Wildcard Playoffs - 2011

This year's January spectacle will be more bittersweet than usual.  Facing a possible lockout and no collective bargaining agreement, there's no telling how long until the next playoffs, or what the NFL will look like when they come.  One change that I am strongly hoping that we see is an alteration of the league's playoff seeding.  I've certainly kvetched before when 8-8 teams make the games, or worse host the games.  But this year, a losing team is hosting a playoff game, and to me that is strictly not right.

I've been having this debate with a few people, and it all seems to boil down to the divisional structure; thier grave mantra being 'you have to win your division'.  I submit that this year puts a lie to that, or at least shows how it redefines the word "win".  Yes, the Seattle Seahawks won their division by one game over the St. Louis Rams with an identical league record.  The Seahawks were 4-2 in Division, the Rams falling to 3-3.  All is fair, right?  However, take a gander at the AFC West.  The Divisional 'Champion' Kansas City Chiefs were a woeful 2-4 in their division, with losses to the Broncos, the Chargers and 2 losses to the Raiders.   KC did end the season with a respectable 10-6 overall which, as if by magic, means they 'won' the division.  A losing team making the playoffs is a first for the year, but there is another.  The Oakland Raiders went 6-0 in the AFC West.  This is the first time a team has swept division and failed to make the post season.  I apologize ladies and gentlemen, but if the word is to mean anything, I'd say that being undefeated in your division is pretty much 'winning' it.  The divisional structure is well suited for defining schedules, rivalries and tie breakers, but it is a poor fit for dictating who ultimately gets a championship run.  It has lead to another sad first for this year's playoffs.  Since the introduction of the 2 team Wildcard, this will be the first year where every visiting opponent will have a record equal to or better than the host franchise.  This couldn't be more glaring then when the 7-9 Seahawks host the team tied for the NFC's second best record, the 11-5 New Orleans Saints.  The only thing it does do is make at least one game easy to predict.

NFC

New Orleans Saints (5) at Seattle Seahawks (4)

Forget the 12th Man.  Forget the injuries to Ivory and Thomas.  Forget the terrific gameplan that Pete Carroll used against the upstart Rams.  Forget Brees' record streak of interceptions.  You simply can't look at Seattle and see a very good football team.  As last year (and some games this year) showed quite clearly, the Saints rise up on a big stage.  I'll be very surprised if this game isn't over by halftime.

New Orleans - 34, Seattle - 13

Green Bay Packers (6) at Philadelphia Eagles (3)

Unquestionably, this is the game of the week.  Though both teams are exciting and explosive on offense, Green Bay probably carries the edge on defense.  I think that could be the difference maker, given that other teams like the Vikings have shown the weakness to the Philly offense.  Teams don't need to contain Michael Vick; they need to beat him up.  I don't expect that lesson to be lost on Dom Capers.  I wonder though, can Green Bay play in the cold of Philadelphia?

Green Bay - 21, Philadelphia - 18

AFC

Baltimore Ravens (5) at Kansas City Chiefs (4)

As every fan of an AFC West team knows, there is no tougher place to play in the league than Arrowhead Stadium.  For that reason alone, I'm tempted to pick the Chiefs for the win.  Their running attack is the best in the league, and they can control the clock throughout.  However, I've seen the Ravens on the road in the playoffs, and I mostly pity their opponents.  Ed Reed is a ball hawk, going against the 30th ranked passing team in the NFL.   And the Chiefs seem to fare poorly against teams that play with extreme physical intensity.   Those last three words are the motto of the Baltimore Ravens.  Even in a close tough game, the Ravens have the edge with kicker Billy Cundiff.  I'll just preemptively describe this game as brutal.

Baltimore - 27, Kansas City - 13

New York Jets (6) at Indianapolis Colts (3)

 If there is a game I don't even want to try and pick, this is it.  Just because it is the rematch of last year's AFC Championship game doesn't mean these are the same teams on display.  The Colts have spent the year in triage, a fact that no doubts has contributed to Payton competing with his brother for the league lead in interceptions.  That sad observation does not bode well given that Darrelle Revis is going to take up residence in Reggie Wayne's jock strap (though I expect he's going to spend some time dogging Garcon as well.)  The Colts have been unable to stop the run, until they have.  The last 3 games have been very good for them on that level.  The Jets have found a sort of balance.  They throw and run.  Who knew?  However, the last 2 months haven't shown their defense to be very effective against good passers.  This is Payton Manning we're talking about here.  As I wrote last year, the Colts slowly throttle opponents.  They score and expect you to keep up.  I remain unconvinced that the Jets can do that, especially with Sanchez having a banged up shoulder.  And if it comes down to the wire, which it likely will, the Colts are more than happy to turn the last few seconds over to Adam Vinatieri.

New York - 24, Indianapolis - 27

Comments

[Devremülk]

Nice post. I love it. Waiting your new posts. Thank you...

[Steve]

I will give you that the thought of Seattle hosting was ridiculous, until they played the game. And it was a damned good game. Maybe they should do seedings by looking at the last 6 games of the season to figure out what teams are peaking, and which are past their prime.

Oh, and the Jets won too.

Damn, is this why they actually, you know, play the game?

[Wulfgar]

Of course it is, Steve. But I submit to you that if the excitement of the underdog is all that important, then why not draw straws among the losers to see who advances?

(Seriously, man, today has not been a nice day at all. Football not withstanding, I'm just not in the mood to be ribbed, even jovially. As naive and foolish as I feel writing this, my limited faith in my country took a ginormous hit today. I hope you understand that, and I'm sorry.)

[Steve]

It's not the country, or even your political opponents, it's our species.

[kptrng]

Hey Kailey, how about you let me post under my own name at Left in the West? The idea that I am a "troll", well, we both know that's nonsense. The way you can put up low-thought posts (your best effort, I understand) is a bit disturbing. When you put up stuff like "You can't disprove their fantasies," well, you really need to be slapped down. But you don't have the balls for honest debate, coward that you are.

With me, you can hope to get lucky. You might land a punch. Do you feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

When I post, my name will be "Mark Tokarski," and you will not take down my posts, and you will not ban me, and you will debate without f-bombing, and you will take your lumps, and I mine.

Otherwise, it is my suspicion that you are merely a wimp who finds way to occupy positions of power without the intellectual creds that should accompany. Whatcha go, punk? Whatcha got?

[Wulfgar]

Hey, Totardski, how 'bout you go fuck yourself. See, that's the difference between you and me in this situation. You can tell me what I'm going to do, and I can laugh at you for being so stupid. I, on the other hand, can tell you what you're not going to do, and there ain't thing one you can do about it except troll me here ... until I stop you from doing that too.

The handle "Mark Tokarski" was banned at LitW by someone other than me. The person, Mark Tokarski, was banned at LitW not because he was so wise and threatening, but because he was and is a disruptive little shit who trolls the website. Deal with it, troll.