Newz wrote:GrendonJennings wrote:I hope the result of this argument turns out like this:
I still think we were underdogs going into that game.
If you notice (other) Luke was wrong as well, predicting it to be a low scoring game.
Yeah, I'm a betting man. This is what it would have been like.
If it was Bears/Falcons and the Bears were "underdogs" I would have agreed and just stuck with that. Why? The Falcons and Bears were both known commodities of "pretty good." The W/L basically showed that, though Atlanta caught a few breaks.
Falcons/Packers and you call the Packers the underdogs, I would have disagreed. The W/L didn't tell the whole story there, just like Jermichael's career stats don't show the whole story. When the Packers are playing as they can, nobody in the NFL can beat them. The Falcons can't get into a mode like that. Same with Jermichael. He has some issues with injury, but when he's on, he's the best in the NFL (or close to it).