How would you feel if the Saints go 12-4 and have to play a 6-10 or 7-9 NFC East Team in the Playoffs? (1 Viewer)

[Zack Lee]

There isn’t a perfect system so this kind of thing will happen occasionally. But division battles enrich division rivalries. I don’t want that to change. I know when I’m scanning the games televised, Im much more inclined to tune in to a rivalry game because the history is there and you know you are more likely to see a slug fest.

 

[OutlawSaint]

Pretty sure 12-4 would carry a good chance of us being the NFCS Champs.

 

[Bigsaints]

You mean...ala Seattle and Beast mode?

Do you have to remind me. I was there in person.

 

[dwid]

What if we went 9-7 missed out as wild card and Dallas gets in at 6-10

 

[PXSaber]

especially this year, I dont care.

Either we get a high seed, resulting in homefield.
Or we get a wild card and maybe play the "winning" team of the east division, which would be pretty much automatic.

It is what it is… the entire conference system is bad. not mentioning the divions resulting in teams getting into the playoffs every year because your rivals are the Dolphins, Bills and Jets… yes Iam pointing at you New England.

so dont complain about it. Just get win after win and hope to get in the playoffs at all.
we had some rough rough games this year, so nothing is set yet

 

[cajnwillie]

Anybody, anywhere, anytime...love me some playoff Saints

 

[SweetT]

Seattle then began to expose Roman Harper in coverage. I can't blame Harper> GW asked him to do things he was not capable of. Brandon Stokely and Mike Williams were 2 average Wr's that abused him in coverage

I used to play b-ball at Brandon’s house growing up

 

[Icon]

Just get win after win and hope to get in the playoffs at all.

This is where I am.

I think it's a combination of the number two seed no longer getting a first round bye, the fact that the Dome is no longer the borderline-automatic win that it used to be for the team at times, as well as the fact that this is probably Drew's last season.

For January climate reasons, obviously I'd love to see at least some of their games happen in the Dome....... but this is simply one of those seasons where I just want to see them get to the playoffs and have the opportunity to show why they've been one of the top teams for the last 3 years.

 

[Icon]

I think it was during the week 3 game with the Falcons where Brees supposedly injured his knee (I think).

Garrett Hartley shanked a 29 yd FG in OT and the Falcons won the game on their next possession. We finished 11-5 and the Falcons 13-3. Had we won that game, we'd both have finished 12-4 and we'd have won the South on the fact that we'd have swept the Falcons.

Of course it didn't help that over the next 4 weeks we'd lose to the Max Hall led Cardinals and the Colt McCoy led Browns -- again, because i really think Drew was seriously injured and they covered it up during the season.


Anyway, yeah - 2010 season was a bummer.

The difference between 2009 and 2010 was the difference between a season being special and a season being very good.

The Saints got just about every fortuitous bounce/break reasonably possible at certain key times during the 2009 season. In the Miami game, there was a return that Sharper had for a touchdown which "stood". Photographic evidence would later show that he actually fumbled that ball into the end zone before crossing, which would have made it a touchback. Then you had Washington miss a short field goal which would have iced the game late in the 4th.....and something similar actually happened in the Dallas game to give us at least a chance to keep the unbeaten streak going.

Even the Patriots game......which I don't think anyone would argue was won by the better team that night...... was turned completely in favor of the Saints when Brady threw the ball right to Mike McKenzie of all people, who had just recently been added back to the team.

Whereas 2010 was just a more standard season. Still a very good record,but not a particularly special "feel" like the previous season.

 

[Hedon James]

Just like the regular season, you can't control your opponents. You can only beat the team across from you on game day. From that perspective, it just doesn't matter.

But with that said, I've never understood the league's logic. They say they want to promote competitivenes, especially later in the season. That's why they tend to backload schedules with division games and interesting matchups with anticipated contenders later in the season. I'm good with that....makes sense. But it makes no sense whatsoever to determine seeding by winning your division. We've all seen the scenarios where a superior team has to travel as a wild card to the lesser division winner. And we've all seen the scenario where a team will lock down their division with a 7-9 or 8-8ish record AND another team has clinched a playoff berth with the 2nd best record in the conference, but is locked into the #5 seed with significant games remaining. They can win ALL of their remaining games but still won't win their division, and qualify for a home game or potential bye; or they can lose all of those games and still be the #5 seed. The literal definition of "nothing to gain, nothing to lose". This doesn't happen every year, but it happens enough that I feel it needs to be addressed.

The solution is simple, IMO. Win your division and you're in the playoffs....a seat at the table, guaranteed. If you win your division at 7-9 or 6-10, you were still the best your division had to offer and you SHOULD go to the playoffs....otherwise, what's a division for? But make the conference seeding based on overall record. If you're the 2nd best team in your division, but still the 2nd best team in the conference, you SHOULD be the #2 seed in the conference. This will keep games interesting and competitive all the way through the final gun of the 16th game. The only remaining "nothing to gain, nothing to lose" situations will be non-playoff teams; everyone else in playoff contention will have everything to gain and everything to lose, based on the outcome of every remaining game. How interesting would that be? Not to mention, fair, IMO.

And if we can fix that issue, the other thing I'd like to see is the annual draft held in the city of the franchise with the #1 pick. Not the city who offered Roger & the NFL the best package of perks. Maybe throw in a rule preventing a city/franchise from hosting more than 2 years in a row or something, but how often has the same team drafted #1 overall 2 years in a row, or more? So maybe that's not even necessary. But make it so the team who "earned" the #1 overall pick hosts the draft; to prevent "rich" teams from buying the right to host by acquiring that pick. By all means, trade the #1 pick if it makes sense, but the draft remains in the city of that 0-16 or 1-15 or 2-14 franchise; it doesn't relocate to the team who acquired the pick.

JMO....

 

[T.Sneden84]

We are going to visit the eagles wild card weekend with swirling 31 degree winds , occasional flurries/frozen rain. There i saved everyone the suspense of the season... oh and we will wear white tops and black pants just because everyone will complain. Bookmark this post for January.

 

[ilvdsnts]

As a result of that happening, do you think the league will finally allow wild card teams with better records than the division winner to host a playoff game.

I'd feel the same way I did when it happen to us after the 2010 season when we were 11-5 and had to travel to play the 7-9 Seahawks because they won their division. It also happen again in 2014 when the Panther won the division with a 7-8-1 record and hosted Arizona. I don't think its a coincidence that the home team won both games despite having a losing record and hosting a team with a better record.
As far as if it will change....not until the Saints are the team that wins the division with a losing record and hosts a wildcard team with a better record and beats them. Then, you bet your arse it will change before the next season kicks off.

 

[CowtownSaint]

I will feel alot better about that than playing an NFC North team

 

[FullMonte]

Short version for me: If we have to play the wild card weekend, I'd much rather be on the road.

Over the last three seasons, during the wild card round, the home team is 4-8. (over the last two seasons, they are 2-6)

 

[IceHot]

If the league (and, by extension, the world) was fair, the playoffs would be seeded every year the same way they did it for the 1982 strike season. That year, there were no "division champs" for the purposes of playoff seeding. The teams were seeded by straight-up record, much like the NBA. That's the way it oughta be every year.

Listened to a bit of conversation on this last night on the radio. These days, if the richest of the rich owners (Jerrah, Kraft and Kroenke) are for or against something, it'll come to pass. The commish is feckless, basically. They control the votes of the other owners, making it worse than Congress, if that's even possible. This is how the overtime rules got changed (because little small-market N.O. won the Super Bowl), this is how the instant replay-with-PI rule was allowed to die on the calendar (legislative lingo) and it's how the archaic division system for playoff seeding still exists.

Unless they plan on taking Lombardi's name off the trophy and replacing it with Shula....

They should not change the emphasis away from Division winners deserving the best playoff spots. 2nd place at best deserves a wild card road game. In reality its debatable whether you belong in the playoffs if you dont win the division. If you cant beat a 6-10 road team you certainly dont belong.

Consider 1967 (the year the Saints were born), the Packers under Lombardi were on their way to win their 2nd Superbowl. However they didnt have the best regular season record . The best regular season record was 11-1-2 owned by Shula's Colts. Shula however did not even get to play in the playoffs. Why? Because he happened to be tied with the LA Rams who beat them head-to-head as his only loss. In 1967 their were 4 division and only the division winners got to go into the playoffs.

So as you can see, Lombardi's name likely wouldnt be on the trophy if Division winners did not get the best playoff spots.