NFC North/NFL Thread 2016-17

[RJax55]

Matt Barkley.

If Aaron is healthy, make yourself a little money if the line stays there.

Barkley hasn't been bad, I know I'm shocked. He certainly is not hurting the team.

The Pack should win, but I see Dish's point. The Bears d-line is solid and they will get after ARod.

I have to say, I feel Rodgers is better with his limited mobility. He gets the ball out much faster and doesn't try to extend plays. I thought part of the reason he was playing not up to his standards earlier this season was because he was trying to extend plays far too much and forcing balls deep down the field.

[DegenerateDish]

To be clear, obviously the Packers are the better team.

But, this spot on Sunday screams tight game, potential upset. All the signs are right there.

-Pack coming off big win
-Off two straight home games
-Going on road (2-4) to division opponent
-Bears 2-0 vs division at home
-Alshon Jeffery back
-Special teams will be messy for both teams on bad field/below zero weather

If I'm wrong come 3:30 next Sunday I'll own it.

[wadesworld]

To be clear, obviously the Packers are the better team.

But, this spot on Sunday screams tight game, potential upset. All the signs are right there.

-Pack coming off big win
-Off two straight home games
-Going on road (2-4) to division opponent
-Bears 2-0 vs division at home
-Alshon Jeffery back
-Special teams will be messy for both teams on bad field/below zero weather

If I'm wrong come 3:30 next Sunday I'll own it.

There's the Packers playing on the road and then there's the Packers playing at Soldier Field.

[brandx]

Barkley hasn't been bad, I know I'm shocked. He certainly is not hurting the team.

The Pack should win, but I see Dish's point. The Bears d-line is solid and they will get after ARod.

I have to say, I feel Rodgers is better with his limited mobility. He gets the ball out much faster and doesn't try to extend plays. I thought part of the reason he was playing not up to his standards earlier this season was because he was trying to extend plays far too much and forcing balls deep down the field.

1. Barkley is also not helping the team.

2. No defensive line all year has gotten after Rodgers.

3. I agree. He is simply the best passer in the league when he stay in the pocket.

[MerrittsMustache]

1. Barkley is also not helping the team.

Which is why he's destined to be a career back-up. I in no way think he's the answer for the Bears at QB, but if not for several untimely drops, he could easily be 3-0 as the starter this season.

[hairy worthen]

To be clear, obviously the Packers are the better team.

But, this spot on Sunday screams tight game, potential upset. All the signs are right there.

-Pack coming off big win
-Off two straight home games
-Going on road (2-4) to division opponent
-Bears 2-0 vs division at home
-Alshon Jeffery back
-Special teams will be messy for both teams on bad field/below zero weather

If I'm wrong come 3:30 next Sunday I'll own it.

Your last point is the only one that makes sense to me. The other things don’t matter at this point in the season when you basically have to win every game.  Maybe they matter in October, but not mid-December with a focused team.  The bad weather will keep it close and low scoring. 

The Packers offensive line has been incredible at giving Rodgers time. I don’t think the Bear’s pass rush will do what Seattle, Giants, Philly and others couldn’t.

 I don’t buy that Rodgers injury makes him a better passer.  His mobility out of the pocket and throwing on the run are a big part of his game. Losing it will matter.

I do think the Packers will win out. Bears, Vikings at home and Lions are not daunting. Lions will lose one or two of their next games and that’s what the Packers should hope for, their best shot is to win the north, but the wild card is still in play. Tampa or Atlanta could easily lose 1 or 2 more and if they do, that changes their division record and possibly common opponent record. As of now, yes they would hold the tie breaker edge over GB, but still too many things to sort out.

[GGGG]

I think this Sunday's game is the easiest for GB.

Minnesota is going to be very difficult.  Everytime they talk about how Rogers hasn't lost a game in December in eight years (or something like that), I roll my eyes because he lost to Minnesota last year on the last day of the season.  It just so happened to be January 3rd or something like that.

I think they will lose in Detroit regardless.

So I'm going 80% Pack this Sunday, 65% v. Minnesota, and 35% at Detroit.  If I did my math right, that is about a 17% chance of winning out.  Not good.

[BM1090]

That Giants win now all but eliminates a Pack WC chance, division or bust.

If I were a Pack fan, I'd be terrified of this coming Sunday's game at Chicago. There's a reason Vegas set this line at Pack -4.

I didn't read the rest of the thread, so I apologize if this has been answered. But this is false. If Tampa loses 1 game, the Packers control their destiny for the playoffs (WC + division) because the Giants/Lions and Giants/Skins are guaranteed to give the other a loss, and GB would win the TB with Tampa Bay on Strength of Victory, I believe.

[mu03eng]

I didn't read the rest of the thread, so I apologize if this has been answered. But this is false. If Tampa loses 1 game, the Packers control their destiny for the playoffs (WC + division) because the Giants/Lions and Giants/Skins are guaranteed to give the other a loss, and GB would win the TB with Tampa Bay on Strength of Victory, I believe.

So you are telling me I need to route for Dallas and the Giants this weekend.....gross

[wadesworld]

If the Packers win their next 2 (and I think they will) and the Lions lose one of their next 2 (and I think they will), I know who I'd be confident in in a winner take all game between the Lions-Packers/Stafford-Rodgers.

[DegenerateDish]

I didn't read the rest of the thread, so I apologize if this has been answered. But this is false. If Tampa loses 1 game, the Packers control their destiny for the playoffs (WC + division) because the Giants/Lions and Giants/Skins are guaranteed to give the other a loss, and GB would win the TB with Tampa Bay on Strength of Victory, I believe.

A Tampa win over Dallas on Sunday would give them all tiebreakers over Green Bay.

[Benny B]

I didn't read the rest of the thread, so I apologize if this has been answered. But this is false. If Tampa loses 1 game, the Packers control their destiny for the playoffs (WC + division) because the Giants/Lions and Giants/Skins are guaranteed to give the other a loss, and GB would win the TB with Tampa Bay on Strength of Victory, I believe.

Tampa Bay will most likely own the tiebreaker against Green Bay based on common opponents.  To control its own destiny, GB would need one of the following to happen:

1) A WAS loss and either a NYG loss or two TAM losses.
or
2) A DET loss.

[BM1090]

Tampa Bay will most likely own the tiebreaker against Green Bay based on common opponents.  To control its own destiny, GB would need one of the following to happen:

1) A WAS loss and either a NYG loss or two TAM losses.
or
2) A DET loss.

How does the common games tiebreaker work? Tampa played the Bears once, we play them twice. The opposite thing happened for Atlanta. Are all of those games counted?

[Benny B]

How does the common games tiebreaker work? Tampa played the Bears once, we play them twice. The opposite thing happened for Atlanta. Are all of those games counted?

Sum up all wins and losses vs common opponents... team with the higher win pct in these games gets tiebreaker.  If win pct in common games is equal, you move on to strength of victory (SOV) tiebreaker.

Caveat - The teams must have at least four games in common, not four common teams.  But for simplicity's sake, consider GB/CHI/TAM as an example.

If TAM beats CHI and GB and CHI split, the TAM gets tiebreaker because 1-0 (1.000) is better than 1-1 (.500)

If TAM beats CHI and GB beats CHI twice, move to SOV

If TAM and CHI tie, and GB and CHI split, move to SOV.

EDIT: Previous version confused NFL with Big East tiebreakers... in NFL, win pct is determining factor, regardless of number of wins.

[MerrittsMustache]

How does the common games tiebreaker work? Tampa played the Bears once, we play them twice. The opposite thing happened for Atlanta. Are all of those games counted?

Those games would count. However, there need to be a minimum of 4 common opponent games for that tie-breaker to be used. I don't think that's the case with TB and GB (but I could be wrong on that).

Conference record comes before common opponents anyway. TB is currently 6-3, GB is 5-4.

If they finished tied in both overall and conference record, it would go to strength of victory (assuming they only had 3 common games).

Sum up all wins and losses vs common opponents... team with the higher win pct in these games gets tiebreaker.  If win pct in common games is equal, the team with more wins gets tiebreaker.  If both teams have same record in common games, you move on to strength of victory tiebreaker.

Do you have a source on that? I don't think it's correct. I think it's based solely on winning % (i.e. 1-0 is the same as 10-0).

[Benny B]

I think it's based solely on winning % (i.e. 1-0 is the same as 10-0).

Correct and corrected.

[BM1090]

Those games would count. However, there need to be a minimum of 4 common opponent games for that tie-breaker to be used. I don't think that's the case with TB and GB (but I could be wrong on that).

Conference record comes before common opponents anyway. TB is currently 6-3, GB is 5-4.

If they finished tied in both overall and conference record, it would go to strength of victory (assuming they only had 3 common games).

Do you have a source on that? I don't think it's correct. I think it's based solely on winning % (i.e. 1-0 is the same as 10-0).

Right, and if GB won out and TB lost one, then it would move to Strength of Victory because both teams only have conference games remaining. So, I was assuming the  conference record would be tied and the common games tiebreaker wouldn't apply.

I ran some numbers on Strength of Victory but admittedly I did it quickly, will look again later today.

[BM1090]

Sum up all wins and losses vs common opponents... team with the higher win pct in these games gets tiebreaker.  If win pct in common games is equal, you move on to strength of victory (SOV) tiebreaker.

Caveat - The teams must have at least four games in common, not four common teams.  But for simplicity's sake, consider GB/CHI/TAM as an example.

If TAM beats CHI and GB and CHI split, the TAM gets tiebreaker because 1-0 (1.000) is better than 1-1 (.500)

If TAM beats CHI and GB beats CHI twice, move to SOV

If TAM and CHI tie, and GB and CHI split, move to SOV.

EDIT: Previous version confused NFL with Big East tiebreakers... in NFL, win pct is determining factor, regardless of number of wins.

So, Tampa loses this week to Dallas and GB beats Chicago. Is the following then correct?

TB and GB both played ATL(TBx2), CHI(GBx2), DAL, SEA.

Tampa beat CHI, SEA and ATL once. GB beat Chicago 2X, and SEA. Both teams are then 3-2 in common games, move to SOV tiebreaker. Correct?

[Benny B]

Save yourself the headache, and just go to:

www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/machine

[BM1090]

Save yourself the headache, and just go to:

www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/machine

It just created more headaches. It says in this scenario Tampa would win over GB with the common games tiebreaker, which makes no sense since they'd have 5 common games and they would have each gone 3-2. Oh Well.

[brandx]

To be clear, obviously the Packers are the better team.

But, this spot on Sunday screams tight game, potential upset. All the signs are right there.

-Pack coming off big win
-Off two straight home games
-Going on road (2-4) to division opponent
-Bears 2-0 vs division at home
-Alshon Jeffery back
-Special teams will be messy for both teams on bad field/below zero weather

If I'm wrong come 3:30 next Sunday I'll own it.

I agree with every point you make here.... but with a caveat.

It is a playoff game for the Packers - they have to win out. If this was early or mid-season, I would be on board with you.

[brandx]

Which is why he's destined to be a career back-up. I in no way think he's the answer for the Bears at QB, but if not for several untimely drops, he could easily be 3-0 as the starter this season.

Or more precisely, Howard could be 3-0 in his last 3 games with Barkley at QB.

[wadesworld]

By the way, did Rodgers suddenly figure out how to lead, after being a leader early in his career, forgetting how to do it the last few years, and now...?

[tower912]

By the way, did Rodgers suddenly figure out how to lead, after being a leader early in his career, forgetting how to do it the last few years, and now...?

Rodgers has led since the day he became the starter.    It was utter insanity to suggest otherwise.   

[brandx]

By the way, did Rodgers suddenly figure out how to lead, after being a leader early in his career, forgetting how to do it the last few years, and now...?

Funny.

But to be real, we only had a couple dummies suggest that was the case.