The game that matters the most this week: Oak@Den

[jimnance]

Its pretty irrelevant.
Patriots are playing to win, as they should and they will.
Keep the mo.
Doesn't matter who they play , or when.
It's gonna be at the Razor and nobody's beating them.

 

[oldrover]

Denver will lose next week...you should see these guys on the news... gave up

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator

 

[deroc5050]

Yeah already pegged Oakland as the #5 seed. I think Oakland loses in Houston on WC weekend. I can't believe Houston might actually win a playoff game.

Pitt knocks Miami out.

So we play the Texans in the Divisional playoff game.

Its hard to win in KC so I see Pittsburg getting knocked out in the divisional round.

Setting up KC @ New England in the AFCC.


If Denver loses to Raiders in week 17 all bets are off. I think we will play Pittsburg in the AFCC.


Yes I believe the Oakland Denver week 17 game is very important. As far as playoff matchups.

 

[BlueThunder]

Who the Pats play won't matter if they have the whole team healthy.......

 

[Jackson 2]

The more I read and hear, the more I think Denver is going to go through the motions.

 

[ScottishPatriots]

Who cares, just beat Miami and win 2 home games.

Everyone trying to overthink it and set up ideal paths sure you'd prefer KC at #2 seed and Pittsburgh going there in the divisional round but who cares if Oakland has the 2 seed, if the Patriots can't beat the Chiefs and Steelers back to back at home, they're not as good as we all think they are and don't deserve to be in the Super Bowl.

 

[supafly]

Who cares, just beat Miami and win 2 home games.

Everyone trying to overthink it and set up ideal paths sure you'd prefer KC at #2 seed and Pittsburgh going there in the divisional round but who cares if Oakland has the 2 seed, if the Patriots can't beat the Chiefs and Steelers back to back at home, they're not as good as we all think they are and don't deserve to be in the Super Bowl.

NE has won the AFC East now 8x in a row, most of them coming with first round byes. Unfortunately, your "tough guy" approach that they should beat the hardest teams possible hasn't seemed to work too well, has it?

As a matter of fact, for a team that generally wins 12+ games per year, things haven't seemed to work out nearly as well as some would suggest, particularly in the past 10 years or so. The truth is that ANY team in real SB contention will need the benefit of good matchups and bounces.

I'm not suggesting that any team should be scared, but you bet your ass that all 12 postseason teams will have serious rooting interests, and that those interests have the potential to make or break their season.

 

[BobDigital]

Who cares, just beat Miami and win 2 home games.

Everyone trying to overthink it and set up ideal paths sure you'd prefer KC at #2 seed and Pittsburgh going there in the divisional round but who cares if Oakland has the 2 seed, if the Patriots can't beat the Chiefs and Steelers back to back at home, they're not as good as we all think they are and don't deserve to be in the Super Bowl.

I don't fear any team but i figure why would you want to make things harder on yourself? The Pats need to beat 3 teams to win it all. They will not bring their A+ game all 3 times. Maybe they bring it once. We will be facing good teams and it is possible the better team we play the closer it will be. The less games you are in when 1 momentum swinging bounce of the football could change things the better.

 

[Kontradiction]

What a sucky position to be in for Denver. Either win and basically allow the Pats to get the one seed or lose to the hated Raiders without Carr. How delicious.

 

[brdmaverick]

doesnt matter, oakland wont make it to the title game.

I agree that Oakland won't make it to the title game, but it matters a lot in terms of who the Pats face.

After all, I think we can all agree that the toughest way to get to the Super Bowl would be by playing the Steelers AND the Chiefs. So wouldn't it be great if the Steelers ended up playing the Chiefs in the divisional round so that we would only have to beat one of those teams?

 

[ScottishPatriots]

NE has won the AFC East now 8x in a row, most of them coming with first round byes. Unfortunately, your "tough guy" approach that they should beat the hardest teams possible hasn't seemed to work too well, has it?

As a matter of fact, for a team that generally wins 12+ games per year, things haven't seemed to work out nearly as well as some would suggest, particularly in the past 10 years or so. The truth is that ANY team in real SB contention will need the benefit of good matchups and bounces.

I'm not suggesting that any team should be scared, but you bet your ass that all 12 postseason teams will have serious rooting interests, and that those interests have the potential to make or break their season.

I'd call it more realism than "tough guy approach" the whole thing is out of the Patriots control so why worry about it, whatever happens, happens.

Sure everyone would prefer Houston/Oakland or Miami in the divisional then the winner of a KC/Pittsburgh winner but it's out of our control and if it's KC then Pittsburgh there's no excuse for not beating them both if the team is the best team in the conference.

The only thing that the Patriots should concentrate on is winning the game against Miami and getting the 1 seed.

 

[brdmaverick]

Sure everyone would prefer Houston/Oakland or Miami in the divisional then the winner of a KC/Pittsburgh winner but it's out of our control and if it's KC then Pittsburgh there's no excuse for not beating them both if the team is the best team in the conference.

Of course it's out of our control, but that doesn't mean fans shouldn't discuss the different scenarios (and what they'd rather see) on a fan messageboard. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

 

[The Gr8est]

I agree that Oakland won't make it to the title game, but it matters a lot in terms of who the Pats face.

After all, I think we can all agree that the toughest way to get to the Super Bowl would be by playing the Steelers AND the Chiefs. So wouldn't it be great if the Steelers ended up playing the Chiefs in the divisional round so that we would only have to beat one of those teams?

The toughest route would be having to play three games with no bye week.

The Pats would need to play one tough ream regardless, but at worst it is only two games.

Just like taking our foot off the pedal isn't usually a good idea once the bye is clinched, neither is getting to the Superbowl untested.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

If you look at the 538 simulations here:

2016 NFL Predictions

you see that the Pat's chances of winning the whole thing move up or down by about 1% depending on the results of the Oakland game. But that's very likely exaggerated because the simulation doesn't take into account the Carr injury. So in reality it's pretty close to a wash - the same as with all the other games out there.

 

[brdmaverick]

A minor point to consider............the seedings could very well dictate how the Divisional round time slots are determined.

Unless I'm mistaken the timeslots usually work like this right?

One conference gets the SAT at 8 time slot and SUN at 1.

The other conference gets the 4:25 slot on both SAT & SUN.

So if the Raiders get the 2 seed, there is no way the Pats get the SAT at 8 timeslot b/c they would never have Oakland host a game at 1 PM.


I'm guessing the NFC would have 8 PM Sat spot anyway given that they have a better chance of a marquee matchup such as ...........Giants at Cowboys or Seahawks at Falcons or something like that.

 

[brdmaverick]

Just like taking our foot off the pedal isn't usually a good idea once the bye is clinched, neither is getting to the Superbowl untested.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I really am curious. In 2007 (well, 2008 by then) were you rooting for the Pats to play the 14-2 Colts in the AFC Championship game or the Chargers with an injured Rivers & Tomlinson?

Obviously the Pats ended up losing the Super Bowl so you have an opportunity to continue your point by saying they may have won the Super Bowl if they played the Colts the game prior. Again, just curious.

 

[drewskie]

A minor point to consider............the seedings could very well dictate how the Divisional round time slots are determined.

Unless I'm mistaken the timeslots usually work like this right?

One conference gets the SAT at 8 time slot and SUN at 1.

The other conference gets the 4:25 slot on both SAT & SUN.

So if the Raiders get the 2 seed, there is no way the Pats get the SAT at 8 timeslot b/c they would never have Oakland host a game at 1 PM.


I'm guessing the NFC would have 8 PM Sat spot anyway given that they have a better chance of a marquee matchup such as ...........Giants at Cowboys or Seahawks at Falcons or something like that.

My predictions for the divisional round schedule this year with what we currently know:

SAT
@Kansas City/Oakland 435 CBS
@Dallas 815 NBC

SUN
@Atlanta 105 FOX
@New England 440 CBS

The SUN matchups are historically broadcast on FOX for the early time slot and CBS for the prime time slot. NBC got the prime time SAT slot last year, and I would imagine they'll have Dallas opening in the SAT prime time slot since they dont show the NFC playoffs on CBS.

 

[brdmaverick]

My predictions for the divisional round schedule this year with what we currently know:

SAT
@Kansas City/Oakland 435 CBS
@Dallas 815 NBC

SUN
@Atlanta 105 FOX
@New England 440 CBS

The SUN matchups are historically broadcast on FOX for the early time slot and CBS for the prime time slot. NBC got the prime time SAT slot last year, and I would imagine they'll have Dallas opening in the SAT prime time slot since they dont show the NFC playoffs on CBS.

Seems likely to me, but I'm hoping we can get that Saturday at 4:30 slot for the third year in a row.