Black Lushus Posted December 20, 2006 Report Posted December 20, 2006 Buffalo hasn't sold out their last 3 games this kind of surprises me (maybe it shouldn't?)...they're a hot team right now, another hot team with the potential rookie of the year at QB is coming to town. Not trying to be a Buffalo homer, but I'm shocked the folks up there can't get amped enough to pack in the stadium. Other than the beatdown by Chicago, Buffalo hasn't exactly been getting creamed out there or anything all season.
Red Baron Posted December 20, 2006 Report Posted December 20, 2006 Number one reason why its not sold out in Buffalo. It's too expensive, despite Buffalo sells the cheapest tickets in all of football.
Guest Princess Leena Posted December 20, 2006 Report Posted December 20, 2006 Buffalo's struggling economy is one thing. The other is the weather. There's many who'd rather watch the game on TV, then sit in at best 40 degree weather. Also, the stadium is a crappy area. I still have no idea why they put that stadium in Orchard Park. There's absolutely nothing to do around there. Buffalo fans don't really care if the team is winning or losing. Most are stupid homers that will love the team no matter what.
Kahran Ramsus Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Just move the team to Toronto. They'd sell out there.
Guest "Go, Mordecai!" Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Ravens will beat the Steelers again. Itd be awesome if they shutout the Steelers again, but they'll probably at least score a TD this go round. Im also pissed this game isn't in HD like the first meeting. Is this a Marvin post or a parody of a Marvin post?
Hawkius Maximus Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 I'm one of the biggest Seattle supporters here...but logically, San Diego should murder death kill Seattle given how both teams are playing. It shouldn't even be fun to watch, it'll just be a one sided assbeating on both sides of the ball. I dunno what's wrong with Seattle, beyond injuries, but they need to figure out WTF is wrong *NOW*.
Red Baron Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 I'm one of the biggest Seattle supporters here...but logically, San Diego should murder death kill Seattle given how both teams are playing. It shouldn't even be fun to watch, it'll just be a one sided assbeating on both sides of the ball. I dunno what's wrong with Seattle, beyond injuries, but they need to figure out WTF is wrong *NOW*. Offence is not that bad. Its our defence is horrible. We aren't getting key turnovers and stopping third down plays. Our secondary can't play man to man or even cover two.
cabbageboy Posted December 21, 2006 Author Report Posted December 21, 2006 Still, call me crazy but I think Seattle pulls this one off. If it wasn't on Christmas Eve and thus the possibility of SD not quite giving a crap, I wouldn't pick the upset. Still, the Chargers haven't locked up home field yet, whereas the Colts had on Christmas Eve last year. Here is a scenario I'll toss out there for the AFC. Who gets what spots should the Chargers lose to either Seattle or Arizona and the Colts and Ravens win out? There would be 3 teams at 13-3 right there. Seems like I heard the Colts will be the #2 if they win out regardless, so am I to assume that the Ravens end up as the #1 seed and the Chargers get screwed into the #3 based on Baltimore's head to head win?
Guest "Go, Mordecai!" Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 I want Seattle to get blown out the last two weeks so that the 49ers get in, even though the odds of this are extremely low if you bother to figure out the probability of Seattle losing both games and San Francisco winning both. The NFL just doesn't feel right to me with a shitty San Francisco 49ers.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Ravens will beat the Steelers again. Itd be awesome if they shutout the Steelers again, but they'll probably at least score a TD this go round. Im also pissed this game isn't in HD like the first meeting. Is this a Marvin post or a parody of a Marvin post? 100% Authentic Marvinisalunatic..accept no crappy subsititutes. I saw a Baltimore Ravens 2006 AFC North Champions Hat for $22 shopping today..but I'll wait til they go on clearance alongside the Baltimore Ravens Super Bowl XLI Champions merch..or after they get eliminated..
devo Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Here is a scenario I'll toss out there for the AFC. Who gets what spots should the Chargers lose to either Seattle or Arizona and the Colts and Ravens win out? There would be 3 teams at 13-3 right there. Seems like I heard the Colts will be the #2 if they win out regardless, so am I to assume that the Ravens end up as the #1 seed and the Chargers get screwed into the #3 based on Baltimore's head to head win? I think this is how it works...since the Ravens have beaten the Chargers (the only head-to-head matchup), that's the first tiebreaker. However, since the Colts have a better record in common games (3-1 compared to the Ravens' 2-2), the Colts would get the first seed, the Ravens would get the second, and the Chargers would get the third.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Still, call me crazy but I think Seattle pulls this one off. If it wasn't on Christmas Eve and thus the possibility of SD not quite giving a crap, I wouldn't pick the upset. Still, the Chargers haven't locked up home field yet, whereas the Colts had on Christmas Eve last year. Here is a scenario I'll toss out there for the AFC. Who gets what spots should the Chargers lose to either Seattle or Arizona and the Colts and Ravens win out? There would be 3 teams at 13-3 right there. Seems like I heard the Colts will be the #2 if they win out regardless, so am I to assume that the Ravens end up as the #1 seed and the Chargers get screwed into the #3 based on Baltimore's head to head win? If theres a 3 way tie, the best I can figure out is: Since the Ravens played the Chargers and won, they eliminate the Chargers to #3 and then the Colts take #1 on % vs common opponents (which is Tennessee, Cincy, Buffalo and Denver with the Colts at .800 and the Ravens at .500 pending the Bills game where the best they could finish is .600) putting the Ravens at #2.
Red Baron Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 I want Seattle to get blown out the last two weeks so that the 49ers get in, even though the odds of this are extremely low if you bother to figure out the probability of Seattle losing both games and San Francisco winning both. The NFL just doesn't feel right to me with a shitty San Francisco 49ers. I want this to happen so Holmgren and Rhodes get canned immediatly.
Hektik Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Still, call me crazy but I think Seattle pulls this one off. If it wasn't on Christmas Eve and thus the possibility of SD not quite giving a crap, I wouldn't pick the upset. Still, the Chargers haven't locked up home field yet, whereas the Colts had on Christmas Eve last year. Here is a scenario I'll toss out there for the AFC. Who gets what spots should the Chargers lose to either Seattle or Arizona and the Colts and Ravens win out? There would be 3 teams at 13-3 right there. Seems like I heard the Colts will be the #2 if they win out regardless, so am I to assume that the Ravens end up as the #1 seed and the Chargers get screwed into the #3 based on Baltimore's head to head win? No, in that scenario the Chargers get the second seed. Three of the Colts losses were to AFC opponents. The Chargers right now have two losses to AFC teams. If they lose this week or next week, it would be to an NFC team. The Chargers would have a better conference record.
devo Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Actually, only two of the Colts' losses were to AFC opponents (the third was to Dallas). In that scenario, all three teams would have equally good 10-2 conference records.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Actually, only two of the Colts' losses were to AFC opponents (the third was to Dallas). In that scenario, all three teams would have equally good 10-2 conference records. Doesn't matter. The first tiebreaker with 3 teams is head to head to eliminate 1 team. Chargers are booted to 3rd because they lost to the Ravens.
Hektik Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Actually, only two of the Colts' losses were to AFC opponents (the third was to Dallas). In that scenario, all three teams would have equally good 10-2 conference records. That's right I forgot about the Cowboys.
devo Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Actually, only two of the Colts' losses were to AFC opponents (the third was to Dallas). In that scenario, all three teams would have equally good 10-2 conference records. Doesn't matter. The first tiebreaker with 3 teams is head to head to eliminate 1 team. Chargers are booted to 3rd because they lost to the Ravens. In fact, if you look directly above your previous post, you'll see that I described such a situation in detail.
Hektik Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 What is confusing me is that if the Chargers win this week, they get a first round bye. It doesn't matter what anybody else does. They could still lose to Arizona next week and end up in a threeway tie.
Hawkius Maximus Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 I honestly think there's one thing that the Seahawk's are missing. They have ALL the talent they could need, and almost have the same exact squad as last year. What's missing is heart. Last year, they believed and gave it everything they had. This year...It's like the team collectively could give a shit. Hasselbeck at times is the ONLY person who seems to care, as he's willing to get himself killed to give the team some fucking hope. Ever since I started seriously following the Seahawk's a few years ago, I've seen this trend...If they start feeling like they have no hope, they don't seem to try. The biggest example of this was the 2004 game against the Rams. Seahawk's were up 20+ points going into the second half, and just gave it all up. For the rest of the season, they had no fire or intensity. They were just *THERE*. There's no logical reason why the Seahawk's shouldn't be one of the best teams in the league after 2005's season, their just not playing to where they should be. I don't know if that's Holmgren's fault, or whatever, but they need to get that desire back. There is a serious difference between teams like the Niners and the Seahawks. Niner's don't have the talent the Seahawk's have, but they WANT it more. Seattle just seems to not freaking want it, and it's disturbing to see as a fan.
Richard Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 In a three-way tie, head to head results matter only if a team has beaten or lost to both of the other teams. Since conference records are even, common game results will be looked at. SD beat Denver twice, beat Tennessee, beat Cincinnati, and beat Buffalo (5-0) IND beat Denver, split Tennessee, beat Cincinnati, and beat Buffalo (4-1) BAL lost to Denver, beat Tennessee, split Cincinnati, and in this scenario they'll have beaten Buffalo (3-2)
Hawk 34 Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 "Heart" and "Chemistry" are the two most overblown non-existant factors placed in the sporting environment.
Art Sandusky Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Isn't Seattle missing one or two of their starting offensive linemen from last year?
Guest Vitamin X Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Steve Hutchinson makes the difference. (I really don't think this)
Jaxxson Mayhem Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Minnesota (6-8) at Green Bay (6-8): Green Bay Kansas City (7-7) at Oakland (2-12): KC Washington (5-9) at St. Louis (6-8): St. Louis Carolina (6-8) at Atlanta (7-7): Atlanta Tennessee (7-7) at Buffalo (7-7): Tennessee Indianapolis (11-3) at Houston (4-10): Indy Chicago (12-2) at Detroit (2-12): Chicago Tampa Bay (3-11) at Cleveland (4-10): Cleveland New England (10-4) at Jacksonville (8-6): NE New Orleans (9-5) at NY Giants (7-7): New Orleans Baltimore (11-3) at Pittsburgh (7-7): Baltimore Arizona (4-10) at San Francisco (6-8): SF San Diego (12-2) at Seattle (8-6): San Diego Cincinnati (8-6) at Denver (8-6): Denver Philadelphia (8-6) at Dallas (9-5): Dallas NY Jets (8-6) at Miami (6-8): Jets
Red Baron Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Steve Hutchinson makes the difference. (I really don't think this) If Seattle wasn't able to score more than 10 points a game, I would have agreed with you.
Guest Vitamin X Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 Well the Seahawks have the league's 20th ranked offense, with their running game ranked slightly higher than their passing (16th as compared to 20th). They're also not too hot on defense, ranked 17th in the league. The low ranking in the passing and running games have to do with the injuries beset on the team on Alexander and Hasselbeck obviously, but missing Hutchinson who is on Hasselbeck's blind side, is a big difference. I know because losing Marco Rivera and Mike Wahle had Green Bay's offensive line go from one of the best in the league to one of the worst overnight. True, they're scoring over 10 points a game. But they're certainly giving up a lot more than that as well. The team to my recollection has a few veterans on there, and they're not putting the team together like they should right now. They did lose a bit in free agency and lot in injuries, so the team's outside shot at the playoffs is going to be expected at this point in the season, although of course I would be cheering for them to win the division since that would help Green Bay get in (being that the Pack has a win over the Niners not the Hawks). So I'm just biased.
MFer Posted December 21, 2006 Report Posted December 21, 2006 My picks: Packers Chiefs Redskins Falcons Titans Colts Bears Browns Jags Saints Ravens 49ers Chargers Broncos Cowboys Jets
CanadianChris Posted December 22, 2006 Report Posted December 22, 2006 How horrible is Favre in the red zone? They need to start running the ball a lot more in Minnesota territory. He's not getting the TD record this year anyway. EDIT: This is getting pathetic. They've run nine plays in the red zone, and Favre is 0/8 with a sack.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now