Where the Packers are in the NFC

[Mondio]

Well there is only one winner each year, I’m not sure what your point is.

 

[adambr2]

Playoff chances can be summed up as follows with 3 games remaining:

3 wins - Guaranteed first round bye, need help for HFA

2 wins - Guaranteed division championship, need help for first round bye

1 win - Guaranteed playoffs, need help for division championship (unless 1 win is against Minnesota)

0 wins - Need help for playoffs

 

[OldSchool101]

This was a huge week. Having the Saints get knocked down makes us #2 seed. GB completely controls their own destiny.

3 Wins locks them as Division Winners and #2 seed or better (with a bye week and the Divisional Game at Lambeau or better)

Any 2 GB Wins locks them as Division winners and #3 seed or better (with a guaranteed game at Lambeau for Wild Card Weekend if they finish #3 seed OR at #2 seed a guaranteed game at Lambeau for Divisional weekend)

Any GB win coupled with just 1 Vikings loss to a division team (GB or Chicago) and GB wins the Division on Tie Breaker. In that scenario GB would also lock a #3 seed or better. (with a guaranteed game at Lambeau)

.

 

[rmontro]

Well there is only one winner each year, I’m not sure what your point is.

Would you ask Lombardi what his point is? It's his quote.
My point is what I said it was, there's only one winner every year, there's no reason to be satisfied with less than that. I think you're trying to read too much into it, it seems pretty self explanatory to me. I heard the quote, I like the quote, so I quoted it.

 

[PackAttack12]

Seachix about to take an L.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

I know, come to the shoutbox and rub it in SF80's face.

 

[adambr2]

I know, come to the shoutbox and rub it in SF80's face.

Ah I don't mind him. He's a good dude. There are far more obnoxious opposing fans that hang out here.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

I guess my morals aren't so high....

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Despite the flat game today, not too many naysayers today. Guess they'll chime in Monday. But say what you want, we're the No. 2 seed. Looking at all the other teams, we have the easiest path to the No. 1 seed. Onward to the Bears.

 

[adambr2]

Despite the flat game today, not too many naysayers today. Guess they'll chime in Monday. But say what you want, we're the No. 2 seed. Looking at all the other teams, we have the easiest path to the No. 1 seed. Onward to the Bears.

Hmm, not sure I agree. After the early games today the analytics had us at only a 1% chance at the #1 seed. It's probably a little higher after Seattle losing but not much.

New Orleans finished home vs Indy, @Tennessee, and @Carolina. I don't see them losing any. Maybe @ Tennessee but that actually doesn't help us at all. If we dropped a game now and they lose that game we'd actually be behind them on tiebreakers as opposed to ahead like we are now.

SF will very likely go into Week 17 at 13-2. If they do, the West champ will finish as the #1 seed regardless of what anyone else does.

I think we need to win out to get a first round bye, and I'd be thrilled if we pull it off.

 

[OldSchool101]

Seachix about to take an L.

From a #1 to a #5 seed! Ouch

 

[OldSchool101]

I think we need to win out to get a first round bye, and I'd be thrilled if we pull it off.

Not necessarily.
It would be a 100% probability of a #2 or better winning out, so that is obviously the most direct path.

But many scenarios of GB ending in a Tie with remaining top group teams have GB winning based on conference or division record.

 

[adambr2]

Not necessarily.
It would be a 100% probability of a #2 or better winning out, so that is obviously the most direct path.
But most scenarios of GB ending in a Tie with NO, Seattle or MN support the Packers winning the tie breaker due to Conference record Division record (in the case of MN)

Not really on New Orleans. We own the tiebreaker now, but their next 2 games are against AFC opponent . If they lost either and we lost a game, the tiebreaker would swing back to them. The only potential loss that helps much is if they lose to Carolina.

That's why we likely need to win out. Even if we lose just one, New Orleans then likely tiebreaks ahead.

 

[Pugger]

Yes, I firmly believe there is only one winner every year. Anything less is a failure.
I don't see why that somehow translates into I can't enjoy the games or be a fan. I lived through the 70s and 80s, can't get much worse than that, and I stayed a Packers fan, it's in my blood. But that doesn't change the fact that there's only one winner every year.

Did you think we had a chance to win this division with a new HC and offensive scheme this year before the season started? Yes, it hasn't been pretty at times but come January the only thing that will matter is your record. MLF is the first Packers head coach to go 10-3 in his first season at the helm. If you can't celebrate that that is unfortunate. We might not win it this year but the foundation being built for the near future is pretty damn exciting IMO.

 

[Pugger]

Not really on New Orleans. We own the tiebreaker now, but their next 2 games are against AFC opponent . If they lost either and we lost a game, the tiebreaker would swing back to them. The only potential loss that helps much is if they lose to Carolina.

That's why we likely need to win out. Even if we lose just one, New Orleans then likely tiebreaks ahead.

You have to wonder how much starch has been taken out of New Orleans losing like they did today. They can't be happy with their defense at all. Will that effect them going forward?

 

[Mondio]

Would you ask Lombardi what his point is? It's his quote.
My point is what I said it was, there's only one winner every year, there's no reason to be satisfied with less than that. I think you're trying to read too much into it, it seems pretty self explanatory to me. I heard the quote, I like the quote, so I quoted it.

and then said you had a problem with posters that accepted anything less. If you can't follow along, why try?

first of, WHO in here is happy losing. Besides the regular circle jerk attendants in the shoutbox as soon as the defense gives up a score every week?

I don't care about Lombardi's quote, it makes people feel tough on their bar stool about a team they have zero to do with except identify with in their mind. It really isn't all that important to players either. If you're not motivated to get better every day, you're not in the NFL.

Like I said before, Lombardi, Bill, all of them, are intelligent enough to know there is growth along the way, it doesn't always happen in a season and while they may have not gotten the ultimate goal there are successes along the way that doesn't make it all a failure.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Playoff chances can be summed up as follows with 3 games remaining:

1 win - Guaranteed playoffs, need help for division championship (unless 1 win is against Minnesota)

0 wins - Need help for playoffs

There's a possibility the Packers don't make the playoffs with 11 wins.

Despite the flat game today, not too many naysayers today. Guess they'll chime in Monday. But say what you want, we're the No. 2 seed. Looking at all the other teams, we have the easiest path to the No. 1 seed. Onward to the Bears.

The Packers need the Niners to lose another two games and the Seahawks another one to get the #1 by winning out. Not likely going to happen.

 

[PackAttack12]

There's a possibility the Packers don't make the playoffs with 11 wins.

While you're technically correct, the odds are extremely low.

 

[tynimiller]

There's a possibility the Packers don't make the playoffs with 11 wins.



The Packers need the Niners to lose another two games and the Seahawks another one to get the #1 by winning out. Not likely going to happen.

Especially when they close out the season against eachother.
49ers remaining: @ Falcons, @ Rams, Seahawks
Seahawks remaining: Panthers, @Cardinals, @ 49ers

To be fair I see the 49ers dropping at least one of their remaining 3...as the Rams are playing well down the stretch and are scary when they figure things out.

Bottom line is Packers control everything EXCEPT if they get the #1 seed. The #2 is ours to take, just fight and claw for three more wins...PERIOD. Don't need any help for this to occur.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While you're technically correct, the odds are extremely low.

Not really. All it would take is the Rams winning out with the Vikings and Seahawks finishing the season with at least 11 wins.

 

[Pkrjones]

The #2 is ours to take, just fight and claw for three more wins...PERIOD. Don't need any help for this to occur.

That would be fine with me... a bye, then a home game in mid-January. I think the Packers could be almost anybody in Lambeau in mid-January... it's that on-the-road in SF, NO or Seattle that would worry me.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That would be fine with me... a bye, then a home game in mid-January. I think the Packers could be almost anybody in Lambeau in mid-January... it's that on-the-road in SF, NO or Seattle that would worry me.

In my opinion fans totally overstate the Packers benefitting from cold weather games in Lambeau in the playoffs.

 

[PackAttack12]

Not really. All it would take is the Rams winning out with the Vikings and Seahawks finishing the season with at least 11 wins.

So a few questions. If the Packers win 11 games, and the Vikings win 11 games, is it guaranteed that the Vikings will have the tie breaker over the Packers? What if the Packers 11 wins includes a week 16 win over the Vikings, but lose the other 2? The Packers would clearly have the tie breaker advantage in that scenario. What if the Vikings lose to the Chargers, but win the other two? Not sure how the common games work in that scenario, but I think the Packers would have the common games tie breaker.

I don't pretend to be a playoff expert or anything, but unless I'm missing something, it's not near as simplistic as you're making it out to be.

 

[Mondio]

lets make it simple, just win

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So a few questions. If the Packers win 11 games, and the Vikings win 11 games, is it guaranteed that the Vikings will have the tie breaker over the Packers? What if the Packers 11 wins includes a week 16 win over the Vikings, but lose the other 2? The Packers would clearly have the tie breaker advantage in that scenario. What if the Vikings lose to the Chargers, but win the other two? Not sure how the common games work in that scenario, but I think the Packers would have the common games tie breaker.

I don't pretend to be a playoff expert or anything, but unless I'm missing something, it's not near as simplistic as you're making it out to be.

If the Packers win at Minnesota they clinch the division no matter what. If they don't and end of being tied with the Vikings at 11 wins it will come down to the strength of victory tie breaker which currently favors the Packers but could change over the next three weeks.