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!

     

Playoffs under Fox: The trend continues


TbTeRRoR

Recommended Posts

I know some of these things have been stated before, but I'm going to go into more detail.

2003:

Dallas:Reg season- they beat us down. Playoffs We returned the favor

Rams: Reg season- didnt play playoffs TIGHT GAME

Eagles: Reg season- Beat us soundly Playoffs: We return the favor

Patriots: Reg season didnt play Playoffs TIGHT GAME

2004 Nothing

2005

Bears: Reg season beat us down Playoffs We returned the favor

Giants: Reg Seaon Beat us down Playoffs We dominated

Seattle: Reg Season:didn't play Playoffs We got dominated

2006:Nothing

2007:Nothing

2008

Cardinals Reg Season: We Win tight Playoffs We got Dominated

Following this trend if you beat us in the reg season your in trouble

if we didnt play you it will be a tight game or we will get blown away

if we beat you your gonna kill us. Its been true to form so far. Weird

Maybe Fox and co arn't good at making adjustments at the half or on the go, but when they've been beaten they've made adjustments in the long run. Saying that maybe when they win they don't see the need to improve or think that maybe just maybe the other team will make adjustments like the Cards gameplanning Fitz agianst our soft zone.

Now I dont post a whole lot so take it easy on me. Least theres not a ton of negativity or nut huggery in this post........ so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if history is any indication, come playoff time we'll beat whoever beat us in the regular season.

Yet by your very argument the same is true of the teams we face. They beat us in the postseason if we beat them in the regular season. It's almost as if having played the team the first time allows the losing team to make the necessary adjustments to win the match the second time.

Of course, Arizona is the only team we've beat and then later faced in the postseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Really?  Back to this again? How many times have I said that I’d prefer to trade back from #1? Too many to count, but as I’ve pointed out, that’s going to be much easier said than done, as once we signal we want to trade back, teams will know we don’t want any of the QBs and they’d target the 2nd pick in a trade instead. All of my “T-Mac at #1” talk has been discussed under two circumstances… the first being that no QB or DE pop before the draft, and that we can’t trade back. But again, I know you don’t like to actually read that stuff when I say it, as I’ve said it numerous times.
    • Thanks for posting this. While this was far from a great performance, this critique shows what some of us noticed last week. Bryce played "a little better". There is some talent there. But, as you pointed out we really don't have a great pass blocking line for dropping back each down when we are behind. BY has got some bad habits and physical limitations. At times his teammates let him down. The play calling isn't always the best. I hope he can learn from last week and show us some improvement in the Saints game.
    • Oh, and yes, I’d take a WR first in this upcoming draft, but again, that’s not in a vacuum I wouldn’t have taken him over the QBs this past year or likely the ones next year either. It’s all relative to who is available in a specific draft, and I don’t think any of the QB’s are worth the risk at #1 this year. Also the fact that you’ve said you would take T-Mac #2 but scoff at him going #1 is just in itself, super weird.  How you can justify a player at #2 but not #1 solely because of their position and with complete disregard to the other players available, is absolutely crazy town talk
×
×
  • Create New...