AFC playoff seedings...

[oldrover]

So after 6 weeks (4 of which there was no TB12 and 2 of which there was no Jimmy G...) the Pats are in sole possession of the #1 seed and control their own destiny.

It's a beautiful thing.

And with the Texans win, it just got a little...



...beautifuller?

 

[mosslost]

it's never too early to worry about seeding if you want to make the SB. Every single win matters just look at last year.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

OK. It's a very good, even "beautiful," thing for a team to control its own destiny for the #1 Seed in its Conference on October 16th. I mean, it's sure a lot better than NOT controlling your own destiny. Really can't argue with that.

 

[Ring 6]

it's never too early to worry about seeding if you want to make the SB. Every single win matters just look at last year.

But its too early to say things like we heard 2 weeks ago such as we have no chance at the 1 seed unless we beat Denver in Denver.
Its looking like we could lose that game and still get the #1 seed with a 2 or 3 game lead.

 

[aluminum seats]

OK. It's a very good, even "beautiful," thing for a team to control its own destiny for the #1 Seed in its Conference on October 16th. I mean, it's sure a lot better than NOT controlling your own destiny. Really can't argue with that.

Yeah, that part’s sort of silly…most teams would be in pretty good shape by winning out from October on, so “controlling your own destiny” is kind of pointless at this stage.

But not too soon to look at seedings, says I. Mentioned in another thread but more relevant here: if the Pats take care of business against the Rothajtimqexlr-less Steelers on Sunday and beat Denver, they’d have to lose 3 of their other 8 games not to be the one seed, and that’s only if Pittsburgh and Denver win out. If those teams lose just one other game, the Pats would have to become a .500 team for half a season not to get the #1 seed. In other words, it’s looking prettay, prettay, prettay good.

Another team could emerge as the potential top seed, of course, but I’m hard-pressed to think who that would be.

 

[mosslost]

But its too early to say things like we heard 2 weeks ago such as we have no chance at the 1 seed unless we beat Denver in Denver.
Its looking like we could lose that game and still get the #1 seed with a 2 or 3 game lead.

true. Oakland got it at 11-5 in 2002. If you flip the Pats Oakland and Titan losses that year the Pats were number 1 seed. You never know.

 

[Ring 6]

true. Oakland got it at 11-5 in 2002. If you flip the Pats Oakland and Titan losses that year the Pats were number 1 seed. You never know.

I don't see another team out there better than 12-4, and likely not better than 11-5 when all is said and done.
2 weeks ago people were saying 14-2 for us would be a 2 seed.

 

[aluminum seats]

I don't see another team out there better than 12-4, and likely not better than 11-5 when all is said and done.
2 weeks ago people were saying 14-2 for us would be a 2 seed.

I think you're making that up.

 

[mosslost]

I don't see another team out there better than 12-4, and likely not better than 11-5 when all is said and done.
2 weeks ago people were saying 14-2 for us would be a 2 seed.

Honestly, right now.. I am most worried about Buffalo. Don't want the stress of being 9-2 and not in first place like 2010 before the 45-3 game. (Still that year turned out ****ty)

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Gotta hope Buffalo gets knocked out of the wild card seed.

 

[Foxypats]

Well Buff plays at Miami this week...Should we hope for another upset brewing or is Miami not capable of pulling that through in back to back weeks ? I really hope Miami can play Buff tough like they did with the Steelers.

 

[mosslost]

Yeah, that part’s sort of silly…most teams would be in pretty good shape by winning out from October on, so “controlling your own destiny” is kind of pointless at this stage.

But not too soon to look at seedings, says I. Mentioned in another thread but more relevant here: if the Pats take care of business against the Rothajtimqexlr-less Steelers on Sunday and beat Denver, they’d have to lose 3 of their other 8 games not to be the one seed, and that’s only if Pittsburgh and Denver win out. If those teams lose just one other game, the Pats would have to become a .500 team for half a season not to get the #1 seed. In other words, it’s looking prettay, prettay, prettay good.

Another team could emerge as the potential top seed, of course, but I’m hard-pressed to think who that would be.

if Buffalo wins out they are the One seed

 

[aluminum seats]

if Buffalo wins out they are the One seed

Yes. That's a big concern.

 

[mosslost]

Yes. That's a big concern.

I'm glad that Buffalo game is soon. I just want them down more soon and we might as well be the ones to do it. Also, Miami could beat them.

 

[Joey007]

I don't see another team out there better than 12-4, and likely not better than 11-5 when all is said and done.
2 weeks ago people were saying 14-2 for us would be a 2 seed.

You're referring to the thread I made saying we would likely need to beat Denver at Denver some point this season, no?

I never said 14-2 would be a 2 seed. At the time, key words- at that time- I felt that Denver was looking like a 12-13 win team. Now I see them as an 11 win team, which obviously changes things. Two weeks from now, that narrative could change again.

Also keep in mind we were coming off the loss against Buffalo, and Denver was walking right through teams at 4-0. I did not see Denver losing to either one of Atlanta or San Diego, let alone both. So I had it assumed that we were already playing from one game behind early with matchups against Pittsburgh (assuming they were to have Big Ben) and Seattle still upcoming.

Denver two weeks ago looked a lot better than Denver does now. Then again, that could change back again in another two weeks. That's just how it goes. Sure it was a bit of a hot take that I should've clarified, but I just go by how it looks at each moment in time with no intention to try and be a prophecy.

 

[Ring 6]

You're referring to the thread I made saying we would likely need to beat Denver at Denver some point this season, no?

I never said 14-2 would be a 2 seed. At the time, key words- at that time- I felt that Denver was looking like a 12-13 win team. Now I see them as an 11 win team, which obviously changes things. Two weeks from now, that narrative could change again.

Also keep in mind we were coming off the loss against Buffalo, and Denver was walking right through teams at 4-0. I did not see Denver losing to either one of Atlanta or San Diego, let alone both. So I had it assumed that we were already playing from one game behind early with matchups against Pittsburgh (assuming they were to have Big Ben) and Seattle still upcoming.

Denver two weeks ago looked a lot better than Denver does now. Then again, that could change back again in another two weeks. That's just how it goes. Sure it was a bit of a hot take that I should've clarified, but I just go by how it looks at each moment in time with no intention to try and be a prophecy.

Isn't that the point?

 

[Ring 6]

Well Buff plays at Miami this week...Should we hope for another upset brewing or is Miami not capable of pulling that through in back to back weeks ? I really hope Miami can play Buff tough like they did with the Steelers.

I'm not sure that is an upset. Buffalo is coming down off the maniac phase of their bipolar existence, so should lose 3 of 4 now. That is Rex's MO.

Wait, its at Miami, us, at Seattle and at Cincy. Might be 0-4.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

...

But not too soon to look at seedings, says I. Mentioned in another thread but more relevant here: if the Pats take care of business against the Rothajtimqexlr-less Steelers on Sunday and beat Denver, they’d have to lose 3 of their other 8 games not to be the one seed, and that’s only if Pittsburgh and Denver win out. If those teams lose just one other game, the Pats would have to become a .500 team for half a season not to get the #1 seed. In other words, it’s looking prettay, prettay, prettay good.

...

I haven't done the math, but, if that's true, then that's very interesting. But, it's still pretty hypothetical and assumes that Denver and Pittsburgh are the only "real" competition.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

And with the Texans win, it just got a little...



...beautifuller?

Where are you getting those screenshots from?

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah, that part’s sort of silly…most teams would be in pretty good shape by winning out from October on, so “controlling your own destiny” is kind of pointless at this stage.

But not too soon to look at seedings, says I. Mentioned in another thread but more relevant here: if the Pats take care of business against the Rothajtimqexlr-less Steelers on Sunday and beat Denver, they’d have to lose 3 of their other 8 games not to be the one seed, and that’s only if Pittsburgh and Denver win out. If those teams lose just one other game, the Pats would have to become a .500 team for half a season not to get the #1 seed. In other words, it’s looking prettay, prettay, prettay good.

Another team could emerge as the potential top seed, of course, but I’m hard-pressed to think who that would be.

Sort of. You would still have the oddball possibility of an Oakland, KC, Baltimore, Buffalo, Houston winning out, but that aint happening.
It looks like if the Pats beat Pitt and Denver they are almost locked into #1 with 12-4 record and in good shape at 11-5, but a lot can still change.