NFL Playoffs Wild Card Weekend

[homer]

Saturday, January 9

(7) Colts at (2) Bills, 1:05 p.m. ET (CBS)

(6) Rams at (3) Seahawks, 4:40 p.m. ET (Fox)

(5) Buccaneers at (4) Washington, 8:15 p.m. ET (NBC)

 

Sunday, January 10

(5) Ravens at (4) Titans, 1:05 p.m. ET (ABC)

(7) Bears at (2) Saints, 4:40 p.m. ET (CBS/Nickelodeon/Amazon Prime)

(6) Browns at (3) Steelers, 8:15 p.m. ET (NBC)

[PeaveyFury]

Nothing would delight me more than the Bucs getting knocked out by Washington.

[MrTPlush]

Everyone seems reserved to the fact we will face the Bucs, but Rams over Seattle seems pretty plausible. Probably one of the most likely upsets in the entire slate of games.

[stoutdude04]

Everyone seems reserved to the fact we will face the Bucs, but Rams over Seattle seems pretty plausible. Probably one of the most likely upsets in the entire slate of games.

 

Is Goff able to play? I know he like broke his thumb or something.

[MrTPlush]

Everyone seems reserved to the fact we will face the Bucs, but Rams over Seattle seems pretty plausible. Probably one of the most likely upsets in the entire slate of games.

 

Is Goff able to play? I know he like broke his thumb or something.

 

Unknown...but I wouldn’t put it past the Seahawks to lose to whoever starts. Seattle has really only had one convincing win all year, against the Jets. Every other win is pretty close, mostly one score games against a lot of really unimpressive teams.

 

Heck, didn’t Seattle almost lose to the 49ers playing some scrub back up QB this past week?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Everyone seems reserved to the fact we will face the Bucs, but Rams over Seattle seems pretty plausible. Probably one of the most likely upsets in the entire slate of games.

 

Agree. They split with Seattle, who is completely vulnerable week to week.

 

I think Packers fans are overdoing the Tampa fear factor anyway.

 

The Packers defense has come together a lot since October, putting Brady in GB in mid January is not a nice hot day in the Florida sun, and if Rodgers doesn't essentially throw two pick sixes I think that game is completely different. Tampa's defense, while pretty good, is not the 2000 Ravens they were hyped to be after that game...and how healthy is Evans?

 

I'm not really concerned with having to play Tampa. This is the first playoffs in a long time where I think the Packers should really beat anyone in the field. Doesn't mean they will, but none of these teams strike fear in me. I think the Packers are better than all of them and Rodgers is on fire. It feels like most of the last decade there has been a team I try to see how we can avoid playing. I don't see that team this year.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Nothing would delight me more than the Bucs getting knocked out by Washington.

 

Actually wouldn't surprise me that much, either with Evans at best hobbled from a knee scare he had yesterday. Washington's defense is pretty damn good - some of its stats are padded by playing in their horrid division, but they have some game wreckers on that side of the ball. Likely that Fedex field will be a slow track for Saturday night's game, which will make it more of a grind it out type of affair that TB really isn't built for.

[sveumrules]

Looks like Vegas thinks the Rams are the best bet to upset in the NFC...

 

NO (-9.5)

TBB (-8)

BUF (-7)

SEA (-4.5)

PIT (-4)

BAL (-3.5)

[Fear The Chorizo]

Everyone seems reserved to the fact we will face the Bucs, but Rams over Seattle seems pretty plausible. Probably one of the most likely upsets in the entire slate of games.

 

Agree. They split with Seattle, who is completely vulnerable week to week.

 

I think Packers fans are overdoing the Tampa fear factor anyway.

 

The Packers defense has come together a lot since October, putting Brady in GB in mid January is not a nice hot day in the Florida sun, and if Rodgers doesn't essentially throw two pick sixes I think that game is completely different. Tampa's defense, while pretty good, is not the 2000 Ravens they were hyped to be after that game...and how healthy is Evans?

 

I'm not really concerned with having to play Tampa. This is the first playoffs in a long time where I think the Packers should really beat anyone in the field. Doesn't mean they will, but none of these teams strike fear in me. I think the Packers are better than all of them and Rodgers is on fire. It feels like most of the last decade there has been a team I try to see how we can avoid playing. I don't see that team this year.

 

To me, the team I'd be most wary of is the Rams (assuming Goff is healthy enough to play well) because I think their defense could cause GB problems on offense without Bahktiari and a reshuffled Oline. The Rams have the Dline to wreck a game with Donald in the middle, and they could have Ramsey shadow Adams to try and limit his production. That being said, I'd still favor GB at Lambeau in 2 weeks against the Rams.

[sveumrules]

(7) Bears at (2) Saints, 4:40 p.m. ET (CBS/Nickelodeon/Amazon Prime)

 

Any word who the Nickelodeon broadcast crew will be?

 

I'll guess Rex Ryan & Dan Schneider.

[homer]

I am giddy seeing so many Bears fans making excuses for Trubisky. I hope he never leaves Chicago.

[pacopete4]

(7) Bears at (2) Saints, 4:40 p.m. ET (CBS/Nickelodeon/Amazon Prime)

 

Any word who the Nickelodeon broadcast crew will be?

 

I'll guess Rex Ryan & Dan Schneider.

 

I'm thinking Mike O'Malley and Marc Summers.

[PeaveyFury]

(7) Bears at (2) Saints, 4:40 p.m. ET (CBS/Nickelodeon/Amazon Prime)

 

Any word who the Nickelodeon broadcast crew will be?

 

I'll guess Rex Ryan & Dan Schneider.

 

I've got my money on Linda Ellerbee and Mike O'Malley.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I am giddy seeing so many Bears fans making excuses for Trubisky. I hope he never leaves Chicago.

 

While it was pretty obvious that Nagy's gameplan was to mitigate the chances for Trubisky to make backbreaking mistakes through handoffs, checkdowns and basically a conservative, clock-controlling offense, I remember remarking during the second half how much he actually looked like a competent NFL QB that could theoretically win in the NFL. Of course, less than a minute later, he threw that back-breaking interception to Amos.

 

I too hope that the Trubisky Bears era lasts for the next decade.

[Fear The Chorizo]

If the Bears had an awesome defense, they could win with Trubisky and that type of conservative offensive gameplan - but their last awesome defense was 2 seasons ago, and to beat good teams they have to open up the offense just enough for Mitch to prove he's not a good quarterback.

 

Knowing the Bears traded up in the draft to pick Trubisky, when Watson and Mahomes were available, gives me warm fuzzies every time I think about it. It would be fabulous if they decide to commit to Trubisky longterm with a contract, or even have to franchise him for a season or two while they sort out a longterm QB plan....their cap situation for next year is actually more precarious than GB's, because they only have 35 players counting towards ~$181M in cap - and that's with Foles as basically their only QB under contract. If next year's cap is around the $175M it's projected to be (they will have limited cap room carryover from this season), their roster is going to need an overhaul and include tons of contract restructuring simply to field a 53 man roster under that number.

[homer]

If the Bears had an awesome defense, they could win with Trubisky and that type of conservative offensive gameplan - but their last awesome defense was 2 seasons ago, and to beat good teams they have to open up the offense just enough for Mitch to prove he's not a good quarterback.

 

Knowing the Bears traded up in the draft to pick Trubisky, when Watson and Mahomes were available, gives me warm fuzzies every time I think about it. It would be fabulous if they decide to commit to Trubisky longterm with a contract, or even have to franchise him for a season or two while they sort out a longterm QB plan....their cap situation for next year is actually more precarious than GB's, because they only have 35 players counting towards ~$181M in cap - and that's with Foles as basically their only QB under contract. If next year's cap is around the $175M it's projected to be (they will have limited cap room carryover from this season), their roster is going to need an overhaul and include tons of contract restructuring simply to field a 53 man roster under that number.

 

Yeah you can't win in the NFL if you can't complete more than 1 pass for 10 yards or more.

 

That trade for Mack really screwed them. They put all their eggs in the Mitch basket and the basket broke.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

If the Bears had an awesome defense, they could win with Trubisky and that type of conservative offensive gameplan - but their last awesome defense was 2 seasons ago, and to beat good teams they have to open up the offense just enough for Mitch to prove he's not a good quarterback.

 

Knowing the Bears traded up in the draft to pick Trubisky, when Watson and Mahomes were available, gives me warm fuzzies every time I think about it. It would be fabulous if they decide to commit to Trubisky longterm with a contract, or even have to franchise him for a season or two while they sort out a longterm QB plan....their cap situation for next year is actually more precarious than GB's, because they only have 35 players counting towards ~$181M in cap - and that's with Foles as basically their only QB under contract. If next year's cap is around the $175M it's projected to be (they will have limited cap room carryover from this season), their roster is going to need an overhaul and include tons of contract restructuring simply to field a 53 man roster under that number.

 

Yeah you can't win in the NFL if you can't complete more than 1 pass for 10 yards or more.

 

That trade for Mack really screwed them. They put all their eggs in the Mitch basket and the basket broke.

 

Mack is a good player. But he isn't a transcendent player. Other than one sack where Rodgers arguably held the ball too long and tried to scramble, Mack was completely neutralized yesterday by a swing tackle in Turner, a mediocre starting RT in Wagner, and a 36-year-old blocking TE in Lewis.

[PeaveyFury]

That trade for Mack really screwed them. They put all their eggs in the Mitch basket and the basket broke.

 

A really good point. I wonder how many Packer fans can look back at how that worked out for Chicago and still wish that the Packers had made that deal. Green Bay was basically able to rebuild the roster by using the picks they didn't give up for Mack and STILL got a disruptive OLB in Z. Chicago has basically bled talent over the past three years and hasn't had resources to fix their growing list of holes.

 

Mack is a fantastic defensive player, but when you surround him with meh, the results are meh.

[homer]

Mack was VERY good his first year in Chicago and been just good since then. I think he's definitely declined the last two years.

[CheezWizHed]

(7) Bears at (2) Saints, 4:40 p.m. ET (CBS/Nickelodeon/Amazon Prime)

 

Any word who the Nickelodeon broadcast crew will be?

 

I'll guess Rex Ryan & Dan Schneider.

 

I've got my money on Linda Ellerbee and Mike O'Malley.

 

Ren and Stimpy with Dora the Explorer and Diego on the SAP channel.

 

Personally, I just found it amusing (and appropriate) that the Bears can watch their team on Nickelodeon...

[HiAndTight]

Mack was VERY good his first year in Chicago and been just good since then. I think he's definitely declined the last two years.

 

This was actually HIS best year in Chicago.

 

He was the top-ranked edge player in the NFL and had his highest grade during his time in Chicago. His PFF grade this year was 92.3.

For a point of reference, Z's grade was 76.7.

 

TJ Watt was second. Mack was better both vs the run and as an edge rusher.

 

The problem with that franchise is NOT Mack. If they just don't trade up for Trubisky, they've got 3 or 4 more 2nd and 3rd round picks. If they take the right QB, then they're probably in the position the Chiefs are right now and people are talking about how their trade for Mack helped put them over the top. Even if they JUST don't trade up for Trubisky, they've got 4 more chances to draft young talent.

[homer]

I don't know how PFF grades but I have a hard time understanding how he was graded higher this year than the year he led the league with 16 sacks and 23 tackles for loss.

[Fear The Chorizo]

It's not just the draft capital the Bears gave up to land Mack, it's also the huge contract they had to give him in order to justify giving up that much draft capital so he stayed on the Bears' roster longterm that really hamstrung the organization. In reality it's a mix of that trade and their decision to move up in the draft to get Trubisky instead of Watson or Mahomes that has them in no-man's land. They tried to build a contender using the old Seahawk model of an expensive juggernaut defense coupled with a good QB on a rookie deal - they needed Trubisky to be their version of Russel Wilson and he just isn't that guy.

 

Moving forward, the Bears still have question marks at QB and because of that they've had to continue throwing money at their defense to try and keep it elite - because the offensive improvement to offset talent loss on defense from cap problems just hasn't happened.

[homer]

And they may very well lose their best wide receiver to free agency. In short, the Bears still suck.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't know how PFF grades but I have a hard time understanding how he was graded higher this year than the year he led the league with 16 sacks and 23 tackles for loss.

 

I think he meant his best year in Chicago, but PFF literally records every play. They note things like a perfect throw that a WR dropped, a player who didn't make a tackle, but absorbed a double team to free up a LB, etc. It's a much more in depth system than just picking out stats and dividing it by snaps or something. They have a staff of roughly 600 people that does this. If a safety gets roasted on a deep pass in which a cornerback clearly blew an assignment, they may rate the safety a 0 for the play, rather than -2 (everything is graded -2 to +2).

 

All this to say that there are major flaws with just looking at TFL and Sacks and determining a player's value when someone like Mack has 900 snaps a year.