If Atlanta (or, say, Tampa Bay!) wins the NFCS at 6-10, does the NFL consider altering their playoff format?
Dgilpin said:
Not that I Detroit will get the 1 seed, but their remaining schedule is just as if not more favorable than GB's (@NE, Chi(2x), TB, Min, @GB)
1. Arizona
2. Green Bay
3. Detroit
4. Dallas
5. Philly
6. Seattle
7. SF
8. New Orleans
9. St. Louis
10. Chicago
11. Atlanta
12. NY Giants
13. Minnesota
14. Carolina
15. Washington
16. TB
coremiller said:
Re Det vs. GB, two things going on. One is that GB has their two hardest games at home, while Det has both of their toughest games on the road; I think that makes a big difference. The other is that I just think GB is the better team, although Detroit matches up well because their defensive line can give GB fits. But Detroit has been getting away with beating mediocre teams by small margins, while Green Bay has been blowing teams out. Green Bay now has five wins by 21+ points, while Detroit has one and it came in the first game of the season. As a result GB has a huge SRS advantage.
FWIW, here are the SRS rankings:
1. GB 10.7
2. AZ 5.2
3. SEA 4.6
4. PHI 3.6
5. DET 3.1
6. DAL 1.7
7. SF 1.5
CaptainLaddie said:If Atlanta (or, say, Tampa Bay!) wins the NFCS at 6-10, does the NFL consider altering their playoff format?
They could propose a rule change, stating that any division winner with less than a .500 record (8-8, 7-7-2) would sacrifice the #4 seed and home field advantage to the # 5 team (WC 1) if WC1 has a better record (at least .500).CaptainLaddie said:If Atlanta (or, say, Tampa Bay!) wins the NFCS at 6-10, does the NFL consider altering their playoff format?
bankshot1 said:They could propose a rule change, stating that any division winner with less than a .500 record (8-8, 7-7-2) would sacrifice the #4 seed and home field advantage to the # 5 team (WC 1) if WC1 has a better record (at least .500).
coremiller said:
[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]My preferred proposal is that all division winners always make the playoffs, but division champ status is always irrelevant for seeding (so no sub-.500 threshold). Maybe division champ status could be a tiebreaker between teams with the same record. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]But even last year, you had SF (12-4) travelling to play Green Bay in the snow (8-7-1), solely because SF was stuck in the same division with 13-3 Seattle. A few years ago 12-4 Indy had to play at 8-8 San Diego. I think that's ridiculous.[/SIZE]
coremiller said:FWIW, here are the SRS rankings:
1. GB 10.7
2. AZ 5.2
3. SEA 4.6
4. PHI 3.6
5. DET 3.1
6. DAL 1.7
7. SF 1.5
LondonSox said:
That's about right to me actually. I think Seattle and Philly is a whoever is at home wins type affair. Both much better at home.
I think it's pretty close Seattle, Philly, Detroit. Dallas I just can't get a read on, I think they are a decent team but absolutely zero depth which could change things suddenly.
The crazy thing is that two of these are going to miss out, on schedule alone I think that could easily be Seattle and SF.
coremiller said:
I think these are a good indicator of past performance, but I would knock both AZ and PHI down a few notches because of the QB injuries. I'd knock Philly down a bit more because I think their scoring margin has been inflated by an unsustainable frequency of defense and special teams TDs. But GB is clearly the best team right now and 2-7 are very tightly bunched, you could justify putting them in any order.
SF's schedule is not really that bad. They have the three games with SEA and AZ but two of them are at home. Their only other road game is at Oakland, and they get an awful Washington and reeling San Diego at home as well. They will probably be favored in every game except at Seattle. They need at least 4-2 (depending on what else happens for tiebreakers), but that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Their schedule is much easier than both Arizona and Seattle. Seattle has to play both AZ and SF twice plus go to Philly. AZ has Seattle twice, @SF, @ STL (who can be frisky and have already beaten SF, SEA, and DEN this year) and a home game against a very good KC team.
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
I think SF beating both Philly and Dallas (and Seattle having already lost to Dallas) is also likely to loom very large. Both those teams have very doable paths to 10-6.
Seattle just looks screwed to me. Not only is the schedule murderous, but they could finish 10-6 and still not get in under some plausible scenarios.
Not with Jim Caldwell at the helm.coremiller said:The real winner in the next three weeks should be Detroit, which doesn't have to play any of the contenders until its Week 17 game against Green Bay, and has three home games in a row . But does anyone have faith in Detroit to take care of business?
coremiller said:The real winner in the next three weeks should be Detroit, which doesn't have to play any of the contenders until its Week 17 game against Green Bay, and has three home games in a row . But does anyone have faith in Detroit to take care of business?
dbn said:No one seems to believe in AZ, both on this board and in the media that I've seen. I haven't watched them enough to have a strong opinion, but...
* At 9-2, they are tied for the best record in the NFL with NE.
* Their two losses are against (records listed removing the game vs AZ): DEN (7-3) and SEA (7-3)
* Their wins include (same caveat about records): SF (7-3), SD (7-3), PHI (8-2), DAL (8-2), DET (7-3), and a tough STL team that has beaten SEA, SF, and DEN.
I have little idea what any of this means.
Yes. I don't put a lot of stock into one game. Google "NFL circle of parity".BigSoxFan said:Ranking Seattle over Dallas even though Dallas beat them on their turf?
inpredictable says right now Pats would be pick'em ish against GB, 2.5 over Seattle, 4.5 over SF, 5.5 over Philly, 8 over Dallas 8.5 over Detroit (big line move here), Arizonabakahump said:Save GB.....whom I am on the fence about (Great PASSING Offense....ehh Defense) is there a better year for the Pats to be entering Juggernaut mode? Compare your thoughts on the AFCs chances compared to last year.
49ers suffering from injury and hangerover (both from past success...and from actual alcohol....)
Seattle defense not looking as dominate as in the past and "Beast Mode" wearing out his welcome
Arizona imploding due to QB injuries
Philly seems to "only beat bad teams and cant win on the road"
Dallas has a hobbled Romo and has Romo.
Detroit is flawed and has a hobbled/recovering Megatron
The NFC South.....nuff said.
I know I am painting with a broad brush with some of those....but there is certainly no "2013 Seahawks or 2012-2013 49ers" Coming out of the NFC this year.
What are your thoughts on:
At a neutral field...
Pats Favored against all 7 of those contenders (NFC South not counted).
Denver Favored against all 7 of those contenders
Baltimore/Cinnci/Pitt/Cleve battle royal favored over 3 (?) of those 7
Indy favored over 5 (?) of those 7
Even SD (!) a pick em in 3 (?) of those games
Oil Can Dan said:Yes. I don't put a lot of stock into one game. Google "NFL circle of parity".
bakahump said:Dallas has a hobbled Romo and has Romo.
Stitch01 said:Its an impressive win, but I don't think it means you absolutely have to rank Dallas over Seattle for the entire season.
bakahump said:Romo has been great....and I admitted I was painting with a "broad brush" and was going for some cheap humor.
You are right that the defense is a real concern.
But you have to admit....Romo tends to "wilt" regardless of Regular season success.
Add all of that together....and the point stands.....Dallas (nor any NFC team.....save a sneaky,Crappymediocre defense GB) is not very scary.
Ranking Seattle over Dallas even though Dallas beat them on their turf?BigSoxFan said:1. Packers
2. Eagles
3. Seahawks
4. Cardinals
5/6. Lions/Cowboys (can't differentiate)
7. Niners
8. NFC South "Champ"
GBrushTWood said:TL;DR - I expect GB to slip and Seattle to rise up to that #1 slot soon.
They got down early in that game, too - it was 17-0 after just two Eagles possessions. McCoy and Sproles combined for 109 yards on 25 carries, which is solid, but you can't keep pounding the rock when you're losing by that much. They did a better job against the run against Chicago and Minnesota, too, though, so maybe it is partially for real.LondonSox said:Well the Eagles running game isn't too bad either and they couldn't really get it going vs the Packers.
They got outgained by almost 200 yards against SF and all their points were on three return TDs. You can say "could have beaten"; I don't think "should have beaten" is accurate.LondonSox said:The Eagles have played 4 decent teams on the road, should have beaten the Cardinals (very close and they played a bad game) should have beaten the niners (dropped catch at the death to win it and that was the height of the injury issues to the o-line 4 starters missed that game) the cowboys last night and the packers.
I'm sticking with this, even with a New England win at GB on Sunday. Perhaps Dallas could move behind AZ or Detroit, but I think those three teams are all about equal. Any event, I think GB is the class of the league, with Philly & Seattle owning the tier just behind them. Philly's likely going to need to run the table to get the #1 seed, and the Pats will likely have to win Sunday vs GB. Otherwise Philly could be staring at #3 unless AZ really blows up, which I think is relatively likely to happen.Oil Can Dan said:
1. Green Bay 8-3
2. Philadelphia 8-3
3. Seattle 7-4
4. Dallas 8-3
5. Arizona 9-2
6. Detroit 7-4
7. San Francisco 7-4
8. New Orleans 4-6
Oil Can Dan said:I'm sticking with this, even with a New England win at GB on Sunday. Perhaps Dallas could move behind AZ or Detroit, but I think those three teams are all about equal. Any event, I think GB is the class of the league, with Philly & Seattle owning the tier just behind them. Philly's likely going to need to run the table to get the #1 seed, and the Pats will likely have to win Sunday vs GB. Otherwise Philly could be staring at #3 unless AZ really blows up, which I think is relatively likely to happen.
Ha. Yes, trust me I'm with you on that. I was reposting my rankings from the 24th, well before yesterdays game.LondonSox said:
DUDE 9-3 not 8-3!!