23 Jan 12
I don't see the Pats defense and especially their porous secondary stopping the Giants' wide receivers. That secondary made Joe Flacco look like Peyton Manning. If the Giants can pressure Brady they'll win. If they give Brady time to stand back there and pick them apart, the Pats have a shot.
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, I already conceded defeat. I didn't make two wrong picks either.
What call do you wish to officially cry about? I guess the idea that you made a couple of wrong picks is tooooooooooooooooo much for you to deal with (I'm sure tomtom will be along soon for the same sonata).
The miscues ruled the day. The way the game was going SF had it wrapped up if they didn't fumble that punt return in regulation and then to actually lose the game with another fumbled punt return. Uncharacteristic.
I guess I didn't account for playoff experience.
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by tomtom232Playoff experience is overrated. The muffed punt, especially the one in regulation, was more a product of luck than anything else.
Actually, I already conceded defeat. I didn't make two wrong picks either.
The miscues ruled the day. The way the game was going SF had it wrapped up if they didn't fumble that punt return in regulation and then to actually lose the game with another fumbled punt return. Uncharacteristic.
I guess I didn't account for playoff experience.
24 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Trev33First of all, that's not about the sport itself; it's about the league and the league's decisions.
Say what you want about soccer but you don't see a team being crowned champions after losing 50% of the 'regular' season games.
Second of all, I'd much rather have a playoff system than a system whereby a team 5 games out of first place with a few weeks to go's season is over. With no playoffs, most teams' fan base knows they can't win a title from very early on. What a dreary prospect.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19034
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Erm if you're 5 games out of a playoff spot with a few weeks remaining your season is over... with added instinctive to lose so you get a better draft pick.
First of all, that's not about the sport itself; it's about the league and the league's decisions.
Second of all, I'd much rather have a playoff system than a system whereby a team 5 games out of first place with a few weeks to go's season is over. With no playoffs, most teams' fan base knows they can't win a title from very early on. What a dreary prospect.
You should have pointed out that the Giants didn't lose 50% of their regular games though... only 44%.
Rams, Vikings Panthers, Colts all teams whose season was over with 5 games to go. Not including the Browns or Dolphins who at 4-7 would've needed minor miracles to reach the playoffs.
The EPL has a system were the best team will win the league, yes that means around 15 teams out of the 20 know they don't have a chance of winning the league but there's 2 cups, European places and relegation. 38 game league... i guarantee you that every team has something to play for with 10 games remaining. With 5 games remaining, won't be far off than the NFL's 4 teams whose season is over.
The playoff system works in football though... for the most part anyway. Drives me mad in baseball though, the first round especially... best of 5 any team can knock off 3 wins against a much better team. 162 regular season games to play a best of 5 crap shoot involving 27% of the league.
24 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Trev33I didn't say 5 games out of a playoff spot. I said 5 games out of first place. And remember, w/o a playoff system, you have to be looking at the whole league. In the NFL, w/o a playoff system, everyone but the Packers, Pats, Saints, 49ers, Texans and Ravens would have been pretty much done by week 10. Is there a single football fan in the world that would advocate eliminating the playoffs???
Erm if you're 5 games out of a playoff spot with a few weeks remaining your season is over... with added instinctive to lose so you get a better draft pick.
You should have pointed out that the Giants didn't lose 50% of their regular games though... only 44%.
Rams, Vikings Panthers, Colts all teams whose season was over with 5 games to go. Not includin eam. 162 regular season games to play a best of 5 crap shoot involving 27% of the league.
I don't think so.
I think the baseball system with 4 playoff teams in each league is perfect because at least it allows a second place 98 win team to make it. They're adding teams, which I think is terrible.
Football also has a pretty good system. The NHL and NBA let too many teams in, cheapening the regular season.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19034
24 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76With a playoff system 5 games off the playoffs, is fairer when deciding when a teams season is over. TBH i like the way the playoffs are in football... the only thing i would change is when a lower seeded team wins they take over the other teams seed. Why should San Fran benefit from the Giants beating the best team in the league? I know they lost but still, playing at home in the playoffs is usually a big advantage.
I didn't say 5 games out of a playoff spot. I said 5 games out of first place. And remember, w/o a playoff system, you have to be looking at the whole league. In the NFL, w/o a playoff system, everyone but the Packers, Pats, Saints, 49ers, Texans and Ravens would have been pretty much done by week 10. Is there a single football fan in the world that would advoc ...[text shortened]... s a pretty good system. The NHL and NBA let too many teams in, cheapening the regular season.
I don't watch the NBA, i hate basketball, agree re the NFL, if i do watch it i'll start just before the playoffs... baseball was the first 'American' sport i started to watch, 162 is a lot of regular season games to play to end up playing a best of 5 to decide your season, i wish they would change that instead of making it worse, i'm not sure if i could take the playoffs seriously if they increased it to, i think it was 12 teams they were planning?