Saints are OUT of playoffs....

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:36 pm

Good points Bob - fact is the Seahawks defense was really up for this game and that run by lynch was stunning

Not saying the saints took it for granted but they were not as up for the game and did not play as well defensively as they had to - Brees and the offense were not as good as they can be either but a lot of that was the Seattle D being really up for the game

I do agree that the Saints did not play with the same passion this year and as you pointed out they didn't have the most difficult schedule either

gushogs · Post by **gushogs** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:44 pm

The games are won/lost on the playing field and the Aints got handled by the better team that day. If you want a series to determine a winner, watch baseball. In the playoffs every team starts over 0-0 and the winner of the last game gets rings.

This game has shown the NFL system works. If any of those 10-6 teams had played the Aints, the odds tell me the would have lost.

HaiL,

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:02 pm

SkinsJock wrote:fact is the Seahawks defense was really up for this game

They gave up 36 points!

DesertSkin · Post by **DesertSkin** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:26 am

SkinsJock wrote:I don't have a problem with the current NFL playoff scenario - Seattle won their division - they get to host a game - Seattle did not get lucky, they dis what they had to do to win - the players executed what the coaches thought would work on one hand and did not on the other - that's what happens in the NFL

The team that plays better together ALWAYS beats teams that don't

My biggest problem isn't with the fact that the Seahawks made the playoffs . My problem is that after the Wildcard round, the team with the best record in the conference (pre playoffs) gets to now play the Packers who won 3 more game than the Bears' opponent, the Seahawks. Regardless of who won a division and who is in as a wildcard, the Falcons deserve, and have earned the right to play the weakest opponent that comes out of the wildcard round. Saying that the Seahawks should be a 4 seed just because they won a division when there are only 6 division games is stupid and in this case, punishes the Falcons, who should be playing the Seahawks. This, to me, is as foolish as saying the Cowgirls finished 3rd in the division, yet get a better pick than the Skins because they use different tiebreakers.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:42 am

DesertSkin wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:I don't have a problem with the current NFL playoff scenario - Seattle won their division - they get to host a game - Seattle did not get lucky, they dis what they had to do to win - the players executed what the coaches thought would work on one hand and did not on the other - that's what happens in the NFL

The team that plays better together ALWAYS beats teams that don't

My biggest problem isn't with the fact that the Seahawks made the playoffs . My problem is that after the Wildcard round, the team with the best record in the conference (pre playoffs) gets to now play the Packers who won 3 more game than the Bears' opponent, the Seahawks. Regardless of who won a division and who is in as a wildcard, the Falcons deserve, and have earned the right to play the weakest opponent that comes out of the wildcard round. Saying that the Seahawks should be a 4 seed just because they won a division when there are only 6 division games is stupid and in this case, punishes the Falcons, who should be playing the Seahawks. This, to me, is as foolish as saying the Cowgirls finished 3rd in the division, yet get a better pick than the Skins because they use different tiebreakers.

Even worse, if the Seahawks somehow manage to beat the Bears, and the Falcons lose to the Packers, the NFC Championship game will be played in Seattle. How messed up is that? The best six teams in each conference should go to the tournament, regardless of division. Just because you win a weak division should not be reason to get you in.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:43 am

Deadskins wrote:Even worse, if the Seahawks somehow manage to beat the Bears, and the Falcons lose to the Packers, the NFC Championship game will be played in Seattle. How messed up is that? The best six teams in each conference should go to the tournament, regardless of division. Just because you win a weak division should not be reason to get you in.

OK, so we eliminate divisions and have one division per conference. Then you complain about the same thing, why did an 8-8 NFC team go and a 10-6 AFC not? So then we go to the whole NFL is one division. That's really an improvement in football? It's also not fair because they don't all play the same schedule, so we have to play a full round robin, every team plays every team, so we need a 31 week season. Then, oops, it's not fair you play some teams on the road and some at home, full home and home against everyone. 62 week season. Hmm...that darned 52 weeks in a year may be a problem...

And who cares? And to grampi's confusion by who cares, I mean other then the teams themselves that get to go. I meant fans. The top teams go. Does it really make that much difference whether the 6th or 7th best team goes? Particularly when they don't even play the same schedule? Everyone knows the rules in advance, the top teams will go. I don't see the issue.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:58 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:Even worse, if the Seahawks somehow manage to beat the Bears, and the Falcons lose to the Packers, the NFC Championship game will be played in Seattle. How messed up is that? The best six teams in each conference should go to the tournament, regardless of division. Just because you win a weak division should not be reason to get you in.

OK, so we eliminate divisions and have one division per conference. Then you complain about the same thing, why did an 8-8 NFC team go and a 10-6 AFC not? So then we go to the whole NFL is one division. That's really an improvement in football? It's also not fair because they don't all play the same schedule, so we have to play a full round robin, every team plays every team, so we need a 31 week season. Then, oops, it's not fair you play some teams on the road and some at home, full home and home against everyone. 62 week season. Hmm...that darned 52 weeks in a year may be a problem...

And who cares? And to grampi's confusion by who cares, I mean other then the teams themselves that get to go. I meant fans. The top teams go. Does it really make that much difference whether the 6th or 7th best team goes? Particularly when they don't even play the same schedule? Everyone knows the rules in advance, the top teams will go. I don't see the issue.

No one said anything about eliminating divisions. :roll:

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:42 am

Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:Even worse, if the Seahawks somehow manage to beat the Bears, and the Falcons lose to the Packers, the NFC Championship game will be played in Seattle. How messed up is that? The best six teams in each conference should go to the tournament, regardless of division. Just because you win a weak division should not be reason to get you in.

OK, so we eliminate divisions and have one division per conference. Then you complain about the same thing, why did an 8-8 NFC team go and a 10-6 AFC not? So then we go to the whole NFL is one division. That's really an improvement in football? It's also not fair because they don't all play the same schedule, so we have to play a full round robin, every team plays every team, so we need a 31 week season. Then, oops, it's not fair you play some teams on the road and some at home, full home and home against everyone. 62 week season. Hmm...that darned 52 weeks in a year may be a problem...

And who cares? And to grampi's confusion by who cares, I mean other then the teams themselves that get to go. I meant fans. The top teams go. Does it really make that much difference whether the 6th or 7th best team goes? Particularly when they don't even play the same schedule? Everyone knows the rules in advance, the top teams will go. I don't see the issue.

No one said anything about eliminating divisions.

That was all you took from my points? I gave you a pretty good list of things that show there is no perfect system. Your argument was our current system isn't perfect. Check and mate.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:01 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:Even worse, if the Seahawks somehow manage to beat the Bears, and the Falcons lose to the Packers, the NFC Championship game will be played in Seattle. How messed up is that? The best six teams in each conference should go to the tournament, regardless of division. Just because you win a weak division should not be reason to get you in.

OK, so we eliminate divisions and have one division per conference. Then you complain about the same thing, why did an 8-8 NFC team go and a 10-6 AFC not? So then we go to the whole NFL is one division. That's really an improvement in football? It's also not fair because they don't all play the same schedule, so we have to play a full round robin, every team plays every team, so we need a 31 week season. Then, oops, it's not fair you play some teams on the road and some at home, full home and home against everyone. 62 week season. Hmm...that darned 52 weeks in a year may be a problem...

And who cares? And to grampi's confusion by who cares, I mean other then the teams themselves that get to go. I meant fans. The top teams go. Does it really make that much difference whether the 6th or 7th best team goes? Particularly when they don't even play the same schedule? Everyone knows the rules in advance, the top teams will go. I don't see the issue.

No one said anything about eliminating divisions.

That was all you took from my points? I gave you a pretty good list of things that show there is no perfect system. Your argument was our current system isn't perfect. Check and mate.

Yeah, for me. All you got from my post was eliminate divisions and conferences, which I never said. Your list of ludicrous proposals throws out all league structure to try to prove that wouldn't be a perfect solution. Gee, no foolin?

My proposal was that everything stays the same except that the top six records in each conference go to the tournament, regardless of division. That eliminates all the BS about having teams go with a losing record, and you get the best teams in the tournament. To me, that IS the perfect solution. You claim that under the current system the best teams go, but that's not completely true, because all the best teams don't necessarily make it, only some. Check and mate.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:14 pm

Deadskins wrote:My proposal was that everything stays the same except that the top six records in each conference go to the tournament, regardless of division. That eliminates all the BS about having teams go with a losing record, and you get the best teams in the tournament

Do you? Points from my post:

- So why would say an 8-8 team from one conference deserve to go over a 10-6 team from the other?

- They didn't play the same schedule, so how do you know that they were the six best teams? One team could have played a killer AFC conference and the other a patsy? Why should the AFC division who played the NFC West get 4 easy wins and someone else have to play a harder division?

- The last point is warped even more because the divisions make the schedule even more uneven.

You've solved nothing, you just changed the problems

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:45 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:You've solved nothing, you just changed the problems

I think that's really what it comes down to. Some people might find the top-six record system more fair, but I personally don't see the point. It just shifts the problem to a different set of pressure points.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:54 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:My proposal was that everything stays the same except that the top six records in each conference go to the tournament, regardless of division. That eliminates all the BS about having teams go with a losing record, and you get the best teams in the tournament

Do you? Points from my post:

- So why would say an 8-8 team from one conference deserve to go over a 10-6 team from the other?

- They didn't play the same schedule, so how do you know that they were the six best teams? One team could have played a killer AFC conference and the other a patsy? Why should the AFC division who played the NFC West get 4 easy wins and someone else have to play a harder division?

- The last point is warped even more because the divisions make the schedule even more uneven.

You've solved nothing, you just changed the problems

You have to draw the line somewhere, and conferences are a good place to start. You want to end up with an AFC team Vs. an NFC team in the SB, so you need to have six teams from each conference in their own tournament. After that, you can only go with the schedule you had that season. If you happen to be lucky enough to be playing a weak division that season, you get that benefit, but that doesn't mean that a team from that weak division deserves to get in ahead of you, just because they beat the other teams in that weak division. And the rest of the teams in your own division played the same schedule (minus two games based on the previous year's finish). Carolina played the NFC West like Atlanta did, but they ended up at different ends of the spectrum, record-wise.

welch · Post by **welch** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:59 am

Maybe there are too many teams in the playoffs, although that number is determined by the NFL owners. A home playoff game makes money, which is why the NFL went from two wild-card teams playing for the fourth seed to ... well, I've lost count. The principle was that the third division winner wound up playing away against the first seed, while the second seed got a home game.

No way to make everybody happy...especially my suggestion: there are too many teams in the NFL, 16 games is too long, and the off-week drags out the season even longer.

How about contracting some teams, cutting the season to 14 games, three division winners plus one wild-card go to the play-offs. Two rounds of playoffs yield one conference champ to play in the SB.

No...unrealistic. The trend is toward more regular season games, more playoff teams, more TV games during the season...more money.

Ugh.

I thought that Seattle didn't belong in the playoffs, and now hope they get cleaned out next week. On the other hand, Jets/Colts had a strange ending.

Simple-minded conclusion: weird things happen some years, but not often.

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:07 pm

Dear Kazoo:

I admit, this is fairly subjective but don't get me wrong.

I really don't have a problem with Seattle making it in and getting a home game. They played by the rules.

I think the rules need tweaking since they let the 7-9 thing happen.

I think it is more likely to happen if a smaller percentage of the games are intra-divisional.

I think our division games should be more important than the others. The only reason they are now at all is for breaking ties.

That is why I think 18 games with only 6 division games is bad.

Here is an idea. Go to 2 divisions per conference. Keep the current groupings. To construct the 2 divisions, join us to the North one year, the South the next, and the West the next. Each year have 14 division games and 4 inter-conference games. Every year we'd play our East rivals twice. Every 3 years we'd play every other NFC team home-and-home twice. Every 4 years we'd play every AFC team.

For playoffs the 2 division winners in each conference would get a bye. With 14 division games in an 8-team division there is no way the winner would be worse than 9-9. Then have 4 wild cards in each conference.

DarthMonk

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:What will be truly horrible is 18 games with only 6 being division games. It's conceiveable a team could sweep their division and go 6-12. Brian Billick actually called this after the 8 division realignment. I'm looking for a way to have 9 division games - a home & home against each of your 3 rivals and a neutral-field game.

18 games worries me. Maybe we should go to 2 divisions per conference and have 14 division games!! The the division winners could get byes and the next 4 best records could be wild cards!

Never happen. 18 is bad.

DarthMonk

I don't really see why that's an issue. The top 3 teams are going to the playoffs even if they are in the same division. After that there is no perfect system. If you're a top team, you go, if you're a second tier, you know the rules (division, wild card etc.). There is not perfect way to pick the 6 best. So don't worry about it. I don't think having each conference be one division so the top 6 go is perfect either. The divisions add to fan interest.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:17 pm

DarthMonk wrote:I'm looking for a way to have 9 division games - a home & home against each of your 3 rivals and a neutral-field game.

18 games worries me. Maybe we should go to 2 divisions per conference and have 14 division games!! The the division winners could get byes and the next 4 best records could be wild cards!

Never happen. 18 is bad

Very creative, I'll give you that. I don't really see a big issue though. I take your points, but I don't see why having one 7-9 team out of 12 that make the playoffs as such a horrible thing. I would like it not to happen, but it rarely does. I also don't see needing to play more then 6 of 18 as that big a deal. I think the idea is to get excitement over the divisional games, not to have the divisional games be most of the games. In hockey they made a change to play a very heavy divisional schedule. It was a bust, everyone was sick of playing the same teams so many times and they went back to a more balanced schedule.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:15 am

I also don't think the Seattle deal is that big of a deal - Seattle won and should be in the playoffs - maybe the teams could be re-seeded in the playoffs but I have no problem with what happened

the interesting fact is that Oakland went 6-0 in the AFC West, finished 3rd in the division AND did not really get close to making the playoffs :shock:

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:15 am

SkinsJock wrote:I also don't think the Seattle deal is that big of a deal - Seattle won and should be in the playoffs - maybe the teams could be re-seeded in the playoffs but I have no problem with what happened

the interesting fact is that Oakland went 6-0 in the AFC West, finished 3rd in the division AND did not really get close to making the playoffs

..and more importantly SJ, the Saints this year were a borderline team who played in a tough division. Well, not really tough but they had two other good teams in Atlanta and Tampa Bay. The Saints were up and down quite a bit this season and some would say the Seahawks beating them was a good thing.

I don't know, I say just leave things the way they are but DEFINITELY re-seed for the playoffs.