2011 NFL Playoffs Thread

[transplant99]

Interesting point made on M&M on ESPN this AM.

Every game this weekend has the team with the worse record at home except the Packers/Eagles who both finished at 10-6 but the Packers have beaten head to head already this year.

Pretty good reasoning for re-seeding after the season/teams are determined. If that happened, the byes would go to Atlanta and NO this weekend with Seattle playing in chicago and Green bay hosting the Eagles. Seems like a better idea than the current one actually and makes the liklihood of year end games mean so much more.

As per their example..the eagles were playing a meaningless game as they were locked in to the 3rd seed, but if this other system was in use they would of been playing to keep home field and not been able to rest guys like they did. Also the Bears would have been needing a win on Sunday to maintain the 2nd seed as they would have a worse conference record than New Orleans which is why the Saints would get the bye.

Just some things to ponder about.

[Papi34]

I don't like the re-seeding idea honestly, I think if you win the division you deserve a home playoff game regardless how bad the division is. If the saints can't beat seattle on the road they dont deserve to be at the dance any way.

The whole re-seeding thing is a big over reaction because its happened one year where a sub .500 team won the division. A couple 8-8 teams have made it like Arizona but look what they did. I say leave it as is, its an anomaly and unlikely to happen ever again. The league is very diverse this year I count up to 8 teams in the playoffs with a legitimate shot at the title... just astounding really.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Papi34

I don't like the re-seeding idea honestly, I think if you win the division you deserve a home playoff game regardless how bad the division is. If the saints can't beat seattle on the road they dont deserve to be at the dance any way.

The whole re-seeding thing is a big over reaction because its happened one year where a sub .500 team won the division. A couple 8-8 teams have made it like Arizona but look what they did. I say leave it as is, its an anomaly and unlikely to happen ever again. The league is very diverse this year I count up to 8 teams in the playoffs with a legitimate shot at the title... just astounding really.

IMO that has nothing to do with why there will be discussion of changing things up. This re-seeding thing isnt about this one blip of a 7-9 team, its about better teams having to travel and not hosting a game.

To me its all about what each team earned during the season, and it would be impossible to argue that the Saints didnt earn more than the Seahawks. Home field isnt just about the players and coaches, its also about the fans. NO fans deserve to see that game in their house as they were, by far, the better team all year.

Again all just my opinion, but after listening to much debate about it, it is the right thing to do IMO. Home field can be an advantage, and in the case of Seattle a huge one, but that ad should be earned and not given because they happened into the weakest division in the history of the league...at least as far as this year is concerned anyhow.

remember...if this was in effect for this year, it wouldnt just affect the Seahawks...it would literally change every single venue this weekend. The Colts would be in NY, the Chiefs would be in Baltimore and the Eagles would be in Lambeau as well.

[troutman]

More than re-seeding, I think the NFL has to look at the unbalanced schedules. Every year a few teams sneak into the playoffs due to weak schedules, and better teams miss the playoffs because of brutal schedules.

Teams with good records are punished, and weak teams are rewarded.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by transplant99

IMO that has nothing to do with why there will be discussion of changing things up. This re-seeding thing isnt about this one blip of a 7-9 team, its about better teams having to travel and not hosting a game.

To me its all about what each team earned during the season, and it would be impossible to argue that the Saints didnt earn more than the Seahawks. Home field isnt just about the players and coaches, its also about the fans. NO fans deserve to see that game in their house as they were, by far, the better team all year.

Again all just my opinion, but after listening to much debate about it, it is the right thing to do IMO. Home field can be an advantage, and in the case of Seattle a huge one, but that ad should be earned and not given because they happened into the weakest division in the history of the league...at least as far as this year is concerned anyhow.

remember...if this was in effect for this year, it wouldnt just affect the Seahawks...it would literally change every single venue this weekend. The Colts would be in NY, the Chiefs would be in Baltimore and the Eagles would be in Lambeau as well.

If they move to reseeding I don't think everyone would be happy. For instance, teams in particularly strong divisions are being punished for having tougher schedules. In the NBA the reseeding works because the division games don't make up as high of a percentage of the schedule. In the NFL and say its like the years where the Dolphins, Jets and Patriots are all legit, then you are of course going to have a worse record than a team who is way above their division peers. I don't think it really needs to be changed honestly. Do I think the Jets should have home field, because they put together a better season than the Colts? Yes. But, I don't think there is a fair way to do it.

[OILFAN #81]

Originally Posted by troutman

More than re-seeding, I think the NFL has to look at the unbalanced schedules. Every year a few teams sneak into the playoffs due to weak schedules, and better teams miss the playoffs because of brutal schedules.

Teams with good records are punished, and weak teams are rewarded.

Great point. There are some teams who will have 1 less loss then another team but played a way harder schedule. I know that no system will be perfect but they need to come up with a better schedule. For example, KC had a lighter schedule this year and they do good, so next year they now have a very difficult schedule as was just released this past weekend. KC is a good football team and their schedule shouldn't be based on their record (I think they will be something like 9-7 next year which will mean that their schedule will get easier the year after). I think their schedule is too hard next year compared to this year.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Great point. There are some teams who will have 1 less loss then another team but played a way harder schedule. I know that no system will be perfect but they need to come up with a better schedule. For example, KC had a lighter schedule this year and they do good, so next year they now have a very difficult schedule as was just released this past weekend. KC is a good football team and their schedule shouldn't be based on their record (I think they will be something like 9-7 next year which will mean that their schedule will get easier the year after). I think their schedule is too hard next year compared to this year.

Nothing much can be done about that. Each team plays everyone in their division twice (6), plays another division within their conference (4) and another division in the opposite conference (4) and then 2 other games based on the previous seasons results and looking for what "should" be the best matchups. Thats really the only fair and equitable way to do things IMO. Otherwise you could go years without seeing the Jets and the Giants playing each other as an example. Or Dallas and Houston, San Fran and Oakland etc. Right now they are guarenteed to meeet at least once every 4 years if not more. There are just some natural rivals that division or conference play cant account for unless done as it is now.

I cant see anyway to make a "balanced" schedule in the NFL because of the sheer amount of teams. The only thing they could do is play everyone else in your conference once, (15) and then a division in the opposite conference once (4) every 4 years and that would get them to a 19 game schedule....not gonna happen. The problem with something like that is, for instance, the Packers would only host the Bears every other year...and that is something that all division rivals would object too IMO.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Sowa

If they move to reseeding I don't think everyone would be happy. For instance, teams in particularly strong divisions are being punished for having tougher schedules. In the NBA the reseeding works because the division games don't make up as high of a percentage of the schedule. In the NFL and say its like the years where the Dolphins, Jets and Patriots are all legit, then you are of course going to have a worse record than a team who is way above their division peers. I don't think it really needs to be changed honestly. Do I think the Jets should have home field, because they put together a better season than the Colts? Yes. But, I don't think there is a fair way to do it.

Exactly...they are being punished for playing tougher schedules. Re-seeding would limit that. Look at New Orleans this year as the most extreme example. The NFL already uses strength of schedule and strength of victory in determining playoff teams in case of ties, no reason they cant take it the next step.

[Erick Estrada]

NO (-10) @ SEA
-Taking NO to cover in relative ease. Has there ever been a visiting team in the playoffs given a ten point spread?

NYJ @ IND (-3)
-Tough game to pick but in the dome I have to take Indy to cover.

BAL (-3) @ KC
-The money is likely going to be all over Ravens but I wouldn't count the Chiefs out in Arrowhead. I expect it to be close but I will have to take the Ravens to cover just because the Raiders have provided the blueprint to make the Chiefs look pretty average.

GB @ PHI (-2.5)
-I'm taking the Packers and the points. I think Matthews and the defense will be all over Vick and as long as they can contain the big plays they may be able to take out this years big story. Oh and does anyone in throw a prettier spiral than Rogers?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by troutman

More than re-seeding, I think the NFL has to look at the unbalanced schedules. Every year a few teams sneak into the playoffs due to weak schedules, and better teams miss the playoffs because of brutal schedules.

Teams with good records are punished, and weak teams are rewarded.

I'd agree with this. A good chunk of the teams with better records in each conference feasted on bad teams. KC, New York, Indy, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Seattle, and Chicago all got in while only beating 3 or less teams with better than .500 records.

If you break that down percentage-wise it looks like this:

KC (10-6; 1 win against >.500 teams) - 90% of wins came against losing teams

New York (11-5; 2 wins against >.500 teams) - 81%

etc., etc.

[Sylvanfan]

In terms of the schedule...what can really be done? It's pretty much perfect right now where Division teams see 14 common opponents. Fans see every other NFL team at least once every 4 years against their team and in their stadium every 8 years.

Essentially the difference between the Chiefs and Chargers was that the Chargers had to play New England and at Cincy, whereas the Chiefs played at Cleveland and Buffalo. So the Chiefs realistically ended up with what I'd say was one easier game and it proved enough for them to edge out the Chargers.

The NFL succeeds because fan interest in most markets remains fairly high. I don't think there is anything wrong with letting Chief fans see their team in the playoffs this year because they matched what the Chargers did in the 14 common games and posted a better record in the two non common games.

Unless you want to have a league where you go 16 years between seeing another team, or go to something insane like 24 games, you will always have schedule quirks. Some teams will end up with easier schedules than others in some years, but over 4 year terms IT BALANCES OUT.

Something that may fix the current issue would be to allow for one more Wild Card team in each Conference. With 3 Division winners and 3 wild card teams you'd have 3 games in each Conference the first week. Than the next week you have the same two you currently have. That way the top team in each conference gets a bye in round one, and than the other teams could be seeded based on record. That way the team with the best record in the Conference gets a bit of a reward. Right now say the Packers and Seahawks win next week. I don't think Atlanta as the #1 seed is getting much of a reward over Chicago even though they had the better record. Just like in the AFC the #2 seed likely gets to face Indy who has a weaker record than the Jets or Ravens.

[Sylvanfan]

For the record, I'm going to take the Patriots to be the AFC team in the Superbowl, and win it. Thats the easiest pick you can make.

The NFC....to me is anything but easy. I think I will go with Green Bay. I think them and New Orleans have the best combo's of offence and Defence, but New Orleans gets a tough matchup having to play the Bears on a bad field in the second week. Whereas I think Green Bays offence can score enough on Atlanta to win a rematch, leaving the Packers playing the Bears again.

New England 31-27 over Green Bay is my week one prediction. I reserve the right to change this of course, but gloat like hell if I'm right.

[rubecube]

Just looking at the quality of wins each team has in each conference, I think you have to go with New England from the AFC, and one of Atlanta, Green Bay or Philly from the NFC. The big thing for the Eagles will be to start running the football to take some pressure off of Vick and limit the amount of time their secondary spends on the field. I'm taking back my New Orleans pick and I'm going to say that the winner of the Philly/Green Bay game will be playing in the NFC Championship, but I have no clue who comes out of that game.

Mind you, the conspiracy theorist in me says there's no way the NFL allows Michael Vick remotely near Super Bowl week.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Just looking at the quality of wins each team has in each conference, I think you have to go with New England from the AFC, and one of Atlanta, Green Bay or Philly from the NFC. The big thing for the Eagles will be to start running the football to take some pressure off of Vick and limit the amount of time their secondary spends on the field. I'm taking back my New Orleans pick and I'm going to say that the winner of the Philly/Green Bay game will be playing in the NFC Championship, but I have no clue who comes out of that game.

Mind you, the conspiracy theorist in me says there's no way the NFL allows Michael Vick remotely near Super Bowl week.

In the AFC NE had the best SOS by a wee bit over Pittsburgh. In the NFC no one in the playoffs comes close to how difficult GB had it.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/newrepl...eply&p=2872720

Philly had the highest strength of victory rating though.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings/_/t...ory/order/true

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

In terms of the schedule...what can really be done? It's pretty much perfect right now where Division teams see 14 common opponents. Fans see every other NFL team at least once every 4 years against their team and in their stadium every 8 years.

Essentially the difference between the Chiefs and Chargers was that the Chargers had to play New England and at Cincy, whereas the Chiefs played at Cleveland and Buffalo. So the Chiefs realistically ended up with what I'd say was one easier game and it proved enough for them to edge out the Chargers.

The NFL succeeds because fan interest in most markets remains fairly high. I don't think there is anything wrong with letting Chief fans see their team in the playoffs this year because they matched what the Chargers did in the 14 common games and posted a better record in the two non common games.

Unless you want to have a league where you go 16 years between seeing another team, or go to something insane like 24 games, you will always have schedule quirks. Some teams will end up with easier schedules than others in some years, but over 4 year terms IT BALANCES OUT.

I will say while the AFC west really benefited from playing the NFC west the Chiefs had an unbelievably easy schedule. The Chiefs got the Browns on the road from the AFC North while the Raiders had to play in Pittsburgh. They got the Bills from the AFC East and the Raiders got the Dolphins (midseason when they were still competitive). They also got to play the Titans with their back up (Collins) while the Raiders had to deal with Young (like him or not the Titans win with Young as QB) and they played Jacksonville when the Jags had to start Bouman a guy they literally had to bring in off the street a week before the game while the Raiders had to face Garrard.

I'm not saying the Raiders got robbed because they didn't take care of business against teams like the 49ers and Cardinals but the Chiefs faced only one team with a winning record all year outside the Chargers. It was a gift schedule and I give them credit for taking advantage of it but they will be in really tough next year especially with the loss of Charlie Weis who is a great co-ordinator.

[troutman]

Superbowl = NE 38 NO 17

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm not saying the Raiders got robbed because they didn't take care of business against teams like the 49ers and Cardinals but the Chiefs faced only one team with a winning record all year outside the Chargers. It was a gift schedule and I give them credit for taking advantage of it but they will be in really tough next year especially with the loss of Charlie Weis who is a great co-ordinator.

The Raiders got robbed by themselves. Losing to Arizona and SF? Pathetic! Win those two games and they were in. KC won both those games with ease.

As for the Chiefs playing the Browns and Bills while the Raiders played the Steelers and Dolphins. That is what happens when you finish last in your division. You play a last place schedule. It happens to eight teams every year. Next year the Chiefs will play a first place schedule against the Steelers and Patriots. While arguably the best team in the AFC West, the Raiders (6-0 in the division) will play a third place schedule.

Its the circle of life in the NFL. One year you will have an easy schedule. Another year you could have a tough one.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

The Raiders got robbed by themselves. Losing to Arizona and SF? Pathetic! Win those two games and they were in. KC won both those games with ease.

As for the Chiefs playing the Browns and Bills while the Raiders played the Steelers and Dolphins. That is what happens when you finish last in your division. You play a last place schedule. It happens to eight teams every year. Next year the Chiefs will play a first place schedule against the Steelers and Patriots. While arguably the best team in the AFC West, the Raiders (6-0 in the division) will play a third place schedule.

Its the circle of life in the NFL. One year you will have an easy schedule. Another year you could have a tough one.

As far as the Raider are concerned I don't think I made any excuses for them in my post. I realize that the Chiefs got the benefit of the last place schedule but not only did they have an easy schedule they also got the benefit of playing 2nd and off the street starting QB's in a few of the games where they played competitive teams. It's a once in a decade schedule and I gave them credit for taking advantage of it.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

As far as the Raider are concerned I don't think I made any excuses for them in my post. I realize that the Chiefs got the benefit of the last place schedule but not only did they have an easy schedule they also got the benefit of playing 2nd and off the street starting QB's in a few of the games where they played competitive teams. It's a once in a decade schedule and I gave them credit for taking advantage of it.

It appears that your whining when you keep referring to how easy your most hated rivals schedule was. Hey, I would be disappointed too if my team went 6-0 against the division and played four games against the NFC West and still managed to miss the playoffs by two games.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

It appears that your whining when you keep referring to how easy your most hated rivals schedule was. Hey, I would be disappointed too if my team went 6-0 against the division and played four games against the NFC West and still managed to miss the playoffs by two games.

I guess that would make sense if I was the person that brought up the topic but since I didn't not so much. I don't recall ever seeing a team have as easy a schedule as KC did this year. No whining here as I believe the Raiders didn't deserve to be in the playoffs.