OFFICIAL Pack - Cards and predictions

[TJV]

13, some teams have played 8 games while others have played 7. That's why stats per game are the correct measure. For example, certainly a team having played only 7 games is likely to have surrendered fewer total points than the Packers who have played 8, even if their per game D is worse.

 

[13 Times Champs]

13, some teams have played 8 games while others have played 7. That's why stats per game are the correct measure. For example, certainly a team having played only 7 games is likely to have surrendered fewer total points than the Packers who have played 8, even if their per game D is worse.

Understand.

And here's a listing on yards allowed??

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense

 

[TJV]

My initial point was I didn’t understand longtimefan’s post. Beyond that as soon as bye weeks begin for teams and until they’re over (so all teams have played the same number of games) IMO stats relating to season totals are irrelevant. But if your point is even the total stats don’t explain longtimefan’s post, I agree.

My prediction for the game is Arizona won't be able to score more than their average of 17 points per game and that won't be enough for them to win. I really don't care about the margin of victory as long as the Packers win. And, as always, hoping no significant injuries occur.

 

[13 Times Champs]

I think it's the 208 points vs 170 we see the Pack has given up

And yes Jack I'm not so worried about our defense, it's the offense that concerns me

 

[13 Times Champs]

Jordy will start.

Here's a list of game day inactives:

http://blog.packers.com/2012/11/04/jordy-nelson-will-start-packers-cardinals-inactives/

 

[ExpatPacker]

Jordy will start.

Here's a list of game day inactives:

http://blog.packers.com/2012/11/04/jordy-nelson-will-start-packers-cardinals-inactives/

Perry is out again?? /sigh What ever happened to his "not serious" injury?

 

[weeds]

Good for you the team sucked back then and most games were noon Sundays. Not many primetime or late games in those days. The TV announcers were the dregs and you should have listened to Jim and Max while you drove.

Ah yeah... you know what I"m talking about...hahaha.. both were even worse in the 70's.

 

[longtimefan]

Help me out here, longtimefan. Here’s a link to nfl.com which lists the order of teams by fewest points surrendered per game. Arizona is #4 at 17.8 ppg, having given up a total of 142. The Packers are tied at #12 with New England having surrendered 21.2 ppg for a total of 170 total points.

In the less significant yards surrendered per game, Arizona is 6th and the Packers are 13th. You’re right, the Cards defense is better but the Packers defense is in the top half of the league in both points and yards per game surrendered.
http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_GAME_AVG&tabSeq=2&season=2012&role=OPP&Submit=Go&archive=false&conference=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=SCORING&qualified=true

The link in my post points to this capture

I went by what was listed..

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

The standings link onn NFL

Same thing I had?

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

 

[13 Times Champs]

Perry is out again?? /sigh What ever happened to his "not serious" injury?

Remember Mike Neal's non serious injury???

 

[13 Times Champs]

The link in my post points to this capture

I went by what was listed..

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

The standings link onn NFL

Same thing I had?

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

Not seeing that the Packers had given up 208 points??

 

[longtimefan]

Not seeing that the Packers had given up 208 points??

My post on the prev page

They have given up 127 points--- good for 3rd best in the league..

Us 208 points, makes us 29th

I am dyslexic

Didnt notice I was flipping the #'s

 

[longtimefan]

My initial point was I didn’t understand longtimefan’s post. Beyond that as soon as bye weeks begin for teams and until they’re over (so all teams have played the same number of games) IMO stats relating to season totals are irrelevant. But if your point is even the total stats don’t explain longtimefan’s post, I agree.

My prediction for the game is Arizona won't be able to score more than their average of 17 points per game and that won't be enough for them to win. I really don't care about the margin of victory as long as the Packers win. And, as always, hoping no significant injuries occur.

I was flipping the #'s so that is all my fault

 

[Poppa San]

Been thinking along the same lines. Expect to see a game like week two when the B{@^> didn't know what hit them.
34-17

Missed it by Crosby's flub.

 

[Alex]

Oh... I feel your pain Alex. I lived in Superior/Duluth in um... the 1987?? season ... flippin' Duluth TV stations carried nothing but Viking games forcing me to drive to darned near Ashland to find a bar with a satellite dish (one of those HUGE dishes that could probably pick up conversations between Martians) so that I could watch the Pack. Quite the silliness really but I actually looked forward to the weekends that my wife (girlfriend at the time) made me drive her home to visit her Mom ... because I told her that we wouldn't leave until the game was finished...then, and only then would we begin the 7 hour drive back to Superior.

All the way to Ashland?! Wow I'm glad that was before I was born. Luckily most of the bars in Superior have Sunday Ticket so I can just drive there and watch it.

 

[Crazy Packers Fan]

Well, pretty satisfying game despite all the injuries and the fact that it should have been a blowout. The Packers were in control the entire game, and the defense played fairly well. And there's actually a running game now. Not a bad way to go into the bye.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

^ I don't beleive this was a emergence of the running game....this was a VERY crappy cardinals run defense....they made our medicore backs look good.

 

[Vltrophy]

Green did a good job of ball protection. Starks fumbled but what a heads up play by Rodgers to jump on it

 

[slaughter25]

^ I don't beleive this was a emergence of the running game....this was a VERY crappy cardinals run defense....they made our medicore backs look good.

We gashed them pretty hard today and I totally agree that part of it was because their run D is baaaaad. But I also think some of the credit has to go to MM's play calling. Finally a good rotation of Starks Green and Cobb. The combo we saw yesterday with Cobb taking 3-5 handoffs and 7-10 snaps in the back field and then Starks being used more between the tackles and green in the screens and outside runs really worked out. Was glad to see us stop forcing Alex Green to take more of the load than he is capable of.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

We gashed them pretty hard today and I totally agree that part of it was because their run D is baaaaad. But I also think some of the credit has to go to MM's play calling. Finally a good rotation of Starks Green and Cobb. The combo we saw yesterday with Cobb taking 3-5 handoffs and 7-10 snaps in the back field and then Starks being used more between the tackles and green in the screens and outside runs really worked out. Was glad to see us stop forcing Alex Green to take more of the load than he is capable of.

That is true. Agree with ya.

Green seems to be more at home when he runs way outside or he is set up with a screen pass. He did well on the screens he caught.