Could NFC West send all four teams to the playoffs?

[ROD-BOT]

Could NFC West send all four teams to the playoffs?

With the NFL expanding the postseason from 12 to 14 teams, each conference will have three wild-card teams.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

Could NFC West send all four teams to the playoffs?

With the NFL expanding the postseason from 12 to 14 teams, each conference will have three wild-card teams. Which means that, in theory, all three wild-card teams can come from the same division. Which means that, in theory, all four teams from one division can make the playoffs in a given year.

It’s a topic Simms and I tripped over during Thursday’s PFTOT, while discussing a viewer question regarding whether the Broncos or Chargers present more of a threat to the Chiefs in 2020.

Under the old format, three teams have made it multiple times, with the second- and third-place teams from a given division joining the champion as wild cards. That extra wild card now could go, in theory, to the team that also finishes dead last in its own division.

Should the team that finishes in last place of a given division be excluded, even if it has a better record than the other three second-place teams in its conference? For the same reason that the league places so much importance on winning the division, guaranteeing the champion a home playoff game regardless of record in comparison to wild-card teams, the team landing dead last in its assigned division arguably should be excluded, even if its record is better than all other potential wild cards in the conference.

For now, though, the three wild cards may all come from one division, and maybe something like that could happen in 2020. Consider this: The teams of the NFC West (currently the best division in the NFL) play the teams of the NFC East (currently the worst division in the NFL) and the teams of the AFC East (the division currently in the most flux, to say the least). If the 49ers, Seahawks, Rams, and Cardinals stay in the range of 4-2, 3-3, and 2-4 in their six division games, they can fatten up their records via the 10 games out of the division, and those eight games against the AFC and NFC East could help the NFC West teams do just that. The other two games, played against teams of the NFC North and NFC South based on where teams placed in 2019, could further smooth things out, with for example the 49ers facing the Packers and Saints and the Cardinals playing the Lions and Panthers.

It’s definitely a long shot that all four teams would make it. The point is that all four in any division could. And that, based on the schedule formula in a given season, maybe at some point all four will.

 

[Flint]

Now that Cooks is gone and the consensus seems to be that Mcsnead are idiots, the growing opinion is that the Rams are the worst team in the division. Fowler, Matthews, Gurley and Cooks, all gone, #1 edge rusher, #1 rb and #1 deep threat no longer on the team. On the surface it would appear like this ship has hit an iceberg and is sinking quick. Most pundits don’t want to dive too deep though. Fowler’s departure is going to hurt, he was good vs run and pass and there isn’t much proven behind him, we’ll see if a scheme change can help these young guys succeed.
Matthews clearly benefited from AD and Fowler’s presence and it shouldn’t be that hard to find someone as good for less.
people are viewing Gurley as though he he was the mvp candidate of the past and he clearly wasn’t that guy. He did manage 800 yds last year but these days an average feature back can get 1000. To go from being involved in every part of the offense to non existent is a sign to me that he wasn’t able, either that or he slept with McVay’s fiancé. And finally Cooks, McVay had coveted Cooks from afar and finally got him but I don’t think the reality of Cooks matched up to the idea of Cooks. Cooks has the speed to take the top off but he doesn’t add much with the ball in his hands and he’s not winning many contested catches.
I think the ram d can be as good as last year and maybe better against the run which is what you need against Seattle and SF. I think the 9ers will double down on the run game, they only threw a handful of times in the Viking game, then Garapalo gagged when they asked him to go toe to toe with Mahomes, and you can bet everyone in the west took note.
This division is still very competitive from top to bottom but I’m not sold on Arizona til I see it. The Rams are in transition but they’re still in the mix.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Now THAT would be cool. I'd love see the NFCW send the entire division into the post season. You'd have a very good chance to get that 3rd head to head matchup beyond the regular season.

 

[kurtfaulk]

the consensus seems to be that Mcsnead are idiots,

Where is this consensus?

.

 

[Flint]

Knew I was forgetting somebody

 

[Flint]

Where is this consensus?

.

Maybe no one has said the word idiot but I’ve heard a lot of media question the decisions and contracts that have been given out now that some of those players are gone.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Maybe no one has said the word idiot but I’ve heard a lot of media question the decisions and contracts that have been given out now that some of those players are gone.

the media are simpletons. they weren't saying much during the 18 season when gurley and cooks were playing lights out.

unfortunately injuries made both contracts very bad.

.

 

[HE WITH HORNS]

So AZ gets in based on, what, promise? Let them have a winning record first, then we can crown them because of their RB, I mean "QB".

 

[Poppinfresh]

I mean, at some point, some year, it's bound to happen in a weird sort of way (keep in mind that, for it to happen, teams basically have to split their division head to heads across the board). But the NFCW won't be the first to do it if it's going to happen in the near term. On top of the losses in the original post (and the ones pointed out later), we've also lost Legatron, Natson, NRC, etc.) The Rams are either a 5-11 or 4-12 team right now, and the Cardinals are...well...the Cardinals.

If any division has a shot of that happening, it's likely the Norris.

 

[Neil039]

No offense, I gotta disagree with the Rams being a 5 or 4 win team. They have a decent core group of players. This isn't the SOSAR. They play well in the division, the Cardinals haven't proven anything yet, the 49ers have had a fair amount of turn over, and Seattle is not the defensive team they once were.

I believe the Rams win 9-10 games this years. JMO

 

[kurtfaulk]

if cooks didn't get so concussed and was still on the team playing well it would have been a 3 year $46.5m contract, which is not that bad. a bit pricey but definitely not bad.

the way i saw it they paid him $38.5m for 2 years, which is terrible but as i said if he didn't get so concussed it would have been $46.5m for 3 years.

.

 

[Poppinfresh]

No offense, I gotta disagree with the Rams being a 5 or 4 win team. They have a decent core group of players. This isn't the SOSAR. They play well in the division, the Cardinals haven't proven anything yet, the 49ers have had a fair amount of turn over, and Seattle is not the defensive team they once were.

I believe the Rams win 9-10 games this years. JMO

So the Rams won 9 games last year, lost a huge amount of their core, and you think they're going to IMPROVE? Oh, and they have a tougher schedule this year than last. I was actually going into this season excited about the fact that, if for no other reason and if the team stinks up the joint, the home games should be easy sells on the aftermarket for me. I'd love to be able to have that kind of optimism in any facet of my life .

Decent core? We've got 2 pieces on defense (Edit: I forgot about Brockers. So 3). We've got a couple of really good receivers. An underrated tight end. A quarterback who looks top 5 about 50% of the time, and.....what else, exactly? Oh, a great punter.

Hell, we don't even have a 1st round pick to shore up a weak area.

There's no way this is 10 win team. You talk about how much turnover SF had, but compared to us, they're stable.

 

[Poppinfresh]

if cooks didn't get so concussed and was still on the team playing well it would have been a 3 year $46.5m contract, which is not that bad. a bit pricey but definitely not bad.

the way i saw it they paid him $38.5m for 2 years, which is terrible but as i said if he didn't get so concussed it would have been $46.5m for 3 years.

.

To me, it's not even what we paid him for 2 years. It's the 20 million dollars in dead weight we carry just to tell him to go away.

 

[Reddog99]

I can see three but not four. Too many other good teams in the conference. I think Seattle is about to fall off anyway. All eyes will be on AZ and SF but I think the hangover hits SF while AZ improves and possibly a playoff appearance. I think the Rams will suprise all of the non Rams fans and come roaring back after dropping some dead weight and fixing the run D. Packers, Vikings, Cowboys, Saints, Buccaneers are all going to be good. Lions, Panthers and Falcons are likely to improve over 2019. I don't expect much from the Eagles, Bears, Redskins and Giant's but any of them could improve at any point.

 

[Faceplant]

So the Rams won 9 games last year, lost a huge amount of their core, and you think they're going to IMPROVE? Oh, and they have a tougher schedule this year than last. I was actually going into this season excited about the fact that, if for no other reason and if the team stinks up the joint, the home games should be easy sells on the aftermarket for me. I'd love to be able to have that kind of optimism in any facet of my life .

Decent core? We've got 2 pieces on defense (Edit: I forgot about Brockers. So 3). We've got a couple of really good receivers. An underrated tight end. A quarterback who looks top 5 about 50% of the time, and.....what else, exactly? Oh, a great punter.

Hell, we don't even have a 1st round pick to shore up a weak area.

There's no way this is 10 win team. You talk about how much turnover SF had, but compared to us, they're stable.

How do we have a tougher schedule? We play a 3rd place schedule.

 

[Neil039]

So the Rams won 9 games last year, lost a huge amount of their core, and you think they're going to IMPROVE? Oh, and they have a tougher schedule this year than last. I was actually going into this season excited about the fact that, if for no other reason and if the team stinks up the joint, the home games should be easy sells on the aftermarket for me. I'd love to be able to have that kind of optimism in any facet of my life .

Decent core? We've got 2 pieces on defense (Edit: I forgot about Brockers. So 3). We've got a couple of really good receivers. An underrated tight end. A quarterback who looks top 5 about 50% of the time, and.....what else, exactly? Oh, a great punter.

Hell, we don't even have a 1st round pick to shore up a weak area.

There's no way this is 10 win team. You talk about how much turnover SF had, but compared to us, they're stable.

Simple difference in view...I see it differently than you. The majority of players they lost ,besides Littleton IMO) are replaceable. The Olines lack of talent is the biggest hindrance facing this team, second is LB. I have faith in the guys they have been developing or picked up ( OBO, Fowler, Rapp, Ebukan, Johnson, Joseph, Robinson...etc..).

I guess we will see when the season starts. Wasting time on negative posts and attacking the team doesn't seem fruitful to me.