drew4008
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 2,364
- Reaction score
- 6
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.+1 and it makes losing Seymour somewhat questionable IMO.
Jesus, #17? What a piece of crap. I cannot fathom how the Raiders went 8-8. All the teams that they beat should be ashamed of themselves... we would beat them 45-0.
And I cannot fathom how the Raiders didn't make the playoffs. As their 6-0 division record indicates, they were the best team in the AFC West. We're lucky they stumbled inexplicably against some lousy NFC West teams. Otherwise, the pick would have been much worse than #17.
That is pretty insane. First team to ever have an undefeated divisional record and miss the playoffs. Only Al and the Raiders could do such a thing hahah
You are incorrect, though it doesn't make a big difference. As of last year's draft, the rules changed so that all playoff teams are taken out of order, in the order they exit the playoffs. Within each group of teams exiting in the same round, those teams are ordered in their "normal draft order" (i.e. by record and strength of schedule.)By the way -- if I am correct that only the Super Bowl winner and loser get their picks taken out of the order of regular season finish, the Pats' natural pick is constrained to be in the narrow band #29-32 no matter what happens from here.
Worst case scenario it is. Pick #17.
Not a single team that could have helped the Pats won today.
Chiefs, Jags, Dolphins, Titans, Redskins, Vikes - all bit the bullet.
Titans-Skins-Vikes were irrelevant given that the Raiders won. I'll take 17th, it could have been worse. The Raiders are a pretty good team.
Whether we pick 13 or 17, we still have the ammo to get ANY player we want above us. And our picks are spread all over so just about any trade is possible.
Does anyone know if the raiders hold the tie-breaker with the chargers or the jags if they all finish 8-8?
Raiders vs. Jags: Team with weaker strength of schedule picks first (i.e., 16th rather than 17th.) I haven't done the full calculation, but mustn't the Raiders' schedule be weaker? They played the NFC West while Jags played NFC East. Also, Raiders & Jags divisions played each other, which helps balance out the rest of their schedules.
Are we sure we're picking 17th and not 16th?
Raiders vs. Jags: Team with weaker strength of schedule picks first (i.e., 16th rather than 17th.) I haven't done the full calculation, but mustn't the Raiders' schedule be weaker? They played the NFC West while Jags played NFC East. Also, Raiders & Jags divisions played each other, which helps balance out the rest of their schedules.
Are we sure we're picking 17th and not 16th?