Other games 12-25/26/27/28-2020

I believe they’re a game + tiebreaker behind GB, so them winning does nothing for GB week 17 against the bears. We need Seattle to win to keep pace with GB. NO can only get the number one see in a 3 way tie or if GB and SEA lose out. A NO win only ends MN season.

TaylorSwift · Dec 25, 2020

If the cards draw the saints, they have a chance.

Brees looks like a shell of himself

speedy · Dec 25, 2020

I’m kinda thinking that pick is actually Sean peytons fault...

speedy · Dec 25, 2020

*sarcasm

Cheesebeef · Dec 25, 2020

AZfaninMN said:
I believe they’re a game + tiebreaker behind GB, so them winning does nothing for GB week 17 against the bears. We need Seattle to win to keep pace with GB. NO can only get the number one see in a 3 way tie or if GB and SEA lose out. A NO win only ends MN season.

it would make a difference if GB loses this week to Tennessee. If NO wins today and GB loses Sunday night, they would need to beat the bears to get 1 seed if NO held serve next week.

If NO and Seattle lose this week and GB wins, thru wrap up HFA. So, we do still want NO to keep pressure on.

Hoodhero · Dec 25, 2020

Taysom currently got better passer rating than Brees & he only completed 1 pass for 1 yard

TheCardinal · Dec 25, 2020

cheesebeef said:
it would make a difference if GB loses this week to Tennessee. If NO wins today and GB loses Sunday night, they would need to beat the bears to get 1 seed if NO held serve next week.

If NO and Seattle lose this week and GB wins, thru wrap up HFA. So, we do still want NO to keep pressure on.

AZfaninMN has it correct.

Wins by NO and GB, but a loss by SEA still clinches the 1-seed for GB. 1-on-1, GB beats NO in a tie, and in that scenario the Saints would be the only team that could match their 12 wins.

Should GB beat TEN, they would lose to SEA in a 1-on-1 tie-breaker, but SEA would then need to win against LA to keep that a possibility (NO could still take down the Packers but only in a 3-way tie, thus needing the Seahawks to win as well).

Oddly enough, a GB LOSS to TEN, since it would be against a “cheaper” AFC opponent, would actually throw the GB/SEA 1-on-1 tie-breaker to GB. But have no fear: if SEA then beats LA, pressure is still kept on GB since Seattle could have the better outright record, and if SEA loses, the RAMS would be within a game and WOULD be able to beat GB in the tie-breaker, also keeping pressure on. All of this is regardless of what NO does tonight.

Hoodhero · Dec 25, 2020

What happened to Saints D? I guess Brees with his 2 picks doesn't help but still

Cheesebeef · Dec 25, 2020

TheCardinal said:
AZfaninMN has it correct.

Wins by NO and GB, but a loss by SEA still clinches the 1-seed for GB. 1-on-1, GB beats NO in a tie, and in that scenario the Saints would be the only team that could match their 12 wins.

Should GB beat TEN, they would lose to SEA in a 1-on-1 tie-breaker, but SEA would then need to win against LA to keep that a possibility (NO could still take down the Packers but only in a 3-way tie, thus needing the Seahawks to win as well).

Oddly enough, a GB LOSS to TEN, since it would be against a “cheaper” AFC opponent, would actually throw the GB/SEA 1-on-1 tie-breaker to GB. But have no fear: if SEA then beats LA, pressure is still kept on GB since Seattle could have the better outright record, and if SEA loses, the RAMS would be within a game and WOULD be able to beat GB in the tie-breaker, also keeping pressure on. All of this is regardless of what NO does tonight.

a NO win today and the Packers losing this week gives NO a chance to leapfrog them if NO wins next week and the Pack lose. They’d both have the same record going into Week 17 so they would both have everything to play for.

Cheesebeef · Dec 25, 2020

What we really need is a Tennessee W this weekend more than anything else.

TheCardinal · Dec 25, 2020

cheesebeef said:
a NO win today and the Packers losing this week gives NO a chance to leapfrog them if NO wins next week and the Pack lose. They’d both have the same record going into Week 17 so they would both have everything to play for.

A win by NO is obviously important for the Saints’ scenarios, but the point is that as far as it concerns the Cardinals (in terms of forcing GB to play its starters against Chicago), a Saints win doesn’t change anything.

Should the Saints hang on to win, I don’t want for people to think we’re in the clear as far as denying GB a clinch of the 1-seed this weekend. We would still need either a loss by GB or a win by Seattle. That’s the same regardless of the NO/MIN outcome.

A win by NO, however, does eliminate the Vikings and gives the Cardinals (and Bears) a few more outs at 8-8.

TheCardinal · Dec 25, 2020

cheesebeef said:
What we really need is a Tennessee W this weekend more than anything else.

True, if the Packers lose to TEN, at a minimum the winner of SEA/LA could still catch them. If SEA/LA draw, then SEA could still catch them.

Cheesebeef · Dec 25, 2020

TheCardinal said:
A win by NO is obviously important for the Saints’ scenarios, but the point is that as far as it concerns the Cardinals (in terms of forcing GB to play its starters against Chicago), a Saints win doesn’t change anything.

Should the Saints hang on to win, I don’t want for people to think we’re in the clear as far as denying GB a clinch of the 1-seed this weekend. We would still need either a loss by GB or a win by Seattle. That’s the same regardless of the NO/MIN outcome.

A win by NO, however, does eliminate the Vikings and gives the Cardinals (and Bears) a few more outs at 8-8.

you’re wrong. This is simple. The Saints are now 11-4. GB is 11-3. If GB loses this week, they will both be 11-4.

that means going into week 17, I’m guessing GB and NO play at the same time and GB NEEDS to win to clinch HFA if the Saints win. If they both win, GB gets the tie breaker. If the Saints win and GB loses to the Bears, the Saints will be 12-4 and GB would be 11-5. Thus, a GB loss this weekend will force them to play their starters against the Bears (who we want to lose) because if they lose their final two games and NO wins next week, NO gets HFA.

none of the seeding matters to us. What matters to the Cardinals is that assuming we beat the Niners, the Rams game isn’t do or die. We want the Packers to be forced to play their starters and win in week 17. This NO wins absolutely helps make that a closer reality.

Cheesebeef · Dec 25, 2020

TheCardinal said:
True, if the Packers lose to TEN, the winner of SEA/LA could still catch them. If SEA/LA draw, then SEA could still catch them.

if they lose to Tennessee, NO could catch and surpass them also if NO wins next week and the Packers lose to the Bears the next week.

TheCardinal · Dec 25, 2020

cheesebeef said:
if they lose to Tennessee, NO could catch and surpass them also if NO wins next week and the Packers lose to the Bears the next week.

I edited my prior post to include “at a minimum” the winner of SEA/LA could catch GB should the Packers lose to TEN. NO with a win, could catch them as well, but not needed as far as the Cardinals are concerned, since the SEA/LA outcome would take care of it.

TheCardinal · Dec 25, 2020

cheesebeef said:
you’re wrong. This is simple. The Saints are now 11-4. GB is 11-3. If GB loses this week, they will both be 11-4.

that means going into week 17, I’m guessing GB and NO play at the same time and GB NEEDS to win to clinch HFA if the Saints win. If they both win, GB gets the tie breaker. If the Saints win and GB loses to the Bears, the Saints will be 12-4 and GB would be 11-5. Thus, a GB loss this weekend will force them to play their starters against the Bears (who we want to lose) because if they lose their final two games and NO wins next week, NO gets HFA.

none of the seeding matters to us. What matters to the Cardinals is that assuming we beat the Niners, the Rams game isn’t do or die. We want the Packers to be forced to play their starters and win in week 17. This NO wins absolutely helps make that a closer reality.

I understand your point, and the above is true.

However, with Seattle playing the Rams this weekend, we were already guaranteed of at least one team (SEA/LA winner) keeping GB honest against CHI should they lose to TEN. The Saints didn’t change that.

Cheesebeef · Dec 25, 2020

TheCardinal said:
I understand your point, and the above is true.

However, with Seattle playing the Rams this weekend, we were already guaranteed of at least one team (SEA/LA winner) keeping GB honest against CHI should they lose to TEN. The Saints didn’t change that.

ah... so if the Rams win and GB loses, they will keep GB honest next week?

so basically we really need either a GB loss or a Seahawk win to keep GB honest.

Cheesebeef · Dec 25, 2020

Man... we really needed the Vikes to beat the Bears last week. Coulda clinched a playoff spot tomorrow if that happened.

Hoodhero · Dec 25, 2020

Zimmer done. Thats one of the worst defensive efforts I have ever seen.

TheCardinal · Dec 25, 2020

cheesebeef said:
ah... so if the Rams win and GB loses, they will keep GB honest next week?

so basically we really need either a GB loss or a Seahawk win to keep GB honest.

That is correct. A Rams win and GB loss keeps LA within a game of the Packers, with tie-breaker on conference record.

Yes, either a GB loss or SEA win this weekend keeps the 1-seed in play for Week 17.

Other games 12-25/26/27/28-2020

Go for it

Go for it

Go for it

Go for it

Hall of Famer

ASFN Addict

Hall of Famer

the medic

the medic

ASFN IDOL

Hall of Famer

Veteran

Hall of Famer

ASFN IDOL

ASFN IDOL

Veteran

Veteran

ASFN IDOL

ASFN IDOL

Veteran

Veteran

ASFN IDOL

ASFN IDOL

Hall of Famer

Veteran

Similar threads

Forum statistics