Packers Have a Tough Schedule: Fact or Fiction?

LUKE23 · Post #1 » by **LUKE23** » Sat Sep 8, 2007 7:44 pm

http://www.theredzone.org/strength.asp

Team Winning Percentage Opp. Total Wins Opp. Total Losses
Raiders .539 138 118
Bills .539 138 118
Patriots .535 137 119
Jaguars .527 135 121
Titans .520 133 123
Colts .516 132 124
Chiefs .516 132 124
Jets .516 132 124
Dolphins .512 131 125
Steelers .512 131 125
Bengals .512 131 125
Ravens .508 130 126
Browns .508 130 126
Broncos .504 129 127
Lions .504 129 127
Texans .504 129 127
Chargers .504 129 127
Redskins .500 128 128
Vikings .500 128 128
Eagles .500 128 128
Cowboys .496 127 129
Giants .496 127 129
Packers .492 126 130
Seahawks .488 125 131
Saints .484 124 132
Panthers .477 122 134
Buccaneers .473 121 135
Rams .473 121 135
Falcons .473 121 135
49ers .469 120 136
Bears .465 119 137
Cardinals .461 118 138

I'll say fiction. Only 9 teams play a schedule against a lower opponents winning % compared to last year. Now, I realize that that is not the only thing to go by when looking at schedule, but right now it is the best indicator.

crkone · Post #2 » by **crkone** » Sat Sep 8, 2007 9:11 pm

The Bears get a cake walk again.

Ayt · Post #3 » by **Ayt** » Sat Sep 8, 2007 9:57 pm

crkone wrote:The Bears get a cake walk again.

They do have a fairly easy schedule overall. Its why I bet several hundred on the O/U of 10.

LUKE23 · Post #4 » by **LUKE23** » Sat Sep 8, 2007 10:16 pm

Bears should win 11 or 12.

Post #5 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Sep 8, 2007 11:01 pm

You can't tell me that a schedule that includes 10 games against .500 or better teams isn't tough.

deep throat · Post #6 » by **deep throat** » Sun Sep 9, 2007 1:36 am

That's amazing about the Bears, heard that on WGN yesterday.
I don't know how much you put in that kind of stat? The NFl can change so much in one year. You know some teams like SD, Denver, Dallas, Chicago, and Philly should be good. I'm not sold on the Giants, Carolina, KC, and Washington -pretty middle of the road. We know that Min, Det, and Oak should be bad. You also get Min/Det twice.

mbucks22 · Post #7 » by **mbucks22** » Sun Sep 9, 2007 3:37 am

DrugBust wrote:You can't tell me that a schedule that includes 10 games against .500 or better teams isn't tough.

.500 or better last year, not this year.

Fandom · Post #8 » by **Fandom** » Sun Sep 9, 2007 4:17 am

Too much parity in the NFL to go off of winning pct and win/loss records from the previous year; who knows how things will turn out. That's why they play the games on Sunday.

rilamann · Post #9 » by **rilamann** » Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:32 am

Like some of you guys have said you can't realy base things on ''last year'' in the NFL because teams are so up and down from year to year.

Schedules that look tough in early September tend to not look so bad when you look back at them in December and vise versa schedules that appear easy in early September can look a lot tough in December.

Last year the Packers schedule didn't look so tough at the start of the season but when it was all said and done it was tougher than it had first appeared.Hopefully the opposite will happen this time around,we'll just have to wait and see.

livestrong4ever · Post #10 » by **livestrong4ever** » Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:34 am

Facing Chicago twice, san diego philly doesnt help. But they should be able to beat nyg and prolly washington . I dont know who else they face and i am too lazy to look at the schdule after watching sports baseball and college football for 14 hours straght. ahhh aint this a great time of the year.

MadCityBucky · Post #11 » by **MadCityBucky** » Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:47 am

Most of the games the Packers play are tossups IMO.

vs. San Diego, @ Chicago, @ Denver, @ KC (It's a tough stadium to win in) should be the only games where I would expect a Packers loss.

livestrong4ever · Post #12 » by **livestrong4ever** » Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:49 am

MadCityBucky wrote:Most of the games the Packers play are tossups IMO.

vs. San Diego, @ Chicago, @ Denver, @ KC (It's a tough stadium to win in) should be the only games where I would expect a Packers loss.

what about chicago at home? Didn't you guys get blown out at home by them in your homeopner last year.

And please mofo don't even start me on philly

MadCityBucky · Post #13 » by **MadCityBucky** » Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:54 am

livestrong4ever wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

what about chicago at home? Didn't you guys get blown out at home by them in your homeopner last year.

And please mofo don't even start me on philly

We beat them at their stadium (yeah I know it was a meaning less game but who cares) and they have Rex as a QB so who knows. I think the Packers will beat the Bears once this season, whether at home or away.

Philly will lose

LUKE23 · Post #14 » by **LUKE23** » Sun Sep 9, 2007 1:30 pm

http://www.emqb.com/nfl-strength-of-schedule-2007/

We play 9 games against .500 or better teams from last year. 20 teams play more than that (10 or more .500+ teams), and 4 teams play the same as that. So only 8 teams in the NFL play less games against .500 or better teams.

I'm not trying to make the argument that our schedule is easy, but when you compare it across the NFL, it's at worst an average schedule, and in fact is slightly easier than average.