The signs were there for us to see, but amid the talk about the travesty of a 7-9 Seattle team making the playoffs, we were blind to the fact that the New Orleans Saints went into the playoffs with some serious flaws.

For one, the Saints were simply not the offensive team that they were a year ago when they began their march toward a Super Bowl title. For whatever reason -- injuries in the running game that led to a less-effective passing game -- the Saints scored almost 8 fewer points per game this season. And as a wild-card team, NO faced the prospect of having to do it on the road, not in front of "WhoDat Nation" in Louisiana.

It all added up to a surprising, if not stunning, loss to the Seahawks last weekend. The Saints were 10.5-point favorites heading in, and while it didn’t quite have the impact of the Giants’ Super Bowl victory over the Patriots a few years back, it still had fans coast-to-coast shaking their heads in disbelief. The Seahawks were supposed to be a one-and-done team, but refused to comply. And Seattle’s victory is now the reason that no one in the off-season will be clamoring for a change in seeding for teams that finish the regular season .500 or below.

In Philadelphia, calls to sign Michael Vick to a long-term deal have lost some volume after Vick’s 20-for-36 losing effort against the Packers. Doubts about Vick will no doubt resurface after throwing an end zone interception on the Eagles’ final offensive play of the season, and for a while anyway the team will spend part of the off-season the way it spent the early part of this one -- with a quarterback controversy.

Late-season injuries to Vick served as a reminder of why it is so difficult in the NFL to win with a running quarterback. Can a team really afford to turn its season over long-term to a player who gets hit as often as Vick has and will? And if Vick is not the answer, will the Eagles once again start the season with Kevin Kolb?