next 5 games...how many L's?

[gbgary]

i'm thinking at least 4. they'd be mostly dead then. not enough consistency on either side of the ball. the trend has been to fall behind early and that's iocane against a good team. 3 or fewer...it would take a miracle.

[mraynrand]

3

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?30535-Predicting-the-2018-Packers-Game-by-Game

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I, too, am a pessimist, for in a system designed to keep the downtrodden down, hope is but an illusion.

However, it is worth noting that in 2012, the Packers were 2-3 when they visited the undefeated Texans down there yonder in ole hillbilly Texas, and the Packers managed to annihilate the Texans in hippie fashions.

Beat them damn St. Louis Rams, and we all might as well get our fire ready, cos if the Pack can beat the Rams, no reason they can’t proceed all the way to the lost city of Atlanta and burn it to the ground (again) on Super Bowl Sunday.

[gbgary]

3

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?30535-Predicting-the-2018-Packers-Game-by-Game
oops. never saw it.

please ignore or contribute as you wish.

[mraynrand]

oops. never saw it.

please ignore or contribute as you wish.

It’s a legit new topic. Things change as the season progresses.

Packers don’t stand a chance unless their secondary can become dominant and they’re running out of time. The rest of their defense is marginal (d line) or a total mess (lbs).

[Tony Oday]

2 loses to the Pats and Rams.

[MadScientist]

The way they've been playing, 1 win at best. If the bye week helps the team extract their heads from their asses, they could get 2.

[Freak Out]

Only loss is to the Rams....and that is a close one.

[mraynrand]

I, too, am a pessimist, for in a system designed to keep the downtrodden down, hope is but an illusion.

What? The NFL is totally geared to hamstring the successful, and reward failure. It is the Harrison Bergeron League (Two HB refs in less than 10 minutes! - THAT'S A RECORD)

[mraynrand]

Only loss is to the Rams....and that is a close one.

If they wear their color rush unis, the Packers will get slaughtered.

[mraynrand]

Only loss is to the Rams....and that is a close one.

Actually, I looked it up - they will be wearing their old school royal blue Unis (which the players say they love). It's supposed to be in the 80's Sunday - I hope they swelter in 'em.

[Fritz]

What? The NFL is totally geared to hamstring the successful, and reward failure. It is the Harrison Bergeron League (Two HB refs in less than 10 minutes! - THAT'S A RECORD)


By this point in my life as a Packer fan, especially in the last ten years or so, I think it's pretty clear how this will go:

After the off week, the Packers put in an impressive performance against the Rams. They might lose a close one, they might hang for a while and get blown out, and if they do lose, then . . .

They'll go to NE on the heels of despair and beat the Pats at home.

OR, if they do somehow upset the Rams, they'll then lose to the Pats at home.

Got it so far?

They'll then be 4-3-1, and people will cling to hope. Then they'll beat the Dolphins at home, going 5-3-1, and people will start talking about this team making a run. Seattle will look fairly mediocre, and people will be confident.

Then they'll go out to Seattle and lose, then compound that by losing to the Vikes.

So there we will all be, with a 5-5-1 team. And that will be what they are.

[pbmax]

...

Then they'll go out to Seattle and lose, then compound that by losing to the Vikes.

So there we will all be, with a 5-5-1 team. And that will be what they are.

They then qualify for the playoffs, win a WC game and then lose a Divisional game that they never lead, scoring some meaningless 2nd half points, final score within 7.

[Tony Oday]

They then qualify for the playoffs, win a WC game and then lose a Divisional game that they never lead, scoring some meaningless 2nd half points, final score within 7.

pfft if we make it to the playoffs we will get to the NFCCG and get demolished.

[pbmax]

pfft if we make it to the playoffs we will get to the NFCCG and get demolished.

That hasn't been the trend.

[mraynrand]

They then qualify for the playoffs, win a WC game and then lose a Divisional game that they never lead, scoring some meaningless 2nd half points, final score within 7.

Or they get an early pick six, some fat head tells all his family and friends watching the winning percentage of a team getting a pick six and then they lose horribly anyway giving up over 578 yards of offense.

[denverYooper]

i'm thinking at least 4. they'd be mostly dead then. not enough consistency on either side of the ball. the trend has been to fall behind early and that's iocane against a good team. 3 or fewer...it would take a miracle.

You're in luck. They're only mostly dead.

https://captainawkwarddotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/miracle-max-jpg.gif

[texaspackerbacker]

Sheeeeesh! What a bunch of negativists!

Are you guys seriously that down on the Packers? Or do you just not have the balls to come out and express optimism?

[yetisnowman]

Sheeeeesh! What a bunch of negativists!

Are you guys seriously that down on the Packers? Or do you just not have the balls to come out and express optimism?

It's called being a realist, you know for the purpose in engaging in dialogue rooted in reality. Most people, like myself, prefer that in a sports forum. I'm not sure why you think it's great and courageous to just blindly say the Packers should go 16-0, or that the Badgers are going to win every game by 40 each season. Its not.

[yetisnowman]

For the Record I think the Pack wins 2 of the next 5.

[wist43]

I think 3 of them are nohopers... Rams, Pats, and Minn.

We'll be favored over the Dolphins, but not by much; and the Seattle game is a coin toss.

[mraynrand]

Sheeeeesh! What a bunch of negativists!

Are you guys seriously that down on the Packers? Or do you just not have the balls to come out and express optimism?

I'll listen to your perspective after I get through reading your analysis of the Wisconsin victory over Michigan.

[pbmax]

GB is going to beat the Vikings. The correct answer is two losses.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's called being a realist, you know for the purpose in engaging in dialogue rooted in reality. Most people, like myself, prefer that in a sports forum. I'm not sure why you think it's great and courageous to just blindly say the Packers should go 16-0, or that the Badgers are going to win every game by 40 each season. Its not.

yeah right. Fuck that shit. Some people are just cowards - so afraid of being wrong that they take the whiny way out.

You want to talk realism? As long as the Packers have Aaron Rodgers, even at maybe 70%, they are never out of games.

The difference between sports and politics is I call people like you shitheads when it is politics.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'll listen to your perspective after I get through reading your analysis of the Wisconsin victory over Michigan.

Fuck it, some people are just plain shitheads - reveling in defeat is for losers. Something unfortunate happens, and shitheads use that to justify their own patheticness.

[mraynrand]

Fuck it, some people are just plain shitheads - reveling in defeat is for losers. Something unfortunate happens, and shitheads use that to justify their own patheticness.

http://addicted2success.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Dale-Carnegie-Keys-To-Success-300x330.jpg

[Fritz]

Does anybody wonder if Gutekunst can turn the culture of the NFL so it becomes more open to trading? Can he pry an outside rusher from a team that's out of the running? This might be the chance to get football GM's thinking more like baseball GM's - if your season is already shot, why not dump salary in exchange for future resources (in this case, draft picks)? And if you're a marginal contender, this could, perhaps, vault you into stronger contention. It might make the league more fun.

Can he do it? Or are there too many constraints to allow this to happen in the NFL?

[gbgary]

it's not a shithead, bravery, or cowardly thing. it's looking at the situation and objectively making a guess. no one is reveling in anything. it's just a prediction. if they win 4 of 5 that would be fantastic...i just don't thing it's going to happen. i'll say the LA game may be the most interesting (other than the mia game) because they'll be fully healthy and they've had an extra week for the coaches to trick up something. no one is hoping for Packers losses...yet. https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/images/smilies/wink5.gif

[gbgary]

Does anybody wonder if Gutekunst can turn the culture of the NFL so it becomes more open to trading?

it's already happened without his participation. i've never seen so much trade activity as this year. it takes guts to do something big and he's lacked that so far. he's thinking long term and there is no long term with Rodgers.

[yetisnowman]

yeah right. Fuck that shit. Some people are just cowards - so afraid of being wrong that they take the whiny way out.

You want to talk realism? As long as the Packers have Aaron Rodgers, even at maybe 70%, they are never out of games.

The difference between sports and politics is I call people like you shitheads when it is politics.

No they are trying to make an accurate prediction. You don't want to make predictions, you want to talk about fairy tales you would love to see come to life. There is nothing brave or interesting about it. You're dumb, delusional, repetitive, and boring.

[texaspackerbacker]

And you're a pathetic shithead who is AFRAID to say anything positive about the home team - which as long as Aaron Rodgers is healthy, is competitive with anybody. Yeah, if I was betting money, I'd demand either a few points or some favorable odds to bet on the Packers against the Rams at their place. However, only a God damned anti-homer shithead would claim the Packers don't have a good chance in that game, especially coming off the bye week.

And the worst shitheads are those who leap for joy when the good guys lose because it supports their ballsless "prediction".

[mraynrand]

And you're a pathetic shithead who is AFRAID to say anything positive about the home team - which as long as Aaron Rodgers is healthy, is competitive with anybody. Yeah, if I was betting money, I'd demand either a few points or some favorable odds to bet on the Packers against the Rams at their place. However, only a God damned anti-homer shithead would claim the Packers don't have a good chance in that game, especially coming off the bye week.

And the worst shitheads are those who leap for joy when the good guys lose because it supports their ballsless "prediction".


http://addicted2success.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Dale-Carnegie-Keys-To-Success-300x330.jpg

[MadScientist]

And you're a pathetic shithead who is AFRAID to say anything positive about the home team - which as long as Aaron Rodgers is healthy, is competitive with anybody. Yeah, if I was betting money, I'd demand either a few points or some favorable odds to bet on the Packers against the Rams at their place. However, only a God damned anti-homer shithead would claim the Packers don't have a good chance in that game, especially coming off the bye week.

And the worst shitheads are those who leap for joy when the good guys lose because it supports their ballsless "prediction".

The Packers have played poorly through the first 6 games. It took miracle comebacks to beat the Bears and the 49ers, and the 49ers were running with a backup QB. The only team they solidly beat was Buffalo, one of the worst teams in the league, and AR said that the Packers offense played like shit in the game. They've looked terrible on the road against teams that are hardly world-beaters. The next two are on the road against the best teams in the league. The Packers have to play radically better or hope the other team shits the bed if they want to win any of the road games coming up. I'm not saying the Packers can't do it, but they haven't shown it so far. Based on what they've shown, 1-4 or 2-3 is what we can expect. I hope I'm wrong. I hope AR is fully healthy, MM starts scheming things better, and the defensive front seven figures out how to take care of their gap and still make a play on the ball. But I'm not giving a prediction based on hope and blind faith.

[Pugger]

Sheeeeesh! What a bunch of negativists!

Are you guys seriously that down on the Packers? Or do you just not have the balls to come out and express optimism?

A lot of fans are really down on the Packers mainly because of their performances in most of the games so far this season. Our only hope for a W this weekend is if the Rams screw up. I don't think we are as dreadful as the score indicated in Detroit but we messed up with turnovers and a kicker who had a terrible game. If the Rams have a few penalties and turn it over ya never know.

With a new DC I never felt we were going to set the league on fire. We should see defensive improvement every week. It didn't help us when AR got hurt in the very first game of the freaking year and then to lose 2 veteran WRs in subsequent games. Perhaps with time to heal we'll play better this Sunday on O.

[Pugger]

I think 3 of them are nohopers... Rams, Pats, and Minn.

We'll be favored over the Dolphins, but not by much; and the Seattle game is a coin toss.

I don't think MN is a juggernaut at all. If we didn't get jobbed in that game we'd be in first place in this division even with all of our issues.

[Pugger]

Does anybody wonder if Gutekunst can turn the culture of the NFL so it becomes more open to trading? Can he pry an outside rusher from a team that's out of the running? This might be the chance to get football GM's thinking more like baseball GM's - if your season is already shot, why not dump salary in exchange for future resources (in this case, draft picks)? And if you're a marginal contender, this could, perhaps, vault you into stronger contention. It might make the league more fun.

Can he do it? Or are there too many constraints to allow this to happen in the NFL?

This is an interesting question. It will depend upon what the selling GM will demand for a star player. In baseball a team in the market for a difference maker has to give up at least one coveted prospect. In the NFL the selling team will probably want multiple high picks. There is also the salary cap. That cap most likely kept us out of the running for K. Mack.

[Pugger]

And you're a pathetic shithead who is AFRAID to say anything positive about the home team - which as long as Aaron Rodgers is healthy, is competitive with anybody. Yeah, if I was betting money, I'd demand either a few points or some favorable odds to bet on the Packers against the Rams at their place. However, only a God damned anti-homer shithead would claim the Packers don't have a good chance in that game, especially coming off the bye week.

And the worst shitheads are those who leap for joy when the good guys lose because it supports their ballsless "prediction".

Come on. Tell us how you really think. :lol

If these Negative Nellies want to wallow in dispair so what?

[yetisnowman]

And you're a pathetic shithead who is AFRAID to say anything positive about the home team - which as long as Aaron Rodgers is healthy, is competitive with anybody. Yeah, if I was betting money, I'd demand either a few points or some favorable odds to bet on the Packers against the Rams at their place. However, only a God damned anti-homer shithead would claim the Packers don't have a good chance in that game, especially coming off the bye week.

And the worst shitheads are those who leap for joy when the good guys lose because it supports their ballsless "prediction".

You're literally posting in a prediction thread...I've seen you post in several. If you don't like predictions stay out of it. Whiny little bitch. If you wouldn't bet money without a point spread or odds then there is the truth of your prediction. Of course I want the Packers to win every game. You conflate fandom with vapid homerism.

[yetisnowman]

I actually could see the Packers surprising us these next 2 games. Just because they tend to do that when I think I have certain matchups figured out. All signs point to convincing losses, but I think at least one is competitive.

[mraynrand]

A lot of fans are really down on the Packers mainly because of their performances in most of the games so far this season. Our only hope for a W this weekend is if the Rams screw up. I don't think we are as dreadful as the score indicated in Detroit but we messed up with turnovers and a kicker who had a terrible game. If the Rams have a few penalties and turn it over ya never know.


I'm not down on them so much as I realize their talent level is thin. They need everyone healthy and they need a number of rookies to play like veterans to have a shot at the post season.

[texaspackerbacker]

I actually could see the Packers surprising us these next 2 games. Just because they tend to do that when I think I have certain matchups figured out. All signs point to convincing losses, but I think at least one is competitive.

Is that a hedge of your bet hahahaha? Fandom IS Homerism, but that isn't the point. The point is, this is the same Packer team that was predicted by many in here and many so-called experts to win it all before the season. Now some fair weather fools see it otherwise, yeah, as somebody said, why should I care? I don't know, other than it is damn annoying. Wist I expect to be an idiot - he thinks the whole country is gonna fall apart, literally. The rest of you - with a couple of exceptions who are only about halfway down the toilet, sheeeeesh!

A prediction thread huh? OK, I'll go on record as predicting 4 wins, 1 stumble in the next 5. As I have said many times, any given game, I just would not predict that this Packer team would lose to anybody.

[smuggler]

3 of 5. Probably lose to LAR and NE. Win against the hapless Dolphins and then the Seahawks. Randomly beat the Vikes in a game we should lose (to counteract the tie they screwed us with in a game we should fave won).

[red]

like all of fat mikes teams, here we are almost at mid season, and i still have no clue if we are a good team that can beat the pats and/or rams, or if we are a team that could lose 4 or 5 of the next 5

i really don't know, i wouldn't be surprised either way

[Bretsky]

like all of fat mikes teams, here we are almost at mid season, and i still have no clue if we are a good team that can beat the pats and/or rams, or if we are a team that could lose 4 or 5 of the next 5

i really don't know, i wouldn't be surprised either way



I think they find a way to win 3 of 5, slip barely into the playoffs and may even win a game.

[texaspackerbacker]

I think they find a way to win 3 of 5, slip barely into the playoffs and may even win a game.

What's that old expression? Condemning by faint praise.

[Fritz]

Well, Bretsky has been consistent - he sees this team as perennially just good enough to get into the playoffs, thanks to Arod, but feels TT and Mike have fallen short.

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, having grown up in the 70's and 80's, I have seen what it's like to have a truly bumbling organization. It's no fun. This ride, from Wolf through even Sherman and then Ted, has been wonderful. We're spoiled.

On the other hand, as much as I was a fan of Ted's, I see also that his more recent drafts have just not been enough to get this team over the hump and to the SB. They do seem to be lacking talent at OLB, offensive line, and safety, and before Gute's draft, cornerback and wide receiver, too. I mostly blame Mike for the Seattle playoff loss that would've seen this team in a second Super Bowl.

So is one SB win and a bunch of playoff games enough? For me, it's sometimes frustrating, yet I appreciate that this has been a damn good run. If you don't believe me, go back and re-live the clownshow that was the 70's and 80's. Well, except that one lovely year when they had that great offense with Lofton and Dickey and Coffman, I think. What a great offense. A fun year in the barren desert that was Packer football in those days.

[texaspackerbacker]

Excellent Summary. Fair and Balanced.

[Fritz]

Like Fox News!

[bobblehead]

I, too, am a pessimist, for in a system designed to keep the downtrodden down, hope is but an illusion.

However, it is worth noting that in 2012, the Packers were 2-3 when they visited the undefeated Texans down there yonder in ole hillbilly Texas, and the Packers managed to annihilate the Texans in hippie fashions.

Beat them damn St. Louis Rams, and we all might as well get our fire ready, cos if the Pack can beat the Rams, no reason they can’t proceed all the way to the lost city of Atlanta and burn it to the ground (again) on Super Bowl Sunday.

Credit where due. I have been talking about that texans game all week to my friends as an example of the cockroach surviving when he should be done.

[bobblehead]

They then qualify for the playoffs, win a WC game and then lose a Divisional game that they never lead, scoring some meaningless 2nd half points, final score within 7.

And stubby saves his job.....FUCK!!!!

[Rutnstrut]

Well, Bretsky has been consistent - he sees this team as perennially just good enough to get into the playoffs, thanks to Arod, but feels TT and Mike have fallen short.

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, having grown up in the 70's and 80's, I have seen what it's like to have a truly bumbling organization. It's no fun. This ride, from Wolf through even Sherman and then Ted, has been wonderful. We're spoiled.

On the other hand, as much as I was a fan of Ted's, I see also that his more recent drafts have just not been enough to get this team over the hump and to the SB. They do seem to be lacking talent at OLB, offensive line, and safety, and before Gute's draft, cornerback and wide receiver, too. I mostly blame Mike for the Seattle playoff loss that would've seen this team in a second Super Bowl.

So is one SB win and a bunch of playoff games enough? For me, it's sometimes frustrating, yet I appreciate that this has been a damn good run. If you don't believe me, go back and re-live the clownshow that was the 70's and 80's. Well, except that one lovely year when they had that great offense with Lofton and Dickey and Coffman, I think. What a great offense. A fun year in the barren desert that was Packer football in those days.



I too was a fan in the 70's and 80's albeit pretty young. But just because I remember that crap doesn't mean I'm happy with high level mediocrity.

[mraynrand]

But just because I remember that crap doesn't mean I'm happy with high level mediocrity.

I'm not sure what that is, but I think I'd like it better than low-level mediocrity.

[red]

I'm not sure what that is, but I think I'd like it better than low-level mediocrity.

neither one gets you super bowls, but lower mediocrity gets you better picks to help get you out of mediocity

[mraynrand]

neither one gets you super bowls, but lower mediocrity gets you better picks to help get you out of mediocity

Like Harrell Hawk and Reynolds?

[Joemailman]

Like Harrell Hawk and Reynolds?

Could be worse.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/K0sTpZja6JQ/maxresdefault.jpg

[Rutnstrut]

I'm not sure what that is, but I think I'd like it better than low-level mediocrity.

IDK, as red already hit on. Shittier means better draft picks. But I think there are more holes than the draft can fix in the window AR has left.

[mraynrand]

IDK, as red already hit on. Shittier means better draft picks.

Not necessarily. And winning is so difficult that 10+ win seasons and playoffs most every year should not be undervalued. Yeah, you want that championship, but in the extreme socialist, Harrison Bergeron NFL, forces are working against the successful.

[gbgary]

IDK, as red already hit on. Shittier means better draft picks. But I think there are more holes than the draft can fix in the window AR has left.

yup. look at cle. they're on the brink. when MM moves on to cle this off-season he'll have a good qb on a rookie contract, a great gm, a good d, and another high 1st round pick, to start off with.

as for the Rodgers window, this off-season will tell the tail. lots of draft capitol and cap room. if something significant can't be done in the next two seasons it ain't happening.

[bobblehead]

By this point in my life as a Packer fan, especially in the last ten years or so, I think it's pretty clear how this will go:

After the off week, the Packers put in an impressive performance against the Rams. They might lose a close one, they might hang for a while and get blown out, and if they do lose, then . . .

They'll go to NE on the heels of despair and beat the Pats at home.

OR, if they do somehow upset the Rams, they'll then lose to the Pats at home.

Got it so far?

They'll then be 4-3-1, and people will cling to hope. Then they'll beat the Dolphins at home, going 5-3-1, and people will start talking about this team making a run. Seattle will look fairly mediocre, and people will be confident.

Then they'll go out to Seattle and lose, then compound that by losing to the Vikes.

So there we will all be, with a 5-5-1 team. And that will be what they are.

I couldn't remember where I saw this, so I spent like 15 minutes searching. I have a hunch this is going to go down as one of the great posts in Rats history. I plan on bumping this each step that is correct. It could end right here tonight with a humiliating loss, but it rang so accurate when I first read it that I think we win tonight.

[red]

yup. look at cle. they're on the brink. when MM moves on to cle this off-season he'll have a good qb on a rookie contract, a great gm, a good d, and another high 1st round pick, to start off with.

as for the Rodgers window, this off-season will tell the tail. lots of draft capitol and cap room. if something significant can't be done in the next two seasons it ain't happening.

i don't know if fat mike can win with just a decent or very good QB

he might need HOFers

lets say we manage to somehow lose 4 out o these 5 games. we still may be in the hunt for a playoff spot

that just shows how terrible the nfc and nfc north are this year

[Fritz]

The Pack wins tonight, just to keep us interested.

[gbgary]

Packers are -9 vs miami this weekend. take the points lol. this could be another L. if so...i predict an MM mid-season dismissal.

[call_me_ishmael]

-9 is a big spread, I would bet big bucks on the Packers if I gambled. If they get blown out, things are gonna get ugly.

[Bossman641]

-9 is a big spread, I would bet big bucks on the Packers if I gambled. If they get blown out, things are gonna get ugly.

-9 and you'd still take the Pack? Im with GBG... feel like this line will move to about 7.5 by game time.

[Fosco33]

Luckily I was born in 80 so I didn’t suffer for the long drought. And the ride has been great since early 90s - but as in my own life, I expect greatness and always appreciated the culture/history of the packers as they did as well (“winning is the only thing”).

Having a great QB allows GB to be ok sneaking into the playoffs and hoping for a run (2010/2011).

But as a realist (I gave up being a homer after Favre debaucle), the Packers have been very average the last 30 or so games. And with a young family and busy work schedule, I’m not wasting a lot of time/money on average entertainment. It has become easier to be a casual fan.

[call_me_ishmael]

-9 and you'd still take the Pack? Im with GBG... feel like this line will move to about 7.5 by game time.

Sorry, I don't gamble so this is probably reverse of how I read it. Is this saying the Dolphins are favored by 9, or the Packers are favored by 9? I'd say the Packers will not lose to the Dolphins by 9 points.

[gbgary]

Sorry, I don't gamble so this is probably reverse of how I read it. Is this saying the Dolphins are favored by 9, or the Packers are favored by 9? I'd say the Packers will not lose to the Dolphins by 9 points.

Pack favored by 9.