After Week 5 Playoff Positions

[CaliforniaCheez]

Going into week 6 things look much different for the Packers.

NFC Playoff Positions are:

Giants
Panthers
Cardinals
Bears
Redskins
Cowboys

Those out of the playoffs in order are:

Bucaneers, Falcons, Saints, 49'ers, Packers, Eagles, viklings, Seahawks, Rams, Lions.

AFC Playoff Positions are:

Titans
Steeleers
Bills
Broncos
Patriots
Dolphins (Yes, the Dolphins would be in it)

Those out of the playoffs in order are:

Colts, Ravens, Jets, Jaguars, Chargers, Raiders, Browns, Chiefs, Bengals, Texans.

For those who follow the draft year round, The draft order for next season would currently be:

1) Those lovable Lions
2) Rams
3) Bengals
4) Texans
5) Chiefs
6) Seahawks
7) Browns
8) Raiders

Hopefully, week 6 will bring some pleasant changes.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Green Bay is back in 1st place of the NFC North.

Head to Head tiebreaker advantage over the Vikings.

With Chicago, divisional winning % is the same (2-0 Packers 1-0 Bears)
Conference winning % is .500 for the Packers and .400 for the Bears.

The Packers lead the NFC North.

[packerbacker1234]

Green Bay is back in 1st place of the NFC North.

Head to Head tiebreaker advantage over the Vikings.

With Chicago, divisional winning % is the same (2-0 Packers 1-0 Bears)
Conference winning % is .500 for the Packers and .400 for the Bears.

The Packers lead the NFC North.

Can't put much creadence into this - as the Bears haven't palyed the same number of opponents in the NFC as the packers have. Once they even out in how many they have played, then you can say this.

By pure tie breaker, packers are on top, but the tiebreaker means nothing. The bears haven't even played the same # of opponents in the NFC North yet.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Yeah, I know.

Nobody cares about pure tiebreakers in 3 way divisionsl tie.

The Packers may not do well with much of their defense gone but I don't want them to forfeit the rest of the season.

You never know. Harrell might suddenly play like a superstar.

They got lucky to play against a 3rd string QB.

There could be more luck.

[digitaldean]

Yes, the Packers were lucky to play a 3rd stringer.

And the Vikings were lucky they got TWO blown calls in their win over Detroit.

Sometimes luck has to be factored in.

[packerbacker1234]

Yes, the Packers were lucky to play a 3rd stringer.

And the Vikings were lucky they got TWO blown calls in their win over Detroit.

Sometimes luck has to be factored in.

yeah... but luck against a bad team you SHOULD blow out? Thats not good.

You need luck to factor into teams your supposedly even with or are better then you, your not suppose to need luck against teams you are suppose to beat. We needed luck... that is why this last game did not impress me.

[Gunakor]

Yes, the Packers were lucky to play a 3rd stringer.

And the Vikings were lucky they got TWO blown calls in their win over Detroit.

Sometimes luck has to be factored in.

yeah... but luck against a bad team you SHOULD blow out? Thats not good.

You need luck to factor into teams your supposedly even with or are better then you, your not suppose to need luck against teams you are suppose to beat. We needed luck... that is why this last game did not impress me.


When did we get a lucky bounce in the game against Seattle? That wasn't luck, it was execution. We drastically reduced the penalties we committed. We ran the ball better and more often. We played better football, end of story. That game was not decided by luck.

[steve823]

[quote=digitaldean]Yes, the Packers were lucky to play a 3rd stringer.

And the Vikings were lucky they got TWO blown calls in their win over Detroit.

Sometimes luck has to be factored in.

yeah... but luck against a bad team you SHOULD blow out? Thats not good.

You need luck to factor into teams your supposedly even with or are better then you, your not suppose to need luck against teams you are suppose to beat. We needed luck... that is why this last game did not impress me.

When did we get a lucky bounce in the game against Seattle? That wasn't luck, it was execution. We drastically reduced the penalties we committed. We ran the ball better and more often. We played better football, end of story. That game was not decided by luc

All true..except the running part. Grant ran for over 30 carries and got only 90 yards. He kept running into our o-line and missing cuts. I thought he had a slow start because of injuries but he isnt looking so good anymore

[bobblehead]

Yes, the Packers were lucky to play a 3rd stringer.

And the Vikings were lucky they got TWO blown calls in their win over Detroit.

Sometimes luck has to be factored in.

yeah... but luck against a bad team you SHOULD blow out? Thats not good.

You need luck to factor into teams your supposedly even with or are better then you, your not suppose to need luck against teams you are suppose to beat. We needed luck... that is why this last game did not impress me.

When did we get a lucky bounce in the game against Seattle? That wasn't luck, it was execution. We drastically reduced the penalties we committed. We ran the ball better and more often. We played better football, end of story. That game was not decided by luc

All true..except the running part. Grant ran for over 30 carries and got only 90 yards. He kept running into our o-line and missing cuts. I thought he had a slow start because of injuries but he isnt looking so good anymore

who was it again that was so vocal about not paying grant until he put in a half a good season this year?

[oregonpackfan]

The substandard running game is not Grant's fault. The run-blocking ability of the Packers' Oline is substandard. He had very few open holes to run through.

[Zool]

The substandard running game is not Grant's fault. The run-blocking ability of the Packers' Oline is substandard. He had very few open holes to run through.

Some of it is on him. When he hit that cutback early and the field just opened up in front of him, he didnt have that same burst he had last year. I'm not sure if its physical or mental but he's not making people miss like he did last year. He should have been able to bust that run for at least 10 more than he got, but he hesitated.

[Gunakor]

[quote=digitaldean]Yes, the Packers were lucky to play a 3rd stringer.

And the Vikings were lucky they got TWO blown calls in their win over Detroit.

Sometimes luck has to be factored in.

yeah... but luck against a bad team you SHOULD blow out? Thats not good.

You need luck to factor into teams your supposedly even with or are better then you, your not suppose to need luck against teams you are suppose to beat. We needed luck... that is why this last game did not impress me.

When did we get a lucky bounce in the game against Seattle? That wasn't luck, it was execution. We drastically reduced the penalties we committed. We ran the ball better and more often. We played better football, end of story. That game was not decided by luc

All true..except the running part. Grant ran for over 30 carries and got only 90 yards. He kept running into our o-line and missing cuts. I thought he had a slow start because of injuries but he isnt looking so good anymore

Seattle does not allow 100 yard rushers against them at home. They just don't. For some reason they are exceptional against the run at Qwest Field, so the ypc. doesn't suprise me. Look up thier defensive production at home vs. on the road over the last 2 or 3 years and you'll see what I'm talking about. I know teams usually do better at home than on the road, but the difference for the Seahawks is almost night and day. For some reason, they are a different team at home.