Predictions for this season?

[Conso]

I'll take 11-5 since nobody said it yet above.... They will be good on Rodgers' arm, a better running game, and an upgraded TE rotation. However, I think that our defense will struggle in the first half of the season and face it's annual crush of injuries. I see us sniffing the title game but likely just losing in the divisional round. Same old, same old but I'll take that over 5-11 any day.

Yea I’m feelin a 11-5 or 12-4 season IF AR stays healthy. Finally got rid of TT and Dom, Pettine has proven himself, Wilkerson in a “prove it” season with a DC he likes, huge receiving threats at TE now (I think both could have good years with AR throwing to them especially since Lewis wants the ball in addition to blocking for the run game) which might also open up run game some more, Plus if AR has a repeat of last time he’ll have an MVP season. Of course all this optimism could be a joke if the injury train comes chugging through again but I could see a very strong offensive ranking which in itself can lead to playoffs. With possibility of good defensive ranking, get both and maybe a SB win? It’s optimistic sure but I can see it happening this year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Edited after ./fail ... I still think their defense is overrated

The Vikings definitely feature one of the best defenses in the league. The Eagles putting up a ton of points in the NFCCG doesn't change that at all.

I agree with this- their two stars are aging and after they lost their OC their offense took a big step back.

I'm not sure what you're talking about as Matt Ryan is 1 1/2 years younger than Rodgers and the only players older than him on the Falcons roster are the backup quarterback and kicker.

Still, NE aside, I would say the NFC has had more dominant teams than the AFC (more true contenders). The Packers have been one of the best teams, but every year it seems like there is at least one NFC team that's better than them that they can't get past. Last year there were several.

Your personal impression doesn't change the fact that the Patriots have been dominant against NFC teams as well as the AFC overall having a better record against out of conference opponents though.

The lack of a killer mentality has been evident in recent years. They get a lead and MM goes into “play not to lose” mode, which caused the loss in the NFCC game against the Hags. If you watch the Pats, they are always bringing the heat, no lead is good enough - and in the NFL, that’s true.

I understand the 2014 NFCCG being used as an example for McCarthy taking the foot off the gas but a lot of unpredictable things happened in that game for the Packers to end up losing. Overall the team is 68-3 under MM in which they had at least a 16 point lead at some point during the game.

The Patriots have lost the same number of games in such a scenario since 2006 as well.

Not buying it. Let's take the win/loss record of the two conferences first. Now, I only went back to 2011 because it was way to time consuming.

AFC 867 907  .488
NFC 904 870  .509

It breaks down to the NFC winning about half a game more per team per season.

Those numbers are slighty off as NFC teams have combined for a 911-873-8 (.508) record of the past seven seasons with the AFC posting a 876-914-2 (.489) record since 2011.

One might argue the difference being that the NFC didn't feature a team struggling like the Browns did over that period.

 

[rmontro]

Your personal impression doesn't change the fact that the Patriots have been dominant against NFC teams as well as the AFC overall having a better record against out of conference opponents though.

I never said the Patriots weren't a dominant team, obviously they are. That doesn't mean that they didn't benefit from playing in the AFC though - especially considering they are in a weak division. Conference records have no relevance if there is not another dominant team in their way. Some might point to Pittsburgh last year but they weren't exactly the picture of consistency.

Let's put it this way: Do you think the Patriots would have as many Super Bowl appearances if they played in the NFC?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I never said the Patriots weren't a dominant team, obviously they are. That doesn't mean that they didn't benefit from playing in the AFC though - especially considering they are in a weak division. Conference records have no relevance if there is not another dominant team in their way. Some might point to Pittsburgh last year but they weren't exactly the picture of consistency.

Let's put it this way: Do you think the Patriots would have as many Super Bowl appearances if they played in the NFC?

I believe the Patriots would have been equally successful if they played in the NFC.

BTW the NFC hasn't even featured a single dominant team over the past 10 years. As a side note, the rest of the AFC East teams have posted a combined record 343-425 since realignment in 2002 with the Bears, Lions and Vikings going 354-413-1 over the same period.

 

[Caya]

The thing is that the Patriots have Bill. They have the best coach of the modern era, if not if all time. We have a coach who’s been riding the best arm and legs of a QB for years with little post season success. No coach is on the level with Bill Belichick right now. The front office is the best as well. The Patriots make shrewd deals, they hire the right people, they rarely overpay, etc. They do things the right way. It all starts at the top. The Packers should take notes and try to emulate.

 

[rmontro]

I believe the Patriots would have been equally successful if they played in the NFC.

Wow, that's a big statement. Fair enough, but I can't agree with it. I believe they would have been VERY successful certainly. Obviously Caya is correct when he says they have the best coach in the game, you can't dispute that. But equally successful? I can't quite buy that. For example, if the Giants were to still beat them twice, that's two less Super Bowls that they even GET to. Add in the Eagles and that's three.

I'd be interested to see how the Packers would fare against Belichick's Pats in a playoff game. It's kind of amazing that they haven't met.

And while the NFC hasn't had a SINGLE dominant team, they HAVE had a series of dominant teams.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Wow, that's a big statement. Fair enough, but I can't agree with it. I believe they would have been VERY successful certainly. But equally successful? I can't quite buy that. For example, if the Giants were to still beat them twice, that's two less Super Bowls that they even GET to. Add in the Eagles and that's three.

And while the NFC hasn't had a SINGLE dominant team, they HAVE had a series of dominant teams.

On the other hand the Patriots lost three times to the eventual Super Bowl champion during the AFC playoffs. They could possibly have made it to the big game out of the NFC.

In addition you have to realize that they wouldn't have faced the Giants or Eagles at a neutral site, a fact that might have changed the outcome of the game.

The NFC has definitely featured some great teams over the past few years but definitely not a dominant one. The 2013-14 Seahawks are the only one to have won the conference in back-to-back years since the Packers did it in 1996 and '97.

 

[gbgary]

As I've mentioned repeatedly that's a lame argument to make as the Patriots are 51-13 (.797) against NFC opponents since the realignment in 2002.

As a side note the Packers are only 35-29 (.547) vs. those terrible AFC teams over the same period.

i wasn't talking about afc vs nfc or any of that intraconference stuff . against the others in their own conference the Pats are dominant. thus their cake walk. there's more parity in the nfc.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Would you say that Aaron Rodgers is just as talented as Tom Brady? So why have the Patriots won two of the last 4 Superbowls, a team that also supposedly doesn't have a lot of talent?

A winning mentality. An ability to FINISH. This team doesn't have that.

I agree with ya there King. In defense of WIMM, I would say the Pats have had better personnel, but not enough alone to justify 8 years since a SB w/ Rodgers at the helm.
The Pats have BB (love him or hate him, he gets the piece in place, is quick to adjust, and always keeps pushing, always applying pressure to an opponent’s throat, regardless of the sized of the lead).
MM’s not built that way. The Packers will start fast, build up a 3-possession lead, and then go into “play not to lose mode”. It cost them a trip to the SB in the loss to the Hags.
Maybe with the aggressive Pettine in the room, things change. I think Murphy is already thinking about whether MM has worn out his welcome - so IMHO - nothing short of a SB appearance will keep MM in GB next year.

 

[Heyjoe4]

There have been so many pundits thinking that Atl is going to come into GB in Dec and beat us. While it is a possibility, the Falcons have consistently shown that they struggle on the road and also on a grass field. Their speed is drastically cut because of the field and the conditions.

I could see us reach 13-3, but am assuming 11-5 season this year and taking back the NFC North crown. I will say though if our defense approaches top 10 overall... we could easily be celebrating a championship.

On a side note, the NFC South is so strange with NO, ATL, and Carolina being able to take the division.... 2 years ago New Orleans were 7-9 and Sean Payton almost lost his job while last year they went 11-5 and they are considered a super bowl front runner. I see them being 8-8 or 9-7 with losses at @ATL, @Minn, Phi, @Dal, @TB, @Car, and LAR with Pitt and/or @NYG giving them another loss or two. Last year, the NYG were considered the team that was going to dethrone the Cowboys... and then they got hit by the injury bug. I don't see the Saints making the playoffs this year.

Saints not making playoffs? Hmm, maybe but they’d need a few key injuries. The had one of the best drafts ever last year and have a lot of weapons. But I’ll have faith that they go 9-7 or 8-8. Gives the Packers a higher round 1 pick!

 

[rmontro]

The NFC has definitely featured some great teams over the past few years but definitely not a dominant one. The 2013-14 Seahawks are the only one to have won the conference in back-to-back years since the Packers did it in 1996 and '97.

Packers might well have gone to three straight Super Bowls if it weren't for the damn Cowboys. Anyway, the '85 Bears are considered by most to be the greatest team of all time, and they only ever made it to one Super Bowl. So just because a team only peaks for a season or two doesn't mean they aren't a strong team. Especially in this salary cap era, good teams can be dismantled quickly.

Anyway, clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree. But my point is that IMO the playoff road in the NFC has been a more difficult one than in the AFC. So either you disagree with that statement, or you believe the Patriots are so good that it doesn't matter. Just for clarity's sake, which is it?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

against the others in their own conference the Pats are dominant. thus their cake walk. there's more parity in the nfc.

The Patriots have been even more dominant against NFC opponents. There wouldn't have been the same parity in the NFC if New England played in it over the past 17 seasons.

In defense of WIMM, I would say the Pats have had better personnel, but not enough alone to justify 8 years since a SB w/ Rodgers at the helm.
The Pats have BB (love him or hate him, he gets the piece in place, is quick to adjust, and always keeps pushing, always applying pressure to an opponent’s throat, regardless of the sized of the lead).
MM’s not built that way. The Packers will start fast, build up a 3-possession lead, and then go into “play not to lose mode”. It cost them a trip to the SB in the loss to the Hags.

Once again, the Packers have an impressive record in games in which they held at least a two score lead but unfortunately it seems everyone solely remembers what happened during the 2014 NFCCG.

While Belichick definitely deserves to be considered one of the greatest coaches of all time a lot of fans tend to forget that he made his share of mistakes during the playoffs as well. Take a look at the 2015 AFCCG at Denver for example in which BB decided to go on fourth down in field goal range not once but twice within the last six minutes, failing on both attempts in a game the Patriots ended up losing by two points.

Anyway, clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree. But my point is that IMO the playoff road in the NFC has been a more difficult one than in the AFC. So either you disagree with that statement, or you believe the Patriots are so good that it doesn't matter. Just for clarity's sake, which is it?

While the Patriots having been that dominant might indicate it to be true in my opinion the road to the Super Bowl hasn't been any tougher in the NFC. All other AFC teams aside of New England that have reached the Super Bowl being 5-4 in the championship game since 2001 should work as evidence for it.