Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: If we do make the playoffs...
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
xsv
Wouldn't we play either the 49ers or the Saints?

I can't see us winning either of those games, tbh.

Out of those two, I guess I'd prefer the 49ers at the link because they'd have to fly cross country, and I hear their qb hasn't played well this year.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (xsv @ Dec 18 2013, 04:04 PM) *
Wouldn't we play either the 49ers or the Saints?

I can't see us winning either of those games, tbh.

Out of those two, I guess I'd prefer the 49ers at the link because they'd have to fly cross country, and I hear their qb hasn't played well this year.

Think it could be the Panthers, too. Not sure what the odds are at this point.

Of the two you mentioned, I'd actually probably prefer the Saints. Make Drew Brees play outside in a cold Philadelphia. SF is a power team, so they'd be less likely impacted by the elements.

Either way, we're in an unfavorable position against either team. We may be able to put some points up on the Saints though.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (xsv @ Dec 18 2013, 04:04 PM) *
Wouldn't we play either the 49ers or the Saints?

I can't see us winning either of those games, tbh.

Out of those two, I guess I'd prefer the 49ers at the link because they'd have to fly cross country, and I hear their qb hasn't played well this year.


If the Seahawks were to lose out and SF wins out, SF would have the better division record (1-1 head-to-head) and would win
the division. In other words, SF will be a wild card.

NO and Carolina play this week to determine who will be the other wild card (both would likely win their final game). As SF is
highly likely to win out, this would make NO/Car the #6 seed at 11-5, and SF #5 at 12-4. However, if SF doesn't win out, those
seeds will be switched, as SF has lost to both NO and Car this season.

We play Chi this weekend to determine which division gets the #3 seed, and which one gets #4. The loser will only be able to
tie the other division winner at best, and would have a head-to-head loss against the other one (Dallas has lost to Chi this year).

I don't see how we get a win in the first round, but anything can happen. NO might actually be our best bet, just pray for a
blizzard.
xsv
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Dec 18 2013, 04:29 PM) *
If the Seahawks were to lose out and SF wins out, SF would have the better division record (1-1 head-to-head) and would win
the division. In other words, SF will be a wild card.

NO and Carolina play this week to determine who will be the other wild card (both would likely win their final game). As SF is
highly likely to win out, this would make NO/Car the #6 seed at 11-5, and SF #5 at 12-4. However, if SF doesn't win out, those
seeds will be switched, as SF has lost to both NO and Car this season.

We play Chi this weekend to determine which division gets the #3 seed, and which one gets #4. The loser will only be able to
tie the other division winner at best, and would have a head-to-head loss against the other one (Dallas has lost to Chi this year).

I don't see how we get a win in the first round, but anything can happen. NO might actually be our best bet, just pray for a
blizzard.


So the 49ers or Saints/Carolina.

I don't like the match up against any of them.
Dreagon
I agree with mcnabbulous. If you guys end up hosting a game in the playoffs, you want it to be the Saints. I think you guys would match up best against them, especially in an outdoor stadium in January.
SAM I Am
If we do get in the playoffs...

They will have surpassed my expectations for the season.

And I say, bring on whoever!!!
Bocadelphia Eagles John
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Dec 18 2013, 07:41 PM) *
And I say, bring on whoever!!!


I know you mean whomever. But for me it doesn't matter, I won't like that game either. No matter whomever or wherever. It's the why-ever that has me totally baffled.
nephillymike
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Dec 18 2013, 04:29 PM) *
If the Seahawks were to lose out and SF wins out, SF would have the better division record (1-1 head-to-head) and would win
the division. In other words, SF will be a wild card.

NO and Carolina play this week to determine who will be the other wild card (both would likely win their final game). As SF is
highly likely to win out, this would make NO/Car the #6 seed at 11-5, and SF #5 at 12-4. However, if SF doesn't win out, those
seeds will be switched, as SF has lost to both NO and Car this season.

We play Chi this weekend to determine which division gets the #3 seed, and which one gets #4. The loser will only be able to
tie the other division winner at best, and would have a head-to-head loss against the other one (Dallas has lost to Chi this year).

I don't see how we get a win in the first round, but anything can happen. NO might actually be our best bet, just pray for a
blizzard.


I heard that if Gb wins Sun afternoon, that the Bears can't win the North so they would have nothing to play for Sun night. Don't know how true that was but I heard it on sports talk today.
nephillymike
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Dec 18 2013, 10:01 PM) *
I heard that if Gb wins Sun afternoon, that the Bears can't win the North so they would have nothing to play for Sun night. Don't know how true that was but I heard it on sports talk today.


Actually, it's not that they can't win the North, it's that they play GB the next week and the winner of that game would win the North regardless of what the Bears do in our game. Similar to what our situation would be if Dallas wins.
Rick
And what playoff team, exactly, would you like to see them play? No matter whom they play, we'll be the underdog (rightly-so). Not going to get an easy game in the playoffs.
xsv
QUOTE (Rick @ Dec 19 2013, 06:50 AM) *
And what playoff team, exactly, would you like to see them play? No matter whom they play, we'll be the underdog (rightly-so). Not going to get an easy game in the playoffs.


I think we're as good as GB or Chicago, so that would be my first choice. :-)
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (xsv @ Dec 19 2013, 07:47 AM) *
I think we're as good as GB or Chicago, so that would be my first choice. :-)


The only way we would play either of them is in the NFCCG, so keep dreaming. But yeah, they would be the best bet out of all playoff teams in the NFC.
Rick
QUOTE (xsv @ Dec 19 2013, 07:47 AM) *
I think we're as good as GB or Chicago, so that would be my first choice. :-)

Well, GB isn't a playoff team as of today, Chicago may or may not be.

Either way, neither are easy games. I'm worried about us against Chicago on Sunday. But we've got to win the tough games.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (xsv @ Dec 19 2013, 07:47 AM) *
I think we're as good as GB or Chicago, so that would be my first choice. :-)

GB with or without Rodgers? He'll likely be back come playoff time.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 19 2013, 10:46 AM) *
GB with or without Rodgers? He'll likely be back come playoff time.

With or without Rodgers, GB isn't a very good team.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Dec 19 2013, 10:53 AM) *
With or without Rodgers, GB isn't a very good team.

They were 5-2 until he got hurt. They would likely have 2-3 more wins (minimum) if he were still healthy.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 19 2013, 10:56 AM) *
They were 5-2 until he got hurt. They would likely have 2-3 more wins (minimum) if he were still healthy.

or not. His absence has illustrated a great deal of problems on the team (as a whole), not just the backup QB position.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Dec 19 2013, 12:03 PM) *
or not. His absence has illustrated a great deal of problems on the team (as a whole), not just the backup QB position.

His absense has illustrated that when you take one of (or arguably the best) QB off a team, they aren't nearly as good. Something I've been saying for several years.

It's a QB league. You live and die by them.

They went from a QB rating of 108 with Rodgers to 79 without. That's the difference.
xsv
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 19 2013, 11:07 AM) *
His absense has illustrated that when you take one of (or arguably the best) QB off a team, they aren't nearly as good. Something I've been saying for several years.

It's a QB league. You live and die by them.

They went from a QB rating of 108 with Rodgers to 79 without. That's the difference.


Wait.

You can't argue that a QB can have a crappy game even if they had rating of 109, and then turn around use a QB rating of 108 to illustrate how important they are to a team.

You need to pick one side of the fence and stay there! tongue.gif

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (xsv @ Dec 19 2013, 11:27 AM) *
Wait.

You can't argue that a QB can have a crappy game even if they had rating of 109, and then turn around use a QB rating of 108 to illustrate how important they are to a team.

You need to pick one side of the fence and stay there! tongue.gif

Sure I can, I just did.

My point is that if you downgrade from a QB rating of 108 to 79, you're going to have a significant drop off in success as a team. Which is how a team goes from 5-2 to 7-6-1.

To put it in perspective, they went from having Aaron Rodgers level production to Case Keenum/RG3 type production (you can look at the stats yourself). Those guys just happen to play for the teams that are in position for the #1 and #2 draft picks.
xsv
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 19 2013, 11:36 AM) *
Sure I can, I just did.

My point is that if you downgrade from a QB rating of 108 to 79, you're going to have a significant drop off in success as a team. Which is how a team goes from 5-2 to 7-6-1.

To put it in perspective, they went from having Aaron Rodgers level production to Case Keenum/RG3 type production (you can look at the stats yourself). Those guys just happen to play for the teams that are in position for the #1 and #2 draft picks.



Ok, I get it. So you're saying that if we switched from Foles to Vick, it's very likely that we would have lost quite a bit more than what we have.

I understand completely, and I happen to agree.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (xsv @ Dec 19 2013, 01:34 PM) *
Ok, I get it. So you're saying that if we switched from Foles to Vick, it's very likely that we would have lost quite a bit more than what we have.

I understand completely, and I happen to agree.

Yes, absolutely. And that dropoff wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic as the dropoff from Rodgers to the guys they had playing prior to Flynn. Flynn has actually played pretty solid and they have subsequently won the past two games.

We'd probably have at least 2 fewer wins if Vick had started all the games Foles has played.
samaroo
I'm hoping Chicago beats Seattle in the second round and plays the NFCCG in Philly!

Jax
There are very few scenarios where we would be favored. Possibly first round due to home field. Anyway, there is no dominant team so if you are in it then you have a shot to win it. Ask the Giants two mediocre Super Bowl winners.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Jax @ Dec 19 2013, 09:53 PM) *
There are very few scenarios where we would be favored. Possibly first round due to home field. Anyway, there is no dominant team so if you are in it then you have a shot to win it. Ask the Giants two mediocre Super Bowl winners.

The Seahawks are pretty dominant at home. But still, every game is winnable. It would take some extraordinary circumstances for us to make a run, but it's not impossible.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.