Author |
Message |
Rev
Romosexual!
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:06 am Posts: 32582 Location: the last free city
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Jedi Master Carr wrote: Magnus wrote: Levy wrote: I don't like that at all. If two teams play in the same division, one is 15-1, the other 14-2 and both are at the top of their conference that would mean they could face each other as early as the divisional round? Shouldn't be that way. Same with home field advantage. Whoever has the better record should get it In any league, division winners are given priority over wild-card. Baseball, basketball, and hockey all do the same thing. It does have its flaws yes. But the reason for this is to place greater emphasis on division games, which cerantily is not a bad thing. I agree it makes it tougher for the wild card teams. If you can't win your division you shouldn't get any breaks. So it looks like all the higher seeds should advance. The question is can any of the lower seeds win? The best case probably could be made for San Diego and then maybe the Giants, but I am not sure if either team could do it. Best case goes to NYGiants. They'll give the Cowboys lots of trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if they won. The Chargers will get eaten alive by the Colts now that they are alot healthier than they were when they last played each other. Remember the only reason the Colts lost that game was cause of the stupid kicker missing an easy fieldgoal. 
_________________ Is it 2028 yet?
|
Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:18 pm |
|
 |
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 40288
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Magnus wrote: Levy wrote: I don't like that at all. If two teams play in the same division, one is 15-1, the other 14-2 and both are at the top of their conference that would mean they could face each other as early as the divisional round? Shouldn't be that way. Same with home field advantage. Whoever has the better record should get it In any league, division winners are given priority over wild-card. Baseball, basketball, and hockey all do the same thing. It does have its flaws yes. But the reason for this is to place greater emphasis on division games, which cerantily is not a bad thing. Actually in basketball they slightly modified the rules last year, division winners are guaranteed at least top 4, but not 3. That way the best non-division winner isn't handicapped, they can still get the 2nd or 3rd seed if the best team is in their division. Also if the 5th seed gets a better record than a bad division winner in the 4th slot, they get home court advantage.
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:26 pm |
|
 |
xiayun
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:41 pm Posts: 25109 Location: San Mateo, CA
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
But NBA plays 82 games, and each team only plays teams of their own division 16 times, so the change of the rule makes sense. For NFL, I'm fine with the existing rule, since you only play 16 teams, 6 of which are against divisional opponents. That's pretty high percentage and makes each game more crucial.
_________________Recent watched movies: American Hustle - B+ Inside Llewyn Davis - B Before Midnight - A 12 Years a Slave - A- The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - A- My thoughts on box office
|
Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:11 pm |
|
 |
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
In this coming round, home teams win 78% of the time over the last 18? or so years.
Oh... and Tom Brady has NEVER lost a home playoff game.
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:11 pm |
|
 |
Jedi Master Carr
Extraordinary
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:51 pm Posts: 11637
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Rev wrote: Jedi Master Carr wrote: Magnus wrote: Levy wrote: I don't like that at all. If two teams play in the same division, one is 15-1, the other 14-2 and both are at the top of their conference that would mean they could face each other as early as the divisional round? Shouldn't be that way. Same with home field advantage. Whoever has the better record should get it In any league, division winners are given priority over wild-card. Baseball, basketball, and hockey all do the same thing. It does have its flaws yes. But the reason for this is to place greater emphasis on division games, which cerantily is not a bad thing. I agree it makes it tougher for the wild card teams. If you can't win your division you shouldn't get any breaks. So it looks like all the higher seeds should advance. The question is can any of the lower seeds win? The best case probably could be made for San Diego and then maybe the Giants, but I am not sure if either team could do it. Best case goes to NYGiants. They'll give the Cowboys lots of trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if they won. The Chargers will get eaten alive by the Colts now that they are alot healthier than they were when they last played each other. Remember the only reason the Colts lost that game was cause of the stupid kicker missing an easy fieldgoal.  Well the Chargers also did their best to lose that game. They should just give Tomlision the ball 30 times. He hard ran the ball the last time they played. They need to Gates to play to even have a chance though. As for the Cowboys, it really depends on Romo. If he plays like he did in his last playoff game things might not go easy, right now I say the Cowboys win. I am thinking all the higher seeds advance it will be the first time since 1994.
|
Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:51 pm |
|
 |
Jmart
Superman: The Movie
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:47 am Posts: 21230 Location: Massachusetts
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Yeah, the only reason why the Colts made a run towards the end of that Chargers game was because Norv Turner had a very inept gameplan. For some reason he thought it was best to barely use the best runningback in the league to run out the clock. Instead he used a good at best quarterback who couldn't complete a pass to save his life.
In all honesty, Rivers shouldn't throw the ball more than 15 times this week. Then again, the Colts are probably expecting LT to run the ball nonstop, so they'll probably have to rely somewhat on Rivers having a good game.
In other words, the Chargers are fucked.
_________________My DVD Collection Marty McGee (1989-2005)
If I’m not here, I’m on Letterboxd.
|
Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:16 pm |
|
 |
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
This is just a little something to think about...
What was the main reason people thought the Colts would lose in last years playoffs?
Their run defense.
What is the main reason people think the Pats will lose in this years playoffs?
Their run defense.
Apparently people don't learn their lessons.
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:46 pm |
|
 |
Jedi Master Carr
Extraordinary
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:51 pm Posts: 11637
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
I don't think NE's run defense was that bad. The Colts had a worse one last year.
|
Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:06 pm |
|
 |
Levy
Golfaholic
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 pm Posts: 16054
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
We all knew Grant would be the decisive factor in this game
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:54 pm |
|
 |
SolC9
Forum General
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:11 pm Posts: 7195 Location: Wisconsin
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Nice drive Pack! 
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:59 pm |
|
 |
Levy
Golfaholic
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 pm Posts: 16054
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Just a great drive orchestrated by Favre
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:03 pm |
|
 |
SolC9
Forum General
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:11 pm Posts: 7195 Location: Wisconsin
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Well done Packers.  And well done Grant, showing a lot of poise in running well after a horrible start. 
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:22 pm |
|
 |
Levy
Golfaholic
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 pm Posts: 16054
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Shut your cakehole Holmgren. The remeasurement was correct...
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:23 pm |
|
 |
Eagle
Site Owner
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm Posts: 14631 Location: Pittsburgh
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
That's why the Packers were my lock. There just better, and there showing it.
_________________
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:23 pm |
|
 |
SolC9
Forum General
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:11 pm Posts: 7195 Location: Wisconsin
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Levy wrote: Shut your cakehole Holmgren. The remeasurement was correct... You're right. But I don't blame Holmgren for questioning it. It's his job.
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:24 pm |
|
 |
Levy
Golfaholic
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 pm Posts: 16054
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Turnover!
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:28 pm |
|
 |
Levy
Golfaholic
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 pm Posts: 16054
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
I'm really surprised, I expected this to be a low-scoring affair
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:29 pm |
|
 |
Levy
Golfaholic
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 pm Posts: 16054
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Green Bay takes the lead!
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:33 pm |
|
 |
Levy
Golfaholic
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 pm Posts: 16054
|
Terrible tackling by Green Bay on this drive. The best tackle came against the punter  And did the announcer honestly just say "Shaun Alexander is running well today"? He has 6 yards on 6 attempt, you nutcase
Last edited by Levy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:43 pm |
|
 |
SolC9
Forum General
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:11 pm Posts: 7195 Location: Wisconsin
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
SS Atari Bigby is playing great right now 
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:44 pm |
|
 |
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
So far both offenses have been playing well, GB has been playing great on both sides of the ball.
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:47 pm |
|
 |
Eagle
Site Owner
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm Posts: 14631 Location: Pittsburgh
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Seattle has been more bailed out by turnovers than really playing well.
GB on the other hand has looked unstoppable.
_________________
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:48 pm |
|
 |
Levy
Golfaholic
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 pm Posts: 16054
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
That was a late hit you blind zebra!
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:49 pm |
|
 |
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Grant is a beast.
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:50 pm |
|
 |
Levy
Golfaholic
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 pm Posts: 16054
|
 Re: 2007 NFL Discussion
Holmgren should have challenged that catch, it hit the ground
|
Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:52 pm |
|
|