Why do you think so many high seeds left early?

The BIGSTUD · January 23, 2006, 02:59:43 AM

For the good football minds of this forum. Why do you think so many of the high seeded teams completely sucked in the playoffs? Why do you think so many lower seeded teams did so good in the playoffs? Was it just luck that teams like Denver, Indy, and Tampa made such high seeds? Was it the luck of their schedules making them frauds? Were they just not ready for the next level?

Were the lower seeds kind of in cruise control into the playoffs? Were they bitten by bad luck like Pitt and just get healthy at the right time?

Why do you think it was this way? I mean there was only one dominant team this year in the NFL and that was Indy, but you know they'd choke in the playoffs. That wasn't a shock. I wasn't shocked by Tampa losing early, or Denver losing to Pitt didn't surprise me at all, and I wasn't that shocked when the Giants lost either. Could it be that there is such a fine line from the 1 to 6 seeds today that it doesn't even really matter? I can't remember an NFL season where the almost all the best teams were the lower seeds. I've thought about it, but I can't quite come up with a definite answer. Does anyone have an opinion on this or has anyone else thought about it?

ice grillin you · January 23, 2006, 08:04:57 AM

steelers are and have been the best team in the nfl this year...i had them winning it all from the get go...they have the same squad as last year...a team that should have beat new england had rothlesberger been ready...with a year under his belt i figured he would be ready and he obviosuly is...so them winning is not a surprise

as for the nfc it plain sucks...the difference btwn the six seed and the one seed is microscopic

henchmanUK · January 23, 2006, 08:28:36 AM

Steelers were on a roll heading into the playoffs.

rjs246 · January 23, 2006, 09:30:59 AM

Steelers have exactly the kind of boring ass team that is built for the playoffs. They play smashmouth, hard hitting football on both sides of the ball. The only reason they haven't been better in the postseason recently is because they usually suck special teams but, that doesn't seem to be the case this year. They run the ball the way winning teams should, which makes me hate them all the more.

BigEd76 · January 23, 2006, 10:01:55 AM

The only loss that surprised me was the Indy one because I thought those chokers were beyond that point by now, especially having HFA throughout. The other teams took advantage of down years by Philly, Atlanta, and Green Bay, plus "too little too late" years by Minnesota, San Diego and Kansas City...

Mad-Lad · January 23, 2006, 10:20:42 AM

Did anyone else find it odd seeing Duce holding the AFC Championship trophy? He played in, what, one game?

MURP · January 23, 2006, 10:45:53 AM

If you take a look at Pittsburghs schedule you can see why. Check out their losses:

1. Lost to NE by 3 points
2. Roethlisberger did not play, lost to Jax by a TD
3. Roethlisberger did not play, lost at Balt by a TD
4. Got crushed @ Indy.
5. Lost a shootout to Cinci by a TD.

So in two of their losses Roehlisberger was out, two of the losses came by a TD or less to other playoff teams, and they had their assbeating letdown game to Indy. Pitt is a very good team that just got caught with enough losses to make them a #6 seed.

PhillyPhreak54 · January 23, 2006, 11:14:04 AM

In the NFC Tampa benefitted from an easy schedule as did Washington, New York, Carolina & Chicago. They all were not in the playoffs in 2005 so they had weaker schedules.

But Carolina was a playoff tested team and that is why they were able to go to NY and CHI and beat them. They ran out of gas in Seattle because they had no running game and I think the travel caught up to them. If Jake Delhomme is forced to win a game on his own he cannot do it.

In the AFC the Steelers were hot at the right time. They faced Cincy and they lost Palmer on play #2 and the Bengals weren't playing well at the end of the year.

The Colts were the same old Colts in the playoffs.

Denver, like Carolina, has nothing if they can't get a running game started or they have to play from behind. Pittsburgh hit Denver in the mouth early and forced Plummer to have to throw to catch up. That ain't the Broncs MO. They run and everything goes off of playaction from there.

hbionic · January 23, 2006, 03:04:38 PM

I really don't read these thread but very good analysis from all of you.

Bravo.

LBIggle · January 23, 2006, 05:05:14 PM

Quote from: Mad-Lad on January 23, 2006, 10:20:42 AM
Did anyone else find it odd seeing Duce holding the AFC Championship trophy? He played in, what, one game?

it's going to be odd watching him hoist the Lombardi trophy too.

ice grillin you · January 23, 2006, 05:08:14 PM

id give up a nut to see matt mccoy holding up the lombardi trophy

PoopyfaceMcGee · January 23, 2006, 05:31:30 PM

I think he'd have to work out for a long time to do that.

bobbyinlondon · January 23, 2006, 07:34:57 PM

Well, in the AFC, Pittsburgh went against type. I thought they beat Cincy because they WERE USED TO PLAYING CINCY, so from an emotional point, it wasn't too hard for them to get up--plus, you had Chad Johnson fanning the flames. They came out throwing against Indy and Denver, when both were expecting the Steelers to run it. Indy went out because Manning, until he gets to the Super Bowl will always have the stigma of not being able to get it done in big games. As I said in another thread, the worst thing the Colts did was go 13-0 and then rest their starters. Manning is a QB who depends on timing and I htought their offense would suffer. And I think that Tony Dungy is a coach that coaches differently in the playoffs than the regular season.

In the NFC, the name of the game was QBs' experience--or lack of it. The one thing that I think helped McNabb beat Tampa in his second year was the fact that he had to win a lot of games in 2000 by himself. He had no running game after Duce went down. Eli, on the other hand had a more than decent running game, had good recievers--but he still throws off his back foot, and he still throws INTs in critical situations. Chicago's problem was Grossman's inactivity, plus I think they thought they could play the same game against Carolina that they did two months ago and win. Tampa just didn't show up offensively against the Skins.

As someone else said, most of them benefitted from a weak schedule. The Giants got an extra home game because of Katrina and they played Arizona and the Rams at home early in the season.

Again, within the division, everyone plays the same teams except for 2 games. However, those two games, plus the difference in who you play at home and play on the road and WHEN you play them also makes a difference. After seeing McMahon play the way he did against the Giants, doesn't anyoneone think that if McNabb had been healty for both of those games that the Eagles would have won both, instead of losing both?

The BIGSTUD · January 23, 2006, 08:33:58 PM

I think the Giants could finish last in the division next year. Bill will improve the Cowboys again next year although not significantly and the taterskins will probably be a little better, but I'm not a fan of Eli Manning or Plaxico Burress. Both are softer than ice cream.