At what point do they consider seeding teams based only on their records, and not on winning their division?   I’m not complaining, because we get the #2 seed with this flaw, but the fact that a 14 win team is gonna be seeded #5 is pretty stupid in my opinion. 

14 minutes ago, hputenis said:

At what point do they consider seeding teams based only on their records, and not on winning their division?   I’m not complaining, because we get the #2 seed with this flaw, but the fact that a 14 win team is gonna be seeded #5 is pretty stupid in my opinion. 

Divisions need to count for something

I was curious, so I looked.  Even if Saquon doesn't play, we likely end up with at least a top 3 total team rushing season of all time after next week.  #2 is in play but I think #1 is out of reach.

https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/which-team-has-the-most-rushing-yards-in-a-season

2 hours ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

14?! I think I noticed him once. If you said he got 2, I’d believe it. Play an extra DT before him 

 

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

They did play Booker a lot more snaps than usual, so it was "both-and"

He only played 2 when the game was still a game. The rest was in garbage time late in the 4th. 

15 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Divisions need to count for something

They still would. A ticket to the playoffs. Keep the same setup, just seed the pool of teams that made it. 

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

They still would. A ticket to the playoffs. Keep the same setup, just seed the pool of teams that made it. 

Don't like it.  Win your division.

1 hour ago, Freshmilk said:

And Dnaiels has been using his running ability to get them out of tough spots, getting them into favorable down and distances.  He burned us several times with his legs and did so again last night against ATL. He is also already a very good RZ qb.

The pass rush needs to be more disciplined than last time.  

Being a Jets fan must be a certain type of hell 

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

The pass rush needs to be more disciplined than last time.  

Mush rush

But teams don't choose who's in their division. All the Texans are doing is winning enough games to win a **** division. You're punishing better teams for happening to exist in a division with way tougher teams.

It's actually pretty insane that the Lions, who've been the #1 seed all season, could fall all the way to 5 if they lose on Sunday. And then have to go on the road.

7 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

But teams don't choose who's in their division. All the Texans are doing is winning enough games to win a **** division. You're punishing better teams for happening to exist in a division with way tougher teams.

Then why have conferences and just seed everyone 1 thru 14

30 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Divisions need to count for something

They still would, but not as much weight would be placed on winning it.  Still play each team twice and division records would still hold the most weight after head to head. I think I’m onto something here. Let me make some calls. 

9 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

It's actually pretty insane that the Lions, who've been the #1 seed all season, could fall all the way to 5 if they lose on Sunday. And then have to go on the road.

Yup. Go Vikings. Make Goff win 3 straight road games.

Just now, DaEagles4Life said:

Then why have conferences and just seed everyone 1 thru 14

Rivalries = box office.

45 minutes ago, hputenis said:

At what point do they consider seeding teams based only on their records, and not on winning their division?   I’m not complaining, because we get the #2 seed with this flaw, but the fact that a 14 win team is gonna be seeded #5 is pretty stupid in my opinion. 

It makes sense on some level to base it solely on record because it would give more incentive for teams currently locked in at the 2 and 3 seeds to start players in the last week.  I just don't think owners have any interest in changing the system.  

It's funny that people keep saying the NFL is getting softer. I actually think the fans are getting softer as well.

Listen to some people here posting like they are scared and worried about which opponent we're going to play first in the playoffs. In the end you're going to have to play good teams to get to the Super Bowl so why does it matter which one we have to start with. At the same time people are worried about a possible injury if Barkley goes for the record.

When did the fans get so soft?

I think the main problem with Daniels running is no one hits him.  Hit him good one time and I bet they rethink that strategy.

 

Last night you could see the Atlanta guy boxed him out on the sidelines to get him to step out. I give credit to the one guy who smashed him from behind when he wasn't looking he doesn't have the best ball security running with one hand either 

1 minute ago, hputenis said:

They still would, but not as much weight would be placed on winning it.  Still play each team twice and division records would still hold the most weight after head to head. I think I’m onto something here. Let me make some calls. 

Too much difference in schedules when you take teams in different divisions.  The situation with the Vikings/Lions isn't normal.

Just now, tuffstuff07 said:

I think the main problem with Daniels running is no one hits him.  Hit him good one time and I bet they rethink that strategy.

 

Last night you could see the Atlanta guy boxed him out on the sidelines to get him to step out. I give credit to the one guy who smashed him from behind when he wasn't looking he doesn't have the best ball security running with one had either 

He got decked pretty hard right before they won the game in OT - on his last scramble.  You could tell he felt that one.  With his style of play and his frame, he won't last.  

The thing that worries me about the playoffs this year, above all else, is the officiating.  I honestly think based off what we've seen this year that for whatever reason the officiating crews have it out for us and are going to do whatever they can to keep us from winning it all.  It's obvious that there are no penalties/ramifications for incorrect or downright poor calls.  

8 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

Rivalries = box office.

Then division winners matter 

4 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

The thing that worries me about the playoffs this year, above all else, is the officiating.  I honestly think based off what we've seen this year that for whatever reason the officiating crews have it out for us and are going to do whatever they can to keep us from winning it all.  It's obvious that there are no penalties/ramifications for incorrect or downright poor calls.  

There are less penalties in the playoffs generally. We get flagged a lot, and don't draw flags anyway, so that could be a good thing. 

3 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Then division winners matter 

Division winners matter. They shouldn't get higher seeds than teams with better records though.

Let's consider the situation where the Lions win tonight and then lose next week giving the Vikings the division. Would we be ok with the Lions getting the #2 seed and then having home field vs. the #3 Eagles in the divisional round due to the conf records?  I know I sure wouldn't.  It sucks to have a 3 loss team have to go on the road against a mediocre division winner but you can't just reseed imho and this year.  The situation this year is a very exceptional situation, not optimal but not one that occurs that often.