The Everything NFL Thread - 2010 Season

[CaptKirby]

Mr. Negative? It is the worst a division could possibly be. I am a fan of sports. I am a fan of great football. I am going to be damn upset to see some fucking shitty ass terrible NFC West team wasting my time when it could be the Giants or Packers (or Buccaneers, although I also do not care about their bad play!). The Seahawks and Cardinals are the worst two fucking teams in the NFL, so whichever of the other two teams makes the playoffs will be even worse than their already incredibly bad record. (The Seahawks will not win two games, I would bet anyone $1000 on this).

To all the people trotting out "any team can win", what the fuck do you think that has to do with anything? Any team should win, so we should just ignore putting the better teams in? What? Your logic is completely specious and stupid. No team in the NFC West is in the top half of NFL teams, why should they be allowed to go just because they MIGHT beat a good team? The playoffs are not a fucking 32 team affair, it is a system to get good teams to play other good teams (a very inefficient one, clearly).

To shiny_tyranitar?...no one said anything about eliminating a playoff spot. My position is that the best twelve records in the NFL should go, but that is a different argument. I would gladly give someone a bye and just eliminate the NFC West team altogether though. Also, who cares if teams agreed to the rules? 1) everyone in all positions of power in general is very anti-change, and the NFL is absolutely worse than average on this count 2) what is a team going to do, quit the season? that is a fallacious justification

Anyway, anyone who thinks that it is "interesting" to see which shitty team gets to play instead of the Giants or Packers (both absolutely great teams) just really lacks an understanding of sports, or what the word interesting means perhaps.

 

[Lakers]

Lets be honest here... Its a sham that the NFC West winner could be 7-9, but lets be real here... Do any of you actually care about the NFL that much that you are going to care about every single playoff game? Even if the NFC West winner manages to get lucky and win the first playoff game, do you honestly think they'll beat either the Bears or the Falcons? Lets just take Seattle for example who are a god awful road team... They will literally get destroyed by Atlanta, and while I see that argument that its giving Atlanta an easy playoff win I really dont see any team who could realistically challenge them until the NFC ship game anyway

 

[My Belly Hurts]

Lets be honest here... Its a sham that the NFC West winner could be 7-9, but lets be real here... Do any of you actually care about the NFL that much that you are going to care about every single playoff game? Even if the NFC West winner manages to get lucky and win the first playoff game, do you honestly think they'll beat either the Bears or the Falcons? Lets just take Seattle for example who are a god awful road team... They will literally get destroyed by Atlanta, and while I see that argument that its giving Atlanta an easy playoff win I really dont see any team who could realistically challenge them until the NFC ship game anyway

lol to be fair, Seattle did beat the shit out of the Bears in Chicago.
I know they only won by 3...but I remember. they massacred them. Hester just had a return td to make it close at the end.

but no, I don't think they could do it again.

 

[CaptKirby]

No team can realistically challenge the Falcons? Every NFC team who will make the playoffs is explosive at times, except the Bears who have a good defense and something like the third worst offense. Why are you rating the Bears second highest...? Bears will be the WORST playoff team in the NFC besides the NFC West. Their defense is not the best or anything even, just very good. Eagles/Giants/Packers/Saints/Falcons in any order are the best teams in the NFC (I just listed by order I remember the divisions in, alphabetical).

 

[Killah]

I think he listed the Bears as the second team because they control their own fate for the second first round bye, though they'd likely have to beat both the Jets and the Packers to win it. Any team with a capable passing offense and decent defense can beat the Falcons, and as a Falcons fan I particularly don't want to see the Eagles, Packers, or Saints again in the playoffs (but I suppose it's inevitable!) :x

Still a shame that either the Giants or Packers, plus the Chargers in the AFC are likely going to miss the playoffs.

Here's a link to all of the team's records and point differentials. As these things usually correlate with records, only 3 teams with winning/.500 records are negative (Tampa at -10, Miami at -22, Jacksonville at -46) while one team is positive with a losing record (Tennessee at +40). The top 5 are New England (+143), San Diego (+128), Green Bay (+113), Atlanta (+108), and Pittsburgh (+94), while the bottom 5 are Cincinatti (-81), Seattle (-84), Arizona (-115), Denver (-123), and Carolina (-174, 15 games). Pretty amazing (lucky?) that Seattle got to 6-8 while being outscored by an average of 6 points every game, and how Carolina's opponents will likely have doubled up in points on them by the end of the year. There also are very few teams near a 0 differential, with Tampa and Cleveland (-19) being the closest ones.

Finally, NFC West teams are a combined 5-17 against other NFC opponents, and 7-9 against the AFC West, the league's 2nd worst division. Hell, the AFC West is almost as bad; the teams not named San Diego are a combined 4-11 against other AFC opponents, with 3 of those wins belonging to Kansas City. San Diego is 4-1 against AFC opponents, with the only loss being to the Patriots.

 

[Mercy]

And the Cards beat the Falcons even as underdogs. Oh that's right, the Cards almost won the Super Bowl that year.

They also hosted 2 playoff games against the Falcons and Eagles, teams with better records and they got destroyed by in Philly that year in late December. I doubt they would have made it if they played 3 straight on the road.

I just think that playoff seeding should just be based on record alone. Who cares if you win the division or not. Maybe if the NFC winner loses 40-0 to the Saints this year people will want a change in the format.

 

[Shinryu]

Imo, Chargers only have themselves to blame if they miss the playoffs due to their habit of shitty starts; let's also not forget one year they just squeaked in at 8-8; you're telling me that one more loss by them or the team they tied for wins (Broncos) in that division and they're all of a sudden that much worse? And people point to the Cardinals' 9-7 squeak in as bad, geez...last I checked, a 12-4 Chargers team with just as good an offense and defense couldn't even stop the 9-7 Jets last year despite a bye and at home.

As for the Giants and Packers, I really don't get the argument...are they supposed to be any more competitive for the bye team to beat? Don't get me wrong, I like both teams well enough, but I sure wouldn't bet on either of them even making out of R2 against either Bears (who kicked the Packer's butts while they were mediocre and would probably love a rematch with the Giants) or Falcons (who are overall better plus have home field advantage). And it's not like either the Packers or Giant's divisions aren't without their share of loser teams they should have got easy wins over (a few upsets aside) in the form of Lions/Vikings and Cowboys/Redskins.

So in that vein, does it really matter if they get outed over a NFC West team that would somehow win R1? And mainly because I'm the Niners fan, last I checked Atlanta barely won with a FG at the last minute against them this year, not to mention taking both Saints and Eagles to very close games decided by a FG. So sure, they have some shitty losses, but they're more than capable of being competitive despite what their record and statistics suggest.

So unless the entire playoff system is rewritten so only the top 6 team from the NFC and AFC get in, I stand by the current system (except for the part about hosting, but that's another issue). Besides, it's not like having the top 6 play is so perfect either, as you'll then get complaints about ease of schedule, divisional wins not mattering much anymore, and the like; at least with this system you get guaranteed representation of each division of football from each conference.

 

[Killah]

Imo, Chargers only have themselves to blame if they miss the playoffs due to their habit of shitty starts; let's also not forget one year they just squeaked in at 8-8; you're telling me that one more loss by them or the team they tied for wins (Broncos) in that division and they're all of a sudden that much worse?

Dunno about everyone, but I thought it was stupid then too. At least they played well the last month of the year and into the playoffs.

And people point to the Cardinals' 9-7 squeak in as bad, geez...last I checked, a 12-4 Chargers team with just as good an offense and defense couldn't even stop the 9-7 Jets last year despite a bye and at home.

Pretty sure the argument is whether the team deserves to get into the playoffs, not whether they can win in the playoffs. Hell, any team has a chance to beat any other team regardless of record, as has been proven by the Giants/Cardinals/Jets the past few years.

As for the Giants and Packers, I really don't get the argument...are they supposed to be any more competitive for the bye team to beat?

I know I said that the Giants are more deserving than an NFC West team, but in reality they aren't that much more deserving. They're almost as bad as the Bucs when it comes to winning against teams with winning records; they've only beaten Chicago and Jacksonville, going 7-2 against teams with losing records and 2-3 against teams with winning records (Though, they *should* have beaten the Eagles). The Packers have played great football, even in most of their losses; their 6 losses are by a COMBINED 20 points. For context, the Rams, Seahawks, and 49ers lost last week's games by 14, 16, and 27 points respectively...

So unless the entire playoff system is rewritten so only the top 6 team from the NFC and AFC get in, I stand by the current system (except for the part about hosting, but that's another issue). Besides, it's not like having the top 6 play is so perfect either, as you'll then get complaints about ease of schedule, divisional wins not mattering much anymore, and the like; at least with this system you get guaranteed representation of each division of football from each conference.

Finally, despite what it sounds like, I still think the division system should remain as it is with the only exception being first round home playoff games. The seeding should be determined by record and record only. Hell, what if the Saints finish 12-4 (which is entirely plausible) with the 2nd NFC seed going to an 11-5 Bears/Eagles? The fact that the Saints would then have to go on the road for the entire playoffs is outrageous no matter how you look at it.

Sorry to rant a bit, I still think the 49ers are the "most deserving" NFC West team, especially after the several last minute losses at the beginning of the season.

 

[CaptKirby]

Imo, Chargers only have themselves to blame if they miss the playoffs due to their habit of shitty starts

As for the Giants and Packers, I really don't get the argument...are they supposed to be any more competitive for the bye team to beat?

So in that vein, does it really matter if they get outed over a NFC West team that would somehow win R1? And mainly because I'm the Niners fan, last I checked Atlanta barely won with a FG at the last minute against them this year, not to mention taking both Saints and Eagles to very close games decided by a FG

Besides, it's not like having the top 6 play is so perfect either, as you'll then get complaints about ease of schedule, divisional wins not mattering much anymore, and the like; at least with this system you get guaranteed representation of each division of football from each conference.

Of course the Chargers only have themselves to blame.

Of course the Packers and Giants are far more likely to be competitive, the other teams suck ass, the Giants and Packers are great.

Yes, it really matters; the reverse logic is a) anyone can win in the playoffs b) so let them in! uh, if that is the case, then who cares about sports? who cares about seeing great teams face great teams?

Top 6 is not perfect, just the simplest (or in my version top of all the NFL). I am not advocating a polling system and getting SOS involved (although it would make one hell of a sexy tiebreaker). I am advocating the simplest metric to stop letting in 8-8 or (if enough 10-6 are around) 9-7 teams in. Teams variously overperform and underperform, there is no way to perfectly explain by how much. It is impossible to get it perfect either way, so taking the reality (wins) and taking the simplest way to get it right is the best way.

Who cares if the 49ers were competitive either? They fucking lost all those games. They have won no games against good teams. They are better than the Cardinals and Seahawks, no question, but they still objectively suck ass.

I know I said that the Giants are more deserving than an NFC West team, but in reality they aren't that much more deserving. They're almost as bad as the Bucs when it comes to winning against teams with winning records; they've only beaten Chicago and Jacksonville, going 7-2 against teams with losing records and 2-3 against teams with winning records (Though, they *should* have beaten the Eagles). The Packers have played great football, even in most of their losses; their 6 losses are by a COMBINED 20 points. For context, the Rams, Seahawks, and 49ers lost last week's games by 14, 16, and 27 points respectively...

Are not much more deserving? Just from a "I like good football stand point", only the Giants and Chargers are top 5 offenses+defenses, both in the top THREE. Do not get me wrong, most of the impending playoff teams are mightily impressive in this regard (all being pretty much top 15 in both areas except the Bears and the Patriots who defy sheer yardage statistics), but the Giants and Chargers are especially impressive in this regard and just have consistency issues (or the Chargers special teams special teams special teams). The Buccaneers are one of the few teams not to have either a top 16 offense or defense in the entire league, they are fucking miserable. Buccaneers do not deserve to make the playoffs and the Giants are worlds more deserving (though if the Buccaneers finished with a win more than the Giants or Packers I would much rather have them in than the NFC West winner).

 

[theamericandream38]

No team can realistically challenge the Falcons? Every NFC team who will make the playoffs is explosive at times, except the Bears who have a good defense and something like the third worst offense. Why are you rating the Bears second highest...? Bears will be the WORST playoff team in the NFC besides the NFC West. Their defense is not the best or anything even, just very good. Eagles/Giants/Packers/Saints/Falcons in any order are the best teams in the NFC (I just listed by order I remember the divisions in, alphabetical).

A fine post that I generally agree with, but how are the Packers better than the Bears when the Bears beat the Packers the only time it mattered this season? It was a close game, sure, but the better team will usually win a close game. I'm confused by the logic that a team can be better than another despite the fact that they outright lost to them in the season (in an important game). Regardless, the NFC North is probably the second worst division in the NFL, I do agree with that. They are significantly better than the NFC West in that they at least have a couple of average teams, though.

 

[CaptKirby]

While there is some obvious logic of better teams usually beating worse teams, as you see with upsets EVERY week better teams lose games, and even 1/3 of that time in blowout fashion. The truth is that every team is talented and that the difference between great and good teams is not that much. The distance between good teams and bad teams can be easily understood, like the difference between the Eagles/Giants/Saints/Falcons and the Buccaneers for instance, but it gets a little more confusing when you get to a team like the Bears. The reason the Bears are worse is what I said before, they have very mediocre offense. In the modern NFL, defense still matters, but the Bears have the eighth best defense (no real difference between 6th-8th in yardage terms) and the third worst offense (rises to Bills level at 310.4, or #25 below them, if you take out the two bizarre games without Cutler). To put that in perspective, the Vikings are a similar team, with a better offense and defense in just sheer yardage terms. The special teams and situational circumstances have led to a better record for the Bears...obviously there are some other factors, but basically the Bears could have had the Viking's season if the turnovers had gone so badly. If the Bears offense performs like it has the last six weeks, then the Bears are totally fucked, and it is likely that it will continue at this pace.

 

[TheValkyries]

Not gonna lie, I kind of chuckled at the defense still matters in the NFL remark.

 

[CaptKirby]

Buccaneers and Patriots and Colts and Jaguars are the only teams with bottom half defenses who have even a shot at the playoffs this year (seeing as only one of those currently is a playoff lock, pretty convincing that defense does not matter -_-). I am not going to lie, I was annoyed by your typically self-smug bullshit of a post. Even the NFC West teams who have a shot are in the top half (although Rams are 16th).

Also, the AFC South ended up the weakest division outside the NFC West for a reason, it has the worst defenses!

 

[Shinryu]

Cardinals being competitive in this game? Preposterous...but man, it's funny how they can just come off a loss to the Panthers to now forcing the Cowboys down unless they can score here...

 

[TheValkyries]

Buccaneers and Patriots and Colts and Jaguars are the only teams with bottom half defenses who have even a shot at the playoffs this year (seeing as only one of those currently is a playoff lock, pretty convincing that defense does not matter -_-). I am not going to lie, I was annoyed by your typically self-smug bullshit of a post. Even the NFC West teams who have a shot are in the top half (although Rams are 16th).

Also, the AFC South ended up the weakest division outside the NFC West for a reason, it has the worst defenses!

Meanwhile of the top 5 defenses (the Steelers, Giants, Chargers, Bears and Packers) only two are guaranteed to the playoffs, and one is guaranteed not to get in. And depending on how SD plays, up to two could not get in, and of the top 10 defenses, only two are leading/won their division.

And actually two of the teams you listed are guaranteed to make the playoffs. The Patriots and either the Jaguars or the Colts. And thus two of the four are leading their division. You also forgot Kansas City in that list, another team who is leading their division, over a top five defense no less.

This is not a defense's league. While they still matter, they don't remotely mean as much as a good offense.

 

[CaptKirby]

Shinryu, the Cowboys do not have a fucking defense this season. It is really pathetic.

TheValkyries, neither is individually guaranteed to go. If you are going to ever try to be pedantic and pick something someone said apart, then get it right; I worded it how I did for a reason. Only one has a secure path to the playoffs.

Of the top 5, 1) I already said the Bears are #8 and at most you could argue they are equal to #6 2) the Packers are also not in that list either! Of the teams that have a playoff shot, the vast majority also are those who have the top defenses. Minnesota and Oakland are the only top 16 defenses who are eliminated from play (Oakland is not 100% eliminated but "really is"). Two more should not have a shot (St. Louis and San Francisco) but whatever. Anyway, defense matters; just because the best defensive teams are not all going to make it does not prove shit. Miami will not make it because their offense went so cold it made the Panthers look frisky as fuck. With an average offense, they would be in for sure.

Chargers are the #1 offense/defense...why are you trying to criticize their defense while glorifying offense? That was hilariously bad argumentation.

On the offense side, #4 Houston will not make the playoffs, #5 Indianapolis only has a shot, and #7 Dallas is out like fuck. #9 Oakland will be out, but is on the defense too. #15 Denver will be out and #16 Jacksonville will be out if Indianapolis is not. Most of the teams with good defenses ALSO have good offenses, so this argument is really pointless; the point was that defense is not fucking dead and that saying so is patently, willfully ignorant. The Bears will be in the playoffs. The Ravens (10 & 19) will be in the playoffs. Defense and offense both win, and they win COMPLETELY equally. A team needs to be strong in one or good at both really. Of the last three Super Bowl winners, Giants were a slightly better defensive team than offensive team, Steelers too, and Saints were obviously better at offense than defense. The losers tell a different story though: Cardinals had a much worse defense than the Steelers, Patriots had a slightly worse defense than the Giants, and the Colts had a much worse defense than the Saints. (I was wrong before when I said last, I was mixing that up with their rushing offense). If you want to ignore reality, then go crazy, but it would be really illogical to say defense did not matter as much as offense in those games. I am obviously not going to convince you it mattered more, but I think the last three Super Bowls show that where the difference lays can be a huge key since all of the teams had great offenses (the Cardinals were pretty bad on offense and defense and only made it on a fluke hot streak though).

 

[TheValkyries]

Aye, you didn't word it that way, but you were trying to make the point that defense matters a great deal and tried to downplay the exceptions. I simply raised the point that your exceptions simply can't be invalidated in that way.

Meanwhile, the rest is pure semantics, because we clearly aren't agreeing on who the better defenses are, so please, define a list from a third party that is unbiased on this subject and we'll go from there.

But for now, I'll just say this: This league has been designed with high-scoring offense in mind. It has gimped defenses and provided safety nets for offenses to achieve the ideal 28-27 scores we see so often, rather than the hard fought defensive struggles that end 7-6. Just look back at the 70's and the Steel Curtain to see what a truly great defense can do if left unchecked. Those days are long past. Consistently exceptional teams are no longer built from the defense, but from the offense. This is why I chuckled at your statement that the defense is important. Not because I think they're inconsequential, because that's not the case. I chuckled because the defenses are merely a lingering afterthought over "Who wins matchup 'x'?"

 

[DetroitLolcat]

Roaring Lions can't be stopped!!!!! Going to 6-10 and no Vikings are gonna stop us!!!! ROAR!!!

 

[Killah]

Points per game are still far more important than yards per game for obvious reasons; though the two heavily correlate, teams that force field goals and turnovers are going to be far more successful. Of the top 10 in scoring defense, Pittsburgh, Green Bay (potentially), Chicago, NY Jets, San Diego (possibly), and Atlanta are #1-7, with New Orleans coming in at #9. Of the top 10, only Miami (tied #7) and Cleveland (#10) will definitely not make the playoffs. Still, at least 6 teams and more realistically 7 of the 12 playoffs teams will have top 10 scoring defenses. The worst scoring defenses to actually make the playoffs will be Philadelphia or Indianapolis at #21 and #22, next being New England at #16.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what to make of the NFL this year. When you see 72 points go up in a matchup between top 5 defenses, Arizona coming from behind with their 3rd (4th?) QB of the season and second rookie, and Detroit winning three in a row, dropping Miami to 1-7 at home and 6-2 on the road... wat

 

[Polis4rule]

If the Seahawks somehow beat the Rams next week, I'm going to shoot someone.

 

[CaptKirby]

and tried to downplay the exceptions.

Meanwhile, the rest is pure semantics, because we clearly aren't agreeing on who the better defenses are

But for now, I'll just say this: This league has been designed with high-scoring offense in mind.

Most of the best teams are good on both offense and defense, you are not making any points with your weird idea that because the league wants more offense, the defenses suddenly stop mattering. It just readjusts where the line of good defense is, not that it cannot win. The team with the better defense won the last three Super Bowls.

Nothing is semantics, you just wanted to make a ridiculous statement and deride something I said. I dismantled it. I never tried to downplay any exceptions, there is only ONE - the Patriots. There are more offensive exceptions than defensive this year (as in more teams are winning because of defense than offense, when they do not have both).

I defined best defense by yards per game, it is a simple metric that shows you what you need to know.

Points per game are still far more important than yards per game for obvious reasons

Points are not more important because they are an arbitrary measure for two reasons. The first is random scores (kickoff returns, interception returns, freak broken plays, et cetera). The second is the random nature of scoring points: 7 for a touchdown and 3 for a field goal skews points heavily, especially early season. Yards is just much more consistent. Obviously something like turnovers can explain something like the Giants record (the second best team in the league, wrecked by turnovers), but that does not make points a better metric, it just means that you have to keep extra ideas in mind. Ultimately both yards and points just explain "what has actually happened", and since yards are broader in scale and relate just a little bit better to "what has actually happened" in terms of the game play over a full sixty minutes, they are just a bit more consistent and in depth explanation.

What points do a good job of is showing, like (I think by you) was shown before, which teams are winners or losers in general. Yards per game does a better job of showing how a team plays, reduces some flukiness, and is more predictive by far of how teams will actually do when they face. Really in the end no simple metric can come close to encompassing all the accurate and inaccurate plays and effort in every game...there are just tons of facets to sports. Points explain more about teams like Patriots or Falcons, but explain less about a team like the Browns or Titans or Cardinals or the Eagles...maybe it does help explain good teams better and bad teams worse, I am already too tired of the issue to look at more past years results :@

Also Killah, while 72 points was a bit silly, it is just one game...anything can happen in one game! Both teams seemed to get into the mindset that they needed to score more rather than hold off the other team around the middle of the game.

 

[HeroMasaki]

San Diego, forever underachieving.

 

[Killah]

Actually when I said points were more important, I literally meant that they were more important because they determine who wins and loses, not that the actual PPG stat is more important (though I implied that I meant the latter, oops lol).

Does anyone have a complete list of playoff scenarios? As far as I can tell:

New England clinches AFC East/Homefield adv.
Pittsburgh/Baltimore clinch playoff spots, with the AFC North winner winning the 2nd bye. Pitt wins the division if both win or both loses, Baltimore if they win and Pitt loses.
Kansas City clinches AFC West and #3 seed, to likely host Jets 1st round
Indianapolis makes the playoffs with a win or Jacksonville loss, Jacksonville does so with a win and Indy loss

And in the NFC:

Philadelphia clinches the East, Chicago clinches the North; Chicago clinches bye with win next week, Philadelphia does if they win out and Chicago loses next week.
Atlanta clinches South with win or win next week, New Orleans does if they beat Atl and Tampa Bay while Atlanta loses next week. Winner gets homefield advantage, unless (I think) Atl loses both games and NO loses to Tampa and Philly wins out.
Winner of St. Louis/Seattle wins the West

The Wild Card is interesting, to say the least. The Giants, Packers, and Bucs are all 9-6 and 7-4 in conference play. I'm pretty sure they don't have enough "common opponents", so the next tiebreaker is strength of victory, or the winning % of teams they beat. Not positive, but I'm pretty sure it's Packers > Giants > Bucs for that one, meaning:
Packers clinch spot with win or Giants loss AND Bucs loss
Giants clinch spot with win AND Packers loss
Bucs clinch spot with win AND Giants loss AND Packers loss

Technically, New Orleans still hasn't clinched the first Wild Card spot, so it's possible they end up at 10-6 with those other potential teams, and two of them make it.

 

[SAN DIEGO SUPER CHARGERS!]

Fuck this gay earth

 

[kd24]

i would be thrilled as a chargers fan, no chance of norv sticking around now and they would have no shot moving east to play pitt / ne in later rounds anyway.