N.f.l. 2010 season (1 Viewer)

[Spitfrnd]

I respect your opinion, but mine is very different. I don't think that a 7-9 team should ever be in the playoffs, and the fact that the ridiculous "division" system put one in the playoffs tells me that there is something seriously wrong. It gets even worse when the 7-9 team hosts a game against an 11-5 team. That 11-5 team didn't come to play, and deserved to lose, but they should have lost to a team that a least belonged in the playoffs. There were 5 teams in other Divisions with better records than 7-9, all of whom are sitting home, not to mention the fact that every team hosting a playoff game in the widlcard round had a worse record than the team being hosted (the Packers and Eagles have the same record [10-6], but the Packers beat the Eagles during the regular season,so by NFL tiebreaker rules have the better record).

To me, it is unfair that teams play unbalanced schedules that favor teams in weaker divisions, and penalize teams in the stronger divisions. In a league with 16 teams per conference, that plays a 16 game schedule, there is no reason why every team can't play the same exact schedule. If you want to keep playing teams from the other conference, the planned expansion to an 18 game schedule allows you to do so (2 games per year). The top 6 records in each conference make the playoffs, and are ceded by record from best to worst. To me, that is the only fair system. Rewarding teams with lesser records (whose records are even more suspect because they play unbalanced schedules against the other teams in their weaker divisions) with home games in the playoffs is just plain wrong in my opinion.

The powers that run the NFL feel differently. They believe playing unbalanced schedules inside your own division fosters rivalries, and they want Divisions so that teams from every part of the country make the playoffs, to encourage TV ratings. The NFL is the most successful sports league in the US, which certainly lends credence to the NFL's, and your, position. I, however, respectfully disagree.

Louis, I think you are missing my points. I don't disagree that the division system is a co*k up and produces unfair results on many occassions. As I also said the last time you lamented about the Seahawks, I would much prefer to go back to your conference suggestion as well and I also think that you are right that the odds of that are next to nil. Where I differ is simply about the teams currently in the playoffs and whether any of their records is necessarily reflective of how good they are or will be one on one in the final crunch. In the divisional system, records can be total misleading and the fact that a sub .500 team wins can mean simply that that division is actually rather tough, especially when it comes to division games, which all teams know count the most. Only a system like your proposal where all teams play each other in conference would get close to being meaning and even then you have other factors, like injuries and when and how the points were scored or given up, that can skew the results.

All that said, once in the playoffs, no team, home or otherwise, has any big advantage. So if you want to advance, you have to bring your best to each game, it is that simple. I could care less if the Seahawks advance or not but if they play like they did yesterday, it is certainly no disgrace if they do. The New Orleans defense made mistakes but that is all part of the game. If you want to win, make fewer mistakes. I know something of that as a fan since my team this year far too often made sometimes just one too many mistakes. The Skins finished 6-10 but they lost 7 games by 4 points or less and 5 by 3 points or less. Turn around the mistakes that caused those points and you easily have a 13-3 or 11-5 season. The point is that a record can be deceiving and when the schedules are very different, it can be meaningless for strict comparison among teams. There are just too many uncontrolled variables that are difficult to make comparable.

I am most thankful the Eagles are done though; I happen to think Vick should still be in prison.

 

[Warrior]

Brad don't count your boys out so quick, I think the Jets will win, sometimes that bye week is not a good thing, if the Jets can presure Brady and keep it close...hopefully a rematch in Baltimore as long as we take care of our own game...Sammy

You're hoping the Jets win so you'll get to host the AFCCG instead of coming to New England, can't say that I blame you.

The Ravens looked great today, doing what they usually do in the playoffs, force turnovers. It's funny how all of these years, the Ravens defense still carries the team.

The Chiefs looked like complete nitwits out there, the offensive play calling was awful, they looked the part of a team that was 4-12 last year, had a marshmellow schedule and finished 10-6, ie, one and done.

Next week is shaping up to be epic, four teams in the AFC playing each other with no love loss between any of them, I expect two absolute wars, whoever is left standing plays the following week for the right to go to the big dance.

Thought the Eagles and Saints would make some noise this year, the Saints did not show up and if the Eagles had a field goal kicker who could make two gimmies, they would be moving on, but they lost.

The path is now clear for the Falcons to waltz to the Super Bowl, but the Packers could give them a game, we'll see.

Like I said earlier, imagine the Seachickens and Packers winning next week and the Seachickens hosting the NFCCG, what a circus..................

 

[sammy719]

Ok, Ravens vs Steelers Round 3, I feel decent as a Steelers fan going in. Big rivalry, but can the Ravens beat the Steelers twice at home? It should be a war.

TD

Well Tom, it's you and I again...we knew it was coming, so here's to another installment of the toughest rivalery in football today, it doesn't get any tougher then a good ol Raven/Steeler playoff game, may the best team win...Sammy

 

[Warrior]

George,

You're starting to sound like the Yankee fans, with the 1918 chant. Yup, that's all you guys have become, the NFL version of the Yankees, with the loss to the Giants sort of akin to the Yankess losing to the Sox in 2004.

Guess you and Louis have something in common

George, I used to live up there Guess it's more of a "Friendly's" kind of state

Nope, sorry, the Giants loss is not like the Yankees losing to the Sox in 2004; if the Patriots lose to the Jets next week and then the Jets go on and win the Super Bowl, THAT is on par with Red Sox/Yankees 2004.

Ryan is such a blowhard, I am sure you love him, but what a ******* he is; the Patriots were saying at practice today "the Jets are a great team, we respect them, this game is going to be a war" and fatso says "I heard some of them said we are a great team, I am sure that is sarcastic, but whatever"...............geez, talk about a insecure guy, isn't he the same guy who said 4,000 times the Jets are going to the Super Bowl, you pay his team a compliment and he takes it as sarcasm?

I am sure he'll play the "no respect" card all week down in New York, give it a rest already.

Sunday cannot come fast enough..........

 

[Peter Reuss]

I respect your opinion, but mine is very different. I don't think that a 7-9 team should ever be in the playoffs, and the fact that the ridiculous "division" system put one in the playoffs tells me that there is something seriously wrong. It gets even worse when the 7-9 team hosts a game against an 11-5 team. That 11-5 team didn't come to play, and deserved to lose, but they should have lost to a team that a least belonged in the playoffs. There were 5 teams in other Divisions with better records than 7-9, all of whom are sitting home, not to mention the fact that every team hosting a playoff game in the widlcard round had a worse record than the team being hosted (the Packers and Eagles have the same record [10-6], but the Packers beat the Eagles during the regular season,so by NFL tiebreaker rules have the better record).

To me, it is unfair that teams play unbalanced schedules that favor teams in weaker divisions, and penalize teams in the stronger divisions. In a league with 16 teams per conference, that plays a 16 game schedule, there is no reason why every team can't play the same exact schedule. If you want to keep playing teams from the other conference, the planned expansion to an 18 game schedule allows you to do so (2 games per year). The top 6 records in each conference make the playoffs, and are ceded by record from best to worst. To me, that is the only fair system. Rewarding teams with lesser records (whose records are even more suspect because they play unbalanced schedules against the other teams in their weaker divisions) with home games in the playoffs is just plain wrong in my opinion.

The powers that run the NFL feel differently. They believe playing unbalanced schedules inside your own division fosters rivalries, and they want Divisions so that teams from every part of the country make the playoffs, to encourage TV ratings. The NFL is the most successful sports league in the US, which certainly lends credence to the NFL's, and your, position. I, however, respectfully disagree.

Not sure that I agree. I'd much rather have the Vikings play the Bears and Packers twice a year than have to make sure I played the Seahawks or 49ers each year. The rivalries are what make the NFL.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis, I think you are missing my points. I don't disagree that the division system is a co*k up and produces unfair results on many occassions. As I also said the last time you lamented about the Seahawks, I would much prefer to go back to your conference suggestion as well and I also think that you are right that the odds of that are next to nil. Where I differ is simply about the teams currently in the playoffs and whether any of their records is necessarily reflective of how good they are or will be one on one in the final crunch. In the divisional system, records can be total misleading and the fact that a sub .500 team wins can mean simply that that division is actually rather tough, especially when it comes to division games, which all teams know count the most. Only a system like your proposal where all teams play each other in conference would get close to being meaning and even then you have other factors, like injuries and when and how the points were scored or given up, that can skew the results.

All that said, once in the playoffs, no team, home or otherwise, has any big advantage. So if you want to advance, you have to bring your best to each game, it is that simple. I could care less if the Seahawks advance or not but if they play like they did yesterday, it is certainly no disgrace if they do. The New Orleans defense made mistakes but that is all part of the game. If you want to win, make fewer mistakes. I know something of that as a fan since my team this year far too often made sometimes just one too many mistakes. The Skins finished 6-10 but they lost 7 games by 4 points or less and 5 by 3 points or less. Turn around the mistakes that caused those points and you easily have a 13-3 or 11-5 season. The point is that a record can be deceiving and when the schedules are very different, it can be meaningless for strict comparison among teams. There are just too many uncontrolled variables that are difficult to make comparable.

I am most thankful the Eagles are done though; I happen to think Vick should still be in prison.

I have to appologize, I didn't understand your point. I believe we are in total agreement. You are absolutely correct that once a team is in the playoffs, anything can happen. If that were not true, the two teams with home field advantage throughout would always play each other in the Superbowl, and that, to my knowledge, has only happened once.

Perhaps the two best examples supporting your point in recent history are the Giants in 2007 and the Cardinals in 2008. In 2007, the 10-6 Giants were a wildcard team, nobody thought they had a chance against the Cowboys in Dallas, against the Packers in Greenbay, or against the to that point undefeated Patriots in Arizona at the Superbowl, yet I caught the worst flu of my life the following day at the parade in the Canyon of Heroes.

In 2008, the 8-8 Cardinals were also supposed to be one and done. However, they came within a Santonio Holmes miraculous catch with less than 30 seconds left from winning the Superbowl.

The Seahawks play the Bears nexy week in Chicago. Earlier this year (I think it was week 7) the Seahawks beat the Bears in Chicago. They could do it again. Suppose the Packers beat the Falcons? The Seahawks would be hosting the NFC Championship Game, and could easily join the Giants and Cardinals as unlikely superbowl teams of the last 5 years.

 

[jazzeum]

Well, George I'd rather have a blowhard than Coach Bell-a-spy

When a team says another is a great team, then I start to check my wallet. Jets may be a good team but they're not they're yet. Jets haven't been to the playoffs two years in a row since I can't remember when so no complaints.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Not sure that I agree. I'd much rather have the Vikings play the Bears and Packers twice a year than have to make sure I played the Seahawks or 49ers each year. The rivalries are what make the NFL.

I understand your point, and, frankly, I don't totally disagree with the concept from an entertainment standpoint. However, from the standpoint of a fan in a Division that has produced more NFC Champions than any other division by far (7 for the Cowboys, 6 for the Redskins, 4 for the Giants and 2 for the Eagles), and which is perineally among the toughest divisions in football, I would much rather see every team play every other team once, and see my team make the playoffs every year, then watch me team get bled white playing half my games in Division, and end up missing the playoffs while a 7-9 team from a cupcake Division that my team blew out by 30 points this season hosts a playoff game.

Plus, if teams played every other team in the conference every year, they would alternate home and away games with each team each year. My Giants have had to play your Vikings in Minesota 5 straight seasons without a single game in the Meadowlands. On a neutral field this year (thanks to your collapsing dome), we beat you. We almost alway lose on your home field, because we are built to play outside, in weather, on a regular track, and your team is designed to win in the perfect conditions and on the faster track of a dome. It wouldn't bother me if the league made it fair and you had to come to us every other time we played, but the way things stand, it annoys the heck out of me. It was the same thing with the 49ers back in the '80's. The Giants always had to go to San Fransisco every time we played them in the regular season, and we almost always lost at Candlestick in the regular season. Both years that we won the Superbowl back then (86 and 90) we had to play the Niners in San Fransisco in the regular season. We beat them in 86 in the regular season (and hosted them in the playoffs) and lost to them 7-3 in 90 in the regular season (and had to travel to San Fransisco for the NFC Championship game. We won both playoff games, but I still think it is unfair that the people making the schedules for the league can keep sending a team on the road to play the same team 3, 4 or 5 seasons in a row.

 

[Combat]

The Packers played some great D today. Especially containing Vick. They impressed me a lot and with no overpowering team in the NFC, they might have a shot to run the table.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Well, George I'd rather have a blowhard than Coach Bell-a-spy

When a team says another is a great team, then I start to check my wallet. Jets may be a good team but they're not they're yet. Jets haven't been to the playoffs two years in a row since I can't remember when so no complaints.

Brad,

I understand that you are a Jets fan, but you would seriously rather have Rex Ryan as your head coach than Bill Bellicheck? I am a lifelong Giants fan, and I do not believe my team would have won the Superbowl in 86 or 90 if it wasn't for the fact the Bellicheck was our defensive coordinator. I would throw Tom Coughlin out in the street in a heartbeat if I could get Bellicheck as the Giants head coach. The only coaches I would take over Bellicheck in my lifetime are also former Giants coordinators - Vince Lombardi (Giants Offensive Coordinator in the late 50's) and Tom Landry (Giants Defensive Coordinator at the same time). I don't care if he is a cheater - he has five - count 'em, 5 - superbowl rings, two as a coordinator and three as a head coach. He wins a couple of more rings, something I fully expect him to do, and they may rename it the Bellicheck Trophy. If I were obscenely rich, I would buy the Patriots, and trade Bellicheck and Brady to the Giants for Coughlin and Eli, then sell the team, just so I could watch the Giants win 2-3 of the next 5 Superbowls (and make all the Boston fans curse New Yorkers even more than they do about the Yankees).

 

[jazzeum]

Louis,

Who wouldn't want Belichick as a coach but that's not really realistic is it. Frankly, at this point in his coaching career I'll take Ryan. First two years: winning records and 3 wins in the post season. Belichick in his first two years with the Browns: a losing record.

Moreover, if you all remember Parcells had anointed Belichick as the next Jets head coach but he wanted to run his own gig and who can blame him?

Unless you tell me Belichick wants to come to the Jets and Kraft has said "Sure Bill, go right, ahead," then, no, I'll take Ryan. He's done the job so far. Yup, Rex talks too much but then so did Davey Johnson and Bobby V when they managed the Mets and we loved 'em. He just says what other coaches think: that their team is the best. Heck, if you don't think your team is the best, then you should probably get a new job.

 

[lancer]

Ok, Ravens vs Steelers Round 3, I feel decent as a Steelers fan going in. Big rivalry, but can the Ravens beat the Steelers twice at home? It should be a war.

TD

This shapes up to be the game o' the week, but the Pats-Jets game should be equally good. Not a weak sister in the bunch, which can't be said of the NFC. Whomever survives these AFC punchouts have the inside track to the title, if they can put a healthy team on the field. -- Al

 

[Warrior]

Frankly, at this point in his coaching career I'll take Ryan. First two years: winning records and 3 wins in the post season. Belichick in his first two years with the Browns: a losing record.

You should join JetsInsider.com, they'd love you over there with this brilliant type of logic; "Two years in as a head coach, I'd take Ryan over Belichick (wait, sorry, "Belicheat")."

Really, that's brilliant; he's the better coach using that two year sample.

Funny how you forget he took over a dormant Browns team, had them in the playoffs where they beat the super genuis Parcells (who by they way has done nothing anywhere he's gone without BB) and the Patriots only to lose to the Steelers the following week, then the following year they were looking great until Modell announced the team was moving which caused a major distraction and the team went down the tubes.

We'll see how BB does this week vs the "better coach after two years" Sexy Rexy Ryan as he leads his band of "foot soldiers" into Foxboro on Sunday, just waiting to see what he'll say this week to put his "foot in his mouth"...............he's a real leader of men putting his best "foot" forward in the process..........

 

[Warrior]

This shapes up to be the game o' the week, but the Pats-Jets game should be equally good. Not a weak sister in the bunch, which can't be said of the NFC. Whomever survives these AFC punchouts have the inside track to the title, if they can put a healthy team on the field. -- Al

Regarding the Patriots/Jets; the Jets are all in this year, with the signings of Taylor, LT, Cromartie, Holmes, etc, etc, they are clearly going for it all this year and they still ended up second in the division , while anyone aside from a yahoo fan would have had the Patriots at 14-2 and being the #1 seed.

This by all accounts was to be a bridge year for them, two rookie tight ends, two undrafted free agents as running backs, SIX rookies and second year starters on defense, a defense that was not very good last year.

Throw in the trading of Maroney, their #1 back and Moss, their main deep threat and their brutal schedule and it was shaping up to be a 8-8, 7-9, 6-10 record.

The Jets are built to stop the Moss version of the offense with Reavis and Cromartie as two deep threat cover corners; in this version of the offense, there is no "deep threat" and you saw what happened here in Foxboro, Brady spread the ball around and performed surgery on the Jets.


If the Jets can run the ball and keep it close and force turnovers, they have a shot.

Steelers/Ravens will be a 12 round heavyweight brawl, a 17-14, 20-17 type of game, throw both teams in a hat and pull out a winner, it will be a close game.

 

[Currahee Chris]

The Packers played some great D today. Especially containing Vick. They impressed me a lot and with no overpowering team in the NFC, they might have a shot to run the table.

Yeah, I was really surprised by that too. They definately convinced me they were real as well. Was surprised when they announced the one stat that the Pack has only had 3 runs over 20 yards this season- need to open that up some.

Zimmer from SI predicted the SB Steelers 33, Packers 27 back with the SI Football issue earlier this year- I can see it.

My bad Brad- your argument has convined me- I changed my mind

NE 45, Jets 7

Irrespective of the coaches, the teams just don't like each other, and when you have the greatest QB of his generation po'd at you, at his stadium, in front of his peeps, yeah, it's a one sided affair.

Ryan over Bellicheck?? Why, cause Ryan doesn't cheat?? Bellicheck got caught- Ryan just hasn't yet- he's got trainers who interfere with players (classy) and your trying to tell me he's the right person for the NY area?? Didn't realize you held NYers in such low esteem............

 

[jazzeum]

This is for George: Coach Bell-a-spy's favorite song, from what I heard

Dudes, this is only sport. Let's try to keep it in perspective

 

[jazzeum]

If the Jets can run the ball and keep it close and force turnovers, they have a shot.

Oh, my god stop the presses, they actually have a shot!! Better not tell this to the Globe or the Herald!

 

[Currahee Chris]

This is for George: Coach Bell-a-spy's favorite song, from what I heard

that's just wrong

 

[lancer]

that's just wrong

LOL. Might be wrong but it is a great song. -- Al

 

[Warrior]

Oh, my god stop the presses, they actually have a shot!! Better not tell this to the Globe or the Herald!

If the Jets cannot run the ball and cannot win the turnover battle, that means outcome of the game is in the hands of Sanchez.

Thus, you are screwed.

Is it Sunday yet?