Did you SEE what Baltimore just did to Chicago?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
The Everything NFL Thread - 2009
- Thread starter WaterBomb
- Start date
Do you KNOW who Chicago is? They aren't all that good... although I still don't think the Steelers will win... maybe though. They beat the packers and the packers beat the ravens.. always a possibility I guess.
My first Ravens game... it was awesome.
Almost a perfect day really... except for the Steelers winning. I have to admit, that was a perfect catch at the end.
If the Ravens, Steelers, and Broncos all went 9-7 how would the tiebreakers work?
Baltimore would have a 7-5 conference record, Pittsburgh 6-6 record, and Denver 7-5 record. Baltimore would have a 3-3 divison record, and Pittsburgh a 2-4 record. I am pretty sure this means Baltimore would be ahead of Pittsburgh in terms of seeding. Then, since Denver lost to both Baltimore and Pittsburgh, they would be out. Meaning, it is still possible for the Steelers to get in as the #6 seed and the Ravens as the #5 seed. Unless I did something wrong.
Houston plays Miami in a playoff eliminator next week. Tennessee plays Chargers next week and then the Seahawks. Even if they win both, their conference record would be 5-7, so they should not pose a threat. The Jets, as mentioned, play Indy and Cinci. If they win both, their conference record would be 7-5.
Lol, let's just say, for the sake of argument, the Jets, Texans, Jaguars, Titans, and Steelers all win their last two games, which is possible. Let's also assume Denver loses to Philly. This would mean the following teams would be 9-7: Baltimore (7-5), Denver (7-5), Pittsburgh (6-6), Jacksonville (8-4), New England (6-6), New York (7-5), Tennessee (5-7), and Houston (6-6). New England wins division over Jets as they have a better division record. Jacksonville goes into the 5th spot on conference record, which leaves Baltimore, Denver, and New York. Against common oponents: Jets (4-1), Ravens (1-4), and Broncos (3-2), meaning the Jets would be the #6 seed.
If that happens, I'll cry.
Almost a perfect day really... except for the Steelers winning. I have to admit, that was a perfect catch at the end.
If the Ravens, Steelers, and Broncos all went 9-7 how would the tiebreakers work?
Baltimore would have a 7-5 conference record, Pittsburgh 6-6 record, and Denver 7-5 record. Baltimore would have a 3-3 divison record, and Pittsburgh a 2-4 record. I am pretty sure this means Baltimore would be ahead of Pittsburgh in terms of seeding. Then, since Denver lost to both Baltimore and Pittsburgh, they would be out. Meaning, it is still possible for the Steelers to get in as the #6 seed and the Ravens as the #5 seed. Unless I did something wrong.
Houston plays Miami in a playoff eliminator next week. Tennessee plays Chargers next week and then the Seahawks. Even if they win both, their conference record would be 5-7, so they should not pose a threat. The Jets, as mentioned, play Indy and Cinci. If they win both, their conference record would be 7-5.
Lol, let's just say, for the sake of argument, the Jets, Texans, Jaguars, Titans, and Steelers all win their last two games, which is possible. Let's also assume Denver loses to Philly. This would mean the following teams would be 9-7: Baltimore (7-5), Denver (7-5), Pittsburgh (6-6), Jacksonville (8-4), New England (6-6), New York (7-5), Tennessee (5-7), and Houston (6-6). New England wins division over Jets as they have a better division record. Jacksonville goes into the 5th spot on conference record, which leaves Baltimore, Denver, and New York. Against common oponents: Jets (4-1), Ravens (1-4), and Broncos (3-2), meaning the Jets would be the #6 seed.
If that happens, I'll cry.
man what the fuck is up with the AFC
Those points actually go on the board against the Saints and look what happens. ;o And man, the Giants are crying at that victory, too.
It was the other way around if anything. Dallas ran up and down all over them and should've had the game easily in hand. Folk missing two FGs and the coulda-shoulda-woulda-been TD is a lot of points taken off the board for what was otherwise a dominating effort by Dallas. I have no idea what the hell happened to Folk but, especially after this week's game, he can't possibly not be benched... can't he?
Those points actually go on the board against the Saints and look what happens. ;o And man, the Giants are crying at that victory, too.
All you really need to look at is the last game between the Steelers and Ravens. The game went to overtime with Pittsburgh using their #3 QB the whole game and still missing Polamalu. I think the Steelers can win with Big Ben at the helm, but of course nothing is guaranteed. The Ravens also had to play Green Bay in Lambeau, whereas Pittsburgh got to be at home, a bit more of an advantage.
I like how all of you are avoiding mentioning the Vikings and how they got absolutely thrashed last night ^_____^ I fully expect them to lose their first game in the playoffs, whether it be in the wild card round or the divisional round (it should also be said that every other team that makes the playoffs deserves a bye more than the Vikings). I give a big hearty LOL to anyone who thought that the Vikings were worth anything.
Well, didn't the Steelers lose to Chicago? And for the Steelers-Ravens game, I believe Suggs and Ed Reed were out as well. Hopefully Reed will be back for the game this Sunday.
As for the Vikings, I think they'll be fine at home, where they haven't lost. If they have to go to New Orleans (or maybe even Philly if that were to happen), then I think they're done. They just need to get Peterson going again.
I think your trolling of your own team is beginning to get annoying. We all know you have no faith in your Vikings and you predict them to fail in the playoffs. Please talk about something else already?
Both correct, which is why next Sunday's game should be (as usual) a close and hard fought game. I can't wait!
well, the only thing that can make me even less happy now is that if the Packers lose to the Seahawks.
Even though that's unlikely, anything can happen if the defense plays as badly as it did yesterday...
Even though that's unlikely, anything can happen if the defense plays as badly as it did yesterday...
Yep, because it's not like the Titans lost the OT coin flip and then picked off Chad Henne in order to kick the winning field goal.
Your argument is flawed. Give it a rest.
Since you quoted me providing someone else's argument, I cannot be precisely sure what you are saying I am wrong about. My overall point "the coin flip setup is inherently unfair" is logically certain, and thus far is factual, so I am would hope you are trying to pick at some semantic point or that what I am saying is not fun and happy like you want it to be, and not that you are actually arguing something as fuckall stupid as "the situation is fine as it is." Just because it is not overwhelmingly unfair does not make it unimportant that it is slightly unfair when it does in any way need to be the situation.
What is really dumb is that the NFL is just a show, just entertainment, and any college football game with five or more overtimes generally becomes an "instant classic" no matter how bad the teams involved are or how sloppy the game was. Since at least 25-26 NFL teams "matter" enough any given year, nearly any time teams reached five or maybe even three or four overtimes in a college styled format, fan euphoria would go through the fucking roof. It would be one matter if, for some reason, fans indicated a preference for the stupidity of an unfair overtime, but that is not the case!
Why should I give it a rest either, because you just want to sit back and bitch about your Bills? It is not like I tried to argue with some specific person about it again. A prestigious sportswriter made a scornful comment that matches my scorn for the situation in a column that it is safe to assume other people here would have read and would be keen to discuss, or alternately might have missed the comment and bringing it specifically to their attention could raise some sort of awareness. Not everything about football can be flippant fun, and I have every right to post something relevant in the relevant thread.
You're still toting your opinion as if it were infallible truth. I'm pretty sure as many people disagree with you as agree with you, so why don't you just let your evidence do the talking instead of this pompous "how could you possibly argue with me as I have already proven my opinion is pure fact" bullshit?
Either way I'm not getting back into it with you. I wasted countless pages and posts already mounting a futile argument against a person who has stuck their proverbial fingers in their ears and started singing "la la la I can't hear you I'm right you're wrong la la la". Once, just once, I'd like you to acknowledge and respect someone else's opinion, despite it being different from your own.
I never said you were wrong, merely that your argument has flaws you refuse to acknowledge.
So you say. All you've done, and you admit this, is quote a sportswriter (no more an expert on football than you or me) who agrees with your opinion and then tout it as unabashed truth. Sorry if I'm underwhelmed by your "logical certainty."
You haven't provided anything showing my position is "fuckall stupid," you're just convinced it is. Going into this weekend's games, the team that won the OT coin toss this year was 6-6. That means the team that LOST was 6-6 as well. Then, the Titans beat the Dolphins after losing the coin toss, which means that this season, the team that has lost the coin toss has won more often than the team that won it. You may present all the historical evidence you want (which you are apparently wont to avoid doing), but I have made the point that in the current season of the NFL, your "logical certainty" is anything but.
Once again, I have showed that this is incorrect with this season's stats.
This is pure opinion unsupported by any facts. Overtime doth not an instant classic make. College football is a vastly different game than the NFL, and that is something you can't refute. Trying to push the NCAA overtime rules on the NFL would be like trying to push four downs on the CFL, just because the NFL does it. NCAAF and NFL are vastly similar yet different sports, catered to vastly similar yet different audiences. According to you, the Bills 16-13 win over the Jets earlier this season might just be an instant classic. Each offense had at least 3 drives, yards were gained, and there were many opportunities to win for both teams. That's clearly overlooking the fact that it was possibly the single sloppiest, most uninteresting and frustrating game of football I've ever watched. 15-minute sudden death overtime was the only reasonable way for that game to end; it was that painful that it shoudn't have gone on any longer. To think you'd want to give the Jets ANOTHER chance to drive down the field, after botching field goal snaps and throwing interceptions, is preposterous and obtuse.
Nice straw man, but I never said you weren't allowed to post that quote. My point is that you steadfastly (or more appropriately, obstinately) defended your opinion in this thread over multiple pages without showing any respect for other opinions. I chose to keep out of it because I know you and I know how you argue, but I just hit my breaking point and had to say something.
Circumstantial data from one season does not prove anything, you have to consider much more data than that! Even then, the fact that it is anywhere near even only shows that it should be more like completely even.
No, the Jets-Bills would not have been an overtime classic; college overtimes are only extended when both teams continually score, typically. It does not matter if it is or not, since my argument is only about what should be compelling to the NFL. What matters is the perception of people, and they go batshit wild for multiple overtimes.
Why do people try to act so fucking godawfully pedantic in arguments? It was not a straw man, it was a fucking petty insult because you were trying to lord some authority over me. Everything else addresses what you said, so it is not like I am avoiding anything or using anything to try to prove you wrong. I am not using manipulative speech. I was merely insulting you for your previous post about "blah blah this is the worst page evarrr" in conjunction with the next one.
Yeah, you sure do not refuse to concede anything. Nope, no siree. Wait...you just posted a rant in which you refused to concede anything. I guess that might be why I responded in kind!
The fact you reached some "breaking point" shows you still completely fail to grasp that some issues need to be run into the ground because they are so offensively wrong. NFL overtime, BCS, the fact 34 bowls exist when something like 10 should, concussions/brutality in sports in general, which coach is acting like a fuckass by firing a coordinator for the eighth straight season to act high and mighty, et cetera. They all certainly make for discussion no worse than "blah blah blah fantasy blah blah" or "god damn it the _______ always let me down".
Anyway, it is pretty impossible for my argument itself to have any flaw, because there is only one part of the argument: "it is inherently, indefensibly unfair." This is certain, and to deny it is about as fallacious as possible.
WaterBomb, it is not an opinion...you just think you are right because you think you are a purist or something. Do not pull this three year old "I am going to totally try to put you in your place, but believe me, I am not getting back into it because I am already soooo exasperated" shit. Either confront me or do not make a post at all rather than dithering and pretending to have it both ways.
No, the Jets-Bills would not have been an overtime classic; college overtimes are only extended when both teams continually score, typically. It does not matter if it is or not, since my argument is only about what should be compelling to the NFL. What matters is the perception of people, and they go batshit wild for multiple overtimes.
Why do people try to act so fucking godawfully pedantic in arguments? It was not a straw man, it was a fucking petty insult because you were trying to lord some authority over me. Everything else addresses what you said, so it is not like I am avoiding anything or using anything to try to prove you wrong. I am not using manipulative speech. I was merely insulting you for your previous post about "blah blah this is the worst page evarrr" in conjunction with the next one.
Yeah, you sure do not refuse to concede anything. Nope, no siree. Wait...you just posted a rant in which you refused to concede anything. I guess that might be why I responded in kind!
The fact you reached some "breaking point" shows you still completely fail to grasp that some issues need to be run into the ground because they are so offensively wrong. NFL overtime, BCS, the fact 34 bowls exist when something like 10 should, concussions/brutality in sports in general, which coach is acting like a fuckass by firing a coordinator for the eighth straight season to act high and mighty, et cetera. They all certainly make for discussion no worse than "blah blah blah fantasy blah blah" or "god damn it the _______ always let me down".
Anyway, it is pretty impossible for my argument itself to have any flaw, because there is only one part of the argument: "it is inherently, indefensibly unfair." This is certain, and to deny it is about as fallacious as possible.
WaterBomb, it is not an opinion...you just think you are right because you think you are a purist or something. Do not pull this three year old "I am going to totally try to put you in your place, but believe me, I am not getting back into it because I am already soooo exasperated" shit. Either confront me or do not make a post at all rather than dithering and pretending to have it both ways.
Ok: You're an arrogant, pretentious douche who thinks his opinions carry more weight than anyone else's. I've already made my opinion on this matter perfectly clear, so why should I do so again? All you're going to do is pull your usual "my opinion is the epitome of logic and yours is stupid" bullshit, so why should I waste my time? As long as you continue to be so abrasive with your opinions, I will continue to go against you. If you learn to debate in a respectful way and stop telling other people their disagreement with you is "fuckall stupid" I won't have a need to respond to your posts. My issue this entire time has not been your opinion itself, but your attitude in expressing it.
Seriously, I am perfectly accepting of your belief. I understand why you think the current system is unfair. All I'm asking is for you to make an effort to understand why I believe what I believe. If your next post in response to this is just more of what I've listed above, I'll assume you're not prepared to respect my opinion at all, and therefore can ignore any post you make. If you decide you want to reconcile this stupid feud and accept that my opinion is every bit as informed as yours, I won't confront you anymore, and I'll even recant whatever insults I've thrown your way. It's up to you.
Yet you not only did it in this post, but basically stated you wanted to fight in the one before amidst all your incoherent spluttering. Did I dredge back up any of the insanity you spouted before? No, since it would be asinine. You, on the other hand, claim that you so desperately desire not to do so, yet readily do so! Do not pretend you can have it both ways! At best it is manipulative (what I hope it is, but am not going to get my hopes up), and at worst it is pretense that you do not even understand what you are doing with.
If you want so desperately to prove that you are not beneath me and put me in my place, then the last two posts are a really bad step since they prove the exact opposite!
Jesus man, you really are insufferable. Did you even read my post? You told me to confront you, so I did. I don't want to have to confront anyone, but I will not hesitate to if they act like that. The reason I wanted to fight, and continue to want to fight, is because you're acting like a prick. The minute you stop doing that I won't fight anymore. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? All you seem capable of doing is verbally abusing and harassing people that disagree with you, so I'm doing my best to explain that to you and get you to stop. Notice how very few of my posts are actually attacking your argument? Because your argument isn't the problem, it's you being a cock. Until you learn to be mature in your arguments instead of blowing off your opponents as "spouting insanity" and "incoherent spluttering" (which is kind of funny because, if it really were incoherent, you wouldn't have been able to understand nor devise a response to my post in the first place), I will continue to oppose you. Come on man, do you honestly think I am insane and incoherent? And as far as me "proving I'm beneath you", how can I not laugh at this? I'm pretty sure nobody else here except you thinks I'm beneath you...
PS, wasn't there a time when we got along? I don't remember fighting with you back in the day...
uhoh tad...
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/7780/an-early-look-at-2010-schedules
nfc north is set in stone right now on where each team will stand, so they were able to give us the schedules for next year (with question marks on the nfc west/south team for pack/bears though)
however, the vikings will have this ridiculously tough schedule next year if you don't feel like looking at link:
home:
Green Bay
Chicago
Detroit
New York Giants
Arizona
Dallas
Buffalo
Miami
away:
Green Bay
Chicago
Detroit
Philadelphia
Washington
New England
New Orleans
New York Jets
All the bolded games are games the vikings (who i bet will not have favre back) will have a lot of trouble with, as all of these teams are
a.) young
b.) improving
c.) currently injured
and they are still considered top 10 teams or at least very strong teams at the moment
---
so whats the deal with favre and childress? i think you have to lay the blame on both equally, brad lost respect from that locker room right away, when he was on the hotseat and decided to treat favre like a king upon arrival, as his job depended on it. still, favre is an employee, you are his boss, and what favre did was insubordination. yeah, "you can't tell someone of favre's caliber to sit down", but in this case, farve was having another bad december game, and he was taking shots all over.
just a big mess right now, although i think it will be smoothed out by playoffs.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/7780/an-early-look-at-2010-schedules
nfc north is set in stone right now on where each team will stand, so they were able to give us the schedules for next year (with question marks on the nfc west/south team for pack/bears though)
however, the vikings will have this ridiculously tough schedule next year if you don't feel like looking at link:
home:
Green Bay
Chicago
Detroit
New York Giants
Arizona
Dallas
Buffalo
Miami
away:
Green Bay
Chicago
Detroit
Philadelphia
Washington
New England
New Orleans
New York Jets
All the bolded games are games the vikings (who i bet will not have favre back) will have a lot of trouble with, as all of these teams are
a.) young
b.) improving
c.) currently injured
and they are still considered top 10 teams or at least very strong teams at the moment
---
so whats the deal with favre and childress? i think you have to lay the blame on both equally, brad lost respect from that locker room right away, when he was on the hotseat and decided to treat favre like a king upon arrival, as his job depended on it. still, favre is an employee, you are his boss, and what favre did was insubordination. yeah, "you can't tell someone of favre's caliber to sit down", but in this case, farve was having another bad december game, and he was taking shots all over.
just a big mess right now, although i think it will be smoothed out by playoffs.
I personally think the Chargers are playing the best football. I mean... the Saints and the Colts have both shown some weaknesses while the Chargers haven't. They have dominated their last few opponents whether it be at home or on the road for the last few weeks.
But thats just my opinion. I'm so glad to hear a lot less of that WHO DAT? bull now.