Is it your opinion that there can ONLY be one loser franchise? I've never said the Saints were the ONLY losing franchise, just that we are one. And one can most CERTAINLY make the argument that the Saints have a Top 5 argument for ignominious moments in the league. There is more than ONE winning franchise, like: the Steelers, 49ers, Patriots, Chiefs, and despite the board's hatred of them, the Cowboys. And while they have had 30 years of recent misery, they still have what, 5 Lombardis.
I understand it. We had one glorious moment in the sun, literally almost every thing else (aside from individual accolades) was disappointment in some form or fashion when it came to winning in big moments when it counted. And YES, Dan Campbell is a loser until he wins it all. The NFL isn't a participation trophy praising league. The Lamar Hunt and George Halas Trophies are nice to have but history only really cares about the Lombardi.
Winning in the regular season is nice but it doesn't mean anything if you can't win in the post season. Or at the very least it doesn't mean a much. And to prove that, ask ANYONE would they rather go undefeated 17-0 in the regular season but lose the first game of the playoffs or go 9-8, get in as the last place Wildcard and then end up winning the Super Bowl.
This is an exceedingly simple concept but maybe we just differ philosophically on this. My opinion is that winners win. They win often and in the biggest moments and it's no surprise that when the chips are down, they are clutch; while losers lose often, especially in the big moments, and make excuses, and look for participation trophies, and it's no surprise how they manage to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Between those two scenarios, we are the latter but I hope to see us become the former.