proposed change to NFL playoff system. .

I disagree. Years like this when a team with a bad record will win a division are rare. More likely, if you make changes, you'll end up hurting a good but not great winner of a really tough division. We're having a bizarre year with one division where every team is bad, and more than the usual number of teams with just a putrid record. If a lot of teams have a lot of losses, those wins of course have to go somewhere too, and you end up having a lot of teams bunched up who look to be playoff calibre. Some will be left out.

This is a once in twenty or more year weird scenerio. Don't overreact.

There is only one change I would be in favor.

That you need at least an 8-8 record to make the playoffs. If the division winner has less than a .500 record, then their spot is treated as another wild card spot.

Though wouldn't it be crazy if a 6-10 team wins the Superbowl? Heck a 5-11 could make the playoffs.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

There is only one change I would be in favor.

That you need at least an 8-8 record to make the playoffs. If the division winner has less than a .500 record, then their spot is treated as another wild card spot.

Though wouldn't it be crazy if a 6-10 team wins the Superbowl? Heck a 5-11 could make the playoffs.

just imagine if someone gets in 6-10 or 5-11, wins the super bowl, they would be 10-10 or 9-11. crazy, would never happen imo but crazy that it could

"Jt0323 wrote:

just imagine if someone gets in 6-10 or 5-11, wins the super bowl...

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with that scenario at all, because the best team would ultimately win. If somebody catches fire in the playoffs (like the Giants in recent years) we definitely don't hold it against them for having average seasons....they're the champs either way.

The only change I would be in favor of is getting rid of the wildcard altogether. If you can't win your division you shouldn't be in the playoffs

"adamprez2003 wrote:

The only change I would be in favor of is getting rid of the wildcard altogether. If you can't win your division you shouldn't be in the playoffs

That would be boring

"adamprez2003 wrote:

The only change I would be in favor of is getting rid of the wildcard altogether. If you can't win your division you shouldn't be in the playoffs

considering wildcard teams have won the superbowl, not sure that holds any water.
I would favor just not giving division winners automatic home field. Let record determine where the game is played.

Seeded tourney, best 12 teams get in. Divisions are more for scheduling consistency and rivalry than they should be for playoff determining. Sorry, there is nothing about "winning" a crap division that should let a team get in automatically. This would actually benefit the good teams in tough conferences - like us this year, or the NFC/AFC West divs. Last year you would have seen a team like the Cards make it. Additionally, you would not see any more of this crap where a superior record team has to go on the road to play in the first round.

March Madness is perhaps the most fun playoff tourney out there, NCAAF is going that route this year. Do it.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

That would be boring

It would, similar to how baseball did it in the past. Once the divisions were locked up, the end of the season was pointless. Definitely keep the wild cards - the last couple weeks of the NFL season are great and the wildcard plays a big role.

Also, I had the same idea with no under .500 teams in the playoffs - agree with you there. A 9-7 division winner is fine, maybe even getting a home game over a 10-6 team, but 7-9? Stay home and let a better team make the dance.

"texanphinatic wrote:

Seeded tourney, best 12 teams get in. Divisions are more for scheduling consistency and rivalry than they should be for playoff determining. Sorry, there is nothing about "winning" a crap division that should let a team get in automatically. This would actually benefit the good teams in tough conferences - like us this year, or the NFC/AFC West divs. Last year you would have seen a team like the Cards make it. Additionally, you would not see any more of this crap where a superior record team has to go on the road to play in the first round.

March Madness is perhaps the most fun playoff tourney out there, NCAAF is going that route this year. Do it.

Hate this. Our division sucks and does nothing but harm us. To then take away the benefit when we eventually win it? BS.

I like it the way it is. There's a good mix of reward for teams that played great throughout the year and hope for teams that got hot at the right time. Only thing different I'd do, is give it a week off in between the end of the season and the start of post. Give some teams a chance to heal and be full strength.

I don't think an 11 win wild card team should host a 10 win division winner. What about the AFC North. They have 6 games this year against: NFC North, Titans, Jaguars. 6 easy wins there.

I think if a division winner finishes 8-8 or worse, then they should have to go on the road to the wild card team.

Want to fix the playoff system?

Get rid of divisions. Every team in the AFC plays every other team in the AFC once. And an NFC wild card game added to create a 16 game season (the NFL will never do 15 game seasons, obviously). The NFL could designate a specific week for AFC and NFC teams to go head to head and advertise it like inter league play.

This would ensure equal competition among the conferences. No cupcake schedules for some teams and murderers row schedule's for others. This is the ONLY way to have truly fair competition. It's a fact that teams with difficult schedule's very rarely make the playoffs. The system the NFL currently employs is one of the most unbalanced and unfair systems in sports.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

There is only one change I would be in favor.

That you need at least an 8-8 record to make the playoffs. If the division winner has less than a .500 record, then their spot is treated as another wild card spot.

Though wouldn't it be crazy if a 6-10 team wins the Superbowl? Heck a 5-11 could make the playoffs.

Been saying that for years.

"Clark Kent wrote:

Want to fix the playoff system?

Get rid of divisions. Every team in the AFC plays every other team in the AFC once. And an NFC wild card game added to create a 16 game season (the NFL will never do 15 game seasons, obviously). The NFL could designate a specific week for AFC and NFC teams to go head to head and advertise it like inter league play.

This would ensure equal competition among the conferences. No cupcake schedules for some teams and murderers row schedule's for others. This is the ONLY way to have truly fair competition. It's a fact that teams with difficult schedule's very rarely make the playoffs. The system the NFL currently employs is one of the most unbalanced and unfair systems in the NFL.

That's not a horrible idea.

The only thing I would say to some who want teams with losing records to either be not allowed in or forced to travel is you obviously didn't watch New Orleans go to Seattle a few years ago with a 12-4 or 11-5 record and get plowed by Lynch and co. It's very rare that a team with a losing record makes the playoffs but what happens when a team with a good record is just a product of a soft schedule? The way they have it now is fine IMO. Fin D and Clark Kent made good suggestions IMO, otherwise if it ain't broke...

"Jersey Dolfan wrote:

Looking at the putrid NFC south records, and being that the NFL counts league wide losses in playoff standings, I believe there is one common sense change that should take place:

All division winners should automatically get a playoff spot, UNLESS, there is another team in conference with a better record that is not a division winner.

IMO, in college only conference record matters for conference standings, so it makes more sense,BC the only real constant is the teams u play in conference, since OC games vary greatly.

but in the NFL, you can be a horrible team, but just by lucky virtue of being in a horrible division, get into the playoffs over much better teams who competed in the same league as you. This doesn't hurt good or decent teams in a crappy division, BC if they truly are good, they will beat up on their division and have a good record.

I think this has to happen, as after the restructure into 4 divisions per conference, the playoff spots seem to miss the best teams in a number of seasons.

Thoughts?

Along the same line, suppose one division has all teams with a 13-3 record, split with all teams in the div. Which one misses the playoffs? Just a random thought.................

"Ohio Fanatic wrote:

considering wildcard teams have won the superbowl, not sure that holds any water.
I would favor just not giving division winners automatic home field. Let record determine where the game is played.

Yea, home field shouldn't be based on division winners getting it automatically. Seems silly for a 9-7 division winner to host a 10-6 wild card.

"Stitches wrote:

Yea, home field shouldn't be based on division winners getting it automatically. Seems silly for a 9-7 division winner to host a 10-6 wild card.

What about the fairly common occurance of a team getting to 9-7 via a brutal schedule, while another gets 10 or 11 wins by beating up 7 or 8 cupcakes? A team's record isn't the end all of how good they are.

Look at Miami this year. of our 11 games, 8 have been against winning teams. Numerous other teams are the exact opposite.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

What about the fairly common occurance of a team getting to 9-7 via a brutal schedule, while another gets 10 or 11 wins by beating up 7 or 8 cupcakes? A team's record isn't the end all of how good they are.

Look at Miami this year. of our 11 games, 8 have been against winning teams. Numerous other teams are the exact opposite.

No it isn't, yet that is exactly how draft order is determined. Worst record gets first pick, then 2nd, then 3rd, etc. Only for tie-breakers does SOS get factored in. Otherwise seedings are strictly bu W-L's.

If we finish 9-7 but played 12 games against teams with winning records (for example), we're not getting in the playoffs over a 10-6 team that got to play the AFC and NFC south for 8 games. So why shouldn't home games be determined by the same method?

I mean what if we had a brutal schedule (like we do imo) and finish 11-5, yet behind the Pats who are 12-4 (or 13-3, whatever). You think because we didn't win our division we should give up a home game to the Colts or AFC North winner if they are 10-6?

This is a debate i have had with a few friends..they think a division winner with a poor record shouldn't get in the playoffs. My opinion is this, if that's what they want.

Get rid of the division's period because they mean nothing then. Make it 16 team conferences and add more games from the other conference to replace the second division games.Then seed the playoffs from the top 6-8 in each conference.

I hate the idea of division winners not making the playoffs because of a poor record. What if a 10-6 division winner doesn't get in because of this system? The divisions are there because it creates rivalries that promote bigger promotions and big game atmosphere.

There is a reason baseball went to divisions instead of two conferences.

I say leave it alone. or make it so the division winner with a poor record doesn't host a playoff game. But to eliminate them all together is silly.

"Hellion wrote:

This is a debate i have had with a few friends..they think a division winner with a poor record shouldn't get in the playoffs. My opinion is this, if that's what they want.

Get rid of the division's period because they mean nothing then. Make it 16 team conferences and add more games from the other conference to replace the second division games.Then seed the playoffs from the top 6-8 in each conference.

I hate the idea of division winners not making the playoffs because of a poor record. What if a 10-6 division winner doesn't get in because of this system? The divisions are there because it creates rivalries that promote bigger promotions and big game atmosphere.

There is a reason baseball went to divisions instead of two conferences.

I say leave it alone. or make it so the division winner with a poor record doesn't host a playoff game. But to eliminate them all together is silly.

I can go along with division winners at less than 8-8, so that a winning division winner does not get left out. However, i agree that division rivalries are fun etc - but they are also to an extent not meaningful enough under our current system - In college football, every conference game is the same atmosphere and that is b/c you play each team once, and the ONLY record that counts toward a conference championship is in conference play. In the NFL you could literally sweet 2/3 of your division opponents, but not even be close to winning the division, even against a team you may have swept. For instance, if we sweep NE this season (not saying we do, just saying) I dont love that kind of system. I say if overall NFL record determines in division standings, then don't let a crappy division team with less than a .500 record host a game or even be in the playoffs.

Needs more boobies

Depth ?

with all the injuries we have had on the oline will we be adding veteran players for depth ? is Dion Sims still the starting tight end , so who is our number 2 tightend?

I assume that we will add olinemen n the draft so what is the biggest concern going forward ?

what will likely be our need if we have another injury or two ? I am just asking because we seem to have more injuries this season. if you had to list our biggest needs what are they ?