2016 AFC playoffs

Post by **brian** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:08 pm

I don't care if it's Kansas City or Cincinnati, that 3/6 game against Pittsburgh is going to be fascinating. Haven't KC and Cinci lost like 16 straight playoff games combined?

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:45 pm

Bengals are gonna get killed. So there's that. McCarron has no chance against that D - he's taken 12 sacks in his three starts because he doesn't have the experience to read defenses and make quick decisions and change calls. They're gonna get killed.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:13 pm

The previous post feels like an annual rite of January.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:16 pm

I have less hope than usual, so, yay for that.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:18 pm

Not really the place for this, but as a Bills fan, it was enjoyable watching the Jets shit the bed today.

And for those who have never had the "pleasure" of watching Ryan Fitzpatrick on a regular basis, the fact that he led a team to a 10-5 record and the very brink of playoff qualification only to throw three picks in the 4th quarter of the final game of the season says all that you need to know about the Harvard man.

DaveInSeattle · Post by **DaveInSeattle** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:36 pm

I didn't see any of it...but what the hell happened to the Pats? How can they lose to the Dolphins who had started to mail in the season 2 months ago?

GoodKarma · Post by **GoodKarma** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:38 pm

tennbengal wrote:Bengals are gonna get killed. So there's that. McCarron has no chance against that D - he's taken 12 sacks in his three starts because he doesn't have the experience to read defenses and make quick decisions and change calls. They're gonna get killed.

As a Bengal fan...this +1000. I would rather play anybody else.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:17 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:I didn't see any of it...but what the hell happened to the Pats? How can they lose to the Dolphins who had started to mail in the season 2 months ago?

Trying to psych out Pittsburgh.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:30 pm

DaveInSeattle wrote:I didn't see any of it...but what the hell happened to the Pats? How can they lose to the Dolphins who had started to mail in the season 2 months ago?

Super vanilla play calling. Brady set his personal low for passes in a half.
That, plus lots of players sitting or being on a snap count that probably would have played if it was a do or die game.

I think they decided that getting the two seed was better than getting someone else hurt.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:31 pm

mister d wrote:
DaveInSeattle wrote:I didn't see any of it...but what the hell happened to the Pats? How can they lose to the Dolphins who had started to mail in the season 2 months ago?
Trying to psych out Pittsburgh.

Pats wouldn't face Pittsburgh unless its the AFCCG.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:32 pm

tennbengal wrote:McCarron has no chance against that D

No chance the Red Rifle is back?

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:32 pm

tennbengal wrote:Bengals are gonna get killed. So there's that. McCarron has no chance against that D - he's taken 12 sacks in his three starts because he doesn't have the experience to read defenses and make quick decisions and change calls. They're gonna get killed.

Reverse jinx?

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:14 am

Bengals are 2-12 at home against Pittsburgh under Lewis.

As a franchise, They've also lost six in a row and 8 of 9 in New England.

They've lost nine of ten in Denver.

Let's just say the outcome of the games today really wasn't what I was hoping for.

GoodKarma · Post by **GoodKarma** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:07 am

Rush2112 wrote:
tennbengal wrote:McCarron has no chance against that D
No chance the Red Rifle is back?

There's a chance but probably not. It doesn't matter who is at QB...the Steelers are completely in their heads. With Cinci's luck the Steelers will probably win the damn Super Bowl after back-dooring into the playoffs the last week of the season.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:05 am

AFC is wide open - the top two seeds look pretty shaky at this point.

I don;t think Sunday's loss to Miami was part of any elaborate plan by Bellichick - the Pats are just completely beaten up.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:42 am

Pruitt wrote:I don;t think Sunday's loss to Miami was part of any elaborate plan by Bellichick - the Pats are just completely beaten up.

They still didn't try very hard. From the very first drive when they ran on 3rd and long, I got the feeling that they're convinced that they'll win in Denver if healthy or that PIT or KC will knock them off first.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:51 am

Ryan wrote:
Pruitt wrote:I don;t think Sunday's loss to Miami was part of any elaborate plan by Bellichick - the Pats are just completely beaten up.
They still didn't try very hard. From the very first drive when they ran on 3rd and long, I got the feeling that they're convinced that they'll win in Denver if healthy or that PIT or KC will knock them off first.

Eh, this notion that the Pats lost because they "didn't try hard" strikes me as a typical Patriots fan rationalization to excuse the team's issues based on the premise that Belichick is infallible and therefore any apparent pitfalls are instead part of some top-secret plan. I don't see any upside in half-assing a game when home field advantage throughout the playoffs is at stake. Either you make a full effort to win that game or you give a bunch of starters, including Brady, the day off. As it is, Brady was limping badly after the game from some of the hits he took, which is exactly why it makes no sense for them to "not try very hard."

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:54 am

Joe K wrote:
Ryan wrote:
Pruitt wrote:I don;t think Sunday's loss to Miami was part of any elaborate plan by Bellichick - the Pats are just completely beaten up.
They still didn't try very hard. From the very first drive when they ran on 3rd and long, I got the feeling that they're convinced that they'll win in Denver if healthy or that PIT or KC will knock them off first.
Eh, this notion that the Pats lost because they "didn't try hard" strikes me as a typical Patriots fan rationalization to excuse the team's issues based on the premise that Belichick is infallible and therefore any apparent pitfalls are instead part of some top-secret plan. I don't see any upside in half-assing a game when home field advantage throughout the playoffs is at stake. Either you make a full effort to win that game or you give a bunch of starters, including Brady, the day off. As it is, Brady was limping badly after the game from some of the hits he took, which is exactly why it makes no sense for them to "not try very hard."

How do you explain this? Two timeouts by the way...

(1:57 - 2nd) R.Bullock kicks 69 yards from NYJ 35 to NE -4. K.Martin to NE 16 for 20 yards (T.Reilly).
1st and 10 at NE 16

(1:53 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Bolden up the middle to NE 29 for 13 yards (C.Pryor; S.Richardson)
1st and 10 at NE 29

(1:19 - 2nd) (Shotgun) B.Bolden left tackle to NE 31 for 2 yards (D.Harris; L.Mauldin)
2nd and 8 at NE 31

(0:37 - 2nd) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short middle to J.White to NE 36 for 5 yards (C.Pryor)

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 9:58 am

Oh and to offset TB's shameless reverse hexing...the Steelers have no chance. Their secondary might be the worst in the NFL. Their coach is a deer in headlights in big games recently. Their all-world tailback is out for the year and the second string tailback that wasn't doing poorly might be out, and Ben's going to have to drop back like 58 times which is scary if the refs decide to allow free reign on Ben day like they did in the last match-up.

If I were Marv, I'd show that tape and just be like "See...you can do whatever the hell you want to him! It's awesome!"

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:07 am

2-12 home against Steelers under Lewis. 0 for the playoffs. I think you know you got this. I wish I was reverse jinxing but, fuck, I don't see many ways to a win for Cincy. The Steelers live in Cincy's head, both fanbase and team, and without Dalton, or a just returning Dalton, no fucking way.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:08 am

Joe K wrote:
Ryan wrote:
Pruitt wrote:I don;t think Sunday's loss to Miami was part of any elaborate plan by Bellichick - the Pats are just completely beaten up.
They still didn't try very hard. From the very first drive when they ran on 3rd and long, I got the feeling that they're convinced that they'll win in Denver if healthy or that PIT or KC will knock them off first.
Eh, this notion that the Pats lost because they "didn't try hard" strikes me as a typical Patriots fan rationalization to excuse the team's issues based on the premise that Belichick is infallible and therefore any apparent pitfalls are instead part of some top-secret plan. I don't see any upside in half-assing a game when home field advantage throughout the playoffs is at stake. Either you make a full effort to win that game or you give a bunch of starters, including Brady, the day off. As it is, Brady was limping badly after the game from some of the hits he took, which is exactly why it makes no sense for them to "not try very hard."

They still could have won. Not trying very hard, gameplan-wise, has nothing to do with effort leading to injuries. They didn't try hard. Not every Pats fan is irrational. You can stop.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:13 am

The AFC North is weird right now - Ravens appear to be living in Pittsburgh's head, I guarantee you the Steelers have a permanent mansion in Cincy's heads, and the Bengals have taken up residence in the Ravens' heads (five wins in a row now). I would have taken any other first round match-up by a million miles over playing the Steelers.

Who knows, maybe they will finally slay their primetime/playoff/Pittsburgh demons all at once but...no. That's really unlikely. Really.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:15 am

tennbengal wrote:2-12 home against Steelers under Lewis. 0 for the playoffs. I think you know you got this. I wish I was reverse jinxing but, fuck, I don't see many ways to a win for Cincy. The Steelers live in Cincy's head, both fanbase and team, and without Dalton, or a just returning Dalton, no fucking way.

Of the possible playoff opponents to play in the Bengals first game, I assume you would have put the Jets at No. 1 and followed by?

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:15 am

Brontoburglar wrote:
tennbengal wrote:2-12 home against Steelers under Lewis. 0 for the playoffs. I think you know you got this. I wish I was reverse jinxing but, fuck, I don't see many ways to a win for Cincy. The Steelers live in Cincy's head, both fanbase and team, and without Dalton, or a just returning Dalton, no fucking way.
Of the possible playoff opponents to play in the Bengals first game, I assume you would have put the Jets at No. 1 and followed by?

Chiefs at 1. Followed by Jets. Then a million miles. Then the Steelers.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:18 am

tennbengal wrote:The AFC North is weird right now - Ravens appear to be living in Pittsburgh's head, I guarantee you the Steelers have a permanent mansion in Cincy's heads, and the Bengals have taken up residence in the Ravens' heads (five wins in a row now). I would have taken any other first round match-up by a million miles over playing the Steelers.

Who knows, maybe they will finally slay their primetime/playoff/Pittsburgh demons all at once but...no. That's really unlikely. Really.

You have math on your side.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:18 am

tennbengal wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
tennbengal wrote:2-12 home against Steelers under Lewis. 0 for the playoffs. I think you know you got this. I wish I was reverse jinxing but, fuck, I don't see many ways to a win for Cincy. The Steelers live in Cincy's head, both fanbase and team, and without Dalton, or a just returning Dalton, no fucking way.
Of the possible playoff opponents to play in the Bengals first game, I assume you would have put the Jets at No. 1 and followed by?
Chiefs at 1. Followed by Jets. Then a million miles. Then the Steelers.

Chiefs do have more sacks than the Steelers on the season. And a much better pass defense.

No outcome in the playoffs would surprise me with KC.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:21 am

Brontoburglar wrote:
tennbengal wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
tennbengal wrote:2-12 home against Steelers under Lewis. 0 for the playoffs. I think you know you got this. I wish I was reverse jinxing but, fuck, I don't see many ways to a win for Cincy. The Steelers live in Cincy's head, both fanbase and team, and without Dalton, or a just returning Dalton, no fucking way.
Of the possible playoff opponents to play in the Bengals first game, I assume you would have put the Jets at No. 1 and followed by?
Chiefs at 1. Followed by Jets. Then a million miles. Then the Steelers.
Chiefs do have more sacks than the Steelers on the season. And a much better pass defense.

No outcome in the playoffs would surprise me with KC.

Nothing about KC without Charles bothers me as a Bengals fan. I think they did a nice job coasting on a crazy easy schedule after the rough first month. Regardless, moot.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:21 am

Ryan wrote:
Joe K wrote:
Ryan wrote:
Pruitt wrote:I don;t think Sunday's loss to Miami was part of any elaborate plan by Bellichick - the Pats are just completely beaten up.
They still didn't try very hard. From the very first drive when they ran on 3rd and long, I got the feeling that they're convinced that they'll win in Denver if healthy or that PIT or KC will knock them off first.
Eh, this notion that the Pats lost because they "didn't try hard" strikes me as a typical Patriots fan rationalization to excuse the team's issues based on the premise that Belichick is infallible and therefore any apparent pitfalls are instead part of some top-secret plan. I don't see any upside in half-assing a game when home field advantage throughout the playoffs is at stake. Either you make a full effort to win that game or you give a bunch of starters, including Brady, the day off. As it is, Brady was limping badly after the game from some of the hits he took, which is exactly why it makes no sense for them to "not try very hard."
They still could have won. Not trying very hard, gameplan-wise, has nothing to do with effort leading to injuries. They didn't try hard. Not every Pats fan is irrational. You can stop.

I still find it really, really hard to believe that a team with a 22-2 home record over the past 3 seasons, with one of the losses coming in a meaningless Week 17 game, would choose to be cavalier about homefield advantage. Especially when they lost in Denver 2 years ago in the AFC title game and lost in Denver like a month ago. Denver's QB situation may be shaky, but it also has arguably the best defense in the AFC and a running game that is rounding into shape. I know a common theory (see Jerloma's post) is that Belichick views Pittsburgh as the biggest threat, but the Pats have owned the Steelers for Roethlisberger's entire career.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:27 am

Joe K wrote:
Ryan wrote:
Joe K wrote:
Ryan wrote:
Pruitt wrote:I don;t think Sunday's loss to Miami was part of any elaborate plan by Bellichick - the Pats are just completely beaten up.
They still didn't try very hard. From the very first drive when they ran on 3rd and long, I got the feeling that they're convinced that they'll win in Denver if healthy or that PIT or KC will knock them off first.
Eh, this notion that the Pats lost because they "didn't try hard" strikes me as a typical Patriots fan rationalization to excuse the team's issues based on the premise that Belichick is infallible and therefore any apparent pitfalls are instead part of some top-secret plan. I don't see any upside in half-assing a game when home field advantage throughout the playoffs is at stake. Either you make a full effort to win that game or you give a bunch of starters, including Brady, the day off. As it is, Brady was limping badly after the game from some of the hits he took, which is exactly why it makes no sense for them to "not try very hard."
They still could have won. Not trying very hard, gameplan-wise, has nothing to do with effort leading to injuries. They didn't try hard. Not every Pats fan is irrational. You can stop.
I still find it really, really hard to believe that a team with a 22-2 home record over the past 3 seasons, with one of the losses coming in a meaningless Week 17 game, would choose to be cavalier about homefield advantage. Especially when they lost in Denver 2 years ago in the AFC title game and lost in Denver like a month ago. Denver's QB situation may be shaky, but it also has arguably the best defense in the AFC and a running game that is rounding into shape. I know a common theory (see Jerloma's post) is that Belichick views Pittsburgh as the biggest threat, but the Pats have owned the Steelers for Roethlisberger's entire career.

I don't know that the Pats were trying to keep the Steelers out, but the argument for them trying to avoid them (if they are) this year would be that with their offensive injuries and perhaps an aging QB, they'd want to face the teams least likely to make them have to score 30+ points to win. Now of course, the Steelers are probably also the team most likely to give up 30+ points to them so who knows.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:30 am

Playoffs? It's time to focus on the EPL and Champions League, boys. The day the schedule came out, all Jets fans knew Rex would ruin the Jets playoff chances in week 17. None of us thought the Jets had a shot at the playoffs until seeing the schedule. The NFL script writers have become predictable.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:12 pm

Joe K wrote: I still find it really, really hard to believe that a team with a 22-2 home record over the past 3 seasons, with one of the losses coming in a meaningless Week 17 game, would choose to be cavalier about homefield advantage.

I think they basically circled the wagons once they had the bye secured. They only have to play one away game, and that's if Denver makes it to the AFCGC. It would be a different story if the Patriots were in the Bronco's situation last night. Win and #1, lose and #5.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:34 pm

I was all like last game and shit, whatever, and then the Bills stopped throwing screens and actually started letting their fast guys run forward with the ball and then I was like no way and then it was all like, way, and now I'm fired up again.

TB is pretty much spot on. I don't give a shit about the Bengals and I worry about games against the Ravens even if they are negative 1 and 17. I wouldn't say I think the Ravens are just gonna win because they own the Steelers but the gist of his statement is true. Until Cincinnati makes me think they are for real, I won't.

HaulCitgo · Post by **HaulCitgo** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:08 pm

Agree with rush. I mean they looked really really bad on offense but they didn't run gronk up the seam at all. Even the announcers were looking for it on the one drive where the run game clicked in first half and they never ran it. Pretty much every throw to gronk was on the sideline where a db couldn't take his legs out. Steven jackson? No hightower, no jones. Again terrible but so was play calling. I just worry if they can turn it on at all. A full strength edelman solves some problems but mostly the AFC isn't that scary and the D might carry them. Everyone has big flaws at this point. Manning gonna shit the bed. AJ mccarron? Pittsburgh has no D still. Maybe KC looks the best.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:15 pm

I am sorely tempted to lay some money on KC.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:16 pm

Pruitt wrote:I am sorely tempted to lay some money on KC.

I don't even think they beat Houston.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:18 pm

tennbengal wrote:
Pruitt wrote:I am sorely tempted to lay some money on KC.
I don't even think they beat Houston.

Hoyer vs. Andy Reid.

anything could happen...

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:23 pm

tennbengal wrote:
Pruitt wrote:I am sorely tempted to lay some money on KC.
I don't even think they beat Houston.

Good god why? They've won ten straight.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:37 pm

A_B wrote:
tennbengal wrote:
Pruitt wrote:I am sorely tempted to lay some money on KC.
I don't even think they beat Houston.

Good god why? They've won ten straight.

That's true, I hadn't realized that - they will definitely win again then.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:51 pm

tennbengal wrote:
A_B wrote:
tennbengal wrote:
Pruitt wrote:I am sorely tempted to lay some money on KC.
I don't even think they beat Houston.

Good god why? They've won ten straight.
That's true, I hadn't realized that - they will definitely win again then.

Jesus christ. Just seems like a weird thing to say without some sort of analysis.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:55 pm

Personally, I think KC wins going away.