Divisional Round Saturday

[RaiderLakersA's]

Sure but that's a solid team on the other side even with their injuries. If anyone can QB their team to beat the Rams without his full roster, its Brady. He'll find open receivers and mismatches as long as he isn't on his backside most of time. I wouldn't be super confident in Stafford either.

I definitely like the Ram's chances but I wouldn't say its a give me game.

I wasn't completely discounting the Bucs. They're the Super Bowl champion for a reason. But they are running into a superior opponent and the Rams don't fear Brady at all. The game isn't over, but it's 27-3 now. I don't see the Bucs coming back from that.

[RaiderLakersA's]

Surprise people there a ****ing mega team. More like living up to the talent on the team. But I disagree Tampa will win.

Sent from my LM-K500 using Tapatalk

I'm sticking by my prediction. It's almost time to start the Brady retirement party.

[manbearchef]

I mean they absolutely destroyed KC. They destroyed the Rams, on the road, and that was without their best player, and they beat Allen and Buffalo. They did it all with mediocre to bad QB play all year.

I could honestly care less about who people would have preferred to play, but how in the world can a team that beat three legit contenders, two of them in a very convincing fashion, be called an unworthy 1 seed (let alone the worst 1 seed in history, as some have claimed)?

And most of that was months ago and in the regular season. The Titans barely avoided being swept by the Texans and in a 16 game season would've locked in the #1 seed at 11-5 which I'm not sure has been done before. I'm really not sure why you're so upset at the idea that teams would rather play the Titans than go to BUF or KC against two of the best QBs in the league. I mean, if we needed an indication that they weren't as good as they seemed, losing a 19-16 game to the Bengals would probably be it.

[metswon69]

I wasn't completely discounting the Bucs. They're the Super Bowl champion for a reason. But they are running into a superior opponent and the Rams don't fear Brady at all. The game isn't over, but it's 27-3 now. I don't see the Bucs coming back from that.

They almost made the comeback lol. All I'm saying is you were way too certain that the Rams were going to win handedly and they just barely squeaked it out.

[Andrei00]

And most of that was months ago and in the regular season. The Titans barely avoided being swept by the Texans and in a 16 game season would've locked in the #1 seed at 11-5 which I'm not sure has been done before. I'm really not sure why you're so upset at the idea that teams would rather play the Titans than go to BUF or KC against two of the best QBs in the league. I mean, if we needed an indication that they weren't as good as they seemed, losing a 19-16 game to the Bengals would probably be it.

I could care less about who people would have rather played, that's not how seeding is done, thankfully. It's the people that use "weakest number 1 seed" and "ever" or "since..." to describe a team that beat three legit Super Bowl contenders and embarrassed two. In the regular season, obviously, again, that's how the seeding process works.

If yesterday's game, which has no relevance whatsoever in this argument, but if that game is any indicator of anything, why is it not Green Bay that is the weakest number one seed ever? Because Rodgers and because they're sexier, but that's also stupid. A team that beats three legit contenders and embarrasses two of them has earned its seeding and should not have it questioned or disrespected like that.

[cattusmaru]

You pretty much answered your own question. I think they're a very talented team with a great coach, but given all the injuries you never knew what you'd get from them. In a playoff game, almost anyone would rather play them than have to go into the BUF/KC atmosphere and play against Allen/Mahomes.

Tannehill has been criminally underrated the last couple years, but he **** the bed big time yesterday and isn't scaring teams the way the other QBs are.

I think you are over emphasizing the importance of the team base on who the QB is while everything else seem secondary to it. Titans were clearly the team other teams would avoid in the AFC if possible once Henry was back in the lineup. If fearing the QB is really that important, most teams would avoid facing the back to back MVP winner Aaron Rodgers over any other team from the NFC yet they just lost to a team with a better QB?

The better team has the better defense and can dominate the time of possession when it comes to the playoffs regardless of who is the most feared QB!

[More-Than-Most]

I think you are over emphasizing the importance of the team base on who the QB is while everything else seem secondary to it. Titans were clearly the team other teams would avoid in the AFC if possible once Henry was back in the lineup. If fearing the QB is really that important, most teams would avoid facing the back to back MVP winner Aaron Rodgers over any other team from the NFC yet they just lost to a team with a better QB?

The better team has the better defense and can dominate the time of possession when it comes to the playoffs regardless of who is the most feared QB!

yup. I have said from day 1 A qbs best weapon is defense.. Always has been and always will be

[manbearchef]

I could care less about who people would have rather played, that's not how seeding is done, thankfully. It's the people that use "weakest number 1 seed" and "ever" or "since..." to describe a team that beat three legit Super Bowl contenders and embarrassed two. In the regular season, obviously, again, that's how the seeding process works.

If yesterday's game, which has no relevance whatsoever in this argument, but if that game is any indicator of anything, why is it not Green Bay that is the weakest number one seed ever? Because Rodgers and because they're sexier, but that's also stupid. A team that beats three legit contenders and embarrasses two of them has earned its seeding and should not have it questioned or disrespected like that.

It seems you have some permanent fixation on some ESPN "worst #1 seed ever" take that I've never said. They were a suspect #1 seed and that's literally all I've said. I also had zero faith in the Packers to go very far because they're annual choke artists, though I will say I thought they'd at least win a game.

yup. I have said from day 1 A qbs best weapon is defense.. Always has been and always will be

Except when Rodgers defense allows just 6 points (+7 by ST) and he can't put up more than 10 despite a good OL and arguably the best WR in the game.

[Andrei00]

It seems you have some permanent fixation on some ESPN "worst #1 seed ever" take that I've never said. They were a suspect #1 seed and that's literally all I've said. I also had zero faith in the Packers to go very far because they're annual choke artists, though I will say I thought they'd at least win a game.

I do have a fixation with it, I've admitted as such. You called it the weakest pair of number one seeds you've seen in a while. Granted, it's not as bad as calling it the weakest all time, but it still doesn't make any sense. They beat three legit Super Bowl contenders, embarrassed two. Pretty sure that's more than any other contender could claim. They did it while playing a historical number of players due to injuries. If that's not a team worthy of their seeding, I don't know what/who is.

Also, if postseason success or lack of it you think is any indicator as to how weak, or strong, or worthy a team is of their number 1 seeding, they're not the first one-and-done number 1 seed. As a matter of fact, since the 1990 season, a number one seed is more likely to lose in the Divisional round (25.8%), than win the Super Bowl (22.6%). Judging by that, they are well within the rule, and are not in fact the exception.

[Lil Rhody]

Boy if they could of only gotten a few first downs or a FG and bam no blocked punt and they win. They stopped SF on 4th down they had momentum. All they had to do was drive a little

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk