NFL Playoffs 2010 Are Here!

Saints over Seahawks by 14
Colts over Jets by 7
Ravens over Chiefs by 3
Eagles over Packers by 7

 

Saints over Seahawks
Jets over Colts
Ravens over Chiefs
Packers over Eagles

 

Colts over Jets/ Jets have been exposed.
Chiefs over Ravens. KC isn't playing the AFC West
Eagles over Packers - in a close one, the secondary won't hold up all night for the Pack.
Saints over Seahawks in one closer than people might think. Tempted to go the other way. saints are banged up

 

Saints @ Seahawks - Saints by 21+
Jets @ Colts - Jets by 3

Ravens @ Chiefs - Ravens by 14
Packers @ Eagles - Packers by 10

 

I can't believe Seattle beat the saints. Stunning a 7 and 9 team not only making playoffs, but winning a game.

 

Not surprised at all. Saints were banged up at some key spots and no Super Bowl champ has won a playoff game in a few years. Plus, Seattle is capable of putting together four decent quarters and NO is capable of....well, allowing other teams to do so.

 

I was just surprised any team out of the NFC west won a game. Seattle has some good young receivers (even though Deon Butler got hurt earlier in the season). Brees wasn't in the same form this year as he was last year that is for sure.

 

Not even a little surprised, Tom? I get that they were banged up, but to allow 41 points to the 7-9 Seahawks is surprising.

I was really annoyed that the Bears lost to Seattle this season, but now, I'm glad they did, because the idiots on ESPN will spend the week talking up how Seattle's going to do this and that because of that game. The Bears aren't giving up 41 points to that team. The Bears have been getting little respect from the media all season, which is just the way I like it.

Here are my divisional round picks.

Chicago over Seattle
Atlanta over Green Bay
Baltimore over Pittsburgh
New England over New York

 

You missed... Ravens were your ownly good pick.

Weird how playoffs work.

Go Pack!

 

I hate to say it but I think this is the patriots super bowl to lose. They just look very dominant right now.

 

I think it is the entire AFC's to lose, no matter who its representative will be.

 

The Bears have lived a charmed existence in 2010, and now they get to play the Seahawks - lady luck gives them another break!

The Bears might be the 3rd best team in their own division behind the Packers and the Lions.

 

I don't know, the Falcons have looked good all year.

 

They've played a relatively weak schedule. Don't get me wrong - they are a good team, but I don't think they are any better than the 4 teams left in the AFC. Maybe the Ravens, but I doubt they will win the AFC (they are the weakest of the 4 remaining AFC teams).

This week's game of the Packers-Falcons is the rightful NFC championship game. The Seahawks and Bears are pretenders pure and simple.

 

Oh, they sure have been charmed. Those 11 wins, including wins over the Iggles and Jets, were completely lucky.

Yep, the Packers and Liedowns are so much better than the Bears that they both won more games. Oh, wait.

You'll not get one [offensive word snipped] Bears fan that thinks this is a great team. The only thing that I really, really like about this team is that they keep playing their guts out for the full 60 minutes. You couldn't always say that about past Bears teams. There weren't many Bears fans that thought Lovie Smith was capable of making this a playoff team. Most of us, going into the season, thought Martz and Cutler were doomed to fall on their face. In fact, most of us think the Bears are going to lose because their offensive line isn't very good.

But, to say that the Bears are the 3rd best team in their own division is utter nonsense.

 

I knew you would like my comment, cc!

Fact is, the Lions beat the Bears in week 1 and were very close to beating them the other time (without Stafford). Let me clarify - with Stafford, the Lions are better than the Bears. The Lions also lost other close games during the season (one against the Jets), all without Stafford. They could have easily been 10-6 this year.

The Pack were also hurt by injuries this year.

When healthy, the Pack are #1, the Lions are #2, and the Bears are a close #3 in the division.

Just wait till next year!

 

I don't disagree about week 1. Instead of just tucking the ball away, Calvin Johnson wanted to have his "look at me" moment of celebration instead of making sure he had the catch.

But, we don't judge teams in the NFL based on who they should have on the field. We judge teams in the NFL based on who actually plays. If the Bears had a healthy Brian Urlacher in 2009, they would have been a better team, but the fact is that they didn't have a healthy Brian Urlacher and they weren't a good team.

Injuries are a part of the game. The Bears have had great success in part because of the lack of injuries to their key players. But, you can't sit here looking at what might have been and say that you know with certainty who's #1, #2 and #3 in the division. We have to look at things the way they are, not the way we want them to be.

 

Yep injuries affect the game just as much as the actual plays and calling of the game. Sometimes a call isn't fair, sometimes it isn't fair that you have certain players hurt. It's all a part of the game. Otherwise all games would be played on paper.

 

cc, your argument seems to be that a team's W-L record is the only factor to consider on who is the better team. Then why have playoffs? We should just have the Pats and Falcons play in the Super Bowl since they had the two best records, and that's the only thing that matters in determining who the best teams are.