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 (6h) : A little yellow for contrast maybe ?
Zero2Cool (13h) : Thanks. Took about 16-20 hours.
wpr (16h) : looks great.
Zero2Cool (22h) : avatars aren't displaying
Zero2Cool (23h) : plain look
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17h / Announcements / dhazer

22-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / shield4life

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

21-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Feb / Community Welcome! / wpr

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

19-Feb / Around The NFL / uffda udfa

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Barfarn

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / warhawk

Headlines