Bradford’s receivers are failing him pretty spectacularly. He’s had so many spot on balls that haven’t been caught - lots of game changing stuff.
I’m a Pack fan and I’ll second this. Much… (cough cough) respect to the Bears for playing to win in what was a meaningless game for them.
As for the playoffs, I’m not putting any $$ on the Pack. They can beat anyone or get blown out by anyone. I think their total lack of a running game will doom them at some point.
Pffff, it’s been over a month since Philly had impressive victory.
Could the Rams have stunk up the place any more? Now the 7-9 Seahawks make the playoffs and get a home game.
I think they can lose to anyone, but they haven’t been blown out all year. Off the top of my head their biggest loss is 4 points.
As much as I was happy to see the Seahawks win and partially vindicate my fantasy season, they’ve no business at all going to the playoffs. Much less hosting one of the games. I’m OK with a “you must win at least 9” rule for playoff eligibility, otherwise your slot goes to the highest ranking wild card team. And awarding home games just because you won your pathetic four team division is especially rank.
Meh, what if you only have five teams with winning records in the conference? Starting bringing in teams from the other conference?
What would be the point of having divisions if winning one didn’t get you into the playoffs?
Seattle won their division, therefore they deserve to be in the playoffs and to host the first round. That’s the prize for winning the division.
As annoyed as I am about 7-9 time making it to the playoffs. That’s just the way the game goes. If you want to get in the playoffs for sure, you have to win your division, otherwise it’s the best of the rest. And considering that this is the first time this has happened in however many years, I doubt a rule change is in order.
Packers ensured he would have a long time to rehab. Still pissed it came down to this for the Gints.
Wonky thing about the new draft rules and order with this years records:
One win dropped the Seahawks at least 12 places in the draft.
Let us not forget - they did this without their franchise QB.
If Stafford can stay unbroken next year (for the record, I’m doubtful), a playoff berth seems very possible, if not likely.
mmm
That makes it two weeks in a row that a Packers win stopped the Giants from getting into the playoffs, which makes the fact that I have to go and root my ass off for them next week all the more galling.
I’m glad that the Bears put up a fight instead of just lying down. I think it will serve them well going into the playoffs and I’ll be rooting for them to beat the Saints.
No. They can’t get blown out by anyone. The six games they’ve lost have been by a total of 21 points, with no single loss coming by more than 4 points. They’ve never been “blown out” of any game this season.
They are second in the league (Patriots) in point differential, 2nd in the league (Steelers) in points allowed, and top 10 in offensive scoring and yardage.
Hasn’t so far. The Eagles game is a concern, but Atlanta and the Saints (the frontrunners against whom they might play), are both dome teams so I don’t think weather will be a huge factor (it could be if the Bears win, though).
I think the biggest issue the Packers face is lowering misstakes. The Falcons, the Patsies, the Stillers, the Bears, are all very good at limiting mistakes; the Packers, however, aren’t the most disciplined team in the league. Penalties, dropped passes, coverage breakdowns, red zone turnovers, and poor special teams have all been huge reasons the Packers have lost. If they can minimize the mistakes, I think they have a fair shot at the Super Bowl, especially the way Capers has that defense going.
I was rooting for the Seahawks specifically so we’d get this 7-9 situation because I think it will, or at least should, force the NFL to re-evaluate at least the seeding. I’m okay with a division winner getting in the playoffs over a non-division winner with a better record, but I’m not okay with a team with a losing record hosting a play-off game. At the very least I’d like to see division winners required to have a winning record to get a guaranteed 3 or 4 seed, or maybe even giving general seeding based on record but have winning your division trump any other tie-breakers.
Or, maybe, divisions altogether need to be reconsidered as I’m not sure they really serve the purpose that they’re supposed to. They’ve done a pretty good job of achieving parity, but because of that, it means we end up with some very strange seedings in the playoffs because of how the randomness works in with such small clumps. When there were more wildcards and larger divisions, we rarely saw situations where the team hosting in the first round had a worse record; now we see it often.
Whoa there, tiger. Not with that secondary.
This has always been the risk with four team divisions, which is (IMHO, of course) a stupid system.
ETA: A playoff berth seems likely for a team in a division which sent two teams to the playoffs this year? What are you smoking? Stafford wasn’t any better than Shaun Hill when he played this year and probably won’t be much better next year either.
I’d disagree. Shaun Hill is a more than capable backup, but Matt Stafford, when he was healthy, made a decent step up this year. Stafford looked okay with flashes of being safely above average last year. This year, when healthy, he looked really good at times. They can run the offense the way they want to through Stafford, and through Hill as well, I’d bet.
By the way, Kevin Smith led the league in rushing yards again.
He had to fight Jerome Harrison for that honor though.
Stafford only played in three games this year. I don’t think we can reliably conclude anything yet except that he’s injury prone.