Would people say the better team lost if....

Let's say the miraculous scoring drives for Seattle happened in the first quarter rather than the fourth quarter, and scored another 7 points in the second quarter rather than the 3rd quarter. Also, let's say Green Bay only scored six points in the first quarter rather than in the fourth quarter. The score would of been 22-6 at halftime.

Then Green Bay would go on a run in the 2nd half... and score 13 in the third quarter and 3 points in the fourth quarter sending the game into OT.

Seattle would get the ball first in a coin toss.... and score 6 points. Ending the game. 28-22.

If this scenario happened, would the Green Bay Packers and everyone else still think the better team lost? I'm just wondering.

Anyone outside of the Seahawks fanbase, yes.

You can't say the better team lost.
If Greenbay was the better team they would have won. It really is that simple.
We made and overcame tons of mistakes and kept playing to win, until the winner was declared.
Do you or anyone else thinks a prize fighter quits throwing punches because he landed a few haymakers in the first 2 rounds. Nope it doesn't happen that way, keep punching and defending yourself until the bell rings.

Chapman":5p2gir62 said:

You can't say the better team lost.
If Greenbay was the better team they would have won. It really is that simple.
We made and overcame tons of mistakes and kept playing to win, until the winner was declared.
Do you or anyone else thinks a prize fighter quits throwing punches because he landed a few haymakers in the first 2 rounds. Nope it doesn't happen that way, keep punching and defending yourself until the bell rings.

Click to expand...

Rodgers said the better team lost, not the OP. Keep up.

Amazing how a qb can throw 4 picks (2 earned) and can outplay the GOAT.

Hawks won EVERY statistical category except turnovers.

Seattle was the better team before the season started and after that game was over.

Saying the better team lost is sour grapes and nothing more. It is a crock of crap and the Packer Backers know it.

They can spend the entire offseason thinking that they have a better team, but it won't make a bit of difference outside Bizarro world.

I don't think it's really all that simple.

If it was my team or your team in the Packer's situation, we'd feel the same way those fans do. Now should Rodgers have come out and said some of those things? No, but I'm sure that came out of frustration and shouldn't be taken too seriously. He's 0-3 in Seattle now, and two of the games the Packers should have won - that's frustrating.

I don't believe the Packers were ever better than Seattle, so saying the better team lost is foolish. GB didn't play well at all on offense, and their defense gave the game away.

But still, the Seahawks lose if the onside kick doesn't go right through Bostick's hands. So from that, Seattle was lucky to win the game. IMO, you can cancel out all of the self inflicted wounds from both teams and it comes down to that onside kick. It wasn't a great onside kick (it went straight to a Packer), it wasn't really a play that Seattle made - it was a play that GB didn't. So no, GB wasn't the better team but yes, Seattle was lucky to win.

Considering Seattle's insane home field advantage, I think it's safe to say that if that game was played on a neutral field, Seattle would have had no chance. Those kinds of things have to be factored in. Football is too complex to just say "the better team wins" - too many variables.

Where the game is played, injuries, etc. all come in to play. Also, sometimes a better team has a worse record right? That could be because of the schedule, injuries, etc. To me it's the same thing.

korboko":13nrd87k said:

Let's say the miraculous scoring drives for Seattle happened in the first quarter rather than the fourth quarter, and scored another 7 points in the second quarter rather than the 3rd quarter. Also, let's say Green Bay only scored six points in the first quarter rather than in the fourth quarter. The score would of been 22-6 at halftime.

Then Green Bay would go on a run in the 2nd half... and score 13 in the third quarter and 3 points in the fourth quarter sending the game into OT.

Seattle would get the ball first in a coin toss.... and score 6 points. Ending the game. 28-22.

If this scenario happened, would the Green Bay Packers and everyone else still think the better team lost? I'm just wondering.

Click to expand...

the better question is, if that game played the exact same way, only the roles reversed, what would the story line be?

Saying GB was the better team makes no sense to me.

The Hawks;

- scored more points
- had more total yards
- had more rushing yards
- had more passing yards
- was better in the red zone
- was FAR superior on special teams
- 3rd down efficiency
- more first downs
- more yards per play
- more yards per rush
- more yards per pass

The only stats we lost on were time of possession (by one minute) and turnovers. That's it.

Sorry, but a football game is 60 minutes long, in this case 63 minutes and 19 seconds. You aren't the better team unless you were the better team for the ENTIRE game.