Most Amazing Stat Of The Season

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Packers have not trailed by more than one score all year.

Some will take this as a positive. (We can play with anybody. Rodgers doesn't make a lot of mistakes, so he keeps us in games. We overcame injuries.) Some as a negative. (Rodgers and McCarthy can't win close games. The injuries shouldn't be used as an excuse when you are in every game.)

It's an amazing stat though.

[Joemailman]

It's an important stat this week because I'm not sure the Packers without Finley and Grant have the firepower to come back from a big deficit like they did last year against Arizona. They need to play with composure in the 1st quarter and keep it close. No major penalties. No turnovers.

[denverYooper]

The Packers have not trailed by more than one score all year.

Some will take this as a positive. (We can play with anybody. Rodgers doesn't make a lot of mistakes, so he keeps us in games. We overcame injuries.) Some as a negative. (Rodgers and McCarthy can't win close games. The injuries shouldn't be used as an excuse when you are in every game.)

It's an amazing stat though.

Especially given that they have the highest strength of schedule for any of the playoff teams (.520)

[denverYooper]

It's an important stat this week because I'm not sure the Packers without Finley and Grant have the firepower to come back from a big deficit like they did last year against Arizona. They need to play with composure in the 1st quarter and keep it close. No major penalties. No turnovers.

But they do have Greg Jennings, who can put the team on his back Dog!

[Smidgeon]

The Packers have not trailed by more than one score all year.

Wow. That's impressive. Very impressive.

[Patler]

The Packers have not trailed by more than one score all year.

Some will take this as a positive. (We can play with anybody. Rodgers doesn't make a lot of mistakes, so he keeps us in games. We overcame injuries.) Some as a negative. (Rodgers and McCarthy can't win close games. The injuries shouldn't be used as an excuse when you are in every game.)

It's an amazing stat though.

I saw another stat too that was impressive, unfortunately I can't find the article right now. It was minutes trailing vs. minutes in the lead. As I recall, they compared it to the Bears.

There are other oddities to this season, statistically:
The Packers were second to only NE in net point differential with 388 scored, 240 against; net +148. The Bears were net +48 (334pf/286pa), yet won one more game than the Packers. The Falcons were #3 at +126 (414/288) and won 3 more games than the Packers.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The net point differential is interesting. In 2007, the Packers had a net point differential of +144 and won three more games. Since McCarthy was the coach for both squads, I'll throw him out as a reason. It would seem the explanation would be that Aaron Rodgers is not as clutch as Brett Favre AND/OR dumb luck. There might be some truth to the clutch factor, but I think it's overblown. Brett had his share of failure late in games, and Rodgers has had great moments late in games--only to have other factors blow the game for him. I lean mostly towards dumb luck--mixed in with Brett being a bit more clutch.
:)

Of course, the plus side to Rodgers is that he makes fewer mistakes than Brett and most other QBs--which has kept us in more games.

[Patler]

The net point differential is interesting. In 2007, the Packers had a net point differential of +144 and won three more games. Since McCarthy was the coach for both squads, I'll throw him out as a reason. It would seem the explanation would be that Aaron Rodgers is not as clutch as Brett Favre AND/OR dumb luck. There might be some truth to the clutch factor, but I think it's overblown. Brett had his share of failure late in games, and Rodgers has had great moments late in games--only to have other factors blow the game for him. I lean mostly towards dumb luck--mixed in with Brett being a bit more clutch.
:)

Of course, the plus side to Rodgers is that he makes fewer mistakes than Brett and most other QBs--which has kept us in more games.

In looking at the losses this year, I can't see Rodgers as a reason, except maybe NE and the Lions. Clearly his fault for not playing!!

[HarveyWallbangers]

He had his hand in the Miami and Washington losses, but it's hard to fault him for Chicago (Jones fumble when he was driving them for the game winner), Atlanta (tied it up late, but ST let them down), Detroit (injured), New England (injured). Actually, there's a solid chance the Packers are 12-4 if he doesn't get the concussion. In a way, you are right. He's to blame. Not because of his play, but for trying to make a play in a game where our offense needed a spark. Probably bone-headed, but hard to blame a player trying to make a play.

[hoosier]

Their relatively huge point differential this year can be explained by four blow-out wins, three of which came against teams that were melting down after high expectations (vs. Dall, at Min, vs. NYG). If we look at those three blowouts as anomalies and remove them from consideration (but keep the one against Buffalo as a normal variant) then GBs point differential for the year is only +54, which is more in keeping with their 10-6 record.
Regular Season
Date Time vs Score
9/12/10 4:15 PM ET @PHI W 27-20
9/19/10 1:00 PM ET BUF W 34-7
9/27/10 8:30 PM ET @CHI L 17-20
10/3/10 1:00 PM ET DET W 28-26
10/10/10 1:00 PM ET @WAS L 13-16
10/17/10 1:00 PM ET MIA L 20-23
10/24/10 8:20 PM ET MIN W 28-24
10/31/10 1:00 PM ET @NYJ W 9-0
11/7/10 8:20 PM ET DAL W 45-7
BYE
11/21/10 1:00 PM ET @MIN W 31-3
11/28/10 1:00 PM ET @ATL L 17-20
12/5/10 1:00 PM ET SF W 34-16
12/12/10 1:00 PM ET @DET L 3-7
12/19/10 8:20 PM ET @NE L 27-31
12/26/10 4:15 PM ET NYG W 45-17
1/2/11 4:15 PM ET CHI W 10-3

[Smidgeon]

Their relatively huge point differential this year can be explained by four blow-out wins, three of which came against teams that were melting down after high expectations (vs. Dall, at Min, vs. NYG). If we look at those three blowouts as anomalies and remove them from consideration (but keep the one against Buffalo as a normal variant) then GBs point differential for the year is only +54, which is more in keeping with their 10-6 record.
Regular Season
Date Time vs Score
9/12/10 4:15 PM ET @PHI W 27-20
9/19/10 1:00 PM ET BUF W 34-7
9/27/10 8:30 PM ET @CHI L 17-20
10/3/10 1:00 PM ET DET W 28-26
10/10/10 1:00 PM ET @WAS L 13-16
10/17/10 1:00 PM ET MIA L 20-23
10/24/10 8:20 PM ET MIN W 28-24
10/31/10 1:00 PM ET @NYJ W 9-0
11/7/10 8:20 PM ET DAL W 45-7
BYE
11/21/10 1:00 PM ET @MIN W 31-3
11/28/10 1:00 PM ET @ATL L 17-20
12/5/10 1:00 PM ET SF W 34-16
12/12/10 1:00 PM ET @DET L 3-7
12/19/10 8:20 PM ET @NE L 27-31
12/26/10 4:15 PM ET NYG W 45-17
1/2/11 4:15 PM ET CHI W 10-3

Actually, I think it's more appropriately explained by saying that the Packers never got blown out. If you don't lose by 4 or less each game, the point differential will be incredibly positive.

[RashanGary]

When we're ahead it's like we have a running game. I think, instinctively, defensive playcallers and players alike know that the quickest way to get a stop is to stop the run and they know teams with a lead tend to run more. Because Rodgers is taught to take what he is given at the line, he ends up lighting teams up when they legitimately attempt to stop the run. Hence the blowouts and our huge discrepancy in point differential.

[RashanGary]

Another amazing stat from the NFL network. . . Pack held teams to 7 or fewer points 6 times. They showed a chart and the last teams to do that were in the 1960's.

[vince]

Another amazing stat from the NFL network. . . Pack held teams to 7 or fewer points 6 times. They showed a chart and the last teams to do that were in the 1960's.
That is amazing.

Not as amazing, but interesting...


In the past four seasons, McCarthy’s Packers are tied with the New York Giants for the best regular-season record in the NFC at 40-24.
Only the Packers and Philadelphia Eagles have qualified for the NFC playoffs three times in the past four years.

[mraynrand]

Their relatively huge point differential this year can be explained by four blow-out wins, three of which came against teams that were melting down after high expectations (vs. Dall, at Min, vs. NYG). If we look at those three blowouts as anomalies and remove them from consideration (but keep the one against Buffalo as a normal variant) then GBs point differential for the year is only +54, which is more in keeping with their 10-6 record.
Regular Season
Date Time vs Score
9/12/10 4:15 PM ET @PHI W 27-20
9/19/10 1:00 PM ET BUF W 34-7
9/27/10 8:30 PM ET @CHI L 17-20
10/3/10 1:00 PM ET DET W 28-26
10/10/10 1:00 PM ET @WAS L 13-16
10/17/10 1:00 PM ET MIA L 20-23
10/24/10 8:20 PM ET MIN W 28-24
10/31/10 1:00 PM ET @NYJ W 9-0
11/7/10 8:20 PM ET DAL W 45-7
BYE
11/21/10 1:00 PM ET @MIN W 31-3
11/28/10 1:00 PM ET @ATL L 17-20
12/5/10 1:00 PM ET SF W 34-16
12/12/10 1:00 PM ET @DET L 3-7
12/19/10 8:20 PM ET @NE L 27-31
12/26/10 4:15 PM ET NYG W 45-17
1/2/11 4:15 PM ET CHI W 10-3


Interesting finding. What about the control?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Are we the only team that played teams that were in "meltdown mode" or in tough situations due to scheduling or injuries?

[MichiganPackerFan]

THose close loses are the most painful kind. I was going back through my schedule and i think that special teams came back to lose four of the six.

[hoosier]

Are we the only team that played teams that were in "meltdown mode" or in tough situations due to scheduling or injuries?

That wasn't what I was saying. The Packers were presented with opportunities and sometimes they tood advantage of them. If they play Dallas three weeks later, or the Giants three weeks earlier, I have a hard time imagining that the scores would have been as lopsided as they were. I think this falls into a the "luck" category, with the understanding that teams contribute to making their own good or bad fortune. In the Bears case good luck translated into a lot of close wins. The Packers tended to be inconsistent from one week to the next. When Dallas and NY came to town the stars were lined up right and GB was on.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't buy the argument when it comes to the Giants game. They were playing for their playoff life. We got their best, but we were better than them and played to the best of our abilities that game.

[vince]

I don't buy the argument when it comes to the Giants game. They were playing for their playoff life. We got their best, but we were better than them and played to the best of our abilities that game.
yup

[Fosco33]

That is pretty impressive. I felt like in '96/'97 that we were just dominating teams... wonder how often we trailed big in those years.

This year felt like we were always in the running and only periodically piling it up.

My favorite stat - yards per pass attempt differential.

Given that SD missed the playoffs - the Packers have the highest of the playoff teams (i.e., we should be SuperBowl bound).

http://mule.he.net/~budsport/pub/killer.php

GB 1.9
PIT 1.7
NE .9
NO .7
IND .7
BAL .6
PHI .6
NYJ .4
CHI .1
KC .1
ATL -.2
SEA -.9

[denverYooper]

That wasn't what I was saying. The Packers were presented with opportunities and sometimes they tood advantage of them. If they play Dallas three weeks later, or the Giants three weeks earlier, I have a hard time imagining that the scores would have been as lopsided as they were. I think this falls into a the "luck" category, with the understanding that teams contribute to making their own good or bad fortune. In the Bears case good luck translated into a lot of close wins. The Packers tended to be inconsistent from one week to the next. When Dallas and NY came to town the stars were lined up right and GB was on.

The Packers also played Miami + Washington when those teams were probably at their strongest and GB was in severe injury-related flux.

[Scott Campbell]

The net point differential is interesting. In 2007, the Packers had a net point differential of +144 and won three more games. Since McCarthy was the coach for both squads, I'll throw him out as a reason. It would seem the explanation would be that Aaron Rodgers is not as clutch as Brett Favre AND/OR dumb luck. There might be some truth to the clutch factor, but I think it's overblown. Brett had his share of failure late in games, and Rodgers has had great moments late in games--only to have other factors blow the game for him. I lean mostly towards dumb luck--mixed in with Brett being a bit more clutch.
:)

Of course, the plus side to Rodgers is that he makes fewer mistakes than Brett and most other QBs--which has kept us in more games.


Maybe Favre couldn't put teams away early, and lacked a killer instinct. He instead relied on late game theatrics, which sometimes worked, and other times left announcers crying "This is not Detroit man, this is the Superbowl!"

Rodgers is more of the silent assassin type.

[mraynrand]

I think, from my perspective, the most amazing stat is that, after 6 close losses, I didn't throw anything at the TV or break one single thing in the house.

[hoosier]

Take that as a sign that you're getting old.

[bobblehead]

Their relatively huge point differential this year can be explained by four blow-out wins, three of which came against teams that were melting down after high expectations (vs. Dall, at Min, vs. NYG). If we look at those three blowouts as anomalies and remove them from consideration (but keep the one against Buffalo as a normal variant) then GBs point differential for the year is only +54, which is more in keeping with their 10-6 record.
Regular Season
Date Time vs Score
9/12/10 4:15 PM ET @PHI W 27-20
9/19/10 1:00 PM ET BUF W 34-7
9/27/10 8:30 PM ET @CHI L 17-20
10/3/10 1:00 PM ET DET W 28-26
10/10/10 1:00 PM ET @WAS L 13-16
10/17/10 1:00 PM ET MIA L 20-23
10/24/10 8:20 PM ET MIN W 28-24
10/31/10 1:00 PM ET @NYJ W 9-0
11/7/10 8:20 PM ET DAL W 45-7
BYE
11/21/10 1:00 PM ET @MIN W 31-3
11/28/10 1:00 PM ET @ATL L 17-20
12/5/10 1:00 PM ET SF W 34-16
12/12/10 1:00 PM ET @DET L 3-7
12/19/10 8:20 PM ET @NE L 27-31
12/26/10 4:15 PM ET NYG W 45-17
1/2/11 4:15 PM ET CHI W 10-3

I get your point, but if you are going to do that removing 3/16ths of the study would be what we technical statisticians refer to as "selective grading". You would make a great global warming scientist. If you wish to "explain" our dominance in differential, you must apply the exact same explanation to every team in the NFL and then recalculate where we land. YOu also might wish to consider strength of schedule, or at least strength of defenses faced. I'm not trying to be flippant or insulting, but I think you would agree that "explaining" it as you did is more like trying to discount it.

As for being in line with our record, with 1 or 2 calls going a different way, OR 1 or 2 fumbles/drops not happening, OR 2 concussions not happening we could easily be 12-4 or better.

[Patler]

Their relatively huge point differential this year can be explained by four blow-out wins, three of which came against teams that were melting down after high expectations (vs. Dall, at Min, vs. NYG). If we look at those three blowouts as anomalies and remove them from consideration (but keep the one against Buffalo as a normal variant) then GBs point differential for the year is only +54, which is more in keeping with their 10-6 record.

You can't give them 0 for those games, they won them. The +54 was only in the other 13 games in which they had a 7-6 record, not a 10-6 record.

[bobblehead]

Furthermore, I looked at it differently. We blew out teams that were thrashing in desperation. Must win situations. Those teams are dangerous. They often play inspired games. We went in and knocked that right out of them. I was scared when we faced the vikings the second time. They were just showing signs of life and were desperate for a win. The Giants were playing for their playoff lives. Dallas was also in a must win. Many teams would have lost tough games there, or eeked out wins. We stomped them. It counts....or else I get to remove the 3 biggest blowouts from every other team in the league and then we can recalculate. Hell, if we do that maybe we actually finish first as I recall NE blowing out a few teams even worse than we did.

[Joemailman]

A stat I find interesting is to look at the scores of the Patriots last 6 games:

NE 45 @ DET 24
NYJ 3 @ NE 45
NE 36 @ CHI 7
GB 27 @ NE 31
NE 34 @ BUF 3
MIA 7 @ NE 38

Since Thanksgiving, only the Packers have been able to play with the Patriots, and that was without Rodgers.

[Bossman641]

Another stat, since 2008 Rodgers is tied with Brees for the 2nd highest QB rating in the league in situations in which the game was tied.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/22244/packers-in-philly-aaron-rodgers-record

[pbmax]

Packer's expected W/L record going by Point Differential is 12-4 (actually 12.1-3.9 by Pythagorean wins). They are under performing by 2 games. That typically is a good indicator of MORE success in the future. Though it is normally predictive of the next season. Not sure about playoff scenarios.

[HarveyWallbangers]

From ESPN's Kevin Seifert:


Perhaps you've already read or know that the Green Bay Packers haven't trailed by more than seven points at any point during their 19 games this season. Earlier this week Chase Stuart of Pro Football Reference found that it has been 48 years since an NFL team went through an entire season in that manner.

[gbgary]

From ESPN's Kevin Seifert:
Perhaps you've already read or know that the Green Bay Packers haven't trailed by more than seven points at any point during their 19 games this season. Earlier this week Chase Stuart of Pro Football Reference found that it has been 48 years since an NFL team went through an entire season in that manner.

WOW!

[Smeefers]

I love this thread.

[Tony Oday]

From ESPN's Kevin Seifert:

Only 19 days after being covered by Packerrats.com ESPN sucks

[Guiness]

He had his hand in the Miami and Washington losses, but it's hard to fault him for Chicago (Jones fumble when he was driving them for the game winner), Atlanta (tied it up late, but ST let them down), Detroit (injured), New England (injured). Actually, there's a solid chance the Packers are 12-4 if he doesn't get the concussion. In a way, you are right. He's to blame. Not because of his play, but for trying to make a play in a game where our offense needed a spark. Probably bone-headed, but hard to blame a player trying to make a play.

I look at that a bit differently, that NE game seems like a turning point for the team.

Flynn came out and played very well, the Pack was in it against a team that a lot of pundits wanted to award the Super Bowl too without playing the rest of the games. We took what the D gave us with fewer big shots down the field, and moved the ball on them all day long. It seems to me that when Rodgers came back, the way he played changed as well.

[mraynrand]

What am I missing here? 48 years? From 2010 that would be 1962 and it wouldn't be the Packers because, despite their 14-1 record and victory over the Giants for the NFL championship at Yankee stadium (16-7), that's the year they suffered their humiliating 11 sack loss on Thanksgiving at Detroit, 26-14. (and it can't be the Giants either).

[TravisWilliams23]

From ESPN's Kevin Seifert:
Perhaps you've already read or know that the Green Bay Packers haven't trailed by more than seven points at any point during their 19 games this season. Earlier this week Chase Stuart of Pro Football Reference found that it has been 48 years since an NFL team went through an entire season in that manner.


That would have been the 1962 Detroit Lions who finished 11-3 and second to the Packers at 13-1.
Many have stated that the 62 team was Lombardi's greatest team ever. If so, this stat speaks volumes for the 2010 Packers.

The Lombardi trophy WANTS to come home. 1-2-3 WHITEHOUSE!

[HarveyWallbangers]

What am I missing here? 48 years? From 2010 that would be 1962 and it wouldn't be the Packers because, despite their 14-1 record and victory over the Giants for the NFL championship at Yankee stadium (16-7), that's the year they suffered their humiliating 11 sack loss on Thanksgiving at Detroit, 26-14. (and it can't be the Giants either).

Any NFL team. Not just the Packers.


Earlier this week Chase Stuart of Pro Football Reference found that it has been 48 years since an NFL team went through an entire season in that manner.

[mraynrand]

Any NFL team. Not just the Packers.


I got that part. There were two things - 1) I couldn't think of another team that played that well, even when the team was right under my nose - Detroit and 2) I was focusing on the 19 games, thinking the team had to be a playoff team at least - but there really weren't much in the way of playoffs.

Interesting about Detroit. They lost 3-0 to Chicago, 17-13 to the Giants, and 9-7 to Green Bay. They were pretty good.

[bobblehead]

The net point differential is interesting. In 2007, the Packers had a net point differential of +144 and won three more games. Since McCarthy was the coach for both squads, I'll throw him out as a reason. It would seem the explanation would be that Aaron Rodgers is not as clutch as Brett Favre AND/OR dumb luck. There might be some truth to the clutch factor, but I think it's overblown. Brett had his share of failure late in games, and Rodgers has had great moments late in games--only to have other factors blow the game for him. I lean mostly towards dumb luck--mixed in with Brett being a bit more clutch.
:)

Of course, the plus side to Rodgers is that he makes fewer mistakes than Brett and most other QBs--which has kept us in more games.

It could be the weak schedule and multiple third string QB's we played against in '07 compared the nightmare schedule we played against this season.

[Tarlam!]

Actually, I think it's more appropriately explained by saying that the Packers never got blown out. If you don't lose by 4 or less each game, the point differential will be incredibly positive.

This.

[Fosco33]

That is pretty impressive. I felt like in '96/'97 that we were just dominating teams... wonder how often we trailed big in those years.

This year felt like we were always in the running and only periodically piling it up.

My favorite stat - yards per pass attempt differential.

Given that SD missed the playoffs - the Packers have the highest of the playoff teams (i.e., we should be SuperBowl bound).

http://mule.he.net/~budsport/pub/killer.php

GB 1.9
PIT 1.7
NE .9
NO .7
IND .7
BAL .6
PHI .6
NYJ .4
CHI .1
KC .1
ATL -.2
SEA -.9

And THIS :-D