Years later, New Orleans fans still think anyone else cares.

kwame: Years later, New Orleans fans still think anyone else cares.

We wouldn't expect anyone else to, but WWL is a New Orleans radio station that covers the Saints.

Aw, man, Michael Irvin went and did something that makes me really, really like him now.

lajotu: To be fair, Brett Favre was what people wanted to hear about - it was a ratings bonanza compared to Katrina, which everyone had long become sick and tired of hearing about.

Which is why SBXLIV got terrible ratings. Oh, it was the most watched TV program ever? Ohhhhhh.

funk_soul_bubby: Somebody got a link to the English version of that video?

He's been taking lessons, it seems. That's the most English-like I've ever heard him sound.

Also, neat sentiment. However, I think the point is a bit bigger than just Saints & Brett Favre. I took it as, "Maybe we should be talking about the winners instead of slobbering over the losers."


kwame: Years later, New Orleans fans still think anyone else cares.

Hours later, kwame still thinks anyone cares about his off-topic opinion.

lajotu: I still stand by original assertation: If people didn't want to talk about Brett Favre, ESPN wouldn't have talked about Brett Favre. Or they needed to fire their program director.

Nobody wanted or needed to hear endless weeping the day after the NFCCG about poor ol' Brett Favre not touching the ball in OT to the point of ignoring the winners, which was Irvin's point. The offseason circus is a different issue.

Di Atribe: Also, neat sentiment. However, I think the point is a bit bigger than just Saints & Brett Favre. I took it as, "Maybe we should be talking about the winners instead of slobbering over the losers."

I mean, I was saying it that day, to the point people were getting pissed at me, lol. The Saints win and the top story the day after was crying about how Favre didn't get a chance with the ball in OT. It was ridiculous.

lajotu: But for much of the same reasons we can''t get rid of the Kardashians, we couldn't get rid of Brett Favre. He was a ratings magnet.

He was out of the playoffs at that point. Teeth gnashing about the OT rule lead to higher ratings for the SportsCenters and ATH/PTI that Monday than talking about the Saints would've? Doubt it, man. Any difference on that particular day would've been so miniscule as to be meaningless. They covered Favre that day because they wanted to.

lajotu: You really do pop out of the woodwork and get hyper-sensitive anytime anyone says anything even remotely disparaging about the Saints, don't you?

Or I'd like any proof or reasonable argument that ignoring a winner in favor of Brett Favre actually drove up ratings that day. Either or. Your argument is the ratings, the ratings, the ratings, and I quite calmly pointed out there's no way to actually support that. The offseason? Okay, even though I still think that was the media driving the story more than anything else. The Monday after conference championship Sunday? Favre was such a "ratings magnet" it made ANY difference on that one particular day? No.

But, you know, bash that as being "hypersensitive."

lajotu: Just because you (or I, for that matter) wanted to see 24-hour coverage of the NFC CHAMPION NEW ORLEANS SAINTS!!!!1!1!!! doesn't mean the rest of the country wanted to see it. And it certainly didn't mean ESPN had to show it.

Or maybe you WERE hoping to have 24-hour exclusive coverage of the Patriots and Giants on January 23rd?

How about a little fire, scarecrow?

You going to say that to Irvin? Was he being hypersensitive? Did he want to see 24-hour coverage of the NFC CHAMPION NEW ORLEANS SAINTS!1111 Or was he, like me, pissed because the majority of coverage went to the loser?

lajotu: I'm a life-long Saints fan, born and raised in Poydras, Louisiana over 50 years ago, and you're making me HATE the Saints right now.

I've already said, in replying to Diatribe's post, that I also would have liked a little more coverage. My ONLY point I was trying to make is that I can understand why ESPN would also give coverage to Favre. Remember, most of America at that time thought it'd be his last game in the league.

I know who you are! lol I know we've absolutely never had a problem before. It's just that I don't see support for the idea that Favre would've made the dial go one way or another on a particular day, that's all. Like I said, over the course of an entire offseason? Okay. One day out of 365, it made a pronounced difference? I don't think so. Also give coverage to him? Fine. Like Irvin said in the linked video, though, "all we were talking about was Brett Favre." Acknowledging that "all" obviously isn't accurate either, it was still a majority of the time, so much so that a non-Saints fan still remembers it. And that was a shame.

In any case, whatever. We've always been cool and I don't want to make this a thing.

steamingpile: Ignore the band wagon fan, its just easier to avoid the fandom and drew brees sucking.

Also, the AJC sold out of their newspapers the day after the braves NLCS win in 91 as well, just sayin'.

As always, ignore the actually hypersensitive douchebag who blocks people when they call him out on his constant goalpost moving and making enough inaccurate predictions that you'd think he was Mike Greenberg's brother.

Not to mention, when exactly did Drew Brees suck? This same mythical time Rodgers did before he got that impenetrable O-line?

mooseyfate: robsul82: Not to mention, when exactly did Drew Brees suck? This same mythical time Rodgers did before he got that impenetrable O-line?

I'm pretty sure Drew threw like a pussy when he was two years old. So...I guess that might be his point.

/Breesus is my homeboy

No, I know what he means. His latest thing is insisting Brees sucked and proved he's not that good by throwing two first half picks against the Niners. The whole 2 picks in 63 attempts isn't bad thing, 4 TDs against one of the league's top defenses thing, and 2 comeback TD drives in the 4th quarter while the defense blew the game thing don't matter, apparently.