This #1 seed thing is WAY overated

[Deus Irae]

Shows you don't know what you are talking about - The 2004 Steelers were a game better in the regular season at 15-1 than the world champion Patriots at 14-2

No, actually I messed up and used the cut and past from the 2003 season rather than the 2003, because I didn't list them in order before I edited. The Eagles from the NFC were the #1 seed that made that Super Bowl.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Try.... pretend if you have to, but try... to act as if you can grasp simple realities of NFL life.

A.)

The #1 seed is NOT designed to crown the NFL Champion. It is designed to reward the team from each conference that had the best record, tiebreakers included, in their respective conferences.

B.)

The biggest difference between the #1 seed and the #2 seed is that, if the seeds play out over the course of the playoffs, the conference championship will be played at the home of the #1 seed rather than the #2 seed.

In other words, both the #1 and #2 seeds get to play one less game than the 4 other seeds, and both are guaranteed at least one home game. Nobody from either conference is given an edge in the Super Bowl.

Who said anything about an edge in the SB? - My point over this thread is simply almost all of the #1 seeds this decade in BOTH conferences have not held the Lombardi at seasons end and they wont this year either -How you can dispute this is simply ridiculous,its a fact not a guess and has really no other value that a simple statement or evaluation per say in my OP.

And BTW: Home field has meant less and less in the playoffs the past few years so the HFA is nice but not as dominating as it was many years ago

To tell you the truth I really enjoy the Patriots ON THE ROAD in the playoffs than at home

 

[Deus Irae]

Who said anything about an edge in the SB? - My point over this thread is simply almost all of the #1 seeds this decade in BOTH conferences have not held the Lombardi at seasons end and they wont this year either -How you can dispute this is simply ridiculous,its a fact not a guess and has really no other value that a simple statement or evaluation per say in my OP.

And BTW: Home field has meant less and less in the playoffs the past few years so the HFA is nice but not as dominating as it was many years ago

What part of

The seeding system is NOT designed to have a particular team win the Super Bowl. If it was, there wouldn't be TWO #1 seeds.

are you unable to comprehend?

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

No, actually I messed up and used the cut and past from the 2003 season rather than the 2003, because I didn't list them in order before I edited. The Eagles from the NFC were the #1 seed that made that Super Bowl.

If anything proves my point of view in this thread you just posted it - Eagles #1 seed = 0-1 in quest for a championship this decade

 

[Deus Irae]

If anything proves my point of view in this thread you just posted it - Eagles #1 seed = 0-1 in quest for a championship this decade

No, that just proves that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The #1 seeded Eagles were 13-3. The #2 seeded Patriots were 14-2.


Seriously, do you just post this stuff to troll your own message board?

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

What part of



are you unable to comprehend?

Your point of 2 SEEDS on emphasis shows it does not happen to TWO teams almost every year,not just one - Still no point there because its true the #1 seed does not guarantee anything but its always expected the #1 seeds should be the favorites to win it all but yet its a rare thing now when the favorite at regualr seasons end actually does win

 

[Deus Irae]

Your point of 2 SEEDS on emphasis shows it does not happen to TWO teams almost every year,not just one - Still no point there because its true the #1 seed does not guarantee anything but its always expected the #1 seeds should be the favorites to win it all but yet its a rare thing now when the favorite at regualr seasons end actually does win

Ok, this is achieving new lows of common sense.

12 team/2 conferences.

2 #1 seeds

That's a 1-in-6 chance that the #1 seed will make the Super Bowl in a random draw.

Every season this decade has had at least one #1 seed in the Super Bowl.

In other words, the success of the #1 seeds is clearly higher than one would expect statistically. Now, you can keep trying to make it as if losing the Super Bowl shows that the #1 spot is "WAY overrated", or you can realize that the #1 seed has, in fact, been quite successful statistically speaking.

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

Well, being a 1 or 2 seed certainly has served the Pats well when they've landed it. I think playoff results down through the years still show greater success enjoyed by teams that get a bye, although it certainly is no guarantee.

Or maybe the bye teams in recent years haven't prepared their teams properly during their extra rest period? Look at the Titans, Panthers, and Giants this weekend-nothing against the Ravens, Cards, and Eagles, but these bye teams just **** the bed. It was obvious they either didn't polish up basic fundamentals during this time OR read their press clippings for hours instead of viewing game tape OR their coaching staffs didn't polish up on their weaknesses, etc.

Tony Dungy is a prime example-he's someone who EMPHASIZES rest going into the playoffs...if anything, complacency starts to feed off on his players. Look at the Parcells coaching tree for the most part...they make sure their teams play at a high intensity level at ALL times, regardless of how meaningless the games could be.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

No, that just proves that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The #1 seeded Eagles were 13-3. The #2 seeded Patriots were 14-2.


Seriously, do you just post this stuff to troll your own message board?

Are you just plain dumb or do you need more help to understand this thread? ....

THE NUMBER ONE SEED HAS NOT WON THE SUPER BOWL BUT ONE TIME THIS DECADE - THATS MY POINT,NOT RECORD NOR DID I MENTION RECORDS,NUMBER ONE SEED,NUMERO UNO,#1,NOT #2 SEED WE ARE TALKING #1 REGARDLESS OF RECORD - NEED MORE EXPLANATION?

What part of this are you scratching your head about,its a simple as pie

If you were a #1 seed since 2000 you were watching another team carry the Lombardi - You are making a mountain out of a molehill by your ignorance to what the object is in this discussion

 

[Deus Irae]

Are you just plain dumb or do you need more help to understand this thread? ....

THE NUMBER ONE SEED HAS NOT WON THE SUPER BOWL BUT ONE TIME THIS DECADE - THATS MY POINT,NOT RECORD NOR DID I MENTION RECORDS,NUMBER ONE SEED,NUMERO UNO,#1,NOT #2 SEED WE ARE TALKING #1 REGARDLESS OF RECORD - NEED MORE EXPLANATION?

Again......

The seeding system is NOT designed to have a particular team win the Super Bowl.

No matter how big a font you use, your argument will still remain silly.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Again......



No matter how big a font you use, your argument will still remain silly.

Sorry but I am ending this as its getting nowhere - You have no comprehension of what I am saying nor do you desire to think before you respond

 

[ALP]

only prob w/ that is if u do have an amazing late season rally, and finish with say a 11-5 record, and then miss the playoffs b/c of maybe the worst tiebraker in the game of football...

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry but I am ending this as its getting nowhere - You have no comprehension of what I am saying nor do you desire to think before you respond

I know where you are going. You're just not bothering to use your head. You're arguing about #1 seed while ignoring the realities of the game. When the 15-1 Steelers played the 14-2 Patriots, the winner was going to be a better team than the 13-3 Eagles, no matter which team won.

Therefore, it's not surprising that the 14-2 Patriots, a better team than the 13-3 Eagles, won the Super Bowl despite being a 'lowly' #2 seed. What makes that season even less surprising is that the most significant difference between the #1 and #2 seeds is the location of the conference championship game, since a #2 and a #1 seed both play the same number of games in the postseason in order to get to that point.

You took a number (1 of 8!!!!!!!) and ran with it without bothering to think before you posted.

 

[Sicilian]

Sorry but I am ending this as its getting nowhere - You have no comprehension of what I am saying nor do you desire to think before you respond

Your point is flawed, because once you GET TO the Super Bowl, there is ZERO advantage granted to a #1 seed. Both teams have equal amount of time off prior to the game, and neither team plays at home. It is, for all intents and purposes, the most even playing field they can grant.

For that reason, you have to measure success by how you fare in the games in which they DO give you an advantage for being #1, namely the conference playoff games (extra week off, home field in both games). As Deus has pointed out numerous times, one of the two Super Bowl teams has ALWAYS been a #1 seed.

 

[spacecrime]

Are you just plain dumb or do you need more help to understand this thread?

You are asking this of the guy who swears that one 6'1" 241# guy is the ideal size for a LB and another 6'1" 241# guy is too small to play the position? :bricks:

That said, I do believe your position is flawed when you say seeding doesn't matter.

No one has true homefield advantage in the Superbowl. It just matters whose fans bought the most tickets. So you are 100% correct in saying that the No 1 seed has nothing to do with the superbowl.

But in all the other playoff games, home field does matter. It isn't a guarantee of victory, but it does help.

All this crap about fighting for the #1 seed spot has done NOTHING for any team since the 2003 Patriots

This isn't provable. The No 1 seed provides home field advantage and you don't know if or in how many games home field played a significant role in the outcome of a Division or Conference game.

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

Sorry but I am ending this as its getting nowhere - You have no comprehension of what I am saying nor do you desire to think before you respond

As long as these teams get the BYE, to say the least, that's all that should matter.

Now why teams in recent years with the bye have **** the bed in the playoffs...obviously, the coaching staff just handled it very improperly.

 

[RayClay]

As long as these teams get the BYE, to say the least, that's all that should matter.

Now why teams in recent years with the bye have **** the bed in the playoffs...obviously, the coaching staff just handled it very improperly.

I don't think that's true. There's a link to the Banks article in this post...

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...50-1-seed-thing-way-overated.html#post1248076

7 of the 8 losers have been #1 seeds, so that means 8 #1 seeds in eight years have made the SB. I'm not doing the math, but the link is there and youre welcome to.

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

I don't think that's true. There's a link to the Banks article in this post...

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...50-1-seed-thing-way-overated.html#post1248076

7 of the 8 losers have been #1 seeds, so that means 8 #1 seeds in eight years have made the SB. I'm not doing the math, but the link is there and youre welcome to.

What I meant was these #1 seeds who **** the bed in the DIVISIONAL round(should have been more clear on that) coming off the bye.

Yes-I'm aware that not many #1 seeds have won the Super Bowl in the last decade, but nonetheless, most of them have at least gotten the job done in the divisional round coming off the bye.

This is why I found last weekend's games so painful to watch-the Titans, Panthers, and Giants were so undisciplined, unfocused, and unprepared, that it left you wondering what the heck did they do during their time off? They were just as bad as the Cowboys last year, to be frank, and Fisher/Fox/Coughlin aren't exactly Wade "Cupcake" Phillips.

 

[spacecrime]

They were just as bad as the Cowboys last year, to be frank, and Fisher/Fox/Coughlin aren't exactly Wade "Cupcake" Phillips.

Regardless of my thoughts on the value of the bye week, I certainly agree that any of Fisher/Fox/Coughlin will never be confused with Wade Phillips.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

are people suggesting that we go for the #6 seed?

you try to win as many games as possible and let the seeds take care of themselves.

I bet if the pats hosted the chargers prior to the colts in the afcg in 2006 they might have been healthy and beat them

home field does count for something unless you like the colts pumping up the music