2009 NFL Playoffs

[NEW.ERA]

Watch it be a 27-24 type game.

[BaltimoreFan]

Wow, great game by the Ravens. They didn't beat themselves with penalties. They also converted when they needed to for the most part (I think some of the FGs should have been TDs, but oh well). I also have to give Frank Walker credit. I've been blasting him lately, but he really had a great game. Going into Indy next week feels alot like how I felt going into this game. I like the Ravens chances (the Colts should be cold, while were hot), but I don't like the history (they always beat us). I'm just going to go into the game expecting to lose again.

I'd like to here an explanation of the non challenge on the punt muff. Harbaugh was on the other side of the field so he couldn't see well enough to know to challenge. But someone should have radio'd to him.

Also, Joe Flacco had a QB rating of 10.0, has there ever been a QB to win a playoff game with a lower one?

[VandyDelphia Mike]

Looks like they're about to wipe the Lions off of a record.

Still the highest scoring NFL playoff game to end after 60 minutes.

[infrared41]

Awesome game

I disagree. It was a high scoring game that was decided in OT because both defenses sucked beyond description. It was not a "good" game in any way. It was ridiculous. It was an arcade game.

I was born in the Madden generation. If any game gets to be 51-45 then it is officially awesome, no questions asked.

lol, I do see where you're coming from. Pretty obvious that Green Bay left their defense in Wisconsin, & Arizona's went back to Phoenix suburbs after the first half. The quality of the game was bad, but damned if it wasn't entertaining.

Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

I never said it wasn't entertaining. I said it wasn't good. There's a difference. The reason it was entertaining was due to the fact that there was no quality of play on defense. It was OK to watch but it was at no time anything other than ridiculous.By the midway point of the third quarter we all knew that the outcome of the game was going to be determined by who had the ball last. That's not good football. The fact that it was decided in OT on the first decent defensive play either team had made just added to the overall absurdity of the game.

[infrared41]

Watch it be a 27-24 type game.

I sure hope so.

[Jigga]

Awesome game

I disagree. It was a high scoring game that was decided in OT because both defenses sucked beyond description. It was not a "good" game in any way. It was ridiculous. It was an arcade game.

I was born in the Madden generation. If any game gets to be 51-45 then it is officially awesome, no questions asked.

lol, I do see where you're coming from. Pretty obvious that Green Bay left their defense in Wisconsin, & Arizona's went back to Phoenix suburbs after the first half. The quality of the game was bad, but damned if it wasn't entertaining.

Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

I never said it wasn't entertaining. I said it wasn't good. There's a difference. The reason it was entertaining was due to the fact that there was no quality of play on defense. It was OK to watch but it was at no time anything other than ridiculous.By the midway point of the third quarter we all knew that the outcome of the game was going to be determined by who had the ball last. That's not good football. The fact that it was decided in OT on the first decent defensive play either team had made just added to the overall absurdity of the game.

It was still light years better than every single bowl game this year combined.

[rentz]

It's strange, most of the comments I've read from Packers fans on other websites seem to be complaining about the refs not calling the tuck rule on the last play of the game. Is there any reason to think that the tuck rule would have changed it? The ball never touched the ground.

Also, I'm curious what technically would have happened had the refs caught the facemask on Rodgers that last play. Would the TD have counted? Would the Cardinals have to start 15 yards back? Would the Packers retain possession?

Really a poorly officiated game. Not in a biased way, as there were frustrating non-calls and questionable penalties for both sides, but just generally poor overall. And was it just me, or were the refs hatin' on Michael Adams or what? And then he strips the ball that ultimately lead to the winning touchdown.

Great game. Bizarre, ridiculous, flagrant display of defensive ineptitude yes, but a great game nonetheless . Perhaps I'm not a good football fan but that was one of the few non-Dolphins games a watched the entirety of.

[STL FANATIC]

The only thing the Tuck Rule should have done is turn it from a fumble recovery to an interception. Now, if the facemask occurred while the ball was out (post-fumble/throw, pre-recovery/intereception), and they had called it, I suppose the Tuck Rule could have resulted in the penalty being called while the Packers still had possession, therefore enabling them to maintain possession and gain 15 yards and a First Down.

[Gary]

It's strange, most of the comments I've read from Packers fans on other websites seem to be complaining about the refs not calling the tuck rule on the last play of the game. Is there any reason to think that the tuck rule would have changed it? The ball never touched the ground.

Also, I'm curious what technically would have happened had the refs caught the facemask on Rodgers that last play. Would the TD have counted? Would the Cardinals have to start 15 yards back? Would the Packers retain possession?

Really a poorly officiated game. Not in a biased way, as there were frustrating non-calls and questionable penalties for both sides, but just generally poor overall. And was it just me, or were the refs hatin' on Michael Adams or what? And then he strips the ball that ultimately lead to the winning touchdown.

Great game. Bizarre, ridiculous, flagrant display of defensive ineptitude yes, but a great game nonetheless . Perhaps I'm not a good football fan but that was one of the few non-Dolphins games a watched the entirety of.

Wow, reading the scout.com Packers forum and they just sound so bitter and plain poor losers. Michael Adams was commited with a penalty for just walking, that's how much he was penalized during the game.

[infrared41]

It was still light years better than every single bowl game this year combined.

That's the most hilarious post you've made in quite a while. Oh wait, you're not kidding are you?

[NEW.ERA]

Refs or not that game should have never come down to that. If the Packers played defense liked they had all season (Outside of the Steeler game) we wouldn't have had a problem.

Now setting up my Divisional Round picks I was 2-2 on Wild Card Weekend.

New Orleans 28 Arizona 23

Indianapolis 31 Baltimore 17

Minnesota 24 Dallas 21

San Diego 34 NY Jets 15

[Quillz]

I honestly think Arizona can beat New Orleans. As good as the Saints were all season long, I feel they peaked too early, and losses to the Cowboys and Bucs have shown that. Meanwhile, the Cards seem to have plenty of offense, and their defense is... decent, I suppose. If Warner can keep his accuracy up, the Cards have a good chance against the Saints, I think.

[Quillz]

Awesome game

I disagree. It was a high scoring game that was decided in OT because both defenses sucked beyond description. It was not a "good" game in any way. It was ridiculous. It was an arcade game.

I was born in the Madden generation. If any game gets to be 51-45 then it is officially awesome, no questions asked.

lol, I do see where you're coming from. Pretty obvious that Green Bay left their defense in Wisconsin, & Arizona's went back to Phoenix suburbs after the first half. The quality of the game was bad, but damned if it wasn't entertaining.

Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

I never said it wasn't entertaining. I said it wasn't good. There's a difference. The reason it was entertaining was due to the fact that there was no quality of play on defense. It was OK to watch but it was at no time anything other than ridiculous.By the midway point of the third quarter we all knew that the outcome of the game was going to be determined by who had the ball last. That's not good football. The fact that it was decided in OT on the first decent defensive play either team had made just added to the overall absurdity of the game.

I think as far as the NFL is concerned, though, they'd prefer drawn-out offensive battles like what we saw today. People who watch games on TV typically like games with lots of touchdowns, the score going back and forth, overtime, etc. Offensive games are just more exciting to watch than defensive games, I think.

Wasn't there a Bills-Browns game during the regular season were the final score was 7-6 or something?

[Saintsfan]

Some wildcard weekend thoughts

• The Bengals defeat shows the importance of momentum going into the playoffs, Jets had it, Bengals didn't
  
• The ravens showed that having an elite QB is not the only way to win in the playoffs
  
• Talk of the demise of the Patriots may yet prove to be a little early. But they do need some improvements, anyone want to bet against Bellichick making them?
  
• I hate the idea of an instant classic. A classic is a game people talk about years after it has been played. How can we tell if the Packers Cardinals game will have that kind of legacy?
  
• The Cowboys could have a real shot at the Superbowl. The Vikings may have the same problem the Bengals had, and then the Saints or Cardinals? Neither side will have the Cowboys quaking in there boots.
  
• Is it just me, or do almost all of the wildcard winners have a legitimate shot at reaching the Championship games? Possibly only the Ravens against the Colts would start as big underdogs.
  

[DDR]

If Kurt Warner retires, I'm concerned about Larry Fitzgerald's fantasy value next year. I mean, I have to keep him, but I'd be a whole lot happier about it if Matt Leinart didn't suck so thoroughly. I hope they address getting a veteran QB in there in the offseason.

[IceCap]

The Bengals defeat shows the importance of momentum going into the playoffs, Jets had it, Bengals didn't

I don't think momentum had anything to do with it. Had that been the case the Jets would have won handily. The Bengals, however, put up a fight and dominated the game in parts. This was just a case of the Jets outplaying the Bengals. I don't think momentum factored into the equation.

The ravens showed that having an elite QB is not the only way to win in the playoffs

They proved this years ago when they won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer under centre.

Talk of the demise of the Patriots may yet prove to be a little early. But they do need some improvements, anyone want to bet against Bellichick making them?

The Patriots' fall from elite status may not have happened just yet, but their dynasty years are long gone.

I hate the idea of an instant classic. A classic is a game people talk about years after it has been played. How can we tell if the Packers Cardinals game will have that kind of legacy?

You can tell. Just like you could tell Super Bowl XLII was going to be an instant classic. The term is used to much, but there are times when it is appropriate.

The Cowboys could have a real shot at the Superbowl. The Vikings may have the same problem the Bengals had, and then the Saints or Cardinals? Neither side will have the Cowboys quaking in there boots.

They have a real shot at the NFC Championship, but I think there are a couple of teams in the AFC that could give the Cowboys a real fight.

Is it just me, or do almost all of the wildcard winners have a legitimate shot at reaching the Championship games? Possibly only the Ravens against the Colts would start as big underdogs.

Well there are only two Wild Card teams left, the Jets and Ravens. And you say the Ravens are the only ones going in as clear underdogs, so by your own analysis only 50% of the Wild Card teams have a shot at reaching a Conference Championship game. Hardly "almost or all of the wild card teams."

On top of that, I would say the Jets are clear underdogs against the Chargers.

[Harmening]

So true. Cleveland fans got nothing else to do except root against divisional opponents in the playoffs. Enjoy last place losers, you'll be there awhile. I'll take a first round playoff defeat over 5-11 any year.

Bengals fans should know a lot about being in last place for awhile. After all they've spent the better part of the last 20 year there.

OK. Enough already. There's nothing cool or funny about fans of a last place team making fun of a first place team losing a playoff game. It makes you look bitter and small. McCarthy and Rams80 were exactly right. Come back and talk all you want when The Browns have done something. Until then, stop making the rest of us look bad. It's pathetic.

I'll stop, but I get called bitter for calling it back in Nov and being right?

Calling what back in November? That they were the "same old Bungles"? They won 10 games through a lot of adversity and went to the playoffs. I wouldn't call that the "same old Bungles".

So you didn't call squat, as you were totally wrong.

[Saintsfan]

The Bengals defeat shows the importance of momentum going into the playoffs, Jets had it, Bengals didn't

I don't think momentum had anything to do with it. Had that been the case the Jets would have won handily. The Bengals, however, put up a fight and dominated the game in parts. This was just a case of the Jets outplaying the Bengals. I don't think momentum factored into the equation.

The ravens showed that having an elite QB is not the only way to win in the playoffs

They proved this years ago when they won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer under centre.

Talk of the demise of the Patriots may yet prove to be a little early. But they do need some improvements, anyone want to bet against Bellichick making them?

The Patriots' fall from elite status may not have happened just yet, but their dynasty years are long gone.

I hate the idea of an instant classic. A classic is a game people talk about years after it has been played. How can we tell if the Packers Cardinals game will have that kind of legacy?

You can tell. Just like you could tell Super Bowl XLII was going to be an instant classic. The term is used to much, but there are times when it is appropriate.

The Cowboys could have a real shot at the Superbowl. The Vikings may have the same problem the Bengals had, and then the Saints or Cardinals? Neither side will have the Cowboys quaking in there boots.

They have a real shot at the NFC Championship, but I think there are a couple of teams in the AFC that could give the Cowboys a real fight.

Is it just me, or do almost all of the wildcard winners have a legitimate shot at reaching the Championship games? Possibly only the Ravens against the Colts would start as big underdogs.

Well there are only two Wild Card teams left, the Jets and Ravens. And you say the Ravens are the only ones going in as clear underdogs, so by your own analysis only 50% of the Wild Card teams have a shot at reaching a Conference Championship game. Hardly "almost or all of the wild card teams."

On top of that, I would say the Jets are clear underdogs against the Chargers.

I think that if the Bengals had come into that game with more confidence, they may have gotten out of the tough parts of that game more succesfully. For me there weak end to the season played a big part in that defeat.

My point isn't that a game isn't good or great, but the whole concept of an 'instant classic' just isn't right. A classic is a judgement for history to write. Are people going to talk about a particular game in 10 or 20 or 30 years? Who can tell. Not all great games are 'classics'.

And I obviously meant 'wildcard round winners' rather than 'wildcard winners'. I think that certainly on the NFC side, both the Cardinals and the Cowboys stand a good choice. I think that the Jets have a decent shot against the Chargers, given the Chargers 'bye' week and the Jets good run. The Colts, I would make heavy favourites. I think the Ravens have a shot against the Colts, but I just feel they have been a touch too inconsistent down the stretch to be any other than underdogs.

[IceCap]

I think that if the Bengals had come into that game with more confidence, they may have gotten out of the tough parts of that game more succesfully. For me there weak end to the season played a big part in that defeat.

Perhaps, but in my opinion the Jets would have steamrolled the Bengals had it been all about the momentum.

My point isn't that a game isn't good or great, but the whole concept of an 'instant classic' just isn't right. A classic is a judgement for history to write. Are people going to talk about a particular game in 10 or 20 or 30 years? Who can tell. Not all great games are 'classics'.

A classic or historic account is indeed something for history to decide. That being said, sometimes it's pretty obvious to predict what history will decide upon.

And I obviously meant 'wildcard round winners' rather than 'wildcard winners'. I think that certainly on the NFC side, both the Cardinals and the Cowboys stand a good choice. I think that the Jets have a decent shot against the Chargers, given the Chargers 'bye' week and the Jets good run. The Colts, I would make heavy favourites. I think the Ravens have a shot against the Colts, but I just feel they have been a touch too inconsistent down the stretch to be any other than underdogs.

I wouldn't say you "obviously" meant the Wild Card round winners, but I apologize for the misunderstanding non-the-less.

Anyway, for someone who's all about the momentum I'm surprised you didn't pick up on the fact the Colts rested their starters for the last two weeks of the playoffs while the Chargers only did so in the last week. Also, the Chargers ended the season winning, whereas the Colts ended the season on a two game losing streak. So as far as momentum goes, I would say the Charges have just as much, if not more, going into their game against the Jets as the Colts have going into their game against the Ravens.

I would say both the Chargers and the Colts are the clear favourites, but of both underdog teams, I would say the Ravens have the best chance at an upset, given that the Colts seem more "cold."

[infrared41]

Awesome game

I disagree. It was a high scoring game that was decided in OT because both defenses sucked beyond description. It was not a "good" game in any way. It was ridiculous. It was an arcade game.

I was born in the Madden generation. If any game gets to be 51-45 then it is officially awesome, no questions asked.

lol, I do see where you're coming from. Pretty obvious that Green Bay left their defense in Wisconsin, & Arizona's went back to Phoenix suburbs after the first half. The quality of the game was bad, but damned if it wasn't entertaining.

Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

I never said it wasn't entertaining. I said it wasn't good. There's a difference. The reason it was entertaining was due to the fact that there was no quality of play on defense. It was OK to watch but it was at no time anything other than ridiculous.By the midway point of the third quarter we all knew that the outcome of the game was going to be determined by who had the ball last. That's not good football. The fact that it was decided in OT on the first decent defensive play either team had made just added to the overall absurdity of the game.

I think as far as the NFL is concerned, though, they'd prefer drawn-out offensive battles like what we saw today. People who watch games on TV typically like games with lots of touchdowns, the score going back and forth, overtime, etc. Offensive games are just more exciting to watch than defensive games, I think.

Wasn't there a Bills-Browns game during the regular season were the final score was 7-6 or something?

The Browns - Bills game was 6-3. It was not a good game either. It was like watching paint dry.

I am assuming by "people who watch games on TV" you mean casual fans. You realize of course that most hardcore NFL fans "watch games on TV" too right? In any case, I am fully aware of the concept but thanks anyway for filling me in. If you read my post you'll notice that a.) I never said the game wasn't entertaining or exciting and b.) I never mentioned a "defensive battle." What I said was it wasn't a "good" game and by that I meant the quality of play on defense was lousy. Wondering if a team was going to score in that game had all the suspense of wondering if you're going to score on a date with a hooker.

Finally, I don't care what The NFL would rather have.