Mark80

No it is not. However, if 2 of Cin/Bal/Pit lose two games then we only need 1 loss by either KC or SD, not both anymore.

Detroit had ZERO secondary to speak of while he was there and the LBs were sub-par as well and downright crap after Tulloch while he was there. Otherwise, he would have done just fine there and would still be there, IMO.

I wonder what would happen to him if he played baseball or hockey and did that? Actually, no I don't. In baseball he'd get a 90 mph fastball thrown right into his back and in hockey he'd get the crap kicked out of him later in the game.

Absolutely not pissed at all. Players on the field goal kicking team are big and slow blockers for the most part. They are not used to running down a defensive back in the open field. He could have easily taken it to the house...Remember Auburn vs Alabama last year when that dude ran through the field goal kicking team for 109 yards and the game winning touchdown? They looked like idiots trying to tackle him. Or think of how many missed tackles and big plays you see on interceptions? And those have WRs and RBs out there who can actually run fast.

Two words...Bruce Arians. With what he has done there with QB injuries and HUGE injuries on the defensive side of the ball, this is a no brainer. However, we would be pretty stupid to get rid of Marrone. Hackett though, he's another story.

There is no scenario where we control our own destiny going in to week 17. None, zero, zilch. If what you are saying happens we could still be eliminated with a win vs Pats and wins by Baltimore and Cincy in week 17. Cincy would win division and Baltimore and Pittsburgh would be Wild Cards.

Exactly, unless two AFC North teams lose out. Since one must be Baltimore (as Cincy and PItt play week 17) and they have Cleveland and Houston left, this scenario is very unlikely.

Actually, you are not allowed to use a T so it's more like a Field Goal than a kick-off. That is why they punt because you can kick it off a T much farther than you can a field goal attempt when the ball is on the ground. Edit - Dude above beat me to it!

I sort of wish that was the rule the entire game. Actually, I wish that no offensive player (even the player who fumbled it) could advance a recovered fumble at any point in the game.

You are incorrect, we cannot make if those teams win next week. We also cannot make it if all 3 AFC North teams win next week. The playoff machine is not handling the #4 tie breaker correctly, win% vs common opponents. That is where Baltimore has us. Yep.

Once Lacy recovered it the first time it was over. Only Rodgers could have advanced the ball as he fumbled it and there was less than 2 minutes left in the game. As soon as Lacy got possession the play was dead.

Yeah, he also has the worst QBR since 2007, his yards per attempt are right at his career average and he's accumulated garbage stats in games that were had already pretty much lost (see 4th quarter vs Denver).

Yeah, I can see guys like Kaep tuning it down a notch as he's got a huge deal and is secure for the rest of his life (well, he should be at least). But for the vast majority of the players who are not, I think they still bring it. We all know the average lifespan of a player is what, 3 years, 4 years? Most players are going do do whatever they can regardless of their record to impress their team and other teams as much as possible so they can keep playing.

I never buy this at all. These guys have everything to play for. These guys are professional athletes. They are always playing for their jobs and their next contract and when millions of dollars is at stake (or hundreds of thousands of dollars for the depth guys) it keeps the motivation pretty high I would think. Not to mention competitiveness which pretty much all professional athletes possess at a very high level or else they most likely wouldn't have made the NFL in the first place.

If they fire Marrone I'd be pretty upset. If they don't fire Hackett I'd be pretty upset.

Well, that's where they are messing up. See "Other Tie-Breaking Procedures" #2 "In comparing records against common opponents among tied teams, the best won-lost-tied percentage is the deciding factor, since teams may have played an unequal number of games." No where does it state to eliminate division opponents, in fact, mentioning "unequal number of games" specifically hints at including them since that is the only way possible to have an unequal number of games.

Yeah, people are probably using ESPNs playoff machine which doesn't seem to be taking into account the common games tie breaker which is ahead of SOS (we would have baltimore beat on SOS but not common games).

Yes, there are 5 games with common opponents for us and the Ravens. Miami, Cleveland, San Diego, and Houston. (extra game each side for Miami and Cleveland). You only need 4.

How that site completely ignores the common opponents tie breaker which is before SOS is beyond me. Clearly common games is #4 tie breaker and SOS is #5.

GTF outta here. We are 8-6 with a chance to make the playoffs in Marrones second season.

The all get counted. This is what is says in "The Other Tie-Breaking Procedures" "In comparing records against common opponents among tied teams, the best won-lost-tied percentage is the deciding factor, since teams may have played an unequal number of games." The unequal number of games is the effect of the division opponents.

I don't think so. Of all the AFC North teams we need 1 to lose 2 games to have a legit shot. Cincy is our best bet at losing both games considering who they play in my opinion. And there is no way that the Pats lay down for us week 17 regardless of their situation. Posted the part for you in my post above your last one as an edit.

You're not following though. It would only eliminate PIT or BAL for the #5 seed determination. Once that is figured out (say steelers) they re-set and do the whole thing over again...so Baltimore comes back into play for the #6 determination. Thus, we lose out. Look at "Other Tie Breaking Procedures" "Only one club advances to the playoffs in any tie-breaking step. Remaining tied clubs revert to the first step of the applicable division or Wild Card tie-breakers. As an example, if two clubs remain tied in any tie-breaker step after all other clubs have been eliminated, the procedure reverts to Step 1 of the two-club format to determine the winner. When one club wins the tiebreaker, all other clubs revert to Step 1 of the applicable two-club or three-club format."

Yep, we are screwed, they do them individually. Look at the bottom of the multi-team wild card scenario: "When the first Wild-Card team has been identified, the procedure is repeated to name the second Wild-Card, i.e., eliminate all but the highest-ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. In situations where three or more teams from the same division are involved in the procedure, the original seeding of the teams remains the same for subsequent applications of the tie breaker if the top-ranked team in that division qualifies for a Wild-Card berth." Since Cincy or Pitt would be in at #5 they would no longer eliminate Baltimore in the "in division" tie breaker and it would just be us and Baltimore left for the #6 tie-breaker and we would lose on common opponent win %.

See post right above yours!!! I agree with you if they do the tie-breakers as a group. But if they do tie-breakers for #5 seed first (Cincy may just get it alone or PItt may get with tie-breaker scenario) and then do a separate tie breaker for #6 after #5 has been determined already, we would lose out to Baltimore still 1-1. If they just do the tie breakers together in a group 5 and 6 together, then yes, we would get #6. I just don't think that is how it's done and I can't figure it out for sure in the rules.