NFL 2020: The playoff thread

Pages

It took 17 weeks but here we are: the playoffs! CAN YOU FEEL THE EXCITEMENT!?!!

IMAGE(https://media.giphy.com/media/JiqFcOEcfZjTFLpq5D/giphy.gif)

OK, but they were tanking.

IMAGE(https://media.giphy.com/media/XUjNqOx1EhmUFikhAy/giphy.gif)

Yeah, but the Texans were baaaad this year.

IMAGE(https://media.giphy.com/media/yvl5su3EwNv384cr5Y/giphy.gif)

Oh, look, a dance party next weekend in Minneapolis because, you know, the Vikings will be staying home.

Anyway ...

THE SEEDS

The seeds for each team, with records and how they got there:

AFC
1. Chiefs (14-2) (AFC West; bye)
2. Bills (13-3) (AFC East)
3. Steelers (12-4) (AFC North)
4. Titans (11-5) (AFC South)
5. Ravens (11-5) (wild card)
6. Browns (11-5) (wild card)
7. Colts (11-5) (wild card)

NFC
1. Packers (13-3) (NFC North; bye)
2. Saints (12-4) (NFC South)
3. Seahawks (12-4) (NFC West)
4. Washington (7-9) (NFC East)
5. Buccaneers (11-5) (wild card)
6. Rams (10-6) (wild card)
7. Bears (8-8) (wild card)

THE SCHEDULE

Wild card round (Sat-Sun)

1:05 p.m. Saturday: Colts at Bills (CBS)

4:40 p.m. Saturday: Rams at Seahawks (Fox)

8:15 p.m. Saturday: Bucs at FOOTBALL TEAM (NBC)

1:05 p.m. Sunday: Ravens at Titans (ESPN)

4:40 p.m. Sunday: Bears at Saints (CBS)

8:15 p.m. Sunday: Browns at Steelers (NBC)

My viewing picks (in order of quality; I have no rooting interest): Ravens-Titans, Browns-Steelers, Colts-Bills and Rams-Seahawks; Bucs-WFT won't be great, and Bears-Saints will be unwatchable because of reasons although maybe the Bears .... nah, can't get my hopes up.

Divisional round (four games; Jan 16-17)
... Chiefs and Packers both have home games against lowest remaining seed; higher seeds host the two other games

Conference championships (two games, both on Jan 24)

Super Bowl Ell Vee: Feb. 7 in Tampa

THE FAVORITES

No shockers here: 538 likes the top two seeds in each conference.

To make the Super Bowl: Chiefs (45 percent chance to make it), Packers (42 percent), Saints (34 percent), Bills (29 percent), Ravens and Bucs (10 percent each), Seahawks (9 percent). Everyone else is 6 percent or worse.

To win the Super Bowl: Chiefs (23 percent chance to win it), Packers (21 percent), Saints (19 percent), Bills (16 percent)

ESPN's Football Power Index (gotta have ESPN+ to read it, sorry) gives the Chiefs (51 percent) a slightly higher chance of making the Super Bowl and the Packers the same (42 percent).

Despite all that math, we all know that something really wacky will happen. Maybe we'll end up with a rematch of the 1950, 1951 and 1955 NFL championship games in which the Browns took two of three from the Rams. Or maybe the Colts will get revenge on their Super Bowl XLIV loss to the Saints. Or maybe the Bills will win their first after losing four straight in the 1990s.

I might watch the Nickelodeon feed for Bears at Saints if they drop slime on the announcers.

Now's a good year to root against your team to win the Super Bowl, because those celebrations in the streets will literally be killer.

Still wish they would stop reseeding. Just bracket the damn thing like every other sport and play who you play.

I'm sorry, can we talk some more about Shad Khan effectively taking over GM duties? Will we have another transient making picks for the Jags?

Stele wrote:

Still wish they would stop reseeding. Just bracket the damn thing like every other sport and play who you play.

I dunno. For football considering its 1 game I like reseeding.

I'd rather them change the debacle of division winners being seeded 1-4 by default. Washington shouldn't be the 4th seed. I'm for keeping 1 team per division but Washington should be the the 7th team going to the Saints.

garion333 wrote:

I'm sorry, can we talk some more about Shad Khan effectively taking over GM duties? Will we have another transient making picks for the Jags?

Did the guy who suggested Johnny Manziel to the Browns migrate down to Florida?

garion333 wrote:

I'm sorry, can we talk some more about Shad Khan effectively taking over GM duties? Will we have another transient making picks for the Jags?

Khan's clarification and further clarification is slightly less onerous. Basically he ran the team as an absentee owner until this year, and let Coughlin run things (including running players out of town) without having to report to ownership really at all. Most owners aren't that completely out of the loop.

I don't think he's necessarily going to go from absentee to Dan Snyder, that seems an extreme swing. GMs are supposed to report to ownership (or to VPs of football ops who themselves report to ownership), and I take Khan's comments to mostly mean he will implement that reporting structure instead of just handing the keys to another Coughlin and turning away entirely.

Now I'm less concerned about Khan becoming a wannabe de facto GM, and more concerned about him hiring a sneaky yet sweet-talking GM that pulls the wool over his eyes, like a certain guy did a few years ago in San Francisco with another inexperienced owner...

jowner wrote:

Washington shouldn't be the 4th seed.

Washington shouldn't be in the playoffs. Any division winner playoff spot that is held by a team that doesn't have a winning record should have that spot be forefit and turned into another wildcard.

MAYBE I would accept an argument that allows 8-8 to stay in. But a team 7-9 or worse has no business in the postseason.

Or just go back to 6 divisions and we won't have the problem anymore. We're gonna realign back to 6 divisions anyway once the league decides to start expansion again (36 teams = 6 divisions of 6 teams).

*Legion* wrote:
garion333 wrote:

I'm sorry, can we talk some more about Shad Khan effectively taking over GM duties? Will we have another transient making picks for the Jags?

Khan's clarification and further clarification is slightly less onerous. Basically he ran the team as an absentee owner until this year, and let Coughlin run things (including running players out of town) without having to report to ownership really at all. Most owners aren't that completely out of the loop.

I don't think he's necessarily going to go from absentee to Dan Snyder, that seems an extreme swing. GMs are supposed to report to ownership (or to VPs of football ops who themselves report to ownership), and I take Khan's comments to mostly mean he will implement that reporting structure instead of just handing the keys to another Coughlin and turning away entirely.

Now I'm less concerned about Khan becoming a wannabe de facto GM, and more concerned about him hiring a sneaky yet sweet-talking GM that pulls the wool over his eyes, like a certain guy did a few years ago in San Francisco with another inexperienced owner...

I still see a lot of room for him to make the mistake of selling the 1st overall pick for a team's 1sts for three years.

*Legion* wrote:
jowner wrote:

Washington shouldn't be the 4th seed.

Washington shouldn't be in the playoffs. Any division winner playoff spot that is held by a team that doesn't have a winning record should have that spot be forefit and turned into another wildcard.

MAYBE I would accept an argument that allows 8-8 to stay in. But a team 7-9 or worse has no business in the postseason.

Or just go back to 6 divisions and we won't have the problem anymore. We're gonna realign back to 6 divisions anyway once the league decides to start expansion again (36 teams = 6 divisions of 6 teams).

Washington shouldn't be in the playoffs because they got in on a sham game.

Meddling owners never work out...See Al Davis, JJ, etc.. Let the pros do their job and if they don’t, find a new one.

Really looking forward to seeing what the Bills can do this year. Rooting for them as they have been in the dog house for years. No pun intended Browns..

*Legion* wrote:
jowner wrote:

Washington shouldn't be the 4th seed.

Washington shouldn't be in the playoffs. Any division winner playoff spot that is held by a team that doesn't have a winning record should have that spot be forefit and turned into another wildcard.

MAYBE I would accept an argument that allows 8-8 to stay in. But a team 7-9 or worse has no business in the postseason.

Or just go back to 6 divisions and we won't have the problem anymore. We're gonna realign back to 6 divisions anyway once the league decides to start expansion again (36 teams = 6 divisions of 6 teams).

This (a team with a losing record making the playoffs) happens so seldom it is not really a problem and I don't see the need to change how it works. This is the third time (throwing out the 82 strike year) it has happened. Win your division, get in - that is something I hope they don't change.

If WTF does not belong in the playoffs, this will be discovered by halftime in the first game.

I do agree that re-seeding is the worst.

Edit: I hope WTF gets beat by 50+ but that's just because I hate them, always have.

We haven't touched on the truly sad passing of a great. John Elway, the shunner of Baltimore, is relinquishing GM duties.

Let's all pour one out for the 6'8" QBs with mediocre talent who had hoped to be drafted in the 1st round.

We can also talk about how the Lions are possibly hiring their coach before the GM and talking about the coach being on equal footing with the GM.

Serious question, has that worked anywhere where the coach was hired first?

Another Black Head Coach was fired with an overall winning record and a rookie QB this season. Frustrating when white head coaches get more passes to fail.

Yikes. I've seen elsewhere on The Twitter that Stefanski won't coach Sunday's game, but I'm not sure if that's accurate (yet).

garion333 wrote:

We can also talk about how the Lions are possibly hiring their coach before the GM and talking about the coach being on equal footing with the GM.

Serious question, has that worked anywhere where the coach was hired first?

Seattle. Though i have to wonder if it would have 'worked' at all had they not lucked into Wilson and Wagner in the 2012 draft.

garion333 wrote:

We can also talk about how the Lions are possibly hiring their coach before the GM and talking about the coach being on equal footing with the GM.

Serious question, has that worked anywhere where the coach was hired first?

This is starting to become a common practice actually.

49ers hired Kyle Shanahan before John Lynch.

Browns hired Kevin Stefanski before Andrew Berry.

The TEAM hired Ron Rivera before... well as a matter of fact, they still don't have GM filled. Supposedly this offseason.

All 3 of these young regimes have now reached the playoffs.

TheGameguru wrote:

Another Black Head Coach was fired with an overall winning record and a rookie QB this season. Frustrating when white head coaches get more passes to fail.

I don't get the Anthony Lynn firing either. They were 9th in total offense and 10th in total defense this year, though definitely worse in the area of scoring on both fronts. I get that there's been some issues with in-game decision making, but there's been more good than bad. Obviously did a great job with Herbert this year, with a first-time offensive coordinator no less.

I think now that they have Herbert established, the Spanos family thinks they can land a "whale" coach. We'll see.

Lynn definitely now goes on my list of retread coaches teams should consider. Not quite as high on the list as Caldwell Face, but up there.

God Hates Jags Browns again

*Legion* wrote:

God Hates Jags Browns again

God Remembers Browns Exist

*Legion* wrote:
jowner wrote:

Washington shouldn't be the 4th seed.

Washington shouldn't be in the playoffs. Any division winner playoff spot that is held by a team that doesn't have a winning record should have that spot be forefit and turned into another wildcard.

MAYBE I would accept an argument that allows 8-8 to stay in. But a team 7-9 or worse has no business in the postseason.

Or just go back to 6 divisions and we won't have the problem anymore. We're gonna realign back to 6 divisions anyway once the league decides to start expansion again (36 teams = 6 divisions of 6 teams).

I'd take this but I just assume this is a bridge too far for the owners to even consider.

Not sure if I understand bracket vs reseeding arguments.

If I'm the #1 seed I want to always be playing the the lowest seed. If the Bears (7) beat the Saints (2) I want the Bears. Not the #3 seed getting the Bears.

garion333 wrote:

Serious question, has that worked anywhere where the coach was hired first?

So I thought about this question and my previous answer some more, and I had another thought.

I can think of many past coach hirings where the coach was hired first. It's just that in those cases, the coach was *also* being hired to be the GM. It was the "give all the power to the head coach" hirings.

Well people know now that that's just too much work to heap on one guy. Even if you do give a coach most of the personnel power (eg. Belichick), you still hire a guy that runs the front office (eg. Nick Caserio).

Consider my examples of the GMs from recent coach-first hirings:

* San Francisco: John Lynch a first-time GM with zero personnel department experience
* Cleveland: Andrew Berry the youngest GM in NFL history
* Washington: played 2020 without a GM, seem unlikely to hire a guy that's going to wrest any authority from Rivera

So, yeah. I think these kinds of big-coach little-GM arrangements are just a more sane version of eg. Mike Holmgren being hired as coach/GM combo in the '90s.

Hall of Fame finalists announced:

* Jared Allen
* Ronde Barber
* Tony Boselli
* LeRoy Butler
* Alan Faneca
* Torry Holt
* Calvin Johnson
* John Lynch
* Peyton Manning
* Clay Matthews
* Sam Mills
* Richard Seymour
* Zach Thomas
* Reggie Wayne
* Charles Woodson

The lack of Patrick Willis on the list is unconscionable. Clay Matthews is not in the same ballpark as Willis.

No Bryant Young sucks too but at least the other defensive linemen that made the list are the ones I would put above Young.

Hell yes to Boselli making the list though.

And at least Steve Tasker isn't taking a spot from someone on this list!

The issue I have with taking away a division winners right to the playoffs because of a losing season is in the rare case of injuries in the beginning of the season hurting an otherwise good team that gets healthy and then gets on a roll. 3-9 or 2-10 in the beginning but then 4-0 at the end to win a bad division.

Speaking of Nick Caserio, he's the new Texans GM.

jowner wrote:
*Legion* wrote:
jowner wrote:

Washington shouldn't be the 4th seed.

Washington shouldn't be in the playoffs. Any division winner playoff spot that is held by a team that doesn't have a winning record should have that spot be forefit and turned into another wildcard.

MAYBE I would accept an argument that allows 8-8 to stay in. But a team 7-9 or worse has no business in the postseason.

Or just go back to 6 divisions and we won't have the problem anymore. We're gonna realign back to 6 divisions anyway once the league decides to start expansion again (36 teams = 6 divisions of 6 teams).

I'd take this but I just assume this is a bridge too far for the owners to even consider.

Not sure if I understand bracket vs reseeding arguments.

If I'm the #1 seed I want to always be playing the the lowest seed. If the Bears (7) beat the Saints (2) I want the Bears. Not the #3 seed getting the Bears.

The 1-seed already has the most favorable bracket. It's not the 2-seed's fault that there was an upset over there, and suddenly they get stuck with a harder opponent. Also it's like a punishment to the 6-seed for winning. Congrats, you get a harder game now.

No other US sport at any level, pro or amateur, does it? The bracket is the bracket. Win or lose on your own merit.

Also, I like bracket gambling games. March Madness is fun, and the NFL could be too without the reseeding nonsense.

*Legion* wrote:

Speaking of Nick Caserio, he's the new Texans GM.

There's a team who didn't like their taste of GM/coach.

Pages