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

Regularly? No. On occasion? No. Once a year? You got it. And I used my one.

Mrs. Bass abhors that mall. I only noticed it b/c we went into about 10 stores looking for sneakers for the boy, and we were in the area (plus it was New Year's Day, do triple fail on me).

So no - it's not my hangout spot. Structurally it's a mess and if they decided to haze the whole thing and put up a "Museum of Philadelphia Sports Draft Busts", I wouldn't mind.

Talon, I hear you on all counts. I also gave him the benefit of the doubt because his personnel suck.

I still think you need a better d coordinator there. And someone needs to relieve Reid of drafting on defense. He has come up with blanks on all his D-linemen, modest success with Brown and Shepherd (neither are with the team now), all his LBs blow (and most are with other teams)....

I see what Bass is saying about the division winners, but it isn't their fault they play in a weak division. You could also successfully argue that teams who route a weak division deserve a lower seeding?

I think this anomaly happens infrequently enough that I wouldn't change the system - at least not very much. I might make a minimum 9-7 cut off for a division winner to make the playoffs which would have eliminated Seattle.

sorry...eliminated Seattle from hosting a game. Which is along the lines of what Talon was saying.

I still think you need a better d coordinator there. And someone needs to relieve Reid of drafting on defense. He has come up with blanks on all his D-linemen, modest success with Brown and Shepherd (neither are with the team now), all his LBs blow (and most are with other teams)....

Umm, ... Bunkley is an above average starter, as well as M. Patterson. Forget about C. Simon, and R. Brock? How about Pro Bowlers D. Burgess and T. Cole? Meh.

I see what Bass is saying about the division winners, but it isn't their fault they play in a weak division. You could also successfully argue that teams who route a weak division deserve a lower seeding?

Just to clarify, ... they palyed in a weak division THIS YEAR. Fact is, that division sent half of the NFC Super Bowl representatives to the bowl in the past decade.

Raheem Brock succeeded but never in Philly, Dean. You could argue that he would have similar success if Lurie could have managed the cap better and they could have signed him.

I wouldn't go that far with Bunkley or even Patterson. Simon had one exceptional season, two good seasons and one so-so season. His production dropped off steadily from his rookie year till he went to Indy.

Cole and Burgess definitely. Graham is promising but still jury is out on him.

I'll also say, that is pretty thin for 12 years of drafting, no? You are right in that Reid wasn't a total failure on Dline. Would you argue he drafted well overall?

I see what Bass is saying about the division winners, but it isn't their fault they play in a weak division.

It's not their fault that they're in a division with weak competition, but it IS their fault that they don't win those games against weak opponents. If you believe you deserve to host a playoff game, you should be able to beat inferior opponents and attain 10 wins, which seems to be the standard.

No Jules, I wouldn't make that arguement. At a glimpse, I believe that Reid has drafted approximately 91 players. Perhaps 25% of those have been impact players. I don't know what the standard for having an average draft record is among all coaches. (Considering most coaches haven't lasted as long as Reid has.) I also don't place as much emphasis as some with regard to the draft when an organization can quickly build a unit with free agency.

It's not their fault that they're in a division with weak competition, but it IS their fault that they don't win those games against weak opponents. If you believe you deserve to host a playoff game, you should be able to beat inferior opponents and attain 10 wins, which seems to be the standard.

I'm sure out there somewhere a Raider's fan who watched his team sweep their division is disagreeing with you.

What could a Raiders fan disagree with?

They didn't win enough games to make the playoffs. End of story.

I also don't place as much emphasis as some with regard to the draft when an organization can quickly build a unit with free agency.

Unfortunately, this organization places much, much more emphasis on the draft, rather than free agency, which they regard as picking through other teams' garbage. Yes, they have made the occasional splashy move, but despite the fact that those splashy moves have mostly been very successful (in the short term), they typically choose to avoid high-priced free agents. I mean, c'mon, Dean. We're talking about a team that stocks draft picks and then continually trades out of rounds to acquire more picks for future drafts. This is a team that is focused on the future, not the present, and the only way to do that is through the draft.

10-6 is not the "standard", Talon.

The Chargers of 2008, Jets of 2009, Jets (Herm's last year when he held up the letter at a press conference), Cardinals 2008 all made the championship final game with a 9-7 record. The Cards went to the SB.

The Chargers and Cards were the divisional champs.

Let me rephrase that, it is UNCOMMON to make the playoffs at 9-7 but not unheard of. It also isn't unheard of for those teams to make a run deep into the playoffs.

I think if you win your division you should be able to host a game. They didn't choose that division and the parity in the NFL can result in funny outcomes.

I did and will agree with you that 7-9 is farcical in hosting a game, but I think there is no need to completely rewrite the guidelines based on this single anomaly.

To ADD to that thought, there is no reason that the Saints should lose this game. If they do with that solid record against such an inferior opponent, they have nobody but the image they see staring at the mirror. I'm sorry, but home field in the NFL has come to have less significance in recent years. And in the Saints case, considering how crappy the Seahawks are, home field should mean NOTHING if that is the case.

I disagree, home field gives a few advantages:

1: Crowd noise. Easily discharged with an early lead if the fanbase sucks, but teams can blow time outs, miss calls/snap counts and force some concentration penalties for some teams that aren't disciplined.

2: Instant replay. How many times have we brought up that a review at home goes on the big screen so the home coach gets a look, but not when they're on the road?

3: Home preparation. It's not much, and not a huge game changer for teams, but NO is flying basically across the country before the game to Seattle to facilities that are not familiar. Some teams travel poorly because of things like that.

I'm sure there are other things too others can add, but it's not like they're playing on a neutral site. Is it a game changer? If each team gets 60+ plays, Home Field may help them on 2 or 3 plays. Not enough to make a huge difference but in a close game it could be the deciding factor.

Instant replay. How many times have we brought up that a review at home goes on the big screen so the home coach gets a look, but not when they're on the road?

This really should not be discounted. It can easily have a major effect on games. Speaking of, did anyone else notice that Jerry Jones' son was speaking on a walkie-talkie during the debate over whether or not the Cowboys should challenge a call? I'm fairly certain that NFL rules prohibit coaches from having access to the television broadcast during games, and their means of communication is restricted (no cellphones or pagers, not sure how walkie-talkies factor in there). Jones was sitting in the box in plain view of the television broadcast replay, which was likely not shown on the big screen, and he was talking into the walkie-talkie. Sure looked fishy to me.

I think it is a mistake to automatically write-off Seattle in this game. They reportedly have one of the loudest stadiums in the NFL, they get the replay advantage, and they are facing a struggling Saints team that lost its best defensive player and one of its running backs last week. This game is gonna be a lot closer than people think. I would honestly take Seattle and the points because I think they have a decent shot at winning.

I also should clarify that my primary interest in this potential re-seeding business is to increase the competition for seeding through the final weeks of the season. I believe this rule change would save dumb coaches who have never won a championship from dooming their teams by benching their starters in the last week or two.

For the record, I am also in favor of rule changes that prevent coaches from calling time-outs on first down, force coaches to call at least 40% of their offensive plays as running plays or risk being banned from the post-game buffet, and award the right to challenge calls to a designated fan working in a bar in New York City.

Talon I do agree with ALL you are saying. I am not as concerned by sitting players the last week as you are.

However, I want to ask you one question.

If the Eagles were playing Seattle and lost, what would be your response?

Mine would be (and I daresay yours too), "They don't belong in the SB if they can't beat a 7-9 team". There would probably be the requisite sarcasm and anger accompanying that comment. Like stuff about Reid and game management. The lack of players on defense. The abandonment of the run game. etc.

I agree that Seattle might win. It isn't (for me) so much of an indictment of the existing system but an indictment of the Saints' focus and ability. The Saints should win this game. If they don't, then their record belies their ability and validates Seattle hosting a game.

Has anyone that has a say mentioned it was being discussed outside of talking heads? To me they won't change it because of TV revenue, if the NFCW doesn't get a home playoff game, or the west for that matter, fewer people on the west coast will watch the games, dropping the ratings. Maybe, I dunno.

Jules, while I'd like to see the Eagles start with an easier road to the playoffs, I'm of the mindset that you can't honestly get too hungup on the playoff schedule. If you want to win the Super Bowl, you have to be able to beat everyone, regardless of the setting, and if you can't do that, you don't deserve to be the champion. Sure, there are some years when a championship team lucks out with a cakewalk game along the way, but at some point in the playoffs, they will face the ultimate test, and they have to deliver in that moment.

Jules, while I'd like to see the Eagles start with an easier road to the playoffs, I'm of the mindset that you can't honestly get too hungup on the playoff schedule. If you want to win the Super Bowl, you have to be able to beat everyone, regardless of the setting, and if you can't do that, you don't deserve to be the champion. Sure, there are some years when a championship team lucks out with a cakewalk game along the way, but at some point in the playoffs, they will face the ultimate test, and they have to deliver in that moment.

Jules, while I'd like to see the Eagles start with an easier road to the playoffs, I'm of the mindset that you can't honestly get too hungup on the playoff schedule. If you want to win the Super Bowl, you have to be able to beat everyone, regardless of the setting, and if you can't do that, you don't deserve to be the champion. Sure, there are some years when a championship team lucks out with a cakewalk game along the way, but at some point in the playoffs, they will face the ultimate test, and they have to deliver in that moment.

Geez you've got a really big pussy!

Geez you've got a really big pussy!

My phone is a firm believer in repetition for emphasis.

As if losing Chris Ivory for the season wasn't enough, the Saints just put Pierre Thomas on IR.

This just adds more fuel to the potential Seattle upset.

Instead of division champions, I wish the NFL made a hat that said "#1 Seed"

And the Tennessee Titans have chosen to get rid of.....Vince Young.

Of course, this doesn't mean they won't get rid of Fisher, too, but at least for now, common sense has prevailed on some level.


linc

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