Which game would be easier?

[mosslost]

Or would be a surer win.

1. Pitt at Gillette AFCCG

2. Oakland minus Carr at Oakland.. AFCCG (if they somehow won their division, like they drew Houston and pulled it off or something)

EDITED to add the options to choose from:

so, if I add the wrinkle that they DO win the Divisional round game some how, you would rather go to Oakland for AFCCG than host the Chiefs? (We would have to beat the Steelers in the Divisional)

So the choice:
option 1:
two home games, say KC, then Pitt

or
option 2
1 home game Steelers, 1 road game at Oakland.

Option 1 or Option 2 which would you pick?

 

[farn]

Oakland. Still hoping the only away trip in the playoffs is the big one, but how can an already flawed Raiders team beat NE w/o their mvp candidate ?

 

[mosslost]

Oakland. Still hoping the only away trip in the playoffs is the big one, but how can an already flawed Raiders team beat NE w/o their mvp candidate ?

So in that case, we have already really clinched what is likely needed to get to the SB. The only negative to the 2 seed that I see is probably getting Pitt in the divisional. But if we have beat them anyway, might as well get that out of the way. Honestly though there is a clear second problem to being just the 2..., KC will likely beat Oakland then we get both Pitt and KC. Best to get 1 seed and KC grab the 2. Then we can only get one of them.

 

[Kontradiction]

Um, well, gee, let me think about that for a minute here. Call me crazy, but I'd say Oakland in Oakland minus Carr.

 

[borg]

Carr is/was indispensable. Oakland's defense is porous, giving up 8.3 pts/game more than NE....so the only chance Oakland has is if Pat McGroin can win a shootout vs NE and their #1 points against defense.

 

[mosslost]

Um, well, gee, let me think about that for a minute here. Call me crazy, but I'd say Oakland in Oakland minus Carr.

so, if I add the wrinkle that they DO win the Divisional round game some how, you would rather go to Oakland for AFCCG than host the Chiefs? (We would have to beat the Steelers in the Divisional)

So the choice:
option 1:
two home games, say KC, then Pitt

or
option 2
1 home game Steelers, 1 road game at Oakland.

Option 1 or Option 2 which would you pick?

 

[Kontradiction]

so, if I add the wrinkle that they DO win the Divisional round game some how, you would rather go to Oakland for AFCCG than host the Chiefs? (We would have to beat the Steelers in the Divisional)

So the choice:
option 1:
two home games, say KC, then Pitt

or
option 2
1 home game Steelers, 1 road game at Oakland.

Option 1 or Option 2 which would you pick?

Oakland is not getting that far. Hell, they may not even beat Denver this weekend. In some altered dimension where they do get that far, I would much rather go with Option 2. The Patriots would take a loose, apple sauce dump all over the Raiders in the event that the two teams actually meet in the AFCCG. I think the result of such a contest would rival the 2014 execution-style slaughter that the Pats put on the Colts in the title game.

 

[Froob]

Let's just not blow homefield.

 

[Kontradiction]

Let's just not blow homefield.

Even if the Pats drop the game against Miami and the Raiders pull one out against Denver, the Pats would still have homefield. The Raiders without Carr are not going to get out of the divisional round short of the team they're playing against completely crapping their pants.

 

[nabwong]

SOOOO... if we go to Oakland, do we rest our starters???

 

[stinkypete]

This is the magic scenario.

The Pats of course stick it to Miami and the Broncos beat Oakland. Realistic, right? That sets up the following seeding.

New England
KC
Pitt
Houston
Oakland
Miami

Assuming Pittsburgh stomps Miami, either Tom Savage or Matt McGloin has to travel to Foxboro to lose by 35 in the divisional round. Meanwhile, one of KC or Pitt has to lose.

 

[Kontradiction]

SOOOO... if we go to Oakland, do we rest our starters???

I think it's obvious that football players play football... except when they don't play football.

 

[mosslost]

Let's just not blow homefield.

we already essentially have it.. either HFA throughout, or an exhibition game at Oakland.

 

[fnordcircle]

When will the endless stream of 'intentionally lose this game' lunacy end?

 

[BobDigital]

If the Pats somehow end up with the 2nd seed and need to play at oakland in the AFCCG and lose looking back I will not think "you know... HFA is the reason we lost".

There is no excuse to lose to oakland right now. If the Pats get knocked out at Oakland that is cause they played like crap.

If the Pats can't beat Oakland at oakland without Carr they had 0 chance to win the superbowl in the first place and we massively overrated them.

 

[mosslost]

When will the endless stream of 'intentionally lose this game' lunacy end?

read more carefully. None of this has to do with intentionally losing a game.

 

[mosslost]

If the Pats somehow end up with the 2nd seed and need to play at oakland in the AFCCG and lose looking back I will not think "you know... HFA is the reason we lost".

There is no excuse to lose to oakland right now. If the Pats get knocked out at Oakland that is cause they played like crap.

If the Pats can't beat Oakland at oakland without Carr they had 0 chance to win the superbowl in the first place and we massively overrated them.

or freakesh crap happens.. multiple ST TDs, **** like that

 

[BobDigital]

or freakesh crap happens.. multiple ST TDs, **** like that

That will not happen. I will put out a restraining order on Cyrus Jones if I have to!

Also if Baltimore can't beat the Pats with those huge STs break downs Oakland can't right now. I sincerely believe if the Pats are as good as I think it would take more than 2 fluke plays to swing it for Oakland right now.

 

[Gronk]

If the Pats somehow end up with the 2nd seed and need to play at oakland in the AFCCG and lose looking back I will not think "you know... HFA is the reason we lost".

There is no excuse to lose to oakland right now. If the Pats get knocked out at Oakland that is cause they played like crap.

If the Pats can't beat Oakland at oakland without Carr they had 0 chance to win the superbowl in the first place and we massively overrated them.

I think you're right but certainly in that scenario, against a team with Mack & Irvin coming off the edges I'd rather have a quiet Foxboro crowd letting Tom run the offense than a frenzied Oakland crowd out for blood against the dynasty partly launched by the tuck rule call all those years ago.

Denver '15 was a far better defensive team than Oakland '16 minus Carr, but this is still the NFL and they've got some good players that can cause problems. They have some talented WRs and would be starting a QB that the Pats haven't seen before. I think the defense has been 'good enough' from the start and has moved to 'really good' - but for all the kvetching all year over how good some 'trash QBs' have been able to move the ball, I am a little surprised to see so many so completely uber-confident in an easy win in a west coast road game against this team, Carr's injury notwithstanding.

Fans have the luxury of looking past presumably weaker opponents, hopefully the Pats themselves wouldn't fall into that trap lest we get a 2010 Jets game repeat. Can a playoff game be a 'trap game'? They shouldn't have lost that game either, but they did. Everyone should be careful what they wish for.

 

[mosslost]

That will not happen. I will put out a restraining order on Cyrus Jones if I have to!

Also if Baltimore can't be the Pats with those huge STs break downs Oakland can't right now. I sincerely believe if the Pats are as good as I think it would take more than 2 fluke plays to swing it for Oakland right now.

Oakland won't get there anyway