You are correct that if KC wins out they will be in the playoffs as they will have tiebreakers over PIT, SD, and BUF.Three teams on the outside looking in, and I believe only KC controls their own destiny: they win-out, they leap over Pittsburgh. SD and Buffalo would need help.
• • • •
As others have noted, the one team of these six that I want no part of is Baltimore, and it is not hard at all to envision them as the #4 seed visiting Foxboro on the second weekend in January.
This cannot be correct. CIN plays DEN and PIT, yet you have CIN winning one game and neither PIT nor DEN losing at all.RedOctober3829 said:I played with the Playoff Machine and here is what I came up with. I picked who I thought would win each game and not who I want to win each game.
#1 New England 13-3
#2 Denver 13-3
#6 Cincinnati 10-5-1 at #3 Pittsburgh 11-5
#5 Baltimore 11-5 at #4 Indianapolis 11-5
I'm anticipating that any team the Patriots get in the Divisional Round will be a tough out.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:It's hard for me to imagine the Ravens beating any team with a decent QB since their secondary is so depleted (will be playing something like their 12th CB next week). Unless they get extremely lucky and it turns out that whomever they have been picking up off the scrap heap can play a little bit. Then watch out.
tims4wins said:Cincinnati may be in a bit of trouble, even at 9-4-1. If they lose out and finish at 9-6-1, then if any of Buffalo, SD, or KC win out then Cincy is out. All 3 teams have a somewhat tough road but not impossible.
- Buffalo goes to Oakland and to New England. They could win both if the Pats lay down in week 17, but the only way the Pats lay down is if Denver loses to Cincy, in which case Cincy will already have made the playoffs.
- KC goes to Pittsburgh then hosts San Diego. Highly doubtful they win out.
- SD goes to SF and goes to KC. The @ SF game looks a lot easier now that the Niners have been eliminated, and if KC loses at Pittsburgh and has been eliminated, then week 17 gets easier for San Diego.
I think there is a very good possibility of:
1) NE 13-3
2) Denver 13-3
3) Indy 12-4
4) Pittsburgh 11-5
5) Baltimore 11-5
6) San Diego 10-6
Setting up:
#6 San Diego @ #3 Indy
#5 Baltimore @ #4 Pittsburgh
That would be a hell of a wild card slate.
Rudy's Curve said:
Buffalo has next to no chance of winning out since the Patriots always play their starters even with everything wrapped up. And hey, the Raiders have been tough at home recently. Both SD and KC can't win out since they play each other and they're both underdogs in their other games. San Francisco might be easier since they're eliminated, but Rivers pretty clearly isn't himself. I'd say San Diego is drawing pretty slim.
tims4wins said:
Generally agree, but I think SF is going to completely collapse and SD is going to trash them next week, and if Pittsburgh takes care of business vs. KC then they (KC) have nothing to really play for in week 17. It's an easier path than it looks on paper with two road games against "good" teams. If these two games were in say weeks 5 and 6 I would have given SD no chance of winning both, but given the timing I think they have a shot.
That said, SD has been extremely streaky this year - won 5 in a row, lost 3 in a row, won 3 in a row, now have lost 2 in a row. So who knows how they respond to yesterday and close out the year. One thing you can say is that historically they have been great in December under Rivers but of course they are 0-2 this year.
BUF seems like a tough out at the moment though, their defense suffocated both DEN and GB in back-to-back weeks. Their QB is still Orton, so the Pats should be the clear favourites, but "almost no chance" is stretching it.Rudy's Curve said:
Buffalo has next to no chance of winning out since the Patriots always play their starters even with everything wrapped up.
JohnnyK said:BUF seems like a tough out at the moment though, their defense suffocated both DEN and GB in back-to-back weeks. Their QB is still Orton, so the Pats should be the clear favourites, but "almost no chance" is stretching it.
Their problem in regards to the playoffs is the conf. record (they can only get to 6-6 by winning out), so they could be eliminated after next week. Not sure if that is good for the Pats though.
Rudy's Curve said:
Buffalo has next to no chance of winning out since the Patriots always play their starters even with everything wrapped up.
This is not entirely true. Hoyer played the second half of the last game in 2010 and 2009, and Cassell played almost the entire game in 2005. In 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2013 they still has seeding to play for in week 17.Rudy's Curve said:
Buffalo has next to no chance of winning out since the Patriots always play their starters even with everything wrapped up. And hey, the Raiders have been tough at home recently. Both SD and KC can't win out since they play each other and they're both underdogs in their other games. San Francisco might be easier since they're eliminated, but Rivers pretty clearly isn't himself. I'd say San Diego is drawing pretty slim.
MarcSullivaFan said:This is not entirely true. Hoyer played the second half of the last game in 2010 and 2009, and Cassell played almost the entire game in 2005. In 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2013 they still has seeding to play for in week 17.
Shelterdog said:The Ravens DB is continuing to get decimated--rookie safety Terrence Brooks is done for the year and starting corner Asa Jackson might be. I've got to think the Pats can take advantage of that.
Shelterdog said:The Ravens secondary is continuing to get decimated--rookie safety Terrence Brooks is done for the year and starting corner Asa Jackson might be. I've got to think the Pats can take advantage of that.
NYCSox said:
Unfortunately Tom Savage and Cash Money Manziel won't be able to do shit against them.
H78 said:
If they end up playing @Pittsburgh in the WC as tims4 suggested (I agree with his predicted AFC bracket), I'd love to see them win but be really banged up having to travel to Foxboro to play a nearly full-strength and rested Pats team in the Divisional Round. It would be fun to see what Flacco can do with Revis taking Torrey Smith (who's already battling a sprained knee) and the rest of the defense zeroing in on Steve Smith.
m0ckduck said:
It's not likely... but they only have one major weakness to paper over, whereas all the other non-Denver teams that might come into Foxboro have at least two by my count.
Smith is a threat but he's been slowed after his big start. In his last 8 games, he has 31 catches on 55 targets for just 353 yards (avg per game: 3.9 rec, 6.9 targets, 44 yards). I think he can be dealt with.ivanvamp said:
Steve Smith would still be a colossal pain in the butt unless Revis blankets him. Even then perhaps. I have total respect for Smith as a player. Guy is tremendous.
normstalls said:
I admittedly haven't seen too much of Pitt this season, but in what little I have seen they have looked pretty good. I think their D is getting healthier and their Offense has a solid qb, great running back and a lot of good options for Ben to throw to. They seem like the team I fear most outside of Denver. I'm curious, what are their two weaknesses? Again, I haven't seen them enough to know.
GregHarris said:Didn't the Pats practically throw that 2006 game to get a better opponent at home? I think it came down to either playing Jax at home or playing a tougher Pittsburgh at home. I can't remember but I do remember that final pass by Cassell being so horribly bad, it was pretty comical.
dcmissle said:And it did not work out because of the mother of all shit shows at Denver the following week. First playoff loss for Brady/BB.
This is exactly where I am. A strange sense of zen.Ed Hillel said:I'm not really scared of any team in the AFC, including Denver. Having the chance to smash the Ravens by 14+ on the way wouldn't be the worst thing.
Amazing game. Listened to it on te radio driving from NYC to Boston. Thrilling even with no rooting interest.GregHarris said:Even though I hated that Pittsburgh team, I thoroughly enjoy the divisional game against Indy that year. Bettis coughed up the ball with under two minutes to play (first and goal from the 2), and it was up to the D to stop Manning and they did, or at least forced Vandershank into a field goal attempt.
dynomite said:Amazing game. Listened to it on te radio driving from NYC to Boston. Thrilling even with no rooting interest.
Didn't Big Ben save the game with a shoestring tackle on whoever picked up the ball, who otherwise would have run 90+ yards for a TD?
Also, I remember a Steeler fan made the news because he literally had a heart attack because of that play.
ivanvamp said:Steve Smith would still be a colossal pain in the butt unless Revis blankets him. Even then perhaps. I have total respect for Smith as a player. Guy is tremendous.
MentalDisabldLst said:
I still remember him running circles on our #1-ranked defense... in the Super Bowl following the 2003 season. Catching passes from Jake Delhomme.
Yep. Bettis hadn't fumbled all season, Nick Harper picked it up and had a convoy and Ben had the most awkward twisting shoestring tackle to save the touchdown. Harper's wife had been arrested for cutting his knee in an argument the night before, required 3 stitches. More detailsdynomite said:Amazing game. Listened to it on te radio driving from NYC to Boston. Thrilling even with no rooting interest.
Didn't Big Ben save the game with a shoestring tackle on whoever picked up the ball, who otherwise would have run 90+ yards for a TD?
Also, I remember a Steeler fan made the news because he literally had a heart attack because of that play.
DrewDawg said:Perhaps you're thinking of Mushin Muhammad, who had 140 yards. Smith had "only" 80 that day.