NFL 2009

[HailtotheYo]

Playoff rule #1 for me = hoping the Bengals die painful, prolonged, never ending deaths. Fuck you for not even putting forth an effort and thusly removing all hope that the Texans get in.

Hmmmm looking it over I want GB/Dal to win the opening games so that we see GB/Min Dal/NO .... From that I hope to get GB ... wouldn't mind either of Dal/NO ... and ultimately I'd like to see Dal/NO out of the NFC as they are the two teams I have any kind of ties too.

AFC wise Bal and by default the Jets ... from there I'd like to see SD/BAL over Indy/NY with Bal ultimately coming out.

[JStarr]

The Jets need to die in a fire. Only reason they even made the playoffs was lucking into two final opponents that chose to go paws-up.

Ah well, time to sit back and hope the Colts and Saints can get their heads on straight and give me the Manning/Brees Super Bowl I'm looking for. Another Purdue QB needs a shot at a ring aside from Bob "Mr. Taco" Griese.

[gunnar hendershow]

They'll feel it again when they bow out after losing in the first round.

At least they have that option ...

Sorry man, I'm just fuckin with ya.

That's what you have to do when your team has gone on a decade long trip into afterthought land.

No worries man. I can take a little jobbing.

Now I get to break out my list of rules for who I can root for in the playoffs.

My hopeful Super Bowl: Green Bay Vs. San Diego.

Don't worry Chase, we all know you're going to be sitting there in a Ray Rice jersey next week.

Also, 3 of next week's 4 games are rematches. It's unacceptable. How hard would it be to, at least, switch Green Bay and Philly? They're even playing at the same stadiums as the past week.

Anyway, playoff picks.

Pats over Ravens

Bengals over Jets

Colts over Bengals

Chargers over Pats

Chargers over Colts

Eagles over Cowboys

Packers over Cardinals

Eagles over Saints

Vikings over Packers

Vikings over Eagles

Chargers over Vikings

Edited January 4, 2010 by damshow

[Pizza]

Jets didn't tell Cincy and Indy to rest their starters, it sucks for Houston but the Jets just got a lucky schedule. I think it'd be great if they beat Cincy and Indy for real now, they need to die in a fire, not the Jets.

[HailtotheYo]

Jets didn't tell Cincy and Indy to rest their starters,

You're absolutely right, and on the same token I'm sure as all hell they're taking that golden ticket and whistling about like they just had to scrimp and scrape to get there. They essentially didn't have to play the last 5 quarters of the season and were handed a playoff spot. Yeah, I can see people being pissed about that.

What I hate, is that the league is set up this way. There are 16 games on the schedule and you should have to play all 16. There is nothing fair about a business practice that has two teams in the exact same situation (NYJ/Bal) not having an equal representation on the other side of the ball. You can't justify Baltimore having to duke it out and play a bruising game and actually earn their win to get in, while the Jets merely had to line up and go through the motions. That's wrong, period.

[Pizza]

I agree that it is bullshit, and the NFL should impose some sort of rule about it. I'm sure there already is a rule stating that teams must put in an honest effort to win every game, which the Colts and Bengals did not do, but it won't be enforced. The NFL needs to focus more on making their games competitive and less on punishing people for being happy after they score a touchdown.

I would have much preferred to see the Texans finally make it over the Jets, but what's done is done, and now rather than directing my anger at the Jets for taking advantage of a lucky break in the schedule, I'm hoping they make the Bengals and Colts regret letting them walk into the playoffs.

Edited January 4, 2010 by pizzamonkey

[Meacon Keaton]

I think it would be impossible for the NFL to be able to do anything about that unless they do some kind of scheduling change. Maybe have the first ten, twelve, or fourteen games set in stone, but leave the last few games "open". So you can make the teams vying for a wildcard spot play each other.

But I don't personally agree with that. I like it the way it is. Had the Steelers, Broncos, or Texans won another game during the other fifteen games of the season, they wouldn't have been in this mess. Not the Jets fault that they had a perfect set up the last couple games to get in, and its not really the Colts/Bengals fault for wanting to rest up their players for the playoffs.

[Meacon Keaton]

Oh, and the first shocker of 2010: Redskins fire Jim Zorn.

Poor guy had to see the writing on the wall when they started interviewing for his replacement about a month ago.

[HailtotheYo]

But I don't personally agree with that. I like it the way it is. Had the Steelers, Broncos, or Texans won another game during the other fifteen games of the season, they wouldn't have been in this mess. Not the Jets fault that they had a perfect set up the last couple games to get in, and its not really the Colts/Bengals fault for wanting to rest up their players for the playoffs.

I really really really hate that kind of crap.

The fact, is that there are 16 games on the schedule. Not 14 or 15, but 16. So what if it takes all 16 of those games for a team to qualify for the playoffs ? That doesn't make them any less viable or less worthy of being there. There is a cut off as stated by the rules of the game that 6 teams from each conference get in. There's also a set number of games before the season starts. A team should have to play out all of the games on their schedule regardless. And by play out, I mean actually put out a competitive effort. The fact that 8 teams in the AFC had a mathematical shot at the playoffs on the last day of the season points to the system, not those teams.

No, it isn't their fault for wanting to rest them, but I have every right as the consumer of the NFL product to be plenty pissed off that certain teams that were in "must win" situations, in effect, didn't have to win the game to get into the playoffs and have a chance at winning the Super Bowl. I have every right to cry bullshit at the fact that both the Ravens and Texans had to go out and fight tooth and nail to win their games and earn their chance at the playoffs while the Jets merely had to step off the bus. Outside of that, the proof supports NOT resting your players as the way to go into the playoffs. They're hiding behind a myth to begin with. Ask the Colts about that over the last decade.

Something should be done about it. I think changing the schedule around so that you're playing the second round of your division games (like the Cowboys did this year) in the last few weeks of the season would crack down on these meaningless shams we get each year.

[Meacon Keaton]

Making the second round of division games the last three games of the season would be a great idea. Because you know those teams are probably going to go balls-to-the-wall to beat their rivals and hope to get that division title.

And I'm not arguing that how the Jets got in seems kind of cheap. I'm not arguing that at all. What I'm saying is that the NFL is kind of handcuffed on what to do about it, don't you think? I mean, they can't step in and tell the Colts that Peyton Manning HAS to play a certain amount of snaps just so another team in the league has an equal shot as the team they're playing.

As for the proof supporting NOT resting your players, people can (and will) argue about that until the cows come home. I, personally, feel it's a much better bet to go in the playoffs on a roll and a winning streak, than resting your players and taking a few losses. But I'm not Jim Caldwell or Sean Payton, so I don't really have a say in the matter. They're the head coach, and I'm not, so I'm going to assume they have a better handle on their team than I do.

Does it suck that this particular scenario happened? Yes, it certainly does. Is there a lot (outside of your suggested divisional games as the last three games idea) of solutions to the problem? No, not really.

[Blaze09]

The fact that we can say we are a Kris Brown made FG from Houston being in the playoffs is still stunning.

But Houston brought this on theirselves when they decided to not find a new kicker. I know you can't predict what happens with them, but surely there was someone out there better than Brown. With another kicker, Houston is probably playing Cincy this week.

[TCO]

The annoying thing is that the Bengals had something to play for. If they'd won they'd be the no.3 seed, which gave them a bigger shot at being at home in the AFC Championship, should they get there. Of course you could also look at it in the sense, that because they lost last night, they now have an easier Wildcard opponent in the Jets. Which then brings up the timing of the game being in the Jets favour also. Shouldn't games having direct consequences on one another be played at the same time?

[Tits McGee]

Texans had opportunities to win other games earlier in the season where they blew leads.. same with other teams like the Steelers and even the Broncos. They can only blame themselves for making the final week determine their fate. I blame no team for resting starters into the playoffs.

[Meacon Keaton]

I don't blame anyone but the Broncos for our pitiful collapse. We lost to the friggin' Chiefs and Raiders in the last three weeks of the season. And both games were AT HOME. Horrible.

[Damian WayLNKe]

Texans had opportunities to win other games earlier in the season where they blew leads.. same with other teams like the Steelers and even the Broncos. They can only blame themselves for making the final week determine their fate. I blame no team for resting starters into the playoffs.

I have to agree with HailtotheKing and disagree with this logic. The Jets lucked out in the way the scheduling worked out and are now in the playoffs. All teams should have an equal playing ground in terms of opponents through their full 16-game schedule. The Texans had to play the Bengals once and the Colts twice at full strength while the Jets play their reserves. The Ravens also accumulated three loses from the Bengals and Colts.

Teams have the right to rest their starters, but I feel there is an unfair advantage on the other side of the coin when it comes to their opponents picking up wins against them.

Edited January 4, 2010 by LNK

[Tits McGee]

Next they are gonna ban injuries for unfair advantages with all that logic. If they want healthy players to make a run in the playoffs they should rest them. Some of you guys should make money to buy a team to force them to play.

[kale]

Seriously, the Colts and Bengals both earned the right to rest their starters. Its too bad if your team got affected by it but that's the way it is. You can only control the games you play. If you want to get in the playoffs, then win enough so you don't have to depend on others to win or lose (and don't complain when that doesn't happen). The league is bad enough with some of the ridiculous shit it pulls but to even contemplate putting a rule in for this kind of situation is fucking pathetic and only rewards those who didn't do enough on their own to flat out get in the playoffs.

[Evil Chase K]

I agree that teams who miss the playoffs have no right to bitch. I said the same thing last year when Patriots fans were bitching about going 11-5 and missing the playoffs.

But if the NFL wants to do something about it, giving teams extra draft picks might be the worst possible way to do so. But I think instituting new rules about seeding could change things.

For instance, maybe you change the seeding rules so that instead of ranking teams by their overall record and giving an advantage to division winners, you seed teams by their record in the last six weeks of the season.

This would give teams a reason to continue to play hard, and it would also reward teams who get hot late in the year.

For example if this season the Colts go 4-2 in their last six games, but the Chargers go 6-0, the Chargers are the #1 seed and the Colts #2 regardless of overall record.

Now if you want to give an advantage to a division winner then you can make a rule that this only applies to the four division winners and not the wild card teams. That way a wild card team who finishes 5-1 doesn't get seeded higher than the team that finished ahead of them in their division who went 4-2.

[Meacon Keaton]

I don't like the last six games lead to the seeding idea, at all. Why give the Chargers, who could go 5-5 in the first ten games, but 6-0 in the last six home field over the Colts, who may have finished 4-2, but started 10-0? That totally negates almost two-thirds of the season.

[Damian WayLNKe]

I don't like the last six games lead to the seeding idea, at all. Why give the Chargers, who could go 5-5 in the first ten games, but 6-0 in the last six home field over the Colts, who may have finished 4-2, but started 10-0? That totally negates almost two-thirds of the season.

The full 16 games could be used to determine who makes the playoffs, but then the seeding could be based on the past six games.