Jump to content

General Wild Card Round Week Thread


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, WheatieMan said:

In the past a second seed might have squeaked into a bye week at 11-5 with some flukey 3-way tiebreaker or H2H breaker over a team that was off for that matchup. This is far more common than 14-2 and 13-3 versus 10-6 for everyone else in the conference. While the latter is unfortunate for the 13-3 team in a 7 team format, it forces 14-2 to play it out until they clinch the bye. Likewise, 13-3 still has incentive to chase. Note that Seattle NO GB could not rest week 17. GB might have rested had they already clinched a bye (although they probably would have played it out for home field).

I don't like the argument. If that's the argument, why not have all 32 teams make the playoffs.

And, no, it's not far more common that an 11-5 team gets the #2 seed over a 14-2 or 13-3 team. Here is the last 10 years:

#2 seeds:

7 of 20 were 13-3
10 of 20 were 12-4
1 of 20 was 11-4-1
2 of 20 were 11-5

Edited by TheEagle
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was against the 14-team Playoffs too, but holy Christmas I am ready for six Playoff games in one weekend. AFC games are way better than the NFC but inject them all in to my veins tbh. I'm in the UK and we're in complete lockdown here, don't care, lock me down all you want if this is my entertainment at the weekend. 

My picks for now (might change depending how many more players/coaches get the rona):

Bills

Ravens

Browns

Bucs

Saints

Seahawks

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheEagle said:

I don't like the argument. If that's the argument, why not have all 32 teams make the playoffs.

And, no, it's not far more common that an 11-5 team gets the #2 seed over a 14-2 or 13-3 team. Here is the last 10 years:

#2 seeds:

7 of 20 were 13-3
10 of 20 were 12-4
1 of 20 was 11-4-1
2 of 20 were 11-5

You really are equating 2 more WC teams being added to the same effect as the entire league making the playoffs? That's ridiculous. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chargers said:

You really are equating 2 more WC teams being added to the same effect as the entire league making the playoffs? That's ridiculous. 

I don’t know what you’re going on about. I don’t like the argument for more teams in the playoffs being more games are competitive at the end of the season. Of course, the more playoff spots available, the more teams in the mix, but I think 6 in each conference is the right balance. Otherwise, you’ll get more undeserving teams in the playoffs — like the 8-8 Bears.

2020: 8-8

2019: 8-8

2018: 8-7-1

2017: 9-7

2016: 9-7

2015: 8-8

2014: 9-7

2013: 8-8

2012: 8-8

2011: 8-8

Any team that can’t go at least 9-7 doesn’t deserve a wild card spot. In seven of the last ten years, you’d have a team go 8-8 (or 8-7-1 one year) and make the playoffs as a wild card with this year’s format.

Edited by TheEagle
Link to post
Share on other sites

People have been WAY too quick to shove this "playoff choker" label onto Lamar Jackson and it's ridiculous. And I maintain that it's too early still no matter what happens Sunday, just as it would be too early to call him some kind of playoff phenom if he plays well.

Let the track record build a little bit.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DannyB said:

People have been WAY too quick to shove this "playoff choker" label onto Lamar Jackson and it's ridiculous. And I maintain that it's too early still no matter what happens Sunday, just as it would be too early to call him some kind of playoff phenom if he plays well.

Let the track record build a little bit.

I think it's too quick because it's only two games, but he has played really poorly. 

Record isn't everything. I've seen Aaron Rodgers lose games in the postseason that he has played well enough to win in. When stuff like that happens, then you just take it for what it is.  In Jackson's case, he's actually a pretty significant reason his teams have lost in the playoffs.  So even tho both Rodgers and Jackson might be 0-2 in a span, it's way different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, showtime said:

I think it's too quick because it's only two games, but he has played really poorly. 

Record isn't everything. I've seen Aaron Rodgers lose games in the postseason that he has played well enough to win in. When stuff like that happens, then you just take it for what it is.  In Jackson's case, he's actually a pretty significant reason his teams have lost in the playoffs.  So even tho both Rodgers and Jackson might be 0-2 in a span, it's way different.

Absolutely, how one plays factors in. But I just don't think two data points is enough to call something a trend, especially when the first was his rookie year when he didn't even start the whole season.

And by all means, we can talk about how he hasn't played well in the postseason so far, or that he played a bad game. But to extrapolate that into branding him as a playoff choker is ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing with lamar and his playoff losses is that it's not like the two playoff losses were random aberrations where the team was otherwise humming but was sunk by lamar having a bad game. baltimore the way they are is built to be a front runner - the strength of their offense is that from the same formation, they can do so many things; lamar running or passing, runs from any of their strong RB room, and so on. once they get a lead they dive deep in to their bag of tricks and gash you seven ways to sunday. on the other hand, if they get behind they have to really shorten the bench, as they say in hockey, and there's a lot more pressure on lamar to win the game with his arm and with his arm only. teams don't have to worry as much about having to hedge against all the different things the 0-0 or 21-7 ravens offense can throw at you, because they have to play differently in the hole.

i'm generally a lamar cynic but it's unfair to brand him a playoff choker when the whole offensive scheme is predicated on taking the lead then bashing and smashing their way to 0:00, as opposed to a quick-strike offense like the chiefs which is built to go berserk at any point

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DannyB said:

People have been WAY too quick to shove this "playoff choker" label onto Lamar Jackson and it's ridiculous. And I maintain that it's too early still no matter what happens Sunday, just as it would be too early to call him some kind of playoff phenom if he plays well.

Let the track record build a little bit.

And if he loses this weekend he is Randall Cunningham on the Eagles. I love Randall, but as an Eagle he rarely got it done in the playoffs.

 

Brady 

  • 1st year playoffs = Super Bowl

Mahomes

  • 1st year playoffs = Dee Ford AFCCG loss
  • 2nd year playoffs = Super Bowl

Rodgers

  • 1st year playoffs = 120 rated 400+ yard epic 51-45 loss
  • 2nd year playoffs = Super Bowl

Wilson

  • 1st year playoffs = Moron coach icing the game losing FG
  • 2nd year playoffs = Super Bowl

Big Ben

  • 1st year playoffs = AFCCG loss to Brady
  • 2nd year playoffs = SB   (bad game but he was the best player on the planet in the month before that Super Bowl)

Eli

  • 1st year playoffs humiliation
  • 2nd year playoffs meh
  • 3rd year playoffs Super Bowl

Marino

  • 1st year playoffs = loss
  • 2nd year playoffs = Super Bowl appearance

Elway

  • 1st year playoffs = loss
  • 2nd year playoffs = The Drive and a Super Bowl appearance

Favre

  • 1st year playoff win
  • 2nd year playoff win
  • 3rd year NFCCG
  • 4th year SB

Warner

  • 1st year playoffs = Super Bowl

Brees

  • 1st year playoffs - lost in SD
  • 2nd year playoffs - won a game
  • 3rd year playoffs - Super Bowl

Rivers  (it went downhill from here)

  • 1st year playoff loss
  • 2nd year playoff win
  • 3rd year AFCCG appearance and loss to Brady

Montana

  • 1st year playoffs - The Catch and a Super Bowl

 

If you want to say Lamar has talent, belongs in the NFL, and is in that 8-12 range as a starter then enjoy.

If you are talking about his status as an elite and accomplished QB who belongs with the big boys? ... not with a loss this week.

 

I know that Peyton Manning started 0-3 in the playoffs and even pick-6'd his coach out the door.

Let us know when Lamar starts putting up Peyton Manning passing stats (relative to the rest of the league) to apply for the exception to the rule.

Edited by SkippyX
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

[playoff resumés]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. One of the biggest knocks on Marino is that he was never able to get it done. Elway was considered in the same way until T.D. saved his legacy. Rivers's postseason resume is the knock on his legacy and the one thing in the way of him being a surefire HoFer (he still may get in). Favre peaked early but then had a rather ugly final decade of playoff performances. You point out Brees won a SB his 3rd time in the postseason, but it was also like his EIGHTH year as a starter.

So yeah this doesn't really show me anything. You can find all kinds of examples.

This actually has nothing to do with Lamar Jackson himself, rather than the kneejerk "look at me I have this take first!" nature of this board (and the sport in general). I would be saying the same thing if he had two nice performances and people were trying to crown him as some cold-blooded postseason assassin.

As far as Jackson, I think I'm slightly more in line with you. He's not really among the big boys yet. Maybe he will be if he can improve his pocket passing game. I don't think I'd throw him as low as 12, but he's outside the top 5 I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

I know that Peyton Manning started 0-3 in the playoffs and even pick-6'd his coach out the door.

Let us know when Lamar starts putting up Peyton Manning passing stats (relative to the rest of the league) to apply for the exception to the rule.

Oh Peyton is still a postseason choker

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...