2008 NFL Regular Season Thread.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I think we all know how the schedule works. The AFC East still had 8 games against the two weakest divisions in the league. I think their records reflect that.

True.. but with only 16 games a year there's no way to make a fair schedule for everyone. This is as balanced as it's ever been. The NFL used to be just made up off the top of someone's head. Teams wouldn't play each other for 20 years in some cases.

You'd have to play everyone home and away for it to be fair.
Like the EPL table.

[GirlySports]

I heard these were popular in Detroit.

[browna]

OT somewhat, but the MNF crew grew on me this year. Sure, its laid back, but thats perfect for a Monday game, to be honest. It was relaxing to just kind of sit down and watch the game or have the game on in the background this year.

The crew made good analysis without going overboard. Kornhesier is a bit grating sometimes, but I don't mind him. Jaworski is decent, and Tirco ties it all together. Low key and subdued most of the times, but very informative and big plays are still big plays.

Maybe its just a break from most of the Sunday crews (and I saw a lot of B crews, watching all the Seahawk games) that are windbags (Sims), stating the obvious after every play (Baldinger/Sims), or explayers want to pretend to sound smarter then they are (Baldinger, Boselli, even Johnson this year...and don't get me started on Faulk and Sanders from Thursday Night), or guys that just do the regional games for a reason (Ron Pitts), or guys that want to do comedy (Versgien (SP))....or guys who have egos that are too big (Sims), or that every play is a big play (Enberg).

Not sure if they'll be back, but I was looking froward to Monday nights, even though some of the games were crap, because watching/listening to the game was a more laid back, comfortable expereince...tough to explain.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I think we all know how the schedule works.

Merry Christmas.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I think we all know how the schedule works. The AFC East still had 8 games against the two weakest divisions in the league. I think their records reflect that.

Yeah, the AFC East got 8 games against what are the two worst Divisions in Football, which easily offsets the fact that they play 6 games inside the Division. Ample chance for them to post a 6-2 record against the dud teams which helps offset going 3-3 inside your own Division this year. Basically leaving the two games based on last years standings to more or less shape how the Division ended up.

For example New England is 7-1 against the AFC West and NFC West, 3-2 in their Divsion and 0-2 on the strength of schedule games Steelers and Colts.

Miami is 7-1 against the West teams, 3-2 in the Division and 0-2 on the strength of schedule games (Ravens and Texans)

The Jets shat the bed posting a 4-4 record against the West, but have a 4-1 Division record and also a 2-0 record in the strength of schedule games against the Titans and Bengals. Realisitically the Jets stand to lose the Division because of how poorly they played against the West teams...not how they played inside their Division.

But in the NFC, the Cards are going to strictly get in based on their 5-0 record against NFC West teams. Early on the year they had looked pretty good when they had like a 7-3 record with their losses being East Coast games against what looked like good teams. Maybe they've been on cruise control for 3 weeks here, but thats not good either since they clinched a terrible Division when they won their 8th game in week 14.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Yeah, the AFC East got 8 games against what are the two worst Divisions in Football, which easily offsets the fact that they play 6 games inside the Division. Ample chance for them to post a 6-2 record against the dud teams which helps offset going 3-3 inside your own Division this year. Basically leaving the two games based on last years standings to more or less shape how the Division ended up.

For example New England is 7-1 against the AFC West and NFC West, 3-2 in their Divsion and 0-2 on the strength of schedule games Steelers and Colts.

Miami is 7-1 against the West teams, 3-2 in the Division and 0-2 on the strength of schedule games (Ravens and Texans)

The Jets shat the bed posting a 4-4 record against the West, but have a 4-1 Division record and also a 2-0 record in the strength of schedule games against the Titans and Bengals. Realisitically the Jets stand to lose the Division because of how poorly they played against the West teams...not how they played inside their Division.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. What point are you getting at?

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. What point are you getting at?

That the AFC East teams didn't suffer by playing in a competitive Division because they had 8 games against what should have been easier teams, and only 6 Division games.

The NFC South also had 4 games against the AFC West and the NFC North was a bit of a mediocre Division. Hence all the teams in that Division are .500 or better because they all pretty much split against each other and had good records against the other teams.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

That the AFC East teams didn't suffer by playing in a competitive Division because they had 8 games against what should have been easier teams, and only 6 Division games.

The NFC South also had 4 games against the AFC West and the NFC North was a bit of a mediocre Division. Hence all the teams in that Division are .500 or better because they all pretty much split against each other and had good records against the other teams.

OK.

So are you saying the playoff selection format is acceptable the way it is?

Or that theoretically the schedules balanced and AZ has no right to a playoff game?

I think the selection criteria is fine. I'm just wondering if they deserve a home game. Currently the reward for winning your division is playoffs AND a home playoff game. Perhaps division winners should only be guaranteed a playoff birth.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

OK.

So are you saying the playoff selection format is acceptable the way it is?

Now I sound like an absolute moron....

I don't like the idea of Division winners getting 67% of the playoff berths when only 38% of the schedule is based on Division play. I'm okay with the schedule the way it is, but would rather see the top 6 teams get the playoff berths. Essentiall if a team is in a strong Division they still would have 10 games outside of their Division to prove their mettle.

When the NFL only had 3 Divisions in each conference and half of a teams schedule was based on Division play than it was okay as it was 50% of the playoff teams based on 50% of the schedule. It gave the second place team in any Division a shot at the playoffs or a Division with 3 good teams had a chance to have two Wild Card teams. Now it does seem like there is a chance where a team like the Patriots will be held out of the playoffs due to having a 4th Division. Although this is the first year where it's probably been this much of a discrepancy between a playoff team and non playoff team's record.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

The thing is each teams schedule is based on their division. So would it be fair to have three AFC East teams in the playoffs when they had a cream puff schedule outside of their division with games vs the Chiefs, Raiders, Chargers, Broncos, Rams, Seahawks, 49ers, and Cardinals?

Haha. That cream puff schedule is producing 2 playoff teams, which is exactly my argument.

If you think that is bad, what about the AFC and NFC West schedules? Against cream puff teams in their own division.

Arizona - Rams x2, Seahawks x2, 49ers x2
Denver/SD - Denver x2, San Diego x2, Raiders x2, KC x2.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Haha. That cream puff schedule is producing 2 playoff teams, which is exactly my argument.

It's not the schedule, it's the playoff format that is doing it. If the 4 Division winners were not given births than San Diego/Denver and Arizona would not have made it.

Arizona will likely finish 6-0 in their Division and San Diego will likely end up 5-1 to give those teams 9-7 and 8-8 records and win their Divsions. Even with 6 easier Division games those teams records are not good enough to make a conference based playoff where the top 6 teams would get in.

There have been years where a 10-6 AFC team missed the playoffs and a 9-7 NFC team got in, and in the 80's and 90's there were a lot of 10-6 NFC teams miss the playoffs when 8-8 AFC teams got in. But to me that is different because the two conferences are separated and all conference teams play the same % of conference and non conference games.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

If you think that is bad, what about the AFC and NFC West schedules? Against cream puff teams in their own division.

Arizona - Rams x2, Seahawks x2, 49ers x2
Denver/SD - Denver x2, San Diego x2, Raiders x2, KC x2.

Well since all those teams stink it is all they can do to compete against each other. I'm not arguing about whether or not the NFL playoff format is fair or not. Of course it isn't going to be fair for every team every year.

The current four division format was set up to put a more balanced schedule in place and to allow every team to play each other every four years. In the old scheduling format teams would go decades without playing each other. Steelers and Raiders went something like 20 years without facing each other, which was sad since they had some great battles in the 1970's.

Its impossible in a 16 game schedule, in a 32 team league, for every team to play each other and have an identical schedule. The current system is an attempt to make things as fair as possible, under the circumstances, while still allowing all the teams to face each other at least once every four years.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

True.. but with only 16 games a year there's no way to make a fair schedule for everyone. This is as balanced as it's ever been. The NFL used to be just made up off the top of someone's head. Teams wouldn't play each other for 20 years in some cases.

You'd have to play everyone home and away for it to be fair.
Like the EPL table.

Sorry, I didn't see your reply till after I had replied to clever Iggy. Yeah, I see your point exactly. I wasn't saying that the current format is unfair. I was just pointing out that despite the AFC and NFC West being weak divisions. Other teams also benefited from these weak divisions as much as the Cards and Chargers/Broncos did.

For every year like this year where we see numerous teams with poor records. There will be a year that all but 2 teams in a conference are mathematically alive with only two games left in the season. Every season is different.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Now I sound like an absolute moron....

I don't like the idea of Division winners getting 67% of the playoff berths when only 38% of the schedule is based on Division play. I'm okay with the schedule the way it is, but would rather see the top 6 teams get the playoff berths. Essentiall if a team is in a strong Division they still would have 10 games outside of their Division to prove their mettle.

When the NFL only had 3 Divisions in each conference and half of a teams schedule was based on Division play than it was okay as it was 50% of the playoff teams based on 50% of the schedule. It gave the second place team in any Division a shot at the playoffs or a Division with 3 good teams had a chance to have two Wild Card teams. Now it does seem like there is a chance where a team like the Patriots will be held out of the playoffs due to having a 4th Division. Although this is the first year where it's probably been this much of a discrepancy between a playoff team and non playoff team's record.

LOL

While I think AZ getting in and another and probably much better, team missing out isn't a "good" thing, I don't want to see the playoff teams changed as a knee jerk result of one year.

Some teams play weaker teams. Some teams play teams on short weeks, and some teams suffer injuries. It happens and over the course of a few seasons I think it will all even out.

But you do have interesting ideas with % of playoff spots vs % of divisional play. But I can't see the NFL wanting more playoff teams. There is talk about expanding the schedule, perhaps that would allow more teams to play more non-divisional opponents and smooth out these issues.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

LOL


But you do have interesting ideas with % of playoff spots vs % of divisional play. But I can't see the NFL wanting more playoff teams. There is talk about expanding the schedule, perhaps that would allow more teams to play more non-divisional opponents and smooth out these issues.

I had heard that they NFL was thinking about an 18 game schedule too as a means of increasing revenues, which would make Divisional play only account for 33% of the schedule. I also agree that they don't want to add two more playoff teams and take away the bye weeks for the top teams.

In order to get the percentages a bit more in line maybe they could offer up playoff spots guaranteed to the top 3 Division winners and grant those teams the 1-2-3 seeds and than offer up the 3 wild card spots to the other teams. I can't remember any other year since the 32 team league and 8 Division format went into place that there was a team miss the playoffs because a Division winner bumped them with a lesser record. This has been an odd year, 7 teams who probably end up with 4 or fewer wins including a team who could be 0-16. Than when the best teams have 13 wins....it allows for a lot of other teams to post 10 or more wins.

I like the NFL schedule...but I think the playoff format could be looked at.

[malcolmk14]

Seems like every single year people find something to complain about. Last year, it was that games in week 17 don't mean anything.

Now that Week 17 is packed with important life or death games, people are complaining about the playoff format.

Can't please anyone.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I think the selection criteria is fine. I'm just wondering if they deserve a home game. Currently the reward for winning your division is playoffs AND a home playoff game. Perhaps division winners should only be guaranteed a playoff birth.

Agreed. I dont have a problem with the format, this happens sometimes. But I agree it shouldn't be an automatic home play-off game. Actually I have the same issue with the NHL play-off formula. No way do Arizona and Denver/San Diego deserve a home play-off game.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by moon

If it were one team that might be different or if the teams on the outside weren't as good as they but to have two division winners look as bad as the Cardinals and Broncos have all season and they beat out teams with possible 11-5/10-6 records is crazy.

Especially considering that the Cards could have won the division with a worse record and the Broncos have been lucky to get the wins that they have. It isn't like these are two teams that are actually good and have had some bad luck they are legitimately poor teams that get to host play-off games.

Through in the Vikings, with Tavares Jackson at QB, and that is 3 bad teams that will win their divisions this year.

Oh please.

The Broncos have been lucky to win the games they have...whatever. The Broncos are one of the youngest teams in the NFL and have been throttled by injuries like I have never seen.

The Vikings are a very good team with a horrific coach. Who would you have make the playoffs ahead of them? The wonderful Cowboys?

I just don't get this mindset at all.

Which teams are we whining about the AFC West keeping out of the playoffs exactly?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Don't forget though that East-West travel isn't always they easiest thing to do. I don't think a single West Division team won a game in the East this year as bad as the teams were..thats still amazing that 16 games and not one win. Likewise a few of the better teams from the East didn't fare as well on the West Coast as they should. The Jets for example...fail on the West coast.

The Broncos beat the Jets handily in New York, but rumor has it they were lucky to get the win.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The Broncos have been lucky to win the games they have...whatever. The Broncos are one of the youngest teams in the NFL and have been throttled by injuries like I have never seen.

The Hochuli game against SD and the NO game in which the Broncos player was clearly lined up offside on 3rd and 5 and then the NO kicker missed an easy FG. Those are 2 games that the Broncos were lucky to win.

The Vikings are a very good team with a horrific coach. Who would you have make the playoffs ahead of them? The wonderful Cowboys?

They also have no QB. Give them an average QB and I agree they would be a good team, but with Jackson and Frerotte as the guys they are nothing better than mediocre at best.

And yes the Cowboys are a more deserving and better team than the Vikings. So are the Bucs and Falcons.

I just don't get this mindset at all.

Which teams are we whining about the AFC West keeping out of the playoffs exactly?[

Nobody is whining but one of the teams from the AFC East is going to be kept out and they deserve to be in there over the winner of the AFC West. Although hopefully it is the Pats that are the team that is kept out and then I would say that the team that wins the AFC West definitely deserves to get in!