The tie: Was it important?

[adambr2]

So looking back on the hollow feeling of the tie, you couldn't help but wonder about the implications of that result later. Was Matt Flynn's 16 point comeback only to fall short of a victory all for nothing anyway? Or could it mean, well, everything? We have to look.

If the comeback tie does not occur, we are currently 7-7, tied with Detroit. We would have a 2-3 division record, compared to 4-1 for Detroit. Chicago is at 2-3. We would still control our own destiny against them, as a victory over them would move them to 2-4 in the division compared to our 3-3, with a head to head split. Detroit would be a different story. If Detroit finishes 9-7, we would be going home if the tie had been a loss, regardless of what the Bears do, and regardless of whether or not we also finished 9-7. So yes, we could still overtake 8-6 Chicago on our own if we had lost to Minnesota, but would need help against 7-7 Detroit.

Now let's take a look at the implications of if we had won against Minnesota. We would be 8-6, tied with Chicago. We would STILL need a win, or at least tie, against Chicago to win the division. The reason is if we lost to them, we could do no better than 9-7, they could do no worse, and they would win the tiebreaker over us on the head to head sweep. Even if Detroit tied to make a 3 way tie, Detroit wins any 3 way tiebreaker on division record.

The one and only advantage of winning versus tying would be that we could afford to lose against the Steelers IF the Lions also lose on Sunday at home to the Giants (unlikely). If not, we would again lose control of our destiny as the Lions. This is not too different from our current situation (can afford to lose against the Steelers only if the Lions and Bears also lose).

So as confusing as that all may be, this should sum it up: the tie helps us a lot, and most likely will not hurt us at all. We do not control our own destiny right now without that tie.

 

[GoPGo]

It's really quite simple: Not losing is better than losing both subjectively and mathematically. But great post.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Kinda wish MM didn't go for 2 and not get it in that game early in the comeback. Who knows how the game would have played out though. I will take the current situation given where I thought they would be with 2 games left.

 

[adambr2]

It's really quite simple: Not losing is better than losing both subjectively and mathematically. But great post.

Of course, but a tie can lean one way or the other. It's not a win, so it can hurt you more than it helps you if you were on the winning end of most of your tiebreakers anyway and wouldn't be harmed by finishing with identical records with other teams. But it's also not a loss, so if you were already on the losing end of most of your tiebreakers, it helps because you need that extra half game because being tied doesn't benefit you.

 

[Packerlifer]

As of now the Minnesota tie does us no favor. It's why the Packers are in second place, a half game out of first, instead of being in the driver's seat in the division. Chicago has 3 -in division losses already, the Pack only one. If the Packers win out and go 9-6-1 while the Bears and Lions only go 9-7 it won't hurt Green Bay. On the other hand finishing 8-7-1 while the other goes 9-7 will eliminate the Pack from the playoffs.

While the tie is better than a loss it's a game the Packers could and should have won. When we look back on the season at its end it will be said that the two games the cost the Packers the divison - if that is the case- during the Aaron Rodgers-less stretch were the Vikings and Giants game. Even without ARod the Pack should have been able to win those two.

 

[adambr2]

As of now the Minnesota tie does us no favor. It's why the Packers are in second place, a half game out of first, instead of being in the driver's seat in the division. Chicago has 3 -in division losses already, the Pack only one. If the Packers win out and go 9-6-1 while the Bears and Lions only go 9-7 it won't hurt Green Bay. On the other hand finishing 8-7-1 while the other goes 9-7 will eliminate the Pack from the playoffs.

While the tie is better than a loss it's a game the Packers could and should have won. When we look back on the season at its end it will be said that the two games the cost the Packers the divison - if that is the case- during the Aaron Rodgers-less stretch were the Vikings and Giants game. Even without ARod the Pack should have been able to win those two.

Some inaccuracies in here. First the Pack has 2 division losses, not one, and the division record would not put us in first over the Bears because they hold the current head to head tiebreaker.

While of course we would have all preferred a win, I think Minnesota would feel the same way saying that it is a game they should have won, with them being up 16 late.

We still control our own destiny with the tie right now same as if we would have won, but unlike if we would have lost. So my point was that the tie does us a lot more good relative to if we had lost than it does us bad relative to if we had won.

 

[rodell330]

shoulda won..then we wouldn't be in this mess. K i'm done now.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

shoulda won..then we wouldn't be in this mess. K i'm done now.

We still would have had to win at Chicago.

 

[adambr2]

shoulda won..then we wouldn't be in this mess. K i'm done now.

Yes...yes we would Rodell. As has been explained in this thread, we would be in basically the exact same "mess" we are in right now had we won instead of tied.

Since a tie is neither a win nor a loss, the best way to measure its value is to compare our situation now vs what our situations would have been vs winning or losing.

If we would have won, we would STILL need to beat Chicago to make the playoffs. Very similar to our situation now.

If we would have lost, we would not control our own destiny and would need the Lions to lose either at home against the Giants or in Minnesota.

So yes, the tie from that perspective most certainly does help us and is currently very important to our playoff hopes. This thread isn't about debating whether we "should have" won or "should have" lost against the Vikings. I think we are all very well aware that winning is better than tying.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If we would have won, we would STILL need to beat Chicago to make the playoffs. Very similar to our situation now.

And, we would still need to beat the Steelers as well.

 

[TJV]

shoulda won..then we wouldn't be in this mess. K i'm done now.

Losing Rodgers for 7 games (less one series) and the defense playing like **** for a string of games and the Packers "mess" is they control their own destiny. Even if they beat the Vikings to ensure a playoff birth they'd still have to win the next two games. Glass half full even when it isn't.

 

[easyk83]

Losing Rodgers for 7 games (less one series) and the defense playing like **** for a string of games and the Packers "mess" is they control their own destiny. Even if they beat the Vikings to ensure a playoff birth they'd still have to win the next two games. Glass half full even when it isn't.

Half full of fine bourbon. That comeback and tie will be the difference between a playoff berth and going home early.

 

[adambr2]

7-8 right now if Flynn doesn't come back and tie it for us. Would need to win and also have Detroit lose to Minnesota.

As opposed to only needing to beat Chicago, which we would still need to do if we were 8-7.

So yes, the tie is big and saved us. A win does us no better than the tie now.