2007 NFL Playoffs

[The Man in Blak 0]

Don't tell me you guys are trying to turn THAT into yet another knock on the Patriots fans here. This is really starting to get damned old and childish.

 

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

The Raiders got badly outplayed along with not trying to disguise anything when they knew they were facing the coach that was on their side just a year previous.

 

Well, I'd say the latter has a lot to do with the former, considering that John Lynch had said that they were running plays straight out of the Oakland offensive playbook in the practices leading up to the Super Bowl.

 

The Tampa Bay defense was already one of the best in the league that year; the fact that they could gameplan off of insider knowledge (and that the Oakland coaches were too stupid to change anything) was a huge factor in their destruction of the Raiders.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

I remember while watching the game on television, you could practically see the Buccaneers defense just sitting on plays because they knew exactly what was going to happen. The fact that the Raiders didn't bother to change anything just made them deserving of getting thrashed.

[Guest Vitamin X]

If you discount the Pats dynasty, the AFC hasn't been all that much more impressive than the NFC the last few years. The Steelers and Colts have both consistently fielded choker squads, and the NFC teams that represented in the Super Bowl were all very good teams that either won (in the 2002 Bucs' case for the reasons stated already) or throttled most other teams, in their conference or not before losing to New England, who has rightly deserved to be called the best team of this decade for as long as they have and will. But the 2003 Panthers, the 2004 Eagles, and the 2005 Seahawks were all good teams, and one could argue that if it wasn't for some terrible officiating in last year's Super Bowl, the Seahawks should have won it.

 

The AFC puts out a couple good teams a year that lose inexplicably to some of the worst teams in football for no apparent reasons. The NFC has done much of the same. I really don't understand where people get this concept of AFC dominance from. Both West divisions are terrible. The NFC South is infinitely better than the AFC South, and the NFC and AFC East are about equal, maybe give a little bit of an edge to the division that doesn't have the Dolphins and Bills. And the AFC North is better than the NFC North, although that changes every year.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Spoiler tags plz.

 

The Bears are only selling their remaining tickets to people who live in in Indiana and Illinois. Boo.

 

Chargers did basically the same thing, only selling to people in the SoCal area.

[Cartman 0]

AFC west sucks? How?

[snuffbox 0]

They have the worst team in football in the Raiders. Possibly the worst team in professional sport.

 

The mindnumbingly boring and mediocre at best Denver. Kansas City, a team that despite so many weapons just cant seem to get the job done ever. And one really good team of the moment.

 

That's pretty close to sucks.

[RepoMan 0]

No. The only story here is the New England Patriots.

 

Everyone hates teams that consistently win unless it's their favorite/home team.

I hate about every pro team in Boston and New York because their fans are so annoying.

[Guest Legalise Drugs and Murder]

I "hate" them because they're in New York and Boston. I can't really think of any place I've been in the northeast that I enjoyed.

[JangoFett4Hire 0]

I "hate" them because they're in New York and Boston. I can't really think of any place I've been in the northeast that I enjoyed.

 

I know, it really sucks having stuff to do, always.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

They have the worst team in football in the Raiders. Possibly the worst team in professional sport.

 

The mindnumbingly boring and mediocre at best Denver. Kansas City, a team that despite so many weapons just cant seem to get the job done ever. And one really good team of the moment.

 

That's pretty close to sucks.

 

So let's compare:

 

2-14 Raiders=3-13 Lions

9-7 Broncos= 6-10 Vikings

9-7 Chiefs=8-8 Packers

14-2 Chargers=13-3 Bears

 

the only edge the NFC North has over the AFC West is the bottom dweller. Otherwise, the West on paper is better than the North.

[JangoFett4Hire 0]

They have the worst team in football in the Raiders. Possibly the worst team in professional sport.

 

The mindnumbingly boring and mediocre at best Denver. Kansas City, a team that despite so many weapons just cant seem to get the job done ever. And one really good team of the moment.

 

That's pretty close to sucks.

 

So let's compare:

 

2-14 Raiders=3-13 Lions

9-7 Broncos= 6-10 Vikings

9-7 Chiefs=8-8 Packers

14-2 Chargers=13-3 Bears

 

the only edge the NFC North has over the AFC West is the bottom dweller. Otherwise, the West on paper is better than the North.

 

I'd give the edge to the Bears over the Bolts right now.

[Cartman 0]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...=simmons/070119

[devo 0]

If you can't get excited about wondering if Manning will knock off the Patriots, then don't call yourself a football fan.

 

Uh, it's perfectly reasonable for football fans to not want to watch the same matchup with the same storyline over and over again. Questioning a fan's love of the sport is a move one resorts to when they have no logic or reasoning to back up their argument.

[bob_barron 0]

How can he pick against the Saints?

 

He must hate America

[snuffbox 0]

Is that guy the espn.com equivalent of Dr "Brett Favre isnt a first-ballott hall of famer" Z?

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

There was a poll I saw on ESPNNews this afternoon posing the question "What is the most likely Super Bowl matchup?"

 

Results were something like Colts v Saints 45%, Pats v Saints 35% and each of the Bears choices like 10%. Is this for real? Does 80% of America actually think the Saints are going to beat the Bears? I know it's a nice story and all and that they definitely have the talent to win, but how are the Bears NOT the favorites to win this game? They were much better than the Saints all year, and are now playing at home against a dome team in January. What am I missing?

[Cartman 0]

Either everyone thinks the NFL is rigged and the Saints are being given the Super Bowl or people are just so in love with the story and WANT to see them win.

 

Personally I want the Bears to end them.

[KingPK 0]

It's the same with the Colts. I mean, they definitely can get it done, but most of the "rationale" I'm reading is "It's just a gut feeling", "It has to happen sometime" and my personal favorite "It's Peyton's time!!@!@1" I mean, the Red Sox "had" to get past the Yankees some time, but it took a damned 3-0 comeback to do it! Just because you think the Law of Averages has to catch up with them sometime, that's not a valid opinion as to why you think they can win. Give me tangible REASONS.

 

Besides, wasn't LAST year "Peyton's time"? Home field throughout, a better defense, facing a team they beat in the regular season. How did that work out? Even if Vinatieri is there and makes the kick.....that only sends the game to overtime, so they still could have lost.

Edited January 19, 2007 by KingPK

[Brett Favre 0]

Most rationale reason? The Colts are better than the Pats this season.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Most rationale reason? The Colts are better than the Pats this season.

 

Ok CW, explain that one please.

[Brett Favre 0]

They already beat them at Gillette Stadium; I don't see why they can't do it again at the RCA Dome, especially with Harrison out.

[2GOLD 0]

Well, they did beat New England in New England. So yeah, you do have to say that logically it would seem they are better than the Patriots. Just like if the match-up had been the Ravens vs the Chargers, the Ravens would have to be considered the better of the two teams because of the Ravens securing the victory.

 

And even if you ignore the win by the Colts, they are still the higher seed so that would make them the better team. I guess.

[KingPK 0]

Most rationale reason? The Colts are better than the Pats this season.

 

And the Chargers were a better team than the Patriots (and Colts, arguably) this season. I know nobody wants to get into this arguement again, but just because you are the better team, that doesn't automatically mean you will win (especially in today's NFL).

Edited January 19, 2007 by KingPK

[Brett Favre 0]

And the Chargers have nothing to do with this game. I'm just giving you a reason as to why I'd pick them over the Pats.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

If you can't get excited about wondering if Manning will knock off the Patriots, then don't call yourself a football fan.

 

Uh, it's perfectly reasonable for football fans to not want to watch the same matchup with the same storyline over and over again. Questioning a fan's love of the sport is a move one resorts to when they have no logic or reasoning to back up their argument.

 

All I know is that the last three Super Bowls with the Patriots were a lot better than the last three without them. Unless people think that Giants/Ravens is this forgotten classic.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Jon Gruden and the Buccaneers rape of the Raiders > Pats/Bears or Saints this year.

[Slayer 0]

I like to pretend that season never happened

[Just John 0]

I so want the Pats and Saints to win, just to see everyone here flip out if nothing else. There'd have to be at least 10 pages of bitterness and terrible attempts at humor before the game started in the SB thread.

 

Looking at the actual games this weekend, I think the field is pretty wide open. Both matchups are up for grabs, as each team has certain weaknesses that can be exploited. I think the home teams on paper could have a slight edge, but last week's Pats/Chargers game showed the better paper team isn't always the better team.

 

If Peyton Manning pulls his head out of his ass, the Colts should win. The defense has been playing very well, and while New England is better offensively than the two teams the Colts have seen thus far, they're not a powerhouse by any means. However, if Peyton can't get the offense moving, the Pats won't need to score that many points to win. Indy's defense will need to force some 3rd and longs to keep Tom Brady from driving down the field with short-medium range passes. For Indy to have the best shot at winning, they need to run up the score early and try to deflate the Pats. If the game stays close, the advantage has to be with New England.

 

In the other conference, You'd think Chicago has a big advantage with the weather slowing the Saints offense, but it might be a double edged sword. If there's snow, wind, cold, etc, the deep ball isn't likely to be a threat, and that's the Saints' biggest weakness on defense. If it comes down to a running game, I like the team with Deuce McAllister leading the way and Reggie Bush to mix things up over a team with Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson. The Seahawks showed you can put up points on the Bears' D, but you have to stop the offense too. I don't know if I wanna beat this dead horse, but I will say Drew Brees has shown a lot more poise in pressure situations than Rex Grossman this year. For both teams, the real key is establishing the run. Whoever does that more effectively should take this one.

[Slayer 0]

10 pages of terrible attempts at humor

Hey now

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

The key to a Colts victory will be starting strong. If they are playing with a lead, I don't think the Patriots have enough explosiveness to come back. However, if the Patriots start strong, Peyton will start forcing the ball and looking for the big play. The second he does that, they are dead in the water.

 

The Saints better hope that the ineffective Rex Grossman shows up on Sunday because I don't think they have enough to win otherwise. The Bears are susceptible to the long play, which plays into Brees' strengths. But if we get some bad Chicago weather, the Saints offense will be neutralized. Bush/McCallister are awesome, but I think the Bears still have enough in the tank defensively to keep those guys from taking over the game.