Free For All Posted January 16, 2011 Report Posted January 16, 2011 Go Pats! Looks like they woke up! Watch out! Quote
Free For All Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 This one has gotten very interesting! Quote
Free For All Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 Holy crap, the Jets pulled it off!! Never would have believed it! Quote
Shawn Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 Both #1 seeds go down, I'm beginning to think the bye week isn't a good thing. Quote
JSngry Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 Looks like the team of Namath is back! Quote
Tim McG Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 Looks like the team of Namath is back! Hm. Joe Namath's team wouldn't tolerate that arrogant bullshit by #23 after the last Jets touchdown. What a jerk. Go Steelers. Quote
BruceW Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 Both #1 seeds go down, I'm beginning to think the bye week isn't a good thing. I was thinking the same thing yesterday when Falcons did so badly. This just wasn't my week. Really needed the Pats to win. Seems Bilichick outcoached himself. Quote
GA Russell Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 Both #1 seeds go down... This is why I don't like playoffs. I've always disliked them most of all with baseball. I think the regular season should determine who the two best teams are, and then the championship game should be between the two best teams. With playoffs, the championship is awarded to the team that is hot at the end, on a winning streak, no matter how many teams were better over the course of the previous four months. When the Steelers won the Super Bowl a few years ago, weren't they the last-seeded team? Quote
JETman Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 Looks like the team of Namath is back! Hm. Joe Namath's team wouldn't tolerate that arrogant bullshit by #23 after the last Jets touchdown. What a jerk. Go Steelers. Really? ALL professional athletes are arrogant in one form or another. As a lifelong Jets fan, I wasn't holding out much hope for them this year, or any year for that matter. But it looks like they just might surprise not only me, but EVERYBODY. Quote
Free For All Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 I think the regular season should determine who the two best teams are So how would you deal with say, four 13-3 teams at the end of the season? Go to stats as a tiebreaker? I like the fact that the underdog has a chance. They have to win on the road (which happened a lot this season) multiple times to get to the championship which I think makes them earn it. If there were no playoffs I think that pro football would even more boring and predictable than it's already become. Quote
GA Russell Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 FFA, well, how did they do it when we were kids, before there were playoffs? I would have each conference with one table, and have each team play another team only once. Then, if two teams were tied for first at the end of the year, I would award first place to the team that beat the other. I suppose it might get complicated if three or four teams tied for first, but using a tiebreaker formula makes more sense to me than having a sixth-seeded team play in the Super Bowl. Quote
JETman Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 FFA, well, how did they do it when we were kids, before there were playoffs? I would have each conference with one table, and have each team play another team only once. Then, if two teams were tied for first at the end of the year, I would award first place to the team that beat the other. I suppose it might get complicated if three or four teams tied for first, but using a tiebreaker formula makes more sense to me than having a sixth-seeded team play in the Super Bowl. The first true NFL playoffs started in 1967, almost 50 years ago. Exactly how old are you guys??? Quote
Chalupa Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 I like the Jets' chances. If they can get by the Steelers next weekend they will have beaten Payton Manning, Brady, and Roethlisburger in the playoffs. Pretty incredible feat, if they can pull it off. Quote
JSngry Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 FFA, well, how did they do it when we were kids, before there were playoffs? I would have each conference with one table, and have each team play another team only once. Then, if two teams were tied for first at the end of the year, I would award first place to the team that beat the other. I suppose it might get complicated if three or four teams tied for first, but using a tiebreaker formula makes more sense to me than having a sixth-seeded team play in the Super Bowl. The first true NFL playoffs started in 1967, almost 50 years ago. Exactly how old are you guys??? Old enough to remember 1967...and then some... Here's the deal, when did the NFL not have divisions? I'm not that old to remember when that ever was. So if you got divisions, there goes the thing about "the best team" playing. That would require an oldschool baseball thing, where you either won the league and went to the World Series, or else you went hom. No other options. Quote
BruceW Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 FFA, well, how did they do it when we were kids, before there were playoffs? I would have each conference with one table, and have each team play another team only once. Then, if two teams were tied for first at the end of the year, I would award first place to the team that beat the other. I suppose it might get complicated if three or four teams tied for first, but using a tiebreaker formula makes more sense to me than having a sixth-seeded team play in the Super Bowl. The first true NFL playoffs started in 1967, almost 50 years ago. Exactly how old are you guys??? Well, I ain't bragging you see, but..... I really remember when the Cleveland Browns were in the NFL and they were the dominant force. Also when the Detroit Lions were the dominant force. I also remember when Pittsburg and the Colts were in the NFL not the AFC. I also remember when there was no such thing as the AFC; there was the AFL and also remember when there was no AFL. Whew!!! Damn, guess I got some mileage, eh kid! Quote
JETman Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 FFA, well, how did they do it when we were kids, before there were playoffs? I would have each conference with one table, and have each team play another team only once. Then, if two teams were tied for first at the end of the year, I would award first place to the team that beat the other. I suppose it might get complicated if three or four teams tied for first, but using a tiebreaker formula makes more sense to me than having a sixth-seeded team play in the Super Bowl. The first true NFL playoffs started in 1967, almost 50 years ago. Exactly how old are you guys??? Old enough to remember 1967...and then some... Here's the deal, when did the NFL not have divisions? I'm not that old to remember when that ever was. So if you got divisions, there goes the thing about "the best team" playing. That would require an oldschool baseball thing, where you either won the league and went to the World Series, or else you went hom. No other options. There was the NFL and the AFL. The Jets won the Super Bowl, the 2 leagues merged and split into 2 separate conferences with a few divisions each. You're not that much older than me, but GA and FFA are talking like they were in their teens in the 60s. To me, no playoffs would only work if each team played every other team once and only once. This of course would mean we'd need a 29 week NFL season. The players' bodies surely wouldn't hold up long enough for that, and neither would our patience. So playoffs, it is. We'll just have to find a way to live with 6th seeds making it to the Super Bowl on occasion, won't we? Quote
Free For All Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 GA and FFA are talking like they were in their teens in the 60s. Just for the record, I never said anything implying my age. That said, I was born in '58 and do remember 1967. Quote
JETman Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 GA and FFA are talking like they were in their teens in the 60s. Just for the record, I never said anything implying my age. That said, I was born in '58 and do remember 1967. Fair enough! That said, I was born in '62, but do NOT remember 1967, at least as far as football goes. Now, music, that's a whole different story. Quote
GA Russell Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 The first true NFL playoffs started in 1967, almost 50 years ago. Exactly how old are you guys??? Old enough to remember the Chicago Cardinals, the New York Titans, the Dallas Texans and the Los Angeles Chargers! Quote
paul secor Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 Well, I ain't bragging you see, but..... I really remember when the Cleveland Browns were in the NFL and they were the dominant force. Also when the Detroit Lions were the dominant force. I also remember when Pittsburg and the Colts were in the NFL not the AFC. I also remember when there was no such thing as the AFC; there was the AFL and also remember when there was no AFL. Whew!!! Damn, guess I got some mileage, eh kid! I think you've got a few years on me, Bruce, but I remember the 50s as golden years for the Lions, and the Browns made their golden years last into the 60s. Quote
GA Russell Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 You're not that much older than me, but GA and FFA are talking like they were in their teens in the 60s. [Yes, I was a teen during the British Invasion!] To me, no playoffs would only work if each team played every other team once and only once. This of course would mean we'd need a 29 week NFL season. The players' bodies surely wouldn't hold up long enough for that, and neither would our patience. So playoffs, it is. We'll just have to find a way to live with 6th seeds making it to the Super Bowl on occasion, won't we? What I had in mind was the NFL having two conferences, and each team would play every other team in the conference one time. Then there would be something like three interconference games to make the schedule 18 games like they want it. The important thing is that you only play a team once, so that the tiebreaker would be simply who beat whom. Quote
Tim McG Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Looks like the team of Namath is back! Hm. Joe Namath's team wouldn't tolerate that arrogant bullshit by #23 after the last Jets touchdown. What a jerk. Go Steelers. Really? ALL professional athletes are arrogant in one form or another. As a lifelong Jets fan, I wasn't holding out much hope for them this year, or any year for that matter. But it looks like they just might surprise not only me, but EVERYBODY. All pro athletes...really? You may want to take a look at how some of the class acts around the sporting world conduct themselves before making a blanket justification like that, my friend. Laying down in the end zone while using the football as a pillow is beyond arrogant. Nothing can justify that kind of in-your-face bullshit. What a jerk he is. Go Steelers. Edited January 17, 2011 by GoodSpeak Quote
Quincy Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 The first true NFL playoffs started in 1967, almost 50 years ago. Exactly how old are you guys??? I don't know what you mean by "true" other than that's when the AFL started facing the NFL. The NFL has had playoffs since 1933. In fact as a little kid I knew about the Bears beating the Redskins 73-0 in the '40 title game (IIRC they ran out of footballs and stopped kicking extra points) and used this knowledge to harass a friend whenever the Redskins were in the playoffs. Oh, and no, I don't recall the '40 title personally (but dang Bruce, you recall when the Lions were good! Wow!) Wiki does it better than footballreference.com Quote
BruceW Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 The first true NFL playoffs started in 1967, almost 50 years ago. Exactly how old are you guys??? I don't know what you mean by "true" other than that's when the AFL started facing the NFL. The NFL has had playoffs since 1933. In fact as a little kid I knew about the Bears beating the Redskins 73-0 in the '40 title game (IIRC they ran out of footballs and stopped kicking extra points) and used this knowledge to harass a friend whenever the Redskins were in the playoffs. Oh, and no, I don't recall the '40 title personally (but dang Bruce, you recall when the Lions were good! Wow!) Wiki does it better than footballreference.com Can't help it guys, we are born when we are born and football was what it was at that time. Quote
JSngry Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 There was the NFL and the AFL. The Jets won the Super Bowl, the 2 leagues merged and split into 2 separate conferences with a few divisions each. Right. I remember all that. But even before the NFL & AFL got together for Super Bowl I, the NFL (and the AFL) still had divisions (ok, conferences). Turns out that they've had'em since 1933, which I don't remember. But look at the 1932 season: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1932/ A 7-1-6 record tops a 10-3-1 because, I guess, ties don't figure into winning percentage. Whazzupwiddat? And already, by 1934, with divisions, look at this: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1934/ 8-5 plays 13-0 for the championship, while 10-3 gets nothing. A wildcard spot would've fixed that! Once you get divisions, you get playoffs, and it ain't ever going to be perfect all the time. Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.