Saints What if NFL 7-seeds had made the playoffs over the last 10 years? (Saints playoff implications) (1 Viewer)

Cincy Saint

VIP Subscribing Member
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2002
Messages
4,021
Reaction score
3,697
Location
Columbus, OH
Offline
We are all bored to tears so here's something fun to read.

LINK

2019-20 Season
We start with a bang as Sean McVay’s Rams sneak in after a disappointing campaign. The team started 3–0 before losing three straight and falling out of the playoffs as Jared Goff took a major step backwards and Todd Gurley never got going. Still, this was one of the most talented teams in football, and they’d have been a very tough out against the 2-seed Packers. A Rams win sends them to San Francisco, a team L.A. just played down to the final play on the road in Week 16. It also means the Saints host a conference semifinal instead of traveling to Green Bay, and they’d host the NFC Conference Championship too if the Rams won again and set up a rematch of last season. Juicy.
 

whoami

Whodat Nation
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
580
Reaction score
658
Location
Irving, TX
Offline
Since only #1 seed has a bye, how tough will it for us to get it? We tend to relax in the middle of the season, or we start slow, now no team can afford to relax.
 

Scorpius the Allfather

Dream Theater fanatic!
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
19,737
Reaction score
18,088
Age
39
Location
Metairie, LA
Offline
Since only #1 seed has a bye, how tough will it for us to get it? We tend to relax in the middle of the season, or we start slow, now no team can afford to relax.

I think removing the 2 seed bye may lead to teams resting in Week 17 instead of fighting for the other bye. What would we have done last year? Would it have made a difference?
 

AARPSaint

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 6, 1998
Messages
25,439
Reaction score
21,089
Age
74
Location
West Chester, PA
Online
I think removing the 2 seed bye may lead to teams resting in Week 17 instead of fighting for the other bye. What would we have done last year? Would it have made a difference?
That's an interesting point. The odds were slim for getting a bye as it was. Someone refresh my memory: were there additional significant injuries from the Saints' last regular season game?
 

Scorpius the Allfather

Dream Theater fanatic!
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
19,737
Reaction score
18,088
Age
39
Location
Metairie, LA
Offline
That's an interesting point. The odds were slim for getting a bye as it was. Someone refresh my memory: were there additional significant injuries from the Saints' last regular season game?

Didn't Thomas break the record in Week 16 and play Week 17 with a broken hand? Either way, he got a broken hand. 2010 season we had a bunch of injuries in Week 17. It led to Beast Mode.
 

SaintsIn2009

BRING THE WOOD!!!
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,967
Reaction score
2,951
Offline
Having only 1 bye per conference will be a complete disaster and will be reversed before the end of this new agreement.
Why would it be a disaster? I like the idea of only the team with the best record secures the only bye for the playoffs. One spot, one team with the best record secures a week of rest and they’ve earned it. Screw the second best team also gets a week off, there isn’t a 2nd place trophy for the Super Bowl.
 

SuperDome

Fan Board Member In Exile
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 2002
Messages
2,323
Reaction score
1,162
Age
67
Location
San Antonio...Because of 15.5ft. of water in Arabi
Offline
Why would it be a disaster? I like the idea of only the team with the best record secures the only bye for the playoffs. One spot, one team with the best record secures a week of rest and they’ve earned it. Screw the second best team also gets a week off, there isn’t a 2nd place trophy for the Super Bowl.
#2≠#1 simple math...not a disaster!
 
Last edited:

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
42,288
Reaction score
32,825
Age
51
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
Why would it be a disaster? I like the idea of only the team with the best record secures the only bye for the playoffs. One spot, one team with the best record secures a week of rest and they’ve earned it. Screw the second best team also gets a week off, there isn’t a 2nd place trophy for the Super Bowl.

Personally, I don't think any team should get a bye. Either that or all the teams should get a week off before the payoffs start. I think it would make playoff games more competitive and result in the best team winning instead of just the most well rested team winning. Home field advantage should be enough. In a sport as physical as football giving any teams a bye weeks seems like an unfair advantage. Do any other sports give a buy to teams in the first round of their playoffs other than the NFL?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 1997
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
3,516
Location
Garden of Hedon
Online
I'm not opposed to 7-team formats in each conference, with only the #1 getting a bye. But I do think it sets up some scenarios for week #17 "coasting", because the #1 is not possible. Alternatively, it's equally possible that the week 17 game that used to be a "coaster" will be taken more seriously, for seeding reasons. So maybe it's an offset.

But the thing I REALLY want to see addressed is the playoff seeding for division winners vs W-L records. I think if you win your division, you should be in (as it is now). You were the best in your division, even if your division was weak, and that's fair. But I do not think it's fair that a 7-9 or 8-8 or 9-7 division winner should be hosting a playoff game against 10-6 or 11-5 or 12-4 or, god forbid, 13-3 wild cards; simply because you were the best of the weakest teams.

I'd like to see the 4 division champs clinch a spot, with wild cards to the remaining best records (also as it is now). But SEEDING should be based on W-L records. If home games are the reward for the better record, why does that not apply to ALL teams? If one division produces 3 teams with a 14-2 and a 12-4 and 11-5 records, and those 3 records are the 3 best in the conference, they survived the gauntlet of their own division and obviously kicked the crap out of every other division. By the logic of determining seeds, they SHOULD be the top 3 seeds in the playoffs, and they should be hosting the 8-8 division winners. To give the higher seed, and the home game, to the lesser record division winner just flies in the face of the very logic to determine seeding. WTH? JMO...
 

Darth Deuce

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
4,577
Reaction score
5,159
Location
Bounty Hunting
Offline
I'm not opposed to 7-team formats in each conference, with only the #1 getting a bye. But I do think it sets up some scenarios for week #17 "coasting", because the #1 is not possible. Alternatively, it's equally possible that the week 17 game that used to be a "coaster" will be taken more seriously, for seeding reasons. So maybe it's an offset.

But the thing I REALLY want to see addressed is the playoff seeding for division winners vs W-L records. I think if you win your division, you should be in (as it is now). You were the best in your division, even if your division was weak, and that's fair. But I do not think it's fair that a 7-9 or 8-8 or 9-7 division winner should be hosting a playoff game against 10-6 or 11-5 or 12-4 or, god forbid, 13-3 wild cards; simply because you were the best of the weakest teams.

I'd like to see the 4 division champs clinch a spot, with wild cards to the remaining best records (also as it is now). But SEEDING should be based on W-L records. If home games are the reward for the better record, why does that not apply to ALL teams? If one division produces 3 teams with a 14-2 and a 12-4 and 11-5 records, and those 3 records are the 3 best in the conference, they survived the gauntlet of their own division and obviously kicked the crap out of every other division. By the logic of determining seeds, they SHOULD be the top 3 seeds in the playoffs, and they should be hosting the 8-8 division winners. To give the higher seed, and the home game, to the lesser record division winner just flies in the face of the very logic to determine seeding. WTH? JMO...
I totally agree with you. This has been my philosophy as well. Don’t reward a team for winning a crappy division. Getting into the playoffs and hanging that division banner should be enough.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 1997
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
3,516
Location
Garden of Hedon
Online
I totally agree with you. This has been my philosophy as well. Don’t reward a team for winning a crappy division. Getting into the playoffs and hanging that division banner should be enough.

It's always bothered me. Has a 7-9 or 8-8 division winner EVER won a playoff game against a team with a better record? OTOH, I can think of 2 or 3 wild card 9-7 or 10-6 teams who ran the table to the Superbowl, and several more who made an appearance in the championship game.

Besides addressing basic fairness, and fixing the contradiction of "better records = higher seed, except for weak division winners", this would go a LONG way toward eliminating final weekend "coast" games. As the rules are currently, an 11-5 or 12-4 team could be the 2nd best team in their division, and the 2nd best team in the conference, but "locked in" to the #5 seed with 1-3 games remaining in the season; so they start sitting injured and star players. I'll bet that doesn't happen anymore if they have a shot at the #2 seed as a wild card team, and home games against lower seeds. So it would be fair to the teams, and more exciting and interesting for the fans.
 

fdl16

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 5, 2011
Messages
14,270
Reaction score
18,331
Offline
Watch, we're gonna be the first team ever to get the two seed and no bye. It's what we do.
 

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!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom