Big Blue Huddle

Interested in hearing the take from those of you who either played, coached, or are very knowledgeable on offensive line play.  I played G in High School.  We weren't very good and I wasn't very good either.

But I knew what to do when the defensive line stunted. 

What was going on out there?  I can't believe that--year after year--the Giants can't handle simple DT-DE twist plays. 

Justin Pugh looked completely lost out there.  This is incomprehensible for a seasoned vet.  Then throw in his 5-yarder for illegal motion.  Just unforgivable for a Guard.  Was Pugh making the line calls?  He was looking back at the QB on almost every play.  If so, why isn't the center making these calls this late in the season?

If you're Glowinski...dude you had 1 job.  You blew it and got flagged.  Go back to the bench.

I find it very hard to watch a game with multi-millionaire professionals making high school errors that our HS football coach would have gone apoplectic over.  Tough to watch.

So let's say you own the Giants and very much like your HC, OC and DC combination right now.

How much are you willing to pay to keep the OC and DC on staff and not let them walk to be HC elsewhere?  Everyone has their price.  So let's say Wink or Kafka (maybe next year if not this year) gets a HC offer somewhere else.  Let's say you match it, less x%.  And "x" is some number that makes sure Daboll still earns more.  Or you raise Daboll's salary to make it easier to pay your existing OC/DC more.

There's no salary cap for coaches, right?  And this season seems to demonstrate that the coaching staff itself was worth at least a couple of wins versus last year. 

If you own a multi-$billion team, seems like spending the necessary $ to keep the top management in place is a no-brainer.  At least to me anyway.  What is the use of great hardware if you don't have the right software in place to run it?

I don't understand the playoff schedule. Games go from Sat/Sun/Mon for the NFC.  I don't recall that ever happening before.

The team that wins on Saturday will have a 2-day rest advantage vs. the team that plays on Monday.  Now granted the lineup is driven by the seeding but that still seems extreme to me.

The Giants play in the middle on Sunday.  But I'd be unhappy to have the Giants play Mon. night and have 2 fewer days of rest than the opponent.  The #1 seed getting the bye, that's understandable.  But having a short turnaround is on top of that. 

This ain't baseball and there's a big difference between 6 days and 8 days between games.  The NFL is sacrificing competition to prime-time advertising revenue.

Pretty much looks like Giants vs. Vikes in wild-card round.  I like the Giants chances.  Just for fun, let's assume they win.  Plan for success, right?

What about the divisional round?  Assume the 7th seed loses in the wild-card round (very likely, especially if the #2 seed is the 49ers).  That means the Giants are likely playing the #1 seed in the divisional round. 

Who would you rather play in the divisional round, Eagles or 49ers?  I would much rather play the Eagles, by a large margin.  Not even close.  49ers have the hot hand and the Eagles are falling apart, just look at their injury report.  So the Giants are much better off if the Eagles are the #1 seed.

Why does it matter?

If the Giants win on Sunday, they will likely make the 49ers the #1 seed!  If the Giants lose they make the Eagles the #1 seed and then make the 49ers the #2 seed (assuming 49ers win vs. Cards, of course). 

The likely WC round matchups are: 49ers vs. Packers (or Seahawks or Lions), Vikings vs. Giants, Bucs vs. Cowboys.

Now suppose the Divisional round looks like: Eagles vs. Giants, and 49ers vs. Cowboys.  The Cowboys end up getting screwed playing arguably the best team in the NFC. 

The Giants have very little incentive to win on Sunday.  The above argues they should not even try to win. 

I don't understand how the 49ers have the tiebreaker advantage over the Vikings. 

They're both 12-4.  They haven't played each other.

According to this website, https://www.nfl.com/standings/tie-breaking-procedures , here are the tie-breaker rules for a tie between two teams:

Two Clubs
Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Strength of victory in all games.
Strength of schedule in all games
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed in all games.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed in all games.
Best net points in common games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss

It's true that 49ers have better conference record than Vikes (tiebreaker #4).  But I think Vikings have the advantage in common games (tiebreaker #3).

Common games (from what I can figure) are:
Bears/Cardinals/Saints/Dolphins/Commanders.

The Vikings are 5-0.  The 49ers are 4-1, having lost to the Bears.

What am I missing?  I'm guessing it's obvious and I'll feel stupid very shortly...