Interesting fact

[VCDefectors]

Did you know that since the implementation of the current 12 team playoff structure in 1990, that the NFC #1 Seed has NEVER lost in the divisional round?

1990-1991: San Francisco 49ers 28 (#1), Washington Commanders 10 (#5)
1991-1992: Washington Commanders 24 (#1), Atlanta Falcons 7 (#6)
1992-1993: San Francisco 49ers 20 (#1), Washington Commanders 13 (#6)
1993-1994: Dallas Cowboys 27 (#1), Green Bay Packers 17 (#6)
1994-1995: San Francisco 49ers 44 (#1), Chicago Bears 15 (#6)
1995-1996: Dallas Cowboys 30 (#1), Philadelphia Eagles 11 (#4)
1996-1997: Green Bay Packers 35 (#1), San Francisco 49ers 14 (#4)
1997-1998: San Francisco 49ers 38 (#1), Minnesota Vikings 22 (#6)
1998-1999: Minnesota Vikings 41 (#1), Arizona Cardinals 21 (#6)
1999-2000: St. Louis Rams 49 (#1), Minnesota Vikings 37 (#4)
2000-2001: New York Giants 20 (#1), Philadelphia Eagles 10 (#4)
2001-2002: St. Louis Rams 45 (#1) , Green Bay Packers 17 (#4)
2002-2003: Philadelphia Eagles 20 (#1), Atlanta Falcons 6 (#6)
2003-2004: Philadelphia Eagles 20 (#1), Green Bay Packers 17 (#4) (OT)
2004-2005: Philadelphia Eagles 27 (#1), Minnesota Vikings 14 (#6)
2005-2006: Seattle Seahawks 20 (#1), Washington Commanders 10 (#6)
2006-2007: Chicago Bears 27 (#1), Seattle Seahawks 24 (#4) (OT)

NFC #1 Seed in Divisional Round Since 1990: 17-0
Average Points: NFC #1 Seed 30.3, Opponent 15.6
Average Margin of Victory: +14.7 points

 

[Boyzmamacita]

I hope this trend continues.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Did you know that since the implementation of the current 12 team playoff structure in 1990, that the NFC #1 Seed has NEVER lost in the divisional round?

1990-1991: San Francisco 49ers 28 (#1), Washington Commanders 10 (#5)
1991-1992: Washington Commanders 24 (#1), Atlanta Falcons 7 (#6)
1992-1993: San Francisco 49ers 20 (#1), Washington Commanders 13 (#6)
1993-1994: Dallas Cowboys 27 (#1), Green Bay Packers 17 (#6)
1994-1995: San Francisco 49ers 44 (#1), Chicago Bears 15 (#6)
1995-1996: Dallas Cowboys 30 (#1), Philadelphia Eagles 11 (#4)
1996-1997: Green Bay Packers 35 (#1), San Francisco 49ers 14 (#4)
1997-1998: San Francisco 49ers 38 (#1), Minnesota Vikings 22 (#6)
1998-1999: Minnesota Vikings 41 (#1), Arizona Cardinals 21 (#6)
1999-2000: St. Louis Rams 49 (#1), Minnesota Vikings 37 (#4)
2000-2001: New York Giants 20 (#1), Philadelphia Eagles 10 (#4)
2001-2002: St. Louis Rams 45 (#1) , Green Bay Packers 17 (#4)
2002-2003: Philadelphia Eagles 20 (#1), Atlanta Falcons 6 (#6)
2003-2004: Philadelphia Eagles 20 (#1), Green Bay Packers 17 (#4) (OT)
2004-2005: Philadelphia Eagles 27 (#1), Minnesota Vikings 14 (#6)
2005-2006: Seattle Seahawks 20 (#1), Washington Commanders 10 (#6)
2006-2007: Chicago Bears 27 (#1), Seattle Seahawks 24 (#4) (OT)

NFC #1 Seed in Divisional Round Since 1990: 17-0
Average Points: NFC #1 Seed 30.3, Opponent 15.6
Average Margin of Victory: +14.7 points

way to jinx us

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

We didn't win 13 games and lock all these beneficial things up by being lucky. We're a damn good team. We're going to come out fired up, guns blazing, and surprise some people this Sunday. Watch out.

 

[VCDefectors]

way to jinx us

Only a Canadian would think that way. The facts are what they are. It goes to show how difficult it is for a wildcard team to go up against a #1 seed.

 

[Hypnotoad]

The number #1 seed in the divisional round may be undefeated, but how many times has a #1 seed faced a divisional opponent, 3 times, and WON 3 times? The answer, is 0.

btw, nice find.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Only a Canadian would think that way. The facts are what they are. It goes to show how difficult it is for a wildcard team to go up against a #1 seed.

Yeah like being Canadian has anything to do with it.

Ask yourself if say mickgreen58 had written what I wrote (in jest like me but obviously you are incapable of reading between the lines) would you have written "only a black would think that way"? Didn't think so.

 

[VCDefectors]

Yeah like being Canadian has anything to do with it.

If I say so, it does. Do you have a problem with that, mister?

 

[Rack]

Did you know that since the implementation of the current 12 team playoff structure in 1990, that the NFC #1 Seed has NEVER lost in the divisional round?

1990-1991: San Francisco 49ers 28 (#1), Washington Commanders 10 (#5)
1991-1992: Washington Commanders 24 (#1), Atlanta Falcons 7 (#6)
1992-1993: San Francisco 49ers 20 (#1), Washington Commanders 13 (#6)
1993-1994: Dallas Cowboys 27 (#1), Green Bay Packers 17 (#6)
1994-1995: San Francisco 49ers 44 (#1), Chicago Bears 15 (#6)
1995-1996: Dallas Cowboys 30 (#1), Philadelphia Eagles 11 (#4)
1996-1997: Green Bay Packers 35 (#1), San Francisco 49ers 14 (#4)
1997-1998: San Francisco 49ers 38 (#1), Minnesota Vikings 22 (#6)
1998-1999: Minnesota Vikings 41 (#1), Arizona Cardinals 21 (#6)
1999-2000: St. Louis Rams 49 (#1), Minnesota Vikings 37 (#4)
2000-2001: New York Giants 20 (#1), Philadelphia Eagles 10 (#4)
2001-2002: St. Louis Rams 45 (#1) , Green Bay Packers 17 (#4)
2002-2003: Philadelphia Eagles 20 (#1), Atlanta Falcons 6 (#6)
2003-2004: Philadelphia Eagles 20 (#1), Green Bay Packers 17 (#4) (OT)
2004-2005: Philadelphia Eagles 27 (#1), Minnesota Vikings 14 (#6)
2005-2006: Seattle Seahawks 20 (#1), Washington Commanders 10 (#6)
2006-2007: Chicago Bears 27 (#1), Seattle Seahawks 24 (#4) (OT)

NFC #1 Seed in Divisional Round Since 1990: 17-0
Average Points: NFC #1 Seed 30.3, Opponent 15.6
Average Margin of Victory: +14.7 points

I hate you.

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

The number #1 seed in the divisional round may be undefeated, but how many times has a #1 seed faced a divisional opponent, 3 times, and WON 3 times? The answer, is 0.

btw, nice find.

So it all evens out. Come on this meeting 3 times thing is silly. We've broken other such trends in the past. Wasn't there once this thing about losing thanksgiving day games?

 

[VCDefectors]

I hate you.

You must be a Canadian, too.

 

[AdamJT13]

The number #1 seed in the divisional round may be undefeated, but how many times has a #1 seed faced a divisional opponent, 3 times, and WON 3 times? The answer, is 0.

The 2000 Giants were the No. 1 seed, swept the Eagles in the regular season, then beat the Eagles in the divisional round of the playoffs.

The 1994 Steelers were the No. 1 seed, swept the Browns in the regular season, then beat the Browns in the divisional round of the playoffs.

The 1986 Giants were the No. 1 seed, swept the Commanders in the regular season, then beat the Commanders in the NFC Championship Game.

So unless I'm misunderstanding your criteria, No. 1 seeds actually are 2-0 in the divisional round of the playoffs against a team from their division that they swept during the regular season, and 1-0 in conference championship games.

 

[Rack]

You must be a Canadian, too.

I'm a Texan. The greatest country on earth.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I'm a Texan. The greatest country on earth.

I don't know, Santa Ana gave it to you pretty good at the Alamo

 

[Rack]

I don't know, Santa Ana gave it to you pretty good at the Alamo

How so?


We were heavily outnumbered and it took quite a few of his men (aka a few of his men DIED) to finally take it from us. And we still came and took it right back.


And I really don't think a Canadian should be talking trash about battles. Has canada ever been in a battle? Not likely. There's nothing there worth fighting for.




And just for the record, Texas wasn't officially a country at the time of The Alamo.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

How so?


We were heavily outnumbered and it took quite a few of his men (aka a few of his men DIED) to finally take it from us. And we still came and took it right back.


And I really don't think a Canadian should be talking trash about battles. Has canada ever been in a battle? Not likely. There's nothing there worth fighting for.




And just for the record, Texas wasn't officially a country at the time of The Alamo.

Actually, we beat the US in the War of 1812 and beat you guys back in 1775 when we stayed loyal and you were nothing but rebels upset because your tea was taxed.

At least at the end of our battles, our big heroes were not found cowering in the corner wearing women's clothes like at the Alamo.

 

[Rack]

Actually, we beat the US in the War of 1812 and beat you guys back in 1775 when we stayed loyal and you were nothing but rebels upset because your tea was taxed.

At least at the end of our battles, our big heroes were not found cowering in the corner wearing women's clothes like at the Alamo.

Not many facts in canadian history books, "eh"?


Seriously, canada is lucky there's nothing worth a crap up there or we would have taken over that block of ice a long time ago.

 

[GhettoxCowboy]

way to jinx us

Was just bout to say the same thing..

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Actually, we beat the US in the War of 1812 and beat you guys back in 1775 when we stayed loyal and you were nothing but rebels upset because your tea was taxed.

At least at the end of our battles, our big heroes were not found cowering in the corner wearing women's clothes like at the Alamo.

Actually, history states that most of the "big heroes" were killed during the battle. Unsubstantied rumor holds that the Mexican Army may have taken Crockett hostage, but there's little evidence confirming this.

Furthermore, Santa Anna didn't "give it" to anyone at the Alamo. The term "pyrrhic victory" is far more applicable.

 

[Idgit]

Actually, we beat the US in the War of 1812 and beat you guys back in 1775 when we stayed loyal and you were nothing but rebels upset because your tea was taxed.

At least at the end of our battles, our big heroes were not found cowering in the corner wearing women's clothes like at the Alamo.

Beavers and brown bears are not 'big heroes.' And any country who's tough guys are called 'mount-ees' cannot be considered tough by definition.