Tracking playoff positioning

[AKCheese]

I just remember Michael Irving years ago (like back in the late Favre years) they asked him about Detroit making the playoffs and he genuinely could not stop laughing (might have had some 420 help), he was like “Detroit *laughs*…. C’mon mannnnnn …. *giggles*…. We’re talkin Deee-troit??? *erupts into gails of uncontrollable laughter —— although this year I could see it

 

[OldSchool101]

All true...but can we count on the Lions being the Lions & inexplicably doing Lions things to lose more games?

There is definitely some type of gargantuan curse on Detroit. They are probably a realistic 10-7 team that was dealt the worst schedule in decades. Imagine had GB also stayed above .500?
I kept going back through each season expecting the next season would provide a tougher crop of opponents to top a .601 curse.
The site ended at 2003 and not one team ever broke a SOS like Detroit. The Website starting locking up and my hard drive started smoking And I heard grunting.
Detroits schedule is statistically bad at cataclysmic levels. That’s with GB having the worst team in 15 seasons.
There is always Chicago to rely
on for a Win

PS. 3 of their final 4 games are against pedestrian teams like us

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

All true...but can we count on the Lions being the Lions & inexplicably doing Lions things to lose more games?

Past seasons, I would answer "yes". However, I think this is a better Lions team than we have seen in past seasons. They have played a very similar schedule as the Packers yet they have outscored the Packers by almost a TD/game and their offense is 4th in the NFL in total yards gained (4903). The Packers offense is 16th with 4493 yards. Packers are statistically a bit better than the Lions on defense, but that isn't saying much.

Now if a playoff spot is at stake for either team or for both, I expect a pretty hard fought game from one or both teams. I think both the Packers and the Lions are a long shot to make the playoffs, but the Lions are definitely more in control of their own destiny than the Packers are.

 

[milani]

Something that needs to be addressed is ball security. Especially in GB, we have been haunted by turnovers that very arguably cost us not to advance to a SB.
Ball security in cold weather really started around the Bostick curse. Since Then, Brandon’s ghost has been walking the Hallowed Halls at 1265 Lombardi.
It’s so bad that it’s evident we don’t specifically address ball security importance in cold weather. Amari, Jones, Marcedes, Winfree, the list goes on and on and on and we never quite grasp the risk assessment.

I’m almost positive we’d try to field a Punt or Kick inside the 10 yard line in adverse condition. We’ll catch a ball on a swing pass and 1 arm it on the inside arm and inviting a defender or ST to ruin the entire game. Most Other opponents DC’s have figured out it’s easier to loose a ball in cold cold weather. What you you don’t address in a very proactive and deliberate way in practice? you fully invite during live games and it’s very evident we just don’t believe it’s an issue or we wouldn’t keep making the same mistake repeatedly. On Punts in the cold. We should have 2 Returners playing halves. The alternate guy not returning should be supporting the returner in case of a loose ball or a eliminating the opposing gunner or first man in the equation. There should never be a PR on an island in inclement weather.

Kind of makes me think of how Belicheck faced so many cold weather adversity and he successfully addressed ball protection. We did fumble twice back in the Ice Bowl. But got a couple turnovers ourselves. But that game is a huge exception.

Something that needs to be addressed is ball security. Especially in GB, we have been haunted by turnovers that very arguably cost us not to advance to a SB.
Ball security in cold weather really started around the Bostick curse. Since Then, Brandon’s ghost has been walking the Hallowed Halls at 1265 Lombardi.
It’s so bad that it’s evident we don’t specifically address ball security importance in cold weather. Amari, Jones, Marcedes, Winfree, the list goes on and on and on and we never quite grasp the risk assessment.

I’m almost positive we’d try to field a Punt or Kick inside the 10 yard line in adverse condition. We’ll catch a ball on a swing pass and 1 arm it on the inside arm and inviting a defender or ST to ruin the entire game. Most Other opponents DC’s have figured out it’s easier to loose a ball in cold cold weather. What you you don’t address in a very proactive and deliberate way in practice? you fully invite during live games and it’s very evident we just don’t believe it’s an issue or we wouldn’t keep making the same mistake repeatedly. On Punts in the cold. We should have 2 Returners playing halves. The alternate guy not returning should be supporting the returner in case of a loose ball or a eliminating the opposing gunner or first man in the equation. There should never be a PR on an island in inclement weather.

 

[milani]

All true...but can we count on the Lions being the Lions & inexplicably doing Lions things to lose more games?

The Lions were certainly more than Lions yesterday.

 

[OldSchool101]

The Lions were certainly more than Lions yesterday.

Don’t worry. The cold wind at Lambeau will keep them to a soft Roar

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Then I just think MN and DET are better than the Packers and both have reasons to play.

Rams and Detroit they can beat with their up and down nature. It will take better than we've seen consistently to get wins against MN and Miami.

I don't think the Vikings are anyway as good as their 10-3 record might indicate. The Lions have played really well lately and the Packers will have a tough time winning in Miami though.

FWIW FiveThirtyEight also puts us at roughly 36% to make playoffs if we win out, not accounting for anyone else's results. So we would still have a bit of an uphill battle.

Actually FiveThirtyEight puts the chances of the Packers of making the playoffs if they win out at 57%.

The Lions would make it a bit complicated. As has been said it is all contingent on us winning out. Since we finish the season playing against the Lions, provided we win our others this means that best-case scenario (for them) we would finish with the same record of 9-8.

Tiebreakers are then:
1. Head-to-head - we would be split with 1W 1L each
2. Win/Loss/Tie percentage in division - assuming we both win out by my count we would both finish with 4W, 2L in division (Lions W vs Packers, Bears, Bears, Vikings and L vs Vikings, Packers; Packers W vs Bears, Bears, Vikings, Lions and L vs Vikings, Lions)
3. W/L/T in common games - believe we would both finish 3W 5L
4. W/L/T in conference - both 7W 5L

And then next two would be strength of victory in all games and strength of schedule in all games. Right now from what I can tell it looks like the Lions are marginally ahead in both (.487 vs .438 SOV, .601 vs .565 SOS) but I'm not sure at the moment how that would all shake out when it's all said and done. At least I think those counts are right...

The Packers would benefit by both the Commanders and Giants losing the majority of their remaining games in a tie breaker with the Lions as Detroit beat both of those teams this season. There are a lot of other games having an effect on those numbers, therefore it's difficult to predict how that would end up going.

Something that needs to be addressed is ball security. Especially in GB, we have been haunted by turnovers that very arguably cost us not to advance to a SB.
Ball security in cold weather really started around the Bostick curse. Since Then, Brandon’s ghost has been walking the Hallowed Halls at 1265 Lombardi.
It’s so bad that it’s evident we don’t specifically address ball security importance in cold weather. Amari, Jones, Marcedes, Winfree, the list goes on and on and on and we never quite grasp the risk assessment.

The Packers didn't lose the turnover battle either against the Bucs or the Niners in their last two playoff losses. There were other reasons they ended up not winning those games.

Overall, since MLF has taken over the Packers (54) have turned the ball over less than any other team in the league by a significant margin with the Saints ranking second at 64.

The Lions have a pretty big leg up on the Packers IMO and in order to get into the playoffs, they need the same things to happen that the Packers do, in regards to Seattle, Wash and NY. Besides already being 1 game ahead of the Packers, the Lions won the first meeting. They have 3 of 4 games left with below average teams (Panthers, Bears, Packers). If the Lions beat the Jets on Sunday, they put themselves in a much better position to chase down a playoff spot. Even if the Lions lose and the Packers win, the Lions will still be ahead of the Packers, with a much easier final 3 games.

If the Packers win their remaining games the Lions could at best finish in a tie with them. And that's only if they win against the Jets.

I think both the Packers and the Lions are a long shot to make the playoffs, but the Lions are definitely more in control of their own destiny than the Packers are.

If the Packers end up winning their remaining games both them and the Lions need other teams to lose several games for either of them to clinch a playoff spot.

 

[Krabs]

I don't think the Vikings are anyway as good as their 10-3 record might indicate. The Lions have played really well lately and the Packers will have a tough time winning in Miami though.

I totally agree that MN is nowhere near as good as their record. I've described this in detail on other threads. However, that doesn't mean they still aren't better than the Packers. I'm not saying I would be shocked if the Packers beat them. I just think that they are a better team right now. More talented and more consistent. They are smoke and mirrors though.

I too don't think the Pack wins in Miami.

 

[PackerDNA]

Don’t worry. The cold wind at Lambeau will keep them to a soft Roar

The Packers are not so hot themselves in the cold wind at Lambeau.

 

[OldSchool101]

The Packers didn't lose the turnover battle either against the Bucs or the Niners in their last two playoff losses. There were other reasons they ended up not winning those games.

I never said anything about ST or other factors or made any argument as such in either direction.
I specifically pointed to ball security being a key factor in close, cold weather games.
Saying other teams mess up so it’s ok is a strange approach. Particularly when someone simply suggests addressing by working on ball security etc

 

[OldSchool101]

The Packers are not so hot themselves in the cold wind at Lambeau.

Yes. That is Exactly why I was suggesting ways to improve. I believe Much of what we do is beat ourselves. Several relatively minor adjustments in cold weather could’ve put us in another SB appearance.

 

[PackerDNA]

I never said anything about ST or other factors or made any argument as such in either direction.
I specifically pointed to ball security being a key factor in close, cold weather games.
Saying other teams mess up so it’s ok is a strange approach. Particularly when someone simply suggests addressing by working on ball security etc

You got me wrong Old School. I wasn't criticizing you or your post at all, just pointing out that the Packers don't have a lot of success in the cold either. I've often thought it would be better in a dome than in Green Bay with this team.

 

[milani]

I don't think the Vikings are anyway as good as their 10-3 record might indicate. The Lions have played really well lately and the Packers will have a tough time winning in Miami though.



Actually FiveThirtyEight puts the chances of the Packers of making the playoffs if they win out at 57%.



The Packers would benefit by both the Commanders and Giants losing the majority of their remaining games in a tie breaker with the Lions as Detroit beat both of those teams this season. There are a lot of other games having an effect on those numbers, therefore it's difficult to predict how that would end up going.



The Packers didn't lose the turnover battle either against the Bucs or the Niners in their last two playoff losses. There were other reasons they ended up not winning those games.

Overall, since MLF has taken over the Packers (54) have turned the ball over less than any other team in the league by a significant margin with the Saints ranking second at 64.



If the Packers win their remaining games the Lions could at best finish in a tie with them. And that's only if they win against the Jets.



If the Packers end up winning their remaining games both them and the Lions need other teams to lose several games for either of them to clinch a playoff spot.

Probability and percentages really mean little. Unlike election polling the game is decided by those 3-4 hours on GameDay when anything can happen.

 

[AKCheese]

Regular season records can easily be inflated by several factors. Look at our 13-3 teams that fizzled in consecutive years followed by a 13-4 DUD , not to mention 15-1 10 years ago.

 

[milani]

Regular season records can easily be inflated by several factors. Look at our 13-3 teams that fizzled in consecutive years followed by a 13-4 DUD , not to mention 15-1 10 years ago.

This is true. Seems like that discrepancy shows up more in NCAA football. We did fizzle for sure. But those were pretty good teams. They failed to show up at the most crucial point in the season. It can come down to coaching and game preparation. We were outcoached by teams that came better prepared than we were. Whether it was the Giants, the Seahawks, the Falcons, the Cardinals, the 9ers, or the Bucs we did not get it done. That is kind of what separates the Lombardis and the Belichicks from the rest.

 

[swhitset]

I never said anything about ST or other factors or made any argument as such in either direction.
I specifically pointed to ball security being a key factor in close, cold weather games.
Saying other teams mess up so it’s ok is a strange approach. Particularly when someone simply suggests addressing by working on ball security etc

There is nothing strange about that comparison at all. Unless your standard is perfection, it makes sense to look at how other teams do in whatever particular area you are targeting. It is a well known fact that turnovers are a huge indicator in determining which team will win a game, however it appears that that is one area in which the Packers have been well above average.

 

[OldSchool101]

There is nothing strange about that comparison at all. Unless your standard is perfection, it makes sense to look at how other teams do in whatever particular area you are targeting. It is a well known fact that turnovers are a huge indicator in determining which team will win a game, however it appears that that is one area in which the Packers have been well above average.

Why do you always answer posts directed at Captain? It’s almost getting a little creepy.

I’d agree that Aaron Rodgers is historically low in INT %. However I never once mentioned Aaron Rodgers throwing INT. So you are both kinda off point there as you responded to me mentioning players who fumbled. Not 1 was even a QB

GB vs SF49ers Divisional
GB fumbles lost 1
SF fumbles lost 0

GB vs Tampa NFC Championship
GB fumbles lost 1
Tampa fumbles lost 0

GB vs SF49er NFC Championship
GB fumbles lost 1
SF fumbles lost 0

See a pattern here?

 

[swhitset]

Why do you always answer posts directed at Captain? It’s almost getting a little creepy. I guess you like riding his post.

I’d agree that Aaron Rodgers is historically low in INT %. However I never once mentioned Aaron Rodgers throwing INT. So you are both kinda off point there as you responded to me mentioning players who fumbled. Not 1 was even a QB

GB vs SF49ers Divisional
GB fumbles lost 1
SF fumbles lost 0

GB vs Tampa NFC Championship
GB fumbles lost 1
Tampa fumbles lost 0

GB vs SF49er NFC Championship
GB fumbles lost 1
SF fumbles lost 0

See a pattern here?

dude this is a public forum… if you want a private conversation… get a room… or take it to IM… I‘ll respond to whatever public posts I want to… especially when they are begging for correction…however…. in your case Ive seen more than I can take take lately… so you can relax… i’m putting you on ignore.

 

[AKCheese]

dude this is a public forum… if you want a private conversation… get a room… or take it to IM… I‘ll respond to whatever public posts I want to… especially when they are begging for correction…however…. in your case Ive seen more than I can take take lately… so you can relax… i’m putting you on ignore.

Girls girls girls!!!! Let’s try to be civil LOL

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I totally agree that MN is nowhere near as good as their record. I've described this in detail on other threads. However, that doesn't mean they still aren't better than the Packers. I'm not saying I would be shocked if the Packers beat them. I just think that they are a better team right now. More talented and more consistent. They are smoke and mirrors though.

I definitely agree the Vikings are a better team than the Packers this season. It's interesting to note that Football Outsiders have the Packers (15th) ranked ahead of Minnesota (21st) in their DVOA rankings though.

I never said anything about ST or other factors or made any argument as such in either direction.
I specifically pointed to ball security being a key factor in close, cold weather games.
Saying other teams mess up so it’s ok is a strange approach. Particularly when someone simply suggests addressing by working on ball security etc

I would like the Packers to not turn the ball over either but it's completely unrealistic to expect perfection.

As I pointed out they have been better than the rest of the league in taking care of the football since MLF took over though. Therefore I don't think you bring up a valid point by considering it to be a main factor in them coming up short of winning another Super Bowl.

Probability and percentages really mean little. Unlike election polling the game is decided by those 3-4 hours on GameDay when anything can happen.

While there's some truth to it some outcomes of games are more probable than others entering a game.

I’d agree that Aaron Rodgers is historically low in INT %. However I never once mentioned Aaron Rodgers throwing INT. So you are both kinda off point there as you responded to me mentioning players who fumbled. Not 1 was even a QB

GB vs SF49ers Divisional
GB fumbles lost 1
SF fumbles lost 0

GB vs Tampa NFC Championship
GB fumbles lost 1
Tampa fumbles lost 0

GB vs SF49er NFC Championship
GB fumbles lost 1
SF fumbles lost 0

See a pattern here?

I agree the Packers need to improve in that area in big games, especially as they had a total of seven fumbles in those three contests.

Overall they have been excellent in taking care of the ball, therefore suggesting they don't put any focus on it seems to be off in my opinion.

 

[thequick12]

Unfortunately I still don't believe they're capable of winning their remaining games though.

They are certainly capable of winning their last 4 games...however Im not sure they'll execute

 

[OldSchool101]

dude this is a public forum… if you want a private conversation… get a room… or take it to IM… I‘ll respond to whatever public posts I want to… especially when they are begging for correction…however…. in your case Ive seen more than I can take take lately… so you can relax… i’m putting you on ignore.

It’s always the truth that digs under our skin the most. GB fumbles too much in recent cold weather, playoff caliber games. Disagreeing with that fact (or sidestepping by agreeing with a completely different argument) doesn’t make your opinion override the truth. If that’s offensive? I’m sorry to hurt your feelings Whitset.

 

[PackerDNA]

I think we need to root for the Giants this week. The Commanders have the tougher schedule after this week and the Giants last game against the Eagles, well the eagles might be resting people by then. Hopefully Purdy is okay tomorrow night we need the 49ers to win too.

 

[gopkrs]

Would be pretty cool if both teams in the lion Packer game controlled their own destiny. Don't know if it is even possible and do know it is highly unlikely in any case.

 

[thequick12]

“We have a lot to play for but we also need some help,” Rodgers said. “We can’t control that part. But we have three of four at home. We always expect to win our home games, and definitely expect to win once the weather turns. Get this one, and then a warm weather game in Miami, and then things could get interesting.”

Aaron Rodgers