Chris Myers and Sean Farnham (1 Viewer)

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
33,700
Reaction score
44,460
Age
13
Location
Jackson, ms
Offline
I was listening to Fox Sports Radio in my car this afternoon and they were discussion how interesting the first two weeks have been trying to figure out who the power house teams were.

They start with the usual Pats, Steelers, Colts talk but then move on to the Saints. Myers said that the Saints are playing the best football in the league and basically said they are the team to beat after two weeks.

Farnham, who is a huge Eagles fan, quickly jumps in to point out they played the Lions and McNabbless (is that how you spell McNabbless?) Eagles team. Chris Myers quickly pointed out that McNabb wouldn't have changed the outcome and Farnham agreed. He then quickly justified the Eagles loss by saying, "but the Saints could go 16-0 this season, they are that good".

Both quickly mentioned how young the season is after that but I thought it was pretty ****ing awesome to hear.

First it was just because we were playing Detroit and we'd never do it to the Eagles with or without McNabb. Then when we hang even more on the Eagles it was because they were without McNabb and finally when people start to accept the fact that McNabb wouldn't have changed that game it is because the Saints are going undefeated. Got to love it.
 

Cajunsaint85

Its our time now....
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
906
Reaction score
204
Location
Crowley, LA
Offline
I was listening to Fox Sports Radio in my car this afternoon and they were discussion how interesting the first two weeks have been trying to figure out who the power house teams were.

They start with the usual Pats, Steelers, Colts talk but then move on to the Saints. Myers said that the Saints are playing the best football in the league and basically said they are the team to beat after two weeks.

Farnham, who is a huge Eagles fan, quickly jumps in to point out they played the Lions and McNabbless (is that how you spell McNabbless?) Eagles team. Chris Myers quickly pointed out that McNabb wouldn't have changed the outcome and Farnham agreed. He then quickly justified the Eagles loss by saying, "but the Saints could go 16-0 this season, they are that good".

Both quickly mentioned how young the season is after that but I thought it was pretty ****ing awesome to hear.

First it was just because we were playing Detroit and we'd never do it to the Eagles with or without McNabb. Then when we hang even more on the Eagles it was because they were without McNabb and finally when people start to accept the fact that McNabb wouldn't have changed that game it is because the Saints are going undefeated. Got to love it.

Reading 16-0 just made me lose my breath. We might not get that but We are that damn good and detrmined. We will certainly get close and more importantly the NFC championship game will have to be played at the superdome!
 

Professor

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Oct 21, 1997
Messages
9,892
Reaction score
2,530
Age
65
Location
North Carolina near High Point
Offline
I was listening to Fox Sports Radio in my car this afternoon and they were discussion how interesting the first two weeks have been trying to figure out who the power house teams were.

They start with the usual Pats, Steelers, Colts talk but then move on to the Saints. Myers said that the Saints are playing the best football in the league and basically said they are the team to beat after two weeks.

Farnham, who is a huge Eagles fan, quickly jumps in to point out they played the Lions and McNabbless (is that how you spell McNabbless?) Eagles team. Chris Myers quickly pointed out that McNabb wouldn't have changed the outcome and Farnham agreed. He then quickly justified the Eagles loss by saying, "but the Saints could go 16-0 this season, they are that good".

Both quickly mentioned how young the season is after that but I thought it was pretty ****ing awesome to hear.

First it was just because we were playing Detroit and we'd never do it to the Eagles with or without McNabb. Then when we hang even more on the Eagles it was because they were without McNabb and finally when people start to accept the fact that McNabb wouldn't have changed that game it is because the Saints are going undefeated. Got to love it.

When someone brings up the fact that McNabb wasn't in there, I ask two things: First, how many more yards would McNabb have thrown for? I mean 393 is high on anybody's scale. And second, what defensive position does McNabb play? So far, it has shut them right up.
 

snowdog

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Messages
2,561
Reaction score
345
Age
51
Offline
When someone brings up the fact that McNabb wasn't in there, I ask two things: First, how many more yards would McNabb have thrown for? I mean 393 is high on anybody's scale. And second, what defensive position does McNabb play? So far, it has shut them right up.

Also how many return yards did DeSean have? How many yards did Westbrook have?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom