?

yeah, I can see where you thought they'd be middle of the pack.

[/ QUOTE ]
the difference is i actually watched the games. you'd have no clue what i'm talking about. what matters is i was right, unless you somehow think the saints are still a bottom of the nfc team? maybe the giants too because they sucked up their first two games?

Re: PokerFink\'s 2007 NFC Rankings (Week 8)
 

[ QUOTE ]
the difference is i actually watched the games. you'd have no clue what i'm talking about. what matters is i was right, unless you somehow think the saints are still a bottom of the nfc team? maybe the giants too because they sucked up their first two games?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the Saints are better than the Falcons, Rams, 49ers for sure. They are probably better than the Bears and Vikings. After that, I would take any NFC team over them on a neutral field.

And no, you're not "right" yet, because the season isn't over. You don't get to decide after a soft spot in the schedule that your end of the year projections hit the nail on the head. And even if you are, which I think is possible because I can definitely see them finishing 8-8 or so, they played horrific football the first 3 weeks of the season. There had been nothing to suggest that they'd magically turn it around, with the exception of one game.