Impressive Statistic on Home Dominance

[red4tribe]

Obviously, there has been a lot of hype the past two seasons on the Packers' home dominance, but tracing their record at home back a few years really highlights how unbeatable they've been.

On October 17, 2010, the Packers lost a home overtime game against the Dolphins, 23-20. Since then, in regular season games started by Aaron Rodgers in which he was not injured, the Packers are 34-1 at home. The only loss was week 1 of the 2012 season. They have outscored their opponents by an average of about 17 points per game, scoring 34.1 ppg and giving up only 17.6 ppg. Pretty impressive.

 

[dbain21]

Nothing is guaranteed especially in the playoffs..but this is why winning ...no matter how ugly, is important so that packers can have home field throughout the playoffs.

 

[sschind]

Impressive stat but I was starting to wonder when you were going to stop with the qualifications. Regular season games started by Rodgers in which he was not injured ... I was kind of waiting for "and the moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars"

 

[RRyder]

Impressive stat but I was starting to wonder when you were going to stop with the qualifications. Regular season games started by Rodgers in which he was not injured ... I was kind of waiting for "and the moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars"

Well the qualification is for the Bears game where he broke his collarbone so I don't really understand the complaint

 

[Half Empty]

Nothing is guaranteed especially in the playoffs..but this is why winning ...no matter how ugly, is important so that packers can have home field throughout the playoffs.

On the other hand, for those of us more interested in postseason success, home field advantage for the Packers hasn't been dominant. Win rather than lose in the regular season, sure. But ugly is ugly, and 2011 is just not a distant enough memory.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

On the other hand, for those of us more interested in postseason success, home field advantage for the Packers hasn't been dominant. Win rather than lose in the regular season, sure. But ugly is ugly, and 2011 is just not a distant enough memory.

With the Packers home record over the last few seasons I'd rather have them
play at Lambeau during the playoffs though even if we've lost some games there.

 

[Half Empty]

I can't argue with the general contention that home field is better, any more than with a-win-is-a-win. My point was just that, as a Packer fan from the late '50s, I much preferred the era of 'nobody wins a playoff game in our house' to the many years where that just hasn't been true, starting with our previous Hall of Fame QB. The last five years have seen (2010) three road wins, (2011) a home loss, (2012) a home win and road loss, (2013) a home loss, and (2014) a home win and road loss. Two years where home field prevailed, three when it didn't. Just saying it's not a panacea.

 

[TJV]

No panacea but having home field advantage throughout the playoffs will be an advantage if they can get there. One thing that has been encouraging is the noise generated after the stadium renovations seems to be more disruptive than in the past.

 

[Sky King]

In 2010 the Packers thrived with their backs against the wall. So did the Steelers a few short years before that. Anomalies, one would hope. Conventional wisdom would indicate that home field is the way to go. Easier and less expensive to attend for the all the hometown faithful and a nice boost for the local economy, as well.

 

[Poppa San]

In 2010 the Packers thrived with their backs against the wall. So did the Steelers a few short years before that. Anomalies, one would hope. Conventional wisdom would indicate that home field is the way to go. Easier and less expensive to attend for the all the hometown faithful and a nice boost for the local economy, as well.

Sure, it'd help my church youth group raise $$$$ but I'd miss watching every friggin game. Wouldn't mind watching them play.

 

[dbain21]

On the other hand, for those of us more interested in postseason success, home field advantage for the Packers hasn't been dominant. Win rather than lose in the regular season, sure. But ugly is ugly, and 2011 is just not a distant enough memory.

Are you suggesting I don't put more value in winning when it truly counts? And those memories are in my mind as well. I can't speak to this years team yet at this point as there isn't a big enough of a sample size, but last year the packers chances to win on the road vs at home was significant.

 

[Chris398]

There's no place like home !

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Well the qualification is for the Bears game where he broke his collarbone so I don't really understand the complaint

That's just one game. You made your point very well. It is amazing. I'll be ok if the Packers split the next two games, as long as the win is at Carolina. To your point re: the importance of this team at home.

Then again, they won the SB in 2010 after 3 straight road wins as the sixth seed. And then the home losses to the Giants and Niners. Regardless, home field is always a much surer path, recent playoff history aside.

 

[Half Empty]

Are you suggesting I don't put more value in winning when it truly counts? And those memories are in my mind as well. I can't speak to this years team yet at this point as there isn't a big enough of a sample size, but last year the packers chances to win on the road vs at home was significant.

My comments weren't directed to anyone in particular. There are, however, folks who feel that Packer fans are spoiled because of the winning seasons/regular season records (overall and home field). I am in the camp of those who feel that the only goal (in a season when it's even reasonable) is the Lombardi - yes, that means that I think 31 teams fail every year. Because of that viewpoint, I am not pleased with an ugly win because it does not portend well for later games - a-win-is-a-win doesn't play well with me. Yes, the Packers have an almost unbelievable home record recently, and, in isolation, that's great. However, working backwards over the last few years, home field has been important, worthless, important, worthless, and worthless. My only point was that getting excited about home field advantage in the playoffs hasn't been justified lately. Would I give it up if they had it, no. Would I worry if they didn't, no.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

A

In 2010 the Packers thrived with their backs against the wall. So did the Steelers a few short years before that. Anomalies, one would hope. Conventional wisdom would indicate that home field is the way to go. Easier and less expensive to attend for the all the hometown faithful and a nice boost for the local economy, as well.[/QUOTE
And there's something to be said for how well a team is playing in December, record notwithstanding, and how healthy a team is heading into the playoffs. A team that racks up wins during the season may head into the playoffs at less than full strength. And the opposite is true. I don't dwell on stats, I see what I see in a team at a particular point in time.

In 2010, everything was coming together for the Packers as the regular season wound down. I may be wrong on this, but I think they needed help just to get the sixth seed. Regardless, the sixth seed has a long road ahead, no pun intended. I recall that Trampn Williams emerged as a key piece of that D, and Rodgers was certainly coming into his own. We know what happened.

In 2011 they finished 15-1, largely on the back of the O. They weren't the same team. It was one and done at Lambeau, not so much because of the D, but because of the turnovers by the O (four, I think).

But 15-1 record aside, that team wasn't peaking.

These may be anomalies. All that said, home field "should" be a huge advantage for the Packers. I'm certainly happy the team is 6-0, and no other team with the possible exception of the Pats is materially superior to GB right now. So we have to wait for December, and hope this team gets healthy. The biggest obstacle ahead of the Packers is the Packers. Healthy, I don't see them losing to anyone. That, and consistent play from what appears to be a very capable D.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

My comments weren't directed to anyone in particular. There are, however, folks who feel that Packer fans are spoiled because of the winning seasons/regular season records (overall and home field). I am in the camp of those who feel that the only goal (in a season when it's even reasonable) is the Lombardi - yes, that means that I think 31 teams fail every year. Because of that viewpoint, I am not pleased with an ugly win because it does not portend well for later games - a-win-is-a-win doesn't play well with me. Yes, the Packers have an almost unbelievable home record recently, and, in isolation, that's great. However, working backwards over the last few years, home field has been important, worthless, important, worthless, and worthless. My only point was that getting excited about home field advantage in the playoffs hasn't been justified lately. Would I give it up if they had it, no. Would I worry if they didn't, no.

Good points. Home field alone won't help a beat up team, which sums up where the Packers are. I'm happy they won Sunday, but that same team in the playoffs won't go far, playing at Lambeau or on the moon.