OK but really,
Broncos-4 wins
Seattle-Division Champion, Tennessee-Missed playoffs, KC-Division Champion, Houston-Missed playoffs.
Am I the only thinking that's at least KIND OF funny?
Printable View
OK but really,
Broncos-4 wins
Seattle-Division Champion, Tennessee-Missed playoffs, KC-Division Champion, Houston-Missed playoffs.
Am I the only thinking that's at least KIND OF funny?
OD has just been gold with his last couple of posts
Almost convinced me he doesn't suck
I wouldn't be, actually. Also, remember that Branch won the Pats a game this year. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Yes you are the only thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
I find that pretty hard to believe, especially if your team got jobbed in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
This did happen to the Patriots like two years ago. SD 8-8 home playoff game. New England 11-5 missed the playoffs.
Bill Belichick was all
http://nesnstg.typepad.com/.a/6a0115...973c970b-400wi
stfu 13-3Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
I remember that. I wasn't so much bothered by it because I do think division champs should get a playoff berth, if they didn't there wouldn't be a point to having divisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
I think I would know how I would react more than you would, brah.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
:cQuote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
Just want to say that no matter what, regardless of record, the 8-8 Rams are not a much better team than the 7-9 Seahawks. The Seahawks and Rams were basically playing to find out which team was gonna get whooped by the Saints in the first round of the playoffs. I do agree with people having beef with the Seahawks getting home field though. On the road I'd give the Seahawks a 5% chance of winning. At home? I'd probably bump that up to 10-20%. Seems unfair, but then again I guess life isn't life. I don't think the NFL would have the parity it does if you leave the divisions behind, but that's just my thought process right now. I'm sure every NFL writer and their mother will talk the issue to death over the next 4 months so I'll let them do the research for me.
I think they should toss out divisions at least in the NFL and NBA. Division rivalries are non-existent in the NBA and the NFL is honestly just holding on to something that isn't there. The only division rivalries that are left are probably New England-New York and Pittsburgh-Baltimore.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Maybe Philly-New York.
Yeah the only rivalries are the ones between fans of different teams, not the players themselves. I personally liked the 3 divisions in each conference myself. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if that were the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
You're right tang, life isn't life.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
life isn't life indeed. Make no mistakes about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Good point on parity.
I just think divisions are marketed as "rivalries" but I don't see any anymore. The NFL is holding onto them, but I don't see them.
Either way, the no divisions thing would work best in the NBA
Well, I don't know for a fact they'll remove some of it, but I'm just saying it's something that could be affected. Like I said, I'm sure the writers will spend the next 4 months bashing our brains in with all the research. I'm a big soccer fan, so I'd be totally down with a big league table.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
I think they'll trade the pick. I think they're sold on giving Clausen his shot, and they have so many massive holes on that team that I think they'd be better off giving Clausen his shot and trading the pick to get a package of picks/young players to try and fill more than just one of those holes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
I agree 100%. I do not think Seattle is the better team. But it is what it is. I'll be rooting for them against the Saints either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
I think it's a good point though, I mean if a bad team can win a division, make the playoffs, and free agents see that, it makes that team a desirable place to go, in my opinion. An FA looking for a ring will choose Seattle over, say, Miami.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
I just think two conferences, balanced schedules, 6 best teams in would not only be simpler it would make playoff races more interesting
Also, YD, I just don't see it. If I was a Carolina GM I'd ship out Clausen before I'd pass on Luck.
I don't think anyone really believes Clausen has what it takes to be an NFL QB anymore. He was that bad, and he demonstrated all of the character flaws that his detractors pointed out from his Notre Dame days in the season. Even if he pans out, his ceiling isn't where Andrew Luck's ceiling is. At best, Clausen could be Jake Delhomme in his prime. Luck's ceiling is in the HoF.
As far as trading the pick, no. Top 5 picks are virtually untradeable in the league. This may change under a new CBA that establishes a rookie salary pay scale, but with the current setup, no one wants to draft that high. A top 5 pick eats up an enormous amount of cap space, and a lot of the types of players that teams lower in the draft order would want will be available later on anyway.
It's going to be hilarious to everyone but Carolina fans when Luck returns to Stanford.
Pretty amazing how terrible the QB class was last year...even Bradford hasn't been anything special (though to be fair, most of the good QBs in todays game were terrible in their first year because they were allowed to struggle which in my opinion is needed).
Bradford's been a lot better than I expected. I was expecting him to be a total bust.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
I'd definitely agree with that, though I feel like the latter half of the season may have stalled his growth a bit because they wanted to make it in to the playoffs. I really do think a QB should be allowed to be terrible and learn from those mistakes and STL put him in a spot where he couldn't if they were going to make the playoffs. It's tough to really talk about QB development though because it's so crazy, but that's just my personal belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
What works for some QBs is awful for another.
And then you draft Ryan Leaf
Does anyone else find it funny that Vince Young has been as successful as he has?
Define "successful."Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
I figured the shoulder was going to kill him (and it still might). But yes, he is a lot better than I expected for someone forced into a starting role at QB on a bad team.Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
NO. Strongly disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
Yeah, so Seattle made the playoffs at 7-9. That's the chance you take with divisions. It was a perfect storm to have all four teams in the division be such disasters that nobody could get in with a winning record.
Let's not make this the MLS where they just re-seed the whole league. A division is a division, and if you win it, you get a home playoff game. Period, end of story.
If the Saints can't beat the Seahawks, they don't deserve to advance, because Seattle is terribad.
EDIT: WHAT? There's no division rivalries left? Tell that to Dallas-Washington, Dallas-Philly, Washington-Philly, Dallas-New York, New Orleans-Atlanta, Indy-Tennessee, Tennessee-Houston, Denver-anyone in their division, Chicago-Green Bay, Chicago-Minnesota, Minnesota-Green Bay ... wait, WHAT? Are you out of your tree?
Christ, as shitty as those teams were, would a Seattle-St. Louis game have had any more meaning if it wasn't a division game? That's what MADE IT HAPPEN. Sorry, but you're dead wrong here.
And yeah, some teams get crappy and rivalries die out ... but the second those two teams are good again, the rivalry is back on. This happens EVERY YEAR. You think today's Chiefs-Raiders game, which was ostensibly meaningless, wasn't nasty in the stands? You're damn right it was.
Bradford has been amazing this year,Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
he has been Vastly superior to laast years top QBs Stafford and Sanchez and almst as good as as recent rookie starters Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco (who both were playing with much better teams).
To say that Bradford, who started for a 1-15 team that had one of the worst offenses in NFL history and made no upgrades other than Bradford, has been 'nothing special' is to have expectation that are insanely high and unrealistic.
i actually agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobie
football is quite a bit different than baseball. in baseball, they play 162 games and i'm a proponent of eliminating divisions because of that. I liked it how it was years ago, an east and a west which after 162 games the top two teams met in the championship series. I wouldn't even be against eliminating the championship series, and only an AL & NL (no divisions) and making the World Series longer. The divisions and extra playoff rounds are exciting, draw fans, but they aren't in the best interests of letting the best team win.
and since the concern is over Seattle getting into the playoffs, than you're obvious concern is that a better team should be in that spot. In the NFL, its such a short season and division strengths vary greatly. As we know, any team can beat another on "any given sunday". There's just not enough games to solidify who the best teams are. A 10-6 team in one division could arguably be worse than a 8-8 team in another division.
I"m not saying Seattle is a good team or better than all others that are playoff viable, only that this kind of thing is going to happen regardless of the system. If there were no divisions, with such a short sampling there's still no guarentee the best teams will make the playoffs.
So because the fans still hold on to some fake form of rivalry that's a perfectly good reason to keep them? You know who definitely doesn't believe in the rivalries anymore? Players, coaches, owners, OregonDuck1989.
I don't get a **** if drunken fan idiots still believe that KC-Oakland is still a rivalry or Denver-Oakland, I don't see it. It's just another game to everyone ACTUALLY PLAYING THE GAME.
And making a balanced schedule doesn't TAKE AWAY those games, it simply takes away the home and home schedule of those games. The rivalries still remain for fans because you still play them in your conference and you still battle with them for a playoff seed. I'm not saying OMG TAKE AWAY ANY CHANCE THESE DRUNKEN FAT IDIOTS HAVE OF YELLING AT EACH OTHER CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE NFL IS ALL ABOUT am I? It's the same in baseball. NY-BOS is still very much a rivalry but taking away divisions doesn't eliminate them playing each other, or make their pennant race disappear, it simply means they play each other fewer times and if both teams suck, they can't win some outdated division.
MLS? They do a completely different style of playoff seeding, I didn't say make it the MLS style.
I think the NFL would do a good job of getting the best teams in without the divisions. Though, you do make a good point, without divisions there might be a lot more 8-8 teams because teams can't beat up on their crappy divisions and thus an 8-8 team will almost assuredly get in. But it wouldn't stop teams like Philly, New England, Atlanta, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, etc. etc. from getting their home field/making the playoffs and those are the best teams in the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I don't think you'd see Philly or NO suddenly drop to perennial 8-8 because they couldn't play their division 3 more times.
Look at it this way, Oakland is the only team in the NFL to not lose a division game this year, and they didn't make the playoffs. I don't see how eliminating divisions hurts anything.
i agree 100% with the concept of getting the best teams into the playoffs. I'm not certain however that eliminating divisions will do that but it would be better than what we have currently. I"ll agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
one problem you'll see is that to get a "balanced" schedule, there can be no interconference games (which i'm fine with) and it would have to be a 15 game season. Each team in each conference would play each other once. its such a short season that this won't necessarily mean the best team will finish in the playoffs each year, however it is likely better than what we have now in terms of ensuring that.
to your point on rivalries, I disagree that players don't look at them differently. While yes, it is just one game on their schedule I have heard many admit to getting up for a rival. I also think that the NFL, more than any other league, is fan friendly and they as a whole carry more about the fan experience than anything outside of making money and those two go hand in hand. Despite it not being as fair, this system is more fan friendly therefore correlates to more dollars.
on a similar note....i always talk about balanced schedules in MLB and the unfairness of the playoffs and a play-in game and get little support or traction on those opinions. Those are more in the interest of "fan friendly" and hurt the spirit of getting the best team in, just the same as your comments here. maybe when that argument arises again you'll see a bit more of my point on it ;)
Yeah, but it's not like I'm suggesting they take away the games themselves. I mean I think the biggest rivalry of the last five-ten years has been Indy-New England a game that only happens once a year, but it's still bigger than any AFC West rivalry of the last five seasons, imo.
I agree with this, and my Rams almost made the playoffsQuote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
In what universe has VY been successful?Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
I agree with this. And OD, you can't know for sure whether or not players/coaches really don't care about the rivalries without talking to them about it. I'd be willing to bet they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobie
Titans this season when VY appears in a game 5 - 5Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
Titans this season when VY does not appear in a game 1 - 5
VY is 8th in the league in Expected Points Added / Play. Tied with Matt Ryan and Matt Schaub.
Ahead of Matt Cassell, Joe Flacco, Tony Romo and Eli Manning
VY is 16th in the league in Win Probability Added / Game. That'd make him an exactly average quarterback. 16 outta 32 teams. That doesn't take into consideration (I don't think) that VY didn't play all of he games he did play in.
*http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playe...=QB&season=all
Amazing? Please. How much time do you spend watching ESPN?Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
Bradford may or may not have a good future ahead, but don't let anyone convince you that he's been some rookie QB god like they love to say about every young rookie QB selected in the first round. Feel free to talk about the Rams record getting better despite the fact that the majority of their losses came within the division. Hmm..I wonder why...maybe because all the teams in the NFC West are terrible? Last year the 49ers were respectable and the Cardinals were actually good, it's no surprise they could pick up 4 extra wins when those teams collapsed as terribly as they did, so long as Sam Bradford is better than Alex Smith and Skelton.Quote:
When it comes to a young quarterback, the less said, the better. Not that it will stop NBC from gushing over young Sam Bradford. Nor will it stop their fine video editing department from creating a montage of "heroic" moments: Bradford standing steeled with resolve, cocking his arm and firing--three yards down field! Is it a first down! They're bringing the chains! Look how steely and resolved Bradford looks peering at the chain gang! The young man puts the "hero" in "champion."
--
It is very hard to pinpoint whether Bradford is good, even relative to his status as a rookie quarterback. The past few quarterback classes have flopped, so far. Or at least struggled to launch any seemingly great careers. Matt Ryan is a notable exception, though Ryan has yet to build off his excellent rookie season. He has maintained. His performance has held, which is still pretty terrific.
Passes by Ryan contributed 0.16 EPA/P in 2008, and 0.17 in 2009 and 2010.
Passes by Bradford have contributed 0.00 in 2010.
Compared to the rookie seasons of Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman and JaMarcus Russell, Stafford's stats look promising. Insomuch that we should assume adequacy as a rookie is a good indication of future success. Bradford's triple zips matches Joe Flacco's rookie season, and Flacco is slowly becoming a pretty good quarterback.
Point is, the Rams offense was still terrible this year. The only reason they were good this year was because their defense was average and their division mates all got significantly worse this year.
I disagree, YD. They've talked to Broncos players about the Raiders rivalry since 02. "it's just another game"
Outside of Baltimore-Pittsburgh, Indy-New England, NYJ-New England and maybe Philly-New York I don't see anything as a "true" rivalry. If both teams are good in one division, they market it as a "rivalry" but is it? No, it's just a big game between two good teams. No bigger than an inter-conference matchup between two good teams. I don't see anything as a rivalry anymore. Rivalries have history. NO-ATL a rivalry? That's laughable, honestly. You can't just name two good teams who play each other twice a year and say it's a "rivalry". It's not, it's a big game yes, but a rivalry? No.
This isn't college basketball, you're kidding yourself if you believe just because it's an inter-divisional game it's a rivalry.