Let’s all take a minute or two....

[Sanguine camper]

6 straight scoring drives by the Niners and they only threw 7 passes all night. Same old porous defense for 9 years in a row. Hey look at the bright side. The Niners saved an embarrassing beatdown by KC in the Super Bowl.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think we would have been beat down by KC. There defense isn't as good. Our offense would have likely done a lot better against them. and KC has playmakers, but I don't think they could line it up and just run it like that, which lets our DB's and pass rush use their strengths.

We don't match up well with San Fran.

 

[Mondio]

I think we will just have agree to disagree. Point differential is just one example of how the Packers weren't as good as their record. Plenty of other metrics show the same thing. Take a look at DVOA, SRS, etc. There are ways of reading into the strength of a team beyond their record, and none of those metric reflect favorably on this team. I mean, even just look at our rankings from this season- 18th in offensive yards, 15th in points, 15th in rushing yards, 17th in passing yards, 18th in total defensive yards, 23rd in defensive rushing yards, 14th defensive passing yards. All of those are average numbers. The Packers were above average at taking the ball away and not giving it away, which is what bumped them from an average team to a good team. But there is just nothing that supports them as being as good as their 13-3 record indicates.

Funny, you don't use any stats like Red zone scoring or Red zone defense, etc.

Just the ones that point to "average". And I wonder what all these people saying we're just a healthy team that didn't turn the ball over were saying when we had to win playoff games without all those guys that were always injured. Health is an excuse for winning, but being injured isn't an excuse for losing LOL

 

[BrokenArrow]

But there is just nothing that supports them as being as good as their 13-3 record indicates.

You mean aside from the undeniable fact that we won 13 games? The rest is horse ****. You can argue that we might not have been as good as the other 13-3 teams, but you can't deny that we were a 13-3 team.

 

[Half Empty]

Then again, there's the Packers' 2011 season. Actually, by that logic, the 2010 season, too.

 

[Arodgers12]

Is it just me but we were more of a 10-6 team than a 13-3 team. The only complete game we played all year was the Raiders game. We struggled against inferior teams like the Broncos, Eagles, Chargers, Lions twice, Panthers, Giants and Redskins. To me we were the same team as last year as I thought we were more of a 10-6 team last year than a 6-9-1 team. The 2014 team was one of the best Packer teams of all time that didn’t win the SB and the 2003 team was as well. Brandon Bostick, Haha Clinton Dix, Morgan Burnett and Mike McCarthy all cost us in the 2014 NFC Championship game. Rodgers didn’t play that great either and Mike Daniels had a taunting penalty that made us settle for a FG early in the game instead of scoring a TD. We would have beat New England that year. The 2003 team would have won if it wasn’t for giving up a 4th and 26 and Sherman being gutless not going for it on 4th and 1 from the Eagles 41 yard line. That led to Favre throwing one of his worst interceptions ever to lose the game. The 1997 team was also very dominant but we couldn’t stop Terrell Davis. That team was dominant on offense and on defense. The D collapsed in the SB though. The 1995 team was great too but not good enough to win the Super Bowl. Anyway the 97, 2003 and 2014 teams were light years better than this years team. This years team reminded me of the 2007 team which was ok but not good enough for a Super Bowl like this year. This leads me to ask do you guys think I’m right about those 97, 03 and 2014 teams?

 

[red4tribe]

You mean aside from the undeniable fact that we won 13 games? The rest is horse ****. You can argue that we might not have been as good as the other 13-3 teams, but you can't deny that we were a 13-3 team.

Where did I say it wasn't a 13-3 team? I said it was a very weak 13-3 team, which it was. Again, statistically this team was more comparable with a typical 10-6 team. We overachieved by a few games.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Is it just me but we were more of a 10-6 team than a 13-3 team. The only complete game we played all year was the Raiders game. We struggled against inferior teams like the Broncos, Eagles, Chargers, Lions twice, Panthers, Giants and Redskins. To me we were the same team as last year as I thought we were more of a 10-6 team last year than a 6-9-1 team. The 2014 team was one of the best Packer teams of all time that didn’t win the SB and the 2003 team was as well. Brandon Bostick, Haha Clinton Dix, Morgan Burnett and Mike McCarthy all cost us in the 2014 NFC Championship game. Rodgers didn’t play that great either and Mike Daniels had a taunting penalty that made us settle for a FG early in the game instead of scoring a TD. We would have beat New England that year. The 2003 team would have won if it wasn’t for giving up a 4th and 26 and Sherman being gutless not going for it on 4th and 1 from the Eagles 41 yard line. That led to Favre throwing one of his worst interceptions ever to lose the game. The 1997 team was also very dominant but we couldn’t stop Terrell Davis. That team was dominant on offense and on defense. The D collapsed in the SB though. The 1995 team was great too but not good enough to win the Super Bowl. Anyway the 97, 2003 and 2014 teams were light years better than this years team. This years team reminded me of the 2007 team which was ok but not good enough for a Super Bowl like this year. This leads me to ask do you guys think I’m right about those 97, 03 and 2014 teams?

In short, the Packers have had $hit on our shoe for multiple years. We'll need to overcompensate with talent to win - let's start with some ridiculously fast and talented HOF level inside linebackers.

 

[gonzozab]

This is an 8 or 9 win team that somehow managed to win 13 games in the regular season. I think some of that has to do with for the first time in eons we were relatively healthy this season. I don't think it's coincidence that this happened in year one of the post-McCarthy era. I'd bet a month's salary the Cowboys will be a walking wounded next year.

 

[BrokenArrow]

You mean aside from the undeniable fact that we won 13 games? The rest is horse ****. .

Where did I say it wasn't a 13-3 team? I said it was a very weak 13-3 team, which it was. Again, statistically this team was more comparable with a typical 10-6 team. We overachieved by a few games.

Absolutely not. Every win was earned they way all wins are. They did what was required to get the victory. You don't get to devalue them due to a few cherry-picked statistics.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again, statistically this team was more comparable with a typical 10-6 team. We overachieved by a few games.

Aside of the only stat that really matters which is wins and losses of course.

 

[pacmaniac]

I don't think we would have been beat down by KC. There defense isn't as good. Our offense would have likely done a lot better against them. and KC has playmakers, but I don't think they could line it up and just run it like that, which lets our DB's and pass rush use their strengths.

Agreed. We put up 31 points on KC. Matt Moore had a decent game with 2 TDs and 24 points against us. Mahomes could certainly do better than that, maybe throws 4 TDs. That would make it 38 points against us. Still a one possession game.

 

[PackAttack12]

Can we please stop with this "8, 9, 10 win team that somehow won 13 games" nonsense? You get what you earn in this league. The Packers made enough plays when it mattered to win 13 games.

Just because it wasn't flashy and didn't look pretty at times shouldn't mitigate the fact that they made the plays to be a 13-3 team. Just stop it.

 

[Mondio]

Can we please stop with this "8, 9, 10 win team that somehow won 13 games" nonsense? You get what you earn in this league. The Packers made enough plays when it mattered to win 13 games.

Just because it wasn't flashy and didn't look pretty at times shouldn't mitigate the fact that they made the plays to be a 13-3 team. Just stop it.

Does get old doesn't it? What they're really trying to say is we didn't have one of the most talented rosters in the league, which we know. They like to play the games on paper I guess or with a madden rating. That's what matters. Lining up and winning doesn't.

Grit, determination, finding a way etc doesn't do anything for them. It's a madden or pFF rating that "should" decide the games I guess. We had some breaks, we stayed healthy. We also had some things go against us and had a 1st year head coach and staff that had a lot to work thru as well. and there were so many years were we had very talented Rosters had some really bad breaks and even worse injuries. Didn't stop them from *****ing about how we didn't win a super bowl then and blast MM and TT every single day.

lucky to be a 6 win team, to this team won't win 8 games to this team won't win more than 1 more game to this team will be 1 and done to SEE this team sucks, they got blown out by the 49ers. it's kind of funny when you sit back and realize they're actually serious like they "know" LOL

 

[pacmaniac]

Can we please stop with this "8, 9, 10 win team that somehow won 13 games" nonsense? You get what you earn in this league. The Packers made enough plays when it mattered to win 13 games.

Just because it wasn't flashy and didn't look pretty at times shouldn't mitigate the fact that they made the plays to be a 13-3 team. Just stop it.

They overachieved this season and won 13 games. It's an indicator of how we're fare next season. I have read numerous articles about teams like us - we're going to fall back to Earth a bit next season. We won 90% of our close games this season, and that is unsustainable.

Like this article https://checkdownsports.net/2016/07/06/five-teams-that-will-regress-in-2016/

"For instance, teams that have won at least 75% of close games in a given year have combined to win only about 50% of those same games the following season."

"The Jets had the second biggest jump in their win total from 2014 to 2015 (+6 wins). As I said with the Vikings, teams that make these jumps usually fall back to Earth the following season."

 

[PackAttack12]

They overachieved this season and won 13 games. It's an indicator of how we're fare next season. I have read numerous articles about teams like us - we're going to fall back to Earth a bit next season. We won 90% of our close games this season, and that is unsustainable.

It's not common for many teams at all, regardless of whether or not they "overachieved" to win 13 or more games one year, and win the same amount next year.

Matter of fact, since 2010, only 2 teams out of 20 won at least 13 games, and then followed it up by winning the same amount or more the following year.

Has nothing to do with being overrated. Has everything at all to do with just how damn difficult it is to win that many games. Especially in consecutive seasons.

We could fall off a couple of games next season. The statistics actually are in favor of that happening. But it's not because we were overrated this season.

 

[OldSchool101]

True that. I can definitely see an 11-5 or 12-4 next season (but with a more robust feel to the Wins)

I’m proud of what MLF accomplished and I’m pretty excited knowing that we can sign nearly all of our current quality FA’s this season. If we work it correctly we will go into the 2020 season with upgrades at 2-3 Defensive positions.

Also I believe we will have at least 2 more quality upgrades in the receiving area.

 

[Mondio]

They overachieved this season and won 13 games. It's an indicator of how we're fare next season. I have read numerous articles about teams like us - we're going to fall back to Earth a bit next season. We won 90% of our close games this season, and that is unsustainable.

Like this article https://checkdownsports.net/2016/07/06/five-teams-that-will-regress-in-2016/

"For instance, teams that have won at least 75% of close games in a given year have combined to win only about 50% of those same games the following season."

"The Jets had the second biggest jump in their win total from 2014 to 2015 (+6 wins). As I said with the Vikings, teams that make these jumps usually fall back to Earth the following season."

you can say that about almost any team in any season. Every season is new challenges, new injuries, new players, new teams. what percent of teams make it to 13-3 in a given season? 10% It's not exactly a surprise most teams don't get back to that.

The odds are overwhelming that we'll be worse record wise even if we're better from a talent and coaching stand point. I don't care. We won close games, year 1 in a system. I suspect we'll be better in year 2, but then I can't account for players falling off, being injured etc. Every year is different, but I do expect this team to grow and continue to improve. I don't see this team going 8-8 without some major bad things happening. I expect to be in the playoffs again. if people want to argue a win or 2, feel free. i'm not really going to, never apologize for winning. If they want to argue the Packers weren't a playoff team, well i guess they like to live in misery because they obviously earned that.

They Beat the ****ing Vikings twice, they beat Seattle in the playoffs. these same people think it would prove something had we lost to the 49ers first or something. What would it prove? The vikings and Seattle were better? LOL newflash, they didn't beat us.

 

[pacmaniac]

I definitely think we'll improve next season. All I am saying is that we shouldn't expect our record to improve as well. It's highly unlikely we'll go 15-1 or 14-2 next season.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They overachieved this season and won 13 games. It's an indicator of how we're fare next season. I have read numerous articles about teams like us - we're going to fall back to Earth a bit next season. We won 90% of our close games this season, and that is unsustainable.

Like this article https://checkdownsports.net/2016/07/06/five-teams-that-will-regress-in-2016/

"For instance, teams that have won at least 75% of close games in a given year have combined to win only about 50% of those same games the following season."

"The Jets had the second biggest jump in their win total from 2014 to 2015 (+6 wins). As I said with the Vikings, teams that make these jumps usually fall back to Earth the following season."

An interesting article about not all close wins actually being close ones.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/not-all-close-nfl-wins-were-actually-close/

With the result of all coin flip games being flipped the Packers would have still won the division and earned the #2 seed at 12-4 with the Niners barely making the playoffs.