Jump to content

NFL Playoffs


Vic Mackey

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Starting to wonder if all the playoff teams should get a week off between regular season and playoffs.   

Might result in a lot better games in the playoffs... 

20 games in 21 weeks is brutal as fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, GTX Horn said:

The NFL needs 2 bye weeks in the regular season. Especially if/when they add an 18th game

Este.  The quality of the game drops off so badly in December as we lose starters and end up with guys who were roofing houses or in practice squads a month earlier in starting roles.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bartles said:

Purdy vs Hurts: Doubt next week will have this many points...how did ISU receiver not hold onto ball for the win

 

I have no data to back this up but both Philly and sf seem to love to milk the clock.  Points to an under.  Which means it’ll probably go over

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting to wonder if all the playoff teams should get a week off between regular season and playoffs.   
Might result in a lot better games in the playoffs... 

Nope. Networks won’t allow it. League doesn’t want it. Gives losing teams another week advantage. Delays in coaching fills.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good thing that failed was the NFL’s beta test for an offsite AFC Championship. I’m supremely glad that blew up in their face. Glad that the Bengals were insulted. For all the bitching that people do about NFL being rigged and creating their narrative and executing it the Bengals told them to fuck off. Judging from the reactions of most everyone…no one thought the offsite game was a good idea. That won’t stop Roger and the NFL from trying it again but at least Burrow (Joe Cool/IceMan) and Cincy blew that up this year. This pleases me and I hope they go on to win the SB. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Este.  The quality of the game drops off so badly in December as we lose starters and end up with guys who were roofing houses or in practice squads a month earlier in starting roles.  

why the hell is an active gameday roster still only 46 players???  The roster needs to be 60 active guys, everyone active.  Why the hell does the active rule exist anyway??

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the current practice squad rules it isn't far from that now. They league allows 46 active on game day because that's the league's owners general consensus on what they actually need to suit up. The reserve stock they have now is far more expansive than the league has ever had before. And they're probably going to expand it again to add a third emergency qb option.

Edited by DougO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DougO said:

With the current practice squad rules it isn't far from that now. They league allows 46 active on game day because that's the league's owners general consensus on what they ac5ually need to suit up. The reserve stock they have now is far more expansive than the league has ever had before.

but if they are inactive, it's useless.  I say activate everyone, even the practice squad.  Suppose the PK is hurt in game, the backup PK doesn't need to be activated to kick the game winner, otherwise the team loses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, DougO said:

And they're probably going to expand it again to add a third emergency qb option.

I think the league should require tems to have former QBs of each franchise on-site during their games.   That way, if QB1 and QB2 go down, bring in the gimp!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but if they are inactive, it's useless.  I say activate everyone, even the practice squad.  Suppose the PK is hurt in game, the backup PK doesn't need to be activated to kick the game winner, otherwise the team loses. 

The 53 gets a game check regardless of active /inactive. They can elevate 2 PS players each week with no penalty. Still 46 actives. So the 46 is an arbitrary number to park injured players without IR. I think they should go 50 game active and 58 total plus 16 PS. The union doesn’t want expansion as it dilutes their pie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:


The 53 gets a game check regardless of active /inactive. They can elevate 2 PS players each week with no penalty. Still 46 actives. So the 46 is an arbitrary number to park injured players without IR. I think they should go 50 game active and 58 total plus 16 PS. The union doesn’t want expansion as it dilutes their pie.

why not 53 game active? Awash in money, the owners can handle anything, not to mention all the public money they get for the stadiums. It's slavery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have always had limits. When I was a kid the 53 was just 40 players.

How is it slavery? If you’re on the 53 you get a game check whether active or not and those games count towards pension. Usually they are injured players you don’t want to put on ir.

So what is the status of dinged up players that can’t go? Are they on the 53 and not playing? It’s not as simple as having all 53 play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slavery my ass. Pretty sure you can quit if you don’t like it. Doesn’t seem like slaves had that option. Also there’s the whole getting paid thing which I don’t think slaves had either. But maybe I’m misreading.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slavery my ass. Pretty sure you can quit if you don’t like it. Doesn’t seem like slaves had that option. Also there’s the whole getting paid thing which I don’t think slaves had either. But maybe I’m misreading.

I think you’re missing the part about lifelong dreams for the opportunity at the NFL/slavery. They gotta be similar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2023 at 9:12 PM, Make em eat Taco Bell said:

NFL HFA is very important. That being said, Joe Burrow is god and can overcome KC which is banged up. 

Doesnt' matter. Eagles are your Superbowl champ. 

Hurts' shoulder is still bothering him. Apparently, the 45-yard pass he threw early Sunday was the first pass he's thrown anywhere NEAR THAT FAR (ADDED thru EDIT) since the injury. And the Eagles didn't throw another one after that. I still can't wrap my mind around Hurts leading a team to a Super Bowl win so I'm still going with the Bengals to win it all. Whoever survives the next two weeks will have earned it. This is as salty a Final Four as I can remember.

Edited by C-Man
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2023 at 10:27 PM, Nicole44 said:

Yep. I think the AFC Champion Bengals will wipe the floor with the Fecals after the Fecals smack down the 49’ers

I don't know.  I liked the Bengals and Cowboys.  And the first 24 years of the Super Bowl there were only 5 interesting games.  And the Bengals or Cowboys lost all of them.  Then Buffalo lost by 1 and it was another 10 years before there was an interesting Super Bowl.

The Bengals and Cowboys have each lost 3 Super Bowls and they all have been interesting games.  So if the Bengals get there and its close, expect the other team to win.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2023 at 3:46 PM, Make em eat Taco Bell said:

why not 53 game active? Awash in money, the owners can handle anything, not to mention all the public money they get for the stadiums. It's slavery

 

Using that word in reference to *any* occupation that pays what these players make is so far beyond the pale.  I always wonder how anyone who was actually enslaved would feel about that comparison.  Playing in the NFL isn't just a privilege, it's about as much a privilege as one can hope/dream for.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know.  I liked the Bengals and Cowboys.  And the first 24 years of the Super Bowl there were only 5 interesting games.  And the Bengals or Cowboys lost all of them.  Then Buffalo lost by 1 and it was another 10 years before there was an interesting Super Bowl.
The Bengals and Cowboys have each lost 3 Super Bowls and they all have been interesting games.  So if the Bengals get there and its close, expect the other team to win.
 
So Bengals/49ers III. 20-16 or 26-21?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 10:51 AM, Brothahorn said:
On 1/24/2023 at 10:12 PM, bullet said:
I don't know.  I liked the Bengals and Cowboys.  And the first 24 years of the Super Bowl there were only 5 interesting games.  And the Bengals or Cowboys lost all of them.  Then Buffalo lost by 1 and it was another 10 years before there was an interesting Super Bowl.
The Bengals and Cowboys have each lost 3 Super Bowls and they all have been interesting games.  So if the Bengals get there and its close, expect the other team to win.
 

So Bengals/49ers III. 20-16 or 26-21?

We got oh so close last year to that match up, but I think not.  Eagles/ Bengals.  Bengals take it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, C-Man said:

Sorry if this has been discussed. But I really can’t believe the NFL would consider having future conference championship games at neutral sites. What a horrifically bad idea that would be.

https://www.si.com/.amp/nfl/2023/01/22/nfl-playoffs-conference-championships-neutral-sites

Just think about it from the league perspective 

Hh9IU-1464019894-4147-list_items-scrooge

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...