N.f.l. 2012 (1 Viewer)

[lancer]

Congratulations to the Giants, I guess. Sort of a "best of the rest" situation. On the subject of playoff records, I have to say that I feel the best records should go, regardless of who wins what division. Take the top 6 records from the NFC and the AFC and be done with it. There is NO WAY a sub-.500 team, or even a .500 team should be eligible for the playoffs. Same with baseball. It's just common sense that the best teams go. How can one justify a 7 or 8 win team being in the playoffs while a much superior 11 win team sits at home? That's stupid and just goes against the whole win-lose concept, which is what competitive sports is all about. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

None of which you actually describe came to pass so it's all rather academic.

The divisional structure is something that is both historic but fair. What you two advocate would be blowing up the system that works well in the major sports. You would basically have just two 16 team conferences in the NFL. Teams that were not as strong as others would never have a chance to make it to the playoffs. What you advocate is blowing up the divisional structure.

What that means is you would lose fans and ultimately teams would wither and you'd have economic instability.

Sometimes a divisional system isn't fair but you give teams and their fans a chance to hope they get in. The Giants got the short end of the stick a few years ago when they and the Braves were in the NL West and they both won 100 plus games but the Braves one more but that is the nature of the system. The NL East leader in your system would have come in third and not made the playoffs and maybe that would have been fair but why would the fans have come the ballpark for?

In an ideal world, devoid of reality, maybe your proposals make sense but we don't live in that world. The present system is like democracy: not perfect but it beats what is in second place.

 

[lancer]

None of which you actually describe came to pass so it's all rather academic.

The divisional structure is something that is both historic but fair. What you two advocate would be blowing up the system that works well in the major sports. You would basically have just two 16 team conferences in the NFL. Teams that were not as strong as others would never have a chance to make it to the playoffs. What you advocate is blowing up the divisional structure.

What that means is you would lose fans and ultimately teams would wither and you'd have economic instability.

Sometimes a divisional system isn't fair but you give teams and their fans a chance to hope they get in. The Giants got the short end of the stick a few years ago when they and the Braves were in the NL West and they both won 100 plus games but the Braves one more but that is the nature of the system. The NL East leader in your system would have come in third and not made the playoffs and maybe that would have been fair but why would the fans have come the ballpark for?

In an ideal world, devoid of reality, maybe your proposals make sense but we don't live in that world. The present system is like democracy: not perfect but it beats what is in second place.

I know what you say is practical and the way things will stay, but I would push the plunger anyway. I have harbored a resentment of the divisional system since 1967 (when the 11-1-2 Colts failed to make the playoffs because of the divisional structure) and I have always felt, since then, that the best teams with the best records, should be the ones in the playoffs. -- Al

 

[Louis Badolato]

None of which you actually describe came to pass so it's all rather academic.

The divisional structure is something that is both historic but fair. What you two advocate would be blowing up the system that works well in the major sports. You would basically have just two 16 team conferences in the NFL. Teams that were not as strong as others would never have a chance to make it to the playoffs. What you advocate is blowing up the divisional structure.

What that means is you would lose fans and ultimately teams would wither and you'd have economic instability.

Sometimes a divisional system isn't fair but you give teams and their fans a chance to hope they get in. The Giants got the short end of the stick a few years ago when they and the Braves were in the NL West and they both won 100 plus games but the Braves one more but that is the nature of the system. The NL East leader in your system would have come in third and not made the playoffs and maybe that would have been fair but why would the fans have come the ballpark for?

In an ideal world, devoid of reality, maybe your proposals make sense but we don't live in that world. The present system is like democracy: not perfect but it beats what is in second place.

The divisional structure is a relatively new concept. It did not exist in baseball until 1969 and in football until 1967, and then there were only 2 divisions in each conference or league. It is a stupid unfair system which penalizes the perineally better teams (like the teams in the NFC and AFC East, and the NL and AL East), in favor of the perineally weak teams (the AFC and NFC West, the AL central). As far as losing the fans, what about the fans of teams like the Baltimore Orioles, Tampa Bay Rays and the Toronto Blue Jays? Because of the divisional structure, the are forced to both play an unbalanced schedule against and compete directly with the Yankees and Red Sox. These teams start every season basically knowing that unless the Yankees and Red Sox sustain catastrophic injuries, they might as well not show up. Occasionally, one of these teams rises to the occasion and, despite having to play the Yankees and Red Sox 18 times each, they manage to win 90 games, only to miss the playoffs because the Yankees and Red Sox have won the Division and Wild Card, and some other team (the Twins for the past decade or so) has won the ridiculously weak division (usually the central), playing 18 games each against weaker teams (except in the couple of years Detroit has risen to the occasion, its usually the Twins and a bunch of sub-500 teams), by winning 87 games. This team goes on to get swept by the Yankees or Red Sox.

 

[jrsteel]

Okay, I have one question: How the heck did the Giants get the 2007 defense and special teams to show up tonight? The defense and special teams looked like different players than have been on the field for the last couple of years. Even Eli was channeling his superbowl performance - spinning away from presure and throwing a 30 yard strike to Victor Cruz that resembled nothing so much as his escape and throw to David Tyree. 15 touchdown passes in the fourth quarter, a new NFL record, and he threw for more than 4,950 yards for the season.
They even rushed the ball for 106 yards, their 4th straight good rushing performance after rushing for an average of 84 yards per game for the first 12 games.

If the Giants weren't so ridiculously inconsistent, I would think they had a chance to win next week against Atlanta. If they would show up and play like they did tonight, week in and week out, they would be a legitimately good team. They really make a fan scratch his or her head: quality wins against the Patriots in Foxboro, the Eagles in Philly, Dallas in Dallas, the Jets (technically a road game), and the Cowboys again at home, in a winner take all game, balanced against inexplicable losses to Washington twice and the Seahawks in Giants stadium. They play the two best teams in the NFC incredibly close (losing 38-35 to the then undefeated Packers and losing to the 49ers in Candlestick on a sack-fumble of Eli Manning on a first and 10 on the 49ers 12 yard line as they were about to go in for the go ahead score with less than a minute to play), yet get blown out by the 3rd best team, the Saints, and knocked around by the Eagles in Giants Stadium. This team is like Jeckle and Hyde. They give up 34 points to the Cowboys 3 weeks ago, but hold them to 14 tonight.

But from now on, its all gravy for me. They won the division (the first time a team with less than 10 wins ever won the NFC East), will host a playoff game they actually might have a chance at winning (I will hope for bad weather again like tonight). If they lose, they still did way better than I expected, and if they win, and then go get their butts whipped by Green Bay, I will still consider this a successful season for a Giants team decimated by injuries that lost Eli's two favorite targets (Smith and Boss) to free agency.

I wouldn't be so sure that Green Bay will whip the Giants. I think if the Giants are on, they score can with any team in the league. It all depends on the defense and they have guys that can pressure Rodgers. I'm not saying they can hold the Packers under 20 points. If they can hold them around 30, I can see the Giants putting up 30 points on the Packers.

 

[jazzeum]

The divisional structure is a relatively new concept. It did not exist in baseball until 1969 and in football until 1967, and then there were only 2 divisions in each conference or league. It is a stupid unfair system which penalizes the perineally better teams (like the teams in the NFC and AFC East, and the NL and AL East), in favor of the perineally weak teams (the AFC and NFC West, the AL central). As far as losing the fans, what about the fans of teams like the Baltimore Orioles, Tampa Bay Rays and the Toronto Blue Jays? Because of the divisional structure, the are forced to both play an unbalanced schedule against and compete directly with the Yankees and Red Sox. These teams start every season basically knowing that unless the Yankees and Red Sox sustain catastrophic injuries, they might as well not show up. Occasionally, one of these teams rises to the occasion and, despite having to play the Yankees and Red Sox 18 times each, they manage to win 90 games, only to miss the playoffs because the Yankees and Red Sox have won the Division and Wild Card, and some other team (the Twins for the past decade or so) has won the ridiculously weak division (usually the central), playing 18 games each against weaker teams (except in the couple of years Detroit has risen to the occasion, its usually the Twins and a bunch of sub-500 teams), by winning 87 games. This team goes on to get swept by the Yankees or Red Sox.

A couple of things are going in your reply. One, the divisional concept and two, competitive balance, and let's generally lay that to the side for a second.

The second one first, most of your discussion deals with baseball where there is no salary cap. That is why teams like the Yankees and Red Sox are now perennial favorites and certain other teams won't be: financial werewithal. Of course, I believe the Orioles have the financial werewithal but choose not to match the Yankees. I think that's also another difference with football. I could be wrong but I believe in football you have to spend up to the salary cap; you can't skimp, which you do see happen in baseball. A team like Green Bay exists because there is a salary cap.

Divisions. Divisions have been around forever. Take a look at pro-football-reference.com Going back all the way to 1933, the NFL had divisions. Of course, that was because there was only one league (from 1922 to 1932 there was just one huge league). Same thing with the All American Football Conference and the AFL. The more than two division system as we know it started in 1967 in the NFL (and that was probably preparatory for the merger).

In baseball there were no divisions until 1969 because eight teams (and later 10 teams) were manageable. 12 became a little tough. Plus, all the teams had to have something they could play for.

Trying to get better in a five team division in the NFL is a lot easier than 16 teams.

Now, if you want to consider a different system, look at the NBA or NHL, where you have an Eastern and a Western Conference broken up into two divisions each. When the playoffs come, the top eight teams make it but I believe the divisional winners, regardless of their record get preference as the home team. I think football already has it by having an AFC and a NFC.

One last point that I meant to mention earlier is that teams can point to a division championship as a positive accomplishment (fly the banner) even if they don't accomplish anything else in a season. Disregarding the divisional concept would eliminate that.

 

[Louis Badolato]

I wouldn't be so sure that Green Bay will whip the Giants. I think if the Giants are on, they score can with any team in the league. It all depends on the defense and they have guys that can pressure Rodgers. I'm not saying they can hold the Packers under 20 points. If they can hold them around 30, I can see the Giants putting up 30 points on the Packers.

Anything is possible on any given Sunday in the NFL, particularly during the playoffs, as the Giants who were the 6th cede at 10-6 proved in 2007, and the Packers who were the 6th cede at 10-6 proved last year. You are absolutely correct that if the Giants manage to hold the Packers to 30 points or less, their offense could score enough points to win the game. That being said, I am not sure that the Giants beat Atlanta next week, so I am not ready to get fired up for a meeting with the Packers.

The Atlanta game next week is very interesting: You have Matt Ryan who threw for 4,177 yards, 29 touchdowns and 12 interceptions, against Eli Manning, who threw for 4,933 yards, 29 touchdowns and 16 interceptions. Their passer ratings are virtually identical. Neither team has much of a secondary, and relies primarily on its pass rush (which in the case of Atlanta, has not lived up to expectations this year, they are 19th in sacks with 33, and 20th against the pass - the Giants are 29th against the pass, but 3rd in Sacks with 48, 2 back of the league leader). Both teams have good passing games (Giants are #5 in the league, Atlanta is #8), the Giants having the better wide receivers, the Falcons with probably the greatest tight end of all time. Atlanta (#17 in rushing, averaging 114 per game) has a better running back, but the combination of a healthy Bradshaw, Jacobs and the coming out party of Danny Ware these last few weeks makes this position basically a wash for me (while the Giants are dead last in rushing in the league, in games where they have both Bradshaw and Jacobs - only 6 games this year, including the last 4 - they average 110 yards per game (plus the Falcons for some reason throw a lot more than they run, so give away whatever advantage they have). This should be a very close game which is won by the Giants because of Manning, Cruz, their now healthy pass rush featuring Pierre Paul, Tuck, Umenyiura and Canty, but mostly because of the fact that it will be cold and windy next Sunday in the Meadowlands, and the Falcons are a dome team that plays in the NFC South against other dome teams (Saints) and teams in good weather stadiums (Tampa Bay and Carolina).

 

[Louis Badolato]

Denver gets crushed by the Steelers in the Wildcard round, the Raiders lose to Houston. The Giants lose at home to the Lions, and the Saints crush the Falcons.

Greenbay beats the Lions, a dome team, on the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field, the 49ers edge the Saints, a dome team, in cold and windy conditions at Candlestick. Patriots beat Houston in Foxboro, the Ravens beat the Steelers in Baltimore.

The 49ers shock the Packers in Greenbay in the NFC Championship game, their superior defense and run game making the terrible weather conditions at Lambeau work against the Packers passing attack, the Ravens roll over the Patriots in Foxboro in the AFC Championship.

In the Superbowl, the Ravens beat the 49ers in the first ever Superbowl battle of brothers (the Harbaughs).

Now that the playoff positions are finally set here are my revised playoff picks:

Denver gets crushed by the Steelers in the Wildcard round, the Bengals lose to Houston. The Giants beat the Falcons in the windy, cold Meadowlands, and the Saints outscore the Lions at home.

Greenbay edges the Giants in a shootout, the 49ers edge the Saints, a dome team, in cold and windy conditions at Candlestick. Patriots beat Houston in Foxboro, the Ravens beat the Steelers in Baltimore.

The 49ers shock the Packers in Greenbay in the NFC Championship game, their superior defense and run game making the terrible weather conditions at Lambeau work against the Packers passing attack, the Ravens roll over the Patriots in Foxboro in the AFC Championship.

In the Superbowl, the Ravens beat the 49ers in the first ever Superbowl battle of brothers (the Harbaughs).

 

[Louis Badolato]

I sat down and went back through last nights game, and I have to say, while the Giants played well, they made several mistakes, and gave the Cowboys a ton of opportunities, and the Cowboys didn't capatilize on any of them.

During the first series of the game, Miles Austin was wide open on third down for about a 15 yard gain, Romo overthrew him.

During the Giants second series (which ended in the Victor Cruz 69 yard touchdown on the 5 yard out pattern) Newman had a chance to tackle the Giants fullback 3 yards short of a first down on third and 7 inside the 15 yard line, but let the fullback hurdle him for the first down.

The Giants muffed the Cowboys third punt, and a Cowboys player had a clear shot at recovery, but the ball squirted loose and the Giants recovered it at their 32 yard line, to start their second touchdown drive.

On third and six at the Dallas 45 on the Giants second touchdown drive, the Cowboys had a chance to defense a pass and force a punt, but the defensive back held Cruz, and was called for pass interference, extending the drive.

On the Giants next drive, at the Cowboys 8 yard line, Brandon Jacobs fumbled the ball right into the hands of a Cowboys player, who tipped it to Cruz, who tipped it back to Eli who recovered the fumble (this one didn't burn the Cowboys because Lawrence Tynes missed a 40 yard fieldgoal attempt).

The Cowboys missed a 52 yard field goal to end the half, wide right.

At the beginning of the 4th Quarter, the Cowboys went for it on 4th and one at the Giants 10 yard line, and because of a poor center-quarterback exchange, were stuffed for no gain on a great play by Boley.

Down 10 points, with a chance to pull within one score, on 3rd and 13 at the Cowboys 19, Romo threw a catchable ball to the running back out of the backfield in the flat, who had a chance to catch the ball and possibly make the first down, but the running back dropped it, forcing the Cowboys to punt to the Giants with 5 minutes left. The Giants promptly marked down the field to put the game away with a 30 yard gain to Hakeem Nicks followed by a 4 yard touchdown pass to Nicks.

Had the Cowboys capitalized on these opportunities, they might have won the game, and certainly would have made it a very close game. To me, that is the story of the Cowboys season: they blew a bunch of opportunities to win games. There is this jerk on New York's WFAN talk radio named Mark Malusis who hates the Giants, and loves the Cowboys and Tony Romo. He spent all week talking about all the games the Cowboys "should have won" (he listed 6 games, including the loss to the Giants 3 weeks ago) and predicted they would easily beat the Giants last night, gloating to the Giants fans who called him how he would be telling them "I told you so" after watching Romo celebrate on the Giants' home field. Maybe if the Cowboys lost last night and those other 6 games they "should have won" that should have told this commentator that they really were not any good. As Bill Parcels famously stated, you are what your record says you are. The Cowboys, as a team, are a mediocre and inconsistent 8-8 team. The Giants are an inconsistent but (marginally) better 9-7 team.

 

[Warrior]

When the playoffs start next week, you'll have 6 legit teams and 6 frauds, 9-7 and 8-8 teams don't deserve to be in the playoffs, just like 6-6 college football teams don't deserve to go to bowl games.

Now guaranteed one of the frauds will make it to either the AFC or NFCCG, so people can say "See, I told you they were legit in spite of the fact that they stunk on ice for most of the year but got hot at the right time"........and I love that "got hot at the right time" load of BS; got lucky is more like it.....

 

[Louis Badolato]

When the playoffs start next week, you'll have 6 legit teams and 6 frauds, 9-7 and 8-8 teams don't deserve to be in the playoffs, just like 6-6 college football teams don't deserve to go to bowl games.

Now guaranteed one of the frauds will make it to either the AFC or NFCCG, so people can say "See, I told you they were legit in spite of the fact that they stunk on ice for most of the year but got hot at the right time"........and I love that "got hot at the right time" load of BS; got lucky is more like it.....

I completely agree with you. There are a number of ways the NFL could change the playoff structure to cure the problem of 7-9 (last year's Seattle team), 8-8 (this years' Broncos and Cincinnati teams) or 9-7 (the Jets two years ago, the Giants this year) making the playoffs.

The league could lose the Divisional structure, each team plays every other team every two years (i.e. you play 8 NFC and 8 AFC teams this season, and you play the other 8 teams from each league that you hadn't played the following year) and the top 6 teams in each league with at least 10 wins make the playoffs, and if 6 teams don't win 10 games, then an extra team gets a first round bye.

If they want to retain the divisional structure, every team in each Division should have to play the exact same non-division teams, so the records can be fairly compared without strength of schedule playing into it. Ceding in the playoffs should ignore which team won which division, and should be based solely on record.

 

[jazzeum]

The league could lose the Divisional structure, each team plays every other team every two years (i.e. you play 8 NFC and 8 AFC teams this season, and you play the other 8 teams from each league that you hadn't played the following year) and the top 6 teams in each league with at least 10 wins make the playoffs, and if 6 teams don't win 10 games, then an extra team gets a first round bye.

That should go over well in a league where they're supposed to be making money :rolleyes2:

If they want to retain the divisional structure, every team in each Division should have to play the exact same non-division teams, so the records can be fairly compared without strength of schedule playing into it. Ceding in the playoffs should ignore which team won which division, and should be based solely on record.

Assuming that's mathematically possible, that's what the NBA does for each conference, with each division winner getting the home court advantage. As I mentioned, the NBA's Eastern and Western Conferences are equivalent to the AFC and the NFC so in a sense you have that but the division winners have to be in the playoffs. Again, what do you tell the teams who won their division but then are not allowed to participate, i.e. if the Giants had been able to go in 2010 instead of the Seahawks. It makes a mockery of the whole divisional system. Until you figure out a good answer you don't have a susbstitute for the existing system. I'm sure the NFL and MLB have looked and done computer simulations of different systems. If there was a better one that could get owner approval, I'm sure we would have a new one.

 

[Warrior]

Brad is right, in todays sports it's all about money, money, money, let as many teams in as possible to keep fans interested; last year I would have loved to have seen the 7-9 seahawks not only make the Super Bowl but win it, imagine the embarassment at the NFL offices in New York over that one, crowning a 7-9 team as league champion................

The funny thing is IF the Giants defense shows up, if Eli can work his magic and if they can run the ball and keep it away from Green Bay, they really have a shot of beating them in the second round, but they'll have no chance in a dome vs the Saints in the NFCCG if both teams get that far.

Take the Saints out of the dome and put them outside in January and they are toast.....................

 

[jazzeum]

It unfortunately is all about money. I hate to be so cynical as the New Year starts but what was the lockout about but owner greed. George and Louis make good points but it's ultimately about the buck.

Not to switch sports, but now MLB is putting in an extra playoff game. Do we really need that? No, it's just about the cash and the integrity of the sport be darned.

 

[tdubel]

Here are my 2 unsolicited cents. I don't really care about the divisional winners getting in. BUT< the playoffs should be ceded on records. In other words, Fine Broncos, you are in, but you have to come to Pittsburgh to play or better yet, 1, 2 and 3 should be Pats, Ravens and Steelers by records. Baltimore deserves Home field, they beat the Steelers twice and hold that tie breaker. But teams like the Steelers (yes my team) get screwed in this system. Hey, we are not the only ones. Hopefully we go out to Denver and do what we should do which is win and then worry about the next game after that.

To clarify, it should have been this year 1,2 Byes. 3 (steelers) playing 6 Bengals, 4 (Houston) playing 5 Broncos. Basically, Denver doesn't deserve home field and Houston would drop below us due to year end record (even though we lost to them earlier). It really is stupid the way the NFL does it.

I still think while my Steelers have talent, the injuries are just proving too much this year. We lost our #1 running back this weekend, its like who else can get injured, really unbelievable.

TD

 

[Warrior]

Couldn't agree more; an 8-8 team should not have a home game vs a 12-4 team, no way, no how.

Have four divisional winners and two wild cards then reset the whole thing based on records, that to me is very fair.

And the shine has worn off the Tebow apple; in his last three games, he's 0-3 with a 43 QB rating. Sunday vs the Chefs his 4th quarter rating was zero.

 

[jazzeum]

Wonder what's going to happen with the Colts. They fired the Polians, both the Chairman and the GM. Can the Coach be far behind. Will this be it for Manning. One era ends and the Andrew Luck era begins.

 

[Warrior]

Firing Polian is moronic; he built those powerhouse Bills teams that went to four strait Super Bowls, then the Panthers who made it to the NFCCG in their second season, then the Colts, that's one Super Bowl win, six trips to the big dance and nine conference championship games all on his watch.

That is quite a resume, good luck finding someone better.

I'd take him here in two seconds.

 

[lancer]

Wonder what's going to happen with the Colts. They fired the Polians, both the Chairman and the GM. Can the Coach be far behind. Will this be it for Manning. One era ends and the Andrew Luck era begins.

Jim Irsay is probably setting the stage to follow in daddy's footsteps for another late night, mid-winter, escape to move his team to somewhere like Ottumwa.:rolleyes2: -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

Perhaps Irsay told him that he was to draft Luck and Polian demurred, saying that he planned to parlay the number 1 choice into several draft choices like Cincinnatti did with Palmer.