Love how Packers fans declare...

[Hasselbeck]

On the flip side of this question, Green Bay had one less home loss than Seattle did. Against the very team the Packers recently defeated.

I had a goldfish when I was 6

Both of these facts mean nothing to the game Sunday.

 

[Uncle Si]

you are just picking a stat that helps build your confidence in your team, which is a legitimate thing to do. but to say "statistical breakdowns on that level" have no place in sports is simply ignoring the massive efforts put in by coaches and their staffs in the work they do in: bringing players in, setting up game plans, making adjustments during the game. this is true in every sport by the way. to suggest that a statistically poor team can beat a statistically great team any day so stats dont matter is saying the same thing as a team who creates turnovers lost to a team that gives them away so that stat doesnt matter. youre all over the map in your argument.

also, i dont think Green Bay would be more than a 1 point favorite at home vs. Seattle, and I can see that money switching to even or perhaps Seattle -1 to -2 by kickoff.

One point or 50 point favorites, does it matter? Either would add a victory, but again maybe that's just our difference in the boundaries of statistics we appreciate. I honestly don't think I'm all over the map with my argument, I just don't look as deeply into it as you do. To me the simple things in each game are the biggest difference makers; Did player A get a turnover in the red zone, and did team A follow up with a score? If the answer is yes, give me Team A to win today.

If team A does this consistently, it shows they can continually create this scenario and it builds confidence and this is what Green Bay has been able to do and has done better than Seattle. Does not necessarily mean it will happen on Sunday, but I like the pattern that has been shown.

By that same token I also expect Seattle to allow less yards and Green Bay to give up more yards. But let's take a giant step back to what prompted me bringing up the turnover differential stat anyways; the original responder to my message declared my stat not meaning anything, and I respectfully disagree.

fair enough. i still think you are simply selecting stats that make you feel better about your team's chances. Green bay created more turnovers. Seattle gave up far less yards and far less points. one stat involves a team swatting at balls to stop another. the other stat involves a team shutting down an opposing offense. if you want Team A in that scenario than go ahead. id be doing the same.

the original responder provided a more detailed statistic in assessing defensive strength. you can selectively choose to hold onto one, but i'm not sure you are going to convince anyone else.

 

[PakAttack86]

How's Green Bay on the road this year? How many winning teams did they beat?

On the flip side of this question, Green Bay had one less home loss than Seattle did. Against the very team the Packers recently defeated.

What does this have to do with his question of what has GB done on the road this year? You know because this game is on the road not in GB.

Are you kidding? The question was obviously "what has Green Bay done on the road against winning teams?" which, yes, 0-3 is the obvious answer. My rebuttal makes a fair point in showing that Seattle has lost at home, something that Green Bay didn't do this year, and against a team that Green Bay recently defeated.

So the Cowboys with a perfect road record (including a visit to Seattle) got beat by Green Bay at home, a feat Seattle couldn't accomplish. So logically the turn around here is that Green Bay's road woes have the same relevance as Seattle's lone home loss.

 

[ptisme]

that 'they're not the same team' we beat in September.

News flash: Neither are the Seahawks. We're better than we were then.

You will be without Percy Harvin this time around and a gimpy Maxwell. Will Unger be playing? Not sure Harvin matters all that much as the Seattle offense will be as good as Lynch and Wilson. But Harvin torched us last time and he is no longer on the team.

We are going to have a QB that can't run and that could be huge. We also had a defense in week 1 that had a few issues and have (hopefully) been rectified. Namely, Guion is healthy now ( he missed the offseason and training camp with hamstring injury) and Brad Jones is no longer starting at ILB. Nor is AJ Hawk. Our OL will no longer have D. Sherrod in at RT and we have a legit 3rd WR now. We didn't have one earlier in the year when we met.

I think the real X factor will be if Green Bay can stop Wilson from racking up huge yards with his feet. Can they stop Wilson when it's 3rd and 5? Wilson is the most dangerous weapon you have. I would keep him on the roster before anyone else. Anyone, including anyone on your defense.

Gimpy Maxwell? He had an illness last week, not injury. He's good to go. Unger is good to go.

Your main problem will be on Defense. Dom Capers is the single most overrated coordinator this side of Rob Ryan. He's a goddamn thief - he's literally stealing every time he cashes his paycheck. The Packers have no shot at winning this game on Sunday, not because of their offense - which is very good, with an MVP QB and several excellent weapons - but solely because your defense sucks dog balls and your DC is one of the worst in the entire league. Your offense might give you a shot, but your defense immediately removes any hope you have of the Packers going to the superbowl.

This. Many of us wanted him gone years ago. The game has passed him by. The mobile quarterback is our bane. Rodgers should be racking up superbowls and every year we have a crappy defense, despite all the draft choice allocation.

 

[ptisme]

As for week 1 compared to now, Luke Willson just said this morning on Brock & Salk that the Seahawks aren't putting much stock into the film from that game. He said they are focusing much more on the recent 4-5 games.

I think both teams will be ready for the current version of their opponent. The tricky thing is, our defense – which has given up 5 TDs in the past 7 games – doesn't change much from week to week. It just gets better at doing what it does.

Yeah, That's what all that talent will do for you... Back in the mid 90's the Packers rolled like that on defense. Ah, the good old days. In 96 we had the number one offense and the number one defense.... Oh well, parity.....

 

[ptisme]

How's Green Bay on the road this year? How many winning teams did they beat?

On the flip side of this question, Green Bay had one less home loss than Seattle did. Against the very team the Packers recently defeated.

What does this have to do with his question of what has GB done on the road this year? You know because this game is on the road not in GB.

Rodgers ability to change plays at the line and work the hard count is the difference between Green Bay on the road and at home. I don't think we have much of a chance at winning out in Seattle... Would be very confident if we had you in Lambeau....

 

[Chawks1]

How's Green Bay on the road this year? How many winning teams did they beat?

On the flip side of this question, Green Bay had one less home loss than Seattle did. Against the very team the Packers recently defeated.

What does this have to do with his question of what has GB done on the road this year? You know because this game is on the road not in GB.

Doesn't matter if he dodged that question....

Im sure they will spin this and find reason for optmism for Packer fans:

The Packers are 0-3 when Rodgers has a passer rating under 90.0
The Seahawks have not allowed a passer rating over 87.5 in 10 games
Rodgers has never had a passer rating above 81.5 vs. Seattle, including game one this year

 

[ptisme]

How's Green Bay on the road this year? How many winning teams did they beat?

On the flip side of this question, Green Bay had one less home loss than Seattle did. Against the very team the Packers recently defeated.

What does this have to do with his question of what has GB done on the road this year? You know because this game is on the road not in GB.

Are you kidding? The question was obviously "what has Green Bay done on the road against winning teams?" which, yes, 0-3 is the obvious answer. My rebuttal makes a fair point in showing that Seattle has lost at home, something that Green Bay didn't do this year, and against a team that Green Bay recently defeated.

So the Cowboys with a perfect road record (including a visit to Seattle) got beat by Green Bay at home, a feat Seattle couldn't accomplish. So logically the turn around here is that Green Bay's road woes have the same relevance as Seattle's lone home loss.

Some teams match up better than others and sometimes where the game is played matters. No team matches up well with the Packers in Lambeau. By contrast, the Packers couldn't match up any worse in Seattle...

 

[CallMeADawg]

How's Green Bay on the road this year? How many winning teams did they beat?

On the flip side of this question, Green Bay had one less home loss than Seattle did. Against the very team the Packers recently defeated.

What does this have to do with his question of what has GB done on the road this year? You know because this game is on the road not in GB.

Are you kidding? The question was obviously "what has Green Bay done on the road against winning teams?" which, yes, 0-3 is the obvious answer. My rebuttal makes a fair point in showing that Seattle has lost at home, something that Green Bay didn't do this year, and against a team that Green Bay recently defeated.

So the Cowboys with a perfect road record (including a visit to Seattle) got beat by Green Bay at home, a feat Seattle couldn't accomplish. So logically the turn around here is that Green Bay's road woes have the same relevance as Seattle's lone home loss.

The loss to the Cowboys was a long time ago, and the Seahawks are dramatically different today than they were at that time. Now, back to the 0-3 response for the Packers on the road, one of those losses was to the Buffalo Bills just a little over one month ago. Can you help us understand how people should assume your team will fare in Seattle, with your QB all gimpy, given that Seattle has an even BETTER defense than Buffalo? If I were Packers fan, I would be more afraid that Rodgers gets severely injured, cannot finish, and you lose the game to boot.

 

[PakAttack86]

Holy misleading stats Batman!

My stats were taken directly from the ESPN stat line, so no, not misleading in any shape or form.

 

[ptisme]

[/quote]

Welcome to this board, sir, and thank you for having the wherewithall to state an obvious truth. You are 100% dead-on-balls accurate with your statement. With even an average DC, the Packers are perennial SB contenders and would have won 2-3 with Rodgers by now.[/quote]



Right, all we needed in 2011 was an average defense. same in 2012. Of course this year we have an average defense but now we have you guys and it's going to take a team similar to what Green bay had in 96 to beat you. Assuming we lose this year to you, we still should have had three Lombardi's with Rodgers while you would still be going for your second in a row with Wilson. Grand scheme: You can't pay everyone and will probably fall from elite to very good (where the Packers are) in about three years. So three years from now GB could again have a fighters chance to win a SB or three and you could be looking at a run like Montana or Brady for Rodgers. Who IMHO has more talent than either of those two greats. Rodgers is more mobile (normally) than Brady and he has a stronger arm than Montana...

Just sucks.....

 

[PakAttack86]

How's Green Bay on the road this year? How many winning teams did they beat?

On the flip side of this question, Green Bay had one less home loss than Seattle did. Against the very team the Packers recently defeated.

What does this have to do with his question of what has GB done on the road this year? You know because this game is on the road not in GB.

Doesn't matter if he dodged that question....

Im sure they will spin this and find reason for optmism for Packer fans:

The Packers are 0-3 when Rodgers has a passer rating under 90.0
The Seahawks have not allowed a passer rating over 87.5 in 10 games
Rodgers has never had a passer rating above 81.5 vs. Seattle, including game one this year

Wrong. Back in 2008 Rodgers posted a QB rating of 111.5 AT Seattle in a winning effort. In 2009 he posted a rating of 103.0 at home in another winning effort. Try again.

 

[ptisme]

The 2008 Hawks defense was soft... Nothing like this collective beast...

 

[CallMeADawg]

Wrong. Back in 2008 Rodgers posted a QB rating of 111.5 AT Seattle in a winning effort. In 2009 he posted a rating of 103.0 at home in another winning effort. Try again.

Todays defense and the 2008/2009 defenses do not have the same players at all, and Pete was not even our coach then, so... golfclap?

 

[Chawks1]

Doesn't matter if he dodged that question....

Im sure they will spin this and find reason for optmism for Packer fans:

The Packers are 0-3 when Rodgers has a passer rating under 90.0
The Seahawks have not allowed a passer rating over 87.5 in 10 games
Rodgers has never had a passer rating above 81.5 vs. Seattle, including game one this year



Wrong. Back in 2008 Rodgers posted a QB rating of 111.5 AT Seattle in a winning effort. In 2009 he posted a rating of 103.0 at home in another winning effort. Try again.




Hahaha, I knew you could put a positive spin on it. You had to go into your way-back machine for that one. Well done! You're right. That was before PC (Pete Carroll). He is a defensive guru. That is why we have been the #1 ranked D in allowing the fewest points the NFL the last 3 years!

Again, back to the present day...we are talking THIS team. The World Champs. Coached by Pete Carroll. He has Rodgers figured out. Ask the Bronco fans how the #1 scoring offense in the history of the NFL did against us.....on a neutral field.

 

[byau]

you are just picking a stat that helps build your confidence in your team, which is a legitimate thing to do. but to say "statistical breakdowns on that level" have no place in sports is simply ignoring the massive efforts put in by coaches and their staffs in the work they do in: bringing players in, setting up game plans, making adjustments during the game. this is true in every sport by the way. to suggest that a statistically poor team can beat a statistically great team any day so stats dont matter is saying the same thing as a team who creates turnovers lost to a team that gives them away so that stat doesnt matter. youre all over the map in your argument.

also, i dont think Green Bay would be more than a 1 point favorite at home vs. Seattle, and I can see that money switching to even or perhaps Seattle -1 to -2 by kickoff.

One point or 50 point favorites, does it matter? Either would add a victory, but again maybe that's just our difference in the boundaries of statistics we appreciate. I honestly don't think I'm all over the map with my argument, I just don't look as deeply into it as you do. To me the simple things in each game are the biggest difference makers; Did player A get a turnover in the red zone, and did team A follow up with a score? If the answer is yes, give me Team A to win today.

If team A does this consistently, it shows they can continually create this scenario and it builds confidence and this is what Green Bay has been able to do and has done better than Seattle. Does not necessarily mean it will happen on Sunday, but I like the pattern that has been shown.

By that same token I also expect Seattle to allow less yards and Green Bay to give up more yards. But let's take a giant step back to what prompted me bringing up the turnover differential stat anyways; the original responder to my message declared my stat not meaning anything, and I respectfully disagree.

fair enough. i still think you are simply selecting stats that make you feel better about your team's chances. Green bay created more turnovers. Seattle gave up far less yards and far less points. one stat involves a team swatting at balls to stop another. the other stat involves a team shutting down an opposing offense. if you want Team A in that scenario than go ahead. id be doing the same.

the original responder provided a more detailed statistic in assessing defensive strength. you can selectively choose to hold onto one, but i'm not sure you are going to convince anyone else.

Stats are funny things, they are good at giving some trends, but not the whole story.

Here's another interesting stat:

2014 Strength of Schedule:

http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/ranking ... h-by-other

Rank
1 Oakland (3-13)
2 Seattle (12-4)
3 Arizona (11-5)
4 Denver (12-4)
5 San Francisco (8-8)
6 St Louis (6-10)
7 San Diego (9-7)
8 Kansas City (9-7)
9 New England (12-4)
10 Buffalo (9-7)
11 Chicago (5-11)
12 Philadelphia (10-6)
13 Green Bay (12-4)
14 Cincinnati (10-5-1)
15 NY Jets (4-12)
16 Carolina (7-8-1)
17 Miami (8-8)
18 Atlanta (6-10)
19 NY Giants (6-10)
20 New Orleans (7-9)
21 Detroit (11-5)
22 Indianapolis (11-5)
23 Minnesota (7-9)
24 Washington (4-12)
25 Tampa Bay (2-14)
26 Jacksonville (3-13)
27 Baltimore (10-6)
28 Dallas (12-4)
29 Cleveland (7-9)
30 Pittsburgh (11-5)
31 Tennessee (2-14)
32 Houston (9-7)

How do you factor these stats in? It's easier to get more sacks if your schedule is weaker.

Not saying your stats aren't relevant, because stats don't lie. They just rarely tell the complete truth so you have to watch how much truth you are trying to get out of these stats

 

[PakAttack86]

Hahaha, I knew you could put a positive spin on it. You had to go into your way-back machine for that one. Well done! You're right. That was before PC (Pete Carroll). He is a defensive guru. That is why we have been the #1 ranked D in allowing the fewest points the NFL the last 3 years!

Again, back to the present day...we are talking THIS team. The World Champs. Coached by Pete Carroll. He has Rodgers figured out. Ask the Bronco fans how the #1 scoring offense in the history of the NFL did against us.....on a neutral field.

You used the word "ever", I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect. I'm not arguing that Seattle isn't a defense that demands respect, but to suggest that there are no chinks in that armor is irresponsible and this Packers squad has the tools to compete and win.

 

[rideaducati]

Peppers being a freak and making a play is not luck. I'll give you that Bryant's catch was, but that is a play where you have to give credit to the offense when it's due. That was a fantastic play.

I didn't even mention the Packers defense vs. the Seahawks.

Again, all I did was respond to the conception to the Packers defense sucking, which is just not true.

Compared to the past month of defenses that the Seahawks have faced, the Packers defense DOES SUCK.

 

[CallMeADawg]

Hahaha, I knew you could put a positive spin on it. You had to go into your way-back machine for that one. Well done! You're right. That was before PC (Pete Carroll). He is a defensive guru. That is why we have been the #1 ranked D in allowing the fewest points the NFL the last 3 years!

Again, back to the present day...we are talking THIS team. The World Champs. Coached by Pete Carroll. He has Rodgers figured out. Ask the Bronco fans how the #1 scoring offense in the history of the NFL did against us.....on a neutral field.

You used the word "ever", I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect. I'm not arguing that Seattle isn't a defense that demands respect, but to suggest that there are no chinks in that armor is irresponsible and this Packers squad has the tools to compete and win.

You have 53 football players, 11 on offense and 11 on defense at one time. Our 53 guys are better than your 53 guys. All this talk of chinks in armor, and tools to compete is just a bunch of nonsense. Come Sunday, after the game, you will be educated a bit better on the subject.

 

[PakAttack86]

Hahaha, I knew you could put a positive spin on it. You had to go into your way-back machine for that one. Well done! You're right. That was before PC (Pete Carroll). He is a defensive guru. That is why we have been the #1 ranked D in allowing the fewest points the NFL the last 3 years!

Again, back to the present day...we are talking THIS team. The World Champs. Coached by Pete Carroll. He has Rodgers figured out. Ask the Bronco fans how the #1 scoring offense in the history of the NFL did against us.....on a neutral field.

You used the word "ever", I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect. I'm not arguing that Seattle isn't a defense that demands respect, but to suggest that there are no chinks in that armor is irresponsible and this Packers squad has the tools to compete and win.

You have 53 football players, 11 on offense and 11 on defense at one time. Our 53 guys are better than your 53 guys. All this talk of chinks in armor, and tools to compete is just a bunch of nonsense. Come Sunday, after the game, you will be educated a bit better on the subject.

Your opinion is welcome, but don't hide like a coward on that Sunday night if the Packers spoil your fun.