[PARAM]

Martz was too arrogant not to run against a defense that was daring them to run. And he had a Hall of Fame running back.

Maybe there was something wrong with Marshall's knee?

The Saints fans won't ever get over this. But they've been doing 'this' since they won the Superbowl with their bounty program.

In 2010 they finished 11-5 and lost the wild card game to Seattle
In 2011 they finished 13-3 and destroyed Detroit, then lost to SF on a last second TD pass with 9 seconds remaining
In 2013 they finish 11-5, beat Philly 26-24 on a last second FG, then lost to Seattle 23-15 in a game that was never that close.
In 2017 they finish 11-5, beat Carolina, then lost to Minnesota on a last second prayer as time ran out.
This year they finish 13-3, beat Philly when a pass goes through Alshon Jeffries hands and gets picked on what looked to be a game winning drive, then lost to the Rams in OT 'because of a non call', despite having two more chances to win after that (stopping LA on the ensuing drive or scoring a TD in OT instead of throwing a pick).

Once is a fluke. 4 times is a fucking pattern. Saints fans just need to be appreciative they don't have to wear bags over their heads anymore, though once Brees leaves I wonder if that isn't reprised. Enjoy the Mardi Gras and all that excellent Cajun and Creole food.

[SWAdude]

2009.........

[moklerman]

The same argument can be made about the tuck rule game. In a vacuum, the Raiders had opportunities after that call to win the game but, that call changed the outcome of the game. I don't know that there is ever "moving on" from that because it literally changed the course of NFL history, much less throwing a wrench into the fortunes of the Raiders that day.

Same thing with the Rams/Saints. In a tough, close, back and forth game, such a devastating call has to derail a team at least temporarily. In a game where one play could be the difference between winning and losing such an egregious non-call is understandably important.

[dieterbrock]

The same argument can be made about the tuck rule game. In a vacuum, the Raiders had opportunities after that call to win the game but, that call changed the outcome of the game. I don't know that there is ever "moving on" from that because it literally changed the course of NFL history, much less throwing a wrench into the fortunes of the Raiders that day.

Same thing with the Rams/Saints. In a tough, close, back and forth game, such a devastating call has to derail a team at least temporarily. In a game where one play could be the difference between winning and losing such an egregious non-call is understandably important.

Goes both ways really.
Montana to Dwight Clark against the Cowboys, people think of that being the game winner when really it was Danny White fumble in fringe FG territory and only trailing by 1
Or
The Steelers wining against the Raiders on the Immaculate Reception, its forgotten that they lost the next week
History has a weird way of telling different versions of the same event(s)
As a Ram fan though, I'll just remember that the Saints had a 13-0 lead and Johnny Hekker fake punt turned the whole thing around

[Rams1PlateSince1976]

Probably will hear it for quite awhile. After all, the aint's went about 40 years without a winning record so they probably think they are due for winning a championship.

[MikeRam]

What bothered me is the number of people who proposed allowing teams to challenge non-calls. Can you imagine what would happen? Every big play in a game would scrutinized for a possible holding non-call, or a block in the back non-call. Then we would have a controversy when a non-call should be changed to a penalty. It's not going to happen, but what it shows is that there are a lot of idiots among sports talking heads.

[BobCarl]

Steelers wining against the Raiders on the Immaculate Reception, its forgotten that they lost the next week

It is also forgotten that the Dolphins defeated the Steelers in their perfect season. The Dolphins winning streak was ended the next season by the Raiders.

More than likely the Dolphins would have lost to the Raiders and not have gone undefeated.

[BobCarl]

.... throwing a wrench into the fortunes of the Raiders that day.

that game kept the Rams from having the play against the Raiders in the Super Bowl. In which, the officials would have done their job more fairly in stead of leaning against the Rams.

[PARAM]

What bothered me is the number of people who proposed allowing teams to challenge non-calls. Can you imagine what would happen? Every big play in a game would scrutinized for a possible holding non-call, or a block in the back non-call. Then we would have a controversy when a non-call should be changed to a penalty. It's not going to happen, but what it shows is that there are a lot of idiots among sports talking heads.

Great point. Allowing challenges to non-calls would inevitably deadlock the game. We know on any play you can call a penalty, so all the challenging team would need is confirmation of a penalty and the scoring play is voided.

[PARAM]

More than likely the Dolphins would have lost to the Raiders and not have gone undefeated.

Like in 1974, when Stabler, getting the ball off to Clarence Davis just as his knees were millimeters from the turf? What always goes unacknowledged is Manny Fernandez absolutely spearing Davis in the end zone and the Raiders losing to Pittsburgh the following week.