Nothing wrong with that. Isnt the US all about awarding Mediocrity!?!?! Just look at our political system. Hey at least we dont award people who tie like they do in soccer. Then again im a diehard Seahawks fan so maybe im just a little biased about it --If it was someone like the Cowboys who made it on a 7-9 record Id be pissed. I think it makes it even more hysterical that Seattle was disassembled by both the Bucs and the Giants --hah!
- I would love to see an upset for the Ages though...if the Hawks take out the defending Superbowl Champs I might drop a Steamer on my bosses desk at work!
GO HAWKS!
(besides, I beleive the NFL owes the Seattle franchise for this moment below -- provided to you by the idiots who officiated SB 40)
Blimey, Brett Favre must be in his 50's about now! Seems like he has been around forever.
Ah, Wiki says he is 41 - still, that's a decent innings for a professional sportsman, considering most football players over here (that's 'soccer' to you over there!) are pretty much done by 30-35. And that's before you take into account the potential for limb separation that American Football holds!
Unfortunate that a 7-9 team got in, but it's the first time ever and thus not a reason to do away with the importance of divisional play. Perhaps if Eli wasn't so Jekyll and Hyde with his performances, your Giants would be in?
@Element206 -- You guys are still blaming the refs? You can't deny your team played very poorly in that game.
I'd like to say that the Steelers will be hoisting Lombardi #7, but they just match up so poorly with the Pats. Should the Pats lose though, I like my team's chances. Especially if Atlanta advances from the NFC. The Steelers have beaten them already this season without Roethlisberger, and just match up very nicely with them. LeBeau's D chews up basic offenses that don't go pass-wacky and spread them out. And the bye week should help get them healthier than they've been in a long time. Almost can't believe they're 12-4 with all the injuries and issues they've had this year.
I love the playoffs! Here we go, Steelers, here we go!
And it really isn' the NFLs fault that the NFC West (and the AFC West, for that matter) sucked this year. But the #1 team in the division gets in and the Seahawks beat the Rams twice so they get the shot. Vegas is giving the Hawks 75-1 on winning it all, 50-1 on the NFC title, and are giving the Saints an 11 point the spread.... Hmm may have to call my bookie for that game. ( all the others are 3 points favoring Philly, Balti, and Indy)
gorgon wrote:Unfortunate that a 7-9 team got in, but it's the first time ever and thus not a reason to do away with the importance of divisional play. Perhaps if Eli wasn't so Jekyll and Hyde with his performances, your Giants would be in?
@Element206 -- You guys are still blaming the refs? You can't deny your team played very poorly in that game.
I'd like to say that the Steelers will be hoisting Lombardi #7, but they just match up so poorly with the Pats. Should the Pats lose though, I like my team's chances. Especially if Atlanta advances from the NFC. The Steelers have beaten them already this season without Roethlisberger, and just match up very nicely with them. LeBeau's D chews up basic offenses that don't go pass-wacky and spread them out. And the bye week should help get them healthier than they've been in a long time. Almost can't believe they're 12-4 with all the injuries and issues they've had this year.
I love the playoffs! Here we go, Steelers, here we go!
Think what you may...what was Roth's QB rating in that game again? Yeah, I forgot about the spectacular play of the vaunted 05' Steelers team...please. Did you forget the fact that the dubious pass interference call on D Jackson came from the mouth of a Pennsylvania native? Seems like to much of a coincidence to me. Neither team played well, that was the worst SB of the decade.
Oh, and good luck with your "ATTEMPT" at winning #7 -- whats the Steelers record against the Pats, you guys have no chance against them!
The Eagles lost to the Vikings two weeks ago. The Vikings who were playing a 3rd string QB, and who had nothing to play for, already being eliminated, while the Eagles still had a chance to win a 1st round bye.
Vick's taken a beating this last month and doesn't look nearly as good as he did early in the season. And now they get to play the Packers in their first game. That's the same Packers who already beat the Eagles once, and who have one of the best pass rushes in the game.
I don't think the Eagles match up well there. Assuming they win though, they then get to come to Chicago, where the Bears already beat them at home, also using the same basic plan of hit Vick and contain him.
After watching their last four games, I think the Eagles used the last of their magic in that comeback over New York, and it showed versus Minnesota. They're looking beat up.
The Giants were a turnover machine this year - on both sides of the ball
So, in my mind, the playoff picture breaks down like this:
Our QB is mediocre, but we have a great RB and maybe the defense will carry us to the semis: KC, Chi, NYJ
Solid teams with missing pieces. Admirable job making it to the playoffs, but probably won't go far: Indy, NO
Bad matchups for the teams they're playing against: Pitt
Juggernaut teams, barring an upset will probably go to the SB: NE, Atl
Possible upsets in the making: Philly, GB, Bal
Why are you even here: Seattle
Element206 wrote:Think what you may...what was Roth's QB rating in that game again? Yeah, I forgot about the spectacular play of the vaunted 05' Steelers team...please. Did you forget the fact that the dubious pass interference call on D Jackson came from the mouth of a Pennsylvania native? Seems like to much of a coincidence to me. Neither team played well, that was the worst SB of the decade.
Your WR fully extended his arm and pushed off about 10 feet in front of an official. There's all kinds of pushing you can get away with, but fully extending your arm in a pushing motion like that will get you flagged, even if the push itself was minor.
Your defense gave up a SB record TD run. Your safeties were woefully out of position on the flea-flicker TD called at exactly the time and spot on the field that Cowher loved to call one. Your defense couldn't stop Bettis from grinding out first downs at the end of the game when *everyone* knew he was getting the ball. Your defense was so bad that Roethlisberger played probably the worst game of his career -- HS, college and pro -- and the Steelers still put up 21 points.
Jeremy Stevens had what, 3 killer drops, and was clearly intimidated by Joey Porter. Never mind your coaching. Shaun Alexander was the best thing your offense had going that night and your coach didn't give him enough touches.
My team lost a SB too...but that's because they weren't the better team, didn't play well enough and Neil O'Donnell threw two killer picks. Not refereeing conspiracies.
I tend to agree with Redbeard...I think the Eagles may be losing steam and Vick looks to be regressing a bit. They have scary speed on offense, but their defense is very poor. I still think Atlanta is the class of the NFC, but I think Chicago deserves more credit than they've received.
I say it's going to be a Falcons-Ravens superbowl and one of the bird themed teams will win it. I'll pull my usual trick of rooting for the NFC (except NFC East teams) as my beloved Redskins once again failed miserably.
I'd like to see the Packers win the Lombardi, but I think there are just too many good teams (and the Seahawks) in the play-offs to make a prediction, especially as crazy as this year has been.
Looking at the spread of teams in the layoffs this year, I get the feeling this could be a year in which an upset will happen in the AFC. When I look at the Chiefs' style of play, it's conducive for the playoffs. Much more than they have had in the last 10 years. They play solid D, have a good running game with the most explosive runner in the League (Jamaal Charles), a pretty good group of receivers, a solid QB and young playmakers in their Secondary that are big time players. Watch out for the Chiefs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let SB 40 go, it was five years ago. Maybe it was poorly officiated, but it cannot be retroactively changed now.
I dunno, I have a hard time seeing anyone upsetting the Pats, especially with home field throughout. Brady's been the best QB in the game this year, and QB play is what wins in the playoffs.
Although they have obviously failed before as the odds-on favorite, and seem to perform better when they're playing the everyone-disrespects-us card. So who knows? That's what makes it fun. There's no 7-game series...lose one and you're done.
gorgon wrote:... but I think Chicago deserves more credit than they've received.
Speaking as a Bears season ticket holder, I think the Bears deserve exactly the credit they have gotten, and no more. We have had a good year, and our team has visibly improved from the early weeks of the season, but we're by no means a superbowl team, as much as I'd like us to be. Our defense is vulnerable to a disciplined offense and/or excellent QB play, as evidenced by our loss to the Pats. And, our offensive line is the worst of any playoff team I've ever seen, and that's including the improvements made throughout the season. I'm thrilled that we're hosting a playoff game, and I know we have a shot to win at home against any of the NFC teams left in the game, but I'm not deluding myself, we'll be lucky to make it to the big game, and even luckier if we win it.
That said, sometimes it is better to be lucky than good
Vick is a decent quarterback but pressure him and he crumbles. Back when he was a Falcon the Bucs had their number no matter how the rest of their season was going because they pressured Vick and didn't let up.
Given that the Bucs didn't make it I'll have to root for the Packers.
We'll see what happens. Hopefully New England will pick up their offense against the Pack(NE almost lost to a second string quarterback). As far as the Pack going to the superbowl, its possible but we'll have to see what happens.
If the past is any indicator of what will happen in the future, Eagles will be no problem.
God Clay Matthews is a beast.
Besides, we all know that the Packers are a great team. They did lose to the lions after all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as teams going into the playoffs it depends on two types of records, divisional and conference.
As an exampe I'll use the bears, etc.
Bears, Packers, Lions, and Vikings are in a division.
The Bears record is 11-5 with the Pack at 10-6. However, they first take a look at how the teams did against teams in the same division. In terms of that the Packers and bears are tied with each other.
So if the Giants were tied in a division, but the loss to the Packers caused them to drop overall compared to the other tied team that's how it happened.
As far as a 7-9 team getting in, its possible. The raiders and them kind of sucked really bad.
Monster Rain wrote:They are looking so strong these days, I can't imagine any Id these teams beating them.
That's what they said in 2007 too. 18-1...
Didn't they sit Brady out for that game?
As the game in question was the freaking Superbowl, I'm guessing Brady didn't sit...
Now, the NFL has published the list of opponents for each team for the 2011 season (assuming there is one) and how it breaks down as Home/Road games. See this page for details.
As a Redskins fan, I see he NFC East gets to match up with the AFC East & NFC West as scheduled opposing divisions, plus the usual NFC East games of course. And the two 'parity ' games, the 'Skins get to play are @ Carolina and vs. Minnesota. As I said at another site, looks like the team The Danny "built" is going 5-11 in 2011.
There was one team that was undefeated up to the final game of the regular season. Instead of going for an undefeated record they sat out their quarterback and lost the final game which annoyed a lot of fans. Thought it was the patriots, but it could've been the colts.
gorgon wrote:... but I think Chicago deserves more credit than they've received.
Speaking as a Bears season ticket holder, I think the Bears deserve exactly the credit they have gotten, and no more. We have had a good year, and our team has visibly improved from the early weeks of the season, but we're by no means a superbowl team, as much as I'd like us to be. Our defense is vulnerable to a disciplined offense and/or excellent QB play, as evidenced by our loss to the Pats. And, our offensive line is the worst of any playoff team I've ever seen, and that's including the improvements made throughout the season. I'm thrilled that we're hosting a playoff game, and I know we have a shot to win at home against any of the NFC teams left in the game, but I'm not deluding myself, we'll be lucky to make it to the big game, and even luckier if we win it.
That said, sometimes it is better to be lucky than good
Bad o-line? The Steelers' o-line circa 2008 might give them a run for the money, and all that team did is win the Super Bowl, lol. Don't sell your team too short. Winning is winning, and everyone -- especially this year -- has flaws, many of them glaring. Even NE.
chaplaingrabthar wrote:Now, the NFL has published the list of opponents for each team for the 2011 season (assuming there is one) and how it breaks down as Home/Road games. See this page for details.
As a Redskins fan, I see he NFC East gets to match up with the AFC East & NFC West as scheduled opposing divisions, plus the usual NFC East games of course. And the two 'parity ' games, the 'Skins get to play are @ Carolina and vs. Minnesota. As I said at another site, looks like the team The Danny "built" is going 5-11 in 2011.
As an Eagles fan, you have my sympathy.
Seriously though, The NFC West is the division that is sending a 7-9 team to the playoffs, Frisco is going to have a new coaching staff, so there will be kinks to work out there, Arizona need so much that this will be a rebuilding year for them (look for them to trade what talent they have for picks.), and Seattle has always been mediocre. The team in the NFC west to watch is St Louis: Bradford could be a beast with all the rookie talent on that team getting better next season.
The Patriots will probably win the AFC, though I wouldn't eliminate the possibility of Baltimore knocking them out.
I think that, if the Jets can beat Indianapolis, they will have a good chance at knocking off Pittsburgh; though they will then be demolished by New England.
The Saints vs. Atlanta game is a toss-up in my opinion. Both teams have shown significant flashes of mediocrity, and they split the season series in two very close games.
In all likelihood the Bears will face the Packers. I think that the Bears are a better team on paper (meaning that they have favorable match-ups against more teams currently in the playoffs), with a stronger secondary and linebacker corps, plus a defensive line that is nearly as good as Green Bay's. Offensively they also match-up well, with the Bears edging the upper hand in the running back department, but losing out (slightly) in terms of quarterback play. The biggest concern for Chicago, as illustrated last week, will be the discrepancy between their, at best, mediocre offensive line and Green Bay's above average to excellent front 7. If I had to guess, I would say that the game will be decided on the Bears' offense's ability to convert on turnovers (or the Packers' ability to prevent them), and Green Bay's ability to keep the ball away from the Bears' kick returners.
In terms of the NFC title, its a very difficult call as the only direct match-up this year came between Green Bay and Atlanta, which was a narrow Falcon's victory. Based on that, and the tight contests between the Saints and the Falcons, I think its fair to say that, no matter who plays, it will be a close game. That said, I give the edge to both the Packers and the Bears in either match-up due to the relatively weak defenses of both the Saints and the Falcons.
Bah... Clay Matthews can be controlled. Mike Vick is a more mobile QB than Kolb. And the Eagles lost that game by 7, with Vick replacing Kolb at the start of the second half. With Vick starting this game, things should be different. And never discount Akers' foot....
Eagles by 3.
As long as the Saints don't win it's a good year. I'm tired of the " a hurricane hit a bunch of people who live at or below sea level who did little or nothing to help themselves so a sports team comprised of people mostly not from that state but representing that state in kind of an abstract way deserve to win our sporting competition" talk.
Upsets are always exciting, and I've had a soft spot for the Seahawks since living there in the 90s.
Bromsy wrote: I'm tired of the " a hurricane hit a bunch of people who live at or below sea level who did little or nothing to help themselves...
You know that at least one regular here is from New Orleans, right? I'm sure if you lived in New Orleans you could have stopped the hurricane and saved everyone's houses. Too bad you didn't feel like driving down and giving them a hand.
I was working for the emergency assistance company for several of the cruise lines when Katrina hit. That Sunday (the day before it made landfall) I got a call from a little old grandmother in the French Quarter, trying to let them know that she wouldn't be able to make her departure. I tried to talk her into leaving her house and evacuating, at least to a larger building like a hotel or something, but I couldn't get her to. I had her address, and I looked up the local emergency center, and called them to ask them to go get her. They told me that they didn't have enough people to send, and were no longer able to respond to those kind of requests. I checked the map for the flooding later, and her street was indeed flooded. I still have no idea whether she lived or died.
Okay, my opinions either way on the residents of Nawleans were hardly the germane part of that comment; I'm just sick of the ridiculous pandering nonsense. It'd be the same if my beloved Packers won the superbowl and everyone spent the next year talking about how they deserved to win because in 2001 cheese and dairy prices were down across the US. That said, I wasn't really sure of the context of yer winky eye orkmoticon, so ... cheers?
Okay, I just saw yer edit, and have to assume you were serious, to which I would respond that none of that has anything to do with football of any sort. If you would like to discuss the relative merits of people living at or below sea level then by all means start a thread, but nothing that you posted relates to "American Football Play-Offs!". whereas my comments were directly related to the drivel spouted by announcers of that sport earlier in the season.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whoops, sorry thought you were gettin' mad. Apologies
Automatically Appended Next Post: ... and Cheers again
As a Pats fan, I don't which I'd rather see win- the Steelers or the Ravens. I think the Steelers would be easier to beat, but the Ravens would make for a more exciting game.
Overall I like the Steelers more than the Ravens though. Polamalu and Hines Ward are two of my favorite players in the league.
The Ravens made it look easy last weekend, but they're stepping up in class this week. The Steelers certainly aren't going to go out as shamefully as the Chiefs. I turned off that game at the end of the 3rd quarter...couldn't stand watching a team quit and lie down like that.
Kudos to the Seahawks...just another example of "any given Sunday (Saturday?)." Think it's midnight for Cinderella this weekend, though.
@Mannahnin -- The Pats certainly deserve to be the favorite the rest of the way. They look a lot like Belichick's early Pats teams...lots of castoffs and young players held together by Belichick and Brady's brilliance. Not much anyone can do about Belichick short of hiring a hit man, so it kinda all comes down to whether you can get Brady off his game. Which isn't easy to do given that the o-line happens to be the second best unit on the team after the starting QB.
Honestly, And this is coming from an Eagles Fan, Philadelphia didn't deserve to win. They're play was lackluster, they made huge mistakes, missed tackles, and were just clearly outplayed.
Part of the blame goes directly to the defensive co-ordinator, Sean McDermot. Prior to this last two seasons, teams against the Eagles scored on only 44% of the time when in the red zone (the final 20 yards before the goalline). This year opposing teams scored 77% of the time. That falls totally on the DC's shoulders.
Injuries didn't help much but the lack of quality in the depth they had made things worse.
As for the Seattle/New Orleans game..... I SO wanted to put money on that one, the Vegas line was Saints by 11..... Major payout on a Seahawks win.
Looking forward to the Balti/Pitts and Pats/Jets games... Division rivals that split during the season..... And the winners get to play whats left of each other.
I think the Falcons/Packers game will be a good one, but Seattle at Chicago..... sleeper.
I'm not an Eagles fan, but I live in Eagles country. My $0.02 is that the Eagles need an overhaul on D, both with philosophy and personnel. Jim Johnson was somehow able to make 250 lb DL and mediocre LBs work (a dominant secondary helped), but the wizard is gone and the front seven just aren't any good. The secondary has also taken a couple steps back from their mid-2000s teams.
Of the teams left, i would LIKE to see the Seahawks and Steelers rematch in the Superbowl.. with the same outcome (even though i originate from the Pacific Northwest)
I never have liked the Eagles, especially with Vick, who i maintain is NOT a real quarterback, but rather a running back who can kinda throw. I also HATE the patriots, most especially due to the "Tuck Rule" (i know that the people who know about that will know who my fave nfl team is)
@helgrenze, i think that both of the NFC games will be exciting, considering that Chicago and Seattle met earlier in the year for a great game that was very close, so i can only hope for another one.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I never have liked the Eagles, especially with Vick, who i maintain is NOT a real quarterback, but rather a running back who can kinda throw. I also HATE the patriots, most especially due to the "Tuck Rule" (i know that the people who know about that will know who my fave nfl team is)
I don't like Vick either, but I respect my rivals. The "RB" moniker on Vick was very fitting when he was in Atlanta, but I think he may have put that behind him. He had the fourth highest QB rating in the league, and the only starting QB's to throw less INTs were Big Ben and Brady. He doesn't get the passing yards that a lot of other QBs do, and he can be a little streaky, but you can tell that the discipline he's bringing to the table now is improving his game.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I never have liked the Eagles, especially with Vick, who i maintain is NOT a real quarterback, but rather a running back who can kinda throw. I also HATE the patriots, most especially due to the "Tuck Rule" (i know that the people who know about that will know who my fave nfl team is)
I don't like Vick either, but I respect my rivals. The "RB" moniker on Vick was very fitting when he was in Atlanta, but I think he may have put that behind him. He had the fourth highest QB rating in the league, and the only starting QB's to throw less INTs were Big Ben and Brady. He doesn't get the passing yards that a lot of other QBs do, and he can be a little streaky, but you can tell that the discipline he's bringing to the table now is improving his game.
seems the time off from the game helped him some, but obviously not enough in the smarts department.. Considering he fairly recently made a comment about wanting to own a dog again. Its too bad other quarterbacks get less coverage and renown for their playing skill.. quarterbacks like Brett Favre jk.
Espn did a good video about just how good vick can be. I went from being a hater to "wow he can do alot." he can do a 180 in under half a sec and get the ball off faster than most QBs, his throwing speed is over 65. His arm is so strong he was drafted by a baseball team in 2002. His speed speaks for himself.
I think the Steelers are gonna rape all the way to the Superbowl. They may do pretty good playing football too.
You know when the game starts with Vick being sacked its going to go bad, Greenbay is second in the league in terms of sacks(#1 being the steelers) and their defense is amazingly good.
I expect the packers to beat the falcons, the steelers to beat the ravens, bears to beat the seahawks, and pats over jets.
Jay Cutler picked up alot over last year when he kept throwing interceptions, the bears are a solid team overall now.
Packers have a great defense and thanks to an injured rookie coming into play we now have a running game.
The patriots and jets is a harder game to predict seeing as though they are both great teams. Awhile back sports illustrated predicted a Jets and Packers superbowl, but with a terrible rematch against the Pats I'm iffy.
Steelers have the number one defense out there right now so its hard to say that the ravens will win.
Although it does seem to be a year of upsets so far with the colts and saints knocked out.
Will the Jets beat the Patriots? Will the Ravens beat the Steelers? Will the Packers beat the Falcons? Will the Seahawks beat the Bears? We'll have to see for sure, but those are odds that relatively no one would expect.
Like I said, a terrible rematch. The jets beat the pats the first time they played and then got beaten into their place the second time they played. It could be a close win for the Jets or a major beatdown delivered by the Pats.
Redbeard wrote:I will be at the Bears game, and, hopefully at a Bears-Packers game the following week
I agree there. It's hard for anyone here to root for the Bears, but an NFC Championshp game between Green Bay and Chicago would be epic. For the first time in my life, I would support either winner in the Super Bowl.
Given that setup, I may have to watch that at Curley's Pub.
Really? What is that based on, exactly? I understand picking the underdog, but come on now...
Actually rethinking that one..... Foxboro is expecting 12+inches of snow today/tomorrow.... followed by arctic cold and high winds..(LOW wind chill #s) just in time for the game.
Pats on tundra..... Almost as bad as the Pack on tundra....
Helgrenze- Statistically the modern Pats are the most fearsome team ever on snow & ice, aren't they?
I sit here looking out my window at 15+ inches and still coming down steadily. Foxboro isn't getting as much as we are up here, but easily a foot. Of course, the field will be well-cleared unless it's snowing Sunday.
Wait, the packers are bad on tundra? Last time I recalled they call the stadium "the frozen tundra" and have hosted the most cold weather games out there so snow is kind of like their specialty.
Today's local paper said that the Jets, Packers, Ravens, and Seahawks are the underdogs for next weeks games and seeing as though the Seahawks, Jets, and Packers were underdogs for the fist set it should be interesting.
I mean who wouldn't fething love to see the bears, steelers, and patriots off of their high horses?
halonachos wrote:Steelers have the number one defense out there right now so its hard to say that the ravens will win.
Have you seen how the Ravens been playing recently? Ten times the intensity. And the last time they were in Pittsburg, they came out with the W. And before you mention the lack of Roethlisberger, I will mention the lack of the best safety in the league: Ed Reed.
Our run game is strong, our players are strong, and Flacco is more confident than ever. It won't be easy, it won't be pretty, but damn, it's going to be exciting.
halonachos wrote:Wait, the packers are bad on tundra? Last time I recalled they call the stadium "the frozen tundra" and have hosted the most cold weather games out there so snow is kind of like their specialty.
Nobody said the Packers are bad on tundra. Don't be silly. It's just that the Pats are even better.
halonachos wrote:Wait, the packers are bad on tundra? Last time I recalled they call the stadium "the frozen tundra" and have hosted the most cold weather games out there so snow is kind of like their specialty.
Nobody said the Packers are bad on tundra. Don't be silly. It's just that the Pats are even better.
^ this.
FACING the Packers or the Pats in the cold, especially at home, is bad news for opposing teams. Of course, Green Bay is having to play indoors down in Atlanta.
Meh I just don't want the Steelers or the Pats to win it all (sorry to those who are fans of them). Never liked Tom Brady and I hate Bill Belicheck and as a Bengals fan (yeah I know I don't need reminding) I hate the Steelers. Don't hate the Ravens though for some reason so I wouldn't mind seeing them win it all. At this point though I'm rooting for the Packers simply because I hate Brett Favre (used to like him before the retirement flip-flops) and I want to see Aaron Rodgers step out of his shadow completely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Valhallan42nd wrote:
halonachos wrote:Steelers have the number one defense out there right now so its hard to say that the ravens will win.
Have you seen how the Ravens been playing recently? Ten times the intensity. And the last time they were in Pittsburg, they came out with the W. And before you mention the lack of Roethlisberger, I will mention the lack of the best safety in the league: Ed Reed.
Our run game is strong, our players are strong, and Flacco is more confident than ever. It won't be easy, it won't be pretty, but damn, it's going to be exciting.
In any case it's going to be a close game as it always is between the two of them. I believe the last 5 match ups between the two have been decided by 3 points or less. I'm not sure who I like more here, I guess it will all come down to one big defensive play (or miscue) as it always does.
It would appear that the Jets weren't embarrassed enough the last time they played the Pats after running their mouths and got their cheeks whipsmacked.
I really can't wait for Sunday.
Oh, and I'm calling Baltimore and Pittsburgh to win as well.
It would appear that the Jets weren't embarrassed enough the last time they played the Pats after running their mouths and got their cheeks whipsmacked.
I really can't wait for Sunday.
Oh, and I'm calling Baltimore and Pittsburgh to win as well.
halonachos wrote:Wait, the packers are bad on tundra? Last time I recalled they call the stadium "the frozen tundra" and have hosted the most cold weather games out there so snow is kind of like their specialty.
Nobody said the Packers are bad on tundra. Don't be silly. It's just that the Pats are even better.
^ this.
FACING the Packers or the Pats in the cold, especially at home, is bad news for opposing teams. Of course, Green Bay is having to play indoors down in Atlanta.
Okay, your first post had me thinking that you thought the Packers and Patriots couldn't play on the ice.
Yep, down in Atlanta where Ryan has lost only once this season I believe. Oh well he can lose twice I guess.
As far as the Ravens and Steelers game, I don't know. If the Ravens beat the steelers once this season then there's a chance that the steelers will win this one just because their rivalry is just that close(ravens have won 8 of the total times and steelers have won 9 of the total times). I'm hoping the steelers lose because I fething hate Rapistberger, but yes defense is where its going to be for that game.
Valhallan42nd wrote:Our run game is strong, our players are strong, and Flacco is more confident than ever. It won't be easy, it won't be pretty, but damn, it's going to be exciting.
Exactly. This will definitely be worth watching, whatever the outcome.
Good game. Now the Steelers have to hope that Scott and Adams are healthy for next week. The OL was beyond patchwork by the end. Heck, Scott and Adams aren't even our regular starters.
What's worse than both is having Dan Snyder 'run' your favorite team.
For tomorrow, I am a Jets fan. And just so one bird-named team survives, a Seahawks fan. The quest for .500 continues (aka lose a Superb Owl and be 10-10)
Ensis Ferrae wrote:BUT!!!! here is something we can both agree on: at least we're not Lions fans!!
You know, I watched the Lions while living in MI (2006/07 - 2009/10 seasons) and only decided to root for Baltimore this season because I moved back down to Richmond -- and (apologies to Grabthar) I can't stand the Redskins. But the Lions are on the up. Give them another couple years' worth of the developments they made this season and we could see them in the playoffs.
Manchu wrote:So much talent that just can't get it together. Damn it.
Now you know my pain as a Cowboys fan. They were on the cusp, now they're in doldrums again.
You don't know pain. I'm a Bengals fan =P.
no.. YOU dont know pain... im a Raiders fan. BUT!!!! here is something we can both agree on: at least we're not Lions fans!!
Lol well at least you can say "I remember the good ol' days when we won games." LoL for us the good ol days were two losing trips to the Superbowl in the 80's =P lol. Plus you guys have some hope at least after this season, sheesh, we rehired a coach that has only two winning seasons in 9 years and just had a 4-12 season O_O! What the hell?! At least Al Davis, as crazy as he is, brought Oakland a few Superbowl wins back in the day. So long as Mike Brown lives for the Bengals we'll never win a championship in my opinion =P.
But yes yes I agree, better a Bengals or a Raiders fan than a Lions fan =P. lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:BUT!!!! here is something we can both agree on: at least we're not Lions fans!!
You know, I watched the Lions while living in MI (2006/07 - 2009/10 seasons) and only decided to root for Baltimore this season because I moved back down to Richmond -- and (apologies to Grabthar) I can't stand the Redskins. But the Lions are on the up. Give them another couple years' worth of the developments they made this season and we could see them in the playoffs.
They look alright, might be decent in a few years if they can keep Stafford healthy. They have a pretty decent young defense though and I expect them to at least be competitive in a few years as long as they stay healthy.
Honestly, the Raiders will never win another superbowl while Al Davis is still alive...
The Lions were also pretty damn good when they had a certain running back who could be considered the G.O.A.T. but they never supported him, we'll see if the current folks who work there support stafford better than they did that "other" guy
Yeah, Forte throwing the ball was a bit of a surprise. My wife and I can only figure that Martz wanted to show something to make the Packers have to worry about it.
Man homefield is just not safe this year at all in the playoffs. Wouldn't be surprised if the Packers and the Jets make it to the Super Bowl in the end. The AFC and NFC championship games should be pretty good though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Honestly, the Raiders will never win another superbowl while Al Davis is still alive...
The Lions were also pretty damn good when they had a certain running back who could be considered the G.O.A.T. but they never supported him, we'll see if the current folks who work there support stafford better than they did that "other" guy
Yeah I would have to agree on the Al Davis thing, those rings of his are giving him unnatural long life though which leads me to believe...
Redbeard wrote:Yeah, Forte throwing the ball was a bit of a surprise. My wife and I can only figure that Martz wanted to show something to make the Packers have to worry about it.
Great playoffs so far. No Saints no more Pats, every team I hate is gone and we're gonna have an awesome NFC championship match to catapult the Packers to another superbowl win!
Amaya wrote:Didn't Green Bay lead the league in interceptions this year?
In terms of getting interceptions they're second(24 interceptions compared to the Patriots with 25), in terms of getting intercepted I would say that would be Favre this year and Cutler last year I think. Green Bay is also 2nd in terms of sacking the opposing team(behind the steelers), 5th in terms of passing(steelers are 14th, bears are 28th, jets are 22nd), and 24th in rushing(steelers are 11th, bears are 22nd, and jets are 4th).
Bears and Steelers both have 21 interceptions, Steelers rely on sacking the other guys for their pass defense really and the Jets are kind of pathetic in terms of interceptions with only 12.
Growing up as a packer fan during the Favre era, I have a lot of respect for the man. Its a shame he had to go out like this, in fact its downright shameful.
halonachos wrote:Growing up as a packer fan during the Favre era, I have a lot of respect for the man. Its a shame he had to go out like this, in fact its downright shameful.
Yeah I liked Favre too back in the day. it was always exciting to watch him play but the last 3 years have just soured my view of him. I just found it selfish that when he unretired the first time he just expected the Packers to take him back after making numerous moves to prepare Rodgers for the starting role. It was time for him to move on and it was definitely time to give Rodgers a chance to play.
halonachos wrote:Growing up as a packer fan during the Favre era, I have a lot of respect for the man. Its a shame he had to go out like this, in fact its downright shameful.
Yeah I liked Favre too back in the day. it was always exciting to watch him play but the last 3 years have just soured my view of him. I just found it selfish that when he unretired the first time he just expected the Packers to take him back after making numerous moves to prepare Rodgers for the starting role. It was time for him to move on and it was definitely time to give Rodgers a chance to play.
to be more fair, GB did make moves for Rodgers before Favre left, and he was in serious risk of being benched for Rodgers even if he was still with the packers.
Farve needed to play until he was knocked out which he final was this year his streak boken and he can go home with no what if's. the greats do silly things at times.
skkipper wrote:Farve needed to play until he was knocked out which he final was this year his streak boken and he can go home with no what if's. the greats do silly things at times.
the packers are going to get crushed.
41- 14 bears.
Thats an awfully bold prediction lol. It wouldn't surprise me, too much, if the Bears won but by that spread? No way.
Packers have a much better pass rush than Seahawks. Cutler takes a seven step drop-back on pass plays. Matthews is a beast on blitz.... He is the one that took Kolb out in the first game in Philly.
The math here doesn't favor the Bears.
Packers by 6.
On the other end of the spectrum....
I think the Jets at Steelers is going to wind up a kickers battle.
Jets have the (marginally) better kicker.... Jets by 3.
skkipper wrote:Farve needed to play until he was knocked out which he final was this year his streak boken and he can go home with no what if's. the greats do silly things at times.
the packers are going to get crushed.
41- 14 bears.
What are you on? It's going to be a close game or a Packers blow out. Only team the Bears blasted this season was the Vikings and the Vikings are terrible.
Edit: And Green Bay hasn't lost by more than 7 this season.
skkipper wrote:Farve needed to play until he was knocked out which he final was this year his streak boken and he can go home with no what if's. the greats do silly things at times.
the packers are going to get crushed.
41- 14 bears.
What are you on? It's going to be a close game or a Packers blow out. Only team the Bears blasted this season was the Vikings and the Vikings are terrible.
Edit: And Green Bay hasn't lost by more than 7 this season.
What am I on? your mom.
yeah 41-14 is a stretch but there is no way the bears lose to that tom brady want to be aron rodgers in the playoffs.
in green bay when the bears had nothing to play for other then a glorified practice the packers could only score 10 points. We thank the packers for giving us the nfc championship game at home but if you guys wanted to win you would have kept Farve.
skkipper wrote:Farve needed to play until he was knocked out which he final was this year his streak boken and he can go home with no what if's. the greats do silly things at times.
the packers are going to get crushed.
41- 14 bears.
What are you on? It's going to be a close game or a Packers blow out. Only team the Bears blasted this season was the Vikings and the Vikings are terrible.
Edit: And Green Bay hasn't lost by more than 7 this season.
What am I on? your mom.
yeah 41-14 is a stretch but there is no way the bears lose to that tom brady want to be aron rodgers in the playoffs.
in green bay when the bears had nothing to play for other then a glorified practice the packers could only score 10 points. We thank the packers for giving us the nfc championship game at home but if you guys wanted to win you would have kept Farve.
1) Nice maturity.
2) You really think Chicago wasn't trying to keep Green Bay out of the playoffs? Who got smoked by New England and who barely lost to New England with a 2nd string QB?
3) You think Brett Favre is better than Aaron Rodgers? Favre is an overrated interception machine who was never a leader. If Green Bay didn't have an amazing defense they would have never gotten to those two Superbowls.
Amaya wrote:
2) You really think Chicago wasn't trying to keep Green Bay out of the playoffs?
I think Chicago was trying, but I also think they didn't show everything, as they had no need to. Whereas Green Bay needed to win to be in, so held little back. The Packers have played three straight must-win games against quality teams, the Bears got a bye and a cakewalk over the Seagulls, and are playing at home.
I think it'll be a close game, barring Cutler melting down, in which case the Bears will beat themselves.
Who got smoked by New England and who barely lost to New England with a 2nd string QB?
Sorry, but predicting the Pack to lose by 27 is just ridiculous. No one has been able to run up the score on them this year and while the Bears are strong they aren't the team that's going to break the streak. I'll go with Pack by 7 but even if the Bears win I won't be heartbroken. Atlanta and New Orleans are both out and that's the important thing.
Okay, according to the NFL the best 5 defenses are as stated:
New England-188pts
Pittsburgh-187pts
Green Bay-177pts
Chicago-162pts
New York(jets)-156pts
The packers lost the first time(17 to 20) and won the second time(10 to 3)so we can see the fact that both teams buckled down, but the packers can and have beat the bears by a wider margin.
Not to mention the fact that during the season the Packers averaged 257.8 yards per game with passing while the Bears pulled 188.4 yards so I give passing to the Packers. The Packers pulled 100.4 rushing yards and the Bears pulled 101.0 yards so the Bears barely get the edge there.
However the addition of James Starks gives an edge to the Packers, he ran for 100+ in the first game against the Eagles and continues to be an excellent running back.
So, we got a running back that we didn't have before while the bears have got nothing new this post season.
It will be a close game, but the Packers will definitely win.
halonachos wrote:
The packers lost the first time(17 to 20) and won the second time(10 to 3)so we can see the fact that both teams buckled down, but the packers can and have beat the bears by a wider margin.
The Bears rarely, if ever, left their base defense in that second game. They didn't show anything new and basically recycled the game-plan from the first meeting. Whereas the Packers, in a must-win game, ran a full game-plan and still only won by one score, at home.
You know, after two concussions in a season, it is much easier to suffer a third. (Ask Aikman or Young about that) If Rodgers takes a hit in the head early, then what? Cutler may have taken more sacks this season, but at least he didn't get his brains scrambled.
I think you need to look at a different stat line.
Chicago has the better rush defense, ranked #2 between Pittsburgh and the Jets, Allowed an average of 90 yards per game, but also allowing 14 rushing TDs, while forcing 15 fumbles. Packers allowed 115 ypg, 6 TDs, 6 fumbles.
Neither team set the field on fire with their rush offense... Chicago avereged 101 yards per game, with 10 TDs, GB averaged 100, with 11 TDs.
The only other stat on the rush side that works in Chicago's favor is Green bay has more rushing fumbles, 4 to Chicago's 1.
The Passing game is where this game will hinge.
The Packers (offense) are ranked #5 with 257 Yards per game and 31 passing Tds, and 13 interceptions. The Bears are #28 with 188 Ypg and 23 TDs, 21 Ints.
Packers are also ranked #5 in Pass Defense, allowing 194 yards per game, 16 TDs, while getting 24 interceptions. Bears are #20 allowing 224 ypg, 14 TDs and getting 21 Ints.
Rushing.... Pittsburgh owns this on the defense side (#1): 63 Yards allowed, 5 TDs, 5 forced fumbles. NY Jets (#3): 91 yards, 11 TDs, 12 forced fumbles.
Offensively... Jets are #4, averaging 148 yards per game, 14 TDs, 11 Fumbles. Steelers are #11, 120 Ypg, 15 TDs, 9 Fumbles.
Passing.... on Offense Steelers are ranked #14, 225 Ypg, 22 TDs, 9 Int. Jets, #22, 202 Ypg, 20 TDs, 14 Ints.
Defense: Jets are #6, allowing 200 Ypg, 24 Tds, and pulling in 12 Ints. Steelers are #12, allowing 214Ypg, 15Tds, and pulling in 21 Ints.
Turnovers are going to rule this game. Rushing is going to be almost nonexistant. And both have Interception issues.
As for Kickers.... They are about equal.... even at range... Jets are 2-5 from 50+, Steelers are 2-4 from same.
Pretty even match-up.. But Still backing the Jets.
helgrenze wrote:
The only other stat on the rush side that works in Chicago's favor is Green bay has more rushing fumbles, 4 to Chicago's 1.
Oddly enough, turnovers are, by far, the most important stat. If I recall correctly, didn't the Bears win over the Packers come about due to a Green Bay fumble?
halonachos wrote:
But if you're arguing "Cutler will get sacked and Rodgers will get a concussion", that's pretty bad.
I'm not saying it will happen, just that it's not out of the realm of possibility. Two Seahawks left our last game on stretchers (I'd like to add, due to their own choices. The one guy jumped in the air as he was about to be tackled, and being hit in the air means you get spun about; he landed on his head. The other guy dove head-first while making a tackle. Leading with your head is never wise.)
You know, I've been to enough football games to know that anything can happen. I also know that home field can make a difference, especially in big games, especially between rivals, and especially in the finals. It will be a good game. I respect Green Bay, they're a good team, and this is easily the biggest rivalry in the NFL. I've got my tickets ready to go
helgrenze wrote:Defense: Jets are #6, allowing 200 Ypg, 24 Tds, and pulling in 12 Ints. Steelers are #12, allowing 214Ypg, 15Tds, and pulling in 21 Ints.
I'll take the 12th rated pass defense over the 6th rated in that scenario, thank you very much.
But really, football is hard to analyze this way. For one thing, the teams don't have common opponents. For another, the stats don't necessarily indicate what you think. INTs can be like steals in basketball...sometimes they're a sign of good defense, other times they're a sign that you're gambling too much. Etc.
My personal rule -- especially come playoff time -- is to qualitatively look at which team best combines good quarterbacking and defense that's able to get after the other team's QB. And that indicates Steelers and Packers in the SB. Although it'll be interesting to see if GB can keep it up now that everyone's riding their jock. Not sure I'd want to be a road fave in a conference championship game.
Redbeard wrote:and this is easily the biggest rivalry in the NFL so far.
Fixed that for ya.
Didn't need fixing, thanks for trying. What bigger rivalry is there? Bears/Packers have played more games against each other than any other teams in the league, and date back the furthest. Bears have the most Hall of Famers, Packers second. Packers have the most NFL championships, Bears are second.
Longer..? probably not..... More intense? Steelers/Ravens is about as intense as it gets.
Then there is the whole NFC East, but that is a different story..... but why else do you think Dallas is classified as being "East"?
On another note.... We all know who's name is on the winners trophy... Right?
The Sainted (in Green Bay anyway) Vince Lombardi.... who was handed his only post season loss by Norm Van Brocklin and the Philadelphia Eagles.......
You think the lack of ultimate post season success for the Eagles could be the effects of some kind of curse?
helgrenze wrote:Longer..? probably not..... More intense? Steelers/Ravens is about as intense as it gets.
Intensity comes and goes; some years a team is good, some years a team is bad. The Ravens have been around all of 15 years, and while I don't deny that they've had some good games against the Steelers in that time, that's all of 30 games, give or take. The Bears and Packers have played over 180 games.
Then there is the whole NFC East, but that is a different story..... but why else do you think Dallas is classified as being "East"?
Dallas is in the East because their original owner bought in at a time when the divisions were fairly balanced, and realized that if he got a team in the Central (as it was known back then), he'd share Minnesota, Detroit, and Green Bay - at the time three of the smallest market teams out there. So he made being in the East, and getting a share of the New York, Philadelphia and Washington markets a condition of buying in. As realignments have happened, the Cowboys owner has wanted to maintain that financial advantage. Obviously when you play against other teams each year, you get -a- rivalry, but if you think Dallas being in the East is due to rivalries and not money, you're being naive.
On another note.... We all know who's name is on the winners trophy... Right?
helgrenze wrote:Defense: Jets are #6, allowing 200 Ypg, 24 Tds, and pulling in 12 Ints. Steelers are #12, allowing 214Ypg, 15Tds, and pulling in 21 Ints.
I'll take the 12th rated pass defense over the 6th rated in that scenario, thank you very much.
But really, football is hard to analyze this way. For one thing, the teams don't have common opponents. For another, the stats don't necessarily indicate what you think. INTs can be like steals in basketball...sometimes they're a sign of good defense, other times they're a sign that you're gambling too much. Etc.
My personal rule -- especially come playoff time -- is to qualitatively look at which team best combines good quarterbacking and defense that's able to get after the other team's QB. And that indicates Steelers and Packers in the SB. Although it'll be interesting to see if GB can keep it up now that everyone's riding their jock. Not sure I'd want to be a road fave in a conference championship game.
It didn't help that Troy Polamolu missed several games this year, their D is so much better with him on the field.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is one thing I don't like Packers & Bears fans bragging about: their teams successes in the 1920's. Not that it isn't important to their teams history, but it's completely irrelevant in today's game. "Do we have to hear another story about Red Grange and the wing-t?" It would be like Yale football fans bragging about 90 year old national titles that were won in an 8 game season.
I think you have to give the Bears-Packers rivalry its due.
Steelers-Ravens are a recent thing. The old and natural rivalry is Steelers-Browns, which was a great and intense rivalry. Of course, the Ravens are the old Browns franchise...
gorgon wrote:I think you have to give the Bears-Packers rivalry its due.
Steelers-Ravens are a recent thing. The old and natural rivalry is Steelers-Browns, which was a great and intense rivalry. Of course, the Ravens are the old Browns franchise...
What's the difference between Lambeau Field and a porcupine?
The pricks are on the outside of the porcupine.
BTW: your video just proves how ignorant Packer fans are. "How could you ever love a team with Jim McMahon?" You know, he won a super bowl with the packers in 96...
Redbeard wrote:What's the difference between Lambeau Field and a porcupine?
The pricks are on the outside of the porcupine.
BTW: your video just proves how ignorant Packer fans are. "How could you ever love a team with Jim McMahon?" You know, he won a super bowl with the packers in 96...
He also won his first super bowl with the Bears and wore a Bears jersey when the Packers went to visit the president after their win in 1996.
BTW: Packers fans aren't ignorant, we're passionate. If you win a super bowl with the Packers we expect you to wear the team colors when you visit the president.
On the train home after the loss. Packers held on with some help from the refs and Bears moronic play calls at the end...
Seriously, call a timeout as your own play is running - that didn't work so well last time. And then... end around on 3rd & 2!? WTF! What happened to run up the middle.
Oh well, good luck in the Super Bowl. We'll see you again next year.
Amaya wrote:You act as though the Packers called a perfect game. I spent the entire second half wondering if McCarthy was on an ecstasy trip.
No, the Packers looked tired and vulnerable in the second half, as if playing four weeks of must-win football had finally taken it's toll on them. The Packers offense disappeared in the second half, and their defense allowed a 3rd string QB to score two TDs on them. If it hadn't been for a couple of moronic play calls and some help from the zebras, that game was headed to overtime. But they've got a week off now, so should be fresh for the big game.
Redbeard wrote:What happened to run up the middle.
B.J. Raji, though they definitely had more success up the middle than on the outside.
Personally, I though the biggest mistake was leaving the no-huddle offense after the last touchdown. Obviously you want to take time off the clock, but the defense had been playing well.
I also question the decision to run a stop route on the final Bears play of the game. In almost all cases a high crossing route is paired with a shorter one, as it forces any player in the higher coverage position to hesitate before committing, which is ultimately what prevents players from doing what Shields did.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously though Jets, I had so much faith in you and you failed me. Teaches me right to cheer on another team.
So dang close.
Rodgers wears 12 cause he's 3 times better than Favre.
My uncle came down from Wisconsin with a Favre jersey over Christams break and I told him to write "x3" next to the 4. He said "Why?" and I told him that same exact line.
As a Steelers fan, I LOVE that they're installed as the underdog. For whatever reason, under Cowher and Tomlin they've often responded better as a underdog than as a prohibitive favorite in the playoffs. I personally think the whole "chip on the shoulder" thing is kinda ridiculous (who needs extra motivation for a SB?), but for whatever reason, the Steelers tend to respond to that stuff (as have the Pats, historically).
And a dog despite vastly more SB experience? Love it. We've seen plenty of good teams wilt under the pressure of a SB. Not saying the Packers will, just that no one knows how they're going to respond, especially if the Steelers land the first couple blows.
Slarg232 wrote:This superbowl will divide my house something feirce; my mom likes the steelers and my dad is a cheese head.
My dad is a rabid Packers fan and my mom is a minor (very minor, but she grew up in Denver) Broncos fan. Needless to say, that was not a fun Superbowl.
Amaya wrote:Rodgers wears 12 cause he's 3 times better than Favre.
My uncle came down from Wisconsin with a Favre jersey over Christams break and I told him to write "x3" next to the 4. He said "Why?" and I told him that same exact line.
One play I didn't understand from the Steelers/Jets..... I know LT is an awesome back with some decent power.... but WHY? Why try to run up the middle on a short and goal against the Steelers? That is just asking to get stuffed. The better play would have been a fake up the middle and bootleg for the corner.
--If it was someone like the Cowboys who made it on a 7-9 record 
I think it makes it even more hysterical that Seattle was disassembled by both the Bucs and the Giants --hah!
