NFC playoff picture

The AZ defense is going to have to score. Multiple times

I think you could get decent odds in Vegas that AZ's defense outscores AZ's offense. That's absolutely in play. Seattle's offense is a special kind of ****ty. 

I once met Spergon Wynn's mother at a sports bar in Houston.  She seemed nice.  So just remember when you post things about Ryan Lindley that he probably has a mother too.  #words hurt

That's true.

 

It's also true that Ryan Lindley's mom has a better chance of scoring during the Seattle game this week than he does.

Let's ask Beef what he thinks of Ryan Lindley's mom first....

I think you could get decent odds in Vegas that AZ's defense outscores AZ's offense. That's absolutely in play. Seattle's offense is a special kind of ****ty

 

 

Seattle is ranked 11th in the league in scoring and 11th in the league in yards gained, plus they've turned the ball over less than Green Bay.  Thats not a special kind of ****ty.

 

Seattle is a very solid team and much more complete than the Packers.  Their offense may not be as explosive as Green Bay, but what they do they do well, they're smart and they take care of the football.  Seattle's offense is much better than Green Bays defense from a ranking, statistical comparison.

Seattle has turned it over 12 times to GB's 10. GB leads the NFL if TO differential at a plus 15 and have almost doubled up Seattle who's sitting at plus 8 for the year. So there's that.

 

Seattle leads the NFL in rushing yards / game at almost 170 per. Most of that is a combo of Wilson / Lynch. Some of that was also Harvin when he was around.

 

Only the Jet's have fewer yards per game through the air than Seattle.

 

I get the 11th ranking and all. But that is a special kind of ****ty offense.  

Can't play the Bears every week...

How could Philly get in and the Packers not if they have the same record?

I thought h2h win would give us the advantage?

So they get their yards on the ground and not the air, who cares.  What matters is is that they get the yards.

 

11th ranked in both scoring and yardage is a decent offense no matter how they get their yards.  It may be boring to watch, but its effective as he**

 

Green Bay may lead in TO differential, but Seattle does not turn the ball over.  I thought Seattle only had 3 fumbles, but apparently they have 6.  

Timmy, it has to do with the rules if multiple teams tie. Head to head is not the 1st tie breaker then. 

 

The 90's Packers never beat Dallas on their way to the SB.  Guess they weren't the best.  Damn, that sucks.

They would have though. They crushed the cowboys in 1997. Dorsey rushed for 190. Irvin said, "I ain't been beat that bad since my daddy."

Maybe he has same daddy as Adrian Peterson?

So GB's turnover difference is nearly double that of Seattle's (+15 vs. +8), but Seattle takes care of the ball better? How does that work?

GB's D is allowing fewer points than Seattle's O is scoring, they have almost as many INTs as Seattle does passing TDs (17 INTS to 18 TDs) and they're allowing a lower QBR than Seattles vaunted D...oh and they have more INTs and Sacks than Seattle's D. Rodgers has thrown for almost double the amount of TDs that Wilson has (35 to 18) and GB has almost as many rushing TDs as Seattle (12 to 16) despite fewer attempts per game. So GBs passing game is tops in the league in terms of QBR, they are 7th in yards per carry running the ball, they are scoring the 2nd most points per game in the NFL and they are turning the ball over fewer times than any team in the league. Meanwhile GBs D has more sacks, forced turnovers, and they're allowing a lower QBR and completion % than Seattle's D. And you're trying to tell me Seattle is more well rounded than GB? Again, how does that work?

You're right about one thing, who cares how they get the yards! BECAUSE TOTAL YARDS IS A USELESS STATISTIC!

Grave Digger, you just need to accept the fact the Seahawks are the defending Super Bowl champs & the best team in the NFL. That's the only "stat" you need to know.

Yards isn't a meaningless stat. That's ridiculous. Especially if you look at net yards which is the more appropriate comparison to turnover differential, all in all it's a pretty decent list with good teams towards the top and crap teams towards the bottom:

 

TEAM	YDS gained	YDS allowed	Net
Denver	5610	4331	1279
Seattle	5062	3813	1249
Indianapolis	5899	4914	985
Pittsburgh	5949	4990	959
Detroit	4772	4204	568
New Orleans	5916	5461	455
New England	5357	4931	426
Baltimore	5208	4819	389
Washington	5020	4744	276
Green Bay	5370	5120	250
Dallas	5288	5039	249
Philadelphia	5427	5199	228
Buffalo	4507	4388	119
San Francisco	4397	4300	97
Miami	4721	4643	78
San Diego	4658	4715	-57
Carolina	4834	4921	-87
Kansas City	4522	4645	-123
Cincinnati	4878	5018	-140
NY Jets	4425	4617	-192
Houston	4842	5127	-285
Cleveland	4706	5034	-328
NY Giants	4856	5199	-343
St. Louis	4403	4758	-355
Atlanta	5360	5738	-378
Minnesota	4380	4758	-378
Arizona	4503	4900	-397
Chicago	4735	5354	-619
Tampa Bay	4283	5132	-849
Oakland	3969	4949	-980
Tennessee	4310	5302	-992
Jacksonville	4113	5217	-1104

 

Sure it's prone to garbage yards in blowouts and the like, but there are plenty of meaningless takeaways in blowouts as well as one team takes more risks to try to get back into a game they're very likely to lose either way. And fumble recoveries are pretty much random. You can't really expect to take any one stat and decide you have a complete picture.

 

As for Seattle vs Green Bay... what can you really say? Seattle's been a little better this year. They won head to head. Same record overall right now, and both their strength of schedule and strength of victory are higher.

 

The argument that GB is more well-rounded than Seattle is completely ridiculous. We have possibly the best offense in the game paired with a middle of the road defense whereas Seattle is pretty good on offense and pretty good on defense. They're pretty much the definition of well-rounded.  If you think their offense is bad, you're nuts. Best running game paired with an efficient passing game. It's a good combo.

Seattle's defense is much more formidable since the LBer Wagner came back. I just don't see anyone going up there and winning in the playoffs.  

Washington is ahead of Green Bay in net yards.

 

And Dallas and Arizona, too.

 

Case closed.

I'm not a big fan of yards, but Dallas is one behind Green Bay in net yeard and they're having a very good year offensively. DeMarco Murray is 727 yards better than Eddie Lacy at this point, which is greater than the 649 between Rodgers and Romo.

what point are you trying to make?

quote:

Maybe he has same daddy as Adrian Peterson?

They're both children of Antonio Cromartie?

Don't bet against the worst 11-3 team in NFL history.

I don't think you all are giving GB enough credit for the reasons I already pointed out. I didn't say GB had a better D, but certainly they're doing some things better than Seattle. Ultimately they're giving up fewer points, which is the only stat that truly matters. Yards given up means nothing, it is a useless statistic. Tell me which team has ever won a game by beating their opponent in net yards? You can allow 550 yards and only gain 300 and if the scoreboard says you won the game 21-14 then that yardage fluff means nothing. Seattle is playing better football right now, but GB is not much worse than them.

Net yards, like some of the other stats being discussed, alone does not reflect the success or failure of a team. For Green Bay their +15 in TO differential certainly factors into their offensive production whereas they have many more short drives.

 

Don't have the time right now, but look at Net Yards, Turnover differential, Net points, and QB rating differential as a good gauge for which playoff bound teams have the best chance at success. ARI and DET are two teams that come to mind as playoff bound teams who will likely be 1 and done, maybe CIN too.

 

 

MM says "stats are for losers"!!!!!

The more appropriate term is "Loser stats are for losers".

 

Examples of loser stats

Judging an offense or defense on Net Yards.

Judging an offense or defense on Time of Possession.  

Judging my sexual prowess by the number of women I've had.  

Red Dawn....disagree about Cardinals being worst 11-3 team.in history....however.....

The Lions are the worst 10-4 team in league history

How did she judge you?

Is there really a debate about which stats are meaningful?  Jesus ****...

BFI is the most meaningful.

Originally posted by Grave Digger

 

So GB's turnover difference is nearly double that of Seattle's (+15 vs. +8), but Seattle takes care of the ball better? How does that work?

 

I NEVER said that, I said they take care of the ball, which they do, not take care of the ball better.  I acknowledged my mistake in my second post about having fewer turnovers than Green Bay. 

 

You can try an tap dance all you want in trying to convince yourself that Green Bay will just roll into Seattle and beat the Seahawks, no problem.  But the facts remain...

 

Seattle has an amazing defense with a solid yet unspectacular offense, while Green bay has an amazing offense with a not particularly good defense.  Not horrible, not 2011 bad, but not all that good either.

 

Also, Green Bay has gone on the road three times against very solid defenses this year, and has been shut down in all three games. (And one could also make the case that Green Bay has looked exceptionally beatable in every road game this year.)  And the one game against a good defense where the Packers defense also got stomped, just happened to be Seattle.

 

How things are playing out look pretty bad for the Packers.  The season could have easily been lost on the turf in Buffalo, because I think Green Bay has/had a very good shot at beating all comers in Lambeau, even Seattle.  On the road, not so much.

They have 4 losses, winning any 1 of those would put them in the drivers seat for HFA. Putting the season on the BUF game is myopic.

 

 

How can you be so opaque?

 

Way to completely miss the point.

So what is your point? Net yards are interesting but ultimately a non-determinative stat. Washington is near top of net yards yet is 3-11. Arizona is in bottom third yet is 11-3.

 

GD gets it:

Originally Posted by Grave Digger:

Tell me which team has ever won a game by beating their opponent in net yards? You can allow 550 yards and only gain 300 and if the scoreboard says you won the game 21-14 then that yardage fluff means nothing.

Everything's a non-determinative stat. So is turnover differential. So is point differential.

 

Who cares that some teams aren't that good and yet have decent net yards? Of course there will be outliers. What other single stat gives a better list? The give/take stats say That Cleveland is better than Denver, and that Philly is one of the worst teams in the league.

 

You can say wins and losses are all that matters, but that's silly and reductive. To use your Arizona example, nobody thinks they're the best team in the league despite having the best record. So not even that is an ironclad stat.

 

 

Stats are history and have nothing to do with the future.

Sure... statistical history has no predictive value at all. The dum is strong in this thread.

Boris, funny you mentioned the Lions. I was going to put "this Card team has the heart of a lion" in my post but figured it would open up a big can of worms around here. Go Big Red!

What offensive magic are the Cards rolling out on Sunday ?

All of Packer Nation is on your side