He's basically saying that looking back at it, this is about as bad as we could've been at this point. It's the same old game that when we're getting ready to play a solid team -- like, say, Atlanta -- it's a big game against a good team and it'll be a real indication of what kind of team we have.
Then after we've beaten them, well of course we should've beaten that scrub team, because they weren't really any good.
This wears me out as much as anything. Going into the season, a lot of pundits picked us to be very average, or even to fall completely apart. Remember that? Remember when 44-6 was an indication of how rudderless, gutless, and overrated this team was? But now in hindsight, oh, of course this team should've whipped those teams because they're clearly much better.
No, you can't have it that way. These players and coaches weren't gifted the games they won -- they had to go out and work their tails off and execute well enough on gameday to win.
Please don't anyone bother with the "Why do you get upset about what the media say" stuff, because I promise that this isn't keeping me up at night.
Just pointing out a way of thinking that I don't think makes any sense, and almost everyone in the media does it.