SMH! Superbowl Bound?? I don't think so

[adambr2]

Totally personal choice, no problem with you doing that.

It's hard for me to even call it a choice. I'm not sure I could force myself to care less.

The way of the diehard. The ups are more rewarding, the downs are more painful. Unfortunately 31 teams aren't going to be happy at the end of the season so there's always more downs.

 

[Half Empty]

Wow, that sums it up as well as I've seen it, and quickly.

 

[adambr2]

I'm a Packer fan whether they are 16-o or 0-16, it's just the way I am wired.

I am getting concerned about your excessive coffee intake. I hope you are at least mixing in some decaf.

 

[PackerDNA]

Look , I love football and my Packers. I look forward to every game, every play, every season.Love talking the game and the NFL at the bar with my buddies.
Here's the thing for me. When the games done, I'm over it. Even the Seattle game; as a fan, a real punch in the gut.But I was on the phone to roundup the fellas for a meet at the pub 10 minutes after it ended.
It's entertainment for me, not real life. I've heard of people who get so depressed they don't talk to their families for days, their work suffers, and so on.
I'm as big a fan as any. But I keep it in perspective, and in it's proper place.
As an aside to some points here, it gets tiresome with people who are rah rah sis boom bah, and scold anyone who points out flaws, poor performance and such as not being fans, Debbie downers and all the rest of it. Equally as bad are the doom and gloomers who pronounce the team dead in the water and having no chance every time a bad play or bad game occurs. Too much of the pendulum taking crazy, wide swings when the truth is in the middle. It's a fan site, we're all Packer fans here. Lets enjoy it and each other.
Too much of threads and posts getting hijacked by the latest round of the pollyannas vs the doomsayers results in a site dying.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Here's the thing for me. When the games done, I'm over it. Even the Seattle game; as a fan, a real punch in the gut.But I was on the phone to roundup the fellas for a meet at the pub 10 minutes after it ended.
It's entertainment for me, not real life. I've heard of people who get so depressed they don't talk to their families for days, their work suffers, and so on.

Mostly I feel the same way about it but I have to admit it took me a week to get over the Seahawks game.

 

[Packerlover]

"Those who ignore history..."

Yes of course but it's important to learn from past mistakes and apply them to the present. MM and Co. have demonstrated this time and again. I have faith in our coaching staff and players to pick themselves up, dust off the agony of defeat and move forward..

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

You know the crazy thing is people continue to crown the most dominant regular season champs superbowl champs, yet here's an interesting fact:

Last team to go undefeated in the regular season and win a superbowl remains - The 1972 Dolphins

since then only one team has gone undefeated in the regular season, the 2007 Patriots, made it to the superbowl did not win it.

Last team to go 15-1 in the regular season and win a superbowl remains - The 1985 Chicago Bears

since then 3 teams have done that in the regular season
1998 Minnesota Vikings
2004 Pittsburgh Steelers
2011 Green Bay Packers

None of them made it to the Superbowl

Last team to go 14-2 in the regular season and win a superbowl remains - The 2004 New England Patriots

Since then 4 teams have finished with that record in the regular season
2005 Indianapolis Colts - Did not make the superbowl
2006 San Diego Chargers - Did not make the superbowl
2009 Indianapolis Colts - Made it and lost
2010 New England Patriots - Did not make the superbowl

Matter of fact, over the last 25 years, there's been 13 teams that finished 14-2, out of those teams, only 7 have made the superbowl. out of the 7, only 4 teams have won it.

13-3 teams, I'm not going to count up the percentages per se but there's been

2013 Seahawks
2009 Saints
1999 St Louis Rams
1996 Green Bay Packers
1994 San Francisco 49ers
1992 Dallas Cowboys
1990 New York Giants

Basically if you add that to the

1991 Washington Redskins
1998 Denver Broncos
2003 New England Patriots
2004 New England Patriots

That's less than half the time over a 25-year span that a team with a record of 13-3 or better has won the superbowl

All that to say, let's not just assume that just because our beloved Packers don't end the season with an eye-catching record that they are out of Superbowl contention.

 

[PackerDNA]

PackerfaninCarolina, I couldn't agree with you more.
As an aside, I think , with all due respect to them and their accomplishment, that there should be an asterik or something next to the Dolphins 17-0. When the Pats lost the Super Bowl, they were 18-0. So if they finally did take away 2 pre season games and make them regular season games, and someone went 20-0 and lost the SB....
well, at some point when does the comparison become unfair and out of whack?
If me and Micheal Jordan went to the nearest gym/basketball court and had a 3 point shooting contest; MJ goes 2 for 2. I make 3...but it took me 50 shots to do it. Am I a better 3 point shooter than Micheal Jordan?

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

PackerfaninCarolina, I couldn't agree with you more.
As an aside, I think , with all due respect to them and their accomplishment, that there should be an asterik or something next to the Dolphins 17-0. When the Pats lost the Super Bowl, they were 18-0. So if they finally did take away 2 pre season games and make them regular season games, and someone went 20-0 and lost the SB....
well, at some point when does the comparison become unfair and out of whack?
If me and Micheal Jordan went to the nearest gym/basketball court and had a 3 point shooting contest; MJ goes 2 for 2. I make 3...but it took me 50 shots to do it. Am I a better 3 point shooter than Micheal Jordan?

This has been discussed ad nauseum around NFL debates, but the point I made is you can see just how rare accomplishments that I've listed are and just how few the elite record teams actually do win the superbowl

 

[PackerDNA]

Got that. Me personally, I've never seen or heard it discussed or mentioned. On TV, online, at all.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This has been discussed ad nauseum around NFL debates, but the point I made is you can see just how rare accomplishments that I've listed are and just how few the elite record teams actually do win the superbowl

To be fair, while teams don't need to win 13+ games to win the Super Bowl teams getting a first-round bye have the best chance to win it all.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

To be fair, while teams don't need to win 13+ games to win the Super Bowl teams getting a first-round bye have the best chance to win it all.

Which brings up my other point that I think the home field advantage factor for the playoffs has been largely debunked over the years. It's because of Seattle's 12th man narrative that the media propagated, largely because it may have been measured to be the loudest, making it a good story, but I could point to countless teams over the years who've had the home field advantage and first round byes that did not get there.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Which brings up my other point that I think the home field advantage factor for the playoffs has been largely debunked over the years. It's because of Seattle's 12th man narrative that the media propagated, largely because it may have been measured to be the loudest, making it a good story, but I could point to countless teams over the years who've had the home field advantage and first round byes that did not get there.

Well, 17 of the 26 (65.4%) Super Bowl champions under the current playoff format had a bye week in the first round.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Well, 17 of the 26 (65.4%) Super Bowl champions under the current playoff format had a bye week in the first round.

Yeah, fair enough

 

[DaveRoller]

Last 4 #1 seeds (2013& 2014) have been the last 4 Super Bowl contestants.

If the Pack had beaten Buff. and had HFA last season, we might be talking about going for back to back Lombardi's at this point.

Pretty well documented how much better the Pack has been of late at home as opposed to the road.

 

[Half Empty]

PackerfaninCarolina, I couldn't agree with you more.
As an aside, I think , with all due respect to them and their accomplishment, that there should be an asterik or something next to the Dolphins 17-0. When the Pats lost the Super Bowl, they were 18-0. So if they finally did take away 2 pre season games and make them regular season games, and someone went 20-0 and lost the SB....
well, at some point when does the comparison become unfair and out of whack?
If me and Micheal Jordan went to the nearest gym/basketball court and had a 3 point shooting contest; MJ goes 2 for 2. I make 3...but it took me 50 shots to do it. Am I a better 3 point shooter than Micheal Jordan?

Don't see the out-of-whackness at all. The Miami claim to fame isn't going 17-0, it's being undefeated, winning 100% of their games (granted, they only won 17, the maximum available to them). A team winning 18 (or 20) and losing the SB doesn't finish undefeated, doesn't win 100%. Likewise, you're not a better shooter than MJ because he made 100%.

 

[Half Empty]

Last 4 #1 seeds (2013& 2014) have been the last 4 Super Bowl contestants.

If the Pack had beaten Buff. and had HFA last season, we might be talking about going for back to back Lombardi's at this point.

Pretty well documented how much better the Pack has been of late at home as opposed to the road.

Not necessarily when it counts. Using the last four years that you reference, they're .500 in the playoffs at home. And, unless what you mean is that wouldn't have been close against the Seahawks at Lambeau, it's certainly open to question whether the debacle at the end would or wouldn't still have occurred.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not necessarily when it counts. Using the last four years that you reference, they're .500 in the playoffs at home. And, unless what you mean is that wouldn't have been close against the Seahawks at Lambeau, it's certainly open to question whether the debacle at the end would or wouldn't still have occurred.

Over the same period the Packers are 0-2 on the road in the playoffs. Taking a look at the regular season there's absolutely no doubt the team is much better at home (29-1 with Rodgers playing the entire game) compared to on the road (20-12).

 

[DaveRoller]

Not necessarily when it counts. Using the last four years that you reference, they're .500 in the playoffs at home. And, unless what you mean is that wouldn't have been close against the Seahawks at Lambeau, it's certainly open to question whether the debacle at the end would or wouldn't still have occurred.

Actually, I used referenced the past 2 seasons, when #1 seeds Seahawks & Broncos (2013) and Seahawks & Patriots (2014) met in the Super Bowl.

I fully believe that had last season's NFC Championship game been played at Lambeau and not in Seattle it would have been worth 3-6 points to the Pack. Considering the game ended in a tie in regulation, I'd say home field played a role in the outcome.

Finally, while the Pack may only be .500 in the playoffs at home the past four seasons (the stat/time period you cite), that certainly is better than their .000 (0-2) record on the road in the playofffs during that same time span.

 

[Half Empty]

My bad, I saw the '4' a couple of times and didn't read carefully. However, the .500 at home in playoffs still holds.

And, just for grins, if the Pack doesn't **** the bed at the end, their road record would be 1.000 instead of .000. I certainly would prefer that they have HFA, I was just pointing out that it's not as impressive in the postseason as it is in the preliminary games.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And, just for grins, if the Pack doesn't **** the bed at the end, their road record would be 1.000 instead of .000.

The Packers lost by 14 at San Francisco in the 2012 playoffs, a game that was over early in the fourth quarter.

 

[DaveRoller]

If the Pack didn't "*** the bed at the end" in last season's NFC Championship game in Seattle, they'd still only be .500 (rather than 1.000) on the road in the playoffs the past 4 years (their home record during the same time).

I know we all want to forget, and it still boggles my mind that it occurred in the manner it did, but the record books reveal that Colin Kaepernick led the 49ers to a playoff victory over the Pack at Candlestick after the 2012 season.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Last 4 #1 seeds (2013& 2014) have been the last 4 Super Bowl contestants.

If the Pack had beaten Buff. and had HFA last season, we might be talking about going for back to back Lombardi's at this point.

Pretty well documented how much better the Pack has been of late at home as opposed to the road.

That's a pretty small sample there just two years. And we had a home playoff game in 2013 and did not win it.

Now I don't disagree we may have had a better chance of beating the Hawks at home than up in CenturyLink Field, but it still should not be assumed that mistakes we made in that game could not have been made here.

But all that to say, we had HFA in 2007, didn't get there. Had it in 2011, didn't get there. HFA if you look throughout the years is far from a surefire ticket to the SB.

 

[Half Empty]

The Packers lost by 14 at San Francisco in the 2012 playoffs, a game that was over early in the fourth quarter.

True, but after post #119, I thought we were restricted to the past two years.

 

[Half Empty]

If the Pack didn't "*** the bed at the end" in last season's NFC Championship game in Seattle, they'd still only be .500 (rather than 1.000) on the road in the playoffs the past 4 years (their home record during the same time).

I know we all want to forget, and it still boggles my mind that it occurred in the manner it did, but the record books reveal that Colin Kaepernick led the 49ers to a playoff victory over the Pack at Candlestick after the 2012 season.

Again, check post #119. Just trying to play by the rules.