Random NFL talk

[Battlelyon]

Funny part of those great teams that failed is that 9 of those 10 teams had HOF QBs. 1 of them had Goff.

We put a lot in stock in point differential in the past

 

[Clayton]

We put a lot in stock in point differential in the past

Its why people like to put that Patriots team that lost to the Giants as one of the all time greats even though their playoff run wouldn't suggest that at all.

I dont put too much stock in that side of things. I do think the Mahomes getting blown out this year in the Super Bowl really makes you look at this years Chiefs point differential and go 'yeah, someone should have beaten the Chiefs before the Super Bowl' but Im not sure how useful it is when looking at the greats.

In some ways, I think the 2001 Rams are better than the 1999 Rams. In 01 the Rams had a tougher schedule and still went into the SB as a huge favorite.

 

[Battlelyon]

Reminder NFC North won zero postseason games last season.

Stupid proposal from a fluke year.

 

[Battlelyon]

 

[fightinfunbags]

Reminder NFC North won zero postseason games last season.

Stupid proposal from a fluke year.

I actually like this proposal. I don’t see the big value in being a division winner if your division was a dog shit division. I don’t want to take away their playoff spot but they should be seeded based on their records without division winners being involved. If you want to make “division winner” the first tie breaker I would support that.

 

[Battlelyon]

I actually like this proposal. I don’t see the big value in being a division winner if your division was a dog shit division. I don’t want to take away their playoff spot but they should be seeded based on their records without division winners being involved. If you want to make “division winner” the first tie breaker I would support that.

Fuck that, it has alresdy ruined the NBA. Win your division, if you're worth anything win a postseason gsme.

Whdt hsppened last year in the NFC North last year was a fluke season, a division thst benefited from playing two bad divisions. They didn't win one postseason game. An argument would of been better, if they did something. But they were mostly non-competitive.

 

[fightinfunbags]

Fuck that, it has alresdy ruined the NBA. Win your division, if you're worth anything win a postseason gsme.

Whdt hsppened last year in the NFC North last year was a fluke season, a division thst benefited from playing two bad divisions. They didn't win one postseason game. An argument would have been better, if they did something. But they were mostly non-competitive.

I think you may be putting too much weight on a single year. I’m thinking about the fact that seemingly every year there is at least one dog shit division and some times a dog shit division in each conference.

 

[fastforward]

I'd be ok with boosting division winners' record for seeding purposes and then seeding by adjusted record, but that would be more complicated than some fans can handle. If it has to be a simple principle of seeding division winners 1st or purely going by record then i'd keep it as division winners.

 

[Battlelyon]

Legendary agent

 

[Battlelyon]

Lol

 

[shopson67]

I actually like this proposal. I don’t see the big value in being a division winner if your division was a dog shit division. I don’t want to take away their playoff spot but they should be seeded based on their records without division winners being involved. If you want to make “division winner” the first tie breaker I would support that.

I don't think the proposal is based on anything level-headed though. Lions just didn't like getting matched up against a hot team. The Lions were a wounded team, at most changing the initial matchup gets them knocked out one week later.

 

[Tainthappening]

 

[broncosmitty]

Lol

We had the #2 DB in penalties last year. Then went and added the only guy with more. (If the internet didn’t lie to me)

 

[broncosmitty]

I don't think the proposal is based on anything level-headed though. Lions just didn't like getting matched up against a hot team. The Lions were a wounded team, at most changing the initial matchup gets them knocked out one week later.

Or Detroit thinks they go 13-4 and don’t win the North next season.

 

[Lake Shore Drive]

A bit off topic here, but has SportsHoopla in general been slow at times for some of you lately? Maybe it's my puter, but it seems to be a bit sluggish of late.

 

[Xeliou66]

A bit off topic here, but has SportsHoopla in general been slow at times for some of you lately? Maybe it's my puter, but it seems to be a bit sluggish of late.

Yep, it’s loading very slowly for me today.

 

[PhilSimms11]

Fuck that...it has already ruined the NBA. Win your division. If you're worth anything win a postseason game.

What happened last year in the NFC North last year was a fluke season, a division that benefited from playing two bad divisions. They didn't win one postseason game. An argument would have been better if they did something. But, they were mostly non-competitive.

How has it ruined the NBA? Teams are seeded accordingly. Let's look at the 2018-19 season before Covid and that dumb 4-team play-in thing for seeds 7-8.

(1)MIL (60-22)*
(2)TOR (58-24)*
(3)PHI (51-31)
(4)BOS (49-33)
(5)IND (48-34)
(6)BKN (42-40)
(7)ORL (42-40)*
(8)DET (41-41)

(1)GS (57-25)*
(2)DEN (54-28)*
(3)POR (53-29)
(4)HOU (53-29)*
(5)UTA (50-32)
(6)OKC (49-33)
(7)SA (48-34)
(8)LAC (48-34)
*won division

What's wrong with this format? Are you suggesting ORL should be the 3-seed...with a 42-40 record? That's what would "ruin" the NBA. I gotta give them some love, however...they do it the right way...thanks to the 2006 NBA Playoffs...SA (63-19) was the 1-seed and DAL (60-22) was the 4-seed. It was changed the following season and as far as I know it didn't take any damn 24 votes from league owners to get it done.

 

[PDay8810]

How has it ruined the NBA? Teams are seeded accordingly. Let's look at the 2018-19 season before Covid and that dumb 4-team play-in thing for seeds 7-8.

(1)MIL (60-22)*
(2)TOR (58-24)*
(3)PHI (51-31)
(4)BOS (49-33)
(5)IND (48-34)
(6)BKN (42-40)
(7)ORL (42-40)*
(8)DET (41-41)

(1)GS (57-25)*
(2)DEN (54-28)*
(3)POR (53-29)
(4)HOU (53-29)*
(5)UTA (50-32)
(6)OKC (49-33)
(7)SA (48-34)
(8)LAC (48-34)
*won division

What's wrong with this format? Are you suggesting ORL should be the 3-seed...with a 42-40 record? That's what would "ruin" the NBA. I gotta give them some love, however...they do it the right way...thanks to the 2006 NBA Playoffs...SA (63-19) was the 1-seed and DAL (60-22) was the 4-seed. It was changed the following season and as far as I know it didn't take any damn 24 votes from league owners to get it done.

welcome to your topic phil. I thought you'd jump in. I think it's time to consider this as long as all division winners get a spot in the tournament.

 

[PhilSimms11]

Welcome to your topic, Phil. I thought you'd jump in. I think it's time to consider this as long as all division winners get a spot in the tournament.

Wait...are you saying you'd be in favor of this...?
(1)KC (15-2)*
(2)BUF (13-4)*
(3)BAL (12-5)*
(4)LAC (11-6)
(5)HOU (10-7)*
(6)PIT (10-7)
(7)DEN (10-7)

(1)DET (15-2)*
(2)PHI (14-3)*
(3)MIN (14-3)
(4)WAS (12-5)
(5)GB (11-6)
(6)TB (10-7)*
(7)LAR (10-7)*
*won division

 

[PDay8810]

Wait...are you saying you'd be in favor of this...?
(1)KC (15-2)*
(2)BUF (13-4)*
(3)BAL (12-5)*
(4)LAC (11-6)
(5)HOU (10-7)*
(6)PIT (10-7)
(7)DEN (10-7)

(1)DET (15-2)*
(2)PHI (14-3)*
(3)MIN (14-3)
(4)WAS (12-5)
(5)GB (11-6)
(6)TB (10-7)*
(7)LAR (10-7)*
*won division

yep...big step for me