Originally Posted by 2slik4u
New England - lost to Arizona, barely beat buffalo 37-31, barely beat miami 23-16
San Francisco - WIDELY CONSIDERED THE BEST IN THE NFC - lost to Minnesota, lost to St. Louis, TIED St. Louis
Broncos - lost to 3 playoff teams (Houston, Atlanta, and NE)
Ravens - lost to Philly, lost to Washington, got smoked by us, barely beat Kansas City 9-6, barely beat San Diego 13-10 in OT
Green Bay - lost to INDY, got emabarassed by NYG 38-10
Atlanta - lost to Carolina, barely beat Arizona 23-19, barely beat Carolina 30-28 ***Id also like to point out that Atlanta has the easiest schedule in the NFL based on opponents winning %***
This is a prime example of missing the point.
Did you watch all of those games? Do you know how or why those teams lost?
Did you have a bad team stepping up and playing big...
Did you have some fluke plays?
Did the better team come out and play bad?
Were there singular individuals that failed to make plays thus causing the loss?
The point is that despite our record, this team overall has shown some major warts.
I'm happy we are 12-2. I'm not happy with the way we've been playing when it pertains to our superbowl aspirations.
Why is it so hard to distinguish the two?
You can get a win playing lime shyt. Just as long as the other team is worse.
Conversely, you can get a loss playing really well overall. Just as long as the other team is playing at an even higher level.
If someone can't understand that simple concept, then I don't know what to say to you.
If the texans are going to win a superbowl they are going to have to play better than they have been. Offensively and defensively. I don't give a fucc what their record is. They need to play better.
If they go into the play offs playing like they have been, they'll get beat and maybe embarrassed again.
It's really that simple.