OFFICIAL NFL Week by Week Thread:

[Ehwmatt]

Down 7 with 5 secs to go.....you score the TD. Do you kick the PAT, play for the tie(safe)? Or go for 2, play for the win(agressive)?

I would always play for the win......cause I wouldn't want to lose the coin toss in OT.

Or be that bonehead Buffalo head coach who defered the ball in OT.

Regular season - Kick the pt

Playoff - Go for 2

Your thought process should be the same regardless if it is post season or regular season. IMHO. You got 16 games. Every game counts. As we saw this past Sunday night. You don't think there was alot riding on that regular season game?

It's admittedly a bit contradictory. Here's my thought process: Champions almost always require luck/balls/guts to win it all. In a playoff situation, I probably go for it... luck rewards the aggressor. I'm okay with losing homefield advantage to Peyton's greatness driving it 70 yards, maybe not so okay to putting it in his hands to end my season

Now, there are extenuating circumstances that can come into play in a playoff: If I'm coaching the 08-09 Steelers, I probably kick the point and assume my D can stop them and get us the ball even if we lose the coin toss. Same thought process in the opposite direction if my D is getting shredded like the Pats were at the end, if it's a playoff. Also, if it's a regular season game to determine the wild card, I might say fuck it and go for it if I don't think there's a good chance I can win otherwise.

There's no way you can make these kind of decisions in a hypothetical set in a vacuum, you know?

[S2M]

Down 7 with 5 secs to go.....you score the TD. Do you kick the PAT, play for the tie(safe)? Or go for 2, play for the win(agressive)?

I would always play for the win......cause I wouldn't want to lose the coin toss in OT.

Or be that bonehead Buffalo head coach who defered the ball in OT.

Regular season - Kick the pt

Playoff - Go for 2

Your thought process should be the same regardless if it is post season or regular season. IMHO. You got 16 games. Every game counts. As we saw this past Sunday night. You don't think there was alot riding on that regular season game?

It's admittedly a bit contradictory. Here's my thought process: Champions almost always require luck/balls/guts to win it all. In a playoff situation, I probably go for it... luck rewards the aggressor. I'm okay with losing homefield advantage to Peyton's greatness driving it 70 yards, maybe not so okay to putting it in his hands to end my season

Now, there are extenuating circumstances that can come into play: If I'm coaching the 08-09 Steelers, I probably kick the point and assume my D can stop them and get us the ball even if we lose the coin toss. If it's a regular season game to determine the wild card, I might say fuck it and go for it if I don't think there's a good chance.

There's no way you can make these kind of decisions in a hypothetical set in a vacuum, you know?

Great post. I understand what you are saying.

I just feel that you should always play to win....instead of playng not to lose.

[Saint John]

I loved Belichick's decision. My guess is that he figured that if Manning got the ball back with that amount of time left that there was greater than a 50% chance that he was going to score, whether it was 28 yards or 68. I also believe he figured that Brady and Co. would get the 2 yards about 75% of the time. From a mathematical, coaching and fan's perspective, I believe he made the right call. The momentum had changed and his defense was getting carved up. And remember, just because they didn't punt doesn't mean that they would have won if they had punted. He made the decision that he thought gave his team the best chance of winning. And I love that he doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about it!

[Ehwmatt]

I loved Belichick's decision. My guess is that he figured that if Manning got the ball back with that amount of time left that there was greater than a 50% chance that he was going to score, whether it was 28 yards or 68. I also believe he figured that Brady and Co. would get the 2 yards about 75% of the time. From a mathematical, coaching and fan's perspective, I believe he made the right call. The momentum had changed and his defense was getting carved up. And remember, just because they didn't punt doesn't mean that they would have won if they had punted. He made the decision that he thought gave his team the best chance of winning. And I love that he doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about it!

Right, like I said, they get 1 more yard and we're all talking about how he's an unparalleled genius again. It goes both ways, for sure. I think the strongest argument against what he did is that when you are such a strong leader and analytical coach like Belichick is renowned to be, those (young) defensive players probably feel betrayed/let down. I've been in situations where I could feel a coach wasn't supporting/believing in me, and it really hurts your game. That's the toughest part of the whole thing to me that he's gonna have to work to overcome with his young defensive squad.

[S2M]

I loved Belichick's decision. My guess is that he figured that if Manning got the ball back with that amount of time left that there was greater than a 50% chance that he was going to score, whether it was 28 yards or 68. I also believe he figured that Brady and Co. would get the 2 yards about 75% of the time. From a mathematical, coaching and fan's perspective, I believe he made the right call. The momentum had changed and his defense was getting carved up. And remember, just because they didn't punt doesn't mean that they would have won if they had punted. He made the decision that he thought gave his team the best chance of winning. And I love that he doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about it!

Right, like I said, they get 1 more yard and we're all talking about how he's an unparalleled genius again. It goes both ways, for sure. I think the strongest argument against what he did is that when you are such a strong leader and analytical coach like Belichick is renowned to be, those (young) defensive players probably feel betrayed/let down. I've been in situations where I could feel a coach wasn't supporting/believing in me, and it really hurts your game. That's the toughest part of the whole thing to me that he's gonna have to work to overcome with his young defensive squad.

That philosophy really helped the Red Sox in game 7 of the '03 ALCS, now didn't it. Manager kept in Pedro, thought he could handle it. The rest.........is history.

[Ehwmatt]

I loved Belichick's decision. My guess is that he figured that if Manning got the ball back with that amount of time left that there was greater than a 50% chance that he was going to score, whether it was 28 yards or 68. I also believe he figured that Brady and Co. would get the 2 yards about 75% of the time. From a mathematical, coaching and fan's perspective, I believe he made the right call. The momentum had changed and his defense was getting carved up. And remember, just because they didn't punt doesn't mean that they would have won if they had punted. He made the decision that he thought gave his team the best chance of winning. And I love that he doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about it!

Right, like I said, they get 1 more yard and we're all talking about how he's an unparalleled genius again. It goes both ways, for sure. I think the strongest argument against what he did is that when you are such a strong leader and analytical coach like Belichick is renowned to be, those (young) defensive players probably feel betrayed/let down. I've been in situations where I could feel a coach wasn't supporting/believing in me, and it really hurts your game. That's the toughest part of the whole thing to me that he's gonna have to work to overcome with his young defensive squad.

That philosophy really helped the Red Sox in game 7 of the '03 ALCS, now didn't it. Manager kept in Pedro, thought he could handle it. The rest.........is history.

That really is apples to oranges. You take Pedro out, he ain't pitchin again the rest of the season regardless of what happens. That's also one person on a baseball team versus an entire unit in football. The Patriots defense has a lot more games to play this year and they need to feel Belichick's belief/support.

As pros, they should be over it come Sunday, but the psyche of athletes can be really fragile, particularly when the group mentality thing sets in either positively or negatively.

[S2M]

I loved Belichick's decision. My guess is that he figured that if Manning got the ball back with that amount of time left that there was greater than a 50% chance that he was going to score, whether it was 28 yards or 68. I also believe he figured that Brady and Co. would get the 2 yards about 75% of the time. From a mathematical, coaching and fan's perspective, I believe he made the right call. The momentum had changed and his defense was getting carved up. And remember, just because they didn't punt doesn't mean that they would have won if they had punted. He made the decision that he thought gave his team the best chance of winning. And I love that he doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about it!

Right, like I said, they get 1 more yard and we're all talking about how he's an unparalleled genius again. It goes both ways, for sure. I think the strongest argument against what he did is that when you are such a strong leader and analytical coach like Belichick is renowned to be, those (young) defensive players probably feel betrayed/let down. I've been in situations where I could feel a coach wasn't supporting/believing in me, and it really hurts your game. That's the toughest part of the whole thing to me that he's gonna have to work to overcome with his young defensive squad.

That philosophy really helped the Red Sox in game 7 of the '03 ALCS, now didn't it. Manager kept in Pedro, thought he could handle it. The rest.........is history.

That really is apples to oranges. You take Pedro out, he ain't pitchin again the rest of the season regardless of what happens. That's also one person on a baseball team versus an entire unit in football. The Patriots defense has a lot more games to play this year and they need to feel Belichick's belief/support.

As pros, they should be over it come Sunday, but the psyche of athletes can be really fragile, particularly when the group mentality thing sets in either positively or negatively.

Again, just like Trav you are failing to see the big picture. Bill not having confidence in his Defense is a media-driven excuse. Bill didn't say that. At least he didn't say it as blatant as that. He just said going for it on 4th and 2 gave his team the best chance to win. perhaps the last TWo drives the Colts scored on are the drives the defense should be all fragile about, ya think?

[Enigma869]

Down 7 with 5 secs to go.....you score the TD. Do you kick the PAT, play for the tie(safe)? Or go for 2, play for the win(agressive)?

In spite of how fucking ridiculous I think the NFL's overtime system is (and it's FUCKING MORONIC), I would kick the extra point and go for the tie EVERY time and just pray that I win the dopey coin flip. If you go for the two point conversion, you better fucking make it, because if you don't, the media is going to run you out of town.

[YoungJRNY]

I loved Belichick's decision. My guess is that he figured that if Manning got the ball back with that amount of time left that there was greater than a 50% chance that he was going to score, whether it was 28 yards or 68. I also believe he figured that Brady and Co. would get the 2 yards about 75% of the time. From a mathematical, coaching and fan's perspective, I believe he made the right call. The momentum had changed and his defense was getting carved up. And remember, just because they didn't punt doesn't mean that they would have won if they had punted. He made the decision that he thought gave his team the best chance of winning. And I love that he doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about it!

And I love that he doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about it!

That's great, too bad it cost him the game. I can see MAYBE going for it from the 50 (and that's pushing it) if he wanted to go for it. Going for it on your own 28 just isn't acceptable I don't care who you are, or who you got. You put it in the hands of your defense. Now, according to Dan's post, as big of a dick Belichick comes off to be, If he was EVER in this situation again, and I'm sure he will be, he'd go for it AGAIN just to stuff it in the face to anyone who doubted it or disagreed. That's just the way the dude operates.

[YoungJRNY]

I loved Belichick's decision. My guess is that he figured that if Manning got the ball back with that amount of time left that there was greater than a 50% chance that he was going to score, whether it was 28 yards or 68. I also believe he figured that Brady and Co. would get the 2 yards about 75% of the time. From a mathematical, coaching and fan's perspective, I believe he made the right call. The momentum had changed and his defense was getting carved up. And remember, just because they didn't punt doesn't mean that they would have won if they had punted. He made the decision that he thought gave his team the best chance of winning. And I love that he doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about it!

Right, like I said, they get 1 more yard and we're all talking about how he's an unparalleled genius again. It goes both ways, for sure. I think the strongest argument against what he did is that when you are such a strong leader and analytical coach like Belichick is renowned to be, those (young) defensive players probably feel betrayed/let down. I've been in situations where I could feel a coach wasn't supporting/believing in me, and it really hurts your game. That's the toughest part of the whole thing to me that he's gonna have to work to overcome with his young defensive squad.

That philosophy really helped the Red Sox in game 7 of the '03 ALCS, now didn't it. Manager kept in Pedro, thought he could handle it. The rest.........is history.

That really is apples to oranges. You take Pedro out, he ain't pitchin again the rest of the season regardless of what happens. That's also one person on a baseball team versus an entire unit in football. The Patriots defense has a lot more games to play this year and they need to feel Belichick's belief/support.

As pros, they should be over it come Sunday, but the psyche of athletes can be really fragile, particularly when the group mentality thing sets in either positively or negatively.

Again, just like Trav you are failing to see the big picture. Bill not having confidence in his Defense is a media-driven excuse. Bill didn't say that. At least he didn't say it as blatant as that. He just said going for it on 4th and 2 gave his team the best chance to win. perhaps the last TWo drives the Colts scored on are the drives the defense should be all fragile about, ya think?

Going for it on 4th and 2 is just that. HE DIDN'T TRUST IN HIS DEFENSE whether it was 30 yards, or 70 yards. He simply thought his defense had no chance in stopping Manning from any range and he made the call that risked it all. He was right. New England didn't even come close to making any stand. I see the reason, everyone does. But you simply kick that deep and put your chances on the Defense.

[Don]

If the Colts lose to New England in the playoffs, what happened on fourth down is mute. Home Field doesn't seem to make a difference for the Colts anyway, at least when they play the Chargers.

[YoungJRNY]

If the Colts lose to New England in the playoffs, what happened on fourth down is mute. Home Field doesn't mean much for the Colts if they can't get past the Chargers who seem to have their number as of late.

Long way to go to come up with ANY scenario. Come playoff time, if these two teams DO meet (that would be awesome), I believe N.E handles them because Belichick simply doesn't lose to the same team twice in a season. New England's the scariest team in the league to face twice, and Indy would have a major disadvantage, esp. coaching head to head.

[Don]

If the Colts lose to New England in the playoffs, what happened on fourth down is mute. Home Field doesn't mean much for the Colts if they can't get past the Chargers who seem to have their number as of late.

Long way to go to come up with ANY scenario. Come playoff time, if these two teams DO meet (that would be awesome), I believe N.E handles them because Belichick simply doesn't lose to the same team twice in a season. New England's the scariest team in the league to face twice, and Indy would have a major disadvantage, esp. coaching head to head.

New England knows they can put up the points on the Colts. The Colt's know they can't expect the Patriots defense to concede anything the next go around.

I brought up the Chargers because if Indie does end up being the first seed, I think they will come up against San Diego who's air attack seems to be capable of completely overwhelming the Colt's secondary.

[YoungJRNY]

Down 7 with 5 secs to go.....you score the TD. Do you kick the PAT, play for the tie(safe)? Or go for 2, play for the win(agressive)?

I would always play for the win......cause I wouldn't want to lose the coin toss in OT.

Or be that bonehead Buffalo head coach who defered the ball in OT.

Regular season - Kick the pt

Playoff - Go for 2

That's insane! If you live another play, esp. in the playoffs, you kick the pt every time and go to sudden death! The percentages of both teams are the same. 50/50. Judging by everyone responses, I'd love to see the atrocity of a team coached by some people in here. That would be a RIOT to see.

[YoungJRNY]

If the Colts lose to New England in the playoffs, what happened on fourth down is mute. Home Field doesn't mean much for the Colts if they can't get past the Chargers who seem to have their number as of late.

Long way to go to come up with ANY scenario. Come playoff time, if these two teams DO meet (that would be awesome), I believe N.E handles them because Belichick simply doesn't lose to the same team twice in a season. New England's the scariest team in the league to face twice, and Indy would have a major disadvantage, esp. coaching head to head.

New England knows they can put up the points on the Colts. The Colt's know they can't expect the Patriots defense to concede anything the next go around.

I brought up the Chargers because if Indie does end up being the first seed, I think they will come up against San Diego who's air attack seems to be capable of completely overwhelming the Colt's secondary.

The playoffs are a COMPLETE different beast. The Steelers in '05 got completely dominated when they went to Indianapolis early season and had no chance at anything. In the divisional round, everything is kicked up a notch, and the Steelers brought it, pretty much reversing the tables. I'd expect the same in the playoffs if the Colts and N.E met again, N.E having an advantage from a coaching standpoint. But lets not anoint any Super Bowl rings just yet. Being the first seed, and being apart of a 1 or 2 seed, that means the Colts would have a first round bye. That means S.D would have to win the first round, so that's not something that's always guaranteed. Here's who plays who TODAY.

First round BYES: (1) Indy (2) Bengals

Wild Card Weekend:

San Diego (6) @ New England (3)
Pittsburgh (5) @ Denver (4)

I guess we'll throw in the not-so interesting NFC race

First round BYES: (1) New Orleans (2) Minnesota

Wild Card Weekend:

(5) Philadelphia @ (4) Arizona
(6) Atlanta @ (3) Dallas

[YoungJRNY]

That pass interference is going to be called EVERYTIME. Not only was the N.E defender holding his jersey the whole way downfield, but he bumped into him when attempting a jump ball, interfering with his route. It will continue to be called as well. But taking the QB to the ground is really something that just needs to happen.

Sorry...I'm with Malone on this one and it has nothing to do with the team I have an allegiance to. The pass interference call against Butler was fucking ABSURD, period! The NFL has a real problem with phantom interference calls, league-wide, and they REALLY need to get a handle on it, because it's fucking embarrassing. I thought the call against Butler was atrocious even before I saw the replay. The replay confirmed what an awful call it was.

On another note, here is one of many articles floating around defending Belichick's decision, even though I didn't agree with it. For the record, this is not a Boston writer.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=A ... &type=lgns

I'm not surprised, and I respect your opinion on the issue. But like you said in Week 1 with a similiar call.

"Dude...whether you agree with the call or not, it doesn't change the fact it's a judgment call."

As for the article, whatever makes you feel better. (The ref made the right call , he juggled it and as soon as he gained control he was tackled a yard short.) Personally, I kick it deep regardless, it just puts the overall team in a better situation to hold on and escape with a W. If you don't think your D can handle it, then what does that do to your decision making come playoff time and how good are you really?

[Ehwmatt]

Down 7 with 5 secs to go.....you score the TD. Do you kick the PAT, play for the tie(safe)? Or go for 2, play for the win(agressive)?

I would always play for the win......cause I wouldn't want to lose the coin toss in OT.

Or be that bonehead Buffalo head coach who defered the ball in OT.

Regular season - Kick the pt

Playoff - Go for 2

That's insane! If you live another play, esp. in the playoffs, you kick the pt every time and go to sudden death! The percentages of both teams are the same. 50/50. Judging by everyone responses, I'd love to see the atrocity of a team coached by some people in here. That would be a RIOT to see.

Like I said, you can't make the decision in a vacuum. If you're going to OT against Peyton and he's shredding you, i dunno if you wanna go to a fuckin gay coin flip with him. Even though it's 50/50 to win or lose the toss, it's not a 50/50 chance to win if you're nearly guaranteed a loss if you lose the toss (even against a decent offense that's a good chance).

It's all theory anyway - if I were a coach I'd probably kick the point no matter what . I do get annoyed with overconservatism though, sometimes you SHOULD go for it on 4th and 1 when you're in their territory, IMO.

[Enigma869]

He was right. New England didn't even come close to making any stand.

Not exactly true, dude. You do realize that the Colts had to punt 7 times in that game because New England's defense stopped their offense, right? When is the last time the Colts have EVER punted 7 times in one game? Hell, they probably don't punt 7 times in most months!

[Ehwmatt]

He was right. New England didn't even come close to making any stand.

Not exactly true, dude. You do realize that the Colts had to punt 7 times in that game because New England's defense stopped their offense, right? When is the last time the Colts have EVER punted 7 times in one game? Hell, they probably don't punt 7 times in most months!

I think he's talkin about the last drive only. But at any rate, the truth is somewhere in the middle. They were shutting them down, but the momentum had definitely shifted. You could feel it.

[YoungJRNY]

Down 7 with 5 secs to go.....you score the TD. Do you kick the PAT, play for the tie(safe)? Or go for 2, play for the win(agressive)?

I would always play for the win......cause I wouldn't want to lose the coin toss in OT.

Or be that bonehead Buffalo head coach who defered the ball in OT.

Regular season - Kick the pt

Playoff - Go for 2

That's insane! If you live another play, esp. in the playoffs, you kick the pt every time and go to sudden death! The percentages of both teams are the same. 50/50. Judging by everyone responses, I'd love to see the atrocity of a team coached by some people in here. That would be a RIOT to see.

Like I said, you can't make the decision in a vacuum. If you're going to OT against Peyton and he's shredding you, i dunno if you wanna go to a fuckin gay coin flip with him. Even though it's 50/50 to win or lose the toss, it's not a 50/50 chance to win if you're nearly guaranteed a loss if you lose the toss (even against a decent offense that's a good chance).

It's all theory anyway - if I were a coach I'd probably kick the point no matter what . I do get annoyed with overconservatism though, sometimes you SHOULD go for it on 4th and 1 when you're in their territory, IMO.

What some don't understand and what is so underrated to a football game is field position. Just going for it on 4th and 2 seems all fine and dandy from a armchair quarterback viewpoint , but faced with the adversity to either go for it or kick it and put your team in a better situation to make a play, then I'm sure in the hot seat, you'd kick it as well, it's only sensible and common sense. If one can win the field position battle more times than none, then that team has the best chance at winning, and going for it on 4th and 2 on any end of the field is jeopardizing not only your game plan, but players trust as well in situational football, and it has come back to bite teams in the ass.

There are only so many plays in the playbook for 4th and 2. As some say, a long 2. As far as going for 2 at the end of the game, if I were a coach I'd never even think to go for two. You kick the point and head into the sudden death, period. Again, it's all good and grand sitting there say go for it, but faced with it, coaches opt to fight another day rather than risking everything you've done in the game on a 2 point conversion where it's not guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that your team is still in the game and you have a better shot at winning rather than gambling going for 2. I guess it's all perspective but any coach will probably say the same thing.

[YoungJRNY]

He was right. New England didn't even come close to making any stand.

Not exactly true, dude. You do realize that the Colts had to punt 7 times in that game because New England's defense stopped their offense, right? When is the last time the Colts have EVER punted 7 times in one game? Hell, they probably don't punt 7 times in most months!

Right, but they didn't stop them on the last one. I'm only talking on that final drive, they completely were gassed and seemed to play with lack of confidence. Granted, giving Manning 30 yards is pretty much a gimmie, but there's no reason why the defense shouldn't go on the field to think stand.

[Enigma869]

I'm only talking on that final drive, they completely were gassed and seemed to play with lack of confidence. Granted, giving Manning 30 yards is pretty much a gimmie, but there's no reason why the defense shouldn't go on the field to think stand.

Dude...if they were were "completely gassed" as you claim on a 28 yard drive, what the hell do you think they would have looked like on a 70 yard drive?

[YoungJRNY]

I'm only talking on that final drive, they completely were gassed and seemed to play with lack of confidence. Granted, giving Manning 30 yards is pretty much a gimmie, but there's no reason why the defense shouldn't go on the field to think stand.

Dude...if they were were "completely gassed" as you claim on a 28 yard drive, what the hell do you think they would have looked like on a 70 yard drive?

Kicking it deep gives a whole new outlook on how the Pats would of defended Manning. With that short of a field there is only so much you could do and it forced them to play with their backs up against the wall. Have Manning had to go 70 yards, the Pats could of gambled and possibly force Manning into throwing some errant throws or possible a pick. But it's all observation from this point. Who knows what could and would of happened. In my opinion, if the Pats kick it deep then I think they pull it out. Plus there's more pressure on Manning and defensive guys thrive off of that.

[Enigma869]

Hey John, what do you think of this. With Chris Henrys season ending injury, the Bengals yesterday tried out Joey Galloway.

Good luck with that. Who knows...maybe the Bengals offense is far less complex than the Patriots offense. I know this...Galloway simply couldn't learn the Patriots offense and I saw more than one game where Brady was yelling at him because he wasn't running the correct routes. Galloway was a pretty solid receiver for a lot of years, so if he has anything left, he's not a bad guy. I would certainly sign him over Larry Johnson all day long, just based on character!

[Enigma869]

I hadn't heard his name in so long I figured he retired.

He definitely hadn't retired. The Patriots just cut him three weeks ago, but he wasn't even good enough to get on the field with the Patriots. He spent most games standing on the sidelines and didn't even dress for three games because Belichick thought Sam Aitken (who plays special teams) was a better weapon.

[Ehwmatt]

lolz

[YoungJRNY]

LOVIN' the compliment. Just goes to show for 40 plus years the Bungles couldn't beat one team, being Pittsburgh. Glad to see we're in their heads also The Steelers will have another crack. The Division race isn't over as well.

[larryfromnextdoor]

.....................coach wade got the pants beat off of him last week .. still feeling that sting..
.......................................................................

[YoungJRNY]

I came across this in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and I thought about when someone asked the question on why "N.E always plays in Indy the past couple seasons." Here's a better explanation to which I pretty much understood.

When the NFL expanded to 32 teams in 2002, it also went to a scheduling formula that guarantees teams will play on a rotating basis. Besides playing each team in your own division twice, each NFL team will play teams from one other division in the AFC and one in the NFC. That leaves to games left and they play those based on where they finish the previous season.

This season, for example, the Steelers play the first-place teams from the AFC North (Miami) and South (Tennessee). Home-and-away is also predetermined, so no inequity such as the Steelers always going to Kansas City will take place. The schedule already is set for 2010. In addition to their own division, the Steelers will play at home: New England, New York Jets, Atlanta, Carolina and one team from AFC West based on their finish in the division. On the road they will play at Buffalo, at Miami, at new Orleans, at Tampa Bay and at AFC South team based on their finish.

[Don]

Anybody remember the Tampa - Indy game Gruden was referring to during the broadcast? I remember it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/recap?gid=20031006027