Thank you!! Call him the Brees / He can throw the Pick Sixes… 
Sing it, DOPERS!!
Do they “reseed” the playoffs after next week? To wit, if, say, the Packers and Saints were to win their games, would the Saints, 6th, move past the Packers, currently 4th?
Going into the Bears-Packers game I was feeling pretty good about the Bears chances against the 49ers. Felt like a good matchup at home in the elements. I’m less sure about the Packers chances, but I can’t put my finger on why. The Bears feel like an underachiever while the Packers feel like an overachiever I guess.
It’s Saints +2.5.
Conventional wisdom says the oddmakers think the Saints are a half point better than the Eagles on a neutral field, but I bet that’d be closer to a 3 point favorite in a dome and even or worse in the cold.
That’s a long way of me saying that I think it’s going to be a close game and the Eagles + weather keep Brees in check. Ultimately, another disappointing playoff outcome for the Saints I think.
No. As the 6 seed, it is not possible for the Saints to host a playoff game. The Packers could potentially host the Saints for the NFC Championship, I think…
I realize that WCs cannot host games unless they are they only two teams left. What I want to know is how the following week would go in the case I described. By seeding, the Saints would go to Seattle, but by record, the Packers would. Which way would they work it?
Yes, the NFL reseeds it’s bracket after the wildcard round. However, this reseeding is done by original seed, not by record.
The Seahawks will face the lowest seeded team left. If the Saints win, they face the Seahawks in round 2 no matter what. If the Eagles win, they face the Panthers no matter what.
The winner of the Packers-Niners game’s destination will be determined by the winner of the Eagles-Saints game.
I’m still shocked by the errant touchdown Green Bay got while no one (including half of the GB offense) realized there was a live ball! Although, Rodgers coming up with the five or six yard run to seal it was phenomenal. Bears had that one. (Yikes!)
Also, STILL as an Eagle fan, Orton played great. He can read a defense (even a silly one like my team) and make the points. As good as Kyle was, Foles RULES!
Anyhow, now it’s Dear NO Saints. We cordially invite you to play at the Lincoln Financial Center thus Saturday for a football match. Please enjoy our local weather. 
Football tip of the day: Unless the play is whistled dead, run for the end zone.
Brian
A rule which dates to a much earlier Bears-Packers game, the Don Majkowski fiasco of 1989. Majkowski threw a fourth-down game-winning TD pass with his body mostly behind the line but his arm in front. Under the rules of the time it was correctly flagged as an illegal forward pass on the field, but overturned by replay. Afterward the NFL decided, if we’re going to call it that way anyway, we ought to change the rule.
Just ask Ditka, he’ll tell you all about that.
I’m late to this particular party, but I just wanted to go on record to say that Mike McCarthy’s decision to kick the extra point when down 2 with 11 minutes left in the game was just fucking brain-dead. At that point in the game the one point literally doesn’t help you at all. Yes, it comes into play if Chicago scores a TD, but in that scenario you’d be down by 8 and would *still *need to try for that 2-point conversion you’re apparently scared of.
And even aside from that, Chicago’s got a crap defense and GB has a really good offense, AND even if it was earlier in the game and there were more score permutations that could bring that 1 point into play, they still should have gone for two because the expected value is about the same and that second point is a lot more valuable then the first when trailing by 2.
NFL coaches, as a group, really suck at a few things.
Actually, they’d be down 9, a guaranteed 2 possession deficit. But I absolutely agree - with 11 minutes left (and having had good success running the ball), you go for 2 there. You go for 2 there pretty confidently, in fact.
I don’t think it is obvious either way. Eleven minutes is a long time and if you don’t convert, as Munch mentioned, you risk putting yourself two scores down. By going for the single XP you aill always at least stay within a single score. In fact if you go to this win probability calculator the Packers win 48% of the time if they convert 2, 42% of the time if they convert 1, and 37% of the time if they convert 0. Given a 50/50 on the 2-pt conversion it is basically a push on whether to go for 1 or 2.
Just for the record, the factoid was wrong–there is not and never has been any special rule for 0-0 ties. They go into overtime like any other tie.
Another near occurrence occurred in 1982, in the infamous snowplow game in New England. Afterwards the NFL banned snowplows for field goal clearance, so now players paw at the ground with their feet instead.
If the Bears had made one more defensive stop, that decision is all anybody would be talking about today.
I usually agree with Bill Barnwell on these issues. Here’s how he saw it:
That chart is ten years old. I will rely on the more up-to-date folks at ADvanced NFL Stats:
A couple of things, #1 I am not sure what he means by the 2 FGs, 12 TD scenario, that is not the prevailing scenario. Also, Lacy was not in fact running well against the Bears. I am not saying he shouldn’t have gone for it, I just don’t think it is nearly as bad a decision as others do.
I’m saying that the only way the PAT comes into play is if Chicago scores a TD. But if Chicago is to score a TD, you need both a PAT and 2 point conversion, and the order doesn’t particularly matter. Hence, even in the event that Chicago scores a touchdown, going for 1 doesn’t help you: it only delays your 2 point conversion attempt.
But if you go for 2 and don’t make it and then Chicago scores and gets the XP you are down 9, you need a TD, XP and a FG, you need two possessions and a stop in between them. It is a close thing, not at all obvious what to do. I generally am more than happy to question McCarthy’s playcalling, when he throws the red flag, etc. but in this case I think his decision may not that bad.
That’s the scenario where kicking the point helps the Packers.
Say they had gone for two and missed. (Chi 28-26). The Bears take the ensuing kickoff and drive for a FG. (Chi 31-26). Then GB drives for the TD with a minute left, as they did. Now it’s 32-31. They can kick and make it 33-31. But they want 34-31–in other words, they wish now that they had the point they passed up earlier. To make up, they’ll have to go for two again.
But for that scenario to occur, and matter, three drives in a row have to fall the right way–Chi FG, GB TD, Chi FG.
I will say this–as a Bears fan, I was surprised and happy that GB went for one. I’m still surprised, but I didn’t stay happy for long.