It'd be nice to say that the Browns' current three-game winning streak to close out the season was one that put us in position to make the postseason, but our record still stands at a depressing 4-11. With the Cincinnati Bengals clinching the AFC North today with their late victory over the Kansas City Chiefs, the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Baltimore Ravens are now fighting for wildcard spots.
The Steelers kept their season alive with a 23-20 win over the Ravens today, but despite having the same record, the Ravens would make the playoffs over Pittsburgh if the season ended today. Why? In essence, it comes down to the fact that the Ravens beat the Browns twice, while the Steelers only beat us once.
There are a lot of playoff scenarios to go through concerning the Ravens and the Steelers, but I'll try to go over the most basic ones. Out of the 16 NFL games next week, 10 of them should have playoff implications (that could change to 8 if the Vikings lose on Monday Night to the Bears). Here they are:
- Pittsburgh Steelers (8-7) vs. Miami Dolphins (7-8): The Steelers are fighting for a wildcard spot in the AFC, but the Dolphins are practically eliminated from contention. With a win, the Steelers need help to make the playoffs. Their best way of getting in would be if the following three things happen: (1) Pittsburgh wins, (2) Houston loses to New England, and (3) either Baltimore or the Jets lose their games.
A lot is riding on what the Texans do next week, go Matt Schaub! There is an alternate scenario where Pittsburgh and Houston can both make it, but Denver, Baltimore, and the Jets would all have to lose. Miami, according to NBC, can get in if everyone else loses basically, and even then I don't see how they get in (but I guess they would). That's a bonus in the sense that Miami has something to fight for against Pittsburgh.
- New England Patriots (10-5) vs. Houston Texans (8-7): Both of these teams have something to play for, but more so the Texans. Houston doesn't control their own destiny, but with some help there are a few scenarios that are beneficial to them. The Patriots will be fighting for the No. 3 seed, which creates the potential for them holding an extra home game down the road in the playoffs over a fourth seed.
- Philadelphia Eagles (11-4) vs. Dallas Cowboys (10-5): First and foremost, this game will determine the winner of the NFC East, so you'd better bet that both teams will be giving 110%. If the Vikings lose to the Bears on Monday, there is also a slim chance that the Eagles will be in contention for a first-round bye.
- Jacksonville Jaguars (7-8) vs. Cleveland Browns (4-11): What? Our game still has meaning? Technically, but not realistically. The only way the Jaguars can make the postseason is if they beat us and all five of the following teams lose: Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Denver, Houston, and the NY Jets. Fat chance, but let's end the Jaguars' hopes early anyway.
- Cincinnati Bengals (10-5) vs. New York Jets (8-7): When your game has meaning in Week 17, "You...Get...FLEXED." It was just announced that this game was moved to 8:20 PM on Sunday Night and will be the final game played in the regular season. The Bengals will already know heading into the game whether they can get the third seed or not depending on what the Patriots do. For the Jets, it's simple. If they win, they are IN.
The Jets "control their own destiny" toward becoming the fifth seed. I'd take the Jets in the playoffs over the Steelers and Ravens, but I also wouldn't enjoy seeing Braylon Edwards in the postseason. Plus, I don't see the Jets being competitive enough for the playoffs.
- New Orleans Saints (13-2) vs. Carolina Panthers (7-8): If the Vikings win their final two games and the Saints go on to lose their third straight game to close out the regular season, New Orleans would have a first-round bye but only the No. 2 seed, thus losing homefield advantage.
- New York Giants (8-7) vs. Minnesota Vikings (11-3): The Giants are eliminated and have no one to blame but themselves. The Vikings, depending on what the Saints do, could have a shot at the No. 1 seed in the NFC.
- Baltimore Ravens (8-7) vs. Oakland Raiders (5-10): Like the Jets, if the Ravens win, they are IN, and therefore "control their own destiny." The Raiders didn't play well against us, but after they've done well against teams like the Eagles and Broncos during the season, you never know. It's just hard to believe the Ravens defense will fall to Charlie Frye, JaMarcus Russell, or J.P. Losman. Maybe if Bruce Gradkowski comes back, they'll have a chance.
- Kansas City Chiefs (3-11) vs. Denver Broncos (8-7): The Broncos have blown it, plain and simple. Between all the teams competing for a wildcard spot though, they might be the best of the bunch when they are clicking on all cylinders. Their chances of making the playoffs are probably equal to the chances of the Steelers, but the fact remains that they still need help to get back in.
- Green Bay Packers (10-5) vs. Arizona Cardinals (10-5): The Cardinals could move up to the No. 3 seed with a win and a Eagles loss (they currently hold the No. 4 seed). The Packers, meanwhile are trying to secure the No. 5 seed. Right now, they hold the tiebreaker over the Cowboys since they beat them earlier this season. But, if the Eagles slip to a wildcard spot, I don't know if the Packers would be forced into the fifth or sixth seeds.
How do you guys see the wildcard picture turning out next week in the AFC? I think Baltimore will probably get in, but I'd love for there to be a scenario where Houston gets the other seed. For the Ravens to lose, let's cheer for Gradkowski getting healthy before the end of the week!
obvious statement alert: any situation that lets the ravens and steelers both out is okay by me. i guess it would be nice to finally see the texans get a playoff shot.
Dawg Nuts - December 27, 2009
The Jets will win due to the use of Ryan's magical tears...
SpecialBrownie - December 27, 2009
REC’d for realistic tear effects. I’d like to see this done to that Hines Ward crying picture.
Simmsinns - December 27, 2009
If the Bengals game has been moved to Sunday night, that means those of us who are stuck with WBNS in Columbus might get to see our first game in four weeks. Yay.
golanbatrac - December 27, 2009
Also, remember how the Colts resting their starters in Week 17 against the Titans basically allowed Tennessee to capture a playoff berth over the Browns?
It was a little different this year since the starters played into the third quarter for the Colts, but when they were taken out, it was clear that the Jets gained tons of momentum to quickly put the game out of reach. Just like that, the Jets are “win and in” next week, except this time the Colts’ decision didn’t screw the Browns; it could end up screwing the Steelers.
Chris Pokorny - December 28, 2009
I guess the point is that the Colts would have won if they had tried to the entire game. It definitely affects the outcome of the playoffs. The Colts probably are better off though if a team like the Jets makes the postseason.
Roger Dorn - December 28, 2009
It’s definitely different from what happened in 2007. It really seems the Colts tried to throw the game this year. They went from winning and controlling the game to losing.
An interesting comment mentioned in MMQB today: “How would we look at a team that threw away a game to get a higher draft pick? How is that dif than the Colts game today?”
They intentionally did not try to win the game. How is that different from shaving points or telling a hitter what pitch you are going to throw? How is that different from angling for draft position?
I hope the Competition Committee makes some changes to how these games play out. E.g., If during the final 4 games, a team pulls a starter in a game (unless due to injury) it loses, that player has to sit out a playoff game – or something like that.
Spidey - December 28, 2009
This is incorrect. Did they put forth their best effort to win? I don’t think so. But playing some backups at key positions does not mean they intentionally did not try to win.
It would be different if the team was deliberately trying to lose for their own competitive advantage. For example, losing a game to one team through extraordinary actions (such as running a fullback dive on 4th and 17 from your own 8-yard line in the 4th quarter of a close game, kneeling the ball on 4 consecutive downs while trailing by one score in the 4th quarter, etc.) to purposefully prevent another team from making the playoffs would be something for the competition committee to review.
Resting guys in the 2nd half of a week 16 game when they already have the #1 seed locked up? Hardly a punishable offense.
rolub - December 28, 2009
Agree.
Additionally, it isn’t “intentionally not trying to win”, it is “trying to win in the playoffs more than trying to win in the regular season”.
I personally would have taken the player vote and went with what they said, because there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence that could be spun either way as to what actually gives the team an advantage in the playoffs.
rufio - December 28, 2009
How is this not “intentionally not trying to win”? The Colts did not put forth their full effort to win. I don’t think there is any argument there. I used rather butchered English, but I wanted to be sure to avoid the message that the Colts tried to lose. They certainly took advantage of a situation to alter their performance. However, you want to put it, they “fixed the game”, “tanked the game”, “threw the game”, or “dumped the game”. They may not have been doing this for the purpose of gambling, but they did it.
The problem I have with tanking in sports is when other teams are directly affected by the result. If the Colts tanked to the Browns, I wouldn’t be upset. No other teams would be harmed. In this instance, the Colts tanking to the Jets negatively affected the playoff possibilities of other teams. That seems unfair and wrong – and changes the competitive nature of the game.
There are probably no rules that can control this. It happens, but it is still slimy. Heck, were 70,000 Indy fans wrong for booing them out of the stadium?
Spidey - December 28, 2009
As much as I despise Belichick, I give him credit for going for the perfect season.
When will the Colts learn that resting the final month just doesn’t help? The year they won the SB they played all the way through and didn’t get the bye.
Peyton Manning looked pissed when he was taken out. It was the one thing that Brady had that he didn’t, and he lost it. I feel bad for Peyton.
Bernie19Kosar - December 28, 2009
It sets them up for disappointment and second-guessing no matter how the season ends. If they fail to win the Super Bowl, do they wonder if the loss messed up their mojo?
If they win the Super Bowl, do they regret not achieving the perfect season?
Spidey - December 28, 2009
I think if they win one playoff game after resting then they are vindicated. It proves they were able to use the time off productively and still beat a team. The problem is that too often they have lost that first game after the bye. If they lose right after the bye this year, it will look horrible in hindsight.
Roger Dorn - December 28, 2009
Maybe they will not question losing their mojo if they win that first game. I just don’t see how taking 4 weeks off leading in to a game against a lesser opponent really helps their cause.
The likelihood and impact of losing a player in the final two games is far less than the overall likelihood and gain of “The Perfect Season”.
Spidey - December 28, 2009
I felt bad for Peyton, too. I’ve always liked him. But I respect him for not going and arguing with his coach about it…
emily522 - December 28, 2009
Someone get this man a dish! ASAP!
Bernie19Kosar - December 28, 2009
I have no idea how this got here.
Bernie19Kosar - December 28, 2009
You had me confused, like it was some inside joke.
Spidey - December 28, 2009
So Big Ben was quoted as saying that the Steelers are like the Kardiac Kids.
OH, HELL NO.
SpecialBrownie - December 28, 2009
I saw that and threw up in my mouth a little. …
johnnyphoenix - December 28, 2009
However, I do have to agree to a certain extent…he is kinda like a Kardiac Kid….except for the worthless piece of shit part.
johnnyphoenix - December 28, 2009
Oh, I heard that too!
emily522 - December 28, 2009
Sweet stache Ben.
Bernie19Kosar - December 28, 2009
So I am to root for Houston, Oakland, Miami, NYJ?
Also, does anyone know if our conditional pick for Braylon includes catches in the postseason? He is sitting at 41 right now, and we are aiming for 50, right?
rufio - December 28, 2009
I thought it was 55.
kwoog - December 28, 2009
Yea, I feel like I am being greedy but I want Balt, Pitt and Denver to all miss the playoffs in that order.
Roger Dorn - December 28, 2009
So the Jets and Texans would make the playoffs (I think) in that scenario. I approve of this.
DisplacedBuckeye - December 28, 2009
Sounds good to me. Maybe Braylon can drop a potentially game-winning pass in the playoffs!
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 28, 2009
Or make the catch and help the Browns out, but pull a DeSean Jackson and celebrate prematurely.
rufio - December 28, 2009
That’d be awesome.
SpecialBrownie - December 28, 2009
Perfection!
RelapsingDawgCatcher - December 28, 2009
As the Jets are the lesser of two evils here in NYC, I initially wanted them to nail down that final spot. Then I remembered #17 and his pretty smile. Eff that.
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 28, 2009
The Stealers still have life and a realistic scenario to get to the postseason. Bloody hell.
woodsmeister - December 28, 2009
Big ’Phins fan this weekend.
Les Fleurs Du Mal - December 28, 2009
you got that right!! Henne to Hartline!
Red-Right-88 - December 28, 2009
Texans deserve a shot in the playoffs, they have had krappy karma all year long losing on last minute missed/made kicks.
mackAttack5 - December 28, 2009
BTW Browns will be shown in Columbus this Sunday
Just confirmed by WBNS
Browns Return To 10TV As Part Of NFL Doubleheader
Thank you NBC for flexing the Bungles
cadfile - December 28, 2009
wonder if it will be shown in Cle.
Red-Right-88 - December 28, 2009
Chances are this means the Browns lose. I’ve been able to watch all but 5 games this year — Minnesota, Buffalo, Pittsburgh2, Kansas City, and Oakland. The Browns have been 4-1 when I couldn’t watch, and 0-11 when I could. I haven’t seen a win since the Giants in week 6 last year.
golanbatrac - December 28, 2009
Someone get this man Sunday ticket ASAP!
Bernie19Kosar - December 28, 2009
Jaguars actually only need 4 of those 5 teams to lose
Unlikely either way.
Adam Stites - December 29, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.