Predictions for this season?

[gbgary]

the thing about the pat's winning percentage that you have to remember is that they play in the afc. they have the most talent but little competition and nearly a cake walk to the SB. it's a deadly combination.

 

[Arod2gjdd]

Would you say that Aaron Rodgers is just as talented as Tom Brady? So why have the Patriots won two of the last 4 Superbowls, a team that also supposedly doesn't have a lot of talent?

A winning mentality. An ability to FINISH. This team doesn't have that.

This is one position. How incredibly oversimplified lol

 

[King of Jeans]

the thing about the pat's winning percentage that you have to remember is that they play in the afc. they have the most talent but little competition and nearly a cake walk to the SB. it's a deadly combination.

This is a valid point. we play in the NFC, which is pretty stacked.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

It's true as the Patriots have gone 13-6 (.684) without Brady while the Packers won 94 of 142 games (.662) with Rodgers starting.

I took it a step further. He started in the games against Detroit in '10, Chicago in '13, and Minnesota in '17, but he was knocked out very early , or in the case of the Detroit game, the defense allowed a whopping 7 points, so it was a very winnable game with a backup. He gets knocked for these losses as a starter, when he absolutely should not.

By my calculations, he has a winning percentage of 68%. He's been absent or knocked out of 21 games, and we've won 6, for a winning percentage of 28.5%, good enough to pick in the top 5 of the draft each year. Tom Brady has been absent for 20 games; he was knocked out of the first game in the first quarter of 2008, yet he gets credit for this win since he was starting, despite accounting for 0 TDs. They have won 14 of these games, good for a 70% winning rate, compared to his winning % of 78%. It definitely gives some substance to these "System QB" arguments, especially considering that 90% of these games were played by an average backup QB (Cassell had a career sub-80 QB rating, though he had an 89 QB rating in NE in his first opportunity starting at the collegiate or professional level). or a rookie 3rd string QB.

Let's face it-this organization has failed Rodgers.

 

[ExpatPacker]

Would you say that Aaron Rodgers is just as talented as Tom Brady? So why have the Patriots won two of the last 4 Superbowls, a team that also supposedly doesn't have a lot of talent?

A winning mentality. An ability to FINISH. This team doesn't have that.

Yes he is. NE has had consistently better defenses that GB over the last 6-7 years. Give Brady credit where it is due. The guy is unreal and nobody on this board should say otherwise. He hasn't had the greatest receiving corps over the years (although he's had Gronk, when healthy, and Edelman and Amendola have been very underrated IMO), but he almost always makes something out of them. When you add up everything, Brady has the inside track on GOAT for a QB.

That being said, if Rodgers had had better defenses I think the Packers would probably have another SB or two.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

the thing about the pat's winning percentage that you have to remember is that they play in the afc. they have the most talent but little competition and nearly a cake walk to the SB. it's a deadly combination.

As I've mentioned repeatedly that's a lame argument to make as the Patriots are 51-13 (.797) against NFC opponents since the realignment in 2002.

As a side note the Packers are only 35-29 (.547) vs. those terrible AFC teams over the same period.

 

[rmontro]

Let's face it-this organization has failed Rodgers.

Failed is a pretty strong word, but I'm comfortable saying that they've had an opportunity they haven't fully taken advantage of.

That being said, if Rodgers had had better defenses I think the Packers would probably have another SB or two.

A fair statement, some of our defenses have been downright terrible, or mediocre at best. We might have even won back to back in 2010 and 2011.

As I've mentioned repeatedly that's a lame argument to make as the Patriots are 51-13 (.797) against NFC opponents since the realignment in 2002.

He did say the Pats had the most talent, so it's not like he's saying they're pushovers. A lot of their success comes from coaching though, obviously.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He did say the Pats had the most talent, so it's not like he's saying they're pushovers. A lot of their success comes from coaching though, obviously.

True, but I was addressing the point that the Patriots success is based on playing in the AFC. The poster ignored the fact that they have dominated NFC opponents as well though.

In addition the AFC currently has an edge over the NFC in head-to-head games since division realignment last happend in the NFL (527-493-4, .517).

 

[LambeauLombardi]

The defense is ranked better than the offense. Maybe that deserves to be in the hot take thread but I am obsessed with these new corners.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The defense is ranked better than the offense. Maybe that deserves to be in the hot take thread but I am obsessed with these new corners.

If that happens to become true the Packers can already plan a Super Bowl parade for February. I highly doubt the defense will perform at an elite level though.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Yes he is. NE has had consistently better defenses that GB over the last 6-7 years. Give Brady credit where it is due. The guy is unreal and nobody on this board should say otherwise. He hasn't had the greatest receiving corps over the years (although he's had Gronk, when healthy, and Edelman and Amendola have been very underrated IMO), but he almost always makes something out of them. When you add up everything, Brady has the inside track on GOAT for a QB.

That being said, if Rodgers had had better defenses I think the Packers would probably have another SB or two.

I just don't understand why people perceive Brady's receivers to be weak. Since 2007, he's had 5 receivers who have had multiple 1,000 yard seasons, all in their prime (Moss was a bit past his, but still one of the best WRs in the league). Rodgers has had two-Jennings and Nelson, and neither are Gronk or Moss. Graham hasn't been a 1k receiver in 5 years, so I don't count him, as I don't count Ochocinco for NE.

So even if people are judging them as if they were to line up with only 2 or 3 WRs and a TE and execute a vanilla offense, he's still been far ahead of the curb. But much of the offense succeeds because of the utilization of the RBs as basically a bunch of extra slot WRs, giving him a lot of easy targets so they can execute their "death by a thousand cuts" gameplan. And those years they had Hernandez and Gronk, they were nearly impossible to defend.

When he didn't have these types of targets prior to 2007, he didn't have the stats, either. But he's had the best supporting casts in the league since then. Brees is the only elite QB who arguably has a better offensive coach.

 

[AmishMafia]

I just don't understand why people perceive Brady's receivers to be weak. Since 2007, he's had 5 receivers who have had multiple 1,000 yard seasons, all in their prime (Moss was a bit past his, but still one of the best WRs in the league). Rodgers has had two-Jennings and Nelson, and neither are Gronk or Moss. Graham hasn't been a 1k receiver in 5 years, so I don't count him, as I don't count Ochocinco for NE.

So even if people are judging them as if they were to line up with only 2 or 3 WRs and a TE and execute a vanilla offense, he's still been far ahead of the curb. But much of the offense succeeds because of the utilization of the RBs as basically a bunch of extra slot WRs, giving him a lot of easy targets so they can execute their "death by a thousand cuts" gameplan. And those years they had Hernandez and Gronk, they were nearly impossible to defend.

When he didn't have these types of targets prior to 2007, he didn't have the stats, either. But he's had the best supporting casts in the league since then. Brees is the only elite QB who arguably has a better offensive coach.

It's a difficult question to answer if Brady has talented receivers or not. A successful pass play requires, among other things, an accurate pass, a well thrown ball (proper touch), a well conceived play, a concealed play, a well run route, and a receiver with good hands. Only 2 of those are talents contributed by the WR. 3 are the result of the QBs talent, and 1 is the coaches talent. Think about it, the more accurate the passer, the less talent the WR needs in catch radius. The better the coach and QB can disguise a play, the less precise the route needs to be. These work in exactly the opposite way as well and a great WR can help make a QB look better.

Anyway, Bellichick is the best and Brady is one of the best all times. They have the ability to make WRs look better than they are and you cant go by receiving yards to prove they are good.

 

[ScallyWack]

vs. Chicago Bears - W
vs. Minnesota Vikings - W
at Washington Redskins-W
vs. Buffalo Bills- W
at Detroit Lions - L
vs. San Francisco 49ers - W
at Los Angeles Rams - L
at New England Patriots - W
vs. Miami Dolphins - W
at Seattle Seahawks - L
at Minnesota Vikings - L
vs. Arizona Cardinals - W
vs. Atlanta Falcons - W
at Chicago Bears - W
at New York Jets - W
vs. Detroit Lions - W

Used a dart board for this one... I think we beat NE on the road though.

 

[King of Jeans]

Beating minny twice won't be an easy feat.

 

[ScallyWack]

Beating minny twice won't be an easy feat.

Edited after ./fail ... I still think their defense is overrated

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Their defense really fell off last year after a hot start. They finished the year allowing 21 (Eagles), 20 (Bears), 22 (Lions), 26(Skins), 24 (Card), 16 (Lions on thanksgiving), 17 (Cowboys), 16 (Jags), 34 (Colts), 38 (Packers), 10 (Bears). While the numbers are decent the level of competition was way down.
The hapless Bears, The 7-9 Redskins in a down division, Lions with no offensive identity, the Zekeless cowboys, Cardinals with no QB, the Jags roller coaster offense driven by Bortles, no Luck Colts, No AR Packers... a really great defense should have absolutely shut those teams down.
I don’t think it is an insurmountable feat to beat them twice if AR is healthy. Cousins is no world beater. I think that was a horrible deal and will set that franchise back after it was making considerable progress.

It would help if you were looking at the correct year.

 

[AmishMafia]

vs. Chicago Bears - W
vs. Minnesota Vikings - W
at Washington Redskins-W
vs. Buffalo Bills- W
at Detroit Lions - L
vs. San Francisco 49ers - W
at Los Angeles Rams - L
at New England Patriots - W
vs. Miami Dolphins - W
at Seattle Seahawks - L
at Minnesota Vikings - L
vs. Arizona Cardinals - W
vs. Atlanta Falcons - W
at Chicago Bears - W
at New York Jets - W
vs. Detroit Lions - W

Used a dart board for this one... I think we beat NE on the road though.

I hope we can beat Seattle. I think they are a bottom 7 team. 5-11 at best. Pats, ATL, Rams, and minny are our toughest games.

 

[ScallyWack]

*face palm* I knew something seemed strange. I need to not post until after coffee.

 

[King of Jeans]

I don't think Atlanta will be as good this year

 

[ScallyWack]

I don't think Atlanta will be as good this year

I agree with this- their two stars are aging and after they lost their OC their offense took a big step back.

 

[rmontro]

In addition the AFC currently has an edge over the NFC in head-to-head games since division realignment last happend in the NFL (527-493-4, .517).

Still, NE aside, I would say the NFC has had more dominant teams than the AFC (more true contenders). The Packers have been one of the best teams, but every year it seems like there is at least one NFC team that's better than them that they can't get past. Last year there were several.

 

[FaninColorado]

There have been so many pundits thinking that Atl is going to come into GB in Dec and beat us. While it is a possibility, the Falcons have consistently shown that they struggle on the road and also on a grass field. Their speed is drastically cut because of the field and the conditions.

I could see us reach 13-3, but am assuming 11-5 season this year and taking back the NFC North crown. I will say though if our defense approaches top 10 overall... we could easily be celebrating a championship.

On a side note, the NFC South is so strange with NO, ATL, and Carolina being able to take the division.... 2 years ago New Orleans were 7-9 and Sean Payton almost lost his job while last year they went 11-5 and they are considered a super bowl front runner. I see them being 8-8 or 9-7 with losses at @ATL, @Minn, Phi, @Dal, @TB, @Car, and LAR with Pitt and/or @NYG giving them another loss or two. Last year, the NYG were considered the team that was going to dethrone the Cowboys... and then they got hit by the injury bug. I don't see the Saints making the playoffs this year.

 

[Heyjoe4]

10-6 is a good estimate. Will that be enough to win the NFC North? Maybe. Will it be enough to make the playoffs? Likely. Will we make it past the first round? Probably not.

I still don't think this team has that killer instinct. Can't win when it counts. We have this super weird ambience of a skilled team with a losing mentality.

The lack of a killer mentality has been evident in recent years. They get a lead and MM goes into “play not to lose” mode, which caused the loss in the NFCC game against the Hags. If you watch the Pats, they are always bringing the heat, no lead is good enough - and in the NFL, that’s true. Just ask the Packers, or the Falcons in the SB loss to the Pats. Anyway back to the topic. I’d be ecstatic with 11-5, but if I had to bet, 10-6. All subject to change in the months ahead.

 

[Raptorman]

the thing about the pat's winning percentage that you have to remember is that they play in the afc. they have the most talent but little competition and nearly a cake walk to the SB. it's a deadly combination.

Not buying it. Let's take the win/loss record of the two conferences first. Now, I only went back to 2011 because it was way to time consuming.

AFC 867 907  .488
NFC 904 870  .509

Without New England and the Packers.
AFC 779 883   .468
NFC  830 832  .499

2 points in the first part and  3 in the second.

It breaks down to the NFC winning about half a game more per team per season.

 

[Croak]

This early on, there is no reason why any Packer fan should be pessimistic about the upcoming season. Let's wait, at least, until pre-season to see a glimpse of what we are dealing with.