Real Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 10:49 PM) The Falcons play Carolina in Atlanta. They would have to lose that game, the Bears would have to beat the Packers, and I believe the Saints would have to lose to Tampa as well. isn't the first tie breaker the divisional record? bears would be ahead in that category Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenryan Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 11:05 PM) OMG, Gruden and Jaworski have managed to slurp Brees EVEN MORE after his stupid pick-six. This is unbearable. Matty Ice has been said a billion times, and they've used every positive adjective known to mankind in describing Brees. I cant stand Tirico. The guy makes so many mistakes its not even funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (Real @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 11:52 PM) isn't the first tie breaker the divisional record? bears would be ahead in that category Not against teams not in your division. I believe it's head-to-head followed by best conference record. The Saints lost to the Ravens and and Browns, which would mean if they finish with 4 losses, they would have only 2 conference losses: Atlanta and Arizona. We would have 3 conference losses: Seattle, Washington, and NYG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (zenryan @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 11:55 PM) I cant stand Tirico. The guy makes so many mistakes its not even funny. He's pretty good. Jaws and Gruden bring down the overall quality a TON. There's no way ESPN can trot out this trio again next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 11:59 PM) He's pretty good. Jaws and Gruden bring down the overall quality a TON. There's no way ESPN can trot out this trio again next year. I think a lot of it stems from having a 3-man booth. I wish they would just do Tirico and a good color guy, preferably a guy like Charles Davis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 My goodness, there is a CLUSTERf*** of playoff scenarios next week in the NFC. Bears vs Packers Giants vs Redskins Falcons vs Panthers Bucs vs Saints I couldn't care less about the NFC West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 12:07 AM) My goodness, there is a CLUSTERf*** of playoff scenarios next week in the NFC. Bears vs Packers Giants vs Redskins Falcons vs Panthers Bucs vs Saints I couldn't care less about the NFC West. Yeah, but the odds of those last two changing from the current order is pretty slim if you ask me. The biggest game is clearly the Bears-Packers, as it has major implications for both teams. I guess the reason the Seattle/St Louis game was chosen for the Sunday Night game was because it was the only game the importance of which could not be affected by the outcome of any other games Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 08:43 PM) I understand the argument that going after and signing Vincent Jackson would make this team a lot better by giving Cutler a legit #1 option, a threat that makes everyone better, etc, but yeah, I can't put that priority as higher than 2nd on the list. If the Bears are going to spend money this offseason and FA proceeds normally somehow, I think Mankins out of NE ought to be their #1 target, and they still ought to draft OL with their first pick. Tommie Harris is clearly gonna get the whack. Then I would also whack Chester Taylor to save up some money. Sign Mankins and draft either Solder from Colorado or Conastanzo (sp??) from BC. Also try to sign V-Jack, but only after Mankins. Line becomes vastly improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 ATL gets NFC #1 with: - ATL win vs. Carolina OR - NO loss vs. TB + CHI loss at GB + 1 PHL loss (vs. Min or Dallas) NO gets NFC #1 with: - NO win vs. TB + ATL loss vs. Carolina PHL gets NFC #1 with: - 2 PHL wins (vs. Min and Dallas) + ATL loss vs. Carolina + NO loss vs. TB CHI gets NFC #1 with: - CHI win vs. GB + ATL loss + NO loss + 1 PHL loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 This just MOMENTS ago on ESPN, and this is an exact quote: "I am all over the Packers. Aaron Rodgers running the show, I think they're just a better team than the Chicago Bears and more to play for." - Trent Dilfer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 01:02 AM) ATL gets NFC #1 with: - ATL win vs. Carolina OR - NO loss vs. TB + CHI loss at GB + 1 PHL loss (vs. Min or Dallas) NO gets NFC #1 with: - NO win vs. TB + ATL loss vs. Carolina PHL gets NFC #1 with: - 2 PHL wins (vs. Min and Dallas) + ATL loss vs. Carolina + NO loss vs. TB CHI gets NFC #1 with: - CHI win vs. GB + ATL loss + NO loss + 1 PHL loss I don't understand why we need Philly to lose to get that #1 seed... Edit: I don't get it, but I guess this is accurate...because I see it on the Bears website as well. We beat them head to head, we have a better conference record...I don't get it...we finish ahead of the Eagles for the #2 seed if we tie them in record, but not for the #1 seed. Weird. Edited December 28, 2010 by iamshack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 01:06 AM) This just MOMENTS ago on ESPN, and this is an exact quote: "I am all over the Packers. Aaron Rodgers running the show, I think they're just a better team than the Chicago Bears and more to play for." Who said this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 01:12 AM) Who said this? Oh, my bad. Trent Dilfer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 01:13 AM) Oh, my bad. Trent Dilfer While they may have more to play for, it's certainly not much. I just hope our guys realize that. I can understand if he likes the Packers better than us; it's a debatable question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 10:59 PM) He's pretty good. Jaws and Gruden bring down the overall quality a TON. There's no way ESPN can trot out this trio again next year. ESPN's booth has been consistently terrible since they got MNF. Remember Kornheiser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 12:06 AM) This just MOMENTS ago on ESPN, and this is an exact quote: "I am all over the Packers. Aaron Rodgers running the show, I think they're just a better team than the Chicago Bears and more to play for." - Trent Dilfer There's more great analysis by Dilfer. Remember when he called their offense "pathetic" and said they'd win 10 games at most just a couple of weeks ago? Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 01:20 AM) ESPN's booth has been consistently terrible since they got MNF. Remember Kornheiser? The MNF booth has been bad regardless of what network it was on since the trio of Michaels, Gifford and Dierdorf was broken up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gooch Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 ESPN just has bad announcers in general. I find it hard to believe that they can't find someone better than Chris Berman for playoff baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxsoxsoxsox Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 12:06 AM) This just MOMENTS ago on ESPN, and this is an exact quote: "I am all over the Packers. Aaron Rodgers running the show, I think they're just a better team than the Chicago Bears and more to play for." - Trent Dilfer Dilfer is the same guy who gave the Bears no chance to clinch the North against the Vikings. It'll definitely be an extremely tough game to win tho. Edited December 28, 2010 by buhbuhburrrrlz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev211 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 12:11 AM) I don't understand why we need Philly to lose to get that #1 seed... Edit: I don't get it, but I guess this is accurate...because I see it on the Bears website as well. We beat them head to head, we have a better conference record...I don't get it...we finish ahead of the Eagles for the #2 seed if we tie them in record, but not for the #1 seed. Weird. I'm so confused by this, it makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (kev211 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 04:34 AM) I'm so confused by this, it makes no sense. I know...I guess it doesn't really matter though, unless the Ram's somehow manage to upset the 5 seed. Otherwise, the team the 1 seed is not going to be much different than the team the 2 seed plays in the divisional round. The much larger difference is between the 2 and the 3 seed. So let's go out and beat GB on Sunday afternoon. Edit: There seems to be a lot of confusion out there about this, as I have read on two Eagles-affiliated websites that Green Bay needs to beat the Bears for the Eagles as part of the scenario required for the Eagles' to secure the #1 seed. Second Edit: Gottlieb is on Mike and Mike in the morning and seemed to allude to strength of schedule as the reason the Eagles would get the #1 seed ahead of us. Maybe there are a different set of criteria for the #1 seed versus the #2 seed for some reason. Edited December 28, 2010 by iamshack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 04:58 AM) I know...I guess it doesn't really matter though, unless the Ram's somehow manage to upset the 5 seed. Otherwise, the team the 1 seed is not going to be much different than the team the 2 seed plays in the divisional round. True, but there is a big difference if the Eagles & Bears advance to the NFC Champ. game and the game is in Philly because they are the #1 seed despite the head-to-head loss. Edit: There seems to be a lot of confusion out there about this, as I have read on two Eagles-affiliated websites that Green Bay needs to beat the Bears for the Eagles as part of the scenario required for the Eagles' to secure the #1 seed. Second Edit: Gottlieb is on Mike and Mike in the morning and seemed to allude to strength of schedule as the reason the Eagles would get the #1 seed ahead of us. Maybe there are a different set of criteria for the #1 seed versus the #2 seed for some reason. I have seen the same thing on several websites that the Bears need the Eagles to lose to gain the #1 seed. It doesn't make any sense as to why head-to-head matters for the #2 seed, but not the #1? That being said, none of this discussion really matters. The Falcons are not gonna lose to Carolina in the Georgia Dome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 09:34 AM) True, but there is a big difference if the Eagles & Bears advance to the NFC Champ. game and the game is in Philly because they are the #1 seed despite the head-to-head loss. I have seen the same thing on several websites that the Bears need the Eagles to lose to gain the #1 seed. It doesn't make any sense as to why head-to-head matters for the #2 seed, but not the #1? That being said, none of this discussion really matters. The Falcons are not gonna lose to Carolina in the Georgia Dome. The answer is that the rules for a 3 way tie change from just a 2-way tie. Here's a summary chart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 09:16 AM) The answer is that the rules for a 3 way tie change from just a 2-way tie. Here's a summary chart. That's right. I completely forgot that it wouldn't just be the Eagles & Bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 06:25 PM) I'd rather have him than T.O. Ocho is just a free spirit. But he's never in real trouble and wants to win. He would be a great guy with the fans and charities in Chicago. You just described Terrell Owens more than you did Ochocinco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts