2020 NFL Thread v. Tom Brady aging better than Mila Kunis

[pg1067]

^^^^^^^

Yeah - I'd say that's a pretty good reason.......

It's a pretty good reason to loathe whomever #43 was.


Also, the Lions are BAD.

[black_biff_stadler]

Spoke too soon lol. And so glad that it happened against the Vikings. Couldn't think of a better team to eliminate from the playoffs while clinching our fourth straight division title and tying two NFL records: one that's only occurred three times before (total TDs in a game, 6) and not since 1965 and another that's only occurred once before (rushing TDs in a game, 6) and not since 1929.

I only barely loathe the Vikings less than the niners so this is so immensely gratifying.

Curious why you loathe the Vikings so much? What'd they ever do to you?

Yikes, the Vikings defense is awful this year. I'm amazed they kept that game as close as they did until the 4th quarter.

Saints fans waited 20 years to have a winning season and playoff appearance (both are futility records for the four major North American sports afaik) and we lost to them 44-10 in our first playoff game. Then we endured three more playoff losses before finally winning a playoff game (which took until our 34th season) and then lost to them in our first divisional round game ever.

We then beat them in the 2009 NFC CG to go to our first SB and the NFL was so butthurt about missing out on a Favre/Peyton SB that they changed the overtime format which had been in place for 36 years without there ever being anything more than occasional grumblings about it up to that point. I actually like the new OT format but the timing and phony outcry about how "unfair" the OT format is seemed to be a direct gripe about a small market team messing up their dream SB matchup.

Then there was the whiff on a tackle in the gif posted above. Our DB had a WR suspended in midair directly above him jumping to catch a desperation pass on the last play of the game. Literally, all he had to do was let the guy fall into his arms and shove him to the ground and we instantly advance to the 2017 NFC CG. Of course the idiot goes for a highlight reel decleater and totally misses thus allowing the dude to sprint for a walkoff 61 yard TD.

Then last year we played our worst playoff game of the Payton/Bees era allowing a 10-6 team to come into our house and control both sides of the line of scrimmage for the entire game. To make matters worse, on the walkoff TD in overtime the WR clearly pushed off and the refs refused to even review it. This was diabolically shitty because just the season before that we'd been screwed by the worst noncall in NFL history against the Rams and were deprived of basically a guaranteed SB appearance.

Roger Goodell despises Sean Payton and makes no secret of it so there's a very long history of knife-twisting bullshit like this over the last few seasons, especially their back alley abortion one year trial of allowing pass interference to be initiated via a coach's challenge only for them to intentionally fuck up the execution of it all year long just to give off the impression that they gave it the ol' college try even though they sabotaged it every step of the way.

[DragonAttack]

Ex-Michigander speaking:  Around 130pm EST I remembered that there was an NFL game on.  Instead, I got the Lions , who were already down 13-0 minutes into the game.  And they were wearing their gray flannel long johns to boot.  Just ugly and putrid on all accounts.

[Stadler]

My phone didn't save my picks, so I missed the Friday game.  Dammit, as I would have picked the Saints.   I got a bonus with the Steelers, but I'm kicking myself for chickening out on picking Carolina.  That and Dallas were the ONLY games I even gave a passing thought about, and the Carolina game more than that.  Friggin' sally. 

[KevShmev]

Some days it is better to be lucky than good.

Down 14-10, Mahomes throws a pass that should have been an easy INT in the end zone, but the Falcons DB lost the ball when going to the ground with it. Incomplete.

Mahomes then throws a TD on the next play.  17-14 KC.

Matt Ryan then drives the Falcons down the field, leading to the Falcons kicker missing the tying FG as time expired.

[black_biff_stadler]

Very excited to see GB already getting bailed out on third down with an automatic first down penalty.

[Ben_Jamin]

Yay we made the playoffs....I haven't been watching football much at all this year because I feel it's not taken as serious and more for fun. But, when I do I will still watch a game. Should be an interesting playoffs this year though. 

[hefdaddy42]

I've gotta say, after seeing Oakland refuse to score a TD on their last possession, it was extremely satisfying to see the Dolphins win that game.  Especially after seeing Ryan Fitzpatrick level up on that throw, holy shit.

[Dream Team]

I’m always surprised at how often both fans and those who are actually paid to analyze this stuff ignore facts. Here are some facts. Number of wins against teams with winning records:

Sam Darnold 2
Tom Brady 1

That’s right, the freaking Jets have more wins against winning teams than the Bucs. Meanwhile the Steelers have wins against the 10-5 Ravens (twice) the 10-5 Browns the 10-5 Colts the 10-5 Titans. The Chiefs have beaten the 11-4 Saints the 11-3 Bills and 3 other 10-5 teams all on the road. These facts are blissfully ignored by talking heads, including those pushing for Rodgers as MVP.

Mahomes put up 32 points in the only game his team lost, but since Rodgers has gotten to pad his stats against bottom feeders (except Saints and Titans) they’ll reward him with MVP. Funniest thing is Rodgers is obsessed about the MVP but Mahomes only talks about a championship. Kinda shines some light on their different personas.

[hunnus2000]

How 2020 is this?

If the Cowboys lose to the Giants AND Washington loses, that means there would be a 3 way tie that would make the Giants the division winner based on their 2 wins over Washington.

Crazy stuff man....

[pg1067]

How 2020 is this?

If the Cowboys lose to the Giants AND Washington loses, that means there would be a 3 way tie that would make the Giants the division winner based on their 2 wins over Washington.

Crazy stuff man....

Even crazier is that, in that the 6-10 Giants or the 7-9 Redskins or Cowboys will HOST the 11-5 or 10-6 Bucs or the 10-6 Rams in the first round of the playoffs.  The road team could have almost twice as many wins as the home team!  Either way, we're going to get a lot of clamor to change the playoff system.

[KevShmev]

Washington/Philly is a crappy game to get as the Week 17 Flex night game, but it was probably the best option since Washington is in a "win and you're in" scenario.  And since the winner of the Dallas/NYG game is in if Washington loses, the NFL probably figures that the fanbase of the winner of that game will tune in and that will help the ratings a little.  I almost hope Dallas wins and then Philly tanks on purpose and loses just to screw the Cowboys.

[hunnus2000]

Washington/Philly is a crappy game to get as the Week 17 Flex night game, but it was probably the best option since Washington is in a "win and you're in" scenario.  And since the winner of the Dallas/NYG game is in if Washington loses, the NFL probably figures that the fanbase of the winner of that game will tune in and that will help the ratings a little. I almost hope Dallas wins and then Philly tanks on purpose and loses just to screw the Cowboys.

Hey now! Thems fighten words! 

Actually, if Alex Smith can go then I fully expect Washington to win. Their D-Line is championship caliber.

[black_biff_stadler]

I've gotta say, after seeing Oakland refuse to score a TD on their last possession, it was extremely satisfying to see the Dolphins win that game.  Especially after seeing Ryan Fitzpatrick level up on that throw, holy shit.

But why though? Was it not the smart thing to do? I realize they couldn't run the clock down to zero which would've completely eliminated the possibility of the choke that eventually occurred but if they get the TD they're in the precarious position of having to go for 2 to get a 7 point lead which then leaves them open to losing to a TD regardless of whether or not MIA makes the extra point if they were to score a TD and LV misses the 2-point attempt.

It also would've given MIA the ball with 1:50 remaining if the dude hadn't dropped at the 1 yard line. You've probably got like an 80-95% chance of not allowing a team to get from their own 25 to field goal range with 19 seconds remaining but a bit more of a chance of them scoring a TD with almost 2 minutes left.

[TheCountOfNYC]

How 2020 is this?

If the Cowboys lose to the Giants AND Washington loses, that means there would be a 3 way tie that would make the Giants the division winner based on their 2 wins over Washington.

Crazy stuff man....

Even crazier is that, in that the 6-10 Giants or the 7-9 Redskins or Cowboys will HOST the 11-5 or 10-6 Bucs or the 10-6 Rams in the first round of the playoffs.  The road team could have almost twice as many wins as the home team!  Either way, we're going to get a lot of clamor to change the playoff system.

I don’t think the playoff system needs to be changed as much as the number of teams that get in needs to be changed. Getting rid of one first round bye to add a seventh team in each conference is a good start, but I’ve been pretty vocal about my disdain for a week off in the playoffs. I don’t think the problem is bad teams in weak divisions getting in as much is it’s good teams in strong divisions missing out. I use the 2010 season as an example a lot because it’s the perfect season to highlight my point. The Seahawks hosted a playoff game at 7-9 while the 10-6 Giants and Buccaneers missed the playoffs due to tiebreakers. The Seahawks proceeded to beat the 11-5 defending champion Saints, proving that they belonged in the playoffs that year. To say that a team that was capable of beating one of the league’s best doesn’t belong is silly, but I think that the Giants and Bucs deserved a shot that year as well. Adding one more wild card was a great call this year, and I’m excited to see how the two 7th seeds do in two weeks.

[hunnus2000]

I didn't watch the game last night but The Hoodie apparently lost his shit after losing that challenge. Quite hilarious! 

[pg1067]

I don’t think the playoff system needs to be changed as much as the number of teams that get in needs to be changed. Getting rid of one first round bye to add a seventh team in each conference is a good start, but I’ve been pretty vocal about my disdain for a week off in the playoffs. I don’t think the problem is bad teams in weak divisions getting in as much is it’s good teams in strong divisions missing out. I use the 2010 season as an example a lot because it’s the perfect season to highlight my point. The Seahawks hosted a playoff game at 7-9 while the 10-6 Giants and Buccaneers missed the playoffs due to tiebreakers. The Seahawks proceeded to beat the 11-5 defending champion Saints, proving that they belonged in the playoffs that year. To say that a team that was capable of beating one of the league’s best doesn’t belong is silly, but I think that the Giants and Bucs deserved a shot that year as well. Adding one more wild card was a great call this year, and I’m excited to see how the two 7th seeds do in two weeks.

I don't necessarily agree that the Seahawks winning that game "prov[ed] that they belonged in the playoffs," but I do agree with the broader point you're making.  A 10-6 team shouldn't miss the playoffs while a 7-9 team makes the playoffs just because the 7-9 team is in a weak division.  I normally agree with the notion that winning your division should mean something, but for some reason, football is the one sport where I'm not so sure about that.

[hefdaddy42]

I've gotta say, after seeing Oakland refuse to score a TD on their last possession, it was extremely satisfying to see the Dolphins win that game.  Especially after seeing Ryan Fitzpatrick level up on that throw, holy shit.

But why though? Was it not the smart thing to do? I realize they couldn't run the clock down to zero which would've completely eliminated the possibility of the choke that eventually occurred but if they get the TD they're in the precarious position of having to go for 2 to get a 7 point lead which then leaves them open to losing to a TD regardless of whether or not MIA makes the extra point if they were to score a TD and LV misses the 2-point attempt.

It also would've given MIA the ball with 1:50 remaining if the dude hadn't dropped at the 1 yard line. You've probably got like an 80-95% chance of not allowing a team to get from their own 25 to field goal range with 19 seconds remaining but a bit more of a chance of them scoring a TD with almost 2 minutes left.

Miami would have had to score a TD to win, or get a chance to win.  It's harder to score a TD than score a FG, at any time.  And refusing to score is just weird.

[lordxizor]

I don’t think the playoff system needs to be changed as much as the number of teams that get in needs to be changed. Getting rid of one first round bye to add a seventh team in each conference is a good start, but I’ve been pretty vocal about my disdain for a week off in the playoffs. I don’t think the problem is bad teams in weak divisions getting in as much is it’s good teams in strong divisions missing out. I use the 2010 season as an example a lot because it’s the perfect season to highlight my point. The Seahawks hosted a playoff game at 7-9 while the 10-6 Giants and Buccaneers missed the playoffs due to tiebreakers. The Seahawks proceeded to beat the 11-5 defending champion Saints, proving that they belonged in the playoffs that year. To say that a team that was capable of beating one of the league’s best doesn’t belong is silly, but I think that the Giants and Bucs deserved a shot that year as well. Adding one more wild card was a great call this year, and I’m excited to see how the two 7th seeds do in two weeks.

I don't necessarily agree that the Seahawks winning that game "prov[ed] that they belonged in the playoffs," but I do agree with the broader point you're making.  A 10-6 team shouldn't miss the playoffs while a 7-9 team makes the playoffs just because the 7-9 team is in a weak division.  I normally agree with the notion that winning your division should mean something, but for some reason, football is the one sport where I'm not so sure about that.

If nothing else, teams should be seeded based on record, not based on whether they won their division. A 7-9 division winner should not host a 11-5 wildcard team. I think I'm still on board with division winners making the playoffs though.

[pg1067]

I don’t think the playoff system needs to be changed as much as the number of teams that get in needs to be changed. Getting rid of one first round bye to add a seventh team in each conference is a good start, but I’ve been pretty vocal about my disdain for a week off in the playoffs. I don’t think the problem is bad teams in weak divisions getting in as much is it’s good teams in strong divisions missing out. I use the 2010 season as an example a lot because it’s the perfect season to highlight my point. The Seahawks hosted a playoff game at 7-9 while the 10-6 Giants and Buccaneers missed the playoffs due to tiebreakers. The Seahawks proceeded to beat the 11-5 defending champion Saints, proving that they belonged in the playoffs that year. To say that a team that was capable of beating one of the league’s best doesn’t belong is silly, but I think that the Giants and Bucs deserved a shot that year as well. Adding one more wild card was a great call this year, and I’m excited to see how the two 7th seeds do in two weeks.

I don't necessarily agree that the Seahawks winning that game "prov[ed] that they belonged in the playoffs," but I do agree with the broader point you're making.  A 10-6 team shouldn't miss the playoffs while a 7-9 team makes the playoffs just because the 7-9 team is in a weak division.  I normally agree with the notion that winning your division should mean something, but for some reason, football is the one sport where I'm not so sure about that.

If nothing else, teams should be seeded based on record, not based on whether they won their division. A 7-9 division winner should not host a 11-5 wildcard team. I think I'm still on board with division winners making the playoffs though.

Absolutely.  Doesn't the NBA do it that way (division winners make the playoffs, but seeding and home court is based on record within each conference)?

[Stadler]

I'm sort of of the opinion that it ain't broke.  it is what it is.  You want a playoff spot?  Win your division.   This year, some of the divisions suck, but I can remember NFC East seasons where you had great teams beating the craop out of each other twice a season.   You take the good with the bad; THIS YEAR some team might get "screwed", but there were all these years where the opposite happened, and it was just.   

"Good cases make bad law". 

[hunnus2000]

I'm sort of of the opinion that it ain't broke.  it is what it is.  You want a playoff spot?  Win your division.   This year, some of the divisions suck, but I can remember NFC East seasons where you had great teams beating the craop out of each other twice a season.   You take the good with the bad; THIS YEAR some team might get "screwed", but there were all these years where the opposite happened, and it was just.   

"Good cases make bad law".

I wholeheartedly agree! Didn't the Patriots miss the playoffs with an 11-5 record one year or am I remembering that incorrectly?

[King Postwhore]

They did.  Their 5 losses were to teams that caused them to lose tiebreakers.  That was the year Brady went down on the 1st game and Matt Cassel played the whole season.

[hunnus2000]

Well if it's driving people crazy that a 7-9 team can win the division then they better prepare for the fact that 6-10 could win the NFC East.

Now wouldn't THAT be something?   

[Skeever]

Forget about mere playoff seeding, what about just getting rid of divisions entirely? There are only 16 weeks, so it seems kind of ludicrious that half of those weeks are spend playing the same teams. And as a fan of an AFC East team, having been up against the Brady/Bellicheck buzzsaw for 19 years sure was fun. Not that the Jets would have been very good regardless, but maybe law of averages would have determined that I got to watch meaningful football beyond week 8 most years, and even a weak playoff run every 4 years or so would been much better than the current (nearly) 10 year draught.

[pg1067]

I'm sort of of the opinion that it ain't broke.  it is what it is.  You want a playoff spot?  Win your division.   This year, some of the divisions suck, but I can remember NFC East seasons where you had great teams beating the craop out of each other twice a season.   You take the good with the bad; THIS YEAR some team might get "screwed", but there were all these years where the opposite happened, and it was just.   

The Bucs have already clinched a wild card and the #5 seed in the NFC, and the other two spots are up for grabs between the Rams and Cards (who play each other) and the Bears (who play the Packers).

The winner of the Rams/Cards game will get a wild card and be the #6 seed.  If the Rams win, the Cards will finish at 8-8, and the Bears will get the #7 seed no matter what happens in their game with the Packers.  If the Cards win, then the Rams will be 9-7, and their fate will depend on the Packers/Bears game.  If the Packers win, the Rams will get the final wild card spot.  If the Bears win, they get the final wild card spot.

So...we'll have the 9-7 Rams or the 8-8 Cards or Bears missing the playoffs while a 7-9 or 6-10 team hosts the Bucs in the first round.  Home field advantage doesn't mean too much this year, but I assume there will be no fans in the Meadowlands, as opposed to some fans in Tampa.  That's something that can and should be changed.  I can live with an awful division winner making the playoffs, but that team shouldn't also get a home playoff game.

Didn't the Patriots miss the playoffs with an 11-5 record one year or am I remembering that incorrectly?

Yes.  In 2008, both the Patriots and Dolphins finished with 11-5 records.  The Dolphins won the tiebreaker for the division title, and the 11-5 Ravens won the tiebreaker against the Patriots for the second wild card (the 12-4 Colts were the first wild card).  Meanwhile, the 8-8 Chargers won the AFC West and hosted and beat (in OT) the 12-4 Colts in the wild card game.

[hunnus2000]

I'm sort of of the opinion that it ain't broke.  it is what it is.  You want a playoff spot?  Win your division.   This year, some of the divisions suck, but I can remember NFC East seasons where you had great teams beating the craop out of each other twice a season.   You take the good with the bad; THIS YEAR some team might get "screwed", but there were all these years where the opposite happened, and it was just.   

The Bucs have already clinched a wild card and the #5 seed in the NFC, and the other two spots are up for grabs between the Rams and Cards (who play each other) and the Bears (who play the Packers).

The winner of the Rams/Cards game will get a wild card and be the #6 seed.  If the Rams win, the Cards will finish at 8-8, and the Bears will get the #7 seed no matter what happens in their game with the Packers.  If the Cards win, then the Rams will be 9-7, and their fate will depend on the Packers/Bears game.  If the Packers win, the Rams will get the final wild card spot.  If the Bears win, they get the final wild card spot.

So...we'll have the 9-7 Rams or the 8-8 Cards or Bears missing the playoffs while a 7-9 or 6-10 team hosts the Bucs in the first round.  Home field advantage doesn't mean too much this year, but I assume there will be no fans in the Meadowlands, as opposed to some fans in Tampa.  That's something that can and should be changed.  I can live with an awful division winner making the playoffs, but that team shouldn't also get a home playoff game.

I can understand the sentiment but but I don't believe that a division winner should be punished and I certainly don't believe that a wildcard team, who couldn't win their own division should be rewarded with a home game.

[pg1067]

I can understand the sentiment but but I don't believe that a division winner should be punished and I certainly don't believe that a wildcard team, who couldn't win their own division should be rewarded with a home game.

But at the same time, one could say (using almost all the same words) that a team who couldn't win more games than it lost should not be rewarded with a home game.  Or, that a team that finished with an 11-5 or 12-4 record should not be "punished" by having to play on the road against a team that only won 6, 7 or 8 games but had the good fortune to be in a crappy division.

I don't think it's "punishing" a division winner to say that playoff seeding is based on record.

[El Barto]

Forget about mere playoff seeding, what about just getting rid of divisions entirely? There are only 16 weeks, so it seems kind of ludicrious that half of those weeks are spend playing the same teams. And as a fan of an AFC East team, having been up against the Brady/Bellicheck buzzsaw for 19 years sure was fun. Not that the Jets would have been very good regardless, but maybe law of averages would have determined that I got to watch meaningful football beyond week 8 most years, and even a weak playoff run every 4 years or so would been much better than the current (nearly) 10 year draught.

Out of the question. Aside from the longstanding rivalries, there's also the matter of familiarity. Any given Sunday takes on a whole new meaning with divisional games. With the exception of your Jets, pretty much any team, no matter how awful they are, can compete against a divisional foe, no matter how powerful they may be, and upsets are fun. As someone who's been picking games for 25+ years, I can tell you that divisional match-ups always have an air of uncertainty because of that familiarity. 

[King Postwhore]

Forget about mere playoff seeding, what about just getting rid of divisions entirely? There are only 16 weeks, so it seems kind of ludicrious that half of those weeks are spend playing the same teams. And as a fan of an AFC East team, having been up against the Brady/Bellicheck buzzsaw for 19 years sure was fun. Not that the Jets would have been very good regardless, but maybe law of averages would have determined that I got to watch meaningful football beyond week 8 most years, and even a weak playoff run every 4 years or so would been much better than the current (nearly) 10 year draught.

Out of the question. Aside from the longstanding rivalries, there's also the matter of familiarity. Any given Sunday takes on a whole new meaning with divisional games. With the exception of your Jets, pretty much any team, no matter how awful they are, can compete against a divisional foe, no matter how powerful they may be, and upsets are fun. As someone who's been picking games for 25+ years, I can tell you that divisional match-ups always have an air of uncertainty because of that familiarity.

100% correct.

[hunnus2000]

I can understand the sentiment but but I don't believe that a division winner should be punished and I certainly don't believe that a wildcard team, who couldn't win their own division should be rewarded with a home game.

But at the same time, one could say (using almost all the same words) that a team who couldn't win more games than it lost should not be rewarded with a home game.  Or, that a team that finished with an 11-5 or 12-4 record should not be "punished" by having to play on the road against a team that only won 6, 7 or 8 games but had the good fortune to be in a crappy division.

I don't think it's "punishing" a division winner to say that playoff seeding is based on record.

I hear ya and as Mr. Spock would say - it's logical. BUT - in the system we have now, the NFL rewards division winners. Also, I like the incentive to be "win your division" against division opponents. If you base getting to playoffs on record then you greatly diminish the importance of division games.

[pg1067]

I hear ya and as Mr. Spock would say - it's logical. BUT - in the system we have now, the NFL rewards division winners. Also, I like the incentive to be "win your division" against division opponents. If you base getting to playoffs on record then you greatly diminish the importance of division games.

Like I said, I can live with the division winners making the playoffs (if it were otherwise, then we would abandon the division system altogether), but home field advantage ought to be based on record.  The potentially 11-5 Bucs should not have to play the potentially 6-10 Giants at the Meadowlands.

Aside from the longstanding rivalries, there's also the matter of familiarity. Any given Sunday takes on a whole new meaning with divisional games. With the exception of your Jets, pretty much any team, no matter how awful they are, can compete against a divisional foe, no matter how powerful they may be, and upsets are fun. As someone who's been picking games for 25+ years, I can tell you that divisional match-ups always have an air of uncertainty because of that familiarity. 

When I look at the Broncos schedule every year, no matter how good or bad they are, and no matter how good or bad the other teams in the AFC West are, I always assume the Broncos will go 3-3 in division games.

[Skeever]

Forget about mere playoff seeding, what about just getting rid of divisions entirely? There are only 16 weeks, so it seems kind of ludicrious that half of those weeks are spend playing the same teams. And as a fan of an AFC East team, having been up against the Brady/Bellicheck buzzsaw for 19 years sure was fun. Not that the Jets would have been very good regardless, but maybe law of averages would have determined that I got to watch meaningful football beyond week 8 most years, and even a weak playoff run every 4 years or so would been much better than the current (nearly) 10 year draught.

Out of the question. Aside from the longstanding rivalries, there's also the matter of familiarity. Any given Sunday takes on a whole new meaning with divisional games. With the exception of your Jets, pretty much any team, no matter how awful they are, can compete against a divisional foe, no matter how powerful they may be, and upsets are fun. As someone who's been picking games for 25+ years, I can tell you that divisional match-ups always have an air of uncertainty because of that familiarity.

Maybe it's because I've only been a fan for the last 10 years to begin with, aside from memories of childhood when I wasn't paying attention, but the AFC East rivalries mean nothing to me. Other than a few years under Rex, I can't even remember a time when there was even a sense that anybody else was going to win the division but the Patriots. Maybe good for the league as a whole, but definitely not good for fans up against this kind of thing, and that's probably a big part of the reason why I have not gone to a game in a decade despite being less than an hour from the meadowlands.

[KevShmev]

Power Rankings 12-29-2020
1. Kansas City Chiefs - kinda the number 1 by default since they are 14-1 and the defending champs, but they look vulnerable.
2. Green Bay Packers - winning a game in the snow against a physical team could be a turning point for a team many thought of as a bit soft.
3. Buffalo Bills - look like a team on a mission, but I worry how their offense will do if snow or cold weather make it hard to pass the ball in January.
4. New Orleans Saints - they look like the best team from top to bottom, but Drew Brees is old and still recovering from that rib injury.
5. Seattle Seahawks - defense has quietly rounded into form.
6. Baltimore Ravens - the sleeping giant is poised to make a deep playoff run.
7. Pittsburgh Steelers - finally got it together a little bit in the second half vs Indy, but they don't look like a real threat.
8. Tampa Bay Bucs - continue to feast on patsies, but their poor record against good teams makes me think they will be a one playoff win (vs NFC East winner) and done team.
9. Miami Dolphins - Flores looks like a major winner as a coach.  He inherited the "my team will beat yours situationally" gene from Belichick.
10. Tennessee Titans - this team is so up and down, but their best is pretty damn good.

MVP Candidates
1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Patrick Mahomes
3. Josh Allen
4. Russell Wilson
5. Derrick Henry

[Stadler]

Forget about mere playoff seeding, what about just getting rid of divisions entirely? There are only 16 weeks, so it seems kind of ludicrious that half of those weeks are spend playing the same teams. And as a fan of an AFC East team, having been up against the Brady/Bellicheck buzzsaw for 19 years sure was fun. Not that the Jets would have been very good regardless, but maybe law of averages would have determined that I got to watch meaningful football beyond week 8 most years, and even a weak playoff run every 4 years or so would been much better than the current (nearly) 10 year draught.

It's a matter of taste.   I grew up a Giants fan, and while we got our asses kicked and kicked hard year in year out by the Tom Landry Cowboys and the George Allen Redskins, it was exciting.   I knew them, I could get into that rivalry.   When, say, Denver or San Diego came to town it was like "wut?"

For a division like The AFC Central, where all four teams hate each other, it's still exciting.  Hell, I don't even like any of those teams, but I'll tune in to a Steelers/Browns game.   

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Jets would have been shitty in the NFC East as well.   Good teams rise to the occasion.