PDA

View Full Version : HISTORY OF THE NO. 2 SEED IN THE AFC PLAYOFFS



NKySteeler
12-30-2008, 08:50 PM
(since playoffs expanded to 12 teams in 1990)

2007... Indianapolis —......Lost to San Diego in divisional round
2006... Baltimore —.........Lost to Indianapolis in divisional round
2005... Denver —............Beat New England, lost to Pittsburgh in AFC Championship Game
2004... New England — ...Won Super Bowl, beating Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia
2003... Kansas City —......Lost to Indianapolis in divisional round
2002... Tennessee —.......Beat Pittsburgh, lost to Oakland in AFC Championship Game
2001... New England — ...Won Super Bowl, beating Oakland, Pittsburgh and St. Louis
2000... Oakland —...........Beat Miami, lost to Baltimore in AFC Championship Game
1999... Indianapolis —......Lost to Tennessee in divisional round
1998... N.Y. Jets —.........Beat Jacksonville, lost to Denver in AFC Championship Game
1997... Pittsburgh —........Beat New England, lost to Denver in AFC Championship Game
1996... New England —.....Beat New England, beat Jacksonville, lost to Green Bay in Super Bowl
1995... Pittsburgh —.........Beat Buffalo, beat Indianapolis, lost to Dallas in Super Bowl
1994... San Diego —.........Beat Miami, beat Pittsburgh, lost to San Francisco in Super Bowl
1993... Houston —...........Lost to Kansas City in divisional round
1992... Miami —..............Beat San Diego, lost to Buffalo in AFC Championship Game
1991... Denver —............Beat Houston, lost to Buffalo in AFC Championship Game
1990... L.A. Raiders —......Beat Cincinnati, lost to Buffalo in AFC Championship Game

ghettoscott
12-30-2008, 10:37 PM
1995... Pittsburgh —.........Beat Buffalo, beat Indianapolis, lost thanks to Neil O'Donnell in Super Bowl



:HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger

TallyStiller
12-30-2008, 10:41 PM
(since playoffs expanded to 12 teams in 1990)

2007... Indianapolis —......Lost to San Diego in divisional round
2006... Baltimore —.........Lost to Indianapolis in divisional round
2005... Denver —............Beat New England, lost to Pittsburgh in AFC Championship Game
2004... New England — ...Won Super Bowl, beating Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia
2003... Kansas City —......Lost to Indianapolis in divisional round
2002... Tennessee —.......Beat Pittsburgh, lost to Oakland in AFC Championship Game
2001... New England — ...Won Super Bowl, beating Oakland, Pittsburgh and St. Louis
2000... Oakland —...........Beat Miami, lost to Baltimore in AFC Championship Game
1999... Indianapolis —......Lost to Tennessee in divisional round
1998... N.Y. Jets —.........Beat Jacksonville, lost to Denver in AFC Championship Game
1997... Pittsburgh —........Beat New England, lost to Denver in AFC Championship Game
1996... New England —.....Beat New England :wft , beat Jacksonville, lost to Green Bay in Super Bowl1995... Pittsburgh —.........Beat Buffalo, beat Indianapolis, lost to Dallas in Super Bowl
1994... San Diego —.........Beat Miami, beat Pittsburgh, lost to San Francisco in Super Bowl
1993... Houston —...........Lost to Kansas City in divisional round
1992... Miami —..............Beat San Diego, lost to Buffalo in AFC Championship Game
1991... Denver —............Beat Houston, lost to Buffalo in AFC Championship Game
1990... L.A. Raiders —......Beat Cincinnati, lost to Buffalo in AFC Championship Game

Actually, they beat us in the divisional round that year. I remember the game, unfortunately, although I drank heavily that afternoon trying to erase it... Nut Sack the Quarterback with a vintage performance as we laid a 27 - 3 egg in a fog in Foxboro.

Here's hoping that we're the 3rd champ coming from the AFC 2 seed :Beer :tt1 :tt2

HERE WE GO STEELERS, HERE WE GO!!!

NKySteeler
12-30-2008, 11:24 PM
Actually, they beat us in the divisional round that year.

... "Upon further review", you are correct... I blame the author/publisher of the list (Steelers Digest).... Not the messenger (me) that reproduced the information for your viewing pleasure... :lol:

... Great catch...

TallyStiller
12-31-2008, 07:34 AM
Actually, they beat us in the divisional round that year.

... "Upon further review", you are correct... I blame the author/publisher of the list (Steelers Digest).... Not the messenger (me) that reproduced the information for your viewing pleasure... :lol:

... Great catch...

Appreciate all the info you post. Quality stuff. Thanks.

Steeler Shades
12-31-2008, 11:58 AM
Interesting stuff NKy. Wonder how the #1 seeds have done in the playoffs? There has been some discussion on this board that we are better off with the #2 seed and that the #1 wasn't worth playing "all out" to win. 8)

Iron Shiek
12-31-2008, 12:19 PM
Interesting stuff NKy. Wonder how the #1 seeds have done in the playoffs? There has been some discussion on this board that we are better off with the #2 seed and that the #1 wasn't worth playing "all out" to win. 8)


In the last 5 years, only 1 number one seed has won the super bowl if I remember correctly...

And I can't remember the exact stat, but in last ten years or so, something like a 50-50 chance that the team that will win it all is playing this weekend (either a wild card team or lower seeded division winner). It has happened the past 3 years.

Discipline of Steel
12-31-2008, 01:24 PM
Interesting stuff NKy. Wonder how the #1 seeds have done in the playoffs? There has been some discussion on this board that we are better off with the #2 seed and that the #1 wasn't worth playing "all out" to win. 8)

If I had to bet, Id say that Pittsburgh did not 'show its hand' in that game. Not saying that Tenn did either, but I think we were more apt to 'try things out' with an eye toward meeting in the playoffs. I also dont think they were inclined to provide good tape for other playoff teams to view...and that is the real benefit of having sewed up a 1st round bye 3 games before the end of the season.

feltdizz
12-31-2008, 05:47 PM
[quote="Steeler Shades":2sorkx57]Interesting stuff NKy. Wonder how the #1 seeds have done in the playoffs? There has been some discussion on this board that we are better off with the #2 seed and that the #1 wasn't worth playing "all out" to win. 8)


In the last 5 years, only 1 number one seed has won the super bowl if I remember correctly...

And I can't remember the exact stat, but in last ten years or so, something like a 50-50 chance that the team that will win it all is playing this weekend (either a wild card team or lower seeded division winner). It has happened the past 3 years.[/quote:2sorkx57]

Never said it wasn't worth playing for... I said it wasn't worth showing all the packages you have on D.

and recent numbers do not lie.. the #1 seed is over rated and I would much rather lose now and win later then the other way around.

Wolfhound45
12-31-2008, 06:23 PM
2008... Pittsburgh—......Beat Miami in Divisional round, beat Tennessee in AFC Championship Game, beat Carolina in Super Bowl XLIII

:Steel

Steeler Shades
12-31-2008, 07:13 PM
Never said it wasn't worth playing for... I said it wasn't worth showing all the packages you have on D.
That Titans offense must be frightening if we are giving up home field advantage and sandbagging defensive packages just in case we play them again. Hopefully Dick LeBeau thought this far ahead when we played the Eagles, Giants, Colts, SD and Ratbirds.


and recent numbers do not lie.. the #1 seed is over rated and I would much rather lose now and win later then the other way around.
Which seed # goes on to win the SB most often?
Are you saying that we couldn't win both the last time we played the Titans AND the next time?
8)

feltdizz
12-31-2008, 09:03 PM
once again you get juvenile with the theory shades.. no one says every loss is due to sandbagging or holding back.. but when you are playing a team in week 17 for the #1 seed...

why would Lebeau holding back on a few blitzes be a outside the realm of possibilities?

I have no idea why you keep going back to our other losses and using this same theory...

sheez, I'm starting to question how old you are... not once have I said every loss is due to the theory of "not showing too much" but if you want to go back to every loss and apply it then have at it.

feltdizz
12-31-2008, 09:05 PM
Never said it wasn't worth playing for... I said it wasn't worth showing all the packages you have on D.
That Titans offense must be frightening if we are giving up home field advantage and sandbagging defensive packages just in case we play them again. Hopefully bad word LeBeau thought this far ahead when we played the Eagles, Giants, Colts, SD and Ratbirds.


and recent numbers do not lie.. the #1 seed is over rated and I would much rather lose now and win later then the other way around.
Which seed # goes on to win the SB most often?
Are you saying that we couldn't win both the last time we played the Titans AND the next time?
8)

I'm saying winning the second time around is more important then the first. Of course the ideal is to win every game but if there was ever a game to not throw the whole sink at a team the Titans game was it.

Steeler Shades
12-31-2008, 09:12 PM
once again you get juvenile with the theory shades....

sheez, I'm starting to question how old you are...
Be VERY careful feltdizz. Very careful. 8)

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=532 (http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=532)
"You may, from time to time, find yourself in disagreement with someone else's opinion. At times like these, please keep in mind it's safer and more polite to take issue with the comments rather than the person.

o Any communication that is intended to harass, belittle, humiliate, threaten or cause embarrassment to a fellow member, coach or player."

Steeler Shades
12-31-2008, 09:25 PM
.. no one says every loss is due to sandbagging or holding back.. but when you are playing a team in week 17 for the #1 seed...

why would Lebeau holding back on a few blitzes be a outside the realm of possibilities?
Holding back on a few blitzes is NOT outside of the realm of possiblilities. Giving up home field advantage and letting a team spank you like the Titans did our # 1 defense is very un-LeBeau like. Again, I don't believe he purposely LET the Titans beat us so that he could hide some secret blitzes just in case we faced them again.


I have no idea why you keep going back to our other losses and using this same theory...
... not once have I said every loss is due to the theory of "not showing too much" but if you want to go back to every loss and apply it then have at it.
Seems unrealistic to believe that LeBeau only sandbagged against the Titans and not against any other teams. There is NO GUARANTEE that we would play the Titans again and if we did I have to believe that home field would be more of an advantage than a few secret blitzes. Just my opinion.....8)

TallyStiller
12-31-2008, 11:21 PM
.. no one says every loss is due to sandbagging or holding back.. but when you are playing a team in week 17 for the #1 seed...

why would Lebeau holding back on a few blitzes be a outside the realm of possibilities?
Holding back on a few blitzes is NOT outside of the realm of possiblilities. Giving up home field advantage and letting a team spank you like the Titans did our # 1 defense is very un-LeBeau like. Again, I don't believe he purposely LET the Titans beat us so that he could hide some secret blitzes just in case we faced them again.


I have no idea why you keep going back to our other losses and using this same theory...
... not once have I said every loss is due to the theory of "not showing too much" but if you want to go back to every loss and apply it then have at it.
Seems unrealistic to believe that LeBeau only sandbagged against the Titans and not against any other teams. There is NO GUARANTEE that we would play the Titans again and if we did I have to believe that home field would be more of an advantage than a few secret blitzes. Just my opinion.....8)

Saw an analysis today where the Titans game was broken down play by play. On only 3 occasions in the entire game did we bring more than 4 pass rushers - and on each of those, we brought 5. One resulted in a big sack and forced punt by Timmons. We dropped 7 into coverage the vast majority of plays, and played 8 deep more often than we blitzed. doesn't sound like typical LeBeau to me.

TallyStiller
12-31-2008, 11:29 PM
Just off the top of my head, but I believe that since the 6th team was added, the AFC #1 seed has only gone to the Super Bowl 5 out of 17 times, including last year with the *'s.... In '06, Indy was a 3, we were a 6 in '05, the *'s were a 2 in '04... I think the *'s in '03 and Raiders in '02 were 1's. The *'s were a 2 in '01, the Rats won it all as a 4 in '00. I know the Titans won in Jax to go in '99. Historically, I believe the #4 has won the AFC as frequently as the #1, although that was accomplished mostly prior to 2002, when the #4 was the top wildcard team and sitting kind of like Indy is this year, tied for the 2nd best record in the conference.

The NFC #1 seed has played through with a lot more regularity. For whatever reason, the AFC has been upset plagued. Actually, the reason is named Bill Cowher, but we won't open that can of worms any further here...

feltdizz
01-01-2009, 05:29 PM
once again you get juvenile with the theory shades....

sheez, I'm starting to question how old you are...
Be VERY careful feltdizz. Very careful. 8)

http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewto ... ?f=1&t=532 (http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=532)
"You may, from time to time, find yourself in disagreement with someone else's opinion. At times like these, please keep in mind it's safer and more polite to take issue with the comments rather than the person.

o Any communication that is intended to harass, belittle, humiliate, threaten or cause embarrassment to a fellow member, coach or player."

I'm not trying to humiliate you at all..

but when you try to link every loss we have had to the theory I applied for a week 17 game for the #1 seed I found that to be humiliating to the argument.

Tally pretty much just posted what I suspected.. less blitzing and probably a more vanilla D then we are used to seeing. Now maybe it was due to the 4 TO's and poor field position most of the game....

I really think the TO's made our D look worse then it was... I also truly believe DL held back on the blitzes some...

we agree to disagree...

Steeler Shades
01-01-2009, 06:25 PM
...we agree to disagree...
Yes we do. At this point, I just hope we have a chance to play them again and find out that you and Tally are correct. 8)