2014 NFL Season **OFFICIAL THREAD**

[green73]

Several teams could now have a #1 seed if just one or two games had gone differently. If Seattle had beat the Rams or Chargers they would still be #1 too. Everybody lost to teams they probably should have been able to beat. Had Denver beaten the Rams or Seattle or Cincinnati or New England they would be #1 AFC team. What matters is what you do from here on out. New season. What happened in the regular season doesn't really matter.

Whatever. I said they had to win out in December to secure homefield advantage. I lamented that they did not do that, losing to shitty Buffalo.

Losing to shit teams in December is worse than September. If you don't understand why...well, nevermind...you're zippy.

 

[Origanalist]

You just worry about winning your first game.

I see that Seattle has to come to Lambeau next year. About feggin time!

 

[Zippyjuan]

Whatever. I said they had to win out in December to secure homefield advantage. I lamented that they did not do that, losing to shitty Buffalo.

Losing to shit teams in December is worse than September. If you don't understand why...well, nevermind...you're zippy.

The rankings don't take into account when you won or lost games- only how many and in case of ties, who you lost to. Again, what matters is what you do from here on out. Home field is no guarantee of success.

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/visuals/post/_/id/10921/graphic-which-nfl-playoff-seeds-succeed

That makes 74 #1 seeds with 20 winning the Super Bowl. Another 20 lost in the Super Bowl which leaves 34 or about a third not even getting to the big game.

That’s right -- in the past 37 years, winning the Super Bowl or losing your first playoff game has been a 50/50 proposition for a No. 1 seed.

Of course, home-field advantage can only help a team get to the Super Bowl, not win it, so the most valid measurement of its significance is that 40 of 74 No. 1 seeds have won their conference and advanced to play for the Vince Lombardi Trophy. That’s a tick above 54 percent -- decent odds, but certainly no guarantee.

Note that the Packers won a title despite being a #6 seed.

 

[green73]

The rankings don't take into account when you won or lost games- only how many and in case of ties, who you lost to. Again, what matters is what you do from here on out. Home field is no guarantee of success.

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/visuals/post/_/id/10921/graphic-which-nfl-playoff-seeds-succeed

Ask any coach; they'll agree with what I said. You want to be playing your best football in December and January. You don't want be losing to shit teams leading up to the playoffs. It's bad for momentum, and in this case for the Packers, it possibly means a road game en route to the SB. The Packers are undefeated at home. I don't want them on the road. Looking at your graphic confirms my concerns.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Ask any coach; they'll agree with what I said. You want to be playing your best football in December and January. You don't want be losing to shit teams leading up to the playoffs. It's bad for momentum, and in this case for the Packers, it possibly means a road game en route to the SB. The Packers are undefeated at home. I don't want them on the road. Looking at your graphic confirms my concerns.

Are you saying your team is playing poorly? After the way they beat Detroit today even with a gimpy quarterback? Losing late can help. You recognize you need to make improvements rather than assuming everything you are doing is great. Denver was embarassed at Cinci just Monday night and blew the Raiders out of the water today. ("yeah, but that was the Raiders"- Raiders who beat the 49ers, KC, and Buffalo three of five before facing Denver). I think it is the idea of playing at Seattle which scares you. I understand that. Denver too is unbeaten at home and should both teams get that far have to play at New England where we don't do as well.

 

[green73]

Are you saying your team is playing poorly? After the way they beat Detroit today even with a gimpy quarterback? Losing late can help. You recognize you need to make improvements rather than assuming everything you are doing is great. Denver was embarassed at Cinci just Monday night and blew the Raiders out of the water today. ("yeah, but that was the Raiders"- Raiders who beat the 49ers, KC, and Buffalo three of five before facing Denver). I think it is the idea of playing at Seattle which scares you. I understand that. Denver too is unbeaten at home and should both teams get that far have to play at New England where we don't do as well.

Well, my original point was that, after the New England win, I knew they had to win out to secure home-field advantage. I should have been more clear.

I'm not saying they're playing poorly. I am worried they may have peaked four weeks ago. Hopefully I'm wrong, and they really get their shit together for the playoffs. And, yes, my whole focus this season was on them not having to go to Seattle or anywhere else for that matter in the playoffs, from week #1.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Looks like Green Bay will host winner of Dallas/ Detroit game. Seattle gets winner of Arizona/ Carolina. http://www.nflplayoffsbracket.com/2015/index.php

 

[brandon]

I don't think I ever heard anyone seriously complain about getting the 2nd seed before.... and insult a team that didnt make the playoffs at all in the same sentence. managed to be both an ungracious winner and a sore loser at the same time wow lol

 

[green73]

I don't think I ever heard anyone seriously complain about getting the 2nd seed before.... and insult a team that didnt make the playoffs at all in the same sentence. managed to be both an ungracious winner and a sore loser at the same time wow lol

Gosh, it really matters a lot to me what you think.

 

[Origanalist]

I don't think I ever heard anyone seriously complain about getting the 2nd seed before.... and insult a team that didnt make the playoffs at all in the same sentence. managed to be both an ungracious winner and a sore loser at the same time wow lol

It's all that cheese, he's just constipated.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I don't think I ever heard anyone seriously complain about getting the 2nd seed before.... and insult a team that didnt make the playoffs at all in the same sentence. managed to be both an ungracious winner and a sore loser at the same time wow lol

I understand green's point. It makes a big difference in the end if #2 has to go to #1's house to play the NFC Championship. I just hope it doesn't come to that for my own personal reasons.

 

[devil21]

The rankings don't take into account when you won or lost games- only how many and in case of ties, who you lost to. Again, what matters is what you do from here on out. Home field is no guarantee of success.

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/visuals/post/_/id/10921/graphic-which-nfl-playoff-seeds-succeed

That makes 74 #1 seeds with 20 winning the Super Bowl. Another 20 lost in the Super Bowl which leaves 34 or about a third not even getting to the big game.



Note that the Packers won a title despite being a #6 seed.

Come on. It's funny when Zippy posts a chart of nfl playoffs but doesn't know which division the teams are in.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Wow a win only cost us 1 spot in the draft. With our strength of schedule we would've had the 14th pick at 7-9 instead of 15th at 8-8. You're welcome Dolphins.

Harbaugh to Miami? Lol. They tried to get him before.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Called it. See the trend yet? Panthers win in a blowout to be ushered into the playoffs. Taxpayers sure will feel like winners even though they're paying higher sales taxes and their publicly owned Convention Center development fund was looted to pay for upgrades to a privately owned stadium! Go team!

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...ers-bank-of-america-stadium.html#.VKCfLv9DkJE

Follow the money. If you're a betting type, next season check to see which teams are receiving, or are about to receive, a windfall of local taxpayer money for stadium upgrades. You will have a good chance of correctly betting before the season starts on which teams will be playoff teams, aside from the usual perennial contenders like NE, DEN, SEA.

Ill go on a limb now and predict the Browns as a playoff team next year based on this trend. Chargers and Rams also.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...an-new-stadium-remaining-protective-la-market

Well the Chargers have been trying to get a new stadium for 14 years. I'd bet on teams that get the new stadium deals, not the teams seeking them. Chargers and Rams may both be in LA in 2016. I will have to look into the Browns though.

 

[devil21]

Well the Chargers have been trying to get a new stadium for 14 years. I'd bet on teams that get the new stadium deals, not the teams seeking them. Chargers and Rams may both be in LA in 2016. I will have to look into the Browns though.

I completely agree that just wanting a new stadium or upgrades isn't enough. It's completely dependent on a deal being signed. I'd bet on them as a playoff team next year if they get a deal with taxpayer largesse during the offseason. I think they will get one but that's just speculation based on following the similar methods used by other teams (mainly threatening to move the team if demands aren't met). Regardless, it's a very solid starting point to figuring out who the anointed teams for the season are.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Well the Chargers have been trying to get a new stadium for 14 years. I'd bet on teams that get the new stadium deals, not the teams seeking them. Chargers and Rams may both be in LA in 2016. I will have to look into the Browns though.

LA doesn't have a stadium to use for NFL teams. Another place they have proposed building a new one. Chargers are looking at a possible ballot issue in 2016 though so maybe next year's Super Bowl? (gonna take a lot of improvement to get there). If they pay a few billion, they are free to opt out of their contract with Qualcom/ the city at the end of a season. They have not taken that the last two (including this year). Chargers don't always sell out their home games now. Several went to the last minute to get the television blackout lifted.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I completely agree that just wanting a new stadium or upgrades isn't enough. It's completely dependent on a deal being signed. I'd bet on them as a playoff team next year if they get a deal with taxpayer largesse during the offseason. I think they will get one but that's just speculation based on following the similar methods used by other teams (mainly threatening to move the team if demands aren't met). Regardless, it's a very solid starting point to figuring out who the anointed teams for the season are.

Agreed. The worst part honestly to me is when the taxpayers vote for and pay for 100% privately owned stadiums. Not a dime of revenue from the place will benefit them a bit.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

LA doesn't have a stadium to use for NFL teams. Another place they have proposed building a new one. Chargers are looking at a possible ballot issue in 2016 though so maybe next year's Super Bowl? (gonna take a lot of improvement to get there). If they pay a few billion, they are free to opt out of their contract with Qualcom/ the city at the end of a season. They have not taken that the last two (including this year). Chargers don't always sell out their home games now. Several went to the last minute to get the television blackout lifted.

Its the NFL I'd they said yes to an LA team the Coliseum or whatever need be would be renevated in the offseason with a new stadium built in time for the next.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Chargers move to LA. It's weird the NFL hasn't coerced a team into that huge market yet.

 

[devil21]

Its the NFL I'd they said yes to an LA team the Coliseum or whatever need be would be renevated in the offseason with a new stadium built in time for the next.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Chargers move to LA. It's weird the NFL hasn't coerced a team into that huge market yet.

There have been LA football teams. Raiders and Rams and Chargers. They all left. The question is why can't LA keep a team? Ironically, all three teams are rumored to be interested in moving back. Sounds like owners are just using that threat as leverage.

The Panthers owner used that threat. It was a stupid threat imo because he owns the stadium. What's he going to do? Pick it up and move it?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

There have been LA football teams. Raiders and Rams and Chargers. They all left. The question is why can't LA keep a team? Ironically, all three teams are rumored to be interested in moving back. Sounds like owners are just using that threat as leverage.

The Panthers owner used that threat. It was a stupid threat imo because he owns the stadium. What's he going to do? Pick it up and move it?

I read recently that Mark Davis said the Raiders won't move. Of course that's all fluff til they ink a deal in Oakland.

Wow that is a stupid threat. I would've called his bluff.