RealGM

I too would like to keep the game thread relevant but like this discussion.

My view is, while it is hard to make the Super Bowl, the Packers have been no worse than four or five to 1 odds to make the SB, preseason.

Simple statistics thus says, assuming the Packers were a 5 to 1 shot every year to make the Bowl (they were even better than that), there is only around a 25% chance they would miss the Bowl every year since 2010.

Realistically that's why people can look at the tenure since then with a lot of disappointment. Based entirely on preseason odds there was a higher than 75% chance we would have returned to the SB once by now.

If somebody gives me exact preseason odds since 2011 I can give an exact number.

Last year I got 8-1 in Vegas about June and this year I got 10-1 in July. I'm not sure what the odds were when the season began. It does tend to fluctuate quite a bit from February to September.

To make the Bowl? I don't think I've seen worse than five. To win...a little different.

Tough to be precise, and I don't want to factor in the 15-1 season odds too much. Plus they do fluctuate.

But I've never seen us not among the top 1-3 picks to make the SB since 2010.

8 or 10 to just win the NFC is fantastic.

Win records while facing teams that finish the season .500 or better since 2013

1 Patriots 30-20 (.600)
2 Steelers 29-24 (.547)
3 Packers 27-27 (.500)
4 Broncos 27-33 (.450)
5 Seahawks 24-31 (.436)
6 Saints 23-31 (.426)
7 Colts 25-36 (.410)
8 Cardinals 21-32-1 (.398)
9 Falcons 21-32 (.396)
10 Bengals 23-37-1 (.385)
11 Cowboys 22-36 (.379)
12 Eagles 19-34 (.358)
13 Ravens 21-38 (356)
14 Chiefs 18-34 (.346)
15 Texans 20-39 (.339)
16 Chargers 18-38 (.321)
17 Dolphins 18-39 (.316)
18 49ers 19-42 (.311)
19 Vikings 17-42-1 (.292)
20 Panthers 17-44-1 (.282)
21 Raiders 17-44 (.279)
22 Giants 16-42 (.276)
23 Redskins 14-39 (.264)
24 Rams 15-48-1 (.242)
25 Jets 12-38 (.240)
26 Bears 15-50 (.231)
27 Titans 14-48 (.226)
28 Bills 13-47 (.217)
29 Buccaneers 11-44 (.200)
30 Jaguars 8-55 (.127)
31 Lions 7-53 (.117)
32 Browns 7-61 (.103)


I know I doesn't speak to PO failures. Just wanted to point it out to the people that feel like we generally lose to the better teams in the league that that it's not really the case.

Not suprising the Pats run away at #1

Edit:Not since 2013. My bad. These are records against .500 or better teams since Stafford started QBing for the Lions

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Those were SB champ odds.

MickeyDavis wrote:Those were SB champ odds.

Still like the bets...why not?

Too lazy to look Ryder but that must be wrong since 2013. You can only have 64 games for the Browns since 2013, for example.

Maybe that's against teams with better records? Since a different year?

I can't believe the Lions have been 7-53 against .500 or better teams, too, right? They've won 34 games the last four years.

Jollay wrote:Too lazy to look Ryder but that must be wrong since 2013. You can only have 64 games for the Browns since 2013, for example.

Maybe that's against teams with better records? Since a different year?

My bad. I copied and pasted from another site. That's the Records since Stafford has been QB for the Lions. Apologies. Feel stupid for not noticing the sheer numbers

Simply thought that it was a pretty telling record list

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Damn, that's crazy if true. I mean, they have at least four wins against us that I can think of...Stafford only has three other wins against .500 teams?

Still seems off, though it is Detroit...

I think you still have a valid point whatever the numbers are...just may not be that extreme.

Jollay wrote:I think you still have a valid point whatever the numbers are...just may not be that extreme.

Well I just brought up a website called prideofdetroit.com and it has his record at 5-46. The article with that stat listed is July 18 2017 so now I'm just confused lol

In any case it isn't getting better

Edit: CBS sports has the same record listed

I know the guy I got that list from gets most of his stuff from PFF so maybe they're counting something slightly different maybe. I guessing it's counting games Stafford didn't play also in that time frame but dunno

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

RRyder823 wrote:Win records while facing teams that finish the season .500 or better since 2013

1 Patriots 30-20 (.600)
2 Steelers 29-24 (.547)
3 Packers 27-27 (.500)
4 Broncos 27-33 (.450)
5 Seahawks 24-31 (.436)
6 Saints 23-31 (.426)
7 Colts 25-36 (.410)
8 Cardinals 21-32-1 (.398)
9 Falcons 21-32 (.396)
10 Bengals 23-37-1 (.385)
11 Cowboys 22-36 (.379)
12 Eagles 19-34 (.358)
13 Ravens 21-38 (356)
14 Chiefs 18-34 (.346)
15 Texans 20-39 (.339)
16 Chargers 18-38 (.321)
17 Dolphins 18-39 (.316)
18 49ers 19-42 (.311)
19 Vikings 17-42-1 (.292)
20 Panthers 17-44-1 (.282)
21 Raiders 17-44 (.279)
22 Giants 16-42 (.276)
23 Redskins 14-39 (.264)
24 Rams 15-48-1 (.242)
25 Jets 12-38 (.240)
26 Bears 15-50 (.231)
27 Titans 14-48 (.226)
28 Bills 13-47 (.217)
29 Buccaneers 11-44 (.200)
30 Jaguars 8-55 (.127)
31 Lions 7-53 (.117)
32 Browns 7-61 (.103)


I know I doesn't speak to PO failures. Just wanted to point it out to the people that feel like we generally lose to the better teams in the league that that it's not really the case.

Not suprising the Pats run away at #1

Edit:Not since 2013. My bad. These are records against .500 or better teams since Stafford started QBing for the Lions

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Do you have a ranking for .700ish or above? This isn't such a meaningful stat as is - maybe they're really good against 8 and 9 win teams, and then below average for 10 and 11+.

So from the lead-up thread, I saw a few points I wanted to address.

a. It is completely reasonable to think that if the Packers defense gets exposed pretty handily the next few games, it is fair to be concerned that this is the "same old defense." Because we've seen mountains of evidence of this same thing since Kurt Warner torched us, the entirety of the 2012 season, Kaepernick's never-will-be-broken record + final drive the following year, and most recently with Dallas (which we were fortunate to escape) and Atlanta.

Despite the Patriots' current struggles in this area, they have built up a metric ton more cachet for me to believe that they might eventually get their stuff together. The Packers get no such benefit.

If we don't do any better this year, it'll really be time to take a look at Capers (been time since Kaepernick). If we do, it's likely because of TT's forays into free agency - something he should've been doing (for stopgap purposes) for the past 5 years. I've been saying this for that long.

b. Winning a Super Bowl is hard, but there really is no sensible excuse to have only two playoff byes (1 seed only once) during Rodgers' career, especially playing in a crappy division. Teams with inferior QBs have been leapfrogging us.

c. The Patriots went 10 years between Super Bowls? They still reached the championship game or better like 5 of those years, and lost two Super Bowls by a "breath". This dwarfs anything we've done since 2010.

d. A point was raised that it took us a while to recover from Nick Collins' injury. That was devastating for sure. But when you're trying to replace him with MD Jennings and Jerron McMillian, just how hard are you trying to recover?

th87 wrote:

RRyder823 wrote:Win records while facing teams that finish the season .500 or better since 2013

1 Patriots 30-20 (.600)
2 Steelers 29-24 (.547)
3 Packers 27-27 (.500)
4 Broncos 27-33 (.450)
5 Seahawks 24-31 (.436)
6 Saints 23-31 (.426)
7 Colts 25-36 (.410)
8 Cardinals 21-32-1 (.398)
9 Falcons 21-32 (.396)
10 Bengals 23-37-1 (.385)
11 Cowboys 22-36 (.379)
12 Eagles 19-34 (.358)
13 Ravens 21-38 (356)
14 Chiefs 18-34 (.346)
15 Texans 20-39 (.339)
16 Chargers 18-38 (.321)
17 Dolphins 18-39 (.316)
18 49ers 19-42 (.311)
19 Vikings 17-42-1 (.292)
20 Panthers 17-44-1 (.282)
21 Raiders 17-44 (.279)
22 Giants 16-42 (.276)
23 Redskins 14-39 (.264)
24 Rams 15-48-1 (.242)
25 Jets 12-38 (.240)
26 Bears 15-50 (.231)
27 Titans 14-48 (.226)
28 Bills 13-47 (.217)
29 Buccaneers 11-44 (.200)
30 Jaguars 8-55 (.127)
31 Lions 7-53 (.117)
32 Browns 7-61 (.103)


I know I doesn't speak to PO failures. Just wanted to point it out to the people that feel like we generally lose to the better teams in the league that that it's not really the case.

Not suprising the Pats run away at #1

Edit:Not since 2013. My bad. These are records against .500 or better teams since Stafford started QBing for the Lions

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Do you have a ranking for .700ish or above? This isn't such a meaningful stat as is - maybe they're really good against 8 and 9 win teams, and then below average for 10 and 11+.

Ding ding ding. The Packers beat plenty of mediocre teams.

Besides, they win a lot of games because Rodgers outscores other guys. The Packers have been to the playoffs like 8 straight years. Of course they're going to have a decent W-L record in almost any context. A more telling stat would be defensive performance against top 10 QBs. I don't need a stat though, because I know they suck at it.

From the previous thread:

I, too, am frustrated about Rodgers only having one ring, and the travesty that would be only 2 total rings from the Favre-Rodgers era. McCarthy and TT can share the blame for that.

But the initial argument stemmed from drools taking exception to my "looking ahead at the schedule is worthless" take. Seems the meat of that argument has changed multiple times so I'll just sit the rest of this one out.

Because looking ahead at the schedule isn't worthless, that's just one of the sports cliches you guys were complaining about in rebuttal.

I don't understand at all how it's unreasonable to think that if Drew Brees and Matt Stafford urinate on our secondary, this is probably the same old defense.

This defense hasn't been tested at all. It's looked ok against Dalton and Glennon and a horrendous Seahawks offense. Then it caved against Atlanta missing half its personnel. Nobody knows what this defense is yet. You're going to get a good taste of it in the next month.

th87 wrote:

RRyder823 wrote:Win records while facing teams that finish the season .500 or better since 2013

1 Patriots 30-20 (.600)
2 Steelers 29-24 (.547)
3 Packers 27-27 (.500)
4 Broncos 27-33 (.450)
5 Seahawks 24-31 (.436)
6 Saints 23-31 (.426)
7 Colts 25-36 (.410)
8 Cardinals 21-32-1 (.398)
9 Falcons 21-32 (.396)
10 Bengals 23-37-1 (.385)
11 Cowboys 22-36 (.379)
12 Eagles 19-34 (.358)
13 Ravens 21-38 (356)
14 Chiefs 18-34 (.346)
15 Texans 20-39 (.339)
16 Chargers 18-38 (.321)
17 Dolphins 18-39 (.316)
18 49ers 19-42 (.311)
19 Vikings 17-42-1 (.292)
20 Panthers 17-44-1 (.282)
21 Raiders 17-44 (.279)
22 Giants 16-42 (.276)
23 Redskins 14-39 (.264)
24 Rams 15-48-1 (.242)
25 Jets 12-38 (.240)
26 Bears 15-50 (.231)
27 Titans 14-48 (.226)
28 Bills 13-47 (.217)
29 Buccaneers 11-44 (.200)
30 Jaguars 8-55 (.127)
31 Lions 7-53 (.117)
32 Browns 7-61 (.103)


I know I doesn't speak to PO failures. Just wanted to point it out to the people that feel like we generally lose to the better teams in the league that that it's not really the case.

Not suprising the Pats run away at #1

Edit:Not since 2013. My bad. These are records against .500 or better teams since Stafford started QBing for the Lions

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Do you have a ranking for .700ish or above? This isn't such a meaningful stat as is - maybe they're really good against 8 and 9 win teams, and then below average for 10 and 11+.

Well like I said I got that from another site but truthfully I don't thing I've ever seen a stat for record versus teams that finish 12-4 or better. It might be out there though. Still I hold to the people tend to Remer the losses more than the wins point


.500 is generally used because at that point your generally talking PO teams or teams that are just missing them.

For point of reference the Packers record versus other playoff teams from last year, I believe,, in comparison to the league

Patriots: 4-1 (beat Dolphins, Texans, Steelers, Dolphins; lost to Seahawks)

Seahawks: 3-1 (beat Dolphins, Falcons, Patriots; lost to Packers)

Packers: 5-2 (beat Lions, Giants, Texans, Seahawks, Lions; lost to Cowboys, Falcons)

Cowboys: 3-2 (beat Packers, Steelers, Lions; lost to Giants, Giants)

Giants: 3-2 (beat Cowboys, Cowboys, Lions; lost to Packers, Steelers)

Chiefs: 3-2 (beat Raiders, Falcons, Raiders; lost to Texans, Steelers)

Falcons: 2-2 (beat Raiders, Packers; lost to Seahawks, Chiefs)

Steelers: 2-3 (beat Chiefs, Giants; lost to Dolphins, Patriots, Cowboys)

Texans: 2-3 (beat Chiefs, Lions; lost to Patriots, Raiders, Packers)

Dolphins: 1-3 (lost to Seahawks, Patriots, Patriots; beat Steelers)

Raiders: 1-3 (beat Texans; lost to Falcons, Chiefs, Chiefs)

Lions: 0-5 (lost to Packers, Texans, Giants, Cowboys, Packers)

Looks like my theory still holds up. I mean last year we beat more PO teams then literally anyone else in the league with the 3rd highest winning percentage against them.

At what point can the "Packers don't win against the best teams" argument get put to rest? I truly want to know how far back the goalposts are. I mean all I'm arguing against is the seemingly ingrained belief that they have a tendacy to falter against the better/best teams while getting fat on the lower portion. This would seem to prove that narrative false

(Can't wait for the "yeah but look we lost to the Cowboys and Falcons and I said elite" argument while neglecting us beating Dallas in the PO)






Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Should've won in 2014 and then we wouldn't be having this conversation

2 owls, 8 straight playoff appearances, .679 winning percentage. Think we'd all be happy with that (except riles)