Why the Packers have to win the division.

[Deleted member 6794]

At this point the Packers are really only competing against two teams to win the division title. For a wildcard position they are competing against seven. Which would be easier ?

The Packers will most likely have to win more games to win the division than clinch a wild card spot though.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not really if Vikes and Lions hit the skids. One year Carolina won their division at 7-8-1 and Seattle at 7-9. Some teams have won their division at 8-8.

True, but these examples are the exception to the rule though.

 

[Robert Mason]

Here's my worry, once the Packers get Lacy and/or Starks back, does McCarthy go back to the unimaginative offense that the Packers have fielded for the past year (prior to Starks/Lacy injuries)? The offense has been much more varied, imaginative and effective since McCarthy was forced to actually innovate due to injuries, I'm just not sure he'll stick to this once he doesn't have to anymore.

My worry also ! I like four and five receiver formations. Look at how successful they have been in the last two games. I also like lining up a WR in the backfield. Not to pound the ball through the pile, but to swing them to the side or the middle and force a LB to cover them. Montgomery and Cobb covered by LB's ? Think of the potentials ! Also not a bad idea to use them on draw plays when the defenses are expecting pass. Ignore our tight ends....they can't catch, run or block. I do see the necessity of having a true RB when the weather gets bad and passing becomes difficult.[/QUOTE]

 

[Deleted member 6794]

9-7 might be good enough for a division title or wildcard. It all depends on what the other teams do. What good did going 15-1 do the Packers ? Nothing !

I would be fine with the Packers making the playoffs performing on a high level. I don't care all that much about their record or seed in the conference.

 

[Robert Mason]

I would be fine with the Packers making the playoffs performing on a high level. I don't care all that much about their record or seed in the conference.

Agree...Play well in December and into the playoffs.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think MM was running an unimaginative offense because he doesn't know how to run an offense. I think it's part of our game that's missing. He recognizes it and is coaching for the big picture, not the moment. When our passing game is on, it's on. But when we get against good defenses that can rush with 4 and play cover, we struggle. It's been that way for a while. The only way to get that power running game, is to line up and do it. We weren't very consistent at it, but while we were at it, we still made it to the playoffs and you saw a different wrinkle in our offense when that time of the season came. toss in a very injured WR core last year and it made more sense.

I think the goal was to have another tool in our offensive toolbox to use, another way to win a game if a team was able to shut down our passing attack. We needed a way to consistently move the chains. I'd say we never achieved it, but you can't just give up on it either, because as so many of you say, the goal is to win a championship, not win regular season games. Think about it.

anyway, injuries this year and the way the flow of the season was going necessitated shifting gears earlier to move this team forward. I like having Monty in the backfield and spreading things out, and this offense will make people excited again. But we're still vulnerable to the same defenses that have stopped us before. Not to say we can't beat those teams, because we can, but it's more comforting to go into battle with an offense capable of beating you all sorts of ways.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Always nice to win the North Division, but getting and then staying healthy as well as continuing the momentum on offense is at the top of my list right now.

All 7 of the guys that were on the inactive list Sunday (Cobb, Cook, Matthews, Monty, Randall, Rollins and Starks) are/could be key contributors to the team. They all should be back at some point in the next month, which will make this team just that much better. Add the possibility of getting either Lacy or Shields back in Dec. and we could be in great shape.

I'm less worried about the Vikings then I was 2 weeks ago. IMO, the team we have to get better then is Dallas, if we want to go to the Super Bowl.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But when we get against good defenses that can rush with 4 and play cover, we struggle.

I think the offense the Packers have successfully run over the last 1 1/2 games is a decent method to beat those defenses.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The assertion in the OP is premature. There are way too many more games to be played.

As an aside, here's a fun fact: There are only 2 NFC teams that have not lost 2 in a row, the Cowboys and the Packers.

Teams that are resilient tend to do well.

 

[swhitset]

Why ?

Captain has already told you why Lol. Your assertion that it would be easier to win the division simply because they are competing against fewer opponents is based on faulty logic. To win the division, you have to come in first place in your division. To get a wildcard, 5th, and 6th, place in the conference get the Wild cards (essentially, although it is possible that a wild card team may have a better record than a division winner). So as Captain said, to win your own division, you typically need more wins than you need to win a wild card, therefore this does not equate to "easier". You tacitly admitted this when you answered Captain by pointing out that it was "possible" to win a division with an 8-8 record... "Possible" also doe not equate to "Likely" and neither equates to "easier" lol.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Disagree......You can win the division going 8-8 whereas another team could be 9-7 and miss a wildcard. I think it has happened. Lets not make an issue of the terminology of the words "easier", "possible" or "likely". I'm not interested in discussing symantecs.

It's possible but not likely as only 13 of 112 division winners since the 2002 alignment have won less than 10 games.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think the offense the Packers have successfully run over the last 1 1/2 games is a decent method to beat those defenses.

I would put it at 2 1/2 games.

 

[PackAttack12]

I disagree with the notion that we have to win the division to make the playoffs.

Assuming division leaders remain the same, these teams are in due to winning their division:

Dallas
Minnesota
Atlanta
Seattle

These teams I am going ahead and eliminating by default:

Chicago
Frisco
L.A.

These teams I am ruling out based on my thought process:

Detroit - just can't trust them. Two losses to Chicago and Houston, and too much competition within the division
New Orleans - defense is too bad, and have already lost 2 at home. Not a good road team.
Redskins - next 6 games - Minny, GB, Dallas, Arizona, Philly, Carolina - OUT.
Carolina - dug too deep of a hole, already lost to ATL, 0-3 within division. Tough schedule

That leaves these teams that I think will be battling for a wild card:

Philly
New York
Tampa Bay
Arizona

And even of these teams, Philly is up and down with a rookie QB, also has a 3 game stretch of Atlanta, Seattle, Green Bay. Could go on a big slide there. The Giants have won 2 straight, but man where is their offense? And the defense isn't as good as they hoped for. Just hanging in on them with potential. Arizona is so talented, but have had some really bad losses. Just can't seem to get and stay on track. And Tampa, they have had a couple of really good wins, but are still iffy.

I know we're iffy as well, but I think that we stack up well with the teams that are going to be battling it out for a WC.

10 wins guarantees it if you ask me. 6-4 is more than realistic going down the stretch with a not so tough schedule.

All that said, I say we still win the division.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would put it at 2 1/2 games.

I think the first half vs. the Bears should be excluded from the list.

 

[Dagger85]

They are currently the 1st wildcard team in the NFC. So there's no way to draw the conclusion that they wouldn't get in.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think the first half vs. the Bears should be excluded from the list.

Not really. The ball control passing offense went into affect in the second half of the Dallas game. The first half against the Bears entailed 4 possessions as follows:

13 plays, 53 yards, FG
11 plays, 90 yards, surrender on downs
6 plays, 21 yards, punt
10 plays, 53 yards, FG

 

[swhitset]

Disagree......You can win the division going 8-8 whereas another team could be 9-7 and miss a wildcard. I think it has happened. Lets not make an issue of the terminology of the words "easier", "possible" or "likely". I'm not interested in discussing symantecs.

This isn't semantics.. it is the whole basis of your question. You asked which would be "easier". Obviously, it is easier to get a wildcard since you most likely need to win fewer games. look at captains stats above if you need numbers. And, frankly, that is the intent of the playoff system as it is setup... the better teams "should" be the division winners, while the wild cards are seeded lower intentionally. This does not mean that the system always works out that way, but it is intentionally designed so that it does more often than not.

 

[swhitset]

Fewer wins to to get a wildcard ?? Please elaborate !

if you actually read and understood what has been written throughout this thread, I wouldn't have to.

 

[swhitset]

Like in 2014 when the Eagles at 10-6 failed to get a wildcard. but Carolina won it's division at 7-8-1 ??

You are killing me here... just go ahead and keep citing exceptions in your childish big red letters. Using the numbers Captain Wimm cited above... less than 12% of Division winners since 2002 have won fewer than 10 games.... Do you understand yet?? Your examples are statistical outliers. I could list 8 examples to prove my point for every one of yours... why is this so hard to understand. Nobody is saying that the Packers can't win the division... Nobody is saying that they can't win a wild card. The only thing I am saying is that it is statistically easier to get a wild card than to win a division.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Like in 2014 when the Eagles at 10-6 failed to get a wildcard. but Carolina won it's division at 7-8-1 ??

Like in 2013 when Arizona at 10-6 failed to get a wild card, but Green Bay won it's division at 8-7-1 ?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[swhitset]

Like in 2011 when Tennessee at 9-7 failed to get a wildcard, but Denver won it's division at 8-8 ?

I would say you are embarrassing yourself, but I suspect that is not true. I have said all I need to on this subject. Enjoy.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[swhitset]

Like in 2010 when the Giants and Bucs both failed to get a wildcard at 10-6, but Seattle won it's division at 7-9 ?

I really am going to stop now, but I can't help myself.... But you do realize that even your own examples further my point right? In each of these cases where you state that a particular team failed to get a wild card... that they ALSO failed to win their own division....

 

[swhitset]

And no... I'm not going to bother typing the entirety of the playoff brackets for the past 14 years, however I'm sure you have been looking at them anyway since you obviously needed someplace from which to cherry pick your "examples".