Last 2 Packer SB teams vs each other

Jasonfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Yes, those Packers were statistic juggernauts, but saying that the 96 DL would dominate the 10' OL is meaningless if the secondary wouldn't be able to cover Jordy Nelson and James Jones, who would be a considerable mismatch with Tyronne Williams and Mike Prior. We saw that in the SB. It's just different eras. They didn't have to play any spread offenses (SF's offense was very good, but we're still talking about a LB covering a TE or a RB, not having to sub 2 extra dbs to take care of the extra receivers.)

Look at what Detroit's D Line did against ours. Their secondary didn't matter since we couldn't block the D Line. Chi's Secondary is also far inferior to 1996 GB and they did very well against the 2010 team.


You also are overrrating the Offense this year.

3 Games vs Chicago-17, 10, and 14 Points for the Offense
-13 Points vs Washington :confused:
-9 Points vs Jets :confused:
-3 Points vs Lions :confused:

I think that 1 of the Best Defense's in NFL History could at least slow down an Offense that was 6 different times held to 17 or less and 5 times held to 14 or less.

**You do not need a complex Defensive Scheme to Defend against a Spread Offense, you just need players to win the individual matchups. There is nothing that Chicago did against GB schematically that 96 GB couldn't duplicate (yes they don't have an Urlacher at LB in the middle but that is made up for by far better Safeties with superior range)


And regarding the 96' receivers, you are overrating them, quite frankly. Rison and Beebe wouldn't see the field in the 2010 team.
Jennins > Brooks > Nelson > Jones > Freeman > Driver > Rison > Beebe

If we're talking about healthy players, then Driver probably overlaps Nelson.

And if we're including TEs, Finley is a much bigger weapon than Chmura or Jackson ever was. They were more productive for a much longer period of time, but we're talking about everyone healthy in here, right?

Your receiver ratings are not correct. It is more like this:

Brooks>Freeman/Jennings>>>> (Big Gap) Nelson> Rison>Jones>Beebe/Driver

Finley is better than either Chmura or Jackson but the Jackson/Chmura combo is better than the Finley/Quarless combo

How could you really rate Jones and Nelson ahead of Freeman?

In 2010, Nelson and Jones COMBINED for 1,252 yards and 7 TDS.

In 1996, in 11 Games Freeman had 933 yards 9 TDs

-Nelson/Jones COMBINED averaged 78 yards and .4375 tds/game

-Freeman averaged 84 yards and .82 tds/game

Not only was Freeman better than either bit he was better than both Combined


And the Packers 2010 secondary is much, much, much better than the 96'. Woodson and Williams are in a completely different level than Newsome and Doug Evans. The safeties are better, specially Robinson to Peprah, though.

Doug Evans was a 2nd Team All Pro in 1997 based upon his play in 1996. 2010 has a very good 1-3 but beyond that is very questionable with your Bush/Underwood/Lee combination. Yes 2010 has better CBs but it is not much more lopsided than the Safety comparison.

Butler in 1996 was a 1st Team All Pro and Robinson had 6 Ints.

Regarding Special Teams, Every single team we faced in the playoffs had a huge ST advantage, specially the Bears. It didn't affect the game that much.

GB was able to survive some special team's blunders since they were superior to all the teams that they played against but against a great opponent that is a huge liability. Even in the playoffs our special teams stunk:

-Fumbled Punt vs Philly
-Kickoff Return and Missed FG vs ATL
-Fumbled Punt vs Pitt (Fortunately they recovered)


**I don't think that 1996 GB would win 10/10 but would take the majority considering you are pitting 1 of the Greatest teams in NFL Histry against what is considered maybe an average or slightly above average Super Bowl winning Team.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Look at what Detroit's D Line did against ours. Their secondary didn't matter since we couldn't block the D Line. Chi's Secondary is also far inferior to 1996 GB and they did very well against the 2010 team.
A team we didn't spread against. Which was one of the reasons I was calling for MM's head. Go and watch the game. Oh, and that game, Rodgers only played one half.

I could do the same if I took the Cowboys' game of 96, a game where the Packers could only score on the 4th quarter, and only put up 6 points. BTW, was that a 3-4 D? Yes, yes it was.

You also are overrrating the Offense this year.

3 Games vs Chicago-17, 10, and 14 Points for the Offense
-13 Points vs Washington :confused:
-9 Points vs Jets :confused:
-3 Points vs Lions :confused:

I think that 1 of the Best Defense's in NFL History could at least slow down an Offense that was 6 different times held to 17 or less and 5 times held to 14 or less.
Regular season, without any running game, this offense was mediocre.
Playoffs? Well... 30.2 ppg. Against elite Ds.

**You do not need a complex Defensive Scheme to Defend against a Spread Offense, you just need players to win the individual matchups. There is nothing that Chicago did against GB schematically that 96 GB couldn't duplicate (yes they don't have an Urlacher at LB in the middle but that is made up for by far better Safeties with superior range)
We played at Soldier field in atrocious conditions, in a cold game. If those were the conditions against the 96' team, I could give you that.

But you are right that you need players that can win the matchup. And, as I said earlier, the 96' D didn't have those. And I liked our LBs back then, but they were not equipped to cover WRs. And I'm not even mentioning putting Finley in there, because when we played Chicago with Finley, even without a running game, they couldn't cover Finley.



Your receiver ratings are not correct. It is more like this:

Brooks>Freeman/Jennings>>>> (Big Gap) Nelson> Rison>Jones>Beebe/Driver
You are absolutely crazy. What gave you that opinion? Brooks had only 2 seasons with over 1000 yards, and only 1 season with double digit TDs. Jennings already has 3 straight 1000 yard seasons and 2 seasons with double digit TDs, not to mention that Jennings' average YPR is 16.2, while Brooks' is 13.8

Brooks in his whole career had 38 TDs. Jennings already has 40. Brooks had 4276 yards. Jennings already has 5222.

And, again, if we're talking simply 96' vs 10', and not hypotetical the whole team, Brooks was injuried, so he doesn't play. But even if he did, his best postseason was 95', 17 receptions for 281 yards and 3 TDs. Jennings had one game more, but taking his last 3 games, which would be the equivalent to not playing the wildcard, Jennings has 20 receptions for 295 yards and 2 tds.

Regarding the other receivers, you need to put into context. Again, 96' was a base offense, there was a #1 and a #2 receiver. There was no such thing with Nelson, Jones and Driver.
But looking at the postseason, Freeman had 9 receptions for 174 yards and 2 tds.

Excluding the first game for Jones and Nelson, Jones had 10 catches for 135 yards and 1 TD, while Nelson had 21 caches for 286 yards and 2 TDs. Oh, and again, this is while sharing targets, and Freeman was the #1, because Brooks didn't play.

Finley is better than either Chmura or Jackson but the Jackson/Chmura combo is better than the Finley/Quarless combo
So what? 2010 wouldn't use Quarless, they would spread the field with only Finley. Again, it's about matchups.

How could you really rate Jones and Nelson ahead of Freeman?

In 2010, Nelson and Jones COMBINED for 1,252 yards and 7 TDS.

In 1996, in 11 Games Freeman had 933 yards 9 TDs

-Nelson/Jones COMBINED averaged 78 yards and .4375 tds/game

-Freeman averaged 84 yards and .82 tds/game

Not only was Freeman better than either bit he was better than both Combined
First off, read what I wrote earlied.

Now, don't go with averages and projections. Go by with what he really did. But even so your projections are wrong. He played 12 games. That would put him to 77,75 yards and .75 Tds a game.

Doug Evans was a 2nd Team All Pro in 1997 based upon his play in 1996. 2010 has a very good 1-3 but beyond that is very questionable with your Bush/Underwood/Lee combination. Yes 2010 has better CBs but it is not much more lopsided than the Safety comparison.

Butler in 1996 was a 1st Team All Pro and Robinson had 6 Ints.
The cornerback position was more than lopsided. We're talking about a Hall of Famer that was not the best cornerback on the 2010 team. Tramon Williams was the best corner on the team, only surrendering 1 TD all year, to Brandon Marshall.

And regarding safeties, they don't matter when you spread the field. Ask the Steelers and Troy Polamalu.

2010 D proved they could play against any kind of team. Philadelphia, the #2 passing O in the regular season, spreaded the D with great receivers to no sucess.

GB was able to survive some special team's blunders since they were superior to all the teams that they played against but against a great opponent that is a huge liability. Even in the playoffs our special teams stunk:

-Fumbled Punt vs Philly
-Kickoff Return and Missed FG vs ATL
-Fumbled Punt vs Pitt (Fortunately they recovered)
I never said it didn't stink. I said it didn't matter that much in the end. ST isn't a sure thing. Could it alter the end result with a TD? Yes. But let's not pretend it's a sure thing that the 96' team would have the field advantage all game long, because it wouldn't. We played a better ST unit in Chicago last year and they didn't have the field advantage, because our ST rose to the ocasion.

**I don't think that 1996 GB would win 10/10 but would take the majority considering you are pitting 1 of the Greatest teams in NFL Histry against what is considered maybe an average or slightly above average Super Bowl winning Team.
Regular season-wise.
Because playoff-wise, no team was as dominant as the 2010 team.

In the end, as I said, it would be about conditions and matchups. And we're talking about teams that actually played, not an all-healthy roster. Which would actually give 2010 the advantage, it would probably put Al Harris as our 4th CB, Burnett as our SS, Finley and Grant on the offense, Driver fully healthy...

The 96' team was much more consistant week in and week out. The worst of the 2010 team wouldn't be able to handle it, but the best would. And the best was the playoff team, that trounced the #1 #2 #3 seed and the 2008 champions, with the best D in the league.
 

Helmets

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
616
Reaction score
161
Location
Milford, MI
62 packers best team of all time.

Agreed until they met Karras and the Lions. The people out here in Detroit still bring that up. That was their Superbowl win. Mention anything about the Packers, and I get back the ol' - "...oh yea, well what happened in '62?..."

I hate the Lions, their stupid *** fans, and living here.
 

Jasonfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
This is a fun Discussion. Is there anything better than talking Packers? :)

A team we didn't spread against. Which was one of the reasons I was calling for MM's head. Go and watch the game. Oh, and that game, Rodgers only played one half.

It is risky to try speading out against a good D Line because it shortens the edges which makes it easier to get the QB. Yes it is kind of a Chicken/Egg dilemma but there is a tactical reason.

I agree, though, about McCarthy. I wish they would fire him and think he cost us at least 2-3 games last year.

I could do the same if I took the Cowboys' game of 96, a game where the Packers could only score on the 4th quarter, and only put up 6 points. BTW, was that a 3-4 D? Yes, yes it was.

If you are dismissing the DET game cuz of Rodgers missing part of it then surely one would have to dismiss the Dallas game when GB was playing Keith Jackson at WR since their 3 starting WRs were not available.

Also, I do not think there really is much comparison between a DET team that hasn't made the Playoffs in the last 10+ years vs a Dallas team that had won 3 of the prior 4 Super Bowls when 96 GB played them. That is just a little bit difference in quality.

Even if you remove the DET game there are still many games the Offense struggled.

Regular season, without any running game, this offense was mediocre.
Playoffs? Well... 30.2 ppg. Against elite Ds.

The regular season's 16 games are more indicicitive of a team's performance than any 4 game stretch. Especially when you consider that such a hypothetical matchup would take place in Lambeau and not in the friendly Domes they got to play 2 Post Season games in.


You are absolutely crazy. What gave you that opinion? Brooks had only 2 seasons with over 1000 yards, and only 1 season with double digit TDs. Jennings already has 3 straight 1000 yard seasons and 2 seasons with double digit TDs, not to mention that Jennings' average YPR is 16.2, while Brooks' is 13.8

We aren't comparing careers but their ability in 96 vs their ability in 2010.

In 1995, Brooks put up a season of 1,497 yards, 13 tds and in 96 was on pace for essentially 1,000 yards and 11 tds. Jennings still has yet to reach 1,300 yards or 13 tds in any season.

(96 GB's stats are even more impressive when you consider how often they spent the 2nd Half just running out the clock as opposed to trying to score all game long.)


Regarding the other receivers, you need to put into context. Again, 96' was a base offense, there was a #1 and a #2 receiver. There was no such thing with Nelson, Jones and Driver.
But looking at the postseason...

We aren't comparing Base Offenses but the talent and performance of the receivers. 96 used 3 WR's more oftne than you might suspect. For example, look at the highlights vs SD. 3 of Favre's TD's come from a 3 WR set.

As for Post Season stats, you keep quoting them as though they are more important than the wider subset of regular season stats


So what? 2010 wouldn't use Quarless, they would spread the field with only Finley. Again, it's about matchups.

1996 might do the same. The matchups would get pretty rough. Could you imagine Bush triying to cover Beebe or Rison or Hawk attempting to cover Keith Jackson


Now, don't go with averages and projections. Go by with what he really did. But even so your projections are wrong. He played 12 games. That would put him to 77,75 yards and .75 Tds a game.

You do not count the game a player gets injured in as a full game played. Freeman was hurt in like the 1st or 2nd Quarter. At most it was 11.5

The cornerback position was more than lopsided. We're talking about a Hall of Famer that was not the best cornerback on the 2010 team. Tramon Williams was the best corner on the team, only surrendering 1 TD all year, to Brandon Marshall.

Williams was awesome in 2010 but you are wrong saying he only allowed 1 TD. Just off the top of my head, I know he gave up an 85 Yard TD to Manningham.

Calling Woodson a HOF while true is misleading in this discussion since it implies Tramon is playing at a HOF level.

And regarding safeties, they don't matter when you spread the field. Ask the Steelers and Troy Polamalu.

Ed Reed would disagree with you. Polamolu might be neutralized by the spread but not all are.

2010 D proved they could play against any kind of team. Philadelphia, the #2 passing O in the regular season, spreaded the D with great receivers to no sucess.

Philly actually had the 12th Best Passing Offense last year according to Football Outsiders. Using yardage to rank Offenses is equivalent to using Batting Average to determine who the best hitter is.


. But let's not pretend it's a sure thing that the 96' team would have the field advantage all game long, because it wouldn't. We played a better ST unit in Chicago last year and they didn't have the field advantage, because our ST rose to the ocasion.

Actually, CHI did have a special teams advantage in the games played. Football Outsider's actually studied it and I could find you the analysis if you want but are you referring more to Week 17 or NFCCG (since I assume you admit CHI ST dominated Game 1)


Because playoff-wise, no team was as dominant as the 2010 team.

This is also incorrect. 2010 GB was not that dominant in the Post Season. They have a 5 Point Win, a 6 Point Win, and a 7 Point Win. 1996 GB on the other hand had a 21 Point Win, a 17 Point Win, and a 14 Point Win.

96's Average Playoff Margin of Win: 17.3
2010's Average Margin of Win: 11.25
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
This is a fun Discussion. Is there anything better than talking Packers? :)



It is risky to try speading out against a good D Line because it shortens the edges which makes it easier to get the QB. Yes it is kind of a Chicken/Egg dilemma but there is a tactical reason.

I agree, though, about McCarthy. I wish they would fire him and think he cost us at least 2-3 games last year.



If you are dismissing the DET game cuz of Rodgers missing part of it then surely one would have to dismiss the Dallas game when GB was playing Keith Jackson at WR since their 3 starting WRs were not available.

Also, I do not think there really is much comparison between a DET team that hasn't made the Playoffs in the last 10+ years vs a Dallas team that had won 3 of the prior 4 Super Bowls when 96 GB played them. That is just a little bit difference in quality.

Even if you remove the DET game there are still many games the Offense struggled.



The regular season's 16 games are more indicicitive of a team's performance than any 4 game stretch. Especially when you consider that such a hypothetical matchup would take place in Lambeau and not in the friendly Domes they got to play 2 Post Season games in.




We aren't comparing careers but their ability in 96 vs their ability in 2010.

In 1995, Brooks put up a season of 1,497 yards, 13 tds and in 96 was on pace for essentially 1,000 yards and 11 tds. Jennings still has yet to reach 1,300 yards or 13 tds in any season.

(96 GB's stats are even more impressive when you consider how often they spent the 2nd Half just running out the clock as opposed to trying to score all game long.)




We aren't comparing Base Offenses but the talent and performance of the receivers. 96 used 3 WR's more oftne than you might suspect. For example, look at the highlights vs SD. 3 of Favre's TD's come from a 3 WR set.

As for Post Season stats, you keep quoting them as though they are more important than the wider subset of regular season stats




1996 might do the same. The matchups would get pretty rough. Could you imagine Bush triying to cover Beebe or Rison or Hawk attempting to cover Keith Jackson




You do not count the game a player gets injured in as a full game played. Freeman was hurt in like the 1st or 2nd Quarter. At most it was 11.5



Williams was awesome in 2010 but you are wrong saying he only allowed 1 TD. Just off the top of my head, I know he gave up an 85 Yard TD to Manningham.

Calling Woodson a HOF while true is misleading in this discussion since it implies Tramon is playing at a HOF level.



Ed Reed would disagree with you. Polamolu might be neutralized by the spread but not all are.



Philly actually had the 12th Best Passing Offense last year according to Football Outsiders. Using yardage to rank Offenses is equivalent to using Batting Average to determine who the best hitter is.




Actually, CHI did have a special teams advantage in the games played. Football Outsider's actually studied it and I could find you the analysis if you want but are you referring more to Week 17 or NFCCG (since I assume you admit CHI ST dominated Game 1)




This is also incorrect. 2010 GB was not that dominant in the Post Season. They have a 5 Point Win, a 6 Point Win, and a 7 Point Win. 1996 GB on the other hand had a 21 Point Win, a 17 Point Win, and a 14 Point Win.

96's Average Playoff Margin of Win: 17.3
2010's Average Margin of Win: 11.25

I am talking about postseason, because postseason is what matters. It's when you're playing against the best opponents. Next thing you know you're gonna say that Favre is the best QB ever despite only winning one SB because he was a regular season juggernaut.

And in postseason was when the Packers were the most dominant team, facing the best teams in the league.

That 96' team only faced one really quality opponent, and it was led by Elvis Grbac.

The 96' team had the most dominant all around season of any SB team, with perhaps the exception of the 72 Dolphins. But that's not to say it was the most dominant team.

You still haven't proven me that the 96' team would be able to handle the 10' spreading them. You bring a single game against Detroit where Rodgers didn't play the whole game. You talk about Beebe playing Bush, but seldomly that Packers team lined up in a spread manner. In fact, seldomly that team lined up on the shotgun.

How that team fared against their competition is meaningless. It's about how they would fare against this Packers team. It's still about 2 incredibly qualified teams, and it's still about matchups.

I still contend that the Packers' 10' team is better equipped to handle any kind of offense than the 96' team was, simply because they are from different eras.

What I take personal fault is the notion that the 96' team is so clearly better, when it's not (already mentioned why), and most people agree that it's not, including the author of this discussion.

In the end, though, it's impossible to prove anything, as they can't play each other.
 

Jasonfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
And in postseason was when the Packers were the most dominant team, facing the best teams in the league.

That 96' team only faced one really quality opponent, and it was led by Elvis Grbac.

You are a little overrating the 2010 opponents.

2010 Steelers- Very Very Good, 2nd According to Football Outsiders

2010 Bears-Not that Great. 16th in League according to Football Outsiders

2010 Falcons-Pretty good but had record inflated by playing NFC West. 8th in League according to Football Outsiders

2010 Eagles-Pretty good even if they fell apart to end the year. 5th according to Football Outsiders

---------------------
1996 NE- #8 According to Football Outsiders

1996 Carolina- #5 According to Football Outsiders

1996 SF- #2 in according to Football Outsiders


**The teams played essentially identical schedules (2, 5, 8] vs (2, 5, 8, 16) with 2010 having to play the 1 extra game vs the 16th Best team in the League.


You still haven't proven me that the 96' team would be able to handle the 10' spreading them. You bring a single game against Detroit where Rodgers didn't play the whole game.

It is also worth noting that McCarthy might choose to not spread out 2010 GB just like how he didn;t spread out 2010 DET.

How that team fared against their competition is meaningless. It's about how they would fare against this Packers team. It's still about 2 incredibly qualified teams, and it's still about matchups.

In the end, though, it's impossible to prove anything, as they can't play each other.

Yeah, although with there being a Lockout it makes for fun conversations :)
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
You are a little overrating the 2010 opponents.

2010 Steelers- Very Very Good, 2nd According to Football Outsiders

2010 Bears-Not that Great. 16th in League according to Football Outsiders

2010 Falcons-Pretty good but had record inflated by playing NFC West. 8th in League according to Football Outsiders

2010 Eagles-Pretty good even if they fell apart to end the year. 5th according to Football Outsiders

---------------------
1996 NE- #8 According to Football Outsiders

1996 Carolina- #5 According to Football Outsiders

1996 SF- #2 in according to Football Outsiders


**The teams played essentially identical schedules (2, 5, 8] vs (2, 5, 8, 16) with 2010 having to play the 1 extra game vs the 16th Best team in the League.




It is also worth noting that McCarthy might choose to not spread out 2010 GB just like how he didn;t spread out 2010 DET.

How that team fared against their competition is meaningless. It's about how they would fare against this Packers team. It's still about 2 incredibly qualified teams, and it's still about matchups.



Yeah, although with there being a Lockout it makes for fun conversations :)
It needs to be noted that BAL and GB were 09' best teams according to FO. I don't know why, but their system simply loves some teams more than others, and they end up usually being wrong (because they always seem to love philadelphia.).

10 - NE was the best team and didn't win it.
09 - BAL was the best team and didn't win it.
08 - PHI was the best team and didn't win it.
07 - NE was the best team and didn't win it.
06 - SD was the best team and didn't win it.
05 - IND was the best team and didn't win it.

They focus on statistical analysis and not actual play. While that may stabilish some fair ground to which team is better overall, it doesn't translate to a versus game.

Because :)sFun_DeadHorse:) , in the end of the day, it's still about matchups and actual play and not statistics.
 

Jasonfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
It needs to be noted that BAL and GB were 09' best teams according to FO. I don't know why, but their system simply loves some teams more than others, and they end up usually being wrong (because they always seem to love philadelphia.).

10 - NE was the best team and didn't win it.
09 - BAL was the best team and didn't win it.
08 - PHI was the best team and didn't win it.
07 - NE was the best team and didn't win it.
06 - SD was the best team and didn't win it.
05 - IND was the best team and didn't win it.

They focus on statistical analysis and not actual play. While that may stabilish some fair ground to which team is better overall, it doesn't translate to a versus game.

Their stats actually do translate quite well in regards to a versus game. Their advanced stats specifically work for individual matchups.

Any system will usually be wrong and FO is likely better than any other known site or stat. It generally Loves some teams because those teams are very good. For example, at the end of the regular season they had GB ranked as the Best team in the NFC despite it being the #6 Seed.

The General take away from the list you posted is simply how rare it is for the Best team to actually win the Title. The NFL isn't the NBA where the Best team usually wins due to the Best of 7 format. A similar trend occurs in the NCAA. Look how many consecutive years the #1 Overall Seed has failed to win the Title. Yes it might be because of matchups or it could simply be just random chance, teams with mathup advantages still lose all the time.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Their stats actually do translate quite well in regards to a versus game. Their advanced stats specifically work for individual matchups.

Any system will usually be wrong and FO is likely better than any other known site or stat. It generally Loves some teams because those teams are very good. For example, at the end of the regular season they had GB ranked as the Best team in the NFC despite it being the #6 Seed.

The General take away from the list you posted is simply how rare it is for the Best team to actually win the Title. The NFL isn't the NBA where the Best team usually wins due to the Best of 7 format. A similar trend occurs in the NCAA. Look how many consecutive years the #1 Overall Seed has failed to win the Title. Yes it might be because of matchups or it could simply be just random chance, teams with mathup advantages still lose all the time.
I don't buy that.
The team that was the most prepared and takes better advantege of the other's weakness wins. Isn't that being better than the other?

Regarding being the #1 seed, when all teams don't play everybody both at home and away, it doesn't mean much.

A team can have a better record simply because it faced an easier schedule.

I'm not saying that the best team wins everytime, but saying that the best team rarely wins seems farfetched, no?

That's my beef with statistics. You can't use statistics to determinate small differences. Their stats are great, both FootballOutsiders and ProFootballFocus provide the best statistical analysis, but the way the NFL is played, you can't devise a statistic to prove a team (or a player) is better than another one, not when they're close in talent.

There are simply too many variables to consider, it's much different from baseball, where it's one against one, and there are so many plays that in the end the statistical anomalies are eschewed.

To determinate that a team is better than another by looking at statistics, when they played different schedules, and in different situations, is pratically impossible. To determinate that a WR is better than another, simply by statistics, when they faced different opponents, ran different schemes and played with different QBs is almost impossible.

That's why NFL teams don't evaluate players by stats, but by film study. Fact is, only they know if the guy run the right route, how many times the guy won his matchup, etc...

Again, we're talking about very close individuals, or teams. We're talking about Green Bay and New England, per example, not Green Bay and Kansas City. We're talking about Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald, not Andre Johnson and Jordy Nelson.

Ah, the offseason, when it's all about hypoteticals!
 

Jasonfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I don't buy that.
The team that was the most prepared and takes better advantege of the other's weakness wins. Isn't that being better than the other?

Upsets happen all of the time during both the regular season and playoffs. Heck GB lost to Washington, Miami, and Det this year and GB is far superior to all 3 and none of the 3 is a particularly terrible matchup problem for GB.

Luck and randomness also play large roles. GB definitely deserved to win the SB but even that game changes with a couple bounces the other way. For example, Pitt missed a FG, GB recovered the Muffed Punt, and GB recovered the Mendenhall fumble. If instead the ball bounces to Pitt instead of Tramon and Bishop who knows how it ends (causing fumbles is a skill but it is random chance which team the ball bounces towards)


I'd say the Best team in the NFL maybe wins the SB 25% of the time or so. Winning 3 games in a row for any team vs playoff competition is a challenge.

For example, let's say that a team has an 80% chance of winning each play off game (unlikely a team would be so far superior to al lof its opponents but we'll assume this team is that dominant). Even this 80% team would only win the Super Bowl 51% of the time (.80x.80x.80)
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Upsets happen all of the time during both the regular season and playoffs. Heck GB lost to Washington, Miami, and Det this year and GB is far superior to all 3 and none of the 3 is a particularly terrible matchup problem for GB.

Luck and randomness also play large roles. GB definitely deserved to win the SB but even that game changes with a couple bounces the other way. For example, Pitt missed a FG, GB recovered the Muffed Punt, and GB recovered the Mendenhall fumble. If instead the ball bounces to Pitt instead of Tramon and Bishop who knows how it ends (causing fumbles is a skill but it is random chance which team the ball bounces towards)


I'd say the Best team in the NFL maybe wins the SB 25% of the time or so. Winning 3 games in a row for any team vs playoff competition is a challenge.

For example, let's say that a team has an 80% chance of winning each play off game (unlikely a team would be so far superior to al lof its opponents but we'll assume this team is that dominant). Even this 80% team would only win the Super Bowl 51% of the time (.80x.80x.80)
Well, if you completely disregard preparedness and gameplay, yes, that's exactly what happens. If you disregard the psychological aspect of it, it comes down to luck.

That's why the 70's Steelers won so much. Luck.
 

Jasonfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Well, if you completely disregard preparedness and gameplay, yes, that's exactly what happens. If you disregard the psychological aspect of it, it comes down to luck.

That's why the 70's Steelers won so much. Luck.

The Steelers in the 70s won because they had so many Hall of Famers and at least some luck (Immaculate Reception). Even with the HOF talent they might indeed have been lucky or unlucky. I have never studied those teams to compare their expected record against their actual record.

The Packers did not beat Pitt because they were better prepared or had a better gameplan. It was a combination between matchups (Pitt's weakness vs Elite Qbs), randomness, and good luck.

For example let's examine 3 Huge Plays during the game:

-Mendenhall Fumbles, ball bounces straight to Bishop
-Tramon Fumbles Punt, is able to recover it
-Wallce is open fo a TD, Ben overthrows him

If any 3 of those plays go differently the game outcome might change even though all 3 events were completely out of the Packers hands.

On the other hand GB had terrible luck with Driver, Woodson, and Shields all going down in the 1st Half which played a large role in Pitt being able to make it competitive.

Skill is definitely the more important determinant of which team wins but luck/randomness plays a large role in many games, which is why upsets are so common and why the best team usually doesn't win the SB.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
I'm not arguing if luck plays a factor or not, it does.
What I'm arguing is the percentage of times it affects the ultimate result.

Mendenhall fumbling is a result of Matthews reading the formation and attacking, and Mendenhall's poor ball handling at that time.

A kicker missing a FG is his innability to concentrate and kick the ball on the right place, with the right force.

A ball bouncing a way or an injury, that's usually luck (injuries can be a result of the player not being physically ready, or being too fatigued). But fumbles aren't luck, there's good reaction of the guy recovering the fumble, and there's poor ball handling of the guy fumbling.

Luck is a random event in which one didn't have any control over what happened.

In the events you listed, Ben missed because he overthrew it, not because of luck. If he missed it because a drop of sweat got into his eye, that's luck.

Bishop recovered the ball because he has great reaction time and good hands. There is some luck that the ball bounced his way, yes, but it's no coincidence some players recover fumbles more than others. Same thing with Tramon's muffed punt.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top