This is what Sean McVay Had to Say After Losing to the Bears

[top dawg]

1 hour ago, Iron Saint said:

They weren’t blow outs, but they also weren’t shutouts by the vaunted “great defense”. The Ravens defense is currently the #1 scoring defense and lost to both us and the Chiefs who were both the #1 scoring defense at the time they played the Ravens. But by your logic, they should’ve won at least one of those games, right?

The Chiefs (and Panthers really) had offensive weapons galore, but put either up against the '85 Bears or 2000 Ravens and they get their asses kicked. Hell, even some of the more recent Steelers defenses (under Cowher), not to mention the dynastic Sttelers defenses of the mid 70s would kick the Chiefs ass (even with Hunt). In the grand scheme of things, it takes more to be a great defense than being the top "scoring defense," not saying that the Ravens defensive players haven't earned their wins, but I haven't heard any buzz about them being truly great. They are just another "good" defense in any given year. Now I have heard plenty of chatter about the Chiefs or Rams offenses being historically great---even the Saints---but at least the latter two have been spanked by teams with good defenses, and the Chiefs could have easily lost to the Ravens.

Also, it's not about logic, but opinion.

[Iron Saint]

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

The Chiefs (and Panthers really) had offensive weapons galore, but put either up against the '85 Bears or 2000 Ravens and they get their asses kicked. Hell, even some of the more recent Steelers defenses (under Cowher), not to mention the dynastic Sttelers defenses of the mid 70s would kick the Chiefs ass (even with Hunt). In the grand scheme of things, it takes more to be a great defense than being the top "scoring defense," not saying that the Ravens defensive players haven't earned their wins, but I haven't heard any buzz about them being truly great. They are just another "good" defense in any given year. Now I have heard plenty of chatter about the Chiefs or Rams offenses being historically great---even the Saints---but at least the latter two have been spanked by teams with good defenses, and the Chiefs could have easily lost to the Ravens.

Also, it's not about logic, but opinion.

“Let me compare offenses and defenses from completely different eras and rule changes to strengthen my argument”.

Great logic there, man. 

[raz]

how the f did this turn into a gettlefuk debate?

[JARROD]

If the Rams go out the first round of the playoffs again,... then I’m going to start calling Sean McVae Andy Reid’s more attractive doppelgänger,.... and say all the hype was for nothing other than watching exciting football to have your heart stabbed in the playoffs.

 

[Actionman0z]

On 12/10/2018 at 6:12 AM, hepcat said:

Let’s see how they play in the dome against Brees before we crown their asses 

Cant let em' off the hook. 

[rayzor]

He did what good leaders do. They step in front of the firing squad for their followers.

Behind the scenes it's ok to hold them accountable and put it on them when it is legit on them, but publicly you step in front of it.

Ron won't do it. He never will and his players are going to get tired of the lack of shared blame if they haven't already.

Seriously could use Ron as the focal point of a class on how not to lead.

[Saint4Life]

On 12/10/2018 at 8:14 AM, ickmule said:

Not crowning, just said don't be surprised. Defense wins championships and the Saints D is not great. 

The Saints D is Top 10 in the league and has held teams to 17 pts or less in 5 straight games. Also has two second half shutouts in back to back weeks, and has forced the most turnovers and sacks in the last 5 weeks. But yeah keep sleeping on our D. 

[top dawg]

12 hours ago, Iron Saint said:

“Let me compare offenses and defenses from completely different eras and rule changes to strengthen my argument”.

Great logic there, man. 

You obviously don't understand the difference between logic and opinion. The fact is football is football, and great players really transcend eras. Furthermore, rule changes have been geared more toward offense for the past 10 to 15 years. That being said, when you have the likes of Ray Lewis, Tony Siragusa, Jamie Sharper, Rod Woodson, Chris McCalister, Duane Starks and Peter Boulware  all on one defense (not to mention the others), it's going to pretty much shut down any offense that you can think of the majority of the time. The fact of the matter is that there were even better defenses historically, and they would have shut down the likes of the Chiefs. Most NFL fans who are older than 50 (and possibly even older than 40 or 45) will probably tell you the same thing. But you have the right to believe what you want. Like most who argue about different eras, it's a fun exercise, but unfortunately these opinions can't be proven one way or another, and most logical people will tell you that. 

[Iron Saint]

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

You obviously don't understand the difference between logic and opinion. The fact is football is football, and great players really transcend eras. Furthermore, rule changes have been geared more toward offense for the past 10 to 15 years. That being said, when you have the likes of Ray Lewis, Tony Siragusa, Jamie Sharper, Rod Woodson, Chris McCalister, Duane Starks and Peter Boulware  all on one defense (not to mention the others), it's going to pretty much shut down any offense that you can think of the majority of the time. The fact of the matter is that there were even better defenses historically, and they would have shut down the likes of the Chiefs. Most NFL fans who are older than 50 (and possibly even older than 40 or 45) will probably tell you the same thing. But you have the right to believe what you want. Like most who argue about different eras, it's a fun exercise, but unfortunately these opinions can't be proven one way or another, and most logical people will tell you that. 

And you obviously have no understanding defenses of the 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s, or 2000’s have no affect on today’s performance. I couldn’t care less about what those teams have done against “great passing teams in their era” or “would do against great passing teams this era”. The latter of which has zero merit on the discussion and your continued regurgitating of it is just doubling down on your ignorance.

Did I say our defense this year is “one of the all-time greats”? No. Posters here are trying to prop the Bears defense up as great this year and I provided statistical evidence that ours isn’t that far behind (allowing only 2.8 ppg more for the season and even allowing 5.8 ppg less than the Bears over the last 5 games). So stop trying to put words in my mouth. 

And there, I bolded, italicized, and underlined the point I’m discussing in case you get confused between reading my post and replying to it.

[top dawg]

5 hours ago, Iron Saint said:

And you obviously have no understanding defenses of the 1970’s, 1980’s, 1990’s, or 2000’s have no affect on today’s performance. I couldn’t care less about what those teams have done against “great passing teams in their era” or “would do against great passing teams this era”. The latter of which has zero merit on the discussion and your continued regurgitating of it is just doubling down on your ignorance.

Did I say our defense this year is “one of the all-time greats”? No. Posters here are trying to prop the Bears defense up as great this year and I provided statistical evidence that ours isn’t that far behind (allowing only 2.8 ppg more for the season and even allowing 5.8 ppg less than the Bears over the last 5 games). So stop trying to put words in my mouth. 

And there, I bolded, italicized, and underlined the point I’m discussing in case you get confused between reading my post and replying to it.

Whatever dude. You responded to my post, and I responded in kind. I began that discussion, not you, so don't tell me what's valid and has merit. Your whole attitude has no merit. If you don't want to listen to what someone has to say, then don't engage them, particularly with petty and snide remarks. I'll talk about what I want to talk about from the perspective that I want to talk about it. Furthermore, before you use words like "logic" and "ignorance," know what they mean. 

I'm through with this useless chat.

[Iron Saint]

16 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Whatever dude. You responded to my post, and I responded in kind. I began that discussion, not you, so don't tell me what's valid and has merit. Your whole attitude has no merit. If you don't want to listen to what someone has to say, then don't engage them, particularly with petty and snide remarks. I'll talk about what I want to talk about from the perspective that I want to talk about it. Furthermore, before you use words like "logic" and "ignorance," know what they mean. 

I'm through with this useless chat.

You’re the only one here talking about those dinosaur defenses. Join the rest of us in talking about the defense that’s being played in 2018. 

And here you go, I Google’d for you.

ig·no·rant

/ˈiɡnərənt/

adjective

1. lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

Used in a sentence: “User ‘top dawg’ ignorantly refers to dinosaur defenses while other Huddle members are talking about 2018 defensive performances despite not being relevant to the thread at hand.”

It seems as though you’re looking for confrontation after your 3-4 page bickering back and forth with Mr. Scot.

I gave you a stat and you got all up in your feelings over it. “bUt pUt EiThEr uP AgAiNsT tHe ‘85 bEaRs Or 2000 rAvEnS aNd ThEy gEt ThEiR aSsEs KiCkEd!” That’s a direct quote from you.

I never claimed us to be a historically great defense, but we’re a top-10 unit hanging not far behind the Bears all the national pundits are propping up. Now please, continue crawfishing your way out of the original topic.