PDA

View Full Version : Football NFC West is -300 in point differential


Cave Johnson
12-23-2010, 11:36 AM
or thereabouts. Statistically, this may the worst division ever.

Rams Fan
12-23-2010, 11:37 AM
And the 2nd to worst point differential is the AFC South. At a -20.

WebGem
12-23-2010, 11:40 AM
For a second I thought it said the Panthers were PF 143 PA 183 and I was like WHAT? Then I realized 143 was their winning percentage (.143).

cdcox
12-23-2010, 11:41 AM
I've posted this before, but I think it is one of the best indicators of how bad the NFC West is:

The 49ers are in the thick of the playoff race in that division and they are also mathematically alive for the 2nd overall pick in the draft.

WebGem
12-23-2010, 11:41 AM
Wow.

Chiefs: PF 322 PA 281
Titans: PF 322 PA 282

cdcox
12-23-2010, 11:43 AM
Wow.

Chiefs: PF 322 PA 281
Titans: PF 322 PA 282

The Titans are not a push over. I feel good about our chances against them, but only because the game is in Arrowhead.

Donger
12-23-2010, 11:44 AM
The 49ers are in the thick of the playoff race in that division and they are also mathematically alive for the 2nd overall pick in the draft.

That belongs in the Epic Fail thread. Or Epic Win thread.

Frazod
12-23-2010, 11:54 AM
I've posted this before, but I think it is one of the best indicators of how bad the NFC West is:

The 49ers are in the thick of the playoff race in that division and they are also mathematically alive for the 2nd overall pick in the draft.

Jesus, that's pathetic.

There really should be a rule change stating that no below .500 division winner is playoff eligible. Just add another wildcard team to their playoff spot and send them on their way with division champ t-shirts.

JD10367
12-23-2010, 12:05 PM
As we've discussed elsewhere, let's hope the crappola NFC West winner finishes at 6-10 and ends up hosting a playoff game against the 12-4 Saints, finally forcing the NFL to redesign its playoff system where crap teams host better teams (not to mention crap teams make the playoffs... out of the Giants, Packers, and Bucs, one will nab a wildcard and the other two will probably finish above .500 but out of the playoffs, while the suck-ass NFCW winner gets in).

Rams Fan
12-23-2010, 12:13 PM
Jesus, that's pathetic.

There really should be a rule change stating that no below .500 division winner is playoff eligible. Just add another wildcard team to their playoff spot and send them on their way with division champ t-shirts.

The Rams can win the division at 8-8.

Rams Fan
12-23-2010, 12:13 PM
As we've discussed elsewhere, let's hope the crappola NFC West winner finishes at 6-10 and ends up hosting a playoff game against the 12-4 Saints, finally forcing the NFL to redesign its playoff system where crap teams host better teams (not to mention crap teams make the playoffs... out of the Giants, Packers, and Bucs, one will nab a wildcard and the other two will probably finish above .500 but out of the playoffs, while the suck-ass NFCW winner gets in).

Why can't the Rams finish at 8-8? BTW, no team can finish 6-10 and win the division. At worst, the winner will be 7-9.

JD10367
12-23-2010, 12:18 PM
Why can't the Rams finish at 8-8? BTW, no team can finish 6-10 and win the division. At worst, the winner will be 7-9.

Oh, that's much fucking better. Go Rams.

Rams Fan
12-23-2010, 12:20 PM
Oh, that's much ****ing better. Go Rams.

There have been a few teams that finished at 8-8 and won their division as well as a playoff game(the 2008 Chargers come to mind). And thank you.

HemiEd
12-23-2010, 12:25 PM
I've posted this before, but I think it is one of the best indicators of how bad the NFC West is:

The 49ers are in the thick of the playoff race in that division and they are also mathematically alive for the 2nd overall pick in the draft.

ROFLROFL I guess I missed it the other times, that is just too funny.

Dicky McElephant
12-23-2010, 12:28 PM
Jesus, that's pathetic.

There really should be a rule change stating that no below .500 division winner is playoff eligible. Just add another wildcard team to their playoff spot and send them on their way with division champ t-shirts.

I wouldn't take away their playoff game....but division winners shouldn't get a home game in the playoffs just because they win the division. That should be based off of record.

philfree
12-23-2010, 12:33 PM
or thereabouts. Statistically, this may the worst division ever.

That's because they were matched up against all those AFCW juggernauts!


PhilFree:arrow:

Frazod
12-23-2010, 01:16 PM
I wouldn't take away their playoff game....but division winners shouldn't get a home game in the playoffs just because they win the division. That should be based off of record.

I would. No below-500 team deserves a playoff game.

JD10367
12-23-2010, 03:34 PM
I wouldn't take away their playoff game....but division winners shouldn't get a home game in the playoffs just because they win the division. That should be based off of record.

I'd certainly take it away. Just because someone beats three shitty teams in a four-team-shitty division doesn't mean they should be in the playoffs. Time for the NFL to do what the NBA and NHL have done: make it four 8-team divisions. They can still keep the old rivalries if they want, by having the old groupings play twice, but this shit of teams with worse records making the playoffs over teams with better records has to stop.

And do they really need eight divisions? The Easts and Norths of both leagues could easily be combined. I mean, why the hell does Miami play New England, Buffalo, and the Jets twice anyway, when geographically-closer teams like Baltimore and Pittsburgh might not play them at all?

Four divisions. Top team in each gets a first-round bye. Next four teams with the best records make the playoffs, just like MLB's lone wildcard team.

Amnorix
12-23-2010, 03:38 PM
I'm fine with division winners being in the playoffs. If you take that away, the divisions mean nothing, and I'd rather have the divisions mean something.

But home field for the first game? Nope.

Amnorix
12-23-2010, 03:41 PM
Note that while I like Atlanta and Matty Ryan (BC kid, of course), the Falcons may have their win total slightly inflated by the very favorable schedule they had this year, which includes the god-awful NFC West on their rotation.

Further to this, in "quality wins", the Falcons are right up there with the Eagles at 5-2, with only the Pats better at 7-1.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_987_Quality_Standings.html


The PF/PA in those games puts the Pats and Eagles waay ahead of the Falcons, though obviously with a smaller sample size one or two games could skew things.

Indy, Jets and Steelers are looking a bit like paper tigers with <.500 records against quality opponents.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-23-2010, 03:48 PM
or thereabouts. Statistically, this may the worst division ever.

And has been for the last half decade.

Rausch
12-23-2010, 03:50 PM
Wait..........didn't an NFCW team beat Sandy Eggo?

JD10367
12-23-2010, 03:51 PM
I'm fine with division winners being in the playoffs. If you take that away, the divisions mean nothing, and I'd rather have the divisions mean something.

I agree. I just think it's time they make it 8-team divisions instead of 4. They have enough teams in the league to do it.

I'd also like to see some realigning for a little more geographical play. It's kinda dumb that the Bucs and Fins rarely play, or the Raiders and Niners, or Chiefs and Rams, etc.,.

Amnorix
12-23-2010, 03:51 PM
Yeesh. NFC West is a combined 4-19 in Quality W-L (wins and losses against teams with winning records). There are four NFL teams with as many (or more) Quality Wins than that entire division.

Tampa Bay shows up as the ultimate paper tiger. 0-5 against Quality Teams.

Rams Fan
12-23-2010, 03:52 PM
I agree. I just think it's time they make it 8-team divisions instead of 4. They have enough teams in the league to do it.

I'd also like to see some realigning for a little more geographical play. It's kinda dumb that the Bucs and Fins rarely play, or the Raiders and Niners, or Chiefs and Rams, etc.,.

I agree 100% with this. It doesn't make sense to have the Rams in the NFC West anymore considering that they are closer to teams in the NFC East than the Cowboys are, for example.

Amnorix
12-23-2010, 03:58 PM
I agree. I just think it's time they make it 8-team divisions instead of 4. They have enough teams in the league to do it.

I'd also like to see some realigning for a little more geographical play. It's kinda dumb that the Bucs and Fins rarely play, or the Raiders and Niners, or Chiefs and Rams, etc.,.

When they last realigned, they tried to give weighting to geography but also to historical rivalries. Hence the Dolphins stay in the AFC East instead of the more natural-seeming AFC South etc. I remember looking at it closely at the time and thinking they did a good job by and large. The 8 divisions of 4 teams made perfect sense given the schedule rotation, which is absolutely perfect.

The 18 game schedule that seems unfortunately inevitable will mess that up however.

WebGem
12-23-2010, 03:59 PM
I wouldn't take away their playoff game....but division winners shouldn't get a home game in the playoffs just because they win the division. That should be based off of record.

I don't know whether or not I agree with the latter part of your post. But if I had to make a decision now I think I would say I disagree. I definitely think they should go to the playoffs (all division champions, regardless of records) but I think I also agree with them playing at home. This 7-9 thing is so rare I wouldn't expect it more once every 20 (edit, I wrote 7 years before, idk why) years so it's never this ridiculous. But there are the years where there's an 11-5 WC team and a 10-6 division champ. I think I agree with the 10-6 division champion being at home there. They won their division and it should be a big deal to win divisions.

Why do you think the 11-5 WC team should get a home game over the 10-6 division champion, but the 10-6 2010 Packers (hypothetical) shouldn't get a playoff game over the 7-9 SF 49ers?

It's definitely a debate, and it can obviously make a big difference either way. I just don't think there's a right answer.

Amnorix
12-23-2010, 04:02 PM
I agree 100% with this. It doesn't make sense to have the Rams in the NFC West anymore considering that they are closer to teams in the NFC East than the Cowboys are, for example.

Again, they gave some priority to history rivalries over sheer geography. Because of the long-standing Cowboy rivalries with the Giants and Redskins, especially, it was decided to keep them in the NFC East. The Cowboys don't have much of a rivalry with the Seahawks, 49ers or Cardinals, that's for sure...

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-23-2010, 04:03 PM
Yeesh. NFC West is a combined 4-19 in Quality W-L (wins and losses against teams with winning records). There are four NFL teams with as many (or more) Quality Wins than that entire division.

Tampa Bay shows up as the ultimate paper tiger. 0-5 against Quality Teams..


JAAAASH FREEMAN IS THE GREATEST QUARTAHBACK IN THE WORLD. HE'S GONNA THROW 14 TOUCHDOWNS AND THE BUCS ARE GONNA WIN BY A HUNDRED.

Rams Fan
12-23-2010, 04:08 PM
Again, they gave some priority to history rivalries over sheer geography. Because of the long-standing Cowboy rivalries with the Giants and Redskins, especially, it was decided to keep them in the NFC East. The Cowboys don't have much of a rivalry with the Seahawks, 49ers or Cardinals, that's for sure...

They had some rivalry with the 49ers. Geographically it just doesn't make sense(like you said). But there has to be something in the middle in which teams can keep rivalries and the divisions would geographically make sense.

JD10367
12-23-2010, 04:12 PM
The 8 divisions of 4 teams made perfect sense given the schedule rotation, which is absolutely perfect.

Well, it certainly didn't make sense to me in 2008 when the Cassel-led 11-5 Patriots stayed home while the 8-8 AFCW-winning Chargers hosted the 12-4 Colts (and then won in overtime, probably because of their homefield advantage).

Yeah, it only comes up every few seasons... but that's still too often. If a 7-9 NFCW team hosts the 12-4 Saints while the 10-6 Packers or Giants stay home, it'll be a travesty.

Rams Fan
12-23-2010, 04:15 PM
Well, it certainly didn't make sense to me in 2008 when the Cassel-led 11-5 Patriots stayed home while the 8-8 AFCW-winning Chargers hosted the 12-4 Colts (and then won in overtime, probably because of their homefield advantage).

Yeah, it only comes up every few seasons... but that's still too often. If a 7-9 NFCW team hosts the 12-4 Saints while the 10-6 Packers or Giants stay home, it'll be a travesty.

The Chargers won their division, the Patriots didn't. An 8-8 team that wins their division has a right to go to the playoffs. You play to win your division, not a wildcard spot.

I do think, though, that if a 7-9 does host a playoff game, it would be unfair. But the Rams and Seahawks both have a shot at going 8-8.

MarcBulger
12-23-2010, 04:19 PM
The NFC West is pathetic...OK. What can I do about it....?

Rams Fan
12-23-2010, 04:20 PM
The NFC West is pathetic...OK. What can I do about it....?

Exactly. Blame it on the 49ers. They were supposed to win the NFC West easily. They didn't.