That’s the poi...Well, that's because they've already won the first 7 of them...
Sigh.That’s the poi...
Oh, nevermind.
For the Chargers to win the division after running the table, they need the Chiefs to lose at least 2 games (including vs. the Chargers). There's no way for the Chargers to win the tie-breaker at 13-3.It's an anything can happen league from week to week, but the Patriots are looking very good right now, they should run the table and finish 13-3, that should guarantee the #2 seed, if the Chefs slip up, maybe the #1, not sure where they'd stand vs the Chargers if they also run the table for the #1 seed.
I'm not worried about the Vikings or the Steelers, they should have lost last week to Jacksonville the same way they lost yesterday, an interception in the end zone.
And I have no idea how Miami blew that game yesterday, thought it was over at 24-14.
I mean, you have those caveats in there but the following common games make that first part pretty hard:It's not wildly beyond reason for the AFC to finish with 5 teams with 4 losses or fewer, and then have the 8th seed be .500 or worse.
Then it’s a good thing the 8th seed won’t make the playoffsIt's not wildly beyond reason for the AFC to finish with 5 teams with 4 losses or fewer, and then have the 8th seed be .500 or worse.
It's an anything can happen league from week to week, but the Patriots are looking very good right now, they should run the table and finish 13-3, that should guarantee the #2 seed, if the Chefs slip up, maybe the #1, not sure where they'd stand vs the Chargers if they also run the table for the #1 seed.
I'm not worried about the Vikings or the Steelers, they should have lost last week to Jacksonville the same way they lost yesterday, an interception in the end zone.
And I have no idea how Miami blew that game yesterday, thought it was over at 24-14.
Doh! (Corrected it above)Then it’s a good thing the 8th seed won’t make the playoffs
ExactlyThere's no way the Patriots (or any other team for that matter) should run the table with 5 games remaining. Losing one of @ MIA or @ PIT are strong possibilities.
Football Outsiders seems to suggest 3-2. The most likely seed is #2 (41%), followed by #3 (25%), #4 (18%), #1 (14%), with a 3% chance of losing the division and 2% chance of missing the playoffs.Exactly
They are 8-3, and have won 72% of their games. They have 5 left against a similar spread of competition. 5*0.72 = 3.6 wins, which is about what I think they will do (lose one of the games, and one of the others will come down to a final possession where the game could go either way)
Maybe. On the other hand, they have had an extremely easy schedule so far (KC -lost, LAR - Lost, Den - Lost, beat Buf, SF, Oak, Cle, TEN, Sea, Oak, ARZ). So any time they have faced a playoff team they have lost. They have @ PIT, vs Cin, @ KC, vs Bal, @ Den left. They could easily finish 10-6 given that they are underdogs in two of those games and favored by less than 3 in two out of the other three games. That contingency about "if Melvin Gordon isn't too banged up" seems rather important given he may miss the rest of the regular season. So maybe they limp into the playoffs and end up playing @ Pit in the Wild Card round.San Diego is a scary team right now imo; Rivers is playing at a really high level and they have a great WR group that are very difficult to defend in the red zone. If Melvin Gordon isn't too banged up, the duo of Gordon/Ekeler is arguably the best RB tandem in the league. They also have allowed the 5th fewest points in the league and just got Joey Bosa back. That is a beast of a #5 seed.
Maybe that makes #2 less bad than it usually is, but the difference in opponent doesn't beat the loss of home field advantage vs. the Chiefs (in my opinion).Maybe. On the other hand, they have had an extremely easy schedule so far (KC -lost, LAR - Lost, Den - Lost, beat Buf, SF, Oak, Cle, TEN, Sea, Oak, ARZ). So any time they have faced a playoff team they have lost. They have @ PIT, vs Cin, @ KC, vs Bal, @ Den left. They could easily finish 10-6 given that they are underdogs in two of those games and favored by less than 3 in two out of the other three games. That contingency about "if Melvin Gordon isn't too banged up" seems rather important given he may miss the rest of the regular season. So maybe they limp into the playoffs and end up playing @ Pit in the Wild Card round.
I do feel like there could be a path here where the 2nd seed is the preferred seed. If this finishes with:
KC
NE
HOU
PIT
LAC
BAL/IND/TEN
Round 2 could have the #2 seed hosting HOU instead of Pit or LAC. While none of those teams are particularly scary (at home especially), I'd lean towards facing Houston.
Melvin Gordon is out for the season, so that argument is out. Eckler isn't bad though.San Diego is a scary team right now imo; Rivers is playing at a really high level and they have a great WR group that are very difficult to defend in the red zone. If Melvin Gordon isn't too banged up, the duo of Gordon/Ekeler is arguably the best RB tandem in the league. They also have allowed the 5th fewest points in the league and just got Joey Bosa back. That is a beast of a #5 seed.
Where are you seeing that?Melvin Gordon is out for the season, so that argument is out. Eckler isn't bad though.
True. Sorry, I just meant from an opponent standpoint. Completely agree on home field if they advance to the AFCC again.Maybe that makes #2 less bad than it usually is, but the difference in opponent doesn't beat the loss of home field advantage vs. the Chiefs (in my opinion).
I don't see how the San Diego Toreros can make the NCAA playoffs even at 9-3San Diego is a scary team right now imo
Doh!I don't see how the San Diego Toreros can make the NCAA playoffs even at 9-3
And flip side is they have played 3 likely division winners and have beaten all 3. I get that people are pissed they lost to crappy teams but would anyone feel better if they had lost to Houston, KC, and the Bears, but beaten Jacksonville, Detroit, and Tennessee? The narrative would be that they can’t beat good teams they only beat crappy teams.Perusing the Pats W-L record this year, I noticed the following:
There are 2 other divisions they play in full this year--the AFC South and the NFC North. They've played 7 of those 8 games (MIN will be the 8th), and they've lost 3 of those. Those 3 losses come to the 3 weakest of those teams, both by record and by DVOA.
In other words, the Pats 3 losses have come from the 3 weakest out-of-division opponents they'll face this year.
That just seems weird to me.
Gordon should likely be back for the end of the regular season, definitely the playoffs.Melvin Gordon is out for the season, so that argument is out. Eckler isn't bad though.
Well, in hindsight, if you're gonna lose 3 games no matter what, I'd rather beat the teams like Houston and KC that could have tiebreaker ramifications.And flip side is they have played 3 likely division winners and have beaten all 3. I get that people are pissed they lost to crappy teams but would anyone feel better if they had lost to Houston, KC, and the Bears, but beaten Jacksonville, Detroit, and Tennessee? The narrative would be that they can’t beat good teams they only beat crappy teams.
This is great news. Since they're more likely to play good teams not bad teams when it's the playoffs.No preference stated or implied by me, unless it would be to prefer that they won all their games. It's just that what I cited is weird and kind of un-Pats like.
In other words, the Pats 3 losses have come from the 3 weakest out-of-division opponents they'll face this year.
That just seems weird to me.
The third-best team of the Brady/Belichick era, arguably even the second-best, had this exact dynamic: the 2010 Pats. They played and beat:And flip side is they have played 3 likely division winners and have beaten all 3. I get that people are pissed they lost to crappy teams but would anyone feel better if they had lost to Houston, KC, and the Bears, but beaten Jacksonville, Detroit, and Tennessee? The narrative would be that they can’t beat good teams they only beat crappy teams.
They need the Chiefs to lose two division games to have a shot at any tie breaker scenarios.What odds do we give the Chargers for passing the Chiefs? They're only a game back at 8-3 and have a head-to-head matchup in Week 15, a Thursday game in Arrowhead. They also have the second-best point differential in the conference, behind KC and ahead of the Pats.
They do have a tougher schedule down the stretch: @ PIT, v CIN, @ KC, v BAL, @ DEN. KC has @ OAK, v BAL, v LAC, @ SEA, vs OAK. So smart money is still with the Chiefs, but if they slip up a little they could miss out on the division.
What odds do we give the Chargers for passing the Chiefs? They're only a game back at 8-3 and have a head-to-head matchup in Week 15, a Thursday game in Arrowhead. They also have the second-best point differential in the conference, behind KC and ahead of the Pats.
They do have a tougher schedule down the stretch: @ PIT, v CIN, @ KC, v BAL, @ DEN. KC has @ OAK, v BAL, v LAC, @ SEA, vs OAK. So smart money is still with the Chiefs, but if they slip up a little they could miss out on the division.
Football Outsiders gives them a 5.5% chance, which sounds about right given that the Chargers basically need to do 2 games better than the Chiefs the rest of the way.For the Chargers to win the division after running the table, they need the Chiefs to lose at least 2 games (including vs. the Chargers). There's no way for the Chargers to win the tie-breaker at 13-3.
snip
And why not - tied at 11-5, the Chiefs would need to have lose all three of @OAK/vLAC/vOAK with the Chargers beating Denver & losing 2 other games for the Chargers to win the divisional tie-breaker. If they tie on divisional record (Chiefs lose @OAK/vLAC) then the Chiefs will win on common opponents.Chargers can't win the tiebreaker at 13-3.
At 12-4, the Chiefs would need to lose to the Chargers and one of their 2 games against the Raiders to lose a tie-breaker. Then it goes to common games (games vs. NFCW and AFCN). Chargers currently 4-1, Chiefs are 5-1. This tiebreaker will be a loss for the Chargers at this point - they will have lost to one of those opponents and the Chiefs hadn't, unless the Chiefs already won an earlier tiebreaker.
What are the odds of the Chiefs losing 3 out of 5 games - @OAK, vBAL, vLAC, @SEA, vOAK? Right. So for the Chargers to win the division, they need to run the table with the Chiefs losing one of the other games.
Elevate the Patriots to the favorite position.So, what's the Hunt situation do to this race?
SD, KC, HOU, and NE are all in the hunt for the bye (SD would have to win Division). Houston has the easiest schedule of the 4. This has the makings for a great horse race. None of the current 1-6 seeds in the AFC are soft. Even Baltimore has a good defense. Side note: has anyone seen Lamar Jackson this year - how did he look?KC @ SEA now is looking like a tough game for the Chiefs, especially without Hunt. Hosting SD too.
Given the schedule, Houston has a real shot at a bye, as hard to believe as that may sound. NE must take care of business in Miami.
With his arm or his legs?SD, KC, HOU, and NE are all in the hunt for the bye (SD would have to win Division). Houston has the easiest schedule of the 4. This has the makings for a great horse race. None of the current 1-6 seeds in the AFC are soft. Even Baltimore has a good defense. Side note: has anyone seen Lamar Jackson this year - how did he look?
Well it certainly wasn't with his head, because he got his bell rung real good. They had RG3 in there today.With his arm or his legs?