NFL

[Macca 16,603]

... and right on cue, the Eagles score. Saints lead 20-14.

Could be a cracking 4th quarter.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Macca

[Gorgoroth 12,696]

Hope so, I reckon OT will happen in this game.

[Gorgoroth 12,696]

Bye bye Philly.

[Macca 16,603]

Saints win! A road win in the playoffs! There's a first.

Tense finish and as an Eagles fan, you'd just feel helpless as the Saints set up that winning field goal. Sproles getting to the half way line was clutch on that final drive (albeit with the help of a horse collar penalty)

New Orleans now go to Seattle next week whilst the winner of the 49ers/Packers game goes to Carolina.

The Saints @ Seahawks game has already been set for 8.35am next Sunday (our time)

[Whispering_Jack 29,158]

The 49ers take down the Packers 23-20 on a last-second field goal in the NFC wild card.

Who's next?

[Macca 16,603]

49ers deserved to win. Packers put up a great fight but no excuses.

Keapernick was again supreme and his plays in the big moments were the key. Otherwise, there wasn't much between the sides.

We had to score a TD on our last drive and fell short. Disappointed but not devastated. The better team won the day but the Packers have much to look forward to. Lacy had a great debut year and our young defense will hopefully improve. As long as Rodgers stays fit, we're always a chance.

I reckon San Francisco take care of the Panthers next week. Today's game will hold them in good stead.

[DemonDave 1,080]

Good close game, albeit not a great spectacle in trying conditions at Lambeau today, boy it looked cold! A wind chill factor in the minus teens they mentioned.

Seems that Kaep saves his 'running' legs for when he plays GB, again that was the difference in the end converting that 3rd and 8 which wouldve been out of field goal range. Rogers made a heck of a few plays too, particularly that improbable scramble out of a pack when he broke out of a tackle to avoid the sack, clear out and still hit Cobb. Sign of a quality QB. Like our chances against the Panthers next week in this form, although they did beat us mid season.

So both NFC away teams, who had superior win-loss records this year than their hosts yet still had to travel prevail.What do people think of the talk of them re-doing the seeds again after the regular season is finished regardless of divisions?

This would've seeded SF at 3, and NO at 4 and Philly and GB on the road at 5 & 6. We had 4 more regular season wins than GB. On the other hand, given its always historically been this way change might not be wanted. I remember a few years ago in the NFC West where Seattle scraped in with a less than .500 record so it has its quirks.

Huge games next week, in the AFC Andrew Luck's Colts travel to New England. I haven't been altogether convinced by Brady & co this year, and can see Indy keeping on rolling into the AFC Championship game where I think they will play Denver who should be far too strong for the Chargers.

NFC wise, I'm hoping the Niners can overcome the Panthers in Carolina, when was the last time they hosted a playoff game? We didnt have Crabtree last time we played them, he is a playoff specialist as seen today.

New Orleans at Seattle promises to be a beauty. Two undersized QBs with beautiful arms. I'd say home ground advantage with that damn racket they make could be the difference for the 'Hawks.

[Macca 16,603]

Interesting points Dave and a good post. I like the set up the NFL have with regards to the seedings but if they changed it, I'd probably reluctantly accept those changes. I like the quirkiness and the luck involved but you could make a case that some wild card teams deserve a higher seeding.

There is a heavy emphasis on winning your division in the NFL and I'd hate to see that devalued too much. I'd keep it the way it is if I had any say in the matter (I'm not expecting a call )

Points tally in the "Playoff" comp ...

2 - pantaloons, Strafford, DemonDave, the master, Macca

1 - titan_uranus

0 - Gorgoroth, cowboy from hell

And next week's games ...

Sunday

8.35am New Orleans at Seattle (OneHD & ESPN)

12.15pm Indianapolis at New England (OneHD & ESPN)

Monday

5.05am San Francisco at Carolina (OneHD & ESPN)

8.40am San Diego at Denver (OneHD & ESPN)

[titan_uranus 24,559]

Crazy week 1 of playoffs.

KC should never have lost to Indy, despite the injuries. The secondary coverage on TY Hilton was poor all night; he's Indy's only decent long-play receiver and he was continually either open or 1-1. KC needed to double team him and force Luck to play through the lesser receivers. But possibly the game-changing play, though unfair to point out, was Smith getting called (correctly) for intentional grounding on the second-last play of KC's final drive. They were borderline in field goal territory, but Smith couldn't find anyone or get off a legal throw-away. Lost 10 yards on that play and then had to go for the big play to Bowe.

Good on the Saints for getting a road win under their belts. Didn't think either team played very well though, pretty poor game. I expect Seattle to smash New Orleans next week (though as a SF fan I'm hoping, again, for the Saints to win, as if they do, a SF win gives us a home NFC Championship game!).

The San Diego-Cincy game was pretty good to watch. Chargers played great football, Rivers hardly missing a pass and the running game going strong. You have to give them a decent chance of winning in Denver, given they did it a few weeks ago already. Meanwhile for the Bengals, it's back to square one I think. Not sure Dalton is ever going to do it for them, they need to look elsewhere I think.

And as for the 49ers - phew. Close all game, but deserved winners I think. And with the Saints pulling through, we get the far easier game for us at Carolina instead of at Seattle. I'm relatively confident in our chances against a good but postseason-wise inexperienced side. The dream is still alive!

[Macca 16,603]

Another possible change that the NFL has under consideration is including an extra seed in each conference for the playoffs. This would in turn result in only the conference winners receiving a bye.

The Steelers and Arizona would have made the playoffs under those circumstances (this season) A total of 6 games would be played on wild-card weekend. Here's the configuration of this season's wild-card weekend if a 7th seed was included (based on the seeding matchups of 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5)

AFC

Steelers @ Pats

Chargers @ Bengals

KC @ Colts

NFC

Arizona @ Panthers

Saints @ Eagles

49ers @ Packers

Only Denver and Seattle would have received a bye with this new system. It could be assumed that 3 games (1pm, 4.30pm, 8.30pm) would be played on both Saturday and Sunday on wild-card weekend if the changes were made.

On first glance, I quite like the idea. Only rewarding the conference leader appeals and so does a couple of extra playoff games!

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

I was away all weekend so I just caught up with all the games. I didn't expect KC and Indy to have such a high scoring game I thought Philly and the saints would shoot it out. More questions over Dalton (hope you are ok strafford) in the playoffs. At home they were a different team in the regular season but couldn't do much right in a playoff game when you turn the ball over so many times. Are the bengals in a position to trade/draft a QB strafford?

Did the weather in Green Bay help the kap out more then Rodgers? Anytime a first down was needed his legs got it done for the 2nd year in a row. I bet the 49ers aren't your best friends right now macca. All in all a pretty good year by the packers though.

[Gorgoroth 12,696]

Watching the GB/niners game was horrible, I really wanted them both to lose... Lol

Extra seeding is an interesting proposition. Especially when you have years where teams with 10 wins miss the playoffs. I wouldn't be against it but would not be unhappy if they left it as is.

[titan_uranus 24,559]

Another possible change that the NFL has under consideration is including an extra seed in each conference for the playoffs. This would in turn result in only the conference winners receiving a bye.

The Steelers and Arizona would have made the playoffs under those circumstances (this season) A total of 6 games would be played on wild-card weekend. Here's the configuration of this season's wild-card weekend if a 7th seed was included (based on the seeding matchups of 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5)

AFC

Steelers @ Pats

Chargers @ Bengals

KC @ Colts

NFC

Arizona @ Panthers

Saints @ Eagles

49ers @ Packers

Only Denver and Seattle would have received a bye with this new system. It could be assumed that 3 games (1pm, 4.30pm, 8.30pm) would be played on both Saturday and Sunday on wild-card weekend if the changes were made.

On first glance, I quite like the idea. Only rewarding the conference leader appeals and so does a couple of extra playoff games!

In all sports, I'm not a fan of too many teams making playoffs/finals/etc. The beauty of the AFL finals and NFL playoffs is the specialness and rarity of making them in the first place. The limited number of them then makes each one even more special.

Adding in another team to each side, to me, unnecessarily dilutes the playoffs. I think the current system is fine. To allow the 8-8 Steelers to make it, after a pretty mediocre year, to me isn't right. Even if Arizona did go 10-6, I'd rather have a 10-win team miss than an 8-win team make it. Regardless, I think the current set-up of games is good, and I think having two teams on a bye is also good, rather than just one (I don't think there is any good reason to restrict byes to just conference winners, especially when there is rarely just one stand-out team in a conference).

[Macca 16,603]

It does look like the 2 new seeds are going to come in regardless of the public's view. Possibly for the 2015 season (?)

I don't have a one-sided view for the change - probably 70/30 in favour.

A positive for me is I believe there will be a greater incentive for a team to win a conference if the change does come in (ignoring the history of how things have panned out previously)

If Goodell and the owners want change, they'll most probably get it

Edited January 9, 2014 by Macca

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

It does look like the 2 new seeds are going to come in regardless of the public's view. Possibly for the 2015 season (?)

I don't have an extreme view for the change - probably 70/30 in favour. I do believe there will be a greater incentive to win a conference if it does come in (ignoring the history of how things have panned out previously)

If Goodell and the owners want change, they'll most probably get it

Goodell and the owners want money so it will happen. It doesn't bother me too much. The system isn't perfect but it will never be due to the teams and their divisions. Every year a strong team misses the playoffs or a weak team makes it due to their divisions the system can look flawed.

[titan_uranus 24,559]

It does look like the 2 new seeds are going to come in regardless of the public's view. Possibly for the 2015 season (?)

I don't have a one-sided view for the change - probably 70/30 in favour.

A positive for me is I believe there will be a greater incentive for a team to win a conference if the change does come in (ignoring the history of how things have panned out previously)

If Goodell and the owners want change, they'll most probably get it

I'm not sure how it creates a greater incentive to win the division - winning a division already guarantees you a home playoff in Week 1. Adding another playoff team doesn't change that.

In fact, it diminishes the need to win the division because one extra team now makes it as a wild card.

I personally think everything's fine with the playoffs as they are (though I see merit in seeding based on record as opposed to making the wild cards 5 and 6 no matter what). But as CFH said, money talks.

[Macca 16,603]

I'm not sure how it creates a greater incentive to win the division - winning a division already guarantees you a home playoff in Week 1. Adding another playoff team doesn't change that.

In fact, it diminishes the need to win the division because one extra team now makes it as a wild card.

I personally think everything's fine with the playoffs as they are (though I see merit in seeding based on record as opposed to making the wild cards 5 and 6 no matter what). But as CFH said, money talks.

I was talking specifically about teams being able to win their respective conferences (AFC and NFC) My reference was about the overall winner of each conference and how there will only be 2 byes up for grabs.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Macca

[Macca 16,603]

Here are the games again ...

Sunday

8.35am New Orleans at Seattle (OneHD & ESPN)

12.15pm Indianapolis at New England (OneHD & ESPN)

Monday

5.05am San Francisco at Carolina (OneHD & ESPN)

8.40am San Diego at Denver (OneHD & ESPN)

Tips ...

Saints 16 Seattle 31

Colts 28 Pats 26

49ers 22 Panthers 19

Chargers 27 Denver 39

The BS Report

[Macca 16,603]

Goodell and the owners want money so it will happen. It doesn't bother me too much. The system isn't perfect but it will never be due to the teams and their divisions. Every year a strong team misses the playoffs or a weak team makes it due to their divisions the system can look flawed.

Yep, it's certainly about the money all right, 'cfh'

I guess if we accept that part of it, then we can speculate and discuss the relative merits of the proposed changes. I've given my views in some previous posts but my view is partly based on the inevitibility of the proposed changes.

The NFL may also decide to change the order of the seeds based on the qualified team's W/L record. This can have the effect of "certain" division winners ending up having wild-card status only (i.e - on the road, first up)

I wouldn't like to see that but I can understand why they'd do it. From what I can gather, this "other" proposed change has a lot less chance of happening than the change involving the 2 extra teams qualifying for the playoffs.

They certainly like long and lengthy playoff systems in the States don't they? The NBA and the NHL playoffs go for nearly 2 months! It's like having a whole other season with those 2 sports!

[titan_uranus 24,559]

I mentioned about the teams winning a conference, not winning a division. The 8 division winners would remain as it is with regards to having a home final each (at least) I was focusing on the 2 teams winning each conference and that's an entirely different matter ...

Under a new system only the conference winners would receive a bye* The 2nd seed in each conference would need to play on the wild-card weekend. The bi-product of having a 7th seed in each conference qualifying for the playoffs is that the top seed would (in theory) end up having a greater advantage over the 2nd seed (in each conference) That's the bit that appeals more to me with regards to the proposed changes.

The 7th seed in each conference? I'm neither here nor there on that part of it but I reckon the fans would soon get used to it. I also heard today that the 2 extra games on wild-card weekend could be played on a Friday night and a Monday night.

*Having a bye is not always an advantage. Some teams come out rusty and there's a fair chance that at least one of the 4 teams who received a bye last week will indeed come out rusty this weekend.

Oh right misread you, sorry.

It's not that common that a team sitting at 2 rests starters anyway, it's usually the case that if they slip up they risk losing their first-round bye. So I'm not sure there is a problem with teams easing up (it seems to be rare overall anyway, unless the team is coached by Andy Reid).

I'm sure fans would get used to it, as I'm sure AFL fans would get used to a 9th or 10th team in our finals eventually. It's not so much the history that bothers me, it's the fact that the playoffs need to remain special and hard to make, and the more teams we let in, the less that becomes. More likely to get weak teams in the playoffs if you expand it. As in, my position would be that I'd rather good teams miss out than bad teams get in. Gives those unlucky good sides more motivation the following year, more burning passion. Keeps the competition for spots strong too.

[Macca 16,603]

Oh right misread you, sorry.

It's not that common that a team sitting at 2 rests starters anyway, it's usually the case that if they slip up they risk losing their first-round bye. So I'm not sure there is a problem with teams easing up (it seems to be rare overall anyway, unless the team is coached by Andy Reid).

I'm sure fans would get used to it, as I'm sure AFL fans would get used to a 9th or 10th team in our finals eventually. It's not so much the history that bothers me, it's the fact that the playoffs need to remain special and hard to make, and the more teams we let in, the less that becomes. More likely to get weak teams in the playoffs if you expand it. As in, my position would be that I'd rather good teams miss out than bad teams get in. Gives those unlucky good sides more motivation the following year, more burning passion. Keeps the competition for spots strong too.

Both sides of the argument has merit. At a guess, I'd say the fans would be mostly against such a change but many might change their mind later on down the track.

I've always felt that the team finishing on top of the standings/ladder/table should be rewarded somehow and by bringing in 2 extra playoff teams, that can be achieved.

Edit: Just came across this ESPN story (which includes a few polls on the subject)

... Can the NFL handle more wild cards?

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Yep, it's certainly about the money all right, 'cfh'

I guess if we accept that part of it, then we can speculate and discuss the relative merits of the proposed changes. I've given my views in some previous posts but my view is partly based on the inevitibility of the proposed changes.

The NFL may also decide to change the order of the seeds based on the qualified team's W/L record. This can have the effect of "certain" division winners ending up having wild-card status only (i.e - on the road, first up)

I wouldn't like to see that but I can understand why they'd do it. From what I can gather, this "other" proposed change has a lot less chance of happening than the change involving the 2 extra teams qualifying for the playoffs.

They certainly like long and lengthy playoff systems in the States don't they? The NBA and the NHL playoffs go for nearly 2 months! It's like having a whole other season with those 2 sports!

The only problem with a longer playoff system in the NFL is making sure a team can run onto the field. Injuries are soaring and I'm sure every supporter on here can tell a story of their team this year being ruined by not just one injury but a dozen. The vikings had to line up Jarred Allen at Tight End! He should of had a TD but Cassel over threw the ball. One thing I have always liked abut the NFL is the importance of winning your division. It makes the divisional games exciting and has created massive rivalries. Even though San Fran had the better win loss record then the Pack I don't think it should of been played at Candlestick. Every year there is a stronger and weaker divisional winner. It won't change. The regular season is great because you need those wins in divisional games.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Seattle 28 Saints 3

Pats 21 Indy 10

49ers 21 Carolina 7

Chargers 31 Denver 28

[titan_uranus 24,559]

New Orleans 17 Seattle 27

Indianapolis 24 New England 31

San Francisco 20 Carolina 17

San Diego 24 Denver 27

Confident enough picking Seattle. No confidence in SF or Denver. Not sure about the Patriots, but they should win.

[Gorgoroth 12,696]

Saints 21 Seattle 38

Colts 31 New England 28

San Fran 24, panthers 27

Chargers 17, Broncos 31