AFC And NFC Championship Game Predictions

Here are my picks....can't move away from the Giants after they made me look good by beating the Packers.

4 months ago Joel Thorman 25 comments 0 recs |

Comments

My $0.02

Im with Joel I can’t get off the Giants either. That being said….

If the Giants win then regardless of who wins the AFC Championship we’re going to have a repeat of a recent Super Bowl matchup and I think regardless of which matchup occurs we’re going to have the opposite result. So if it’s Giants/Ravens, Giants win and if its Giants/Pats, Pats(you think Brady will want revenge?) win.

"Give them nothing! But take from them everything!"

by GenericBrand on Jan 16, 2012 9:58 AM CST reply actions

Yeah

And a lot of Indy (site of the Super Bowl) ties, too.

Giants – Eli playing in Peyton’s house
49ers – Harbaugh’s in the ring of honor in Indy
Pats – Duh

Arrowhead Pride
SBNation.com/NFL

by Joel Thorman on Jan 16, 2012 10:14 AM CST up reply actions

I'm going with the giants and ravens.

Got all four games right this weekend. Cha ching!! Anyway.. Giants, too much fire power. Idky I’m picking ravens. I just have a feeling they’re gonna slow down Brady.

by Kcbiggyblue on Jan 16, 2012 10:17 AM CST via mobile reply actions

Hate the Pats

But would be kinda cool to see Waters get his ring!

I may live amongst cheeseheads but I still bleed red! GO CHIEFS

by milwaukeechief on Jan 16, 2012 10:24 AM CST reply actions

Giants over the Pats in Indy...

Never argue with an Idiot...... they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
sometimes I wonder how they would do that chalk outline, if you pushed someone into a tree chipper.

by Hoochdawg on Jan 16, 2012 10:54 AM CST reply actions

Not sure who is winning

But the pats still haven’t beaten a team with a winning record this year.

I like Balt +8 or whatever that line gets to.

I also like SF -2.5.

by kcsno56 on Jan 16, 2012 11:06 AM CST reply actions

Donkeys had a winning record when they played them.

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jan 16, 2012 11:14 AM CST up reply actions

and if you count the playoff win vs. Pitt

the would have been 9-8 in this last game too.

I’d throw out all of this “hasn’t beat a winning team” or “hasn’t done X or Y during the regular season” stuff when it comes to the playoffs – especially with the Pats.

I didn’t think the Niners could beat the Saints and wow did they look solid the other day, on both sides of the ball. Giants looked beastly too. I think the NFC Championship game will be a fun one.

Looking at Niners v Pats in the SB – and I’m leaning towards a Pats win (but would rather Niners pull off the upset).

by Ochophosphate on Jan 16, 2012 11:20 AM CST up reply actions

That's what I meant.

They were 9-8 when the Pats beat them on Saturday.

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jan 16, 2012 11:26 AM CST up reply actions

I'm just going off of final record. And that's 8-8 or 9-9 however you want to look at it

And it is accurate. You can discount it if you choose to, but the Pats haven’t beaten any good teams, however you want to define that.

by kcsno56 on Jan 16, 2012 11:28 AM CST up reply actions

Seems unfair to count their own win against them.

But I get your general sentiment.

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jan 16, 2012 11:32 AM CST up reply actions

That's fine, I'm not trying to count it against them, really.

You can forget the record if you want and just look at the team. Denver is not a strong team, I think you’d agree.

Part of it was they didn’t have to play many good teams with their schedule, but they did have a couple chances and couldn’t get it done.

by kcsno56 on Jan 16, 2012 11:45 AM CST up reply actions

Guess what - when your division sucks, this is more common than you think

When your whole division finishes at .500 or less – you now have 6 games on your schedule against losers.

When you face two shitty divisions (AFC West and NFC East) you now face at least another 6 games against losers (giving the 2 division winners the possibility of not sucking).

So it’s not New England’s fault that they played turds this year. The two “tough games” they got were against Pitt and Indy. They lost to Pitt and Indy was a joke.

It also just so happens that when you go 13-3 – the teams you are going against aren’t going to look as strong, since 13 of them lost to you.

Again – the regular season can be a pseudo guide but for experienced teams I think you throw it out the window – especially with multiple offenders like the Giants and Pats. There were times the Giants looked horrible this year (two losses to Washington, loss to Seattle, etc) but they got hot when it mattered, finishing the last two games very strong and carrying into the playoffs (kinda reminds you of their SB run a few years back).

I don’t care if the Pats didn’t win against “winning teams” during the regular season – these guys know how to play in the playoffs and completely obliterated that “tough” Denver D. They’re going to do the same thing to Baltimore next weekend.

by Ochophosphate on Jan 16, 2012 12:56 PM CST up reply actions

Well I read this weekend from a handicapper it has never happened.

I haven’t confirmed this myself, but he said there had never been a team that made it to the AFC or NFC Championship game without beating a team that ended the season with a winning record.

So if by more common than I think you mean, once…then ok.

You also spend most of your comment saying it’s not the Pats fault…and I agree, and said it an hour before you did:

Part of it was they didn’t have to play many good teams with their schedule

You don’t have to care what the Pats did against the good teams they played. I think it’s valid, we can disagree. These Pats that ‘know how to play in the playoffs’ hadn’t won a playoff game since ‘08 before they beat the Broncos. And you can feel free to give them credit for beating Denver, I’m not going to. I think Den is a joke. Baltimore, actually has been the team with playoff wins the last few years, not NE.

Counter that with what Baltimore has done this season. Scroll down below and look at the quality wins…and that is what I’m basing my opinion on.

I’m not saying NE can’t win, I’m not saying they won’t win; in the AFC title game, home teams are like 28-13 SU.

I do think Baltimore has a great shot, and laying more than a TD is a mistake, given the respective resumes.

by kcsno56 on Jan 16, 2012 2:24 PM CST up reply actions

Fair enough

to the extreme that they haven’t beat any team with a winning record, that is the case. But I think finding teams that have very few wins against strong opponents isn’t that uncommon especially when they are paired against weak opponents.

Pats have had a few one-and-done postseasons lately – but I don’t think they were put together as well as they are this year. They did have Gronk and Hernandez last year but they were rookies and Gronk hadn’t blown the roof off the place like he did this year. That offense is hard to keep in check and I don’t think Baltimore has it in them to hang with them all game. If New England’s D plays decently well then I don’t think Baltimore keeps up.

Baltimore may have a shot, but I’ll continue to favor New England – especially if Ed Reed is dinged. This is a Baltimore team that struggled mightily with the Texans at home… and now has to go to NE where the Pats are playing with a hot hand.

by Ochophosphate on Jan 16, 2012 3:53 PM CST up reply actions

Last year and this year's Pats teams are almost identical

And this year’s version of the D is worse, in pretty much every measure…the offense is a little better, have to admit that.

Baltimore’s D is similar in many respects to the Pitt D that held the Pats to 17 points when they played. If Ed Reed is out, that would be huge, word now is he’ll be ok, but I agree with you that is big.

As for Balt struggling with Houston. They did, I agree. They struggled against the #2 ranked D. They put up 20 points.

We will see, I think it’ll be a good game, and +8 is a great bet.

by kcsno56 on Jan 16, 2012 4:14 PM CST up reply actions

They did put up 20 - 7-13 of which were handed to them on a silver platter

They can’t count on NE shooting themselves in the foot over and over like Houston did. So they’ll need that offense to play well above what they did this past week.

New England’s D has been bad this year but has been playing strong the past few weeks with tons of turnovers to their credit.

I don’t think it will be that close. Looking at something along the lines of 31-17.

by Ochophosphate on Jan 16, 2012 4:34 PM CST up reply actions

ahh, sorry

They were 8-5 when they met the first time too right?

by Ochophosphate on Jan 16, 2012 12:41 PM CST up reply actions

Sounds about right.

I forgot that they already played them once.

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jan 16, 2012 12:49 PM CST up reply actions

So you're saying Denver is better than an 8-8 team? Or 9-9?

That’s the point you’re making? I would actually argue that most seasons that Denver team is 7-9 or even more likely 6-10…but I guess we can disagree about how good Den is as well.

Or is it that we should only care about teams record when they play each other? That’s one way to look at it. I think the most accurate reflection of the quality of the team is their overall record, not a partial one…but that’s just my opinion. NE also beat SD in week 2 when SD was 1-0, I guess you would count that as beating a winning team. Me, I think it’s their record when the season is completed.

by kcsno56 on Jan 16, 2012 2:30 PM CST up reply actions

SOS is usually counted

as records by opponents in non head-to-head games. At least that’s how smart SOS is done. So I would count Denver’s record as 9-7, at least as far as the Patriots are concerned. They shouldn’t have two WINS count against them.

That said, I agree that the Broncos are not very good.

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jan 16, 2012 2:38 PM CST up reply actions