Blog Entry

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

Posted on: January 25, 2010 11:02 am
 

I just enjoyed an NFC Championship Game between two teams that I really like.  I was pulling for the Vikings , but will certainly be pulling for the Saints in two weeks.  Their fans deserve it after putting up with years of ugly football.  Pete Prisco claims that this win has singlehandedly helped overcome the Saints' loser legacy.

Not so fast.

I believe that the only single win that can overcome their legacy is a win in the Super Bowl.  Is that a callous statement?  Does it belittle the Saints' accomplishments this year?  Let's take a closer look.

The Arizona Cardinals are a franchise with a pathetic history in the Super Bowl era.  They went to the Super Bowl last year and lost.  Did their NFC Championship victory alone make us forget their legacy of losing?

NO!

They still have a good team, and NFL historians may point out that the Cardinal franchise has won a world title (although 90% of football fans don't know this or know that they were once the St. Louis Cards, let alone the Chicago Cards).  But let's be serious.  They are more famous for losing.

The Bengals have played in not one, but two Super Bowls.  They lost both.  Despite two very good seasons they are more famous as the "Bungles" than they are for "the Icky Shuffle".

If you think just getting to the big show can wipe away years of futility in the memories of the masses just ask the Viking fans or the Bills fans.  Both teams played in four Super Bowls.  Both lost all four Super Bowls.  And both share the distinction of being the best of the loser franchises (although Buffalo gets the slight loser edge for losing four in a row, a truly unique achievement in loser franchise history).

Maybe you still don't believe me.  Let's look at this from a different angle.

The Tampa Bay Buccanneers were the poster children for loser franchises.  They had the original perfect losing season in their first year as a franchise in 1976.  They kept the loser brand going strong for over two decades of historically bad football.

One Super Bowl win(and one uniform change) later they have shed their loser image.  Although this season served as a vague reminder, the memory of the "Yucks" remain firmly in the past.  The Tampa Bay/Green Bay game is no longer referred to as the "Bay of Pigs".

The New York Jets are one of the historically pathetic franchises in the NFL.  They played in only one Super Bowl, and that was in the late sixties.  I wasn't even alive yet to see it, and many players who played in that game aren't alive now.

But the Jets won the game, and by doing so engraved their own special niche in NFL history.  To this day if you stumble upon any NFL Films special you are ten times more likely to see a segment about the Jets than you are about the Saints, Bengals, Bills, or Vikings (unless it is an NFL blooper special).

I hope the Saints take destiny in their hands and write their own chapter in the NFL history books.

But if they don't the story won't be about the Saints regaining respectability.  It will be about the unbelievably ironic bad luck that resulted from the son of the Saints' most celebrated QB dealing the Saints their hardest blow in their sad history.  It will be on a par with Cubs fan Steve Bartman reaching out and ruining the Chicago Cubs best chances of winning a World Series in a hundred years.


The difference between winning and losing this Super Bowl for the Saints is the difference between purging the past and becoming a loser franchises most shining example of failure.
Category: NFL
Comments

Since: Dec 31, 2006
Posted on: April 9, 2010 2:58 pm
 

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

Yes.... two NFC Championship games in last 4 years...  Super Bowl appearence and Winner over Peyton Manning and the Mighty Colts  31 - 17.   No#1 rated Offense 3 outa last 4 years.... New Defensive Coach to get em over the hurdle...seems like the future looks bright to me.



Since: Nov 24, 2009
Posted on: January 29, 2010 11:59 am
 

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

Does anybody else think that it is such a joke that ESPN always talks about how the Saints went through soooooo much cause of hurricane katrina?  GET OVER IT!!!!  Disaster's happen all the time and New Orleans thinks that everyone should feels sorry for them and that they should go to the Super Bowl.  I was in New Orleans 2 years after the hurricane.  Get off your dead a** and clean it up. Looked absolutely terrible. We get tornadoes all the time.  We get it cleaned up 6 months after the wreck.  Does that mean the Vikings should go to the Super Bowl cause we have been through so much?    The Saints made it but it was a joke.  Colts will destroy them. 



Since: Dec 3, 2006
Posted on: January 27, 2010 10:51 pm
 

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's unlikely that the Saints defense is going to dominate the game.  New York was far and away the best defense in the league this year (#1 in Points Allowed and Yards Allowed), whereas the Saints were ranked #25 and #20 respectively.  I don't see either team stopping the other except for possibly forcing turnovers and holding the opposition to field goals.


There are two things that you haven't factored into this equation:

  1) Take a look at NET POINTS, which is points scored - points given up.  If your defense only gives up 10 points a game, but you only average 7 yourself, you're still gonna lose.  True the Jets don't give up alot of points, but they don't score alot either.  In net points, Colts were #9 (+109), Jets were #7 (+111), and Saints were #1 (+169).  When you score as much as the Saints do, you can afford to give up a few more points.

  2) The Saints defense is very opportunistic, and led the NFL in scoring with 7 defensive touchdowns. If you just take the points the defense gives up, and subtract from that the points they scored themselves, and do that for every team in the league, they net out in the top 8 in the league.  Hidden stats that people don't take into account, they just look at the raw numbers.


I dont think anywhere in the post did the guy say the Saints defense would dominate.  But given their aggressive nature, they will get to Manning, maybe not with sacks but with pressure.  And Manning was more careless with the ball than either Favre or Brees this year.  Just look at the TD/INT/Ratio for the three:  Peyton Manning 33/16/2.06, Drew Brees 34/11/3.09, Brett Favre 33/7/4.71.  The Saints have a legitimate chance to win this game.



Since: Jan 6, 2010
Posted on: January 27, 2010 3:10 pm
 

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

Very Well put!!!! i am an "NFC" kinda guy... i am a long time "RAMS" fan and our super bowl in 99 was great ,and then 01 we started to show that the "greatest show on turf" was the "Funniest show indoors".. so with that in mind.. go breese and whoop on some manning ass



Since: Apr 7, 2008
Posted on: January 27, 2010 12:07 pm
 

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

Ok, if you watched the history of the Super Bowl video back in the 80s like I did I can see where you get your perception from, but really the landscape of the game has changed so much that, I don't think these perceptions apply today.  I still consider New England one of the worst franchises until this past decade and I will not soon forget how terrible they were before Brady/Bilichek.  But we are now forced to believe they are one of the greatest ever, that just seems inaccurate to me.

The Saints are a team with a losing history and winning a Super Bowl will not make anyone forget that.

Saints 30
Colts 28



Since: Apr 7, 2008
Posted on: January 27, 2010 11:54 am
 

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

Yes and San Fran is borrowing it.



Since: Nov 11, 2006
Posted on: January 26, 2010 7:09 pm
 

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

Everybody is doubting the Saints. That's fine go right ahead and when the Saints win it all don't be shocked. This fine football team has been under the radar all year and now they are in the big game. It's our turn to win and when the Saints come marching in...down goes Peyton Manning. The only team that needs some patron saints of football is the Colts when the Saints meet them in Superbowl 44. The Saints D is going to punish that guy like they did Brett Farve.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's unlikely that the Saints defense is going to dominate the game.  New York was far and away the best defense in the league this year (#1 in Points Allowed and Yards Allowed), whereas the Saints were ranked #25 and #20 respectively.  I don't see either team stopping the other except for possibly forcing turnovers and holding the opposition to field goals.



Since: Mar 2, 2007
Posted on: January 26, 2010 12:21 pm
 

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

Nice blog. Very good read. I noticed you did reference the '76 Tampa Bay Bucs. I remember one game, maybe during the '77 season, when the Bucs came very close to winning. In the post game presser coach John McKay was asked about his team's execution and he replied, "I'm all for it". Laughing

Would be great for the city of New Orleans, or as some of their fans refer to it now as "Drew Orleans, LouBreesiana", to get a victory in Super Bowl #44. Post Katrina, it would be just what the community there really needs - a nice "Brees" to finally blow through town.




Since: Sep 13, 2008
Posted on: January 26, 2010 3:52 am
 

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

Great blog post! It is better than 75 percent of the writing I see from CBS columnists........




Since: Nov 5, 2009
Posted on: January 26, 2010 3:22 am
 

Did Saints really shed 'loser' label?

check out my latest poll and thread feel free to vote and post, it is about the party in neworleans  sb weekend



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com