RealGM

Let me first say that I would like to see the "you are what your record states you are" not be included in this thread. I guess the point of this one is just to point out where the teams stood last year removing the "luck" factor, or whatever you want to call it.

The reason I think it is good to bring up is that it's a better indicator of where your team stands talent-wise than just looking at record, the reason being that NFL records can fluctuate wildly from year to year given how few games there are, injuries, end of game missed FG's, etc, even when roster turnover for a specific team is minimal (like the Packers).

Here were the expected standings last year:

1. Minnesota (9.2-6.8 )
2. Green Bay (8.9-7.1)
3. Chicago (8.7-7.3)
4. Detroit (2.8-13.2)

Now, to me, this also passes the BS test, as I'd say Minnesota was a slightly better team than us, and we were on par with the Bears last year in terms of production. If anyone was wondering what our expected W-L in 2007 was, it was 11.5-4.5, so we did exceed expectations given how we played.

Right now I think the Packers have 9-7 talent. With Capers system working well and a good draft, I think that can realistically be pushed to 11-5 talent this upcoming season (especially taking the youth of the team overall into account).

Last year was ridiculous with all those close losses. Even if I weren't a Packer fan I'd be picking them to be an obvious bounce back candidate in the NFC.

Yeah, honestly, if Nick Collins pounces on one of those fumbles on the goal line late in one of those games (it happened twice late in the game where he had a chance to fall on it) or we just don't run a prevent in the final 6 minutes of every game, we're at least .500

Really? We were expected 11.5 two years ago? I thought that kind of came out of nowhere--I remember most of our rosiest projections on this site I believe were 10-6 or so...

Do you have a link to this? Who came up with these expected standings?

Jollay, this isn't people's expectations. It is expected win-loss based on point differential. It's like pythagorian record in Baseball.

Jollay wrote:Really? We were expected 11.5 two years ago? I thought that kind of came out of nowhere--I remember most of our rosiest projections on this site I believe were 10-6 or so...

Do you have a link to this? Who came up with these expected standings?

It's after the fact, not heading into the season. Expected record based on how your team played, removing luck and bad bounces, etc. It does not take injuries into account though, it goes based on your production of your team no matter how many guys missed games. Another reason to feel optimistic about 2009 for GB.

Links:

2008:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... b/2008.htm

2007:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... b/2007.htm

LUKE23 wrote:

Jollay wrote:Really? We were expected 11.5 two years ago? I thought that kind of came out of nowhere--I remember most of our rosiest projections on this site I believe were 10-6 or so...

Do you have a link to this? Who came up with these expected standings?

It's after the fact, not heading into the season. Expected record based on how your team played, removing luck and bad bounces, etc. It does not take injuries into account though, it goes based on your production of your team no matter how many guys missed games. Another reason to feel optimistic about 2009 for GB.

Links:

2008:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... b/2008.htm

2007:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/t ... b/2007.htm

Ah, got it. Misread.

With a clean slate of health, a revamped defensive scheme, a solid draft, and a weak schedule there's no reason why we shouldn't win 10 games.

Nice thread Luke,another interesting stat I saw awhile back (I think someone here posted it) was that in 12 of 16 games last year the Packers where either in the lead or tied with under 5 minutes to play.

We all know the Packers had bad luck & injuries and lost a bunch of close ones but that stat is realy sobering when you see it.

I think last year was just one of those fluky kind of years with the bad luck and then with all the Favre drama which you know was a huge distraction although the team would never admit it obviously.

I fully expect the Packers to bounce back in 2009 and im realy looking forward to the improvement of Rodgers this season.

If Rodgers could play as well as he did last year as a first year starter with the pressure of replacing Favre and not to mention running for his life half the time he should be a lock for the pro bowl this season,maybe even a few MVP votes might come his way.