Hypothetical: Which Wildcard Team Should We Hope To Face In Playoffs?

[bigbubbatd]

I think Seattle gets the 5th seed actually leaving the Falcons, Bucs, and Vikings as the real 6th option if the Packers win the division.

It is tough to choose because none of those teams really scare me. I would want to play the Vikings. For whatever reason we can run on them. Their offense is one-dimensional (Teddy is bottom 5 in almost every passing statistic), they have a bad o-line so we can actually pressure the qb.

I would want to play Atlanta because they just are not very good. I guess they have Freeman back but they had some lucky wins early and have been brutal since. Ryan has not been good and the defense isnt special.

I would want to play the Bucs because I think our offense could score on them. But Winston is a running qb and we have struggled with that.

The Vikings defense had been remarkably healthy all year. In fact outside of their oline their whole team has. On Thanksgiving a game said that had missed the second fewest starts because of injury this year. Now they are getting some injuries and their depth is being tested. Those three defenders are a load. The equivalent is Raji, Matthews, and Burnett. It is amazing that it made that defense look that bad still. They have guys they are really high on like Rhodes, Floyd, Kendrick, Griffin, etc still playing and they had a Seattle team without Jimmy Graham and Marshawn Lynch destroy them. The final score made it seem closer than what it was because Seattle pulled their starters late and Minnesota's only score was a kick return. Minnesota has played two NFC playoff teams at home and have lost by a combined 68-20. Not a team that frightens me

 

[4Ever4Favre]

I agree bigbubbatd, GB wins the division, Seattle gets the 5th seed. I would say Minny will get the 6th spot but I would like nothing more than to see them implode and lose the rest of the way out. It is possible as they play AZ, CHI, NYG, and us.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Like I said, if the Vikings have had and easy schedule, so have the Packers. So the Packers have under performed with an easy schedule.

No argument from me there. There´s no doubt in my mind that the Packers are the way more talented team though. If they´re able to somehow play up to their potential the Vikings aren´t any threat to them.

I would check facts before posting a comment like this.

Currently the Packers rank:

22nd in total offense
23rd in passing offense
15th in rushing offense

To me, that is "somewhere near" the bottom of the league. You are right, they are no well oiled machine.

Green Bay being 12th in points scored (the most important metric IMO) is disappointing but it´s far from being the worst offense in the league.

 

[4Ever4Favre]

I suppose it depends on which Packer team you think is the real one, the one that started 6-0 or the one we see now. If I am basing it off of the last 6 games, I would think they are near the bottom of the NFL.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I would check facts before posting a comment like this.

Currently the Packers rank:

22nd in total offense
23rd in passing offense
15th in rushing offense

To me, that is "somewhere near" the bottom of the league. You are right, they are no well oiled machine.

forgot 12th in scoring.

I guess your definition of bottom is much different then mine, but keep using your general statements to spin it however you want.

 

[TJV]

I would check facts before posting a comment like this.

Currently the Packers rank:

22nd in total offense
23rd in passing offense
15th in rushing offense

To me, that is "somewhere near" the bottom of the league. You are right, they are no well oiled machine.

Funny to criticize others for not checking the facts and then leaving out the most important one.

 

[broguy]

Viking play the same teams as the Packers, except for 2. So, if the Vikings have an easy schedule, so do the Packers.

So far the only games that involved different teams are Carolina and Atlanta, Viking play the Giant and Packers the Romo less Cowboys. So, out of 12 games played so far, a total of 10 of them have been the same teams.

Ha! I like that you mention that we're getting the Romo-less Cowboys, but neglect to mention that we also got the only undefeated team in the NFL in the Panthers. Anyway, to WIMM's point, the Vikings have only beaten 1 team with a winning record this season. I think that's what he means by the Vikings taking advantage of an easy schedule. Look, I'm certainly not sold on the pack this year, but I'd still suggest that they're a decent amount better than the vikings...as that 30-13 score in Minnesota might suggest.

 

[4Ever4Favre]

Funny to criticize others for not checking the facts and then leaving out the most important one.

Yes, you are right. I apologize for leaving that out. So I suppose by stats they are a middle of the road offense.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I agree bigbubbatd, GB wins the division, Seattle gets the 5th seed. I would say Minny will get the 6th spot but I would like nothing more than to see them implode and lose the rest of the way out. It is possible as they play AZ, CHI, NYG, and us.

Yeah I actually think Minnesota could easily lose 3 of 4. Arizona and GB are likely to be losses for them. They are missing the 3 defenders again Thursday and they already lost by 20 plus to GB at home. That leaves them with Chicago and NY. Both are at home if I remember correctly but this team has been blown out in their last two home games. Right now I think Chicago is right there with them. That is a toss up game. And the Giants are going to be playing for a play off spot. If Minnesota just splits them they are 9-7. is that enough?

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Funny to criticize others for not checking the facts and then leaving out the most important one.

Sorry, but I don't buy into a bend-but-don't-break defense, just Like I'm not fond of an offense that scores, but mainly gets 3 and outs and can't convert 3rd and short. Eventually either one will fold against good competition. I think we have both right now, which is worrisome.

 

[Raptorman]

Ha! I like that you mention that we're getting the Romo-less Cowboys, but neglect to mention that we also got the only undefeated team in the NFL in the Panthers. Anyway, to WIMM's point, the Vikings have only beaten 1 team with a winning record this season. I think that's what he means by the Vikings taking advantage of an easy schedule. Look, I'm certainly not sold on the pack this year, but I'd still suggest that they're a decent amount better than the vikings...as that 30-13 score in Minnesota might suggest.

Packers have beaten one team with a winning record. The Vikings.

 

[broguy]

Packers have beaten one team with a winning record. The Vikings.

...and the Seahawks and the Chiefs.

 

[TJV]

Sorry, but I don't buy into a bend-but-don't-break defense, just Like I'm not fond of an offense that scores, but mainly gets 3 and outs and can't convert 3rd and short. Eventually either one will fold against good competition. I think we have both right now, which is worrisome.

Sorry but that response has nothing to do with my post, unless you are arguing points don't matter.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Packers have beaten one team with a winning record. The Vikings.

2 actually - Seahawks you forgot

 

[broguy]

2 actually - Seahawks you forgot

It's 3. See above. Chiefs too

Anyway, my point was just to show that the Vikings have taken advantage of an easy schedule (Only 1 win against a team with a winning record and 3 of their 4 losses against teams with a winning record), whereas the packers have under performed with an easy schedule (3 wins against teams with a winning record, but 2 of 4 losses against teams with a losing record).

 

[Raptorman]

2 actually - Seahawks you forgot

I see. So this time we go by current record. Well, Vikings beat the Chiefs as well, and the Rams before they went below .500. And the Falcons. But, let's keep up.

 

[PackerDNA]

I've never really been concerned with who an opponent in the playoffs is; you're gonna have to play who you have to play , and beat them if you want to get where you want to go.
That said, if this team doesn't get healthier and get it's act together, it won't matter who they play, they'll be in trouble.

 

[broguy]

I see. So this time we go by current record. Well, Vikings beat the Chiefs as well, and the Rams before they went below .500. And the Falcons. But, let's keep up.

What do you mean, "this time"? The Vikings have one win over a team that currently has a winning record (the Chiefs). The Packers have 3 (Chiefs, Seahawks, and Vikings). There's not much room for debate here. Those are the facts.

A team's current record is a better indicator of their ability compared to their record at a given point in the past (i.e., when your team played them). I've never seen a strength of schedule metric that uses the latter.

Speaking of strength of schedule, Football Outsiders ranks the Packer's schedule so far as the 12th most difficult in the league compared to 22nd for the Vikings. So there's an objective measure for you. By the way, they rank the Vikings remaining schedule as the 4th toughest, so we might see a hard fall after they took advantage of their easier games.

 

[PackerFanLV]

I've never really been concerned with who an opponent in the playoffs is; you're gonna have to play who you have to play , and beat them if you want to get where you want to go.
That said, if this team doesn't get healthier and get it's act together, it won't matter who they play, they'll be in trouble.

Some teams match well against each other, I would rather the pack play Atlanta or the Bears then to face sea hawks or Giants. I think we match up better against Panthers and Arizona then we do Giants and Seahawks. It's all about match ups.

 

[broguy]

Some teams match well against each other, I would rather the pack play Atlanta or the Bears then to face sea hawks or Giants. I think we match up better against Panthers and Arizona then we do Giants and Seahawks. It's all about match ups.

Agreed. Football is a game of match-ups. The team you draw in the playoffs definitely makes a difference. Though as PackerDNA points out, at the end of the day we don't have much of a choice in that regard. We need to show up regardless

 

[PackerDNA]

Some teams match well against each other, I would rather the pack play Atlanta or the Bears then to face sea hawks or Giants. I think we match up better against Panthers and Arizona then we do Giants and Seahawks. It's all about match ups.

True about matchups; it's why some teams always give others a hard time , even if a glance at the records says it doesn't make any sense. I don't know that we match up well with Arizona; we'll find out soon. I don't think we match up well with the Panthers; mobile QB, run the ball well, excellent D. We shouldn't match up well with Seattle for the same reasons, but usually seem to give them problems. The Giants aren't the same team that was matchup poison for us in recent years.
Again, we'll see.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

True about matchups; it's why some teams always give others a hard time , even if a glance at the records says it doesn't make any sense. I don't know that we match up well with Arizona; we'll find out soon. I don't think we match up well with the Panthers; mobile QB, run the ball well, excellent D. We shouldn't match up well with Seattle for the same reasons, but usually seem to give them problems. The Giants aren't the same team that was matchup poison for us in recent years.
Again, we'll see.

I agree about not matching up well with Arizona. Every CB and their mama can defend our WRs in man coverage without breaking a sweat, so I doubt Peterson and co. Will have any trouble.

I don't dread the NY matchup, because our defense when healthy is much better than in previous years, while their defense is not.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I see. So this time we go by current record. Well, Vikings beat the Chiefs as well, and the Rams before they went below .500. And the Falcons. But, let's keep up.

So you are saying if a team was 1-0 it should count as beating a team with a winning record. What teams are as of right now is all that makes sense. The Packers have beaten 3 teams and the Vikings 1. The Vikings also got to swap Carolina with Atlanta which is a big difference.

The Vikings are what they looked like before the season started. An 8-8 team that could go about 2 wins higher with good breaks or a little worse with bad breaks. They have a one dimensional offense and a bad offensive line. They have a defense which is good but not elite. They are solid in points per game which is really important but if you look deeper they are middle of road in yard per pass, near the bottom in yards per rush, bottom half in takeaways. Right now it seems to hinge on their red zone defense which is allowing tds less than half the time including a few red zone turnovers. Again a very solid but definitely not elite defense and a lower tier offense. That sounds like a .500 type team. Now that injuries are catching up with them they will start to show that.

 

[Raptorman]

What do you mean, "this time"? The Vikings have one win over a team that currently has a winning record (the Chiefs). The Packers have 3 (Chiefs, Seahawks, and Vikings). There's not much room for debate here. Those are the facts.

A team's current record is a better indicator of their ability compared to their record at a given point in the past (i.e., when your team played them). I've never seen a strength of schedule metric that uses the latter.

Speaking of strength of schedule, Football Outsiders ranks the Packer's schedule so far as the 12th most difficult in the league compared to 22nd for the Vikings. So there's an objective measure for you. By the way, they rank the Vikings remaining schedule as the 4th toughest, so we might see a hard fall after they took advantage of their easier games.

12th most difficult. Is that before or after the Seattle game. Because the only team that Green Bay has played that the Viking haven't is Carolina.

 

[PackerFanLV]

True about matchups; it's why some teams always give others a hard time , even if a glance at the records says it doesn't make any sense. I don't know that we match up well with Arizona; we'll find out soon. I don't think we match up well with the Panthers; mobile QB, run the ball well, excellent D. We shouldn't match up well with Seattle for the same reasons, but usually seem to give them problems. The Giants aren't the same team that was matchup poison for us in recent years.
Again, we'll see.

I hear ya, panthers don't scare me a whole lot cam is a inaccurate passer, only receiver they have is Olsen . Ted ginn can't catch worth crap. As far as Arizona you are right but I think we have a better chance do to the fact Carson not really a scrambler like a Wilson. The Giants there's no db on our team holding odb and past years have been our krypto and they seem to step up in play-offs (proven). Teams scare me the most in order Seahawks, Giants, Arizona, panthers, bucs, Falcons, Vikings. Like you said tho we will see .