Official 2016 Packers regular season schedule

Packerlifer · Jul 1, 2016

Robert Mason · Jul 1, 2016

Why is it that most people think the home opener for the Vikings in a new stadium is an automatic win for them ?

Deleted member 6794 · Jul 1, 2016

Robert Mason said:
Why is it that most people think the home opener for the Vikings in a new stadium is an automatic win for them ?

I haven´t seen a single Packers fan mentioning that the game in week 2 is an automatic win for the Vikings. There´s no doubt it will be a tough environment for the Packers to play in though.

Half Empty · Jul 1, 2016

Robert Mason said:
Why is it that most people think the home opener for the Vikings in a new stadium is an automatic win for them ?

Who are 'most people'?

PikeBadger · Jul 2, 2016

HardRightEdge said:
Some teams change in some meaningful way; most do not.

They may not change in scheme, but in the days of free agency, no team trots out the same starters and depth as the previous year. Players also are not static in their skills and abilities.

I think the key word is meaningful.

The overall character and look of a team may not change a lot depending on their staff and mgmt but Imo, every team looks somewhat different from year to year and undergoes some degree of evolution.

Curly Calhoun · Jul 3, 2016

Robert Mason said:
Why is it that most people think the home opener for the Vikings in a new stadium is an automatic win for them ?

I can't speak for 'most people', but for me, there are no automatics wins. There are, however, games you should win, and for me the Vikings game falls into that category. I think Green Bay has a better team than Minnesota, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. As always, injuries on either side could factor into the outcome, but since there is no way to know who's going to be hurt ahead of time, I just go with who the better team is.

HardRightEdge · Jul 4, 2016

PikeBadger said:
They may not change in scheme, but in the days of free agency, no team trots out the same starters and depth as the previous year. Players also are not static in their skills and abilities.

I think the key word is meaningful.

The overall character and look of a team may not change a lot depending on their staff and mgmt but Imo, every team looks somewhat different from year to year and undergoes some degree of evolution.

I was not referring to the composition of the team or it's management...I was referring to the win-loss record. The names may be different but the outcomes are largely the same.

Organizations with extended periods of outperformance tend to continue on that track. There are times where they might stumble a bit and miss the playoffs for a year or two and then find their footing. Organizations with extended periods of underperformance wander in the wilderness in search of a winning formula.

That's not to say these trends persists across decades; those instances are uncommon. But from one year to the next, or from one year to three years down the road, there is a very strong regression toward that organization's mean.

HardRightEdge · Jul 4, 2016

Munch said:
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Play the games, win enough of the games to make it to the playoffs and then beat everyone else to win the SuperBowl.
It doesn't matter if you play at home or away in Timbuktu. If there are excuses already about a schedule then we should just pack it in right now.

GO PACK GO!!!!

Anyone who makes excuses about this schedule hasn't examined it very closely.

Deleted member 6794 · Jul 4, 2016

HardRightEdge said:
I was not referring to the composition of the team or it's management...I was referring to the win-loss record. The names may be different but the outcomes are largely the same.

Organizations with extended periods of outperformance tend to continue on that track. There are times where they might stumble a bit and miss the playoffs for a year or two and then find their footing. Organizations with extended periods of underperformance wander in the wilderness in search of a winning formula.

That's not to say these trends persists across decades; those instances are uncommon. But from one year to the next, or from one year to three years down the road, there is a very strong regression toward that organization's mean.

While I agree with your overall point of view the main reason for that being the talent level at the quarterback position for most teams. Franchises that are successful over a long period mostly have good to elite signal callers while clubs struggling for years haven't been able to significantly upgrade the most important position in football.

There's no denying rosters undergo an overhaul every single season but as long as the performance at quarterback doesn't change significantly the win-loss record of an organization will regress to the mean over a multiyear period.

HardRightEdge · Jul 4, 2016

captainWIMM said:
While I agree with your overall point of view the main reason for that being the talent level at the quarterback position for most teams. Franchises that are successful over a long period mostly have good to elite signal callers while clubs struggling for years haven't been able to significantly upgrade the most important position in football.

There's no denying rosters undergo an overhaul every single season but as long as the performance at quarterback doesn't change significantly the win-loss record of an organization will regress to the mean over a multiyear period.

GM, quarterback, head coach...that's what consistent winning is built around as necessary but not sufficient conditions. Those 3 contributors don't all need to be the cream of the crop, but they all need to be good at what they do.

Deleted member 6794 · Jul 4, 2016

HardRightEdge said:
GM, quarterback, head coach...that's what consistent winning is built around as necessary but not sufficient conditions. Those 3 contributors don't all need to be the cream of the crop, but they all need to be good at what they do.

While I agree that a way above average general manager or head coach increases the chances for a team to win on a regular basis having a top 10 quarterback is the most important part for a franchise to be successful in the long haul.

HardRightEdge · Jul 4, 2016

captainWIMM said:
While I agree that a way above average general manager or head coach increases the chances for a team to win on a regular basis having a top 10 quarterback is the most important part for a franchise to be successful in the long haul.

You can win without a top 10 QB, if such a classification even exists. I wouldn't consider Wilson a top 10 QB; he might have looked like one at times because of the wins put on the board thanks to the defensive supporting cast.

The elite QBs are a smaller group than 10. Who fills out the top 10 in any given year changes largely based on team success. Take the supporting cast away (Brees, E. Manning), and the general perception is a fall in status even if what you're looking at is the exact same player.

A good QB is sufficient for winning if the other pieces are in place. What must be avoided is paying a guy like Flaco or Wilson elite money for good or lesser performance. There's a lot of that going around.

One the special benefits of having an elite QB while paying him elite money is that you get your money's worth. Lesser QBs paid elite money, even if one were to regard them as top 10, is an impediment.

Deleted member 6794 · Jul 4, 2016

HardRightEdge said:
You can win without a top 10 QB, if such a classification even exists. I wouldn't consider Wilson a top 10 QB; he might have looked like one at times because of the wins put on the board thanks to the defensive supporting cast.

The elite QBs are a smaller group than 10. Who fills out the top 10 in any given year changes largely based on team success. Take the supporting cast away (Brees, E. Manning), and the general perception is a fall in status even if what you're looking at is the exact same player.

A good QB is sufficient for winning if the other pieces are in place. What must be avoided is paying a guy like Flaco or Wilson elite money for good or lesser performance. There's a lot of that going around.

One the special benefits of having an elite QB while paying him elite money is that you get your money's worth. Lesser QBs paid elite money, even if one were to regard them as top 10, is an impediment.

There's no doubt Wilson has benefitted from having the best scoring defense for every single season since entering the league but he has been extremely efficient as well, currently ranking second in passer rating in NFL history.

It's possible to win without a top 10 QB but it makes it extremely tough to keep it going over multiple seasons.

I agree that a lot of teams made the mistake of paying elite money for a quarterback not performing up to his contract.

PackerDNA · Jul 7, 2016

Wilson- particularly in the 2nd half of last season- started to do the things elite QB's do. Should he continue this development- and there's no reason why he shouldn't- that would give Seattle elite defence and QB play, making them a very solid title contender.

HardRightEdge · Jul 8, 2016

PackerDNA said:
Wilson- particularly in the 2nd half of last season- started to do the things elite QB's do. Should he continue this development- and there's no reason why he shouldn't- that would give Seattle elite defence and QB play, making them a very solid title contender.

Seattle is a title holder, not just a contender, before any "continuation" of Wilson's development. In fact, the more he develops the less favorable has been team outcome. The surrounding cast has eroded somewhat as 4 core players went from $4 mil to $40 mil per year. And it was not the same team without Lynch.

Which goes to my point...you can win with a good QB if the surrounding cast is there. He does not need to be elite.

Deleted member 6794 · Jul 8, 2016

HardRightEdge said:
And it was not the same team without Lynch.

The Seahawks had a 3-4 record in games Lynch played in last season while winning eight out of 11 with him being out of the lineup.

HardRightEdge · Jul 8, 2016

captainWIMM said:
The Seahawks had a 3-4 record in games Lynch played in last season while winning eight out of 11 with him being out of the lineup.

...while being in and out of the lineup with hamstring and sports hernia injuries. So consider it a Lynch who was not himself. Perhaps I should have said, "Seattle was not the same team without Beast Mode", but I resist using nicknames, particularly the less than clever or self-promoted ones.

If one looks over the last 5 Super Bowls, for instance, most of the starting QBs have been less than elite, including the dead armed 2015 version of Manning. I question whether Newton is elite...we need to see follow-up and a little less "look at me" immaturity to grant him that designation. In each of the less-than-elite instances there is a consistent factor at work...a top defense.

You have to go back to 2010 to see two elite QBs paired in the SB. Even so, they were supported by 2nd. and 5th ranked D's in terms of yards, 1st. and 2nd. in scoring using the conventional method, and 2nd. and 4th. in takeaways.

Now, if you ask me if I'd prefer Rodgers at $21 mil per year or the variety of good, mediocre or speculative QBs making $16 mil or more per year (http://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/) the choice would be obvious.

But recent history shows there are ways to skin the cat that do no include an elite QB. It should be fairly obvious.

Deleted member 6794 · Jul 8, 2016

HardRightEdge said:
If one looks over the last 5 Super Bowls, for instance, most of the starting QBs have been less than elite, including the dead armed 2015 version of Manning. I question whether Newton is elite...we need to see follow-up and a little less "look at me" immaturity to grant him that designation. In each of the less-than-elite instances there is a consistent factor at work...a top defense.

You have to go back to 2010 to see two elite QBs paired in the SB. Even so, they were supported by 2nd. and 5th ranked D's in terms of yards, 1st. and 2nd. in scoring using the conventional method, and 2nd. and 4th. in takeaways.

Now, if you ask me if I'd prefer Rodgers at $21 mil per year or the variety of good, mediocre or speculative QBs making $16 mil or more per year (http://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/) the choice would be obvious.

But recent history shows there are ways to skin the cat that do no include an elite QB. It should be fairly obvious.

It is obvious that teams don't need an elite quarterback to win the Super Bowl. I wasn't arguing that at all.

On the other hand there's no denying that having one makes it a lot easier for a team though, especially if that guy doesn't earn significantly more than some average QBs.

Packerlifer · Jul 9, 2016

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2016/7/7/12117490/packers-2016-schedule-preview-vol-11-philadelphia-eagles-chip-kelly-departure
http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/07/09/eagles-hand-future-wentz/86865628/

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/07/11/rodgers-watt-matchup-headlines-texans-visit/86865892/
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2016/7/11/12130664/packers-2016-schedule-preview-vol-12-houston-texans-added-offensive-firepower

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/07/12/packers-seahawks-likely-key-battle-nfc/86866184/
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...vol-13-seahawks-move-forward-lynch-retirement

HardRightEdge · Jul 9, 2016

Packerlifer said:
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...l-11-philadelphia-eagles-chip-kelly-departure

I don't regret not having Chip Kelly on the regular season schedule.

In last season's preseason, he seemed to have Capers' number. While admittedly just preseason with a lot of inexperience players on the field, Kelly seemed to be a step ahead so often as to be troubling.

We will be playing Kelly's 49ers in the preseason. It will be interesting to see what transpires.

Deleted member 6794 · Jul 10, 2016

HardRightEdge said:
I don't regret not having Chip Kelly on the regular season schedule.

In last season's preseason, he seemed to have Capers' number. While admittedly just preseason with a lot of inexperience players on the field, Kelly seemed to be a step ahead so often as to be troubling.

We will be playing Kelly's 49ers in the preseason. It will be interesting to see what transpires.

I wouldn't put too much stock into Chip Kelly's success against the Packers in a meaningless game. The Eagles led the NFL in scoring during the 2014 and '15 pressason yet missed the playoffs both times.

HardRightEdge · Jul 11, 2016

captainWIMM said:
I wouldn't put too much stock into Chip Kelly's success against the Packers in a meaningless game. The Eagles led the NFL in scoring during the 2014 and '15 pressason yet missed the playoffs both times.

I don't put much stock in it either in the sense that the Packers do not play Kelly in the regular season, while the 49ers are in sufficient disarray while playing in a tough division that the Packers are not likely to see them in the post season.

However, a repeat performance in preseason exposing embarrassing vulnerabilities might provide clues to actual opponents. Once may be a fluke, twice starts to look like a pattern. It's a copy cat league.

There were enough first team Packer defensive players on the field exhibiting sufficient confusion to make the coming preseason game of some particular interest.

Deleted member 6794 · Jul 12, 2016

HardRightEdge said:
I don't put much stock in it either in the sense that the Packers do not play Kelly in the regular season, while the 49ers are in sufficient disarray while playing in a tough division that the Packers are not likely to see them in the post season.

However, a repeat performance in preseason exposing embarrassing vulnerabilities might provide clues to actual opponents. Once may be a fluke, twice starts to look like a pattern. It's a copy cat league.

There were enough first team Packer defensive players on the field exhibiting sufficient confusion to make the coming preseason game of some particular interest.

There's absolutely no denying the Packers starters struggled mightily against Kelly's offense during last year's preseason game. With Capers mostly playing vanilla defense I'm not convinced other teams could use it as a blueprint against his unit in the regular season though. Especially as no other offense uses a scheme similar to Kelly's.

Deleted member 6794 · Oct 12, 2016

The league has moved the Packers game at Atlanta in week 8 to 3:25 PM CT.

Pokerbrat2000 · Oct 12, 2016

captainWIMM said:
The league has moved the Packers game at Atlanta in week 8 to 3:25 PM CT.

Bring on Joe and Troy!

Official 2016 Packers regular season schedule

Cheesehead

Cheesehead

Deleted member 6794

Guest

Cheesehead

Moderator

Cheesehead

HardRightEdge

Guest

HardRightEdge

Guest

Deleted member 6794

Guest

HardRightEdge

Guest

Deleted member 6794

Guest

HardRightEdge

Guest

Deleted member 6794

Guest

Cheesehead

HardRightEdge

Guest

Deleted member 6794

Guest

HardRightEdge

Guest

Deleted member 6794

Guest

Cheesehead

HardRightEdge

Guest

Deleted member 6794

Guest

HardRightEdge

Guest

Deleted member 6794

Guest

Deleted member 6794

Guest

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.

Similar threads