Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YoloinOhio

Bills draft position hinges on Seahawks-Eagles. Let’s go Eagles!

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Foxx said:

no. and to be honest, i don't have much of an opinion on it either. i just think were the Eagles to lose, that them being a division winner, they would be picking ahead of a wildcard entrant seems somewhat off. i understand the whys and wherefores, just arguing there is a logical argument the other way is all.

 

 

It seems off because the NFL basically says wrt the the playoff format if you win your division you are better than a WC team and deserve homefield.

 

But in the draft process your regular season record determines who was better.

 

It's a stupidity that the NFL really should clear up.

 

Better record should be better seed.

 

Stop worrying about rewarding 9-7 division winners for beating a bad division.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be really rooting for the Eagles, seem they need a WR also next year.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

It seems off because the NFL basically says wrt the the playoff format if you win your division you are better than a WC team and deserve homefield.

 

But in the draft process your regular season record determines who was better.

 

It's a stupidity that the NFL really should clear up.

 

Better record should be better seed.

 

Stop worrying about rewarding 9-7 division winners for beating a bad division.

again, i really don't have an opinion one way or t'other (well, i guess to be honest i do otherwise i wouldn't have brought the point up). i guess my main point was that there is an argument to be made contrary to what the current (NFL) reasoning is.

 

to your last, regarding rewarding division winners for having a better record than wild card teams, it would seem to me that the whole conference would have to be seeded according to their conference records. you could still have divisions but then their significance would be somewhat diminished.

Edited by Foxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Foxx said:

again, i really don't have an opinion one way or t'other (well, i guess to be honest i do otherwise i wouldn't have brought the point up). my main point was that there is an argument to be made contrary to what the current (NFL) reasoning is.

 

to your last point regarding rewarding division winners for having a better record than wild card teams, it would seem to me that the whole conference would have to be seeded according to their conference records. you could still have divisions but then their significance would be somewhat diminished.

 

I don't agree with conference records being how standings are determined because schedules aren't even.   At best those should remain tie-breakers.

 

But as far as going by best record it still doesn't eliminate the value of winning the division.

 

There are plenty of years when division winners wouldn't make the playoffs otherwise.......... so winning your division is an inherent prize because it guarantees you a spot even if you finish 7-9 and there are 4 teams with better records left out.

 

What's more if you finish first in a bad division it's likely that you picked up a lot of cheap wins against bad teams in your division.     It's utter BS that the Seahawks are traveling to Philly.   They were inches away from having a bye and a home game.   I don't personally care,  ***** Seattle,  but it is BS.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Foxx said:

so...  are you saying that if a Superbowl winning team has a final record of 17-2 and the loser of the Superbowl has a record of 18-1, the winner gets to pick before the loser? obviously i know the reasoning and who would pick where and why, i'm just saying that certain aspects of the seeding doesn't make sense to me.

 

This is interesting, and I had not considered this angle until this thread.

I think a better example of why it's broke and needs fixing:

A division winner could be 7-9, and get the 4th seed in the conference--as well as the reward of hosting a playoff game. 

The 6th seed in the conference could conceivably be 14-2, and play a road game as a wildcard.

If both of those teams lost, the 7-9 division winner, playoff game host would get a higher (4 slots, likely) draft pick than the 14-2 wild card team. 

A simple fix would be, slot the 4 losers from the wild card and divisional round games first by whether or not they won their division, and then by record.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I don't agree with conference records being how standings are determined because schedules aren't even.   At best those should remain tie-breakers.

 

But as far as going by best record it still doesn't eliminate the value of winning the division.

 

There are plenty of years when division winners wouldn't make the playoffs otherwise.......... so winning your division is an inherent prize because it guarantees you a spot even if you finish 7-9 and there are 4 teams with better records left out.

 

What's more if you finish first in a bad division it's likely that you picked up a lot of cheap wins against bad teams in your division.     It's utter BS that the Seahawks are traveling to Philly.   They were inches away from having a bye and a home game.   I don't personally care,  ***** Seattle,  but it is BS.

valid arguments for a multitude of positions that one could possibly take with regard here. 

 

i guess i am okay with things as they are, as that is the way it has always been. just be grateful that no arbitrary ruling can be made, unlike so many other facets of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Foxx said:

valid arguments for a multitude of positions that one could possibly take with regard here. 

 

i guess i am okay with things as they are, as that is the way it has always been. just be grateful that no arbitrary ruling can be made, unlike so many other facets of the game.

You mean like overturning a TD because “common sense” says the player never meant to be an idiot! Ugh. No I’m not over it 

Edited by YoloinOhio
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, YoloinOhio said:

You mean like overturning a TD because “common sense” says the player never meant to be an idiot! Ugh

lol. i didn't want to go there, so thanks. ;)

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would it take to trade for someone like say, Mike Evans?? Or DK Metcalf??

 

Asking for a friend....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, gonzo1105 said:

The Bills need to snag the most elite WR, Tackle, DE or CB at 21 or 22

I’m ok if they go WR in the 1st, but with it being such a deep WR draft I think the 2nd rd could produce a stud and would prefer a pass rusher in the 1st. But until I see how FA shakes out i guess I don’t know. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

I’m ok if they go WR in the 1st, but with it being such a deep WR draft I think the 2nd rd could produce a stud and would prefer a pass rusher in the 1st. But until I see how FA shakes out i guess I don’t know. 

 

I guess the problem I see is outside of Amari Cooper who everyone is going to want, AJ green is the next best option and you don’t know what your getting there. After that there is literally nothing at WR on the Free Agent market. Brashad Perriman might be the next best FA out there. You have to draft guys unless you get Cooper(who may get tagged) or Green(injury risk).

 

I think the Bills should target RT Jack Conklin from the Titans to fill that void and move Ford inside permanently or get Anthony Constanzo from the Colts in Free agency. 

 

There are some good pass rushers in Free Agency outside of Clowney, Chris Jones and Yannick.  

 

It will be interesting but i see them going O line again in Free Agency and maybe Pass Rusher and drafting WR, DB, LB early 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Foxx said:

so...  are you saying that if a Superbowl winning team has a final record of 17-2 and the loser of the Superbowl has a record of 18-1, the winner gets to pick before the loser? obviously i know the reasoning and who would pick where and why, i'm just saying that certain aspects of the seeding doesn't make sense to me.

 

Of course! Because the winner of the Superbowl is considered the best team in the league, and therefore they get the last pick. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...