Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
2 Pages12>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Greg C.  
#1 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 2:03:13 AM(UTC)
Both #1 seeds are now gone, and the field is wide open. I was shocked to see the Patriots lose today. Brady looked a little off, which was especially interesting in light of Aaron Rodgers' dominating performance in Atlanta the night before. The times they are a-changing.
kobe16  
#2 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 2:15:36 AM(UTC)
Yeah i was so surprised when they lost today. The Jets really took away the deep passes down the field and Brady looked off his game. Do any of you guys know when the last time 2 #6 seeds made it to the super bowl. It could very well happen with the Jets and Packers.
Greg C.  
#3 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 2:23:43 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Do any of you guys know when the last time 2 #6 seeds made it to the super bowl.


It's never happened. The Steelers won it as a #6 a few years ago, and the Giants won it as a #5. But two #6s facing each other? Never.
Dexter_Sinister  
#4 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 2:58:43 AM(UTC)
How about 2 wild cards playing?
Nonstopdrivel  
#5 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 3:09:17 AM(UTC)
I don't believe that's ever happened either.

I personally believe the league heaved a great sigh of relief that they won't have to worry about having a Super Bowl featuring two No. 1 seeds. As I pointed out in another thread, such Super Bowls have historically made for bad television.

By contrast, the NFL has to be delighted to have the Packers/Bears NFC championship. Tickets for this game will be outlandishly expensive, and the game may well have the highest TV ratings of any NFL playoff game ever. The league also has to be pleased the Packers are still in it, since they're the only one of the remaining NFC teams to have shown the potential to beat the Jets or Patriots.

I think a Super Bowl featuring two No. 6 seeds could make for a compelling storyline. In some ways it would be a bit embarrassing for the league, but on the other hand, it would reinforce the league's "any given Sunday" motif and demonstrate the degree of parity that exists right now. They'll be able to point out that any team can have hope of making it to the big dance.
Zero2Cool  
#6 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 3:21:53 AM(UTC)
Someone had a link to all the playoff seed matchups before.
Greg C.  
#7 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 3:25:55 AM(UTC)
This year's #6 seeds were right in the mix all along, so the league would have nothing to be embarrassed about if they played each other in the Super Bowl. The Seahawks, on the other hand, would've made some people uncomfortable. It's really best that they got blown out today rather than in a later round.

I'm pretty sure that we've never had two wild card teams in the Super Bowl. But here is the list of wild card teams that have won it:

1980 Oakland Raiders-Super Bowl XV (played in 1981)
1997 Denver Broncos-Super Bowl XXXII (played in 1998)
2000 Baltimore Ravens-Super Bowl XXXV (played in 2001)
2005 Pittsburgh Steelers-Super Bowl XL (played in 2006)
2007 New York Giants-Super Bowl XLII (played in 2008)
Zero2Cool  
#8 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 3:28:47 AM(UTC)
Only one NFC team.
GoPack1984  
#9 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 3:49:19 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Only one NFC team.


Packers will be the 2nd NFC wildcard team to win! :icon_smile:
Cheesey  
#10 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 6:44:20 AM(UTC)
What a wild ride!
Now, we have to whip the Bears, and on to the BIG game!
Greg C.  
#11 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 1:14:03 PM(UTC)
Here's a good quote about the game, from Don Banks' article on the Sports Illustrated web site:

"We were given basically no chance,'' Jets linebacker Bart Scott said of New York's heavy-underdog status. "But we also knew that [Brady's] quarterback rating over the last four or five playoff games was about 66. The TD-to-INT ratio was high. And we knew when we looked on [both] rosters that we had all the playoff experience, and that they're a relatively young team. We've been in the pressure. Some of their guys were there last year and had been part of the ass-kicking by the Baltimore Ravens.

"We knew we actually had gone on the road and knew what a playoff atmosphere was all about," Scott said. "We could still perform and not get overhyped, and not be underhyped. We can handle the emotional moment and settle into a tough football game.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated...index.html#ixzz1BIHk3sSR
Wade  
#12 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 2:53:27 PM(UTC)
I'm of two minds, again.

On the one hand, it was good to see NE lose.

On the other hand, the Jets won.

I guess I'm a gonna have to (temporarily) root for the Steelers, Hines Ward, Big Ben, and all.
RedSoxExcel  
#13 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 4:09:07 PM(UTC)
Was anyone else of hte mindset that the 4th Q was really weird? Why did the Pats keep running it and why did they do that 7 minute drive. Why not hurry it up when your down two scores. At one point, BB was yelling at the O because they did a run play. Was Brady checking out of pass plays???

The whole strategy in the 4th really confused me for a BB coached team.
Nonstopdrivel  
#14 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 4:19:32 PM(UTC)
Did I hear correctly that the announcers said Tom Brady is 0-3 in his last three playoff games?

Why is it that the performances of some QBs who are regular-season warriors plummet during the playoffs? Brett Favre comes to mind, as does Peyton Manning, and it seems that Tom Brady is settling into this pattern too.

I agree with RedSoxExcel that I was baffled by the gameplan in the 4th quarter. Tom Brady seemed like he had no confidence in the pass.
Greg C.  
#15 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 9:57:08 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Did I hear correctly that the announcers said Tom Brady is 0-3 in his last three playoff games?

Why is it that the performances of some QBs who are regular-season warriors plummet during the playoffs? Brett Favre comes to mind, as does Peyton Manning, and it seems that Tom Brady is settling into this pattern too.

I agree with RedSoxExcel that I was baffled by the gameplan in the 4th quarter. Tom Brady seemed like he had no confidence in the pass.


2007 Super Bowl--lost
2008--injured
2009--lost in first round to Ravens
2010--lost in first round to Jets

That's three in a row for the best clutch QB of our era. So either Brady is not as clutch as people think he is, or he hasn't had as much support from his teammates. I tend to side more with the latter theory. Just look at the changes in personnel for the Patriots in recent years. Only a handful of players besides Brady are left from their last Super Bowl winning team (2004), and Deion Branch is a retread.

I guess that great QB's performances usually decline in the playoffs because, in part, of the old adage that "defenses win championships." The teams with the best defenses tend to make the playoffs and advance the farthest. It is much less likely that a QB will come up against a very soft defense that will allow him to roll up big numbers. This is even more true of QBs on teams that earn first round byes, as the softies tend to fall by the wayside in round one.

That clock-eating fourth quarter drive was indeed very strange. If they had hurried, the Jets would've kept faking injuries, stopping the clock. It does show how well the Jets defended the pass, completely throwing the Patriots off their game. If the Packers make it to the Super Bowl, I would rather have them face the Steelers than the Jets.
Nonstopdrivel  
#16 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 10:02:55 PM(UTC)
Great point. If I remember correctly, the Jets defense held the Packers to three fieldgoals the last time they met.

However, there we go again with the use of the word "clutch." In the second half, I kept thinking that if the Patriots somehow manage to eke out a victory, Brady will once again be heralded as a "clutch quarterback," despite having objectively sucked in the first three quarters. I think the term should be reserved for performances in which a player performs well during a game and pulls out a victory at the end because the opposing team made a good play when it counted, not for last second heroics that somehow manage to cover over a game's worth of sub-par performance. In other words, I think the term should be reserved for elevation of good performance, not for scrambling to compensate for poor performance.
Greg C.  
#17 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 10:17:06 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Great point. If I remember correctly, the Jets defense held the Packers to three fieldgoals the last time they met.

However, there we go again with the use of the word "clutch." In the second half, I kept thinking that if the Patriots somehow manage to eke out a victory, Brady will once again be heralded as a "clutch quarterback," despite having objectively sucked in the first three quarters. I think the term should be reserved for performances in which a player performs well during a game and pulls out a victory at the end because the opposing team made a good play when it counted, not for last second heroics that somehow manage to cover over a game's worth of sub-par performance. In other words, I think the term should be reserved for elevation of good performance, not for scrambling to compensate for poor performance.


That's a fair point. The thing is, Brady WAS that guy who used to play well the entire game and then pull it out at the end if necessary. I am with you all the way on liking those kinds of QBs better than the ones who put themselves into a hole and then have to dig themselves out of it. But most people like athletes who noticeably elevate the quality of their play when a contest comes down to the wire.

People love drama, and I think they like seeing the human side of athletes--screwing up and then atoning for their sins, all that sort of thing. We got such a heavy dose of that with Favre (who wasn't a great comeback QB anyway) that I think a lot of us got thoroughly sick of it. I know I did. No more drama please! Just play your best football for 60 minutes and win the damn game!
Pack93z  
#18 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 10:21:22 PM(UTC)
Is it Brady that has declined or is it that the League finally squashed some of the advantage that some of the practices of the Patriots and have returned them somewhat to the playing field.

When the Spygate scandal was brought to light.. they had enough tape on folks, current information, to string through for a while.. since some time has passed the Patriots haven't been the same Pats in the clutch that they once were.

Yesterday Billy Boy made several blunders.. fake punt and that late time consuming drive come to mind right away.

People can say all they want that there wasn't much advantaged gained.. but this team isn't the same machine it once was.. especially playoff time.
Nonstopdrivel  
#19 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 10:29:08 PM(UTC)
All good points, Shawn. I just had fun watching how frustrated Belichick looked the whole game. He wasn't his usual smugly poker-faced self.
Pack93z  
#20 Posted : Monday, January 17, 2011 10:30:52 PM(UTC)
I was hoping the icing on the cake might have been Rex throwing a right hook instead of a handshake. ;)
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Smokey (7m) : bye week is not listed in this forum's posting.
Zero2Cool (8m) : You don't follow the Pacers, do you?
gbguy20 (37m) : i must be missing something with the bye week comment
Smokey (1h) : Order your Pizza, Now !
Smokey (1h) : Packers
Smokey (1h) : Yes there is a bye week in the Pacers 2018 Schedule.
Zero2Cool (1h) : no charges? so the bomb was a dud??
Zero2Cool (1h) : No charges for WR Davis over LAX bomb joke
Cheesey (1h) : THE WRATH OF KHAN!!
Zero2Cool (2h) : damn caps
Zero2Cool (2h) : yEEHAW!!
Smokey (2h) : "DRAFT CHAT" Baby !
packerfanoutwest (5h) : Packers first pick will be lining up on with the defense
beast (5h) : If Packers trade up, they're grabbing James (or an ILB or CB) ;-P
beast (5h) : Sounds like Khan is moving the team to London in time.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : Here's an idea. Start a thread on who can pick the Packers #1 pick. Just make the pick only. No other comments.
Zero2Cool (6h) : This is NOT good
Zero2Cool (6h) : Shad Khan: I’m buying Wembley to keep the Jaguars stable in both London and Jacksonville
Zero2Cool (6h) : @AndrewBrandt Yes. The best GMs will leverage desperate teams tonight.
Zero2Cool (7h) : Today's Birthdays: StoicFire (30)
Zero2Cool (7h) : The Parlor is better than The Room.
beast (18h) : I believe the Packers seriously want to trade up (if they can find a price they like), I'm guessing for Fitzpatrick or James (though one guy said Ward). But could also be one of the ILBers (Smith or E
Smokey (20h) : Rumors are not money in the bank deals.
gbguy20 (22h) : pft reporting packers trying to trade up
Porforis (22h) : You're just a little chicken. Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep
Nonstopdrivel (23h) : I don't want to talk about it.
Porforis (23h) : You're tearing me apart, Rourke!
Nonstopdrivel (23h) : (See "Moar Randomness" thread.)
Nonstopdrivel (23h) : It's a reference to The Room. I'm sorry, I forgot that not everyone knows about that movie. That's just my favorite line from that movie.
Porforis (25-Apr) : I... Can't tell if serious or The Room reference.
Barfarn (25-Apr) : Perhaps no or inadequte coverage in general
Barfarn (25-Apr) : I’d guess “no help” refers to men not being covered for breast cancer
wpr (25-Apr) : O no. Sorry to hear this NSD.
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : Rourke, sorry to hear that, but who doesn't want to help you?
Cheesey (25-Apr) : Oh geez, nonstop. Like was said, we have your back.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2018 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 9 @ 7:20 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Sep 16 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Sep 23 @ 12:00 PM
Redskins
Sunday, Sep 30 @ 12:00 PM
BILLS
Sunday, Oct 7 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Monday, Oct 15 @ 7:15 PM
49ERS
Sunday, Oct 28 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Nov 4 @ 7:20 PM
Patriots
Sunday, Nov 11 @ 12:00 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Nov 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Sunday, Nov 25 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Dec 2 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Dec 9 @ 12:00 PM
FALCONS
Sunday, Dec 16 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Dec 23 @ 12:00 PM
Jets
Sunday, Dec 30 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
5m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6m / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

20m / Random Babble / Cheesey

22m / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

37m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Bigbyfan

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

24-Apr / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

24-Apr / Random Babble / Cheesey

24-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines