Well, I guess I’m “enjoying” this dead-cat-bounce part of the season. Draft an OL and run it back!
i believe the logic with this is to prevent a situation where two teams are tied record wise and playing at the end of the season and they’re both incentivized to lose. While it’s extremely unlikely a team would throw a game, too many jobs on the line etc, it’s (I guess) enough of a possibility where the NFL deemed SOS to be a more “fair” tiebreakerLeave it to the NFL to seed draft position by strength of schedule vs head to head, which is why the Commanders are 3rd and we're 4th.
They are something else.
Makes some NFL-sense.i believe the logic with this is to prevent a situation where two teams are tied record wise and playing at the end of the season and they’re both incentivized to lose. While it’s extremely unlikely a team would throw a game, too many jobs on the line etc, it’s (I guess) enough of a possibility where the NFL deemed SOS to be a more “fair” tiebreaker
still stupid though
That actually makes sense.i believe the logic with this is to prevent a situation where two teams are tied record wise and playing at the end of the season and they’re both incentivized to lose. While it’s extremely unlikely a team would throw a game, too many jobs on the line etc, it’s (I guess) enough of a possibility where the NFL deemed SOS to be a more “fair” tiebreaker
still stupid though
it’s going to be really close with the SOS tiebreaker. It will likely come down to the final games for a lot of teams.That actually makes sense.
But as you pointed out, it is still stupid.
So if the Patriots win another game, then the Giants pass them in the seeding too then.
Again with the Giants.
I think the idea is that if both teams were incentivized to lose, the game would be a joke (in this world where teams actively tank). Imagine a game where each team is doing 3 straight run plays and punting, playing 3rd string QBs etcMakes some NFL-sense.
But aren't the tied teams still incentivized to lose in that rare scenario, though -- to end up with the worse record of the two; no tiebreaker needed?
.
But as @joe dokes pointed out, this has nothing to do with the tie breaker. The game itself would be the tie breaker. One team would have a better record after the game. No tie breaker needed. This scenario exists.I think the idea is that if both teams were incentivized to lose, the game would be a joke (in this world where teams actively tank). Imagine a game where each team is doing 3 straight run plays and punting, playing 3rd string QBs etc
That was a fun, messy game. Viniatieri better expunge it from his record for his hall of fame submission. That PAT miss after the Martin TD was a shank. McGinest sometimes looked ten feet tall on the field.I’m watching the Pats’ victory against the Jim Kelly-led Bills in Week 9 of 1996 on YouTube and it is glorious. Skip to the last 15 minutes if you want to relive some fun Parcells-era glory:
View: https://youtu.be/jMKaHQ-r2Y4?si=oLfLbIC1sT-I5lcb
Prime Bledsoe and Curtis Martin, pre-prison Dave Meggett, Troy Brown with career catches 2, 3 and 4. It will also remind you that the refs have always been terrible.
BB's pencil is still sharp.Trent Brown a healthy scratch so he won’t get any of his 6.5 million playing time bonuses. That has to be one big, angry man
I seem to recall a few occasions when the general sentiment seemed to be that Belichick had gone out of his way to help a player achieve bonuses. Perhaps Brown's comments about that QB plucked off the practice squad were not appreciated!BB's pencil is still sharp.
Against the kicker, doesn't count.What a fucking spin move. Video game shit.
We have guys who can run fast. We have guys who can catch a ball. The Venn diagram between the too isn't pretty.We have guys who can run fast?
So it’s like below the hard deck?Against the kicker, doesn't count.