Playoff picture

Post #1 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:21 am

As it stands right now:

1 - Dallas - 12-1
2 - Green Bay - 11-2
3 - Seattle - 9-4
4 - Tampa Bay - 8-5
5 - NY Giants - 9-4
6 - Minnesota - 7-6

Outside looking in

7 - Washington - 6-7
8 - Arizona - 6-7
9 - Detroit - 6-7

Playoffs Round #1

NY @ Tampa
Minn @ Seattle

The top five seeds are basically locked. I think all six are close. My guess is Minnesota wins out and gets in over Arizona, who I also see winning out.

Seattle could be a very tough out.

Post #2 » by **CBS7** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:58 am

Honestly, if I was GB, I'd be more scared of Minnesota then Seattle. They've just been demolishing opponents as of late, and still blew out San Francisco even with AP being shut down. Not to mention their secondary looks better as well.

Bernman · Post #3 » by **Bernman** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:09 am

_CBS7_ wrote:Honestly, if I was GB, I'd be more scared of Minnesota then Seattle. They've just been demolishing opponents as of late, and still blew out San Francisco even with AP being shut down. Not to mention their secondary looks better as well.

As long as they have Darien Sharper manning their free safety position.....label me unconcerned.

Kerb Hohl · Post #4 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:10 am

_CBS7_ wrote:Honestly, if I was GB, I'd be more scared of Minnesota then Seattle. They've just been demolishing opponents as of late, and still blew out San Francisco even with AP being shut down. Not to mention their secondary looks better as well.

I agree, even though we crushed them I would LOVE to see TB or NYG come to Lambeau for the 2nd round game. Seattle I could live with but hopefully the Vikings cool down because trying to tackle AP and get through that gigantic D-line in January won't be easy.

TJ_Ford_11 · Post #5 » by **TJ_Ford_11** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:49 am

If Green Bay, Seattle, and NY all finish with a 12-4 record, who has the tiebreaker?

trwi7 · Post #6 » by **trwi7** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:01 am

TJ_Ford_11 wrote:If Green Bay, Seattle, and NY all finish with a 12-4 record, who has the tiebreaker?

I don't feel like looking but the tiebreaker goes in this order.

Head to Head
Division Record
Common Games
Conference Record
Strength of Victory
Strength of Schedule

And then it goes on after that but I don't feel like looking it up.

TJ_Ford_11 · Post #7 » by **TJ_Ford_11** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:10 am

Dang, it looks like Seattle will have the tiebreaker over the Packers due to the division record. So the Packers better win two out of the next three games to get a bye week.

NeedsMoreCheese · Post #8 » by **NeedsMoreCheese** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:39 am

TJ_Ford_11 wrote:If Green Bay, Seattle, and NY all finish with a 12-4 record, who has the tiebreaker?

Well NY is irrelevant. They will be the wild card and thus cant have a bye.

trwi7 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I don't feel like looking but the tiebreaker goes in this order.

Head to Head
Division Record
Common Games
Conference Record
Strength of Victory
Strength of Schedule

And then it goes on after that but I don't feel like looking it up.

Thats actually incorrect. Those are the procedures for DIVISION tiebreakers. Seeding tiebreakers are the same as wild card ones.

1. Head-to-head, if applicable.
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4. Strength of victory.
5. Strength of schedule.
6. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
7. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best net points in conference games.
9. Best net points in all games.
10. Best net touchdowns in all games.
11. Coin toss.

Right now Seattle is 8-2 in conference, Packers are 7-2

So in order to win that tiebreaker the packers need at least 2 wins no matter what.

If theyre still tied after that

Common Opponents are

St Louis (Seattle 2-0, Packers TBD)
Chicago (Seattle 1-0, Packers 0-1 *TBD)
Philly (Seattle 1-0, Packers 1-0)
Carolina (Seattle TBD, Packers 1-0)

So Seattle is 4-0 with 1 game left to play against commons and Green Bay is 2-1 with 2 games to play.

But that would be the final tiebreaker because, in order for the Seahawks to tie the Pack at 12 wins, the packers would at best finish 3-2 in that tiebreaker (and the Seahawks at 5-0)

Actually i just realized i wasted my time. Because the second Tiebreaker wouldnt happen. In order for Seattle to be 12-4 and the Packers 12-4 the Seahawks would be 10-2 conference and the Packers 8-4.

Blue Text irrelevant but left there because i spent the time figuring it out while overlooking the obvious :banghead:

TJ_Ford_11 · Post #9 » by **TJ_Ford_11** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:53 pm

Seattle's schedule is incredibly easy, so I can't see them losing a game against Carolina, Baltimore, or Atlanta. So, if the Packers don't go at least 2-1 over the next three games, they probably won't get the bye week. That being said, I am still not scared of playing Seattle in the playoffs. Their record may look impressive, but out of the 16 game that they will play this year, only 3 of the games will be against teams with a winning record.

cb4_89 · Post #10 » by **cb4_89** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:00 pm

we just have to win two games.

NeedsMoreCheese · Post #11 » by **NeedsMoreCheese** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:42 pm

TJ_Ford_11 wrote:Seattle's schedule is incredibly easy, so I can't see them losing a game against Carolina, Baltimore, or Atlanta. So, if the Packers don't go at least 2-1 over the next three games, they probably won't get the bye week. That being said, I am still not scared of playing Seattle in the playoffs. Their record may look impressive, but out of the 16 game that they will play this year, only 3 of the games will be against teams with a winning record.

Maybe. But it will be at Seattle if the tie scenario happens which is something else to consider.

Post #12 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:07 pm

Kohl Is A Mome wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Maybe. But it will be at Seattle if the tie scenario happens which is something else to consider.

Not really.

They'd have to run the table, we'd have to finish 1-2 against the Rams, Bears and Lions.

NeedsMoreCheese · Post #13 » by **NeedsMoreCheese** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:10 pm

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Not really.

They'd have to run the table, we'd have to finish 1-2 against the Rams, Bears and Lions.

I said IF the tie scenario happens.
Just saying itd probably be a bit harder to win @ Seattle rather than Lambeau

Post #14 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:13 pm

Sure. Just like it'd be a bit harder for the Cowboys to play at Lambeau if they went 1-2 to finish the season and the Packers ran the table.

rilamann · Post #15 » by **rilamann** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:24 pm

_CBS7_ wrote:Honestly, if I was GB, I'd be more scared of Minnesota then Seattle. They've just been demolishing opponents as of late, and still blew out San Francisco even with AP being shut down. Not to mention their secondary looks better as well.

Odds are if we end up having to play the Vikes it wouldnt be untill the NFC Championship game if Minnesota would get that far.

It looks like the Vikes probably won't finish higher than the #6 seed which would make them a lock to play (likley) #1 seed Dallas if the Vikes win their wildcard game.

If the Vikes stay hot it could end up being a situation where the #2 seed has more of an advantage than the #1 seed.

Dallas the #1 seed could end up playing a red hot Viking team in their playoff game,if the Vikes where to upset the the Cowboys that means the NFC Championship game would be between the Packers & Vikes at lambeau.

I think the Packers would have two huge advantages in that game.

A) We'd be playing a dome team at Lambeau in January.

B) The Vikes would be trying to win their 3rd straight road game in the playoffs,so from that standpoint the odds would be realy stacked aginst the Vikes.

With that said (and before Mome throws a hissy fit) I don't think the Vikes would go into Dallas and win though so its all hypothetical.

But keep in the mind that even when the Vikes where playing bad football they went to Dallas and gave Dallas a good game.I belive the score was Dallas 24 Vikes 14 & Dallas had a fluke play where they blocked a longwell FG and ran it back for a TD.

Post #16 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:42 pm

rilamann wrote:
_CBS7_ wrote:Honestly, if I was GB, I'd be more scared of Minnesota then Seattle. They've just been demolishing opponents as of late, and still blew out San Francisco even with AP being shut down. Not to mention their secondary looks better as well.

Odds are if we end up having to play the Vikes it wouldnt be untill the NFC Championship game if Minnesota would get that far.

It looks like the Vikes probably won't finish higher than the #6 seed which would make them a lock to play (likley) #1 seed Dallas if the Vikes win their wildcard game.

If the Vikes stay hot it could end up being a situation where the #2 seed has more of an advantage than the #1 seed.

Dallas the #1 seed could end up playing a red hot Viking team in their playoff game,if the Vikes where to upset the the Cowboys that means the NFC Championship game would be between the Packers & Vikes at lambeau.

I think the Packers would have two huge advantages in that game.

A) We'd be playing a dome team at Lambeau in January.

B) The Vikes would be trying to win their 3rd straight road game in the playoffs,so from that standpoint the odds would be realy stacked aginst the Vikes.

With that said (and before Mome throws a hissy fit) I don't think the Vikes would go into Dallas and win though so its all hypothetical.

But keep in the mind that even when the Vikes where playing bad football they went to Dallas and gave Dallas a good game.I belive the score was Dallas 24 Vikes 14 & Dallas had a fluke play where they blocked a longwell FG and ran it back for a TD.

Are the games re-seeded after the first round? I though that the bracket is set once the games start...?

I agree, I want no part of the Vikings right now. Rivalry, revenge game, tough to beat a team three times in a season, etc...

Post #17 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:50 pm

Just checked, and yup, there's re-seeding. No idea why I didn't know that.

That cheered me up a bit on this crummy Monday. Again, I wanted no part of Minnesota. I'd much rather be playing Seattle, Tampa or NY.

rilamann · Post #18 » by **rilamann** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:29 pm

DrugBust wrote:Just checked, and yup, there's re-seeding. No idea why I didn't know that.

That cheered me up a bit on this crummy Monday. Again, I wanted no part of Minnesota. I'd much rather be playing Seattle, Tampa or NY.

I pretty much feel the same,The Vikes & Seahawks are the two teams I wouldnt want to play and I think the Packers wouldnt have much trouble with NY or Tampa Bay.

El Duderino · Post #19 » by **El Duderino** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:37 pm

That Lions choke job pretty much locked up Dallas for the top seed and i'm nearly certain we'll get the other first round bye.

Like everyone else i'd prefer to not play the Vikes, but a frozen or sloppy field should slow down Peterson somewhat and his ability to cut on a dime.

Odds are very high it will end up being us and Dallas for the NFC title game. Get some pressure on Romo and we can win, don't and we won't.