We DON'T want the #1 seed?

RoyalWulffMember

Okay, this kind of amazed me. This guy says in Rodgers' 4 games in frigid conditions, he has only a 61% completion rate, 6 TD's, 3 INT's, and fumbles. He says this team is made for carpet in January, not grass. http://allgbp.com/2014/12/13/c...ly-want-a-no-1-seed/ How do you guys feel about this? Yet again I say it bothers me. The old "frozen tundra" used to be a huge HFA for the playoffs. Teams from warmer climes hated the thought of freezing their dingleberries off. If our guys live in Green Bay (even if only from August through January, if not 12 months a year,) I think the coaching staff should instill in them a mentality that this is "our house" and a distinct HFA. After all, are we supposed to hope that Seattle (not too farfetched, imho) or Arizona (also not farfetched) get #1 and we get #2? To have to potentionally play the NFC championship game at Seattle with their 12th man would be a huge disadvantage. Thoughts? I know we're faster indoors, but I think it's highly foolish to not develop a mentality that the "frozen tundra" gives us a huge HFA.

12/13/149:59 PM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

ChilliJonI hate the Vikings!

Green Bay gets their post season indoor game on carpet if they get the 1 seed.

That's not a good article. Using 2013 Greg Jennings comments as a basis of reasoning.

12/13/1410:26 PM

antoooMember

I do.

12/13/1410:53 PM

ChilliJonI hate the Vikings!

Green Bay is 7-0 at home winning by an average of 21 points averaging 41 points per game. Yes, the number 1 seed would be a good thing. Especially given who would have to come to GB.

12/13/1411:01 PM

GoallineLarge Antenna

Lacy and Linsley.

12/13/1411:16 PM

saguaroMember

I like Lambeau Field better than Seattle. It is odd that the Packers have been built to play like a warm turf team. Hard nosed defense and a grind it out running game are not the strengths of this team. And the cold minimizes the advantage of the passing game. Still, the shock value of frozen tundra helps.

12/13/1411:28 PM

tsr86freeMember

2 things, one of which is crowd noise. AR's ability to audible is absolute at GB, and is at its' least effective at the noisiest stadiums, such as Kansas City and Seattle. Secondly, wind is a problem for this team more than cold. AR has said this is true- when the deep pass is taken away from this team, of course it is a big deal. Home yes for the crowd noise factor, maybe/maybe not for wind, which could also be prevalent in Seattle- as would crowd noise for sure. You want the #1 seed, you really do. As Chili said, there will be an indoor game at the end. That's good enough for me.

12/13/1411:49 PM

Music CityMember

Last year, a battered and overmatched Packer team took SF to the brink. SF was a far superior team, and the cold neutralized their advantage. Just imagine what they'll be able to do with their horses on defense on the field..

12/14/1412:03 AM

4 FavreMember

Home-field advantage is a real, documented effect. That beats a half-assed argument based on a small sample size. There's no reason to overthink this one.

12/14/1412:38 AM

michiganjoeMember

Flawed assumptions based on really nothing. Looks to me like he's just attempting to be conversational and instead just appears ridiculous. There's absolutely nothing to support his contention that the cold has a more negative impact on the Packers than it does the opposition.

12/14/141:41 AM

YooperPackfanMember

Lets concentrate on Buffalo before we worry about such things

12/14/145:54 AM

FLPACKERMember

Who in their right mind would think that we would rather play at Seattle, rather than face them at home?

12/14/146:00 AM

TschmackMember

In 2007 and 2011 the Packers didn't have a legit running game like they do now with Lacy and Starks. As pointed out by others they were also beat up last year when they played SF at home.

Not making excuses but these factors matter more than the weather conditions.

I do think there's something to be said for this team playing well indoors or on a fast track but the New England game proved otherwise.

12/14/146:27 AM

TdogProspective Member

to echo Goalline and Tschmack, that dynamic disappeared with the arrival of Lacy and now Linsley. any writer that doesn't understand that is comical at best. if GBP offense wants to smashmouth they are now fully capable, especially at home.

12/14/149:53 AM

Timmy!TIMMAAAAYYY!!

I find it somewhat humorous when people say a team is "built" for cold/warm/indoor conditions. Players aren't drafted because they play better in one condition than they do another.

It's only natural to think that most players are going to be their best in perfect conditions, and dome teams have an advantage because of that. But, as our neighbors to the West and East have demonstrated for years and years, playing in a dome guarantees only the conditions, NOT the quality of the team.

It's also natural to think that home teams should have the advantages of not having to travel and staying on their regular schedules, knowing their field conditions better, and be acclimated to playing in weather typical in their area.

These are the reasons why I think HFA should be best, and moreso for the Packers than anybody else. I like to think other things like home crowd noise is an advantage as well, as it should be, but player preparation is the biggest factor.

Playing in brutally cold conditions was an advantage for the Pack at one time, but the last guy I can think of in recent history that broke down because of the cold was TOG. I'm sure there has to be some initial shock to warm-weather or dome teams, but in the end, they manage to play in it. Sometimes well. Sometimes too well.

12/14/1410:09 AM