The AFC Playoff Picture (formerly Ranking the AFC)
- Thread starter tims4wins
- Start date
You are correct that if KC wins out they will be in the playoffs as they will have tiebreakers over PIT, SD, and BUF.
It's hard for me to imagine the Ravens beating any team with a decent QB since their secondary is so depleted (will be playing something like their 12th CB next week). Unless they get extremely lucky and it turns out that whomever they have been picking up off the scrap heap can play a little bit. Then watch out.
This cannot be correct. CIN plays DEN and PIT, yet you have CIN winning one game and neither PIT nor DEN losing at all.RedOctober3829 said:
A more plausible scenario is:
#1 New England 13-3
#2 Denver 13-3
#6 Pittsburgh 10-6 at #3 Indianapolis 11-5
#5 Cincinnati 10-5-1 at #4 Baltimore 11-5
Then either PIT or BAL comes to Foxboro (I don't see CIN beating BAL at home).
Cincinnati may be in a bit of trouble, even at 9-4-1. If they lose out and finish at 9-6-1, then if any of Buffalo, SD, or KC win out then Cincy is out. All 3 teams have a somewhat tough road but not impossible.
- Buffalo goes to Oakland and to New England. They could win both if the Pats lay down in week 17, but the only way the Pats lay down is if Denver loses to Cincy, in which case Cincy will already have made the playoffs.
- KC goes to Pittsburgh then hosts San Diego. Highly doubtful they win out.
- SD goes to SF and goes to KC. The @ SF game looks a lot easier now that the Niners have been eliminated (and they should totally shut down that "offense"), and if KC loses at Pittsburgh and has been eliminated, then week 17 gets easier for San Diego.
I think there is a very good possibility of:
1) NE 13-3
2) Denver 13-3
3) Indy 12-4
4) Pittsburgh 11-5
5) Baltimore 11-5
6) San Diego 10-6
Setting up:
#6 San Diego @ #3 Indy
#5 Baltimore @ #4 Pittsburgh
That would be a hell of a wild card slate.
- Buffalo goes to Oakland and to New England. They could win both if the Pats lay down in week 17, but the only way the Pats lay down is if Denver loses to Cincy, in which case Cincy will already have made the playoffs.
- KC goes to Pittsburgh then hosts San Diego. Highly doubtful they win out.
- SD goes to SF and goes to KC. The @ SF game looks a lot easier now that the Niners have been eliminated (and they should totally shut down that "offense"), and if KC loses at Pittsburgh and has been eliminated, then week 17 gets easier for San Diego.
I think there is a very good possibility of:
1) NE 13-3
2) Denver 13-3
3) Indy 12-4
4) Pittsburgh 11-5
5) Baltimore 11-5
6) San Diego 10-6
Setting up:
#6 San Diego @ #3 Indy
#5 Baltimore @ #4 Pittsburgh
That would be a hell of a wild card slate.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Agreed that's it's hard to imagine. And yet, they could conceivably generate enough pass rush to mostly neutralize the weaknesses of the secondary. That, plus the 'getting extremely lucky with the scrap heap' factor you mention could be enough.
It's not likely... but they only have one major weakness to paper over, whereas all the other non-Denver teams that might come into Foxboro have at least two by my count.
tims4wins said:
Buffalo has next to no chance of winning out since the Patriots always play their starters even with everything wrapped up. And hey, the Raiders have been tough at home recently. Both SD and KC can't win out since they play each other and they're both underdogs in their other games. San Francisco might be easier since they're eliminated, but Rivers pretty clearly isn't himself. I'd say San Diego is drawing pretty slim.
Rudy's Curve said:
Generally agree, but I think SF is going to completely collapse and SD is going to trash them next week, and if Pittsburgh takes care of business vs. KC then they (KC) have nothing to really play for in week 17. It's an easier path than it looks on paper with two road games against "good" teams. If these two games were in say weeks 5 and 6 I would have given SD no chance of winning both, but given the timing I think they have a shot.
That said, SD has been extremely streaky this year - won 5 in a row, lost 3 in a row, won 3 in a row, now have lost 2 in a row. So who knows how they respond to yesterday and close out the year. One thing you can say is that historically they have been great in December under Rivers but of course they are 0-2 this year.
tims4wins said:
Your points have merit and could very well come to fruition, but the problem is Rivers is averaging 6.65 YPA with a 12/11 TD/INT ratio in his last eight games. Combine that with the supposed injuries he's playing through and I think it's pretty clear he's not himself.
BUF seems like a tough out at the moment though, their defense suffocated both DEN and GB in back-to-back weeks. Their QB is still Orton, so the Pats should be the clear favourites, but "almost no chance" is stretching it.Rudy's Curve said:
Their problem in regards to the playoffs is the conf. record (they can only get to 6-6 by winning out), so they could be eliminated after next week. Not sure if that is good for the Pats though.
One thing we can probably all agree on is that there will likely be at least one, and probably multiple, surprising results in the remaining AFC games that has an impact on the playoff picture.
JohnnyK said:
They'd have a decent chance if it was in Buffalo, but it's in Foxboro where the Pats never lose. I'd say they have a better chance of losing in Oakland next week (where the Raiders have beaten KC and SF and played SD to the wire) than winning in New England.
Rudy's Curve said:
Always has a very specific meaning. It means every time. They Patriots do NOT play their starters the entire game every time. So, while you may be technically accurate, I think your point was more that the Pats never rest these guys. They do.
As one example: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200601010nwe.htm
If the #1 seed is wrapped up I doubt very much you'll see Brady and Gronk and selected others go the whole game against that Bills defense. Outside of 2007 the Patriots will rest their starters for most of the game if everything is wrapped up.
This is not entirely true. Hoyer played the second half of the last game in 2010 and 2009, and Cassell played almost the entire game in 2005. In 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2013 they still has seeding to play for in week 17.Rudy's Curve said:
The Ravens secondary is continuing to get decimated--rookie safety Terrence Brooks is done for the year and starting corner Asa Jackson might be. I've got to think the Pats can take advantage of that.
MarcSullivaFan said:
You're correct - my apologies. That being said, they knew they were playing the next week in 2005 and 2009 and in 2010 they were blowing out the Dolphins at the half in a game that had no impact on the playoff picture. Given they're going to have a bye and the possibility of the game mattering to Buffalo, I think they'll play to win.
Shelterdog said:
If they end up playing @Pittsburgh in the WC as tims4 suggested (I agree with his predicted AFC bracket), I'd love to see them win but be really banged up having to travel to Foxboro to play a nearly full-strength and rested Pats team in the Divisional Round. It would be fun to see what Flacco can do with Revis taking Torrey Smith (who's already battling a sprained knee) and the rest of the defense zeroing in on Steve Smith.
Shelterdog said:
Unfortunately Tom Savage and Cash Money Manziel won't be able to do shit against them.
NYCSox said:
Sure. I'm just worried about the head to head in New England and at some point their secondary is just going to be too damn beat up (and have too many new bodies) to slow down Brady.
If it does end up as Pitt vs. Balt, and Indy takes care of the 6 seed, I'm pretty much 100% indifferent on who wins, so long as they beat each other to a pulp. Plus those teams hate each other so freaking much that they would put every ounce into that game. Sure, both teams would have some scary elements in a game vs. the Pats, and any given Sunday yadda yadda yadda, but I think there would be a strong chance of the Pats making mince meat of either team if they have to play each other the week before. That game will be like their Super Bowl IMO.
I'll certainly take my chances with Ben against a bunch of guys signed off the street in the Baltimore secondary.
m0ckduck said:
I admittedly haven't seen too much of Pitt this season, but in what little I have seen they have looked pretty good. I think their D is getting healthier and their Offense has a solid qb, great running back and a lot of good options for Ben to throw to. They seem like the team I fear most outside of Denver. I'm curious, what are their two weaknesses? Again, I haven't seen them enough to know.
Smith is a threat but he's been slowed after his big start. In his last 8 games, he has 31 catches on 55 targets for just 353 yards (avg per game: 3.9 rec, 6.9 targets, 44 yards). I think he can be dealt with.ivanvamp said:
I'd be tempted to put Browner on him and watch the sparks fly.
normstalls said:
Defense is still shaky and the OL is adequate (which is an improvement from the recent past). But I'm not sure I'd call that a weakness.
Didn't the Pats practically throw that 2006 game to get a better opponent at home? I think it came down to either playing Jax at home or playing a tougher Pittsburgh at home. I can't remember but I do remember that final pass by Cassell being so horribly bad, it was pretty comical.
GregHarris said:
It was 2005 and they threw the finale against the Dolphins so they could play Jacksonville.
Less concerned about the Ravens than I've been before. Rivers wrote the script a couple of weeks ago, and it's hard to see sufficient improvement in the Ravens' secondary to overcome it -- Totally negate the pass rush by getting rid of the ball quickly on quick outs, slants and so forth. Reprise the opener against Pittsburgh in 2005, play good defense, take care of the ball and don't lose the game on special teams. Pats ought to be ok.
dcmissle said:
Well, the alternative path was facing the eventual Super Bowl winning Steelers and, if they managed to win that, heading into Indy. Can't fault BB for wanting to take Jacksonville/Denver instead. They did demolish Jacksonville. That 2005 team was quite flawed.
This is exactly where I am. A strange sense of zen.Ed Hillel said:
I think it's pretty clear that the Patriots are the best team in the AFC this season. That doesn't mean they'll make the Super Bowl -- on any given Sunday Patrick Chung can audible to a fake punt and they can lose.
But if the Patriots stay healthy and execute, I don't think anyone in the AFC can beat them.
If the Pats play the Ravens, get ready to see a lot of long throws down Browner's sideline and the WR flopping at the first hint of contact for DPI.
Even though I hated that Pittsburgh team, I thoroughly enjoy the divisional game against Indy that year. Bettis coughed up the ball with under two minutes to play (first and goal from the 2), and it was up to the D to stop Manning and they did, or at least forced Vandershank into a field goal attempt.
Amazing game. Listened to it on te radio driving from NYC to Boston. Thrilling even with no rooting interest.GregHarris said:
Didn't Big Ben save the game with a shoestring tackle on whoever picked up the ball, who otherwise would have run 90+ yards for a TD?
Also, I remember a Steeler fan made the news because he literally had a heart attack because of that play.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
ivanvamp said:
I still remember him running circles on our #1-ranked defense... in the Super Bowl following the 2003 season. Catching passes from Jake Delhomme.
All these AFC North teams are flattered by their records, since their schedules outside the division have been so ridiculously easy. The Top 10 teams in the league outside the AFCN are probably the Patriots, Broncos, Seahawks, Packers, Colts, Cowboys, Eagles, Cardinals, Lions, and Chargers in some order. The AFCN has collectively played six games against those Top 10 teams, which is a puny number. And they're 1-5.
Pot Roast opens his fat mouth and guarantee's a Denver Super Bowl win.
http://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-talk/broncos-knighton-guarantees-super-bowl-win-0
http://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-talk/broncos-knighton-guarantees-super-bowl-win-0
New England has played 8 games against teams who currently have a winning record.
Loss at KC, 41-14
Win vs Cin, 43-17
Win at Buf, 37-22
Win vs Den, 43-21
Win at Ind, 42-20
Win vs Det 34-9
Loss at GB, 26-21
Win at SD, 23-14
Total points scored: 257
Total points allowed: 170
That's pretty good work.
Loss at KC, 41-14
Win vs Cin, 43-17
Win at Buf, 37-22
Win vs Den, 43-21
Win at Ind, 42-20
Win vs Det 34-9
Loss at GB, 26-21
Win at SD, 23-14
Total points scored: 257
Total points allowed: 170
That's pretty good work.
Yep. Bettis hadn't fumbled all season, Nick Harper picked it up and had a convoy and Ben had the most awkward twisting shoestring tackle to save the touchdown. Harper's wife had been arrested for cutting his knee in an argument the night before, required 3 stitches. More detailsdynomite said:
pic link
And yes, Terry O'Neill had a heart attack after that fumble.
This Steelers team is very Jekyll and Hyde, the defense is inconsistent, the secondary is a borderline shitshow. The offense has a lot of weapons and an improving O-line. They can blow out a league leader or lose a cliffhanger to the dregs of the league. So they're the embodiment of Any Given Sunday. So while I could see them going to a championship (I'm a fan after all) I sure as hell wouldn't bet on it.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
DrewDawg said:
He had a pretty dramatic touchdown catch, didn't he? Either way, he was their #1 WR. It's just amazing to me that he's been a starter as long as Tom Brady has, at a position where you take a much greater beating than you do at QB.
1. Pats
2. Denver
3. Indy
4. Cincy
5. Pittsburgh
6. Baltimore
- - -
7. Buffalo
8. KC
9. SD
But now I'm afraid to put the Patriots at #1 because somebody thinks that fans on a message board have the ability to "jinx" the Patriots. For a place that takes advanced metrics as seriously as this place does to believe that we can jinx a bunch of athletes simply by talking about the next few games down the road is beyond incredible to me.
So to avoid the "jinx", I'll rework my rankings and put the Patriots at #16 in the AFC. There. That ought to do it. <_<
2. Denver
3. Indy
4. Cincy
5. Pittsburgh
6. Baltimore
- - -
7. Buffalo
8. KC
9. SD
But now I'm afraid to put the Patriots at #1 because somebody thinks that fans on a message board have the ability to "jinx" the Patriots. For a place that takes advanced metrics as seriously as this place does to believe that we can jinx a bunch of athletes simply by talking about the next few games down the road is beyond incredible to me.
So to avoid the "jinx", I'll rework my rankings and put the Patriots at #16 in the AFC. There. That ought to do it. <_<