AFC Playoff Discussion

[hurleyfor3]

Patriots: Lousy passing defense.
Ravens: Very shaky on the road. Joe Flacco sucks.
Steelers: Too many turnovers and injuries. Offense goes from great one game to stinky the next.
Texans: They mostly took care of business... back when they had a quarterback.
Broncos: Tebow unproven in playoffs and hasn't beaten an actual good team.
Bengals: No wins against good teams (0-5 vs. Pit, Balt, SF and Hou).
Raiders: Someone help me, what exactly do they do well? Could it be Ewing Theory with Al Davis?
Jets: They're the Jets. As hard as they try every once in a while, they haven't mattered since Joe Namath was there. They're football's Cubs.

Is that about right? When in doubt the best plan is to pick the teams with momentum, which seems to favor the Ravens and Pats. And if that game happens at Foxboro it's hard to pick against the Pats, no?

[rthomas]

The ONLY problem with the Steelers is injuries. Otherwise they would be undefeated. If Ben gets healthy, the O line gets healthy and the D gets healthy, just LOOK out! You do not want to play the Steelers IF they get healthy.

[tommy]

The ONLY problem with the Steelers is injuries. Otherwise they would be undefeated. If Ben gets healthy, the O line gets healthy and the D gets healthy, just LOOK out! You do not want to play the Steelers IF they get healthy.

Sounds like a lot of if's to me, like about 3/4 of the team. And at this time of year, especially if you don't get a bye, guys have a real hard time getting healthy. If they're hurt at week 16-17, they usually stay hurt.

[rthomas]

Sounds like a lot of if's to me, like about 3/4 of the team.

The biggest IF might be IF this week, Cincinnati beats Baltimore and Pittsburgh beats Cleveland, and even better IF New England also loses to Buffalo.

It's great to have meaningful games on Week 17.

[hurleyfor3]

As a Steelers fan my hopes aren't high. Even many of the games they've won have been offensive stinkers, especially when they've been on national teevee. They'll probably draw Denver in the first round, though, which is the one team you can afford to lay an egg against offensively.

[rthomas]

As a Steelers fan my hopes aren't high. Even many of the games they've won have been offensive stinkers, especially when they've been on national teevee.

Really? I've been watching Pittsburgh for a long time and I think they have as good a chance as any year in the Roethlisberger era. As long as Ben gets healthy. The receivers are the best they have had in the Roethlisberger era. The running game is good enough. And they still have the #1 D and it is getting healthy.

[hurleyfor3]

Really? I've been watching Pittsburgh for a long time and I think they have as good a chance as any year in the Roethlisberger era. As long as Ben gets healthy. The receivers are the best they have had in the Roethlisberger era. The running game is good enough. And they still have the #1 D and it is getting healthy.

What was the first Steeler game I attended... this one. Statistically it was a pretty historic game.

It's funny, I'm more optimistic when I think of the Steelers' potential specific matchups than when I think of their performance in general. They can beat everyone else in the field, and seem to be in better position to do so now against the couple of opponents they've lost to earlier (Houston and Baltimore). But I'd really, really like a potential Baltimore game to be at Heinz Field.

Also, the Steelers' recent Super Bowl years have featured big-play defenses -- lots of interception returns for touchdowns and that kind of thing. For whatever reason I don't feel the defense has been as opportunistic this year.

[moonpie23]

patriots - history of being fined heavily for cheating...

[Turk]

What was the first Steeler game I attended... this one. Statistically it was a pretty historic game.

It's funny, I'm more optimistic when I think of the Steelers' potential specific matchups than when I think of their performance in general. They can beat everyone else in the field, and seem to be in better position to do so now against the couple of opponents they've lost to earlier (Houston and Baltimore). But I'd really, really like a potential Baltimore game to be at Heinz Field.

Also, the Steelers' recent Super Bowl years have featured big-play defenses -- lots of interception returns for touchdowns and that kind of thing. For whatever reason I don't feel the defense has been as opportunistic this year.

Absolutely right - the Steelers can beat everyone else, but it seems to me they can play up or down to the level of the competition (excluding the stinker vs. Balt in the opener). That makes me nervous - "playing just well enough to win" usually doesn't...

Steelers defense has been stingy (near the top in fewest yards and points as usual) but not opportunistic. Steelers (and New Orleans!!) are tied with fewest takeaways at 14. Steelers turnovers are middle of the pack at 22, for net difference of -8. Only teams worse are Indy, Denver, Arizona, Beagles, Bucs, Washington...

Too bad the Balt at Cincy game is at 4:00, same time as Steelers. If the Balt game was at 1PM, Steelers would know whether to rest the starters. They don't have a choice but to play anyone who can play.

Getting the bye is a huge advantage, but I'd rather the Steelers go to Oakland rather than deal with Mile High and all the Tebowmania nonsense...

[UrinalCake]

As a Ravens fan I wouldn't say that Flacco "sucks," but I also don't consider him a superbowl-caliber QB. He's very inconsistent, much like the entire team. But he's get plenty of weapons around him between Rice, Torrey Smith, Boldin, and the defense which can still be dominant when it feels so inclined. They REALLY need to win this week and for the Patriots to lose so they can get home field advantage, because their play on the road has been abysmal.

I would love to see the AFC come down to another showdown between the Ravens and Steelers.

[Turk]

As a Steelers fan who remembers the horrors of Neil O'Donnell and Kordell Stewart, you could do a lot worse than Flacco. He's not a superstar; perhaps his ceiling is 2nd team all-pro or maybe an alternate. But he's definitely better than a number of schmoes who took their teams to the Supe (or tagged along for the ride), such as Grossman, Hasselbeck, Delhomme (!!!), Brad Johnson, etc. Flacco sure looked rock-solid on the long game-winning drive vs. the Steelers in Pittsburgh. (of course, the Steelers never hit him, so that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it...)

With a couple of name changes, your quote about the Ravens would fit the Steelers perfectly. Try this: "He's very inconsistent, much like the entire team. But he's get plenty of weapons around him between Wallace, Brown, Mendenhall, and the defense which can still be dominant when it feels so inclined. They REALLY need to win this week and for the Ravens to lose so they can get home field advantage, because their play on the road has been abysmal..."

[JasonEvans]

I dunno how accurate it is compared to many other sites, but on this site, the current odds to win the AFC are--

Pats 11/10
Ravens 9/4
Steelers 7/2
Texans 16/1
Bengals 25/1
Broncos 25/1

I must say, I am a bit surprised the Pats are almost an even money pick. If, as expected, the Steelers beat the Broncos and the Texans beat the Bengals, the Pats would play the Steelers in the 2nd round. That is a tough matchup.

I just don't think the Pats were THAT dominant to make them an 11/10 pick. That means that if you wagered $100 on them, you would only win $110. And they have to win 2 games to get that payout. Seems like a bad bet to me.

Also worth noting that even though the Pats are a HUGE favorite to win the AFC, they are just a 4-1 pick to win the Super Bowl, behind the Packers (at 9-5) and almost behind the Saints (at 9-2). That tells you how much the oddsmakers think of the top of the NFC compared to the top of the AFC.

-Jason "the Ravens at 8-1 to win the Super Bowl seems like a pretty good bet" Evans

[hurleyfor3]

I dunno how accurate it is compared to many other sites, but on this site, the current odds to win the AFC are--

Pats 11/10
Ravens 9/4
Steelers 7/2
Texans 16/1
Bengals 25/1
Broncos 25/1

The five teams other than the pats add up to .66566. IOW, the field is -150 (or 1/2) to make it to the Super Bowl against the Pats. I'd take that bet.

[tommy]

I dunno how accurate it is compared to many other sites, but on this site, the current odds to win the AFC are--

Pats 11/10
Ravens 9/4
Steelers 7/2
Texans 16/1
Bengals 25/1
Broncos 25/1

I must say, I am a bit surprised the Pats are almost an even money pick. If, as expected, the Steelers beat the Broncos and the Texans beat the Bengals, the Pats would play the Steelers in the 2nd round. That is a tough matchup.

I just don't think the Pats were THAT dominant to make them an 11/10 pick. That means that if you wagered $100 on them, you would only win $110. And they have to win 2 games to get that payout. Seems like a bad bet to me.

Also worth noting that even though the Pats are a HUGE favorite to win the AFC, they are just a 4-1 pick to win the Super Bowl, behind the Packers (at 9-5) and almost behind the Saints (at 9-2). That tells you how much the oddsmakers think of the top of the NFC compared to the top of the AFC.

-Jason "the Ravens at 8-1 to win the Super Bowl seems like a pretty good bet" Evans

I wonder if that number on the Steelers was pre- or post- the news on Mendenhall being lost for the year with an ACL. Pretty significant blow. Mwelde Moore has been a good fill-in guy, but is he ready to be the #1 guy, on the road, in the playoffs?

[Zeke]

Im lookin forward to seeing what Tebow will do with the Steelers defense.

[sagegrouse]

Im lookin forward to seeing what Tebow will do with the Steelers defense.

Not looking good here in the Rocky Mountains. Sunday Tebow was something like 6 of 22 for 65 whole yards against KC at home and now he gets the Steelers. I wonder if any QB ever had negative yardage for a game?

sage

[UrinalCake]

Ravens-Pats would also be a great game. Two years ago the Ravens dismantled them, leading many to suggest that the Pats dynasty was over and they should blow up their team and rebuild. If a rematch happens they'll be eager for payback and to show that they're not done.

I don't get the new playoff format. New England gets to play the lowest remaining seed in the AFC while Baltimore gets to play the higher. That makes sense, they want to protect the better team in the case of an upset. But the seedings are based on standings rather than record, so they're largely irrelevant:

3. Houston (10-6)
4. Denver (8-8)
5. Pittsburgh (12-4)
6. Cincinnati (9-7)

So if Denver and Cincinnati win, then New England plays Cincinnati even though they have a better record? And why does Denver get to host Pittsburgh even though they are four games worse than them? (That was rhetorical - I know it's because they won their division, but it seems like the attempts at making things "fair" are somewhat half-baked)

[hurleyfor3]

And why does Denver get to host Pittsburgh even though they are four games worse than them?

Pay attention; it's so I can go to the game and root for the Stillers.

[Matches]

So if Denver and Cincinnati win, then New England plays Cincinnati even though they have a better record? And why does Denver get to host Pittsburgh even though they are four games worse than them? (That was rhetorical - I know it's because they won their division, but it seems like the attempts at making things "fair" are somewhat half-baked)

Same problem as last year, with New Orleans having to travel to Seattle. I'm cool with the division winners getting in regardless of record, but they don't need to be guaranteed a home game. Steelers absolutely should be hosting Denver, rather than the reverse.

[snowdenscold]

So are you saying the seeding should be done purely based on record? That is, 4 division winners are still guaranteed spots, but they might end up the 5th or 6th seed?

Not sure what rules they would put in place for tie-breaks, but it seems reasonable.