Agreed. If the Seahawks go on to excel in the playoffs, the debate will be valid.
My not-very-insightful guess is that they’ll struggle on the road (as they did during the regular season). I won some decent money with a bet on them against the Saints, because I thought their performance at home didn’t justify the point spread. Of course, I was thinking more in terms of a close loss than a win (which, but for one of the most amazing runs of the last 10 years or so, is what would have happened).
The debate is already valid. There’s nothing invalid about the debate itself. Are you talking about one particular argument?
You realize that the Seahawks were winning the game before that run, right? There’s no guarantee at all that they would have lost if Lynch hadn’t made that run.
During halftime, I hope Romeo Crennel and the Chiefs at least considered doing something crazy, like covering Todd Heap.
Okay, for valid substitute “possibly meaningful”.
When is there ever any such guarantee? It seemed clear that the Saints were surging in the 4th quarter.
Wow, that was an awful offensive series for KC:
Intentional grounding
Sack
Fumble
I don’t know what the fuck Phil Simms was talking about when he criticized the intentional grounding call. Cassel was clearly in the pocket, and he threw it nowhere near any KC player.
ETA: Then the KC defense has a great series.
It was almost painful listening to him try and justify his position when it was pretty clear. He was making all kinds of excuses “how can they expect to teach the QB to throw it near a receiver to avoid an intentional grounding call” crap, and then just ends with “well, I just think it shouldn’t have been called”.
I don’t think the Chiefs have the talent to overcome 3 turnovers, so they’ll need something really special to happen.
make that: “4 turnovers”
Game over, if it wasn’t already.
The Ravens have been pretty damn impressive in the second half.
Go Ravens!
OK, I am Zero for 3. I am accepting bids to root against your team…
Five
And as usual, the Ravens will be the team no one wants to face in the playoffs. The Pats will be rooting for the Steelers next week.
I agree. I also don’t think the results of one season should be used to dictate the playoff format.
We seem to be in the minority, though. The conventional wisdom for the past week was that a losing team hadn’t earned the right to host a playoff game. Now, all has been forgiven. It seems to me that if you believe the former position, that the better record should host regardless of division, the Saints’ loss adds fuel to the fire. Would the Seahawks have won if the game had been in New Orleans? If the playoff structure is unfair, that unfairness just knocked out a team that should have advanced.
Before anyone jumps on me for picking on the plucky underdog, I was rooting for the Seahawks. I’m not a big sports fan, but that is my hometown. I just think the debate over their place in the playoffs has been logically inconsistent.
I wonder what Gregg Easterbrook will have to say about it.
Go Packers!!!
Just wondering why no penalty was called against the Chiefs player - I didn’t see which one - who was clearly trying to rip off Todd Heap’s helmet during one of the post-play shoving matches. It seemed to me that it was a pretty clear personal foul. However, I will give the referee’s credit - the game didn’t end up as a giant free for all with fights all over the place.
Anyway, off to Pittsburgh. Go Ravens!
I really dislike the Packers.
The kept the Giants out of the playoffs last week.
The kept the Giants out of the playoffs the week before.
However, they’re playing the Scumbirds, so GO PACK GO!!
I’m not too sure about that call on the punt. It sure looked like he was pushed into the ball to me. What exactly is the rule about touching a punt?
This is one of those lose-lose situations but I really don’t feel like listening to Philly fans for another week. I too have, begrudgingly, become a Packers fan for the day.
So far only the Chiefs-Ravens game was a runaway which would not have been my prediction going in.
I just chalked it up as a make-up no-call. The refs (and I say this with ZERO rooting interest in the game) were calling that game like the Chiefs collectively ran over their dogs.
Not sure about the rule, but it looked to me that the Packer player didn’t touch the ball when he was being pushed back.
He stopped, and then began pushing the Eagles player towards the sideline, and that’s when his foot hit the ball.
If he had run into the ball while being pushed backward by the Eagles player, i would agree with you, and indeed that was my first thought, but the replay suggested that he was going forward when he touched the ball.
Either we watched different games, or there’s something wrong with my television.
I’m willing to accept it could have been a matter of timing. I was only half-watching while getting things done around the house. It just seemed like every time I came into the room, the refs were ignoring a pretty blatant hold or some such.