BurnThePhilFans Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Ok just came by to get your guys view on the playoff seeding structure. Now, in what is becoming the common consensus, it is pretty much agreed upon that the NFC East has been the toughest division in football in recent years. With that said, I wanted to get some of your input on playoff seeding when your favorite team plays in the toughest division in football. It is not uncommon to see the worst NFC East team to finish with a record of 7-9 or 8-8. Do you think its fair that a second place NFC East team with a 11-5 record would be seeded lower than say a Cardinals team that could finish 8-8 next year and win their division (in a very weak division)? I am starting to favor the better record, higher seed idea. You look at the NFC East and you figure a very successful season within the division would be a 4-2 record. Thats 2 losses right there. If you happen to drop 3 out of the other 10 games, do you think its fair that an 11-5 record could land you in the wildcard spot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 My argument would be to improve the importance of being the number one or two seed beyond homefield disadvantage...lol. I think the #1 and #2 seeds should be allowed to activate one player off of injured reserve. This is the only sport where your injured players cannot come back to play (even if healed) once placed on this dubious list. Can you imagine having a healthy Osi available ...what that might have done for our pass rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnThePhilFans Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 My argument would be to improve the importance of being the number one or two seed beyond homefield disadvantage...lol. I think the #1 and #2 seeds should be allowed to activate one player off of injured reserve. This is the only sport where your injured players cannot come back to play (even if healed) once placed on this dubious list. Can you imagine having a healthy Osi available ...what that might have done for our pass rush. Yeah that would have been clutch. I think the Osi-Tuck duo has a shot at 30 sacks next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lubeck Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yeah that would have been clutch. I think the Osi-Tuck duo has a shot at 30 sacks next year. 15 each? Entirely do-able. Especially with Kiwi subbing in and Tuck moving to DT lined up next to Osi on passing downs. Can you double team an entire side of your Oline without exposing the other to a decent pass rusher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 And if we can get a pseudo Kawika Mitchell style LB who can speed rush....man that would be the Return of the Big Blue Wrecking Crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnThePhilFans Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 And if we can get a pseudo Kawika Mitchell style LB who can speed rush....man that would be the Return of the Big Blue Wrecking Crew. Brian Cushing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueInCanada Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Brian Cushing! Hasent the kid been nailed by injuries throughout his football life? On top of that isnt there heavy speculation that he is a drug/roid user? I mean sure if both these things are wrong take the kid but from what I read he may be abit of a risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandolphScott Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Hasent the kid been nailed by injuries throughout his football life? On top of that isnt there heavy speculation that he is a drug/roid user? I mean sure if both these things are wrong take the kid but from what I read he may be abit of a risk. I'd rather take Clint Stintim from Virginia, he can rush the QB also. Osi Cofield Robbins Tuck Stintim Pierce Kiwi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'd rather take Clint Stintim from Virginia, he can rush the QB also. Osi Cofield Robbins Tuck Stintim Pierce Kiwi Agreed on that front seven, watch out NFC. Add one of the better secondaries in the league and lets just hope SDheridan is half as good as Spags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boohyah Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Division winners should get the home field in the first round of the wild card only, once that's over it's based on overall record. The fact is that the Cards were the team with the worst record in the playoffs and should have played the team with the best, that being us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'd rather take Clint Stintim from Virginia, he can rush the QB also. Osi Cofield Robbins Tuck Stintim Pierce Kiwi Golfin', the only problem I have with that is that Sintim is close to being a DE, and is certainly more suited to the strongside. With that trio, we would have all three of our starting LBers being weak when it comes to pass coverage. I think we need a smaller, quicker LB at the WLB spot who flies to the ball and can cover guys in pass protection like Brian Westbrook, Felix Jones (who is going to be a good one), and other quick backs and TE's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Ok just came by to get your guys view on the playoff seeding structure. Now, in what is becoming the common consensus, it is pretty much agreed upon that the NFC East has been the toughest division in football in recent years. With that said, I wanted to get some of your input on playoff seeding when your favorite team plays in the toughest division in football. It is not uncommon to see the worst NFC East team to finish with a record of 7-9 or 8-8. Do you think its fair that a second place NFC East team with a 11-5 record would be seeded lower than say a Cardinals team that could finish 8-8 next year and win their division (in a very weak division)? I am starting to favor the better record, higher seed idea. You look at the NFC East and you figure a very successful season within the division would be a 4-2 record. Thats 2 losses right there. If you happen to drop 3 out of the other 10 games, do you think its fair that an 11-5 record could land you in the wildcard spot? actually, that has only been the case in the last two seasons...prior to that, the dog doesn't recall that ever being the case. anyway, the dog thinks the system is fine as it stands, with the exception maybe of what booyah said about having the division winner get the first round only at home, and then have subsequent rounds be determined by record, but even that is shakey to the dog...the reality is it gets very hairy if you want to start brinnging strength of schedule into the mix, because you have to look beyond just the divisions, and also start factoring in the rest of a team's opponents (i.e., last season for example, the Panthers division played against the AFC west, which was significantly weaker than the AFC East, so shouldn't that be taken into consideration as well?)... in the end, like it or not, that same cardinals team that everyone felt was so weak ended up in the suepr bowl...and along the way beat a team from every other nfc division...the dog says leave it alone...teams have to earn their way through the playoffs regardless of seeding. you play who you play...the last two seasons have demonstrated that the team that elevates its' play in the postseason, regardless of seeding and regular season record, is going to be playing for the title in the end, and that is the way it should be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Division winners should get the home field in the first round of the wild card only, once that's over it's based on overall record. The fact is that the Cards were the team with the worst record in the playoffs and should have played the team with the best, that being us. I think I like this idea first. I really don't like strength-of-schedule calculations (biased unless the win/loss of the opponents is also weighted) and think the process should be as simple as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I think you keep the divisions for scheduling purposes but then reseed the playoffs on a conference basis. IN other words based on record regardless of division, making it very possible that a team from a bad division (ala San Diego Chargers) does not make the playoffs. His insures that all teams in the playoffs will have a record better than .500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I think you keep the divisions for scheduling purposes but then reseed the playoffs on a conference basis. IN other words based on record regardless of division, making it very possible that a team from a bad division (ala San Diego Chargers) does not make the playoffs. His insures that all teams in the playoffs will have a record better than .500. the dog disagrees...look at your example - the chargers slid in at 8-8, weak yes, but then went in and beat a 12 win colts team to advance...this is what makes the playoffs so great...the cardinals can go 9-7 and be considered such a weak team, then find themselves 2 minutes away from being the super bowl champion. why change any of that? the nfl is fine as it is. you can't penalize a team for the schedule they play. if they do enough to get in, they deserve to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, you want to see the six best teams from each conference in the playoffs. But if you're not going to have division winners... what's the point of having divisions in the first place anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rphguy Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 winning your division is most important. before letting WCs have a higher seed, I'd just as assume do away with WCs altogether,,,,,, which would end the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 the dog disagrees...look at your example - the chargers slid in at 8-8, weak yes, but then went in and beat a 12 win colts team to advance...this is what makes the playoffs so great...the cardinals can go 9-7 and be considered such a weak team, then find themselves 2 minutes away from being the super bowl champion. why change any of that? the nfl is fine as it is. you can't penalize a team for the schedule they play. if they do enough to get in, they deserve to be there. yeah the 8-8 team had home field advantage for playing in a terrible division that had ZERO teams with a winning record, over a 12 win team...yeah that sounds fair...dog.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 yeah the 8-8 team had home field advantage for playing in a terrible division that had ZERO teams with a winning record, over a 12 win team...yeah that sounds fair...dog.... the dog understands your point - but that doesn't take away from the fact that the chargers did what they had to round 1. home field advantage means less and less each year (when you look at the fact that the home teams were 5-5 in the playoffs, and the road teams were 6-4)...yes, the chargers played in a weak division, but they also won 5 straight games at the end of the season to get to the second round of the playoffs...to exclude them would have been unfair. in the end, the dog thinks the system works out well...it's the only sport (other than baseball) that to the dog's knowledge, a team with a losing record has not gotten into the playoffs anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 the dog understands your point - but that doesn't take away from the fact that the chargers did what they had to round 1. home field advantage means less and less each year (when you look at the fact that the home teams were 5-5 in the playoffs, and the road teams were 6-4)...yes, the chargers played in a weak division, but they also won 5 straight games at the end of the season to get to the second round of the playoffs...to exclude them would have been unfair. in the end, the dog thinks the system works out well...it's the only sport (other than baseball) that to the dog's knowledge, a team with a losing record has not gotten into the playoffs anyway. For a while the Eastern Conference of the NBA came damn close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrashTalker92 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 After reading everyone's post. i don't feel the need to put anything but to agree that it is fine with the way it is.. we should all be happy we don't have that college crap.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now