Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

With as bad as the Saints have been playing the last two weeks and the key injuries they had yesterday, don't be surprised if the Seahawks make a real game of this.

The Saints will CRUSH the Seahawks.

Yeah, on 2nd thought as OLV said a few posts ago, some team will take Favre next year. I, too, hope it's the Skins. Serves them and him right.

Fuckin match made in Heaven.

A 7-9 team hosting a playoff game. Ugh.

This would never happen if they just rated all the teams before the season, and let a bunch of computers take it from there.

NTFF!

The Saints will CRUSH the Seahawks.

Are you sure about that, Dino?

no way Seattle wins tonight

Okay, now I understand.

I cannot believe how shitty the Rams looked last night.

Dink and dunk passes and receivers with hands of stone dropping everything thrown in their direction.

It looked very much like the Eagles offense of 1999-2003, minus McNabb scrambling to make something happen.

The Seahwaks 12th man said he's so excited, he wants to pitch until he's 60

On another forum yesterday, a guy was bitching about the NFL's likely future decision to re-seed the playoffs based on record without preference to division winners (aside from guaranteeing them a slot). Everyone believes this will happen because of this year's NFC West. Personally, I like the idea primarily because it will keep more teams fighting right up until the end of the season. As a fan, I hate watching Week 17 pre-season games, featuring guys who were signed off the street on Thursday. As a fan of a team headed into the playoffs, I REALLY HATE seeing my favorite team take a casual attitude toward the importance of momentum. Then I watch coaches who have actually won championships place an emphasis on winning their Week 17 game, regardless of the fact that their team has already been locked into their seeding for a couple of weeks.

But I digress...

One thing that no one is mentioning yet is the NFL's desire to eliminate two pre-season games and create two more regular season games will likely make this end-of-season charade even worse. Yes, the playoff re-seeding could solve some of the problem, but you're going to have teams with a wide gulf between them and the rest of the pack, and then those teams will be forced to play out a string of "meaningless games." Right now, the only thing that keeps Week 17 exciting is the chance for some teams to make the playoffs or improve seeding, but that's likely to be a very small number of teams by Week 19.

In other words, an 18 game regular season will still have those 2 missing pre-season games-- they'll just appear at the end.


You're welcome, Philly.com columnist.

Talon, with two more season games, the Giants could have still ended up winning the East by virtue of record. If they win one more game and the Eagles didn't, then it would have ended differently.

The #2 seed could have also been contested.

I don't mind that the last week was "preseason - suffix edition". The bigger issues is the accumulation of injuries for an 18 game schedule.

You ARE right in that it will simply RE-delay these issues and add two weeks of misery to fan bases whose teams have already been mathematically eliminated by week 10.

The very telling stat of how screwed up the Eagles are on defense both personnel and coaching-wise.

Chris Clemons had 11 sacks this season with Seattle. He peaked at 4 with Philly in 2008.

I HOPE McDermott is replaced. I will grant he was operating under less than optimal conditions by virtue of injuries AND his squad has few upper echelon starters, but I'm less than impressed.

Question - how can you re-seed if you're essentially punishing one team for winning their division and rewarding another for not winning theirs?

I'm not in favor of it because of this - yes, having a 7-9 team host a better team (and the jubilation of the Seahawks fans in annoying) is something that's less than ideal, but how can you if the emphasis is mostly on winning your division?

Remember having this discussion years ago when the Giants went to visit Tampa in the 1st round and everyone complained about Tampa hosting a playoff game, but they got throttled anyway, so it kind of worked out.

I think re-seeding takes away the "any given Sunday" dynamic in some cases.

And as bad as the NFC West was, at least it kept you behind teams like the 49ers towards the very end, who could've been the wretched 7-9 team had they beaten the Rams on the road. Doubtful anyone would've stayed interested in them (not that people were beating down the door, but still).

Wonder if the game will be blacked out in Seattle

I HOPE McDermott is replaced. I will grant he was operating under less than optimal conditions by virtue of injuries AND his squad has few upper echelon starters, but I'm less than impressed.

I really don't know how much blame you can place on McDermott. I mean, his defense is loaded with garbage players who wouldn't be starting for any other team. As a franchise, the Eagles place no value on the linebacker position...and it shows. They grossly overvalued Ellis Hobbs' ability to be a a starting cornerback, and backed him up with Patterson, a guy who is clearly not ready to be a starter. They also opened the season with only three safeties: the sadly disappointing Quintin Mikell and two rookies, one of who will now probably miss most of next season because of injury. The defensive line hasn't demonstrated an ability to get to the quarterback without the blitz since the Buddy Ryan era, but at least they can finally stop the run. And the team hasn't had anyone who can cover a tight end since Dawkins (and even he was burned plenty of times), and eventually, the rest of the league will wake up and realize that you beat the Eagles by throwing slants and hitting the tight end over the middle.

McDermott has so little to work with. Yeah, there have been some times when I wished he did or did not blitz, but I think we also tend to look at the late Jim Johnson with a tad too much reverence. Does anyone else recall the numerous playoff games when Johnson would routinely have his corners give receivers a ten-yard cushion, as the opposition would systematically pass down the field, 8 yards at a time?

Question - how can you re-seed if you're essentially punishing one team for winning their division and rewarding another for not winning theirs?

bass, what the Hell are you talking about? The 7-9 division winner would not be punished for winning their division-- they would be gifted a playoff spot when their record is vastly inferior to the 10-6 team who didn't make the playoff cut.

Why are the 11-5 Saints, a team that was potentially in play for the #1 seed in the final week, being "punished" and sent on the road to play a 7-9 Seahawks team who "earned" a playoff home game purely because they play in a division comprised of four shitty teams?

I'm not in favor of it because of this - yes, having a 7-9 team host a better team (and the jubilation of the Seahawks fans in annoying) is something that's less than ideal, but how can you if the emphasis is mostly on winning your division?

Who is putting the emphasis on winning the division? WIP callers? Does anyone really give a shit about how many times the Eagles have won the NFC East? Did anyone wake up this morning and put on their NFC East Division Champion hat?

If there has been any present emphasis on winning the division by teams it's because winning the division currently guarantees you a playoff birth, which it still would do under the proposed changes.


I think re-seeding takes away the "any given Sunday" dynamic in some cases.

Again, what the Hell are you talking about? Regardless of the team's record or seed, they still have to play the game and anyone can win. Are you actually insinuating that the current system is good because the vastly inferior Seahawks now have a better chance to win their game against the superior Saints because the game is at home? If so, that would be some insane logic on the part of the NFL. The underdog should not be getting gifts. I mean, if all the NFL cares about is getting competitive games, why not give every team that plays New England an automatic 10-point head start?

And as bad as the NFC West was, at least it kept you behind teams like the 49ers towards the very end, who could've been the wretched 7-9 team had they beaten the Rams on the road. Doubtful anyone would've stayed interested in them (not that people were beating down the door, but still).

Who was really interested in the 49ers? I don't even think their fans cared. Besides, if the re-seeding proposal had been in effect, you still would have had the same three-way battle between SF, St. Louis, and Seattle for the final playoff spot. They just wouldn't be rewarded with a home playoff game because they played in a mediocre division.

Did anyone wake up this morning and put on their NFC East Division Champion hat?

Come on with this question.

K,P,L.

Gotta agree with NEAG on that one, if only because perusing through Franklin Mills the other day, stores like Modells were prominently featuring NFC East Champion Eagles clothing. Hey, fans will buy just about anything (even though I wouldn't touch the stuff unless it's a world championship-bearing hat or whatever).

But my question on emphasis isn't on apparel (and obviously some fans place emphasis on it; otherwise, why have a fanbase cheering on winning a division with a losing record?), it's simply because I thought that the importance of winning your division (or at least doing well in it) factored high in enough tiebreaker scenarios that the NFL puts a lot of weight into it.

Are you actually insinuating that the current system is good because the vastly inferior Seahawks now have a better chance to win their game against the superior Saints because the game is at home?

I'm not trying to say that the NFL should give out gifts. But one of the standards for everyone is a home playoff game if you win your division. How is that a gift? Do the Seahawks have a better chance of winning now? Yes (ever so slight). Will they? No. But it's not because they got a gift - they're just benefiting from the current rule set.

Who was really interested in the 49ers? I don't even think their fans cared. Besides, if the re-seeding proposal had been in effect, you still would have had the same three-way battle between SF, St. Louis, and Seattle for the final playoff spot. They just wouldn't be rewarded with a home playoff game because they played in a mediocre division.

The 49ers were bad, but I figured they'd have some interest if only b/c they weren't out of the race yet (pretty much agreeing with your point).

Had the Skins won the division, I'd be rockin the fuck out of a new hat!111!!1 lolz

Anyway, the shitty division winner shouldn't be allowed to host an 11-5 team. Just my opinion but as correct as it is for the hags it's just as wrong for the Saints.

But one of the standards for everyone is a home playoff game if you win your division.

And the new standard for everyone will be a mere playoff birth if you win your division. All teams will then be seeded according to record, best to worst.

And Modell's will still sell plenty of NFC East Champion hats to tools, even if the Eagles win the division but wind up as the #6 seed.

Wonder if the game will be blacked out in Seattle

NEAG, I'll bet you a site mug that it won't be.

No, I'm just wondering

NEAG, they are at 100% attendance for the regular season, it's unlikely that'll change for the playoffs.

Bass - you shop at Franklin Mills Mall?

cmon with this question.

Seriously.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  119 120 
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148