Well do remember that we are no longer the same team that lost to Cincy and Minny ... the Packers are improved since. The 3-4 wasn't quite working right .. the Oline was a mess. We'd have a fighting chance against those teams right now.
In order to win in the playoffs you have to make the playoffs. That is what the Packers are doing. Even that can't escape diggy.
I'm still trying to figure out who qualifies in the diggr definition of beating a upper echelon team, although, I think I read that beating a team 9-4 or better is the starting pt. So...
I guess BLT, DEN, and PIT qualify for beating SDG
I guess DEN, HOU, OAK, and MIN qualify for beating CIN
I guess NO, OAK, DAL, and SDG qualify for beating PHL
OBVIOUSLY PIT and AZ for beating diggr's favorite MIN
I guess CIN, MIN, and TB qualify for beating GB
If I'm assessing this correctly I think the following teams are clearly better than Green Bay because they have beaten an "upper echelon" team
Baltimore
Denver
Pittsburgh
Houston
Oakland
Minnesota
New Orleans
Dallas
San Diego
Arizona
Cincinnati
Tamper Bay
Digger any more wharrgarbl you'd like to add?
I guess BLT, DEN, and PIT qualify for beating SDG
I guess DEN, HOU, OAK, and MIN qualify for beating CIN
I guess NO, OAK, DAL, and SDG qualify for beating PHL
OBVIOUSLY PIT and AZ for beating diggr's favorite MIN
I guess CIN, MIN, and TB qualify for beating GB
If I'm assessing this correctly I think the following teams are clearly better than Green Bay because they have beaten an "upper echelon" team
Baltimore
Denver
Pittsburgh
Houston
Oakland
Minnesota
New Orleans
Dallas
San Diego
Arizona
Cincinnati
Tamper Bay
Digger any more wharrgarbl you'd like to add?
quote:Originally posted by grbaypack:
Well do remember that we are no longer the same team that lost to Cincy and Minny ... the Packers are improved since. The 3-4 wasn't quite working right .. the Oline was a mess. We'd have a fighting chance against those teams right now.
Yeah, i think so too. But, until we do it... it's a concern for me. It might not be for you guys.. but you know, we have differing opinions. If we do get to the superbowl, i want all of you to tell me how stupid I am for worrying about these things.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
I'm still trying to figure out who qualifies in the diggr definition of beating a upper echelon team, although, I think I read that beating a team 9-4 or better is the starting pt. So...
I guess BLT, DEN, and PIT qualify for beating SDG
I guess DEN, HOU, OAK, and MIN qualify for beating CIN
I guess NO, OAK, DAL, and SDG qualify for beating PHL
OBVIOUSLY PIT and AZ for beating diggr's favorite MIN
I guess CIN, MIN, and TB qualify for beating GB
If I'm assessing this correctly I think the following teams are clearly better than Green Bay because they have beaten an "upper echelon" team
Baltimore
Denver
Pittsburgh
Houston
Oakland
Minnesota
New Orleans
Dallas
San Diego
Arizona
Cincinnati
Tamper Bay
Digger any more wharrgarbl you'd like to add?
Not to be rude, but this has to be one of the dumbest things ive read this week. And, i've read alot of
Actually, CA's post is quite reasonably stating how idiotic your posts have been.
No offense.
No offense.
If you cant differentiate a team being good from happening to beat a team during one specific week... i cant help you.
I'm still trying to figure out how Bigby sucks.
So the only upper echelon teams are Indy, Minny, and New Orleans?
So the only upper echelon teams are Indy, Minny, and New Orleans?
Diggr makes a good point. It’s hard to compare teams based purely on record alone. If the Packers went on a five game winning streak beating only the Lions, Browns, Rams, Raiders and Bucs, I would not call that impressive. But if they went on a 3-2 stretch and beat the Colts, Saints, *******, Chargers and Eagles, it would be extremely impressed.
That said, the Packers have beaten the Cowboys and Ravens, two quality opponents.
And Diggr, you pull out the use of strength of schedule in this argument, but you brought up TT’s record vs. Sherman’s record in another thread and completely ignored strength of schedule. Not to get off topic, but the NFC was awful when Sherman was GM with the NFC winning just one Super Bowl from 2000-2005. This explains why the Packers would always get 9-10 wins in the regular season beating up on those cupcakes in the NFC but then lose in the playoffs to actual playoff teams. You can’t have it both ways: either wins and losses are all that matters or the difficulty of those wins and losses matters as well.
That said, the Packers have beaten the Cowboys and Ravens, two quality opponents.
And Diggr, you pull out the use of strength of schedule in this argument, but you brought up TT’s record vs. Sherman’s record in another thread and completely ignored strength of schedule. Not to get off topic, but the NFC was awful when Sherman was GM with the NFC winning just one Super Bowl from 2000-2005. This explains why the Packers would always get 9-10 wins in the regular season beating up on those cupcakes in the NFC but then lose in the playoffs to actual playoff teams. You can’t have it both ways: either wins and losses are all that matters or the difficulty of those wins and losses matters as well.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Bigby is not very good.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
If you cant differentiate a team being good from happening to beat a team during one specific week... i cant help you.
Ok, I'll ask a 3rd time - Who qualifies as "good" in the diggr definition of good? Because up til now, it was REQUIRED that you beat an upper echelon team. Now you are moving the goal posts again?
So, who is worthy of the diggr seal of approval and why? At least this week until you need to redefine so that icky Green Bay doesn't qualify.
quote:Originally posted by CUPackFan:
But if they went on a 3-2 stretch and beat the Colts, Saints, *******, Chargers and Eagles, it would be extremely impressed.
I will admit that would be quite impressive to beat 5 teams yet only got 3-2.
quote:Originally posted by CUPackFan:
And Diggr, you pull out the use of strength of schedule in this argument, but you brought up TT’s record vs. Sherman’s record in another thread and completely ignored strength of schedule. Not to get off topic, but the NFC was awful when Sherman was GM with the NFC winning just one Super Bowl from 2000-2005. This explains why the Packers would always get 9-10 wins in the regular season beating up on those cupcakes in the NFC but then lose in the playoffs to actual playoff teams. You can’t have it both ways: either wins and losses are all that matters or the difficulty of those wins and losses matters as well.
Interesting point CU, im going to look into that later today and see if I can dig up SOS #s from those time periods. It would be even better if I could get ELO_CHESS from both periods. I'll take a look at your assertion. I'm interested. However, I think that big of a disparity in W/L might be hard to make up. It's not like this seasons last place SOS ranking is going to help ROTTs cause in your assertion. But Im definitely interested in the point you raised.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
If you cant differentiate a team being good from happening to beat a team during one specific week... i cant help you.
Ok, I'll ask a 3rd time - Who qualifies as "good" in the diggr definition of good? Because up til now, it was REQUIRED that you beat an upper echelon team. Now you are moving the goal posts again?
So, who is worthy of the diggr seal of approval and why? At least this week until you need to redefine so that icky Green Bay doesn't qualify.
I think in a prior post or thread.. not sure I defined the top 5 teams in the NFC as NO, MN, PHI, AZ, and GB.
I didnt mention the AFC - which i'll say off the top of my head that Indy, SD, New England, and Cincinatti would be the top 4 teams over there.
If you take out GB (because we cant play ourselves... that's 1/4 of the league). If Im missing a team you guys think shouldnt be in that list let me know. But the top 25% of the league, is that fair to call upper echelon? I guess that's subjective. But I think that's more than fair.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
Ok, I'll ask a 3rd time - Who qualifies as "good" in the diggr definition of good? Because up til now, it was REQUIRED that you beat an upper echelon team. Now you are moving the goal posts again?
I admire the game of gotchya that you are trying to play, but does this satisfy you? If you weren't being ridiculous, im sure you could gather from the overall conversation that teams need to be in playoff position to be considered good as well. Youre absolutely right, if you only good team once and you lose to all of the average and bad teams your team is not good. I think that much is obvious, but if you want to have playoff success, you need to beat these good teams. To date, Green Bay has not done so.. and it worries me.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Not to be rude, but this has to be one of the dumbest things ive read this week. And, i've read alot ofHenry'sTimberlake's work this week.
Perhaps you should try reading your own posts to see "dumb"
Silly me, that's why I'm dumb and you're smert. I read your posts and you don't
Beating good teams is really not always the best measure of playoff success. Last year the Steelers were 4-4 against teams with winning records and the Cardinals were 2-6. The 2007 Giants were 1-5 against teams with winning records and the Patriots were 7-0. The 2005 Steelers were 4-4 against teams with winning records and the team they beat Seattle was 4-2.
Maybe that's how YOU decide who is going to do well in the postseason but that criteria is not supported by facts. The last couple years it seems like the big determinant of who is going to succeed in the postseason is who can sack the QB and who can pass the ball. If you look at the stats, the teams that have had postseason success are the ones whose QBs have QB ratings above 90 and can sack the other team's QB the best. Everyone thinks running the ball is the key thing late in the season and in the post season but really it isn't that big of a deal. Play good pass defense and don't turn the ball over.
Right now, Minnesota is 4-1 against teams with winning records and New Orleans is 5-0. Arizona 3-1, Philly is 2-3, San Fran is 3-3, and Dallas is 1-5. In the AFC, Miami is 4-4, New England is 3-5, Cincy is 3-2, Pittsburgh is 3-3, Indy is 6-0, San Diego is 5-2, and Denver is 5-3. Green Bay is 2-3...so it's not like we're the only good team in the NFL that hasn't beaten quality opponents.
Maybe that's how YOU decide who is going to do well in the postseason but that criteria is not supported by facts. The last couple years it seems like the big determinant of who is going to succeed in the postseason is who can sack the QB and who can pass the ball. If you look at the stats, the teams that have had postseason success are the ones whose QBs have QB ratings above 90 and can sack the other team's QB the best. Everyone thinks running the ball is the key thing late in the season and in the post season but really it isn't that big of a deal. Play good pass defense and don't turn the ball over.
Right now, Minnesota is 4-1 against teams with winning records and New Orleans is 5-0. Arizona 3-1, Philly is 2-3, San Fran is 3-3, and Dallas is 1-5. In the AFC, Miami is 4-4, New England is 3-5, Cincy is 3-2, Pittsburgh is 3-3, Indy is 6-0, San Diego is 5-2, and Denver is 5-3. Green Bay is 2-3...so it's not like we're the only good team in the NFL that hasn't beaten quality opponents.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Not to be rude, but this has to be one of the dumbest things ive read this week. And, i've read alot ofHenry'sTimberlake's work this week.
Perhaps you should try reading your own posts to see "dumb"
Silly me, that's why I'm dumb and you're smert. I read your posts and you don't
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Beating good teams is really not always the best measure of playoff success.
I would think, over the course of time that it is a pretty good indicator. You are playing 3 teams in the playoffs... maybe 4, all of which are good to very good. I would think that there are outliers to every sample, but overall, I would think that teams that have beaten good teams in the regular season with regularity do better in the playoffs than teams that do not.
The whole QB Rating / Sack logic makes a lot of sense to me too.. but usually good teams have good quarterbacks and can rush the passer. Not all of course, but just this decade thinking about superbowl champions.... I think normally they fit under both of our definitions (which seem to run hand in hand - most of the time)
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:quote:Originally posted by CUPackFan:
But if they went on a 3-2 stretch and beat the Colts, Saints, *******, Chargers and Eagles, it would be extremely impressed.
I will admit that would be quite impressive to beat 5 teams yet only got 3-2.
Haha, I’m an idiot. Make that read “beat 3 of those teams to go 3-2”.
And Diggr, I would also be intrigued about SOS of Sherman vs TT. I just remember getting to the playoffs with Sherman’s teams knowing that our teams just weren’t that good (specifically our defense), and sure enough we got smoked at home by the ******* and Falcons then lost to the Eagles on the infamous 4th and 26. I have no data to back that up; I just remember having zero confidence in guys like Hawthorne, Carroll, Nickerson, Navies, Jue and Wayne. God those guys were bad.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
I would think, over the course of time that it is a pretty good indicator. You are playing 3 teams in the playoffs... maybe 4, all of which are good to very good. I would think that there are outliers to every sample, but overall, I would think that teams that have beaten good teams in the regular season with regularity do better in the playoffs than teams that do not.
I just showed you the data and it doesn't support that. Again I use the 2007 Giants who were 1-5 against good teams in the regular season vs. the Patriots who were 7-0. By your criteria, there's no possible way the Giants should have had success. The 2008 Titans and Colts had very good records against good teams and they flopped.
quote:The whole QB Rating / Sack logic makes a lot of sense to me too.. but usually good teams have good quarterbacks and can rush the passer. Not all of course, but just this decade thinking about superbowl champions.... I think normally they fit under both of our definitions (which seem to run hand in hand - most of the time)
It's not about just having a good QB, you have to have a good QB rating...that means being efficient with the ball (good completion %), scoring TDs, and not throw INTs. Those are things Aaron Rodgers does VERY well.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Most everyone here does not agree with what you have to say no matter how you say it or how often you say it. Pathetic.
GD, the recent couple superbowls is a pretty small sample size? No?
There have been 88 playoff games since the 2000 season. Of those, teams had the same number of regular season wins in 16 games. Of the 72 games were a team had a edge in regular season wins, the team with the better regular season win total won 47 games, or about 65%. When I say, we need to be able to show that we can beat these teams.... im not quite sure what the regular season corelation to this is, but it seems to me that logically it would have some significance.
Another thing is, these teams that we have not beaten this year will most likely have home field advantage on us. Home teams won 52 of 80 playoff games, or 65%. That is higher than the regular season home team win rate of about 60%.
The win rate of 65% for teams with a better record and the 65% home team win rate suggest that regular season records and the ability to beat these teams that have good records do mean something in the playoffs to me.
There have been 88 playoff games since the 2000 season. Of those, teams had the same number of regular season wins in 16 games. Of the 72 games were a team had a edge in regular season wins, the team with the better regular season win total won 47 games, or about 65%. When I say, we need to be able to show that we can beat these teams.... im not quite sure what the regular season corelation to this is, but it seems to me that logically it would have some significance.
Another thing is, these teams that we have not beaten this year will most likely have home field advantage on us. Home teams won 52 of 80 playoff games, or 65%. That is higher than the regular season home team win rate of about 60%.
The win rate of 65% for teams with a better record and the 65% home team win rate suggest that regular season records and the ability to beat these teams that have good records do mean something in the playoffs to me.
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
[QUOTE]The whole QB Rating / Sack logic makes a lot of sense to me too.. but usually good teams have good quarterbacks and can rush the passer. Not all of course, but just this decade thinking about superbowl champions.... I think normally they fit under both of our definitions (which seem to run hand in hand - most of the time)
It's not about just having a good QB, you have to have a good QB rating...that means being efficient with the ball (good completion %), scoring TDs, and not throw INTs. Those are things Aaron Rodgers does VERY well.
Add in the Packers ++++ in turnover differential, and the Pyscho Defense and it looks like we have a Super Bowl bound team.
I agree, good QBs should have good QB ratings. I dont disagree with you. I agree with your conclusion that good teams have good QBs (with nice QB ratings) and can rush the passer. Im not at all arguing your point. Im just saying that discounting that a team that makes the playoffs without beating anyone that makes the playoffs (it's looking that way right now) it doesn't bode well for what we can do againt these better teams. Logically it makes sense, maybe that's all wrong. It doesn't seem that way to me though.
quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Most everyone here does not agree with what you have to say no matter how you say it or how often you say it. Pathetic.
Nope, but I hope you guys are right. I don't think you are though.
Have you looked at the Packers record and the defense in a whole yet with Bigby in the game? You watched the Packers secondary when he's been out right?
Bigby is doomed. Diggr hates him and McCarthy gave him a game ball last week.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
I think in a prior post or thread.. not sure I defined the top 5 teams in the NFC as NO, MN, PHI, AZ, and GB.
So GB is in the top third of the NFC - but we aren't any good. I don't get it.
The year the Rams went to the SB - and won it - all I heard in the media is that they did not play anyone yet - right up to the time the playoffs started. The truth was the rest of the division was weak. Their non-divisonal games were against against weak teams - the media was right - to a point. What they said on onehand was that they won convincingly, but on the other hand the opposition was weak. They beat 3 very good teams and won the SB beating the only team they played that year that not only defeated them during the season, but was the only team they played that year with a record better than 8-8 - they were the 13-3 Tennesse Titians.
The fact is, it is what you do when you play the game that counts. Not what was done in the past. If you win enough to get to the playoffs, you have a chance. Just ask the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals. Or better yet, just ask Lombardi's last GB team. People said they were old, slow, lost a step or two, and lost to the horrible Steelers that year. In fact, they were 9-4-1. Very few gave them a chance. The first playoff game was against LA Rams who had beaten them during the season.
Digger, by every measure you stated, GB should have lost - no question. However, GB wins 28-7. Then goes on the dump Dallas with Bart Starr's famous QB sneek. Finally, then dumps Oakland for the second straight SB win.
Here is another fact - humans play the game - not predicable robots. So the unexpected often does happen. Otherwise in Randy Moss's first year when MN set a scoring with 561 points, they would have just handed the SB trophy to MN - for sure the media already had. They looked unstoppable - until they needed a game ending FG which Anderson (who had not missed that season) missed - allowing the Falcons to go the the SB that year.
Does this year's GB team have a chance? You bet. History indicates that. Can I predict they will win the SB? Absolutely not. When this year's playoffs & SB are done, there will some things that will have happened that we could not predict. The final fact is - that is why they play the games.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
GD, the recent couple superbowls is a pretty small sample size? No?
There have been 88 playoff games since the 2000 season. Of those, teams had the same number of regular season wins in 16 games. Of the 72 games were a team had a edge in regular season wins, the team with the better regular season win total won 47 games, or about 65%. When I say, we need to be able to show that we can beat these teams.... im not quite sure what the regular season corelation to this is, but it seems to me that logically it would have some significance.
Another thing is, these teams that we have not beaten this year will most likely have home field advantage on us. Home teams won 52 of 80 playoff games, or 65%. That is higher than the regular season home team win rate of about 60%.
The win rate of 65% for teams with a better record and the 65% home team win rate suggest that regular season records and the ability to beat these teams that have good records do mean something in the playoffs to me.
"Well ya see Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members." " In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. “Excessive intake of alcohol, as we all know, kills brain cells, but naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine." "That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
quote:Originally posted by Ghost of Lambeau:
Here is another fact - humans play the game - not predicable robots. So the unexpected often does happen. Otherwise in Randy Moss's first year when MN set a scoring with 561 points, they would have just handed the SB trophy to MN - for sure the media already had. They looked unstoppable - until they needed a game ending FG which Anderson (who had not missed that season) missed - allowing the Falcons to go the the SB that year.
Does this year's GB team have a chance? You bet. History indicates that. Can I predict they will win the SB? Absolutely not. When this year's playoffs & SB are done, there will some things that will have happened that we could not predict. The final fact is - that is why they play the games.
You cant reason with a dick head. So WHY do some of you bother. Useless exercise in futility. The dudes a dick head, understand. He gets his jollies riling up some folks here, disposing his cum filled napkins after every multiple post exchange.
I can and do appreciate a contrarian point of view when presented coherently. But C'mon this diggr trash is only stirring up the pot to amuse his self-gratification efforts.
Recently, the pip squeek is turning into icon2. I say ignore the burnt toast that he is.
And PLEASE diggr dirt eater, dont send me any messages that you never came down on me and your so shocked by my responce. You are what you are. A delusional self-preocuppied TT hater. Get over it. Your wrong, always was.
Actually, instead of just mousing down over diggr dirts posts and not reading them, ignore seems best to me at this point.
I can and do appreciate a contrarian point of view when presented coherently. But C'mon this diggr trash is only stirring up the pot to amuse his self-gratification efforts.
Recently, the pip squeek is turning into icon2. I say ignore the burnt toast that he is.
And PLEASE diggr dirt eater, dont send me any messages that you never came down on me and your so shocked by my responce. You are what you are. A delusional self-preocuppied TT hater. Get over it. Your wrong, always was.
Actually, instead of just mousing down over diggr dirts posts and not reading them, ignore seems best to me at this point.
"Danny....sometimes when people post stupid things, something is left behind - kind of like burnt toast..."
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
If you cant differentiate a team being good from happening to beat a team during one specific week... i cant help you.
I really, really, really, don't need any help from you.
quote:Originally posted by DurangoDoug:
You cant reason with a dick head. So WHY do some of you bother. Useless exercise in futility. The dudes a dick head, understand. He gets his jollies riling up some folks here, disposing his cum filled napkins after every multiple post exchange.
I can and do appreciate a contrarian point of view when presented coherently. But C'mon this diggr trash is only stirring up the pot to amuse his self-gratification efforts.
Recently, the pip squeek is turning into icon2. I say ignore the burnt toast that he is.
And PLEASE diggr dirt eater, dont send me any messages that you never came down on me and your so shocked by my responce. You are what you are. A delusional self-preocuppied TT hater. Get over it. Your wrong, always was.
Actually, instead of just mousing down over diggr dirts posts and not reading them, ignore seems best to me at this point.
What in the hell did I do to you? I think you may be wound a little to tightly there. Settle down a little. I have my opinion. I understand it isnt popular, but in the end I think I'm right about this. Do I think any of you are any less of human beings for thinking different? No, i probably would like most all of you in real life, or at least enough to be civil and laugh with.
Not me. I don't laugh in real life. Only here.
quote:but in the end I think I'm right about this.
The stupid in this thread drops exponentially with Diggy on ignore. 
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Yuck:
The stupid in this thread drops exponentially with Diggy on ignore.
awesome! that means i dont have to respond to you anymore :P woot.