The Man that will not change

[boohyah]

That isn't what you said. You said we had no business being there. Winning enough games to make it to the playoffs, then winning games in the playoffs to make it to the Super Bowl = deserving of the NFC bid.

 

We trounced a superior Vikings team....didn't mean they had no business being in the NFC championship game, either....

 

 

I agree with what you're saying, except for the part you mention for the 2nd time "a superior Vikings team". Nothing indicates they were superior except pundits views

[Storm]

I agree with what you're saying, except for the part you mention for the 2nd time "a superior Vikings team". Nothing indicates they were superior except pundits views

 

I dunno man, that offense was lights out the entire year except for our game against them...be it good game planning or the fact we made a few big plays early and quickly overwhelmed them, I dunno....but on paper, offensively and defensively, they were a better team....at least IMO...

[boohyah]

If you guys want to delude yourselves into thinking that 2000 team was better than a pre-injury Warner and the St. Louis Rams, rather than us getting some serious breaks, that's your choice.

 

Fish, using that logic, we got a much bigger break winning the superbowl 3 years ago. But you won't hear anyone say that here unless your handle ends with an "egg" or a "gain" or a "dog". As far as everyone here is concerned that win was fully deserved no questions asked.

 

We won the division, the NFC championship (one of the most convincing trouncings ever). You're talking about the Rams, but the Vikings were supposed to run us over. We had some great players on that team and until we hit that Ravens juggernaut, that was a great run.

 

I'm of the opinion, perhaps others don't share it, that we're a little spoiled. We've got a good record in superbowls, it's hard to win 3. I think it makes it easy for people to look down on that effort, and that honestly annoys me. And it was an effort Fish, because halfway through that season we looked like this years team at the end. Fassel gets a lot of shit, but he turned that team around. I don't mean any disrespect to you on this, because I know full well you sat through a lot of shit with this team a lot earlier than I came on board in 84-85, and I've had a lively discussion with xxi about this same topic before as he agrees with you.

 

Oh yeah, Fassel was better than Coughlin.

[boohyah]

I dunno man, that offense was lights out the entire year except for our game against them...be it good game planning or the fact we made a few big plays early and quickly overwhelmed them, I dunno....but on paper, offensively and defensively, they were a better team....at least IMO...

 

 

I disagree on the defensive side. It's hard to argue the other side, because forgetting Moss and Carter and Culpepper, Robert Smith was tearing up the rug that year. Overall though, there was very little between them on paper.

[fishgutmartyr]

Fish, using that logic, we got a much bigger break winning the superbowl 3 years ago. But you won't hear anyone say that here unless your handle ends with an "egg" or a "gain" or a "dog". As far as everyone here is concerned that win was fully deserved no questions asked.

 

We won the division, the NFC championship (one of the most convincing trouncings ever). You're talking about the Rams, but the Vikings were supposed to run us over. We had some great players on that team and until we hit that Ravens juggernaut, that was a great run.

 

I'm of the opinion, perhaps others don't share it, that we're a little spoiled. We've got a good record in superbowls, it's hard to win 3. I think it makes it easy for people to look down on that effort, and that honestly annoys me. And it was an effort Fish, because halfway through that season we looked like this years team at the end. Fassel gets a lot of shit, but he turned that team around. I don't mean any disrespect to you on this, because I know full well you sat through a lot of shit with this team a lot earlier than I came on board in 84-85, and I've had a lively discussion with xxi about this same topic before as he agrees with you.

 

Oh yeah, Fassel was better than Coughlin.

You know, the funny thing was that my initial remark wasn't really a shot at anyone or anything, just the reason why that Superbowl loss didn't bother me that much.

 

There are three reasons I believe we got where we did that season: ease of schedule, we stayed healthy that year, and we played mistake-free football. I will give credit where it's due--the last element was all on Fassel.

 

The difference between 2000 and 2007? In 2007, we played and beat every team that was supposedly more talented than we were--if not in the regular season, than in the playoff run. By no stretch of the imagination did that happen in 2000. We went 5-3 against teams with winning records--3 of those wins against the Eagles; meaning we beat more winning teams in the playoffs in 2007 than we did the entire regular season and playoffs in 2000. That's not to say you're wrong: I'm simply explaining my opinion.

 

Honestly, if the 2008 team hadn't fallen apart on the line and off the field the way it did, it probably would have been stronger talent-wise than either of those teams. But then again, they did fall apart, so it's a moot point.

 

I remember those threads with xxi. He broke it down beautifully, and like you said, I agree with his opinion. You do not. I'm OK with that.

[CrazedDogs]

If you guys want to delude yourselves into thinking that 2000 team was better than a pre-injury Warner and the St. Louis Rams, rather than us getting some serious breaks, that's your choice.

 

St. Louis wasn't that great that year, New Orleans had their number.Even with Warner @ QB.