2006 NFL Play-Off Scenarios...Are the Patriots playing for anything?

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said this in an another thread, but this is the deepest AFC field I remember in a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I firmly believe that every single team in the AFC playoff picture would have the number 1 seed in the NFC, if they played in that conference all year.

[/ QUOTE ]

not if you transplant them with Philly(or any other NFC east team) and leave Seattle untouched

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said this in an another thread, but this is the deepest AFC field I remember in a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I firmly believe that every single team in the AFC playoff picture would have the number 1 seed in the NFC, if they played in that conference all year.

[/ QUOTE ]

not if you transplant them with Philly(or any other NFC east team) and leave Seattle untouched

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're suggesting the Giants/Redskins would have a better record than the Patriots, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The only division the Pats would have a problem against is the NFC West and only because I think Seattle's offense might give them some trouble. Who else though in the NFC would be able to exploit the Patriots secondary? The Giants? Yeah, because Eli has proven himself as a solid QB this year.

The Patriots lost 5 games this year. 3 of them came against teams with high-powered offenses who can throw the ball down the field. (Colts, Chargers, Broncos) The other two games were, in my opinion, flukes. And when I say fluke, I mean the Patriots did not play to their ability, and lost the game, rather than they were out...talented (yes, i said outtalented). The only team in the NFC who really matches up well against the Pats are the Seahawks. If the Patriots play the Panthers/Giants/Redskins/Bears 10 times each, I think you'd find they'd win 60-65% of those games.

[lastchance]

He's saying if you put the Patriots in the same division with the Giants, Eagles, and Redskins, (Dallas has an impossibly hard schedule) the Patriots don't get the #1 seed in the NFC.

The Seahawks only lost 2 games all year. If you replace the Eagles with a team from the AFC, maybe the Seahawks lose 3 games.

After beating Seattle @home, you still have to go 13-3 against the Giants twice, the Redskins twice, the Eagles (when they were good) once, Kansas City, Denver, @Carolina, @San Diego.

Only the Colts/Broncos would be good bets for home-field there.

Plus, the Seahawks have been relatively healthy all year. If the Patriots struggle with injuries in the NFC East like they did this year, they're going to have a hard time just getting in. As tough as the AFC is, the AFC East is terrible, and the Patriots didn't win their division, they were defaulted it.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
He's saying if you put the Patriots in the same division with the Giants, Eagles, and Redskins, (Dallas has an impossibly hard schedule) the Patriots don't get the #1 seed in the NFC.

The Seahawks only lost 2 games all year. If you replace the Eagles with a team from the AFC, maybe the Seahawks lose 3 games.

After beating Seattle @home, you still have to go 13-3 against the Giants twice, the Redskins twice, the Eagles (when they were good) once, Kansas City, Denver, @Carolina, @San Diego.

Only the Colts/Broncos would be good bets for home-field there.

Plus, the Seahawks have been relatively healthy all year. If the Patriots struggle with injuries in the NFC East like they did this year, they're going to have a hard time just getting in. As tough as the AFC is, the AFC East is terrible, and the Patriots didn't win their division, they were defaulted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for clearing that up. Makes tons of sense and I agree.