Sarnoff
Footballguy
I'm not familiar with this system, could you describe it please? pros/cons?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
How would YOU repair the NFL playoffs? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sarnoff
- Start date
B Maverick
Footballguy
no divisions, play everyone twice (usually there is only about 18-20 teams), 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. Most points at end of year win.Bottom 3 teams get relegated to a lower division, top 3 move up. Could make for some fun with the UFL and CFL!!cons? No playoffs, no actual championship game. you wouldnt like it since it doesnt account for injuries, power rankings, or discounting of upsets.::andyesiknowiamnibblingmorebait::
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Who do you annoint as the best teams this year? You keep saying it's not GB and PIT.I would argue that no team this year would stack up favorable against the dynasty teams of football past. But they still get to play out the games, right?
I would also argue that even in the seasons for those dynasty teams the system was broken. Many times, the NFC championship game was the real SB and the winner got to go out and beat up an AFC to earn the official league champion title.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the supposed best team couldn't beat an inferior team that therefore they are not the best team? And BTW, what is your definition of the "best team"? Best record? Best stats (SD ranked #1 in offense and defense)? Biggest payroll? Most attendance? Most revenue generated? Best tv ratings?
How about injuries? If a team had guys banged up that made them weaker but when healthy they may have been the best team, would that matter? How about if they won all their playoff games? Wouldn't that make them the best team?
football fan
Footballguy
I am guessing that the OP wants some sophisticated and complex system that makes each NFL team to keep whatever money they saved by staying under the 2010 salary cap, then they should have bidding wars on all WWE fake professional wrestlers, and the NFL team represented by the last wrestler standing in the ring after all other wrestlers are throw over the top rope and knocked unconscious in a wrestling battle royal match will be the NFL Champion! (Just like the old king of the hill game or Fat Albert's buck-buck game.)Fantasy appears to be the only logic used here.
Or the OP is fishing way beyond any sense of reason.
football fan
Footballguy
Hope everyone got a good laugh!I am guessing that the OP wants some sophisticated and complex system that makes each NFL team to keep whatever money they saved by staying under the 2010 salary cap, then they should have bidding wars on all WWE fake professional wrestlers, and the NFL team represented by the last wrestler standing in the ring after all other wrestlers are throw over the top rope and knocked unconscious in a wrestling battle royal match will be the NFL Champion! (Just like the old king of the hill game or Fat Albert's buck-buck game.)Fantasy appears to be the only logic used here.
Or the OP is fishing way beyond any sense of reason.
How can anyone define the two best teams in football?
Many commentators did pick Green Bay as their preseason favorite to win or at least get to the super bowl, and I have no clue how anyone can say that Pittsburgh is not one of this year's NFL top teams.
Just have each team choose its best highlight at the end of the year and submit them to espn. Then Colin Cowherd can vote on which one is the best, the championship goes to the team with the winning highlight.
Best Method imo, though it wouldn't work without cowherd. That guy knows football.
Best Method imo, though it wouldn't work without cowherd. That guy knows football.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
It ranks way up there. Not for the premise of making sensible changes (e.g., reseeding), but it seems like the wrong year to complain about the matchups. The Steelers and Packers are fantastic representatives for both conferences and arguably the two best teams in each respective conference.lynx4ben said:
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
What possible arguments can people use to say Green Bay and Pittsburgh are the best teams aside from a couple of fluke wins (ie Jets over Patriots/Cutler getting hurt/Seahawks beating Saints)?
Time Kibitzer
Footballguy
Here's how to fix the problem for next season. Rank the 32 teams from #1 to #32 based on 2010 regular season record using appropriate NFL Draft style tiebreakers when necessary. Then have a March Madness style elimination tournament where the #1 seed plays the #32 seed, the #2 seed plays the #31 seed, etc.
Then at the end of week #5, you have your Superbowl Champion.
Then at the end of week #5, you have your Superbowl Champion.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
No need to start your fishing on page 3.
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
Leave it to the biggest cheesehead on these boards to jump to the team's defense. The Packers have done a great job this year and maybe they 'deserved' to make it. But there's no denying their path was pretty easy (relatively speaking).
sho nuff
Footballguy
#1, #2, #3 seeds in the NFC on the road.Had the Bears won, their road would have been considerably easier (outside of the GB game of course).You can whine and think it was a couple of fluke wins (and citing Cutler getting hurt...as if he was doing anything while he was not hurt).So please tell me which win the Packers had in the playoffs that was flukey and what NFC team was better?Leave it to the biggest cheesehead on these boards to jump to the team's defense. The Packers have done a great job this year and maybe they 'deserved' to make it. But there's no denying their path was pretty easy (relatively speaking).
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
Mike Martz is a whiz at making adjustments. Between that and the way the Bears defense was playing that game was easily going Chicago's way. They almost won...with their 3rd string qb! I think the Saints would have been tough for them as well. I agree they were clearly better than both Seattle and the Falcons. I don't mean the Packers weren't a good team. Just not as good as fanboys seem to think.#1, #2, #3 seeds in the NFC on the road.Had the Bears won, their road would have been considerably easier (outside of the GB game of course).You can whine and think it was a couple of fluke wins (and citing Cutler getting hurt...as if he was doing anything while he was not hurt).So please tell me which win the Packers had in the playoffs that was flukey and what NFC team was better?
sho nuff
Footballguy
Mike Martz's offense scored all of 16 total points in 2 games against the Packers D and put up a goose egg in the first half with Cutler.So tell me how that game was going the Bears way?They didn't almost win. They almost came back...thats about it.Sure, the Saints would have been tough...never know since they couldn't beat a 7-9 team on the road while GB went to Philly and then Atlanta and won.Its not about being a fanboy.GB was dominating the Bears when Cutler got hurt...claiming Martz would be some genious making adjustments to win that game is laughable.Mike Martz is a whiz at making adjustments. Between that and the way the Bears defense was playing that game was easily going Chicago's way. They almost won...with their 3rd string qb! I think the Saints would have been tough for them as well. I agree they were clearly better than both Seattle and the Falcons. I don't mean the Packers weren't a good team. Just not as good as fanboys seem to think.#1, #2, #3 seeds in the NFC on the road.Had the Bears won, their road would have been considerably easier (outside of the GB game of course).You can whine and think it was a couple of fluke wins (and citing Cutler getting hurt...as if he was doing anything while he was not hurt).So please tell me which win the Packers had in the playoffs that was flukey and what NFC team was better?Leave it to the biggest cheesehead on these boards to jump to the team's defense. The Packers have done a great job this year and maybe they 'deserved' to make it. But there's no denying their path was pretty easy (relatively speaking).
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Let's try this another way. List the teams and their respective seeds in the Conference that the Packers faced during the playoffs. For extra credit, identify whether the game was home or away for the Packers. Then, for double-extra points, make a coherent argument that connects the information you just provided with the thesis that their path was pretty easy.TIAMike Martz is a whiz at making adjustments. Between that and the way the Bears defense was playing that game was easily going Chicago's way. They almost won...with their 3rd string qb! I think the Saints would have been tough for them as well. I agree they were clearly better than both Seattle and the Falcons. I don't mean the Packers weren't a good team. Just not as good as fanboys seem to think.#1, #2, #3 seeds in the NFC on the road.Had the Bears won, their road would have been considerably easier (outside of the GB game of course).You can whine and think it was a couple of fluke wins (and citing Cutler getting hurt...as if he was doing anything while he was not hurt).So please tell me which win the Packers had in the playoffs that was flukey and what NFC team was better?
Cassius
Footballguy
I'm a GB fan, and while I'm very excited that my team is in the Super Bowl, I agree with the OP that some things need changing. The Pack was not the best team in the NFC this year (arguably not even in the division), and it's a little fluky that they've made it this far. No running game at all, inconsistent defense. We won with a lot of big plays, but simply now way it's the #1 team in the NFC.
Still, they were better in the NFC than the Steelers were in the AFC, I'm not sure I'd put them in the top four, particularly with that offensive line. At least in the AFC team though the #1 team was seeded at #1 - they blew it to a team that shouldn't even have been in the tournament, but such is the inherent flaw in a single elimination tournament.
As to the answer to the thread question, I would like to see some kind of double, or even triple, elimination playoff tournament. It would make the better teams rise to the top IMO. We would certainly have a very different SB match up, I don't think anyone could argue otherwise.
Still, they were better in the NFC than the Steelers were in the AFC, I'm not sure I'd put them in the top four, particularly with that offensive line. At least in the AFC team though the #1 team was seeded at #1 - they blew it to a team that shouldn't even have been in the tournament, but such is the inherent flaw in a single elimination tournament.
As to the answer to the thread question, I would like to see some kind of double, or even triple, elimination playoff tournament. It would make the better teams rise to the top IMO. We would certainly have a very different SB match up, I don't think anyone could argue otherwise.
sho nuff
Footballguy
What was inconsistent about this defense? (please don't bring up Washington and Miami...think Clay Matthews).I don't think its fluky that they made the playoffs...nor that they beat the Eagles, Falcons, and Bears.And how were the Steelers not the best in the AFC when its all said and done?Who was? New England? Defense anyone?Baltimore? The same Ravens team that Pittsburgh beat twice this season?Double or triple elimination? So you want the playoffs to go into March?I think the better teams have risen to the top each year. Win or go home.And why do you think we certainly would have a different match up? What evidence do you have that it would change?
Franknbeans
Footballguy
Area51Inhabitant
Footballguy
Who says fishing trips aren't entertaining.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
GB wasn't one of the top NFC teams in the regular season (which is why they had to sneak in as a 6 seed on the last weekend of the season), but they were just a hair below the top teams (Atl, Chi and NO), and they have been the best NFC team in the playoffs, so I'd say they are more than deserving.
Last edited by a moderator:
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
They've had one of the more difficult paths in history
. They beat the # 1, 2 and 3 seeds all on the road. Although the scores aren't necessarily indicitave, they dominated each team. And lol at calling the Jets win over the Pats a fluke. They dominated them on both sides of the ball. I don't get the hate at all?
Reepicheep
Footballguy
Hi new poster here. Sorry it's a doozy.
Setting aside the obvious fishing trip about the Packers and Steelers, and the impossibility of making sure the "real" "best" teams get to the Super Bowl, I think there's actually an interesting question hiding in there- could the NFL playoffs be improved?
Under the system we have now, the regular season is essentially for proving you belong in the conversation, and the playoffs are for proving you can beat the best. I think overall it's the right way to do it, and I love the NFL playoffs, but that's not to say we couldn't do better. The current system could be critized in the following areas:
1. Criteria for who makes the playoffs
Sometimes teams with 11-5 or 10-6 records are excluded from the playoffs in favor of division winners with poorer records. The same issue is there at the conference level as well - six teams from each conference always go to the playoffs, it doesn't matter if there are seven top teams in one conference and five in the other.
2. Number of teams that make the playoffs
The more teams you let into the playoffs, the bigger chance you have of messy upsets and fluke wins keeping a really great team from getting to the Super Bowl. There is a bit of a dynamic here with #1 - the reason we need to allow more teams into the playoffs is because we arbitrarily send division winners to the playoffs.
3. Seeding of playoff teams
Division winners are always given home playoff games reguardless of regular season record. The two conference issue also comes into play here, where occsionally a conference championship game is seen as the "real" Super Bowl when the two best teams are in one conference.
I think overall the best system, in terms of pure equity among all teams, and probability of getting top matchups in the playoffs, would essentially be an NCAA men's basketball style tournament. Take away all conference and division distinctions and just have each team play 16 other teams every year. Seed the top eight teams in a single-elimination bracket and there you go. You only need 8 because there's no concern about average teams getting into the playoffs based on winning a division.
I don't really like the idea of getting rid of divisions though, I think the rivalries are good for the NFL and fans are really passionate about those games. My next-best solution would be to get rid of conference distinctions in the postseason. Still send the 8 division winners to the playoffs, plus 4 wild-card teams. But seed all teams by record. So you could have AFC-NFC matchups in the wildcard round, and the Super Bowl could features two teams from one conference.
Finally, there is simply the idea of keeping the system exactly the way it is, but seeding within conference by record (i.e. Seattle doesn't get a home playoff game this year). I think even this small change would be an improvement, but not as big as some might think.
Lost in all the outrage about a 7-9 team from a terrible division making the playoffs is who else got to the playoffs because that division was terrible. For three years in a row, the NFC division that was paired with the NFC West has sent two teams to the playoffs, and the winner of the division has enjoyed a first-round bye. In 2008, the Eagles and Cowboys were a combined 8-0 against the NFC West. In 2009, the Vikings and Packers were 7-1. This year the Falcons and Saints were also 7-1 against the division. In a poetic bit of irony, every year the "undeserving" NFC West champion eliminated the wild-card team that made the playoffs on the strength of NFC West wins (Cards eliminated Eagles in 2008 and Packers in 2009, 'Hawks eliminated Saints in 2010). The point of all this is simply that we were all so busy lobbying for the Saints to have a home playoff game that we lost sight of the fact that 3 of their wins came against crappy NFC West teams. What goes around comes around.
One final note - even when teams are perfectly rewarded for their regular season play, sometimes they still blow it. The Patriots were all but given a police escort to the Super Bowl this year, they simply had to win two games at home, against teams that they beat handily during the regular season. What other advantage could they possibly have been given, short of just crowning them after week 17?
Setting aside the obvious fishing trip about the Packers and Steelers, and the impossibility of making sure the "real" "best" teams get to the Super Bowl, I think there's actually an interesting question hiding in there- could the NFL playoffs be improved?
Under the system we have now, the regular season is essentially for proving you belong in the conversation, and the playoffs are for proving you can beat the best. I think overall it's the right way to do it, and I love the NFL playoffs, but that's not to say we couldn't do better. The current system could be critized in the following areas:
1. Criteria for who makes the playoffs
Sometimes teams with 11-5 or 10-6 records are excluded from the playoffs in favor of division winners with poorer records. The same issue is there at the conference level as well - six teams from each conference always go to the playoffs, it doesn't matter if there are seven top teams in one conference and five in the other.
2. Number of teams that make the playoffs
The more teams you let into the playoffs, the bigger chance you have of messy upsets and fluke wins keeping a really great team from getting to the Super Bowl. There is a bit of a dynamic here with #1 - the reason we need to allow more teams into the playoffs is because we arbitrarily send division winners to the playoffs.
3. Seeding of playoff teams
Division winners are always given home playoff games reguardless of regular season record. The two conference issue also comes into play here, where occsionally a conference championship game is seen as the "real" Super Bowl when the two best teams are in one conference.
I think overall the best system, in terms of pure equity among all teams, and probability of getting top matchups in the playoffs, would essentially be an NCAA men's basketball style tournament. Take away all conference and division distinctions and just have each team play 16 other teams every year. Seed the top eight teams in a single-elimination bracket and there you go. You only need 8 because there's no concern about average teams getting into the playoffs based on winning a division.
I don't really like the idea of getting rid of divisions though, I think the rivalries are good for the NFL and fans are really passionate about those games. My next-best solution would be to get rid of conference distinctions in the postseason. Still send the 8 division winners to the playoffs, plus 4 wild-card teams. But seed all teams by record. So you could have AFC-NFC matchups in the wildcard round, and the Super Bowl could features two teams from one conference.
Finally, there is simply the idea of keeping the system exactly the way it is, but seeding within conference by record (i.e. Seattle doesn't get a home playoff game this year). I think even this small change would be an improvement, but not as big as some might think.
Lost in all the outrage about a 7-9 team from a terrible division making the playoffs is who else got to the playoffs because that division was terrible. For three years in a row, the NFC division that was paired with the NFC West has sent two teams to the playoffs, and the winner of the division has enjoyed a first-round bye. In 2008, the Eagles and Cowboys were a combined 8-0 against the NFC West. In 2009, the Vikings and Packers were 7-1. This year the Falcons and Saints were also 7-1 against the division. In a poetic bit of irony, every year the "undeserving" NFC West champion eliminated the wild-card team that made the playoffs on the strength of NFC West wins (Cards eliminated Eagles in 2008 and Packers in 2009, 'Hawks eliminated Saints in 2010). The point of all this is simply that we were all so busy lobbying for the Saints to have a home playoff game that we lost sight of the fact that 3 of their wins came against crappy NFC West teams. What goes around comes around.
One final note - even when teams are perfectly rewarded for their regular season play, sometimes they still blow it. The Patriots were all but given a police escort to the Super Bowl this year, they simply had to win two games at home, against teams that they beat handily during the regular season. What other advantage could they possibly have been given, short of just crowning them after week 17?
Sarnoff
Footballguy
First round: home teams start the game up 7-0.Second round: teams with a playoff bye start the game up 14-0.
Heatman
Footballguy
To me this thread is ridiculous. If you want the "best" two teams to face each other for the championship each year then why have a playoff? Let the "best" two regular season teams play and that's it... BUT who determines who the "best" two teams are? You? The coaches? The players? Sports writers? Fan voting? The way to determine who gets to play for the championship is to have a playoff. If you can't win when it counts then you don't get to play... period. So you don't get to see the team you want in the championship... boo hoo. The two teams that made it are VERY good teams regardless of what the SP thinks. Not necessarily every year but for sure this year.
As far as Seattle getting in with a losing record, big deal, once in the Super Bowl era this has happened. And for being such a horrible team they knocked off the defending Champions... huh, maybe they belonged after all.
Nope the playoffs don't need to be fixed.
As far as Seattle getting in with a losing record, big deal, once in the Super Bowl era this has happened. And for being such a horrible team they knocked off the defending Champions... huh, maybe they belonged after all.
Nope the playoffs don't need to be fixed.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I don't think being the "best" team is very important. The goal is to win the Super Bowl.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Yeah...lets just change completely how football is played.
Put the rod down...its gone from cute to utterly foolish.
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
If the Jets/Patriots played 3 times, I'll bet some serious $$ New England comes out winning 2 of 3. They are the much better team. A fluke pick by Brady and the game became a statistical anomaly. The Eagles have no o-line...the Packers have a good pass rush (when Matthews is healthy). Still, that was a good game and the Pack deserved to win. The Falcons have an awful defense and their record was a bit of a fluke. The Bears almost won the game...with their 3rd string qb. The Steelers are going to destroy Green Bay. Pittsburgh might not be the best team but they're up there and are clearly more 'deserving' to go to the Super Bowl over the Packers.They've had one of the more difficult paths in history
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
I think that's a bit much. Maybe give a 2 point lead for the first round homefield advantage?
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
How many points did the Green Bay offense muster in the second half? And if GB is so great how come Chicago won the division?And
at including the week 17 game between these teams when Urlacher and others said it didn't matter going into the game.
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
The Bears did not almost win that game...you can keep trying to tell yourself that if you want though.Pitt going to destroy GB? Perhaps...but considering GB has played some solid competition this year and never been down more than TD, I don't think you have much to go on there.And seriously how are they more deserving?Neither you nor your fishing buddy have provided any compelling evidence as to why GB is not the best representative to the NFC right now.
Reepicheep
Footballguy
In your opinion who should be representing the NFC in the Super Bowl?
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Regarding your post from a day ago, you still have yet to participate in this little exercise. Why the avoidance?How many points did the Green Bay offense muster in the second half? And if GB is so great how come Chicago won the division?Andat including the week 17 game between these teams when Urlacher and others said it didn't matter going into the game.
sho nuff
Footballguy
What does the Green Bay offense have to do with Mike Martz?You claimed the game was going the Bears way at some point...I guess with about 5 minutes left it might have been.Many factors went into how GB lost that division. They had their own hiccups during the year for sure. But during that NE game, then NY...and the 4 games since that...they have righted the ship and proven they deserve to be where they are.Oh, going on the it didn't matter so nothing out of that game should count right?How about this then...in the 5 games over the past 2 years, a Bear offense has never scored more than 15 points against the Capers defense. GB controlled that game for most of it and dominated the first half. And no crying about injuries to Cutler...the Packers have dealt with a ton of injuries and its not as if Cutler did anything while healthy...Hanie played better than he did anyway.How many points did the Green Bay offense muster in the second half? And if GB is so great how come Chicago won the division?And
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
GB may very well be the most deserving from a weak NFC but they had a fairly easy road. Were it not for a couple flukes we'd have a clearer understanding whether they're actually the best.
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
Football is a team game. The Bears defense was dominating the second half but their offense was unable to join in the steamroll. Had Cutler been out there he would have surely been able to muster up more than the 3rd string qb. All teams deal with injuries...but what happened when Rodgers got hurt earlier this year? There is a big difference between some injury and your starting qb going down.What does the Green Bay offense have to do with Mike Martz?You claimed the game was going the Bears way at some point...I guess with about 5 minutes left it might have been.Many factors went into how GB lost that division. They had their own hiccups during the year for sure. But during that NE game, then NY...and the 4 games since that...they have righted the ship and proven they deserve to be where they are.Oh, going on the it didn't matter so nothing out of that game should count right?How about this then...in the 5 games over the past 2 years, a Bear offense has never scored more than 15 points against the Capers defense. GB controlled that game for most of it and dominated the first half. And no crying about injuries to Cutler...the Packers have dealt with a ton of injuries and its not as if Cutler did anything while healthy...Hanie played better than he did anyway.How many points did the Green Bay offense muster in the second half? And if GB is so great how come Chicago won the division?And
sho nuff
Footballguy
The weak NFC has fared very well against the top AFC teams this year.Its hilarious that it must all be due to flukes though.
sho nuff
Footballguy
The Bears D did play a great 2nd half...but the Packers D dominated about 90% of that game.Had Cutler been in there...who knows...but to that point, Cutler had done nothing...and historically has fared poorly against this Capers D. So there is not much evidence on your side there.When Rodgers got hurt...that one game they played poorly (though, Rodgers played poorly too)...the next game, Flynn played quite well...and even he fared better than Rodgers did against Detroit.Its one thing if the starting QB had any history of success...but through a half a game he was getting shut out...and had a number of poor performances already under his belt against this defense.You want to write off what I am saying as Cheesehead homer talk fine...but you won't be able to point out a thing I have said that doesn't have a factual basis.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Awesome
Footballguy
Cutler had an awful o-coordinator last year. The Bears were horrible. So we're dealing with two games. The Bears didn't care about week 17. So we're now dealing with 1 game of the Martz/Capers argument.
fred_1_15301
Footballguy
You're sure throwing out a lot of ifs and buts. Bottom line--the Jets beat the Patriots 2 out of 3 times this season so I'm not sure why you're so confident that the Pats are a better team. Every team has weaknesses but the Packers were the only team good enough to expose the other teams weaknesses in the NFC. The Bears, Eagles and Falcons were all dominated by the Packers. The scores were a little closer because of McCarthy's conservative play calling. I'm a Steeler fan but it's laughable to think that they will destroy the Packers. Much like the Eagles, the Steelers have a serious weakness on offensive line (especially without Pouncey). I doubt the Steelers win this game.If the Jets/Patriots played 3 times, I'll bet some serious $$ New England comes out winning 2 of 3. They are the much better team. A fluke pick by Brady and the game became a statistical anomaly. The Eagles have no o-line...the Packers have a good pass rush (when Matthews is healthy). Still, that was a good game and the Pack deserved to win. The Falcons have an awful defense and their record was a bit of a fluke. The Bears almost won the game...with their 3rd string qb. The Steelers are going to destroy Green Bay. Pittsburgh might not be the best team but they're up there and are clearly more 'deserving' to go to the Super Bowl over the Packers.They've had one of the more difficult paths in historyLeave it to the biggest cheesehead on these boards to jump to the team's defense. The Packers have done a great job this year and maybe they 'deserved' to make it. But there's no denying their path was pretty easy (relatively speaking).
. They beat the # 1, 2 and 3 seeds all on the road. Although the scores aren't necessarily indicitave, they dominated each team. And lol at calling the Jets win over the Pats a fluke. They dominated them on both sides of the ball. I don't get the hate at all?
sho nuff
Footballguy
Nice spin there. As I said, a bit lame to start fishing on page 3.So far, no matter the coordinator...or how much they supposedly cared...Cutler has fared poorly against this defense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Larrywarren
Footballguy
One thing that hasnt been mentioned much is that this year the seeding system favoured the NFC 2 seed over the NFC 1 seed - in that when it came to Divisional week the 2 seed Chicago hosted a 7-9 team and the 1 seed Atlanta hosted a 10-6 team.
Instead of highest seed plays lowest seed they should change it to allow the highest seed to pick their opponents - which is what now happens in rugby play offs in the UK.
Instead of highest seed plays lowest seed they should change it to allow the highest seed to pick their opponents - which is what now happens in rugby play offs in the UK.
Reepicheep
Footballguy
Can you imagine the two weeks of trash talk we would have had to suffer through if NE elected to play Baltimore instead of NY in the divisional round?
B Maverick
Footballguy
by both the Jets AND Balt no less. Jets - They are afraid of us! They would rather play Balt then us!Balt - They are not showing any respect, they ASKED to play us. Lets make em pay!!wow what mess that would be.So if the Seahawks had been 8-8, 9-7 or even 10-6 would this matter? They are still the 4 seed. If Philly wins, Chi hosts Phil and Atl gets a 7-9 team. Basically its Philly's fault for sucking as the #3 seed.Can you imagine the two weeks of trash talk we would have had to suffer through if NE elected to play Baltimore instead of NY in the divisional round?
Reepicheep
Footballguy
Of course it would make a difference. In an imaginary world where the Seahawks are 10-6, they are likely a better team. The whole point is that their seeding was inconsitent with their record. (On the other hand, we all know that W-L doesn't tell the whole story, which is why we have playoffs)
roadkill1292
Footballguy
This idea is long overdue.
Similar threads
