Patriots @ Packers - Super bowl 48 1/2? (1 Viewer)

[Riversco]

Is this Super Bowl 48 1/2?

1. These are the top 2 teams in net points in the NFL.

2. Both lead their divisions.

3. Packers have a signature win by crushing the 8-3 Eagles 53-20.

4. Patriots have crushed the Broncs, Colts, and Lions the past 3 weeks, all in the playoff picture.

5. These are the top 2 scoring teams in the NFL.

6. Line is Packers -3, O/U 58 last I checked.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/patriots-packers-preview-211406993--nfl.html

 

[Run It Up]

Is this Super Bowl 48 1/2?

I think so.

 

[Underachievers]

Packers will fold in the playoffs again. All it takes is a team to slap them early, and the Packers will back down.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

jesus

settle down

do you win a ####### cookie or something if you get the scoop?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Should be a great game. NE has been beating the #### out of NFC North Teams, so I'm a bit worried. Hopefully the pack can pull this one out.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Nope.....

 

[Run It Up]

Nope.....

Hey my original prediction was Pack vs Pats until week 1 when the hawks crushed em and the Pats also lost.

But the hawks haven't been playing this year with whatever it was they had last year. Wouldn't be shocked if they made it back just don't see it at the moment.

 

[TDorBust]

Is this Super Bowl 48 1/2?

1. These are the top 2 teams in net points in the NFL.

2. Both lead their divisions.

3. Packers have a signature win by crushing the 8-3 Eagles 53-20.

4. Patriots have crushed the Broncs, Colts, and Lions the past 3 weeks, all in the playoff picture.

5. These are the top 2 scoring teams in the NFL.

6. Line is Packers -3, O/U 58 last I checked.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/patriots-packers-preview-211406993--nfl.html

Nice to see you using the search function also at least add a poll! Hahahttp://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=721567&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1

Ps I want a cookie koolaid

 

[Phenomena]

The reality is this game is fairly meaningless. Either teams could lose and have it not affect their seeding, or both lose and still get 1st overall. November football is different than January football as well. I don't think this game has any bearing on the end of season results, or what would happen should they meet again. The Giants got pounded by the Pats then beat them in the Super Bowl - it could happen either way to either team. The Viks win was wayyyyyy more important to the Packers because of division record (now 4-1) and the first tie-breaker if the Packers/Lions split heads-up.

This is a game for the casual fan and for the power rankings, nothing more.

I will not be super thrilled or super down regardless of what happens, as a Packer fan. It's all about the Lions week 17, and getting there within a game of them so we can the division with a win.

This game is as much of a pure entertainment game as there is in the league. Same as week 1 for the Packers. That Seahawks game was good theater for the casual fan but will have virtually no bearing on end of season results.

 

[Run It Up]

The reality is this game is fairly meaningless. Either teams could lose and have it not affect their seeding, or both lose and still get 1st overall. November football is different than January football as well. I don't think this game has any bearing on the end of season results. The Viks win was more important to the Packers because of division record.

This is a game for the casual fan and for the power rankings, nothing more.

I will not be super thrilled or super down regardless of what happens, as a Packer fan. It's all about the Lions week 17, and getting there within a game of them so we can the division with a win.

This game is the definition of an entertainment game. Same as week 1. That Seahawks game was good theater for the casual fan but will have virtually no bearing on end of season results.

Every game is more important than the last. Seeing how the teams match up against each other is also very important for possible future meetings.

 

[Phenomena]

The reality is this game is fairly meaningless. Either teams could lose and have it not affect their seeding, or both lose and still get 1st overall. November football is different than January football as well. I don't think this game has any bearing on the end of season results. The Viks win was more important to the Packers because of division record.

This is a game for the casual fan and for the power rankings, nothing more.

I will not be super thrilled or super down regardless of what happens, as a Packer fan. It's all about the Lions week 17, and getting there within a game of them so we can the division with a win.

This game is the definition of an entertainment game. Same as week 1. That Seahawks game was good theater for the casual fan but will have virtually no bearing on end of season results.

Every game is more important than the last. Seeing how the teams match up against each other is also very important for possible future meetings.

I disagree. Giants got pounded late in the year by 40 the year the Pats were undefeated. Then the Giants beat them in the Super Bowl. This game is an irrelevant measuring stick two months later.

 

[Run It Up]

The reality is this game is fairly meaningless. Either teams could lose and have it not affect their seeding, or both lose and still get 1st overall. November football is different than January football as well. I don't think this game has any bearing on the end of season results. The Viks win was more important to the Packers because of division record.

This is a game for the casual fan and for the power rankings, nothing more.

I will not be super thrilled or super down regardless of what happens, as a Packer fan. It's all about the Lions week 17, and getting there within a game of them so we can the division with a win.

This game is the definition of an entertainment game. Same as week 1. That Seahawks game was good theater for the casual fan but will have virtually no bearing on end of season results.

Every game is more important than the last. Seeing how the teams match up against each other is also very important for possible future meetings.

I disagree. Giants got pounded late in the year by 40 the year the Pats were undefeated. Then the Giants beat them in the Super Bowl. This game is an irrelevant measuring stick two months later.

Incredibly results oriented don't you think?

Pats game plan better than anyone imo - some might disagree, either way having actual team vs team experience is huge. Look at NFC teams vs the Pats compared to AFC East opponents.

 

[msudaisy26]

I don't think the Packers are that good, I think they are right in the mix with 5 other NFC teams. This is a team that lost to the Saints, yes it was on the road, but the Ravens and Bengals have went into the New Orleans and beat then recently.

 

[msudaisy26]

The reality is this game is fairly meaningless. Either teams could lose and have it not affect their seeding, or both lose and still get 1st overall. November football is different than January football as well. I don't think this game has any bearing on the end of season results. The Viks win was more important to the Packers because of division record.

This is a game for the casual fan and for the power rankings, nothing more.

I will not be super thrilled or super down regardless of what happens, as a Packer fan. It's all about the Lions week 17, and getting there within a game of them so we can the division with a win.

This game is the definition of an entertainment game. Same as week 1. That Seahawks game was good theater for the casual fan but will have virtually no bearing on end of season results.

Every game is more important than the last. Seeing how the teams match up against each other is also very important for possible future meetings.

I disagree. Giants got pounded late in the year by 40 the year the Pats were undefeated. Then the Giants beat them in the Super Bowl. This game is an irrelevant measuring stick two months later.

The Giants lost by less than a touchdown. The year the Pats were undefeated.

 

[King of the Jungle]

I don't think the Packers are that good, I think they are right in the mix with 5 other NFC teams. This is a team that lost to the Saints, yes it was on the road, but the Ravens and Bengals have went into the New Orleans and beat then recently.

If I remember correctly Rodgers was hurt in that game and it impacted his play.

 

[JIslander]

Packers Patriots will fold in the playoffs again. All it takes is a team to slap them early, and the Packers Patriots will back down.

Funny how that sounds about right too!

 

[Jerry Curl]

I don't think the Packers are that good, I think they are right in the mix with 5 other NFC teams. This is a team that lost to the Saints, yes it was on the road, but the Ravens and Bengals have went into the New Orleans and beat then recently.

Do you watch football? That seems like a smart ### post but I mean it. Anyone who watches football would not say that one of the best teams in the game this year are not that good. I see crappy teams put up back to back 50 burgers all the time. They lost to the Saints on the road where Rodgers tweaked his hammy, I guess that means they are not that good according to you but how did they handle the division leading Eagles at home?

Manning and the Broncos lost on the road to STL, Big Ben and the Steelers lost on the road to the Jets and the Chiefs lost on the road to OAK. Point is good teams can lose on the road.

 

[parrot]

The reality is this game is fairly meaningless. Either teams could lose and have it not affect their seeding, or both lose and still get 1st overall. November football is different than January football as well. I don't think this game has any bearing on the end of season results. The Viks win was more important to the Packers because of division record.

This is a game for the casual fan and for the power rankings, nothing more.

I will not be super thrilled or super down regardless of what happens, as a Packer fan. It's all about the Lions week 17, and getting there within a game of them so we can the division with a win.

This game is the definition of an entertainment game. Same as week 1. That Seahawks game was good theater for the casual fan but will have virtually no bearing on end of season results.

Every game is more important than the last. Seeing how the teams match up against each other is also very important for possible future meetings.

I disagree. Giants got pounded late in the year by 40 the year the Pats were undefeated. Then the Giants beat them in the Super Bowl. This game is an irrelevant measuring stick two months later.

The Giants lost by less than a touchdown. The year the Pats were undefeated.

3 point game. The Pats had their hands full that game.

 

[FUBAR]

It's easily the best game of week 13, in a week of pretty good match-ups.

Packers aren't even the #1 seed right now and there's a really good chance they won't be at the end of the season.

This game is bigger for the Packers than some may realize. If they lose it, they become the 6 seed (or is Dallas ahead of them?). With games remaining against the Bills and Lions, they'll have little margin for a letdown the rest of the year.

They should make the playoffs still, even with a loss Sunday but it gets a lot tighter.

The Pats meanwhile are better off with a win but a loss wouldn't hurt them much.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

It's easily the best game of week 13, in a week of pretty good match-ups.

Packers aren't even the #1 seed right now and there's a really good chance they won't be at the end of the season.

This game is bigger for the Packers than some may realize. If they lose it, they become the 6 seed (or is Dallas ahead of them?). With games remaining against the Bills and Lions, they'll have little margin for a letdown the rest of the year.

They should make the playoffs still, even with a loss Sunday but it gets a lot tighter.

The Pats meanwhile are better off with a win but a loss wouldn't hurt them much.

I don't think that's true, though

we're in a race with denver for homefield, if we actually end up meeting in the playoffs.

I'd rather not open the door for them, but I wouldn't say this is really any more important than the other games we've played.

 

[msudaisy26]

I don't think the Packers are that good, I think they are right in the mix with 5 other NFC teams. This is a team that lost to the Saints, yes it was on the road, but the Ravens and Bengals have went into the New Orleans and beat then recently.

Do you watch football? That seems like a smart ### post but I mean it. Anyone who watches football would not say that one of the best teams in the game this year are not that good. I see crappy teams put up back to back 50 burgers all the time. They lost to the Saints on the road where Rodgers tweaked his hammy, I guess that means they are not that good according to you but how did they handle the division leading Eagles at home?

Manning and the Broncos lost on the road to STL, Big Ben and the Steelers lost on the road to the Jets and the Chiefs lost on the road to OAK. Point is good teams can lose on the road.

Hanging 50 on the Bears doesn't impress me. The Lions just put up 35 on them. I watched that game against the Saints. Didn't Rodgers hurt his hammy in the 3rd quarter? And they were already losing? They might have come back, but they might not. I also don't consider the Steelers to be a good team this year.

Why do people never read what someone writes? I said they are right there with about 5 other teams in the NFC. I am not saying they are bad at all. They aren't the overwhelming favorites like the Patriots are right now. Now if they beat the Patriots and win out that is different, but right here and now give me the field in the NFC.

 

[Jerry Curl]

I don't think the Packers are that good, I think they are right in the mix with 5 other NFC teams. This is a team that lost to the Saints, yes it was on the road, but the Ravens and Bengals have went into the New Orleans and beat then recently.

Do you watch football? That seems like a smart ### post but I mean it. Anyone who watches football would not say that one of the best teams in the game this year are not that good. I see crappy teams put up back to back 50 burgers all the time. They lost to the Saints on the road where Rodgers tweaked his hammy, I guess that means they are not that good according to you but how did they handle the division leading Eagles at home?

Manning and the Broncos lost on the road to STL, Big Ben and the Steelers lost on the road to the Jets and the Chiefs lost on the road to OAK. Point is good teams can lose on the road.

Hanging 50 on the Bears doesn't impress me. How about doing it against the division leading Eagles?

The Lions just put up 35 on them. The Lions are 8-4

I watched that game against the Saints. Didn't Rodgers hurt his hammy in the 3rd quarter? And they were already losing? They might have come back, but they might not. I also don't consider the Steelers to be a good team this year. Steelers are 7-4, thats pretty good.

Why do people never read what someone writes? You tell us, you seem to not read what anyone says.

I said they are right there with about 5 other teams in the NFC. I am not saying they are bad at all. You said and I quote: I don't think the Packers are that good,

They aren't the overwhelming favorites like the Patriots are right now. So that means they are good.

Now if they beat the Patriots and win out that is different, but right here and now give me the field in the NFC. They will be a division leading 8-4 even if they lose.

Shared my disagreements in bolded.

 

[msudaisy26]

I don't think the Packers are THAT good, as in they are calling this game Super Bowl 48.5. Please don't try to tell me what I mean when I write a post. They aren't the NFC version of the Patriots. Assuming there is no major injuries to the Patriots I would be very surprised if they weren't in the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers losing early.

The Lions are a good team, I never said they weren't, but their offense has been bad this year, I believe they are in the bottom third in scoring and they put 35 on the Bears.

The win against Philly was impressive. Most playoff teams have those wins.

I guess Cleveland is good too at 7 - 4, to quote yourself. "Do you even watch football?" The Steelers don't pass the eyeball test.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I don't think the Packers are THAT good, as in they are calling this game Super Bowl 48.5. Please don't try to tell me what I mean when I write a post. They aren't the NFC version of the Patriots. Assuming there is no major injuries to the Patriots I would be very surprised if they weren't in the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers losing early.

The Lions are a good team, I never said they weren't, but their offense has been bad this year, I believe they are in the bottom third in scoring and they put 35 on the Bears.

The win against Philly was impressive. Most playoff teams have those wins.

I guess Cleveland is good too at 7 - 4, to quote yourself. "Do you even watch football?" The Steelers don't pass the eyeball test.

Who is the best team in the NFC?

 

[bostonfred]

Would be surprising to see an afc representative other than Denver or New England at the superbowl, and New England would have a big leg up if they had home field. I can see a team like Baltimore getting hot, but it just doesn't seem very likely.

I can see green bay going to the super bowl, but I can also see Arizona, Seattle, Philly or yes even Dallas if they can get romo totally healthy.

I like New England in this game, because they arent just rolling, they're steamrolling teams. They have faced the best quarterbacks in the league and beaten all of them. I might like green bays offense a little more right now, but I like the patriots defense and special teams way better, and I don't think Lambeau field makes up for that.

 

[msudaisy26]

I don't think the Packers are THAT good, as in they are calling this game Super Bowl 48.5. Please don't try to tell me what I mean when I write a post. They aren't the NFC version of the Patriots. Assuming there is no major injuries to the Patriots I would be very surprised if they weren't in the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers losing early.

The Lions are a good team, I never said they weren't, but their offense has been bad this year, I believe they are in the bottom third in scoring and they put 35 on the Bears.

The win against Philly was impressive. Most playoff teams have those wins.

I guess Cleveland is good too at 7 - 4, to quote yourself. "Do you even watch football?" The Steelers don't pass the eyeball test.

Who is the best team in the NFC?

I think you can make a case for 4 or 5 teams. They are one of them, but they haven't distanced themselves from the pack. If I has to bet on it right now, I would take the Seahawks, but this year in the NFC it seems like certain teams matchup better against others. I think the way Seattle and Dallas run the ball and control the clock would give Green Bay fits. Just like Green Bay seems match up well with against Philly.

 

[Anarchy99]

For those wondering what happened in the past when teams that ended up meeting in the SB met in the regular season . . .

[SIZE=10pt]1977 RS DAL beat DEN 14-6 in DAL[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1978 SB DAL beat DEN 27-10[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1980 RS PHI beat OAK 10-7 in PHI[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1981 SB OAK beat PHI 27-10[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1981 RS SF beat CIN 21-3 in SF[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1982 SB SF beat CIN 26-21[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1983 RS WAS beat RAI 37-35 in WAS[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1984 SB RAI beat WAS 38-9[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1985 RS CHI beat NE 20-7 in CHI[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1986 SB CHI beat NE 46-10[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1986 RS NYG beat DEN 19-16 in NYG[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1987 SB NYG beat DEN 39-20[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1990 RS BUF beat NYG 17-13 in NYG[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1991 SB NYG beat BUF 20-19[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1993 RS BUF beat DAL 13-10 in DAL[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1994 SB DAL beat BUF 30-13[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1994 RS SF beat SD 38-15 in SD [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1995 SB SF beat SD 49-26[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1999 RS TEN beat STL 24-21 in TEN[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2000 SB STL beat TEN 23-16[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2001 RS STL beat NE 24-17 in NE[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2002 SB[/SIZE] NE beat STL 20-17

[SIZE=10pt]2007 RS NE beat NYG 38-35 in NYG[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2008 NYG beat NE 17-14[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2011 RS NYG beat NE 24-20 in NE[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2012 SB NYG beat NE 21-17[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Won both games 6 times.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Split the two games 7 times.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Home team won first game 7 times.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Road team won first game 6 times.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Bottom line, in the past it did not appear that the home team had much of an advantage. And winning or losing the first game really didn't matter much in the outcome of the rematch.[/SIZE]

 

[Johnny Blood]

I disagree. Giants got pounded late in the year by 40 the year the Pats were undefeated. Then the Giants beat them in the Super Bowl. This game is an irrelevant measuring stick two months later.

That's a strange example to support your point, since at the end of that season the Giants played the Pats in a "meaningless" game. I remember people criticizing the Giants for not resting players. They played the Pats very tough, then beat them in the Super Bowl. I hardly think their earlier matchup was irrelevant.

This seems like the worst possible example for you.

 

[Niles Standish]

He's probably thinking about the Jets. Not Super Bowl and not undefeated. But otherwise pretty close.

 

[Tanner9919]

Shhhhhh...dont look now,but Seattle is going back to the SB...no one in the NFC can beat them going forward.They've got their mojo back..

 

[Riversco]

For those wondering what happened in the past when teams that ended up meeting in the SB met in the regular season . . .

[SIZE=10pt]1977 RS DAL beat DEN 14-6 in DAL[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1978 SB DAL beat DEN 27-10[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1980 RS PHI beat OAK 7-10 in PHI[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1981 SB OAK beat PHI 27-10[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1981 RS SF beat CIN 21-3 in SF[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1982 SB SF beat CIN 26-21[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1983 RS WAS beat RAI 37-35 in WAS[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1984 SB RAI beat WAS 38-9[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1985 RS CHI beat NE 20-7 in CHI[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1986 SB CHI beat NE 46-10[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1986 RS NYG beat DEN 19-16 in NYG[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1987 SB NYG beat DEN 39-20[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1990 RS BUF beat NYG 17-13 in NYG[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1991 SB NYG beat BUF 20-19[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1993 RS BUF beat DAL 13-10 in DAL[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1994 SB DAL beat BUF 30-13[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1994 RS SF beat SD 38-15 in SD [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1995 SB SF beat SD 49-26[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]1999 RS TEN beat STL 24-21 in TEN[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2000 SB STL beat TEN 23-16[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2001 RS STL beat NE 24-17 in NE[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2002 SB[/SIZE] NE beat STL 20-17

[SIZE=10pt]2007 RS NE beat NYG 38-35 in NYG[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2008 NYG beat NE 17-14[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2011 RS NYG beat NE 24-20 in NE[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]2012 SB NYG beat NE 21-17[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Won both games 6 times.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Split the two games 7 times.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Home team won first game 7 times.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Road team won first game 6 times.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Bottom line, in the past it did not appear that the home team had much of an advantage. And winning or losing the first game really didn't matter much in the outcome of the rematch.[/SIZE]

What I see is that whenever one team wins by at least 2 scores in the regular season, they always win the Super Bowl rematch.

 

[FF_WMD]

Shhhhhh...dont look now,but Seattle is going back to the SB...no one in the NFC can beat them going forward.They've got their mojo back..

Psssst...beating Kapernick and SF is not all that impressive and Sea still has a lot to prove; maybe they r the 2nd best team in the conf; maybe not even that.....

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Shhhhhh...dont look now,but Seattle is going back to the SB...no one in the NFC can beat them going forward.They've got their mojo back..

Psssst...beating Kapernick and SF is not all that impressive and Sea still has a lot to prove; maybe they r the 2nd best team in the conf; maybe not even that.....

didn't they already beat green bay, and just beat arizona 19-3?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

this about sums it up

 

[FF_WMD]

Yea, Sea beat GB in wk1, AZ wk 11 and then a weak SF team in wk12; in the rest of their games they are 5-4.

Didn't KC crush NE in wk4? Situations change....

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Yea, Sea beat GB in wk1, AZ wk 11 and then a weak SF team in wk12; in the rest of their games they are 5-4.

Didn't KC crush NE in wk4? Situations change....

ummmm...yeah, if we subtract 3 wins from everybody 5-4 stacks up pretty well.

but besides those 4 losses they're undefeated.

what's changed about the situation since they beat division leading arizona 19-3 2 weeks ago?

is this supposed to be some kind of troll post?

 

[Riversco]

Packers are 0-2 in domes this season. 8-1 outdoors (only loss @ Seattle week 1.) Packers are 2-5 in domes over the past 3 years. That seems to be their weakness.

Patriots are actually 4-0 in domes over the past 5 years.

Super Bowl 49 is in a dome (University of Phoenix stadium has natural grass, but the field actually retracts and is moved outdoors.)

Super Bowl 46 (Giants beat Patriots) actually was in a retractable roof stadium with the roof closed though.

 

[Jerry Curl]

I don't think the Packers are THAT good, as in they are calling this game Super Bowl 48.5. Please don't try to tell me what I mean when I write a post. They aren't the NFC version of the Patriots. Assuming there is no major injuries to the Patriots I would be very surprised if they weren't in the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers losing early.

The Lions are a good team, I never said they weren't, but their offense has been bad this year, I believe they are in the bottom third in scoring and they put 35 on the Bears.

The win against Philly was impressive. Most playoff teams have those wins.

I guess Cleveland is good too at 7 - 4, to quote yourself. "Do you even watch football?" The Steelers don't pass the eyeball test.

Who is the best team in the NFC?

I think you can make a case for 4 or 5 teams. They are one of them, but they haven't distanced themselves from the pack. If I has to bet on it right now, I would take the Seahawks, but this year in the NFC it seems like certain teams matchup better against others. I think the way Seattle and Dallas run the ball and control the clock would give Green Bay fits. Just like Green Bay seems match up well with against Philly.

How can they be one of the best teams out of 16 in the NFC if they are "not that good?"

 

[FUBAR]

I don't think the Packers are THAT good, as in they are calling this game Super Bowl 48.5. Please don't try to tell me what I mean when I write a post. They aren't the NFC version of the Patriots. Assuming there is no major injuries to the Patriots I would be very surprised if they weren't in the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers losing early.

The Lions are a good team, I never said they weren't, but their offense has been bad this year, I believe they are in the bottom third in scoring and they put 35 on the Bears.

The win against Philly was impressive. Most playoff teams have those wins.

I guess Cleveland is good too at 7 - 4, to quote yourself. "Do you even watch football?" The Steelers don't pass the eyeball test.

Who is the best team in the NFC?

I think you can make a case for 4 or 5 teams. They are one of them, but they haven't distanced themselves from the pack. If I has to bet on it right now, I would take the Seahawks, but this year in the NFC it seems like certain teams matchup better against others. I think the way Seattle and Dallas run the ball and control the clock would give Green Bay fits. Just like Green Bay seems match up well with against Philly.

How can they be one of the best teams out of 16 in the NFC if they are "not that good?"

This isn't difficult.

The packers are one of the top 6 teams. They aren't much better than Arizona, Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco, or Philly.

Meanwhile New England is pretty clearly the top team in the AFC. You could argue that Denver is close but the 43-21 score serves as evidence to the contrary.

 

[cjv123]

GB's "only" problem is their DEF seems to play well only at home. There's something amiss in terms of their toughness/etc.

SEA is a threat to GB but the "questionable" (fixed) officiating at the end of the STL game and then at the end of the NYG/DAL game is going to keep SEA out of the playoffs (for DAL).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From FFT:

Revis and the Pats have faced Denver, Indianapolis and Detroit in their last 3 games. Revis has yielded the lines to the following receivers in his coverage (catches-targets-yards):

Demaryius Thomas (3-3-33)

Emmanuel Sanders (2-3-38)

T.Y. Hilton (0-1-0)

Reggie Wayne (1-4-5)

Golden Tate (2-7-41).

To date: 30 catches on 60 targets for 398 yards and one touchdown

I don't know if Revis gets Jordy or Cobb here or if he and Browner switch out, though I've been reading it will be Browner mostly on Nelson, not sure if that's accurate.

 

[Jerry Curl]

I don't think the Packers are THAT good, as in they are calling this game Super Bowl 48.5. Please don't try to tell me what I mean when I write a post. They aren't the NFC version of the Patriots. Assuming there is no major injuries to the Patriots I would be very surprised if they weren't in the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers losing early.

The Lions are a good team, I never said they weren't, but their offense has been bad this year, I believe they are in the bottom third in scoring and they put 35 on the Bears.

The win against Philly was impressive. Most playoff teams have those wins.

I guess Cleveland is good too at 7 - 4, to quote yourself. "Do you even watch football?" The Steelers don't pass the eyeball test.

Who is the best team in the NFC?

I think you can make a case for 4 or 5 teams. They are one of them, but they haven't distanced themselves from the pack. If I has to bet on it right now, I would take the Seahawks, but this year in the NFC it seems like certain teams matchup better against others. I think the way Seattle and Dallas run the ball and control the clock would give Green Bay fits. Just like Green Bay seems match up well with against Philly.

How can they be one of the best teams out of 16 in the NFC if they are "not that good?"

This isn't difficult.

The packers are one of the top 6 teams. They aren't much better than Arizona, Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco, or Philly.

Meanwhile New England is pretty clearly the top team in the AFC. You could argue that Denver is close but the 43-21 score serves as evidence to the contrary.

The Packers are not much better than SF or Philly? I have a game that says the Packers are not just somewhat better but much much better then Philly. Amazing at some of the comments I see about football on a site that is supposed to be full of people who know football. Especially after watching the game Thursday night to say the Packers are not much better than SF. I am amazed. Not what I expected.

 

[fred_1_15301]

I don't think the Packers are THAT good, as in they are calling this game Super Bowl 48.5. Please don't try to tell me what I mean when I write a post. They aren't the NFC version of the Patriots. Assuming there is no major injuries to the Patriots I would be very surprised if they weren't in the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers losing early.

The Lions are a good team, I never said they weren't, but their offense has been bad this year, I believe they are in the bottom third in scoring and they put 35 on the Bears.

The win against Philly was impressive. Most playoff teams have those wins.

I guess Cleveland is good too at 7 - 4, to quote yourself. "Do you even watch football?" The Steelers don't pass the eyeball test.

Who is the best team in the NFC?

I think you can make a case for 4 or 5 teams. They are one of them, but they haven't distanced themselves from the pack. If I has to bet on it right now, I would take the Seahawks, but this year in the NFC it seems like certain teams matchup better against others. I think the way Seattle and Dallas run the ball and control the clock would give Green Bay fits. Just like Green Bay seems match up well with against Philly.

How can they be one of the best teams out of 16 in the NFC if they are "not that good?"

This isn't difficult.The packers are one of the top 6 teams. They aren't much better than Arizona, Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco, or Philly.

Meanwhile New England is pretty clearly the top team in the AFC. You could argue that Denver is close but the 43-21 score serves as evidence to the contrary.

The Packers are not much better than SF or Philly? I have a game that says the Packers are not just somewhat better but much much better then Philly. Amazing at some of the comments I see about football on a site that is supposed to be full of people who know football. Especially after watching the game Thursday night to say the Packers are not much better than SF. I am amazed. Not what I expected.

Yeah I didn't get that either. I'm not saying that the Packers are much better than the Eagles but by the example FUBAR used with the Pats/Broncos, it seems like a contradiction to then say that the Eagles and Packers are close.

 

[Jerry Curl]

I don't think the Packers are THAT good, as in they are calling this game Super Bowl 48.5. Please don't try to tell me what I mean when I write a post. They aren't the NFC version of the Patriots. Assuming there is no major injuries to the Patriots I would be very surprised if they weren't in the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers losing early.

The Lions are a good team, I never said they weren't, but their offense has been bad this year, I believe they are in the bottom third in scoring and they put 35 on the Bears.

The win against Philly was impressive. Most playoff teams have those wins.

I guess Cleveland is good too at 7 - 4, to quote yourself. "Do you even watch football?" The Steelers don't pass the eyeball test.

Who is the best team in the NFC?

I think you can make a case for 4 or 5 teams. They are one of them, but they haven't distanced themselves from the pack. If I has to bet on it right now, I would take the Seahawks, but this year in the NFC it seems like certain teams matchup better against others. I think the way Seattle and Dallas run the ball and control the clock would give Green Bay fits. Just like Green Bay seems match up well with against Philly.

How can they be one of the best teams out of 16 in the NFC if they are "not that good?"

This isn't difficult.The packers are one of the top 6 teams. They aren't much better than Arizona, Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco, or Philly.

Meanwhile New England is pretty clearly the top team in the AFC. You could argue that Denver is close but the 43-21 score serves as evidence to the contrary.

The Packers are not much better than SF or Philly? I have a game that says the Packers are not just somewhat better but much much better then Philly. Amazing at some of the comments I see about football on a site that is supposed to be full of people who know football. Especially after watching the game Thursday night to say the Packers are not much better than SF. I am amazed. Not what I expected.

Yeah I didn't get that either. I'm not saying that the Packers are much better than the Eagles but by the example FUBAR used with the Pats/Broncos, it seems like a contradiction to then say that the Eagles and Packers are close.

Thats my point, a lot of people contradicting themselves. Packers are not a good team but they are a top team.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Eagles pass defense and the Pats pass defense are worlds apart.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I don't think the Packers are THAT good, as in they are calling this game Super Bowl 48.5. Please don't try to tell me what I mean when I write a post. They aren't the NFC version of the Patriots. Assuming there is no major injuries to the Patriots I would be very surprised if they weren't in the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers losing early.

The Lions are a good team, I never said they weren't, but their offense has been bad this year, I believe they are in the bottom third in scoring and they put 35 on the Bears.

The win against Philly was impressive. Most playoff teams have those wins.

I guess Cleveland is good too at 7 - 4, to quote yourself. "Do you even watch football?" The Steelers don't pass the eyeball test.

Who is the best team in the NFC?

I think you can make a case for 4 or 5 teams. They are one of them, but they haven't distanced themselves from the pack. If I has to bet on it right now, I would take the Seahawks, but this year in the NFC it seems like certain teams matchup better against others. I think the way Seattle and Dallas run the ball and control the clock would give Green Bay fits. Just like Green Bay seems match up well with against Philly.

How can they be one of the best teams out of 16 in the NFC if they are "not that good?"

This isn't difficult.

The packers are one of the top 6 teams. They aren't much better than Arizona, Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco, or Philly.

Meanwhile New England is pretty clearly the top team in the AFC. You could argue that Denver is close but the 43-21 score serves as evidence to the contrary.

The Packers are not much better than SF or Philly? I have a game that says the Packers are not just somewhat better but much much better then Philly. Amazing at some of the comments I see about football on a site that is supposed to be full of people who know football. Especially after watching the game Thursday night to say the Packers are not much better than SF. I am amazed. Not what I expected.

Why would you be amazed. Fans are not giving you an objective view of anything. The vey nature of their fandom prevents that. Rather they are giving you a constructed argument as to why their team is great. To do so they ignore any counterveiling information or minimize it beyond reason, and they concentrate only upon positive evidence, which they conflate.

 

[TDorBust]

Yea, Sea beat GB in wk1, AZ wk 11 and then a weak SF team in wk12; in the rest of their games they are 5-4.

Didn't KC crush NE in wk4? Situations change....

GB in week 1/2/3 is completely different than this team.

Packers will fold in the playoffs again. All it takes is a team to slap them early, and the Packers will back down.

The Packers have not succeeded in the playoffs because there defense has not been very good (all season not just in the playoffs). I am very hopeful we are seeing a revised Packers defense this year that can keep the other teams out of the end zone, this weekend will be the next test on the schedule as you can only play who is in front of you.

45/20/31/20 (29ppg) - points-for under Rodgers losing in playoffs

51/37/45/23 (39ppg) - points-against under Rodgers losing in the playoffs

During the Super Bowl run they gave up 19 PPG back in 2010.

PPG given up by Super Bowl winner in Playoffs

2013 - Seahawks - 13.3ppg

2012 - Ravens - 22ppg

2011 - Giants - 14ppg

2010 - Packers - 19ppg

2009 - Saints - 19.6ppg

2008 - Steelers - 20.3ppg

2007 - Giants - 16.25ppg

2006 - Colts - 13.75ppg

2005 - Steelers - 15.5ppg

2004 - Patriots - 17ppg

 

[Phenomena]

Yea, Sea beat GB in wk1, AZ wk 11 and then a weak SF team in wk12; in the rest of their games they are 5-4.

Didn't KC crush NE in wk4? Situations change....

GB in week 1/2/3 is completely different than this team.

Packers will fold in the playoffs again. All it takes is a team to slap them early, and the Packers will back down.

The Packers have not succeeded in the playoffs because there defense has not been very good (all season not just in the playoffs). I am very hopeful we are seeing a revised Packers defense this year that can keep the other teams out of the end zone, this weekend will be the next test on the schedule as you can only play who is in front of you.

45/20/31/20 (29ppg) - points-for under Rodgers losing in playoffs

51/37/45/23 (39ppg) - points-against under Rodgers losing in the playoffs

During the Super Bowl run they gave up 19 PPG back in 2010.

PPG given up by Super Bowl winner in Playoffs

2013 - Seahawks - 13.3ppg

2012 - Ravens - 22ppg

2011 - Giants - 14ppg

2010 - Packers - 19ppg

2009 - Saints - 19.6ppg

2008 - Steelers - 20.3ppg

2007 - Giants - 16.25ppg

2006 - Colts - 13.75ppg

2005 - Steelers - 15.5ppg

2004 - Patriots - 17ppg

These are great stats. Nowadays you can't win a Super Bowl without a great offense, but you really need to have a top 10 defense as well.

Who fits the bill right now? I would say NE, GB, DEN, IND, SEA, BAL ... I think DAL will get exposed in the playoffs. That running game gave their defense time advantage and that helped them in the rankings, but that's not likely to happen in the playoffs. PHI you could throw in there I guess, though their defense is really hit or miss.

 

[FUBAR]

I have a game that says the Packers are not just somewhat better but much much better then Philly.

what?

 

[FUBAR]

I don't think the Packers are THAT good, as in they are calling this game Super Bowl 48.5. Please don't try to tell me what I mean when I write a post. They aren't the NFC version of the Patriots. Assuming there is no major injuries to the Patriots I would be very surprised if they weren't in the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers losing early.

The Lions are a good team, I never said they weren't, but their offense has been bad this year, I believe they are in the bottom third in scoring and they put 35 on the Bears.

The win against Philly was impressive. Most playoff teams have those wins.

I guess Cleveland is good too at 7 - 4, to quote yourself. "Do you even watch football?" The Steelers don't pass the eyeball test.

Who is the best team in the NFC?

I think you can make a case for 4 or 5 teams. They are one of them, but they haven't distanced themselves from the pack. If I has to bet on it right now, I would take the Seahawks, but this year in the NFC it seems like certain teams matchup better against others. I think the way Seattle and Dallas run the ball and control the clock would give Green Bay fits. Just like Green Bay seems match up well with against Philly.

How can they be one of the best teams out of 16 in the NFC if they are "not that good?"

This isn't difficult.The packers are one of the top 6 teams. They aren't much better than Arizona, Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco, or Philly.

Meanwhile New England is pretty clearly the top team in the AFC. You could argue that Denver is close but the 43-21 score serves as evidence to the contrary.

The Packers are not much better than SF or Philly? I have a game that says the Packers are not just somewhat better but much much better then Philly. Amazing at some of the comments I see about football on a site that is supposed to be full of people who know football. Especially after watching the game Thursday night to say the Packers are not much better than SF. I am amazed. Not what I expected.

Yeah I didn't get that either. I'm not saying that the Packers are much better than the Eagles but by the example FUBAR used with the Pats/Broncos, it seems like a contradiction to then say that the Eagles and Packers are close.

Thats my point, a lot of people contradicting themselves. Packers are not a good team but they are a top team.

You're not reading. Nobody here is saying "Packers are not a good team". What those of us who aren't putting them worlds ahead of the top 4-6 other teams in the NFL are saying is they aren't THAT much better than those teams.

Green Bay's offense is one of the top in the game but their defense is average at best. Admittedly, Philly suffers from the same problem and their QB is a lot worse.

San Fran and Philly might be a reach to include in the conversation right now, but it wouldn't surprise me if either beat Green Bay in the playoffs.