Makes you wonder if the rams tanked in OT after they found out zona lost (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
blotch1 said:
But the Cardinals were a game away from winning their division, they're not one of the bottom teams. That was a 4 seed vs. 5 seed. Expansion had nothing to do with the game.
Click to expand...
Not sure what the matchups would have been without expansion. Haven't seen this many lopsided playoff games in many, many years. You have a better explanation than expansion?
 
Domeination said:
Not sure what the matchups would have been without expansion. Haven't seen this many lopsided playoff games in many, many years. You have a better explanation than expansion?
Click to expand...
Major suckitude across the board? lol
As to the OP, I know most of us agree, tongue in cheek, but the truth is that there is no way they tanked a game against the 9ers just to avoid us....even though I think we would have made some noise in the playoffs. They would have been the #2 seed had they won, they didn't just give that up.
 
Vikings-Fan-Brother-In-Law quoted me a stat that there hasn't been a 4th quarter lead change in the past 19 NFL playoff games.
 
LOL no team, especially the Rams, are afraid of the Saints in playoff games. Goodell would have a direct link to the head ref's earbuds.
 
Domeination said:
Not sure what the matchups would have been without expansion. Haven't seen this many lopsided playoff games in many, many years. You have a better explanation than expansion?
Click to expand...
They would've all been the same except TB and KC would've had byes because the teams they played would've been out.
 
Is the #7 seed a good idea?

I'm still going to go with "Yes".

From a playoff chase perspective over 17 weeks, it helps keeps teams in it.
If you are a #2 seed it stinks, but chances are you get to beat up on an easy team if you are good, and if you aren't a solid #2 seed, than you don't deserve the easy game.

Two added football games on Wild Card weekend is great, and it's motivation for the #1 and #2 seeds to keep fighting throughout the season.

People can complain about the #7 playoff seed, but if you unwind it and go back to #6, it would be a whole lot worse.
 
iirc they could have been the 2 seed, but losing dropped them to the 4 seed, I doubt they did that on purpose.
 
VikesFan2017 said:
Is the #7 seed a good idea?

I'm still going to go with "Yes".

From a playoff chase perspective over 17 weeks, it helps keeps teams in it.
If you are a #2 seed it stinks, but chances are you get to beat up on an easy team if you are good, and if you aren't a solid #2 seed, than you don't deserve the easy game.

Two added football games on Wild Card weekend is great, and it's motivation for the #1 and #2 seeds to keep fighting throughout the season.

People can complain about the #7 playoff seed, but if you unwind it and go back to #6, it would be a whole lot worse.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. I don't mind the 2 extra games on wild card weekend. I thought the playoff race itself was a ton of fun and that last weekend was bonkers. So I liked it and think it will make the end of seasons more interesting.

I think the non-competitiveness of the games this weekend was a bit of an anomaly and normally will be more competitive in the future.
 
DaveXA said:
I tend to agree. I don't mind the 2 extra games on wild card weekend. I thought the playoff race itself was a ton of fun and that last weekend was bonkers. So I liked it and think it will make the end of seasons more interesting.

I think the non-competitiveness of the games this weekend was a bit of an anomaly and normally will be more competitive in the future.
Click to expand...

I think it'd be even more competitive if they seeded based on W-L records and tie-breakers. If you win your division, you're in; that's fair, and you deserve to be in playoffs. But you don't deserve to be seed #4 and to host a HOME game over a Wild-card team with better record, IMO.

If the division winner is 8-9, and the wildcards are 9-8, 10-7, and 11-6; the 11-6 WC should be HOSTING over the 8-9 division champ. If the WC is 10-7 and the division winner is 10-7, tie-breakers seem fair for seeding, IMO. This would add yet 1 more dimension of competitiveness for those final games, to determine final seeding. There's no incentive for the division winner who's locked up the 4th seed to do anything but make it through their game healthy, then host a home game next week. Wouldn't it be more interesting if they only locked up a playoff spot, but seeding and home games were still to be determined?

JMO...
 
Quiet Storm said:
Kinda agree. They were playing well with Hopkins but if you can't do anything without your number 1 WR then how good are you really??
Click to expand...
dd0.jpg
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom