Super Bowl LVI - Estimated Odds...
| Team | "Raw" / Estimated Odds | "Opinion"/ Adjusted Odds |
|---|---|---|
| Bills | $10.61 | $12.50 |
| Patriots | $21.80 | $28.00 |
| Bengals | $24.03 | $27.00 |
| Ravens | $489.18 | $833.00 |
| Steelers | $681.98 | $950.00 |
| Titans | $13.74 | $11.00 |
| Colts | $25.30 | $31.00 |
| Chiefs | $6.34 | $5.50 |
| Chargers | $57.73 | $76.00 |
| Raiders | $143.40 | $201.00 |
| Cowboys | $19.53 | $26.00 |
| Eagles | $81.25 | $121.00 |
| Packers | $4.67 | $3.90 |
| Buccaneers | $11.24 | $10.00 |
| Saints | $185.25 | $281.00 |
| Rams | $10.84 | $13.00 |
| Cardinals | $27.79 | $41.00 |
| 49ers | $49.30 | $71.00 |
Note: All odds are posted in decimal odds.
Note 2: The "Estimated Odds" are my "attempts at posting an unbiased average using various sites"
Note 3: The "Adjusted Odds" can be used to work out what teams "I like or dislike" , by comparing them to the "Estimated Odds".
Note 4: I will try to update this after each game and / or day of the playoffs.
Quote: ksdjdjHere are my current estimated odds for each team to win the Super Bowl this year.
Team "Raw" / Estimated Odds "Opinion"/ Adjusted Odds Bills $10.61 $12.50 Patriots $21.80 $28.00 Bengals $24.03 $27.00 Ravens $489.18 $833.00 Steelers $681.98 $950.00 Titans $13.74 $11.00 Colts $25.30 $31.00 Chiefs $6.34 $5.50 Chargers $57.73 $76.00 Raiders $143.40 $201.00 Cowboys $19.53 $26.00 Eagles $81.25 $121.00 Packers $4.67 $3.90 Buccaneers $11.24 $10.00 Saints $185.25 $281.00 Rams $10.84 $13.00 Cardinals $27.79 $41.00 49ers $49.30 $71.00
Note: All odds are posted in decimal odds.
Note 2: The "Estimated Odds" are my "attempts at posting an unbiased average using various sites"
Note 3: The "Adjusted Odds" can be used to work out what teams "I like or dislike" , by comparing them to the "Estimated Odds".
Note 4: I will try to update this after each game and / or day of the playoffs.
link to original post
Looks like good value on Cardinals and Chargers. But we know Bills are gonna win it this year….
Quote: DeMangoToo bad, unlike craps, there is no way to bet $100 that no way in hell Cowboys win SB! (Or Bills)
link to original post
I always thought that if a casino offered a sports bet they should have to post both sides of every bet. If I was still working with Nevada Gaming Control Board I would recommend that to them. I think new jurisdictions should also have to do that.
FYI: I am not betting on any of these Super Bowl (SB) teams "early" this post-season. Instead I will be betting "day by day" on individual games during the playoffs and SB, because I don't want to get "stung *** " by any potential "covid / injury roster changes".
***: See hypothetical of being "stung" below.
Hypothetical: Say that I had a bet on the Chiefs to win the SB, Patrick Mahomes was out for 1 game with covid (or any other reason) and Chad Henne had to step up for the Chiefs vs Broncos game^^^ .
^^^: Pretend that this was a game during the playoffs, since it is just hypothetical
Because of the QB change In the above hypothetical playoff game, my estimated odds for the Chiefs winning the SB would be +550 instead of +450 (or -216 instead of -421 to win the "hypothetical Chiefs vs Broncos play off game").
Note : That would be my estimated odds for the SB, for 1 game only with Henne in and Mahomes out during the play offs (assuming no other key roster changes).
Also Note: The rough formula I am using for "Henne in / Mahomes out" is: (~1.18^n) x "my base SB odds figure" (where n is the number of games during the playoffs with Henne as starting Quarter-back and Mahomes out).
Quote: mwalz9FanDuel had a promo before the season started where if you bet $50 on a Super Bowl Future you would get $5 back for each game that team won each week (up to $50 or 10 wins). I took the Chiefs at +500 at that time. They have since won more than 10 games, so I have recouped all $50 back and still stand a chance to win $250 plus my original $50 back at +500.
link to original post
Great to see that you have a free roll into the Super Bowl .
There’s only one more week to go, right?
And all those teams, (more than half) still technically mathematically have a shot at post season play?
Quote: DJTeddyBearI’m no sports fan but I gotta ask…
There’s only one more week to go, right?
And all those teams, (more than half) still technically mathematically have a shot at post season play?
link to original post
See what "needs to happen" for the Steelers to get a Wild Card spot, in the links*** below:
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/pittsburgh-steelers-nfl-playoff-chances-afc-wild-card/1subabacnnhtb19dlm1cf9ic1c
https://www.wtae.com/article/steelers-playoffs-odds-week-17/38656523
***: I am not going to post articles/links for all of the teams that are currently "in the hunt" for a wild card berth, since you just need to search "can X make the playoffs " quite easily (where X is one of the teams "in the hunt" for a wild card spot).
Quote: WizardLet's say both LV and Indy win their final game. Both will have a 10-7 record (since when are there 17 games?). What breaks the tie for the wild card spot?
link to original post
Indy is win and in. There are three wild card spots. 14 teams make the playoffs this year. Only top seed gets bye.
ETA: there are also scenarios where the Colts or Raiders could lose next week and still make it.
Quote: unJonETA: there are also scenarios where the Colts or Raiders could lose next week and still make it.
link to original post
I somehow managed to miss the news of these rule changes.
Okay, let's say that both Indy and LV lose week 18 and have a 9-8 record. The LAC will get a spot, beating LV, with a 10-7 record.
According to the NFL Tiebreaking Procedures, what would break the tie between LV and Indy would be the outcome of any games played against each other, which happened yesterday, LV winning 23-20.
So, would I be correct in saying LV has two ways to make it:
1. Beat the LAC.
2. Jacksonville beats Indy.
By the way, the LAC are a 2.5-point favorite and Indy is a 15.5-point favorite.
Quote: WizardQuote: unJonETA: there are also scenarios where the Colts or Raiders could lose next week and still make it.
link to original post
I somehow managed to miss the news of these rule changes.
Okay, let's say that both Indy and LV lose week 18 and have a 9-8 record. The LAC will get a spot, beating LV, with a 10-7 record.
According to the NFL Tiebreaking Procedures, what would break the tie between LV and Indy would be the outcome of any games played against each other, which happened yesterday, LV winning 23-20.
So, would I be correct in saying LV has two ways to make it:
1. Beat the LAC.
2. Jacksonville beats Indy.
By the way, the LAC are a 2.5-point favorite and Indy is a 15.5-point favorite.
link to original post
You are correct with scenario #1, however, there’s more than that to scenario #2. Not only would the Colts have to lose if the Raiders lose to the Chargers, but the Raiders would also need the Steelers to lose either tonight or next week, otherwise, the Steelers would be in if they win their last two games AND the Colts lose.
IOW, if the Raiders lose to the Chargers, then the Colts losing is only helpful to them if the Steelers also lose one of their last two games.
1) Beat Jax; or
2) Steelers (must be week 17), Ravens and Chargers all lose.
Chargers playoff conditions:
1) Beat Raiders
Raiders playoff conditions:
1) Beat Chargers; or
2) Steelers and Colts both lose.
Steelers playoff conditions:
1) Win out and Colts lose.
Ravens playoff conditions:
1) Beat Steelers and losses by all of Colts, Browns, Chargers and Dolphins.
Above per CBS. I must admit I don’t quite follow the Ravens conditions and how they line up re tiebreakers with the other teams.
Quote: unJonIndy playoff conditions:
1) Beat Jax; or
2) Steelers (must be week 17), Ravens and Chargers all lose.
Chargers playoff conditions:
1) Beat Raiders
Raiders playoff conditions:
1) Beat Chargers
2) Steelers and Colts both lose.
Steelers playoff conditions:
1) Win out and Colts lose.
Ravens playoff conditions:
1) Win and losses by all of Colts, Browns, Chargers and Dolphins.
Above per CBS. I must admit I don’t quite follow the Ravens conditions and how they line up re tiebreakers with the other teams.
link to original post
I’m going to try to dissect it, so here we go:
If the Chargers lose, then the Raiders have won, which gets the Raiders into the Playoffs. This is good for the Ravens because they have the H2H tiebreaker against the Chargers, but they lose the H2H to the Raiders…so they want to have the same record as the Chargers.
The Ravens also beat the Colts, so they have that H2H tiebreaker if same record.
They need the Browns and Dolphins to lose because…reasons.
Actually, the reason is because the Dolphins winning (if the Browns lose) would give the Dolphins the same record as the Ravens and Chargers (as would the Browns winning out) which would mean that H2H tiebreakers would no longer apply (because the Dolphins beat the Ravens) and it would go to Conference record to tiebreak, which would mean the Ravens would be out because the Colts would have the better conference record.
So, Miami (who is eliminated) winning would cause the Ravens to be out by virtue of changing what tiebreaker would be used even if all of the other stuff happened.
Quote: unJonGood analysis. Seems like Indy scenario 2 as reported by CBS isn’t then complete as they Indy lose and Ravens could win but Miami or Browns could also win . . .
link to original post
Thank you!
I agree that it’s incomplete, but examining every possibility would basically take a book. To that point, we’re even assuming that teams either win or lose every game and aren’t even looking at ties. I think CBS might have been going for something more like, “The Colts are definitely in if these things happen.”
Quote: Mission146I’m going to try to dissect it, so here we go:
link to original post
Great post Mission!
Currently SF is the 6th seed, the Eagles the 7th seed, both at 9-7. New Orleans is in the hunt at 8-8.
So The Eagles are in, but SF is not.
So here is the strange scenario. If the Eagles lose to Dallas (likely) and SF loses to the Rams (Rams favored) and New Orleans wins (vs Atlanta), then all 3 teams would be 9-8 and the Eagles would be the 6th seed and N. O. the 7th seed and SF out.
So the Eagles can lose and move up a seed.
Quote: DRichNone of those scenarios consider ties amongst the playoff contenders. What are the odds of a tie game in Week 18?
link to original post
Fun scenario of the day:
Jax beats Colts
Steelers beat Ravens
Then the late Sunday game between Chargers and Raiders gets interesting. While still win and in, both teams would be in the playoffs with a tie. What incentives for collusion! Four quarters of kneel downs!
Quote: unJonQuote: DRichNone of those scenarios consider ties amongst the playoff contenders. What are the odds of a tie game in Week 18?
link to original post
Fun scenario of the day:
Jax beats Colts
Steelers beat Ravens
Then the late Sunday game between Chargers and Raiders gets interesting. While still win and in, both teams would be in the playoffs with a tie. What incentives for collusion! Four quarters of kneel downs!
link to original post
The ‘both teams in with a tie’ scenario has happened at least once before. Game did not end in a tie. I texted my son the 120 consecutive kneel down scenario. Not sure Goodell would take that ‘kneeling down’.
Each team can make late game decisions that would favor a tie over risking a loss to try and get a win. As long as there isn’t collusion it’s ok. If Indy loses to Jacksonville THAT should be investigated!
Quote: SOOPOOGoodell would take that ‘kneeling down’.
link to original post
That would be the biggest scandal in the NFL since deflate-gate.
Reminds me of a badminton game in the 2012 Olympics where both China and South Korea were incentivized to lose in a match and both tried to do so. The acting was evidently not very good. More information: Eight badminton players have been disqualified from the Olympics for tanking. Why were they trying to lose, and why is the sport so dirty?.
Quote: WizardQuote: SOOPOOGoodell would take that ‘kneeling down’.
link to original post
That would be the biggest scandal in the NFL since deflate-gate.
Reminds me of a badminton game in the 2012 Olympics where both China and South Korea were incentivized to lose in a match and both tried to do so. The acting was evidently not very good. More information: Eight badminton players have been disqualified from the Olympics for tanking. Why were they trying to lose, and why is the sport so dirty?.
link to original post
This is the reason why the 3rd game of World Cup group stages are played simultaneously. There was a famous incident in the 80s where both teams essentially didn’t play the final game and just stood around for about 90 mins.
Quote: billryanDoes a coach, player or team have an obligation to try to win? If a tie gets you into the playoffs, how could anyone fault them for playing for a tie?
link to original post
The “product” of the NFL or any other sports league is NOT wins or playoff appearances or championships. The “product” is advertising revenue and in a distant second, item sales (jerseys, hats, etc). Teams are allowed some range of strategic decisions so long as they are not inconsistent with those actual goals of the league but if your strategy is inconsistent with keeping eyeballs on the ads and/or people buying merch, you’re providing an “inferior” product.
I could see scenarios where you wouldn’t get punished for playing for a tie—eg OT and the other team already kicked a FG. You’re on the 1 yard line and kick the FG on 1st down for a tie rather than try for the TD (I believe the game stops at that point but could be wrong). But if both team just kneel it down all game Roger Goodell is going to tear the teams apart/fines/lost draft picks.
There was a situation in the NBA where teams were resting their stars during easy games. I think that’s 100% fine/strategic but the commish wasn’t having it. Teams started getting fined. It hurts advertising sales and therefore can’t be allowed.
Quote: billryanDoes a coach, player or team have an obligation to try to win? If a tie gets you into the playoffs, how could anyone fault them for playing for a tie?
link to original post
I think that this conversation would be covered by Rule 17, Section 2, of the NFL Rules:
https://operations.nfl.com/media/5427/2021-nfl-rulebook.pdf
Quote:ARTICLE 1. COMMISSIONER AUTHORITY. The Commissioner has the sole authority to investigate and take appropriate
disciplinary and/or corrective measures if any club action, non-participant interference, or calamity occurs in an NFL game which
the Commissioner deems so extraordinarily unfair or outside the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such
action has a major effect on the result of the game.
ARTICLE 2. NO CLUB PROTESTS. The authority and measures provided for in this entire Section 2 do not constitute a protest
machinery for NFL clubs to avail themselves of in the event a dispute arises over the result of a game. The investigation called
for in this Section 2 will be conducted solely on the Commissioner’s initiative to review an act or occurrence that the
Commissioner deems so extraordinary or unfair that the result of the game in question would be inequitable to one of the
participating teams. The Commissioner will not apply authority in cases of complaints by clubs concerning judgmental errors or
routine errors of omission by game officials. Games involving such complaints will continue to stand as completed.
ARTICLE 3. PENALTIES FOR UNFAIR ACTS. The Commissioner’s powers under this Section 2 include the imposition of
monetary fines and draft-choice forfeitures, suspension of persons involved in unfair acts, and, if appropriate, the reversal of a
game’s result or the rescheduling of a game, either from the beginning or from the point at which the extraordinary act occurred.
In the event of rescheduling a game, the Commissioner will be guided by the procedures specified in 17-1-5–11, above. In all
cases, the Commissioner will conduct a full investigation, including the opportunity for hearings, use of game video, and any
other procedure the Commissioner deems appropriate.
Reading these together, here is what I think:
ARTICLE 1 would obviously cover, "...Outside of the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such action has a major effect on the result of the game," even wanting for some specific rule that says you can't do that. There's no question that doing nothing but kneeling the entire game would have a major effect on the result of the game (it would literally be manufacturing a result) and the rules give the Commissioner blanket authority, in his sole discretion, to determine whether or not same would constitute an unfair act.
ARTICLE 2 says, in part, "...will be conducted solely on the Commissioner’s initiative to review an act or occurrence that the Commissioner deems so extraordinary or unfair that the result of the game in question would be inequitable to one of the participating teams."
---The only thing that I think ARTICLE 2 kind of leaves open is that it specifies that the act be inequitable to one of the participating teams, which leaves this matter a little bit open (I think) because...while it's blatantly inequitable, it's inequitable only to teams who are NOT participating in the game.
ARTICLE 3 specifies that a Commissioner can reverse the result of a game, but doesn't say anything directly about changing it (such as declaring that both teams actually lose), but even without that, the Commissioner could reverse the Tie and declare that the two teams must replay the game and instead try to win.
That said, even if it were to somehow be decided that Article 2 is sufficient to prevent the Commissioner from taking action because the conduct was not, "Unfair," to either of the participating teams, you can be darn sure that there would be indefinite suspensions handed out after the season to pretty much everyone that Goodell could justify suspending.
Most Sunday games back then were day games and most Saturday games were night games. Since Piazza rarely played in a day game that followed a night game, they went almost the whole season without getting to see the Mets premiere draw. My BIL wrote to the Mets complaining about it, and to my surprise, they sent him tickets to the last three home games for free. It was a nice gesture on their part.
Quote: TinManQuote: billryanDoes a coach, player or team have an obligation to try to win? If a tie gets you into the playoffs, how could anyone fault them for playing for a tie?
link to original post
The “product” of the NFL or any other sports league is NOT wins or playoff appearances or championships. The “product” is advertising revenue and in a distant second, item sales (jerseys, hats, etc). Teams are allowed some range of strategic decisions so long as they are not inconsistent with those actual goals of the league but if your strategy is inconsistent with keeping eyeballs on the ads and/or people buying merch, you’re providing an “inferior” product.
I could see scenarios where you wouldn’t get punished for playing for a tie—eg OT and the other team already kicked a FG. You’re on the 1 yard line and kick the FG on 1st down for a tie rather than try for the TD (I believe the game stops at that point but could be wrong). But if both team just kneel it down all game Roger Goodell is going to tear the teams apart/fines/lost draft picks.
There was a situation in the NBA where teams were resting their stars during easy games. I think that’s 100% fine/strategic but the commish wasn’t having it. Teams started getting fined. It hurts advertising sales and therefore can’t be allowed.
link to original post
Rule 16, Section 1, Article 3 states, in part:
Quote:If the team that possesses the ball first scores a field goal on its initial possession, the other team (the second team) shall have the opportunity to possess the ball.
If the second team scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner.
If the second team scores a field goal on its possession, the team next scoring by any method shall be the winner.
If the second team does not score on its possession, the game is over, and the first team is the winner, subject to (4) below.
If the second team loses possession by an interception or fumble, the down will be permitted to run to its conclusion, and all rules of the game will be enforced as customary, including awarding points scored by either team during the down. If the second team scores a touchdown on the down after regaining possession, it is the winner. Only fouls that require the down to be replayed, fouls that negate a score, or palpably unfair acts will be enforced.
If both teams score a Field Goal the FIRST time each team possesses the ball, then the Overtime period reverts to sudden death.
With that, two teams could enter OT at a score of 24-24, or what have you, and it could become 27-27 and the game keeps going, but then ends up being Sudden Death after that point.
Quote: billryanDoes a coach, player or team have an obligation to try to win? If a tie gets you into the playoffs, how could anyone fault them for playing for a tie?
link to original post
I agree with TinMan's reply to this one. I would add that the tie incentive can influence their behavior, but they still should and will make a good-faith effort to do the right thing.
I've written before about the overtime incentive in the NHL in regular season games and shown the ratio of games that go into overtime is significantly statistically higher in the regular season than the post season. Nobody, I think, begrudges teams for slow playing a tied game in the third period and they know why. I could see something similar in the LV/Rams game where they slow play it if the game is tied in the fourth quarter. As long as there is no overt collusion, it's all good with me.
Quote: billryanGoing back to when Mike Piazza played for the Mets, my BIL bought a partial season package for eight games, all on Sundays,
Most Sunday games back then were day games and most Saturday games were night games. Since Piazza rarely played in a day game that followed a night game, they went almost the whole season without getting to see the Mets premiere draw. My BIL wrote to the Mets complaining about it, and to my surprise, they sent him tickets to the last three home games for free. It was a nice gesture on their part.
link to original post
That's pretty outstanding! That's one of those nice things that, unfortunately, they can't really make a big presentation of advertising...or everyone else would be trying to do the same thing.
A.) Resign, because I positively suck at my job and every single personage involved in the NFL, aside from a few owners, as well as all of the fans...absolutely hate me and wish I was never born.
That failing:
B.) If two teams spent the entire game kneeling, I wouldn't cause the teams to lose any draft picks, but I would fine both teams in the entire amount of their shares of the league revenue for the entire season AND suspend the HC and primary assistant (OC, DC, STC) coaches indefinitely and to take effect immediately.
Quote: Mission146If I were Roger Goodell, I would:
A.) Resign, because I positively suck at my job and every single personage involved in the NFL, aside from a few owners, as well as all of the fans...absolutely hate me and wish I was never born.
That failing:
B.) If two teams spent the entire game kneeling, I wouldn't cause the teams to lose any draft picks, but I would fine both teams in the entire amount of their shares of the league revenue for the entire season AND suspend the HC and primary assistant (OC, DC, STC) coaches indefinitely and to take effect immediately.
link to original post
For making the playoffs and insuring none of his players got hurt in the process?
If Indy loses, and the rest of the dominos fall into place so that both the Raiders and Chargers are in the playoffs, do you expect a competitive game? Do you think the starters play all the way
Quote: unJonQuote: DRichNone of those scenarios consider ties amongst the playoff contenders. What are the odds of a tie game in Week 18?
link to original post
Fun scenario of the day:
Jax beats Colts
Steelers beat Ravens
Then the late Sunday game between Chargers and Raiders gets interesting. While still win and in, both teams would be in the playoffs with a tie. What incentives for collusion! Four quarters of kneel downs!
link to original post
So if Steelers, Chargers, Raiders end in a 3 way tie. Steelers are out?
Quote: billryan
For making the playoffs and insuring none of his players got hurt in the process?
If Indy loses, and the rest of the dominos fall into place so that both the Raiders and Chargers are in the playoffs, do you expect a competitive game? Do you think the starters play all the way
link to original post
The starters do not have to play throughout in order for the game to be competitive. They could play second stringers for the entire game and a competitive game could still take place.
I don't think that they're necessarily going to play hard, as they often don't for the Pro Bowl, either...but you're simply not going to have nothing but kneel downs for an entire game. It's the Sunday Night game and the last televised game of the regular season; I promise there would be serious repercussions.
Besides, a great number of players wouldn't go for it, principle alone.
Quote: mosesQuote: unJonQuote: DRichNone of those scenarios consider ties amongst the playoff contenders. What are the odds of a tie game in Week 18?
link to original post
Fun scenario of the day:
Jax beats Colts
Steelers beat Ravens
Then the late Sunday game between Chargers and Raiders gets interesting. While still win and in, both teams would be in the playoffs with a tie. What incentives for collusion! Four quarters of kneel downs!
link to original post
So if Steelers, Chargers, Raiders end in a 3 way tie. Steelers are out?
link to original post
Yes. H2H both teams beat the Steelers, so Conference records do not become relevant as a tiebreaker.
Quote: moses
So if Steelers, Chargers, Raiders end in a 3 way tie. Steelers are out?
Yes, Steelers lost to both the Raiders and Chargers, so they would lose a tie breaker with all 3 teams.
But the thing that is REAALY going to cost the Steelers is a tie win Detroit Lions. If you tie a 1 win team, you don't deserve the playoffs. LOL.
Quote: kewljQuote: moses
So if Steelers, Chargers, Raiders end in a 3 way tie. Steelers are out?
Yes, Steelers lost to both the Raiders and Chargers, so they would lose a tie breaker with all 3 teams.
But the thing that is REAALY going to cost the Steelers is a tie win Detroit Lions. If you tie a 1 win team, you don't deserve the playoffs. LOL.
link to original post
I guess the same could be said about Colts. If they can't be Jaguars they don't deserve playoffs.
Quote: moses
I guess the same could be said about Colts. If they can't be Jaguars they don't deserve playoffs.
Well what about the Eagles? Eagles are in the playoffs and didn't beat a team with a winning record. The closest is New Orleans who is 8-8, might end up with a winning record if they win their last game.
It just seems like you should have to beat SOMEBODY with a winning record to make the playoffs, not just all losing teams. Either way, seems like a pretty good sign of a team not going very far. :/ (and that coming from an Eagles fan)
Quote: kewljQuote: moses
I guess the same could be said about Colts. If they can't be Jaguars they don't deserve playoffs.
Well what about the Eagles? Eagles are in the playoffs and didn't beat a team with a winning record. The closest is New Orleans who is 8-8, might end up with a winning record if they win their last game.
It just seems like you should have to beat SOMEBODY with a winning record to make the playoffs, not just all losing teams. Either way, seems like a pretty good sign of a team not going very far. :/ (and that coming from an Eagles fan)
link to original post
I agree. AND the Eagles could sit all their starters on Saturday without effecting their status.
This takes us back to my original plan. Win 10 and in.
Quote: moses
I agree. AND the Eagles could sit all their starters on Saturday without effecting their status.
The Eagles situation is weirder than people realize.
the Eagles are the 7 seed. If they win and SF loses they move to 6 seed. If they lose and Sf loses and N.O. wins they move to 6 seed. Otherwise they remain the 7 seed.
So originally the Eagles-Dallas game was scheduled for Sunday night, meaning they would have known if winning helps them. That game has been moved to SATURDAY night now, so they play first and won't know.
Again, the Eagles can move up by losing, if SF loses to Rams which seems a good posibility, so why would the Eagles play starters?
Now originally, I was thinking it might be Dallas resting starters, but Dallas can move from a 4 seed to a 2 seed with a win and a little help. That is a difference of a home playoff game the second week of playoffs, so that is a pretty big deal. So Dallas should be playing their starters and the Eagles resting theirs, as near as I can figure.
Of those 4 teams Dallas is most inconsistent. So they are better off losing.
If Dallas could jump to a 3 seed that avoids facing Cards or Rams.
The stats show the Eagles have run the ball better the second half of the season, which coincides with their winning. But that has all been against bad, losing teams. Tampa Bay and the Rams have the top running defenses. Nobody runs against them. So I see the Eagles scoring very little against them. Dallas, has too much offense. The Eagles will never be able to keep up with them.
I am not that familiar with the Cardinals defense in terms of ranking against the run. Maybe they would be the team I give them a shot against, but it would still be a long shot. The Eagles, despite being MY team, are simply not a playoff team and shouldn't be in the playoffs.
New Orleans really should be the final seed. they have a good defense which can keep them in most games. Hell 2 weeks ago, they shut out Tampa Bay. Unfortunately for New Orleans the Eagles beat them during the regular season when they weren't playing well, so that will prevent them from beating out the Eagles. Their only way in is a 3 way tie with Eagles and SF, in which case, Eagles would be 6 seed and N.O. 7 seed and SF out
Quote: billryanIf Indy loses, and the rest of the dominos fall into place so that both the Raiders and Chargers are in the playoffs, do you expect a competitive game? Do you think the starters play all the way
link to original post
Assuming there is no hard collusion, I expect it to be a competitive game and starters will play the entire game, barring a blowout. Think about it. If you were the Raiders and saw that the Chargers decided to rest their starters, you'd play your starters and kick the Chargers' a$$. Why 'hope' for a tie, when you can guarantee a victory?
But this is all moot anyway because it hinges on the Jags beating the Colts.
