NFL Week 15

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

For the NFC, the Rams have almost no shot since they would have to have a better record than the Saints and the Panthers since they both beat the Rams.

 

It looks like the week 17 game between the Saints and the Panthers could determine that last NFC Wild Card..

[Black Lushus 0]

Vitamin X, you don't STILL think Green Bay is going as far as the NFC championship game, do you???

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

The current system works just fine. It's the OT format that still drives me nuts. I wish they would make it so that to win in OT, it's touchdowns only, or once you score, you also have to stop the other team from scoring. The sudden death FG shit doesn't quite cut it for me as much anymore. It's loathesome.

THANK YOU.

 

You've got to have matching possessions, there's no other fair way. The team that lost the toss has a chance to score, and if they can't score more points than the other team did, or get intercepted, or whatever, it's over. Maybe even kill the game clock and just run off the play clock. I dunno. This system is terribly flawed.

 

 

"We want the ball\, we're gonna score!"

 

ARRRRRRRGH!!!!! GRRRRRR! DAMN YOU HASSELBECK

I'm perfectly fine w/ the current OT rules. Kicking & defense are part of the game. You lost the coin toss? Play defense and get the ball back.

[sfaJack 0]

Besides that, you had 60 minutes to win the game already. Tough shit if don't get the ball in OT.

 

NFL games are long enough as it is. We do NOT need a system that could drag them out even longer.

 

And if you want to talk about unfair things in the NFL, how about the bullshit that division winners automatically get at least one home playoff game? Why should the wild card team be punished if they have a better record than a division winner? That, to me, is ridiculous.

[Kurt Angle Mark 0]

At least I know at least for 1 more week that the Ravens still have the final wild card based on the fact that they have a 3-2 division record vs the Jags 2-3 record. If Houston can beat the Jags again...even if they beat the Raiders and even if the Ravens lose to the Steelers, as long as the Ravens beat the Dolphins and neither the Bills or Broncos win out (hopefully the Steelers can beat the Bills and the Broncos lose to the Colts) than the Ravens would have the final wild card based on a 3-3 division record vs the Jags 2-4 record.

 

My head is about to explode.

According to the tie-breaking rules the division record of a team has no bearing if the teams are not from the same division.

 

The rules

 

If the tied clubs are from different divisions, apply the following steps.

 

Two Clubs

1. Head-to-head, if applicable.

2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.

3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.

4. Strength of victory.

5. Strength of schedule.

6. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.

7. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.

8. Best net points in conference games.

9. Best net points in all games.

10. Best net touchdowns in all games.

11. Coin toss.

 

Three or More Clubs

(Note: If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of applicable two-club format.)

1. Apply division tie breaker to eliminate all but the highest ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. The original seeding within a division upon application of the division tie breaker remains the same for all subsequent applications of the procedure that are necessary to identify the two Wild-Card participants.

2. Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others.)

3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.

4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.

5. Strength of victory.

6. Strength of schedule.

7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.

8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.

9. Best net points in conference games.

10. Best net points in all games.

11. Best net touchdowns in all games.

12. Coin toss

[Slayer 0]

Looks like I missed a good run of football conversation yesterday (damn girlfriend's broken computer). Thankfully I got to see all the games this weekend.

 

I only got to see that last two minutes of the Vikings game as "bonus" coverage but I was so ecstatic when Detroit flubbed that PAT, and then the Jags did the impossible and won in GB in December, thus tying the Vikes and Packers back up. The Vikings need to either win out to win the division (making them 10-6 to GB's 9-7 or 8-8 depending how they do at Chicago) or beat GB and hope Chicago beats GB if Washington should happen to pull an Arizona (a go-nowhere team playing spoiler), otherwise the best they can aim for is a tie, which goes to GB (better div. and conf. record)

 

As for the rest of the NFC, I wouldn't worry too much. Atlanta has shown they can be caught off guard by bad teams, plus HFA hasn't done much for the Eagles in the last two years, and with TO facing the DL for a short while, the third time may not be the charm.

[Slayer 0]

Also, would it be possible to take away the NFC West's division title playoff spot and give it to one of the South's teams? The Panthers and the Saints are a couple of fighting teams that I would much rather see in the playoffs than the overachieving and hard-to-watch Rams or Seagulls

[Guest Vitamin X]

Vitamin X, you don't STILL think Green Bay is going as far as the NFC championship game, do you???

The scenario I proposed was merely what I felt my ideal situation for going to the playoffs were. What they've shown me over the past 3 games, I actually have a difficult time believing they deserve to be in the playoffs at all. Then I realize they played in the NFC, and quite possibly would be up there with Atlanta, because Atlanta has a habit of playing down to their competition as well. The playoff scenario I proposed is totally possible, with the Eagles stomping on the Pack in the NFC Championship game, if such a thing were possible for Philadelphia. If you read what I posted earlier in the thread, I mentioned I lost most of my faith in the season during the Philadelphia game, and lost pretty much the rest of it yesterday. However, that's still no reason to not cheer them on and wish them the best, especially in the next two games which are essentially pride games considering they happen to be Green Bay's biggest rivals, both on the road. I say they're playing for pride because they already have clinched a playoff berth, and finishing 8-8 and not getting a home playoff spot doesn't really matter, considering Lambeau Field isn't what it used to be (4-4 at home, and 4-2 on the road? Seriously, what the fuck?!)

 

But yeah, if this was the AFC, the only two teams that would make it in would be Philly and Atlanta. Everyone else trying to get in are barely squeezing in at 9-7 or so. I don't like seeing 9-7 or 8-8 teams make the playoffs, because they usually don't deserve to be there, and no 9-7 or 8-8 team has ever done much in the playoffs to justify their being there.

 

As for the rest of the NFC, I wouldn't worry too much. Atlanta has shown they can be caught off guard by bad teams, plus HFA hasn't done much for the Eagles in the last two years, and with TO facing the DL for a short while, the third time may not be the charm.

 

You mean fourth time? Eagles lost in `01 to the Rams, in `02 to the Bucs, and in `03 to the Panthers. And what does HFA stand for?

 

I'm perfectly fine w/ the current OT rules. Kicking & defense are part of the game. You lost the coin toss? Play defense and get the ball back.

 

Except this isn't quite fair in games that have gone to OT as a result of both defenses playing so terribly that both offenses just kept scoring. Also, with the current OT rules, take into account the kickoff return and how many yards you need for a FG, and you're basically playing Arena Football to win the game. The average kickoff return takes the ball to the receiving team's own 30 yard line, and all they need is about 50 yards or so to get into field goal range. That's no way to play football. I think it would be better if FGs weren't allowed in OT, so you'd REALLY have to play defense and you'd REALLY have to show you were the better team that day.

 

Besides that, you had 60 minutes to win the game already. Tough shit if don't get the ball in OT.

 

NFL games are long enough as it is. We do NOT need a system that could drag them out even longer.

 

If fucking baseball, arguably a MUCH duller, slower sport, can implement an OT system that isn't sudden death or first possession and make it work, than there's no reason football can't. The whole point of OT is that both teams played hard enough in the 60 minutes alloted that a winner can't be decided, so why the hell would you want to decide the game on a coin toss? That's ridiculously silly logic.

[Agent_Bond34 0]

HFA = Home Field Advantage

[Guest Vitamin X]

Ah yes, I see. Hell, the fuckin COWBOYS played them tight as all hell yesterday at the Linc.

[sfaJack 0]

If fucking baseball, arguably a MUCH duller, slower sport, can implement an OT system that isn't sudden death or first possession and make it work, than there's no reason football can't. The whole point of OT is that both teams played hard enough in the 60 minutes alloted that a winner can't be decided, so why the hell would you want to decide the game on a coin toss? That's ridiculously silly logic.

How many OT games are actually decided with only one team having the ball in OT? I'd be willing to bet that it's no higher than 1 out of 3, which, to me, is not a cause for alarm. In most cases, both teams get a shot, so what's the problem?

 

And in regards to the pace of the game: I could make an argument that the ridiculous number of timeouts, penalties, replays, and other play stoppages make football a brutal game to watch at times (especially for a live crowd at the stadium), but it's tough to do so because peoples' tastes vary as to what is and what is not a properly paced game. All I know is, and since I don't have numbers in front of me at the moment I can't say with 100% certainty, that the average time for a baseball game is just under three hours. How often do you see an NFL game completed in that time? You want to drag it out even more?

[2GOLD 0]

The Eagles should have intentionally blown home field advantage. They can't win the damn thing in Philly, maybe they can grab it on the road?

[Guest Vitamin X]

If fucking baseball, arguably a MUCH duller, slower sport, can implement an OT system that isn't sudden death or first possession and make it work, than there's no reason football can't. The whole point of OT is that both teams played hard enough in the 60 minutes alloted that a winner can't be decided, so why the hell would you want to decide the game on a coin toss? That's ridiculously silly logic.

How many OT games are actually decided with only one team having the ball in OT? I'd be willing to bet that it's no higher than 1 out of 3, which, to me, is not a cause for alarm. In most cases, both teams get a shot, so what's the problem?

I'm willing to bet that you're absolutely wrong on that one. If someone could look up the statistics on it, I'd be much obliged. Very rarely does the kicking team get the ball back. Again, it's only 50 yards to go to get into FG range, maybe 60 if weather conditions are bad or if it was a good kickoff. That's nothing considering all the rules that have been implemented or "re-enforced" to favor offenses.

 

And in regards to the pace of the game: I could make an argument that the ridiculous number of timeouts, penalties, replays, and other play stoppages make football a brutal game to watch at times (especially for a live crowd at the stadium), but it's tough to do so because peoples' tastes vary as to what is and what is not a properly paced game.  All I know is, and since I don't have numbers in front of me at the moment I can't say with 100% certainty, that the average time for a baseball game is just under three hours.  How often do you see an NFL game completed in that time?  You want to drag it out even more?

 

Baseball doesn't have a halftime, which takes up about 30 minutes of a football broadcast. I don't feel football games are dragged out at all, since there's always something going on and you're watching what a team is able or not able to do during the whole game. It's fun to watch, although seeing it from a Cowboys fans' perspective, I could understand how you'd feel that way...

[Slayer 0]

OT is fine as it is.

 

I remember after the '01 season when the NFL was talking about changing the OT rule. Their statistics said that 55% of the time, the team which won the coin toss won the game without the other team gaining possession, which means that 45% of the time the other team did get the chance with the ball. I don't find the statistic to be that alarming. If it was up around 75% or so, then I'd have an issue with it.

 

What's funnier is when people blame the coin toss for their team's loss if their defense allows the other team to drive and score on their first(only) possession.

[2GOLD 0]

Only thing they need to change about OT is make sure there can be no ties. A tie should only be reserved for hockey and soccer.

 

A tie is rare but they should add a mini tack-on rule to eliminate the chance of a tie. Not sure what, maybe something involving kickers.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I don't remember the last time I watched an OT game where the other team got the ball, and I've watched a lot of football. Not sure about those stats, Slayer. I'm pretty sure the number is closer to 70-75%

[2GOLD 0]

I don't remember the last time I watched an OT game where the other team got the ball, and I've watched a lot of football. Not sure about those stats, Slayer. I'm pretty sure the number is closer to 70-75%

 

Did you watch Saturday night?

Panthers vs Falcons?

 

Panthers had the ball first before Delhomme got picked off to set up the game winning field goal for the Falcons.

[Slayer 0]

It was the NFL's official stats. I wish I could find the official source, though bear in mind this was after the '01 season so it doesn't account for the last three years.

 

The point is that winning the coin-toss does not guarantee an automatic win for that team

[Guest Vitamin X]

I don't remember the last time I watched an OT game where the other team got the ball, and I've watched a lot of football. Not sure about those stats, Slayer. I'm pretty sure the number is closer to 70-75%

 

Did you watch Saturday night?

Panthers vs Falcons?

 

Panthers had the ball first before Delhomme got picked off to set up the game winning field goal for the Falcons.

Ah shit, that's right. All I remember was the Falcons kicking the ball, forgot how they got the ball in the first place.

 

The point is that winning the coin-toss does not guarantee an automatic win for that team

 

Although in most cases, it does. That's why I think they should do away with FG's in OT. NFL football should be played on a 100-yard field, not a 50-yard one.

[sfaJack 0]

Doing a very quick rundown of this year's OT games, I see that there have been only 10 OT games thus far.

 

In exactly 3 of them, the team that got the ball first won the game without the other getting the ball.

 

Now, this was a very, very quick check I did and could be incomplete data, but that's 30% of the time that one team never got the ball. It also is for this year only, but I think I'm fairly safe in saying that you won't see too much of a variance from that 30% figure.

 

Where is the crisis again?

 

 

Just for reference, the 10 games OT games I see this year are:

 

NO/StL in week 3

Hou/Min in week 5

SF/Ariz in week 5

Sea/StL in week 5

Phi/Cle in week 7

Chi/Ten in week 10

Bal/NYJ in week 10

Det/Jax in week 10

SF/Ariz in week 14

Atl/Car in week 15

 

If I've missed any (which is pretty likely), feel free to correct me.

[alfdogg 0]

Looks like I missed a good run of football conversation yesterday (damn girlfriend's broken computer).

You moocher

[Slayer 0]

Looks like I missed a good run of football conversation yesterday (damn girlfriend's broken computer).

You moocher

It's a long story, but my computer resides at my parent's place, though I spend more time at my g/f's.

 

So... I guess I am a mooch aren't I. Damn.

[Brett Favre 0]

Terrell Owens has a fractured fibula. Oof.

[Slayer 0]

Yeowch

 

I knew that, the way his leg twisted, it had to have been more than a sprain...

 

Not quite a Theisman, but still pretty bad to watch

[Brett Favre 0]

Out for the year. Outside chance for the Super Bowl.

[Slayer 0]

I wonder how that Packer who got lariated is doing

[Guest Failed Mascot]

Looks like I missed a good run of football conversation yesterday (damn girlfriend's broken computer).

You moocher

It's a long story, but my computer resides at my parent's place, though I spend more time at my g/f's.

 

So... I guess I am a mooch aren't I. Damn.

Actually he's found a way to live with the girlfriend without feeling obligated to actually stay there every night. He's keeping his worlds from colliding.

 

Pure genius.

[Slovakia 0]

Out for the year. Outside chance for the Super Bowl.

Well, we know they can get to the NFC Championship Game....hehehe

[Slayer 0]

Looking at next week's schedule, I see San Diego plays at Indy. The winner essentially gets the 3 seed in the AFC while the loser gets the 4 seed, which may not seem too big since it doesn't involve a 1st round bye, but it's still key in deciding their potential route in the playoffs.

[KingPK 0]

If I was Indy, I'd rather get the 4 seed over the 3 seed, since the 3 seed will play the 6 seed, and that might be Buffalo, Jacksonville or Baltimore, teams with very good defenses. I think Indy would probably have a better chance at home against the Jets instead of facing a real tough defense, and then facing ANOTHER one on the road the next week.