NFL Wildcard Weekend

[Banedon]

I'm starting to feel like the Eagles might win this weekend. The Packers are getting way too much love. PK calls them one of the best 6 seeds in history, which is kind of silly, considering that they finished 10-6 (one game worse than the 6 seed last year, Philadelphia), lost 3 of their last 6, can't run the football, aren't all that great at stopping the run, and haven't played a down yet in the playoffs.

 

The Packers are a good team, but the national media are really willing to overlook their faults.

they have the 2nd best point differential in all of football, despite a tough schedule (like the rest of the NFCN)

 

Oh. Then the losses don't count.

you're being purposefully dense. nowhere did i suggest that.

 

why do we all freely accept pythagorean record for baseball as a much better indicator of the quality of a team's performance, but you're seemingly shrugging off point differential like it's [expletive]?

 

162 games vs 16 games.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'm starting to feel like the Eagles might win this weekend. The Packers are getting way too much love. PK calls them one of the best 6 seeds in history, which is kind of silly, considering that they finished 10-6 (one game worse than the 6 seed last year, Philadelphia), lost 3 of their last 6, can't run the football, aren't all that great at stopping the run, and haven't played a down yet in the playoffs.

 

The Packers are a good team, but the national media are really willing to overlook their faults.

they have the 2nd best point differential in all of football, despite a tough schedule (like the rest of the NFCN)

 

just means their coaching sucks and their quarterback isn't really a hero-type.

 

The coaching obviously sucks but look at the numbers that Rodgers has. To put fault on him for our record in close games is borderline ridiculous.

[sneakypower]

why do we all freely accept pythagorean record for baseball as a much better indicator of the quality of a team's performance, but you're seemingly shrugging off point differential like it's [expletive]?

 

162 games vs 16 games.

wouldn't that even further my point? it's intuitively obvious from even the most basic understanding of statistics that you're going to have a better picture of the truth from a sample of 162 than 16, but even then we realize the sample of 162 isn't ideal, because there's so much luck and chance involved in close wins, and that's precisely why we accept pythagorean record as an improvement upon old-fashioned W-L.

 

to look at two teams and say "this one's better 'cause they won one more game" is so patently ludicrous.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I'm starting to feel like the Eagles might win this weekend. The Packers are getting way too much love. PK calls them one of the best 6 seeds in history, which is kind of silly, considering that they finished 10-6 (one game worse than the 6 seed last year, Philadelphia), lost 3 of their last 6, can't run the football, aren't all that great at stopping the run, and haven't played a down yet in the playoffs.

 

The Packers are a good team, but the national media are really willing to overlook their faults.

they have the 2nd best point differential in all of football, despite a tough schedule (like the rest of the NFCN)

 

Oh. Then the losses don't count.

you're being purposefully dense. nowhere did i suggest that.

 

why do we all freely accept pythagorean record for baseball as a much better indicator of the quality of a team's performance, but you're seemingly shrugging off point differential like it's [expletive]?

 

162 games vs 16 games.

 

SAMPLE SIZE

 

also, McCarthy is amazing as choking, according to our Packer brethren.

[sneakypower]

then he should chew his food better

[minnesotacubsfan]

ha! he probably should.

 

but I don't think the 162 vs 16 game argument is necessarily null and void. I think it becomes more applicable to baseball then it does football because of the instances (or games played). It could also suggest that a fluke year by a team is more likely to show as an anomaly in the statistics due to untimely bad decisions that cause more losses. aka, the packers statistics suggest they are very good, but their coach makes very poor decisions and they lose a lot.

 

That doesn't project that they will do well in the playoffs, but it does explain that at some point, their coach will likely make a catastrophic decision (or series of decisions) and they will lose despite their amazing statistics..

[Banedon]

why do we all freely accept pythagorean record for baseball as a much better indicator of the quality of a team's performance, but you're seemingly shrugging off point differential like it's [expletive]?

 

162 games vs 16 games.

wouldn't that even further my point? it's intuitively obvious from even the most basic understanding of statistics that you're going to have a better picture of the truth from a sample of 162 than 16, but even then we realize the sample of 162 isn't ideal, because there's so much luck and chance involved in close wins, and that's precisely why we accept pythagorean record as an improvement upon old-fashioned W-L.

 

to look at two teams and say "this one's better 'cause they won one more game" is so patently ludicrous.

 

Similarly, it's patently ludicrous to use solely point differential to determine who's a good team and who's not.

 

If my quick math is correct, GB's point differential between just Dallas, Minnesota (in Minny), SF and Buffalo is +111. The point differential in the other 12 games they played this season...+37. That's cherry picked of course, but it's simply to point out that they had a few huge blowouts against some bad teams...and the rest of their games were mostly close games. So that differential is misleading.

 

San Diego has a +119 point differential and they didn't make the playoffs. How good do you think they are?

[chuckywang]

I'm starting to feel like the Eagles might win this weekend. The Packers are getting way too much love. PK calls them one of the best 6 seeds in history, which is kind of silly, considering that they finished 10-6 (one game worse than the 6 seed last year, Philadelphia), lost 3 of their last 6, can't run the football, aren't all that great at stopping the run, and haven't played a down yet in the playoffs.

 

The Packers are a good team, but the national media are really willing to overlook their faults.

 

The Packers lost those 6 games by a combined 20 points. Has there been a team in history whose average margin of defeat was lower?

 

Really? Is that a real question? I'll just give you some of the easy-math answers:

 

1984 49ers: 3

1998 Vikings: 3

1985 Bears: 14

2004 Steelers: 17

 

This year's Ravens lost 4 games by a combined 16 points, so they were right there with the Packers in margin of defeat.

 

Average margin of defeat is what I am going for.

 

I realize there might be some 15-1 team that lost a game by 3 points, but I guess that's not really the same since the Packers had 6 losses.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I'm starting to feel like the Eagles might win this weekend. The Packers are getting way too much love. PK calls them one of the best 6 seeds in history, which is kind of silly, considering that they finished 10-6 (one game worse than the 6 seed last year, Philadelphia), lost 3 of their last 6, can't run the football, aren't all that great at stopping the run, and haven't played a down yet in the playoffs.

 

The Packers are a good team, but the national media are really willing to overlook their faults.

 

The Packers lost those 6 games by a combined 20 points. Has there been a team in history whose average margin of defeat was lower?

 

Really? Is that a real question? I'll just give you some of the easy-math answers:

 

1984 49ers: 3

1998 Vikings: 3

1985 Bears: 14

2004 Steelers: 17

 

This year's Ravens lost 4 games by a combined 16 points, so they were right there with the Packers in margin of defeat.

 

Average margin of defeat is what I am going for.

 

I realize there might be some 15-1 team that lost a game by 3 points, but I guess that's not really the same since the Packers had 6 losses.

 

so, the more loses you have, the better (or at least more acceptable) your average margin of defeat becomes? or is 6 a magic number? I'm so confused....I keep thinking its better to win games then to lose them.

[Banedon]

I'm starting to feel like the Eagles might win this weekend. The Packers are getting way too much love. PK calls them one of the best 6 seeds in history, which is kind of silly, considering that they finished 10-6 (one game worse than the 6 seed last year, Philadelphia), lost 3 of their last 6, can't run the football, aren't all that great at stopping the run, and haven't played a down yet in the playoffs.

 

The Packers are a good team, but the national media are really willing to overlook their faults.

 

The Packers lost those 6 games by a combined 20 points. Has there been a team in history whose average margin of defeat was lower?

 

Really? Is that a real question? I'll just give you some of the easy-math answers:

 

1984 49ers: 3

1998 Vikings: 3

1985 Bears: 14

2004 Steelers: 17

 

This year's Ravens lost 4 games by a combined 16 points, so they were right there with the Packers in margin of defeat.

 

Average margin of defeat is what I am going for.

 

I realize there might be some 15-1 team that lost a game by 3 points, but I guess that's not really the same since the Packers had 6 losses.

 

lol...Well you weren't clear on the rules of your little number manipulation game. You're the one who generalized it into the lowest margin of defeat ever. You should clarify what your parameters are.

[bukie]

why do we all freely accept pythagorean record for baseball as a much better indicator of the quality of a team's performance, but you're seemingly shrugging off point differential like it's [expletive]?

 

162 games vs 16 games.

wouldn't that even further my point? it's intuitively obvious from even the most basic understanding of statistics that you're going to have a better picture of the truth from a sample of 162 than 16, but even then we realize the sample of 162 isn't ideal, because there's so much luck and chance involved in close wins, and that's precisely why we accept pythagorean record as an improvement upon old-fashioned W-L.

 

to look at two teams and say "this one's better 'cause they won one more game" is so patently ludicrous.

 

Similarly, it's patently ludicrous to use solely point differential to determine who's a good team and who's not.

 

If my quick math is correct, GB's point differential between just Dallas, Minnesota (in Minny), SF and Buffalo is +111. The point differential in the other 12 games they played this season...+37. That's cherry picked of course, but it's simply to point out that they had a few huge blowouts against some bad teams...and the rest of their games were mostly close games. So that differential is misleading.

 

San Diego has a +119 point differential and they didn't make the playoffs. How good do you think they are?

Better than most, just terribly coached.

 

By every advanced metric out there, Green Bay is, if not the best team in the NFC, one of the 2-3 best.

 

Doesn't mean they're destined to win the NFC, but they shouldn't be taken lightly because they lost 6 games.

[sneakypower]

why do we all freely accept pythagorean record for baseball as a much better indicator of the quality of a team's performance, but you're seemingly shrugging off point differential like it's [expletive]?

 

162 games vs 16 games.

wouldn't that even further my point? it's intuitively obvious from even the most basic understanding of statistics that you're going to have a better picture of the truth from a sample of 162 than 16, but even then we realize the sample of 162 isn't ideal, because there's so much luck and chance involved in close wins, and that's precisely why we accept pythagorean record as an improvement upon old-fashioned W-L.

 

to look at two teams and say "this one's better 'cause they won one more game" is so patently ludicrous.

 

Similarly, it's patently ludicrous to use solely point differential to determine who's a good team and who's not.

 

If my quick math is correct, GB's point differential between just Dallas, Minnesota (in Minny), SF and Buffalo is +111. The point differential in the other 12 games they played this season...+37. That's cherry picked of course, but it's simply to point out that they had a few huge blowouts against some bad teams...and the rest of their games were mostly close games. So that differential is misleading.

 

San Diego has a +119 point differential and they didn't make the playoffs. How good do you think they are?

i absolutely think they're one of the best 12 teams in football. furthermore, i'd probably favor them over NO, CHI, KC, IND and obviously SEA in a hypothetical neutral-field matchup.

 

an abominable special teams performance managed to sabotage the efforts of one of the otherwise most complete teams in the league.

[Banedon]

Better than most, just terribly coached.

 

By every advanced metric out there, Green Bay is, if not the best team in the NFC, one of the 2-3 best.

 

Doesn't mean they're destined to win the NFC, but they shouldn't be taken lightly because they lost 6 games.

 

Absolutely. And I'm not saying they should be taken lightly. But those 6 losses do show that they are clearly a flawed team as well (undoubtedly injuries are a factor). And I thought this morning that they might be being overhyped by some of the national media. Though admittedly, I've seen more Eagles picks by experts today than I thought I would.

[Banedon]

why do we all freely accept pythagorean record for baseball as a much better indicator of the quality of a team's performance, but you're seemingly shrugging off point differential like it's [expletive]?

 

162 games vs 16 games.

wouldn't that even further my point? it's intuitively obvious from even the most basic understanding of statistics that you're going to have a better picture of the truth from a sample of 162 than 16, but even then we realize the sample of 162 isn't ideal, because there's so much luck and chance involved in close wins, and that's precisely why we accept pythagorean record as an improvement upon old-fashioned W-L.

 

to look at two teams and say "this one's better 'cause they won one more game" is so patently ludicrous.

 

Similarly, it's patently ludicrous to use solely point differential to determine who's a good team and who's not.

 

If my quick math is correct, GB's point differential between just Dallas, Minnesota (in Minny), SF and Buffalo is +111. The point differential in the other 12 games they played this season...+37. That's cherry picked of course, but it's simply to point out that they had a few huge blowouts against some bad teams...and the rest of their games were mostly close games. So that differential is misleading.

 

San Diego has a +119 point differential and they didn't make the playoffs. How good do you think they are?

i absolutely think they're one of the best 12 teams in football. furthermore, i'd probably favor them over NO, CHI, KC, IND and obviously SEA in a hypothetical neutral-field matchup.

 

an abominable special teams performance managed to sabotage the efforts of one of the otherwise most complete teams in the league.

 

I was confused for a minute...at first I thought you were talking about SD, but apparently you just decided to ignore that question. Nobody was arguing that GB isn't one of the 12 best teams in football.

[bcl412]

Better than most, just terribly coached.

 

By every advanced metric out there, Green Bay is, if not the best team in the NFC, one of the 2-3 best.

 

Doesn't mean they're destined to win the NFC, but they shouldn't be taken lightly because they lost 6 games.

 

Absolutely. And I'm not saying they should be taken lightly. But those 6 losses do show that they are clearly a flawed team as well (undoubtedly injuries are a factor). And I thought this morning that they might be being overhyped by some of the national media. Though admittedly, I've seen more Eagles picks by experts today than I thought I would.

 

For whatever reason the media seems to think Green Bay has played amazing (ESPN said something like this the other day) to close out the season and I don't really know where that comes from. I've actually seen people pick them based off of this.

[chuckywang]

I'm starting to feel like the Eagles might win this weekend. The Packers are getting way too much love. PK calls them one of the best 6 seeds in history, which is kind of silly, considering that they finished 10-6 (one game worse than the 6 seed last year, Philadelphia), lost 3 of their last 6, can't run the football, aren't all that great at stopping the run, and haven't played a down yet in the playoffs.

 

The Packers are a good team, but the national media are really willing to overlook their faults.

 

The Packers lost those 6 games by a combined 20 points. Has there been a team in history whose average margin of defeat was lower?

 

Really? Is that a real question? I'll just give you some of the easy-math answers:

 

1984 49ers: 3

1998 Vikings: 3

1985 Bears: 14

2004 Steelers: 17

 

This year's Ravens lost 4 games by a combined 16 points, so they were right there with the Packers in margin of defeat.

 

Average margin of defeat is what I am going for.

 

I realize there might be some 15-1 team that lost a game by 3 points, but I guess that's not really the same since the Packers had 6 losses.

 

so, the more loses you have, the better (or at least more acceptable) your average margin of defeat becomes? or is 6 a magic number? I'm so confused....I keep thinking its better to win games then to lose them.

 

The only thing I've implied is that a 3-ish point average margin of defeat is much harder to obtain with multiple losses than with 1 loss. When a game is that close, both teams have pretty much played each other to a standstill. Any one bounce, call, or other similar intangible element could have gone one way or another and either team could have won. The Packers are 2-6 in games decided by 4 points or less. That, to me, seems like the Packers have been incredibly unlucky this year.

[Banedon]

The only thing I've implied is that a 3-ish point average margin of defeat is much harder to obtain with multiple losses than with 1 loss. When a game is that close, both teams have pretty much played each other to a standstill. Any one bounce, call, or other similar intangible element could have gone one way or another and either team could have won. The Packers are 2-6 in games decided by 4 points or less. That, to me, seems like the Packers have been incredibly unlucky this year.

 

Or bad coaching. Or poor performance when a game is close and late. Or lack of a running game to run out the clock. Or lack of a run defense to stop the other team from running out the clock...

[Soul]

Better than most, just terribly coached.

 

By every advanced metric out there, Green Bay is, if not the best team in the NFC, one of the 2-3 best.

 

Doesn't mean they're destined to win the NFC, but they shouldn't be taken lightly because they lost 6 games.

 

Absolutely. And I'm not saying they should be taken lightly. But those 6 losses do show that they are clearly a flawed team as well (undoubtedly injuries are a factor). And I thought this morning that they might be being overhyped by some of the national media. Though admittedly, I've seen more Eagles picks by experts today than I thought I would.

 

For whatever reason the media seems to think Green Bay has played amazing (ESPN said something like this the other day) to close out the season and I don't really know where that comes from. I've actually seen people pick them based off of this.

 

I don't think there's very much depth applied to these opinions. The Packers have arguably a top QB (I think he is), and a solid defense. That's going to be enough for most people to think they'll go far.

 

Maybe it will be, too.

[sneakypower]

i absolutely think they're one of the best 12 teams in football. furthermore, i'd probably favor them over NO, CHI, KC, IND and obviously SEA in a hypothetical neutral-field matchup.

 

an abominable special teams performance managed to sabotage the efforts of one of the otherwise most complete teams in the league.

 

I was confused for a minute...at first I thought you were talking about SD, but apparently you just decided to ignore that question. Nobody was arguing that GB isn't one of the 12 best teams in football.

no, i was talking about SD that entire post

[Guest]

I'm starting to feel like the Eagles might win this weekend. The Packers are getting way too much love. PK calls them one of the best 6 seeds in history, which is kind of silly, considering that they finished 10-6 (one game worse than the 6 seed last year, Philadelphia), lost 3 of their last 6, can't run the football, aren't all that great at stopping the run, and haven't played a down yet in the playoffs.

 

The Packers are a good team, but the national media are really willing to overlook their faults.

they have the 2nd best point differential in all of football, despite a tough schedule (like the rest of the NFCN)

 

just means their coaching sucks and their quarterback isn't really a hero-type.

 

The coaching obviously sucks but look at the numbers that Rodgers has. To put fault on him for our record in close games is borderline ridiculous.

 

Also Rodgers was hurt for at least part of their 3 losses.

[sneakypower]

The only thing I've implied is that a 3-ish point average margin of defeat is much harder to obtain with multiple losses than with 1 loss. When a game is that close, both teams have pretty much played each other to a standstill. Any one bounce, call, or other similar intangible element could have gone one way or another and either team could have won. The Packers are 2-6 in games decided by 4 points or less. That, to me, seems like the Packers have been incredibly unlucky this year.

 

Or bad coaching. Or poor performance when a game is close and late. Or lack of a running game to run out the clock. Or lack of a run defense to stop the other team from running out the clock...

these posts just sound like confirmation bias, to me

 

is it bad coaching that Flynn mismanaged the clock at the end of the NE game, or that the refs decided to eat their whistles on the PI no-call in the 2nd Lions game?

 

(disclaimer: i thought it pretty poetic justice, because the Packers could have easily have lost to us the first go-around had either of two PI no-calls on Woodson been called at the end of the game. this just goes to show how much luck is involved in close wins)

[Banedon]

i absolutely think they're one of the best 12 teams in football. furthermore, i'd probably favor them over NO, CHI, KC, IND and obviously SEA in a hypothetical neutral-field matchup.

 

an abominable special teams performance managed to sabotage the efforts of one of the otherwise most complete teams in the league.

 

I was confused for a minute...at first I thought you were talking about SD, but apparently you just decided to ignore that question. Nobody was arguing that GB isn't one of the 12 best teams in football.

no, i was talking about SD that entire post

 

Oh...sorry...yeah I see that now.

 

Actually, it's incredible how similar they are to GB. Strong O and D....terrible ST.

[Flames24Rulz]

The only thing I've implied is that a 3-ish point average margin of defeat is much harder to obtain with multiple losses than with 1 loss. When a game is that close, both teams have pretty much played each other to a standstill. Any one bounce, call, or other similar intangible element could have gone one way or another and either team could have won. The Packers are 2-6 in games decided by 4 points or less. That, to me, seems like the Packers have been incredibly unlucky this year.

 

Or bad coaching. Or poor performance when a game is close and late. Or lack of a running game to run out the clock. Or lack of a run defense to stop the other team from running out the clock...

 

The last two points aren't very good ones. Every game we've lost, we've had to either come back at the very end of the game (where no running is really required), or we've stalled out on offense in overtime.

 

In fact, I think we've been able to successfully run out the clock more often than not this year when need be.

[Banedon]

The only thing I've implied is that a 3-ish point average margin of defeat is much harder to obtain with multiple losses than with 1 loss. When a game is that close, both teams have pretty much played each other to a standstill. Any one bounce, call, or other similar intangible element could have gone one way or another and either team could have won. The Packers are 2-6 in games decided by 4 points or less. That, to me, seems like the Packers have been incredibly unlucky this year.

 

Or bad coaching. Or poor performance when a game is close and late. Or lack of a running game to run out the clock. Or lack of a run defense to stop the other team from running out the clock...

 

The last two points aren't very good ones. Every game we've lost, we've had to either come back at the very end of the game (where no running is really required), or we've stalled out on offense in overtime.

 

In fact, I think we've been able to successfully run out the clock more often than not this year when need be.

 

Admittedly, I haven't watched all the GB games this season. I was just throwing out other possibilities besides "luck" which seems to be a catch all for people when the results don't match the way the team looks on paper.

[Flames24Rulz]

Better than most, just terribly coached.

 

By every advanced metric out there, Green Bay is, if not the best team in the NFC, one of the 2-3 best.

 

Doesn't mean they're destined to win the NFC, but they shouldn't be taken lightly because they lost 6 games.

 

Absolutely. And I'm not saying they should be taken lightly. But those 6 losses do show that they are clearly a flawed team as well (undoubtedly injuries are a factor). And I thought this morning that they might be being overhyped by some of the national media. Though admittedly, I've seen more Eagles picks by experts today than I thought I would.

 

For whatever reason the media seems to think Green Bay has played amazing (ESPN said something like this the other day) to close out the season and I don't really know where that comes from. I've actually seen people pick them based off of this.

 

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can see where they're coming from. We were 15 yards away from beating the Patriots in New England with our backup QB making his first career start. We blew out the Giants in basically a playoff game and our defense put up a tremendous effort against the Bears to get us into the postseason.

 

I guess the best thing to come about the last few weeks is that we're battle tested. We've basically been in a playoff environment for the last three weeks. I hope that means something come Sunday afternoon.