Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Bears @ Saints surprising fact


Martin

Recommended Posts

While this is true, of the Saints four losses, two were against GB and KC, not exactly embarrassing to lose to, another was to the Raiders on the road, who finished 8-8, leaving the loss to the Eagles as the only one that really looks bad. They might have only beaten two teams with a winning record, but they also only lost to two teams with a winning record as well.

Typically about a third of the league finishes with a winning record,  so stats like this can often be misleading when looked at in a vacuum. A better question is what was their record against teams with a winning record? Turns out it's 2-2, which doesn't paint them as world beaters, but also keep in mind they do own the second best point differential behind the Ravens. I guess we'll see what happens in the playoffs, but I'd certainly love to see the Saints go down in flames asap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, it comes down to witch version of Trubisky shows up. When he's good he can be really good, but when he's bad he can be really bad. If the good version shows up, the Bears can potentially beat the Saints. If the bad version shows up, they're gonna get blown out. There's a lot riding on this game for Trubisky. If he plays well, he very well could get another starting opportunity. If he doesn't, he's likely looking at signing a prove it deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Ideally Bryce and the other starters should get at least a full quarter and an argument could be made for 2 full quarters given how they've played early in the season the last few years.
    • A rookie that has never played a snap and a proven 1000K NFL WR are not going to be viewed the same in these type rankings.  And calling draft picks, lotto picks, isn't some new quip I just invented.  take the big 3 Hubbard, AT, insert whatever 3rd Panther you want vs Kamara, Hill, Olave.  Most football folks outside of Carolina are picking the Saints there IMO.    
    • You didn’t really address the point, just like you ignored the point about the RBs initially, and saying “they are all lotto picks” is just a really silly reduction because you could say that about literally any player rookie or vet every snap, every game, every year. It is well known that different positions have different hit rates, and I would argue different types of prospects within position groups as well, and that hit rates change the further down in the draft you go. Everybody knows QB is different and that, for example, first round OL have a really high success rate. Using your lotto ticket analogy…again…you are saying a lotto ticket with a 1 in 100 chance of hitting is the exact same thing as a lotto ticket with a 1 in 2 chance of hitting (this is an example, don’t take these odds literally). The point was he is no more of a lotto ticket than the 31yr old receiver coming off a major knee injury, and in my opinion he is better odds with a higher potential “jackpot”. Saying one player is an “lotto ticket” while another isn’t is just not sound logic. You have no idea who will break out, regress, get injured, etc. There are safer bets than others, that’s all. I don’t think Diggs is a safe bet and even if he was, weighing him over all of the Panthers WRs plus 2 1k rushers is just dumb. You can disagree if you want. The list is stupid.
×
×
  • Create New...