NFC Playoff Teams

[3rdAnswer]

My picks.

NFC East - Cowboys
NFC West - Rams
NFC North - Vikings
NFC South - Panthers

Wildcards - Giants, Seahawks

[TMacFrog]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mauler34

4 years in a row there buddy; 2003 the Rams won the division, but Seattle placed 2nd and went to the playoffs as a wild card. Seattle won the division in 2004 by sweeping the Rams, but the Rams ended up winning the final battle in the wild card round of the playoffs. Only since 2005 has Seattle truely been dominating the division, which is why I threw in the stat of 20-10 in non-division games (including playoffs) over the last 4 years, including 10-4 over the mighty NFC East. But its much easier for uninformed fans and pundits to say Seattle will win the division because it is weak instead of actually recognizing that Seattle is a good team, and has been a good team for quite a while now (best record in the NFC since they joined it in 2002). I'm sure that's why there is always a popular pick among "experts" to win the division over Seattle. Last year it was the 49ers. This year it's the Cardinals. For a good couple years, the NFC West was a battleground between the Seahawks and the Rams, but the Rams have fallen off as of late. You could make the case that the NFC South is a weaker division than the NFC West, while the AFC East, AFC West, and NFC North are pretty comparable. I am by no means saying that the NFC West is a strong division, but please, give some credit where its due (a good team should dominate their division). Only the Patriots have more consecutive seasons with at least one playoff win than Seattle, and only the Colts, Patriots and Seahawks have made the playoffs for the last five years in a row. Seattle might not be a great team, and they might have peaked in 2005, but they are still a force to be reckoned with in the NFC and still as legitimate a contender as any in the conference. With a star-studded defense and a future HOF head coach in his final season (Holmgren is tied with Paul Brown for #10 in all-time wins as a NFL head coach at 170), Seattle should have a good season this year, despite the questions on offense (Hasselbeck has shown he is capable of carrying the entire offense on his arm). And its not just because the 9ers, Rams and Cardinals haven't been able to compete very well, although if you'll recall, the Cardinals beat some pretty good teams last year (Seahawks, Steelers, Browns), so its not like the division is the cakewalk you're making it out to be.

K, Seattle is not a great team by any means. They're an solid team, i wouldn't even say good, but above average. The other 3 teams in the division aren't bad, they're just average. I don't see how u could say the NFC South is a weaker division considering the Bucs have won a Superbowl recently. The Panthers lost in the last minute to the dominant Patriots in the superbowl recently, and the Saints have one of the best offenses in the NFL. The only team that really sucks in that division is the Falcons. The other teams in that division are all good teams.

And last season, against the "weaker" NFC South teams, the Seahawks went 1-3.

[Mauler34]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMacFrog

K, Seattle is not a great team by any means. They're an solid team, i wouldn't even say good, but above average. The other 3 teams in the division aren't bad, they're just average. I don't see how u could say the NFC South is a weaker division considering the Bucs have won a Superbowl recently. The Panthers lost in the last minute to the dominant Patriots in the superbowl recently, and the Saints have one of the best offenses in the NFL. The only team that really sucks in that division is the Falcons. The other teams in that division are all good teams. And last season, against the "weaker" NFC South teams, the Seahawks went 1-3.

Wow. OK...

I wouldn't call 2002 "recent" but if that's what you're calling recent, then why doesn't Seattle's NFC best record since 2002 matter? You're being rather selective of what facts you want to acknowledge and disregard. Seattle was 1-3 against the NFC South, true, but the NFC South's division winner, Tampa Bay, was also 1-3 against the NFC West. On paper, the top two teams from the NFC West (Seattle, Arizona) look better than the top two teams from the NFC South (New Orleans, Tampa Bay) this year (and that's not according to me, but most every football power ranking I've seen has Seattle and Arizona collectively ranked above New Orleans and Tampa Bay). The Panthers could be good this year, probably better than the 3rd place NFC West team, but the Rams/49ers both look much better than the Falcons, on paper. And if you want to talk about talent, can you remind me just how many NFC South players were pro-bowlers last year?

You say "They're an solid team, i wouldn't even say good, but above average" in regards to Seattle, yet you say that the NFC South has 3 "good" teams in New Orleans, Tampa Bay, and Carolina...are you serious? If Seattle's NFC-best 58-38 record since 2002 is "above average", then what does that say about the rest of the teams in the NFC? Like I said, I can handle you saying you think the Seahawks on the decline; hell, I might even be inclined to agree with you. But give respect where it is due. Your argument is full of holes, and when you say things like "Seattle is not a great team by any means", it makes me wonder if you're just being dismissive or if you have an axe to grind.

But whatever, it will all be settled soon. If you're not going to acknowledge my points, I'll just shut up and let you learn for yourself.

[Freelance]

Saints
Cowboys
Vikings
Seahawks

wildcard: Eagles, Giants

[TMacFrog]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mauler34

Wow. OK... I wouldn't call 2002 "recent" but if that's what you're calling recent, then why doesn't Seattle's NFC best record since 2002 matter? You're being rather selective of what facts you want to acknowledge and disregard. Seattle was 1-3 against the NFC South, true, but the NFC South's division winner, Tampa Bay, was also 1-3 against the NFC West. On paper, the top two teams from the NFC West (Seattle, Arizona) look better than the top two teams from the NFC South (New Orleans, Tampa Bay) this year (and that's not according to me, but most every football power ranking I've seen has Seattle and Arizona collectively ranked above New Orleans and Tampa Bay). The Panthers could be good this year, probably better than the 3rd place NFC West team, but the Rams/49ers both look much better than the Falcons, on paper. And if you want to talk about talent, can you remind me just how many NFC South players were pro-bowlers last year? You say "They're an solid team, i wouldn't even say good, but above average" in regards to Seattle, yet you say that the NFC South has 3 "good" teams in New Orleans, Tampa Bay, and Carolina...are you serious? If Seattle's NFC-best 58-38 record since 2002 is "above average", then what does that say about the rest of the teams in the NFC? Like I said, I can handle you saying you think the Seahawks on the decline; hell, I might even be inclined to agree with you. But give respect where it is due. Your argument is full of holes, and when you say things like "Seattle is not a great team by any means", it makes me wonder if you're just being dismissive or if you have an axe to grind. But whatever, it will all be settled soon. If you're not going to acknowledge my points, I'll just shut up and let you learn for yourself.

I don't care what they've done in the past, I'm saying that they weren't very good last year and they won't be very good this year. They'll win the division easily, but that's because the Rams, 49ers and Cardinals are only half good. Rams and Cards have a good offense but lack defense and 49ers have a run game (but they're gonna b pass heavy with Martz as OC) and a solid defense.

I could care less about the Bucs record against the NFC West last year. The argument isn't about who's better, Seattle or Tampa. I'm just saying Tampa, New Orleans and Carolina are better than anything that the NFC West has to offer. Tampa has a great defense, a good leader at QB (just like seattle), but they actually have a running game. New Orleans has one of the best offenses in the NFL, and they're pretty lacking on defense but that's why they're gonna finish 3rd in the division. Carolina has a strong passing game with Delhomme healthy and the runningbacks seem to finally be getting it going in the preseason. and they're defense is pretty strong mostly due to teh play of Julius Peppers who will return to probowl form this season.

Top to bottom, the NFC South is actually ranked higher on the power rankings than the NFC West, even with the Falcons being the worst team on the list. I personally don't think the power rankings are very good, but I'm just using it because that was your argument. Power rankings aren't very good because before the season starts, its all pretty much an educated guess. u could make an argument for most of those teams to be higher on the power rankings.

[Mauler34]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMacFrog

I don't care what they've done in the past, I'm saying that they weren't very good last year and they won't be very good this year. They'll win the division easily, but that's because the Rams, 49ers and Cardinals are only half good. Rams and Cards have a good offense but lack defense and 49ers have a run game (but they're gonna b pass heavy with Martz as OC) and a solid defense. I could care less about the Bucs record against the NFC West last year. The argument isn't about who's better, Seattle or Tampa. I'm just saying Tampa, New Orleans and Carolina are better than anything that the NFC West has to offer. Tampa has a great defense, a good leader at QB (just like seattle), but they actually have a running game. New Orleans has one of the best offenses in the NFL, and they're pretty lacking on defense but that's why they're gonna finish 3rd in the division. Carolina has a strong passing game with Delhomme healthy and the runningbacks seem to finally be getting it going in the preseason. and they're defense is pretty strong mostly due to teh play of Julius Peppers who will return to probowl form this season. Top to bottom, the NFC South is actually ranked higher on the power rankings than the NFC West, even with the Falcons being the worst team on the list. I personally don't think the power rankings are very good, but I'm just using it because that was your argument. Power rankings aren't very good because before the season starts, its all pretty much an educated guess. u could make an argument for most of those teams to be higher on the power rankings.

I pointed out Tampa Bay's record against the NFC West because you used Seattle's record against the NFC South as one of your reasons why the NFC West was weak. I'm just showing you that it goes both ways. And just for the record, Pro Football Weekly's power rankings have the NFC West teams at an average of 17.5 and the NFC South teams at an average of 19. Neither of those is very good, and like you, I'd really rather not get into a debate over power rankings, but its not like I'm just making crap up here. Again, you're being very selective of the points you wish to acknowledge and disregard with statements like "because that was your argument". You don't know if Seattle has a run game or not - there is a new starter at RB, a new RG, and a new o-line coach. In the preseason, Seattle led the NFL in rushing. You need to stop stating your opinions as facts, because obviously the actual facts are just flying over your head.

I'm sensing that you must be a Panthers fan, so I'm also sensing that you might have a bit of an axe to grind with Seattle over that last playoff game. What can I say? I don't have anything against the Panthers, and I'm not here to get personal with this argument. That said, we'll see how the season goes - that's what this whole thread is about, predictions, not prophecies. I just thought you were being very dismissive of one of the premier teams in the NFC, so I called you out on it, and no offense, but all you've really done so far is display your ignorance. The NFC South and NFC West are both rather weak divisions, and which one is weaker really depends on who you ask. But the point is that you can't dismiss a team just because the rest of the teams in their division aren't very good (even though the Cardinals almost made the playoffs last year, and are a popular pick to do so this year).

So I'm done with this "debate" for now. We'll see how the season plays out.

[TMacFrog]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mauler34

I pointed out Tampa Bay's record against the NFC West because you used Seattle's record against the NFC South as one of your reasons why the NFC West was weak. I'm just showing you that it goes both ways. And just for the record, Pro Football Weekly's power rankings have the NFC West teams at an average of 17.5 and the NFC South teams at an average of 19. Neither of those is very good, and like you, I'd really rather not get into a debate over power rankings, but its not like I'm just making crap up here. Again, you're being very selective of the points you wish to acknowledge and disregard with statements like "because that was your argument". You don't know if Seattle has a run game or not - there is a new starter at RB, a new RG, and a new o-line coach. In the preseason, Seattle led the NFL in rushing. You need to stop stating your opinions as facts, because obviously the actual facts are just flying over your head. I'm sensing that you must be a Panthers fan, so I'm also sensing that you might have a bit of an axe to grind with Seattle over that last playoff game. What can I say? I don't have anything against the Panthers, and I'm not here to get personal with this argument. That said, we'll see how the season goes - that's what this whole thread is about, predictions, not prophecies. I just thought you were being very dismissive of one of the premier teams in the NFC, so I called you out on it, and no offense, but all you've really done so far is display your ignorance. The NFC South and NFC West are both rather weak divisions, and which one is weaker really depends on who you ask. But the point is that you can't dismiss a team just because the rest of the teams in their division aren't very good (even though the Cardinals almost made the playoffs last year, and are a popular pick to do so this year). So I'm done with this "debate" for now. We'll see how the season plays out.

Honestly, I think the AFC West is the weakest division in football, even weaker than our two divisions. And I'm a Bucs/Bills fan. Mostly Bucs, but I'm starting to like the Bills cuz their training camp is right by my house so I go see them a lot. But yeah, I'm tired of debating. We'll see how the season turns out.

And I was using the power rankings from ESPN or NFL.com. can't remember which, but they were obviously different.

[sammyc521]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mauler34

4 years in a row there buddy...

Going to the playoffs at a "wildcard" is still to the playoff 5 years in a row if I'm not mistaken.