Official 2019 Pick The Packers Win/Loss Record Thread

[Joemailman]

Time to put on your prognosticator's glasses. Packers have had 2 straight losing seasons, but not since Lindy Infante has a Packers 1st year head coach had a losing record.

For the record, nobody here predicted 7-9 in 2017 or 6-9-1 in 2018.

Poll to follow.

[SMBASS]

8-8 They play better down the stretch but miss the playoffs.

[Joemailman]

10-6. Will that be enough?

[Cheesehead Craig]

11-5. Hope springs eternal.

[RashanGary]

11-5 NFLs best shannahan offense, complete with QB lead no huddle and full palette audible options as needed.

Top 10 defense.

Scott/Crosby/Davis best ST core in years

[Upnorth]

11-5, playoffs. Top 10 d, top 7 o. It keeps getting better as the year progresses and leads to the 5th Super Bowl

[wist43]

9-7

[Bretsky]

8=8

[Zool]

9-7. Step forward for D and the O starts slow.

[call_me_ishmael]

They're either going to be 8-8 or like 11-5. They're going to be really good, or pretty bad (8-8 is bad with a QB like Rodgers IMHO).

Their record will mirror how Rodgers performs. If you think they're 8-8, then you're expecting bad 2017-2019 Rodgers. If you're expecting 11-5, you're expecting good Rodgers.

I'm an optimist at heart. I can't help it. I go 11-5.

[George Cumby]

7-9.

D will be improved but I don't see #12 playing all 16 games and maybe doesn't make it through the season.

[Rutnstrut]

11-5 if AR stays relatively healthy. If they actually run the ball a lot, they end up with a better record and an uninjured #12.

[Patler]

7-9. The Aaron Rodgers Era is coming to an end. People will blame it on the new, unfamiliar offense; the lack of experience at WR; even the new, inexperienced HC. In reality, it will be a continuation of the decline in QB performance that we saw last year. It's not a given that any great QB who wants to can play until he is 40. Rodgers is at an edge that many QBs decline.

The only way the Packers will be a contender is if the defense makes a huge step forward and/or they really do develop a running game that defenses have to respect. Rodgers can no longer carry the team. Unfortunately, with so many new pieces, I expect a stellar defense is at least another year away; and I don't have faith in Jones to play more than 10-12 games. Dexter Williams could be a key, if he comes on.......

[texaspackerbacker]

Sheeeeeesh! What a bunch of negativists. I'll post a specific prediction after I examine the schedule more closely, but I honestly don't see anybody in the NFL that I would clearly predict the Packers to lose to - barring injury to Aaron Rodgers anyway. The defense is gonna be hugely improved, and people need to get over it if they expect the offense to be significantly different - which is to say worse - than it has been.

[RashanGary]

11-5 if AR stays relatively healthy. If they actually run the ball a lot, they end up with a better record and an uninjured #12.

Pretty much, i agree.

[pbmax]

12-3-1

Its goin to be an ugly 1-2-1 start but Rodgers reasserts control over the passing offense and things start to roll. Offense gels quicker than defense, which suffers from personnel unavailability in the backend before getting settled and the pass rush ramps up later in the season.

Packers carry two kickers to stiff the Bears and Vikes (hoping).

[mraynrand]

miracle year with no real harmful injuries. Run games works just enough to protect Rodgers. Paper tiger defense turns into a pass rushing track meet to the QB. Teams run on the Packers a lot, but so what, they generally won't run up points on O. But don't fool yourself, the Packers have a tough schedule - back to back road games at KC then San Diego. Six games against teams with defenses that were/should be very strong (2X Vikings, Bears, Dallas, Philly). Their 10-6 record might win the division, or leave them out of the playoffs.

[mraynrand]

Packers carry two kickers to stiff the Bears and Vikes (hoping).

my favorite prediction so far

[Fritz]

Sheeeeeesh! What a bunch of negativists. I'll post a specific prediction after I examine the schedule more closely, but I honestly don't see anybody in the NFL that I would clearly predict the Packers to lose to - barring injury to Aaron Rodgers anyway. The defense is gonna be hugely improved, and people need to get over it if they expect the offense to be significantly different - which is to say worse - than it has been.


6 -10.

Dark days ahead.

[gbgary]

voted 8-8. i've posted "8-8 maybe 9-7, 10-6 if no one gets hurt" before in other threads. i'll be consistent.

[gbgary]

6 -10.

Dark days ahead.

wouldn't be surprised at all. you look at the schedule and there's only 6 that we might consider easy...and two of those are against det who beat us twice last year.

[texaspackerbacker]

13-3, although I can't honestly see three to lose - but I'll go with 3 slip ups. Aaron Rodgers is still Aaron Rodgers. LaFleur realizes that and subordinates his ego.

[Joemailman]

2 forecasts for Packers season:

Tex:

https://www.visittci.com/core/cover-sunny-grace-bay-beach-resorts-providenciales_1024x341.jpg

Fritz:

http://www.photographyblogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/011.jpg

[texaspackerbacker]

You got that right!

[MadScientist]

6-9-1
I'm pretending to be a learned pundit by predicting that every team will be exactly the same as they were last year.

[pbmax]

6-9-1
I'm pretending to be a learned pundit by predicting that every team will be exactly the same as they were last year.

Just make sure to change 3 playoff teams in some way. You'll be 100%

[bobblehead]

10-6

I really like the improvements on Defense, but the truth is this offense will likely struggle early (part inexperience part playing bears out of the gate).

I don't like nobody playing all preseason. No one has hit anyone full speed. I have no clue about Savage. Gary has underwhelmed.

10-6 is about the worst prediction I ever will make for a team led by Aaron Rodgers. We filled a lot of holes, but it'll still take time to gel...time they didn't spend playing opponents in pre season.

[Fritz]

2 forecasts for Packers season:

Tex:

https://www.visittci.com/core/cover-sunny-grace-bay-beach-resorts-providenciales_1024x341.jpg

Fritz:

http://www.photographyblogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/011.jpg

Thing is, if you look r-e-a-l-l-y closely at Tex's picture, you'll see American tourists slumped over their beach chairs, dead from drinking that toxic crap somebody's sneaking into the booze bottles down there.

[yetisnowman]

8-8. Couple of key injuries expose the lack of overall talent and playmakers on the roster. Rodgers continues to be good but not elite, other than his precious TD/Int ratio. The NFC is loaded, and I fear the Packers wasted Aaron's prime while the conference and division were more manageable.

[mraynrand]

8-8. Couple of key injuries expose the lack of overall talent and playmakers on the roster.

Gosh I hate 'key' injuries. If it's Rodgers and Clark, the Packers could be in trouble.

[mraynrand]

13-3, although I can't honestly see three to lose - but I'll go with 3 slip ups.

For Tex it's always year zero.

[ThunderDan]

It feels like 9-7 to me. The offense is an unknown and who knows with the D. I could see the D step up this year and if the O can function, we could reach 11-5.

[Fritz]

Thunder Dan going to the positive side!

Well, unless you're Tex, in which case even 11 - 5 makes one a negative nellie.

But I hope Tex is right. 13 - 3 sounds awfully good.

[texaspackerbacker]

If there was an over and under on 13 wins, I'd definitely take the over. As I said, I really can't see three games that are likely losses - barring injury to the GOAT, of course. @ K.C. and @ Dallas could be tough, but at worst, those games would be toss ups. Who do ya'all see beating the Packers? The God damned Bears and/or Vikings? Come On!

[mraynrand]

If there was an over and under on 13 wins, I'd definitely take the over. As I said, I really can't see three games that are likely losses - barring injury to the GOAT, of course. @ K.C. and @ Dallas could be tough, but at worst, those games would be toss ups. Who do ya'all see beating the Packers? The God damned Bears and/or Vikings? Come On!

lol

Or the refs - you can always blame the refs if they lose!

[yetisnowman]

If there was an over and under on 13 wins, I'd definitely take the over. As I said, I really can't see three games that are likely losses - barring injury to the GOAT, of course. @ K.C. and @ Dallas could be tough, but at worst, those games would be toss ups. Who do ya'all see beating the Packers? The God damned Bears and/or Vikings? Come On!

I'll give you 3 to 1 on the over. My 3000 vs your 1000. O/U 13 wins.
What do you say?

[texaspackerbacker]

That's a mighty tempting offer ...... but I gave up gambling about 25 years ago. Sorry to wimp out hahahahaha.

Keep track of these posts, though. Either I or ya'all negativists will seriously be able to rub the nose of the other(s) in it at the end of the season.

And there's always the caveat: assuming the GOAT doesn't get hurt.

[Fritz]

I hope you like dirt, Tex.

But what do we do if they finish 8 - 8? Both of us rub our noses in it at the end of the season, while all those namby-pamby middle-of-the-roaders crow about being right?

We're two of a kind, Tex. We're both extremists of different extremes.

[texaspackerbacker]

Well, 6-10 is a helluva lot closer to 8-8 than 13-3. I honestly consider 13-3 to be pretty much middle-of-the-road. Extreme was whoever said 16-0 or if I said 15-1.

Given the Packer improvements, do you seriously see the Packers as worse than 10 or 8 or 6 or even 4 teams on the schedule? That just seems ridiculous to me. The only reason I could see them losing as many as 3 is the principle of "shit happens".

[Fritz]

Well, 6-10 is a helluva lot closer to 8-8 than 13-3. I honestly consider 13-3 to be pretty much middle-of-the-road. Extreme was whoever said 16-0 or if I said 15-1.

Given the Packer improvements, do you seriously see the Packers as worse than 10 or 8 or 6 or even 4 teams on the schedule? That just seems ridiculous to me. The only reason I could see them losing as many as 3 is the principle of "shit happens".

The way I see it, you have a new head coach, a new offensive system, and while on paper the defense is upgraded, it remains to be seen if the free agent signees pan out and whether Rashan Gary can play any better than Reggie Gilbert when the bullets are flying. In addition, you've got a completely unproven offensive line coach, ditto special teams coach, as well as inexperience in other coaching positions.

Plus, if you look back at the success rate of new offenses in their first years of installation, that first year can be a little rough.

I think that Gutekunst himself is pointing toward next year. He did, after all, put both St. Brown and Sternberger on IR.

So I don't think 6 - 10 is ridiculous, especially given the tendency to injury that Bulaga, King and others (should we include Aaron Rodgers?) have displayed.

[mraynrand]

I hope you like dirt, Tex.

Dirt?

[texaspackerbacker]

Gary better than Gilbert? I'd say the jury is still out on that, but the Smith boys are performance proven. They could bomb out with the Packers, but that would seem to be pretty unlikely. And Amos over Clinton-Dix? Who even among the negativists thinks that is not in our favor? Also, I am not sure, but I don't think Alexander played much of a part in last year's opening game.

The goodness as well as the badness of going to a new offensive system is greatly overrated - IMO.

IRing St. Brown solved the numbers problem of too many WRs. In fact, he did not look near as good as Lazard in the preseason. Sternberger, as I understand the rules, can come back from IR at some point if he is ok. I don't see either of those moves - or anything else - as "pointing toward next year".

What I said was ridiculous was not necessarily your prediction, but the idea that the Packers are actually "worse" than 10, 8, 6, even 4 teams on their schedule. Who other than maybe K.C. do you see fitting that description?

[Smidgeon]

The way I see it, you have a new head coach, a new offensive system, and while on paper the defense is upgraded, it remains to be seen if the free agent signees pan out and whether Rashan Gary can play any better than Reggie Gilbert when the bullets are flying. In addition, you've got a completely unproven offensive line coach, ditto special teams coach, as well as inexperience in other coaching positions.

Plus, if you look back at the success rate of new offenses in their first years of installation, that first year can be a little rough.

I think that Gutekunst himself is pointing toward next year. He did, after all, put both St. Brown and Sternberger on IR.

So I don't think 6 - 10 is ridiculous, especially given the tendency to injury that Bulaga, King and others (should we include Aaron Rodgers?) have displayed.

Wow. A non-emotional assessment of where Gary's actually at.

Fritz, are you okay?

[pbmax]

Dirt?

Tex mentioned someone getting their nose rubbed in their bad prediction.

[mraynrand]

Tex mentioned someone getting their nose rubbed in their bad prediction.

Right, but it won't be rubbed in dirt. :)

[Freak Out]

16-0

[pbmax]

Right, but it won't be rubbed in dirt. :)

I think Fritz views his prediction of 5-11 or 6-10 as being "in the dirt".

[texaspackerbacker]

Bears on the road ......, first game with a new coach and offensive system hahahaha ....... I was just curious, was this one of the 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 the Packers were supposed to lose? Gosh, next week we play the powerful Vikings hahahahaha; Is THAT supposed to be one of ya'all's 5-10 losses?

I'm just kinda wondering, which teams do ya'all think are better than the Packers?

Yeah, go ahead and drop a flag on me for taunting hahahahahahahahahaha.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

16-0

I beat ya to it. Imma extremist - the true, just extremists - after all.

[RashanGary]

Yeah, go ahead and drop a flag on me for taunting hahahahahahahahahaha.

You take your flack like a man when it’s there. You earn it to say something. You’ve made sense
To me lately. I used to get distracted by your big personality, but you’re consistent and do know what you’re talking about in a lot of ways

[mraynrand]

Bears on the road ......, first game with a new coach and offensive system hahahaha ....... I was just curious, was this one of the 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 the Packers were supposed to lose? Gosh, next week we play the powerful Vikings hahahahaha; Is THAT supposed to be one of ya'all's 5-10 losses?

I'm just kinda wondering, which teams do ya'all think are better than the Packers?

Yeah, go ahead and drop a flag on me for taunting hahahahahahahahahaha.

I'm of course pleased with the win, but sure, that game was one that you'd think they'd struggle with. I'll remind you that NE was 11-5 and K.C. was 12-4 last year, both worse records than your prediction for the Packers. Your prediction isn't really all that realistic given the recent history of this team, history of first year coaches, strength of competition, etc. But I do hope you're right and will rub our noses in it all year.

[Fritz]

Wow. A non-emotional assessment of where Gary's actually at.

Fritz, are you okay?


Just a momentary slip up. It won't happen again.

[pbmax]

Am I wrong or does someone usually predict 0-16 in this thread annually?

[pbmax]

Just a momentary slip up. It won't happen again.

Didn't quite BJ Sander him.

[texaspackerbacker]

You take your flack like a man when it’s there. You earn it to say something. You’ve made sense
To me lately. I used to get distracted by your big personality, but you’re consistent and do know what you’re talking about in a lot of ways

hahahahaha Big uh, personality? Is that some sort of a "that's what she said" joke?

Anyway, thanks. I'm glad to see at least one of ya'all is coming around (although several others aren't too far off either).

I'm just going primarily by observation, as I do so much in FYI and life in general, and what I observe is that this Packers team is better than just about anybody. The Pats and Chiefs might be exceptions, but it's damn close even there. And of course, shit happens and you blow a game once in a while - hopefully not often, though, with Aaron Rodgers and a head coach who is, I'll say guardedly, fairly sensible.

[Fritz]

We'll see. I hope you're right, but one game, as promising as that defense looks, does not a season make.

For your prediction to come even close to being right, that offense has a l-o-n-g way to go. That was a clown show.

[texaspackerbacker]

True, the offense has to improve, but the fact is, I underestimated the Bears D. It wasn't all lameness of our O Line, etc. that held down our offense. Even though we somehow made Mack mostly disappear, the rest of their front seven showed up pretty well, and their secondary was apparently better than I thought too.

All that being said, I really don't think much of the new Packer offense. Arguably, we won in spite of it, not because of it. If we had been behind late, I really think the GOAT woulda taken over and did like he did on that one drive. Wasting downs running into the backside of our retreating O Line was something I hated with McCarthy, and if anything, they did that more yesterday. Still, I'm at least open to the idea that maybe those outside zone and occasional even inside zone trap plays might work better against a lesser D than the Bears.

And was our D really that good? Or was Trubisky and the Bears offense that bad? They shouldn't have been bad - no excuse of running something new like the Packers, and Trubisky certainly gets plenty of praise as a good QB by so called experts. I think our D really is that good.

[Fritz]

True, the offense has to improve, but the fact is, I underestimated the Bears D. It wasn't all lameness of our O Line, etc. that held down our offense. Even though we somehow made Mack mostly disappear, the rest of their front seven showed up pretty well, and their secondary was apparently better than I thought too.

All that being said, I really don't think much of the new Packer offense. Arguably, we won in spite of it, not because of it. If we had been behind late, I really think the GOAT woulda taken over and did like he did on that one drive. Wasting downs running into the backside of our retreating O Line was something I hated with McCarthy, and if anything, they did that more yesterday. Still, I'm at least open to the idea that maybe those outside zone and occasional even inside zone trap plays might work better against a lesser D than the Bears.

And was our D really that good? Or was Trubisky and the Bears offense that bad? They shouldn't have been bad - no excuse of running something new like the Packers, and Trubisky certainly gets plenty of praise as a good QB by so called experts. I think our D really is that good.


Don't know if I agree. I think they ran the ball only 33% of the time - too much for you, but a lot less than MM's averages over most of his coaching tenure.

Me, I'd like to see them run the ball more. But they gotta get better at it, clearly.

[texaspackerbacker]

I think a lot of those 40-50% figures in the past reflected getting a good lead and running clock - playing not to lose, as some hated so much. They, of course, never had that comfortable lead last night, and whenever they did run first/run more, it was a mistake.

As I said, though, I'm open to the possibility of the running game being better against a lesser D team.

Rodgers threw 30 passes; Do you mean to say they only ran the ball 15 times? It sure seemed like more than that.

[mraynrand]

I think a lot of those 40-50% figures in the past reflected getting a good lead and running clock - playing not to lose, as some hated so much. They, of course, never had that comfortable lead last night, and whenever they did run first/run more, it was a mistake.

As I said, though, I'm open to the possibility of the running game being better against a lesser D team.

Rodgers threw 30 passes; Do you mean to say they only ran the ball 15 times? It sure seemed like more than that.

Packers ran 2 of their first 9 snaps, yet it was enough to draw in LBs and move safeties for the bomb to Scantling. You have to show enough seriousness to run, that the defense will at least look for it. Some defenses will look at your tape and if they think you really can't run the ball, they'll just come after the QB and be happy to surrender any yards they happen to give up on the ground. For example, Seattle did this to the Packer several times. Even so, Rodgers took a lot of hits yesterday. You really don't want that happening. A competent run game will help protect him.

[texaspackerbacker]

Probably the Bears believed the same stuff a lot of ya'all in here believe - that the Packers could/should/would use more running plays.

As for Rodgers taking hits, just my observation, but he looked a little more sturdy than in the past. Maybe his off season fitness regimen consisted of more than golf and Danica.

[mraynrand]

Probably the Bears believed the same stuff a lot of ya'all in here believe - that the Packers could/should/would use more running plays.

They also know the Packers don't have to be pass silly if the Packer D can hold a lead. Game situation also matters.

[RashanGary]

They also know the Packers don't have to be pass silly if the Packer D can hold a lead. Game situation also matters.

If the defense really is a top 5 unit, that changes the offense for sure.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yes but .......... I'd like to be "pass silly" enough to get a little bit bigger lead before going run first and settling for a 10-3 win.

A win is a win is a win, though. I'll take it.

[RashanGary]

Rodgers and Lafleur both know the offense will get better. Even just this 10 day mini bye. You can count on it that there will not be delay of game penalties. They’ll get that cleaned up. Home games obviously help with that, but by next road game, you won’t see that ever again, not with an Aaron Rodgers team.

Chicago missed their shot. That won’t happen again. Period.

[Joemailman]

Anti-Polar Bear and Freak Out have been officially eliminated. :whaa::sad:

[Fritz]

6 - 10, baby. The slide has begun. They will lose to the Cowboys - no shocker there - but watch the panic ensue after the Lions come in and beat the Pack - again.

[Joemailman]

Fritz is still alive.

[yetisnowman]

I'll give you 3 to 1 on the over. My 3000 vs your 1000. O/U 13 wins.
What do you say?

Damn Tex. looking pretty juicy. Seems pretty manageable for GB, you could have made some loot. Enough to buy your wife a companion maybe.

[George Cumby]

Yup. Wait for them to drop the next nine straight to prove Fritz and me right. It's really gonna' suck being that right.

[texaspackerbacker]

Damn Tex. looking pretty juicy. Seems pretty manageable for GB, you could have made some loot. Enough to buy your wife a companion maybe.

I don't recall, did I take that bet or just strongly think about it? I may have under-estimated with the 13 wins hahahahaha. Honestly, I didn't think you could be counted on to pay off.

As for the other, that's kind of a Philippine tradition, having a second one around the house - a juicy thought, but at my age, I guess I'll settle for keeping the primary one satisfied.

[RashanGary]

Tex looking smart with the WR talent too. Damn Tex, you might know something after all!

[Joemailman]

MadScientist and Fritz have been officially eliminated. :wave::pack::glug::pack:

[George Cumby]

Guys, I hate to break it to you, but they drop the rest of their games this season. Strap in, the rest of the year is gonna' suck.

[Joemailman]

Guys, I hate to break it to you, but they drop the rest of their games this season. Strap in, the rest of the year is gonna' suck.

Damn you!!!:x:smack:

[Fritz]

Guys, I hate to break it to you, but they drop the rest of their games this season. Strap in, the rest of the year is gonna' suck.

What he said!

[Joemailman]

George Cumby and Vincenzo have been officially eliminated. :pack::glug::wave::bump::butt::pack:

[Upnorth]

I am really appreciating your posts in this thread Joe. Can't wait til I'm eliminated

[Joemailman]

Bretsky, gbgary and SMBASS are next on the list.:smack:

[George Cumby]

Rats. I’m really disappointed. I so hate being wrong. How will my ego survive.

[Joemailman]

Bretsky, gbgary, and SMBASS have been officially eliminated. :pack::glug::wave:

In the crosshairs: beveaux1, esoxx, LEWCWA, ThunderDan

[pbmax]

This poll reminds me of why I was happy when tex returned. Lotta Doubting Thomases around these parts.

[Fritz]

PB: Don't doubt the doubters!

[MadtownPacker]

This poll reminds me of why I was happy when tex returned. Lotta Doubting Thomases around these parts.Shouldnt there be doubts??? You can’t tell me you are really impressed with the giants win that much.

[Fritz]

You always see the flaws in the one you love moreso than you do in strangers or outsiders.

[ThunderDan]

Shouldnt there be doubts??? You can’t tell me you are really impressed with the giants win that much.

The poll is predict the Packers win/loss record. It wasn't are there doubts or how good are the Packers really!

[MadtownPacker]

The poll is predict the Packers win/loss record. It wasn't are there doubts or how good are the Packers really!Damn PB I didn’t know you had two accounts!

I missed the vote on this but probably would have said 10-6 because I blamed M3 for many of the issues.

[pbmax]

Damn PB I didn’t know you had two accounts!

I missed the vote on this but probably would have said 10-6 because I blamed M3 for many of the issues.

My complaint was half hearted. Its just so much more fun to be optimistic. Plenty of time for pessimism during the Game Day thread.

[MadtownPacker]

Ok I could use some optimism. Hell I was thinking possible SB run just 2 weeks ago. Seeing them get punked hard in person is what has shaken my faith.

[pbmax]

They adjusted well to the loss of Adams. Now they need a new adjustment to teams focusing on Jones. The Flower's best trait so far was avoiding press war with Rodgers over dumb things like audibles, but in a close second, its his refusal to be stubborn about the offense they run.

[bobblehead]

Ok I could use some optimism. Hell I was thinking possible SB run just 2 weeks ago. Seeing them get punked hard in person is what has shaken my faith.

I still think we have a shot, better than I believed at the start of the offseason, less than I though a few weeks back.

[MadtownPacker]

I still think we have a shot, better than I believed at the start of the offseason, less than I though a few weeks back.
Shot to win a playoff game or two but you have to admit that is not the objective. At this stage of Rodger’s career it is looking like the end of Favre’s. I can’t stand the person but I admit he is (was?) a great QB. Like Apollo told Rocky after Clubber Lang got in his head “there is no tomorrow!”. That’s where I am at because time is not on Rodgers, Packers, or the fans side.

[texaspackerbacker]

Week by week, the negativists are getting eliminated. My 13-3 is looking pretty good about now. And all this talk about wait 'til next year, forget that. With a healthy Aaron Rodgers, we are capable of beating anybody. I don't see us going out before meeting the Niners again at San Fran in the conference finals.

[George Cumby]

The excitement of the early season success has worn off for me.

I don't see this team making it past the Wild Card round.

There's just something lacking. That beatdown in Santa Clarita really said a lot.

[MadScientist]

The excitement of the early season success has worn off for me.

I don't see this team making it past the Wild Card round.

There's just something lacking. That beatdown in Santa Clarita really said a lot.

The wild card game will likely be at home against the Vikings. Not an easy win, but a good chance. The following week will be a big challenge unless in the next few weeks they find the secret sauce they've been missing.

[MadtownPacker]

Week by week, the negativists are getting eliminated. My 13-3 is looking pretty good about now. And all this talk about wait 'til next year, forget that. With a healthy Aaron Rodgers, we are capable of beating anybody. I don't see us going out before meeting the Niners again at San Fran in the conference finals.Being eliminated is exactly my concern. But not on a fucking forum poll, in the playoffs. It is looking like the team peaked too soon IMO. Had these ugly losses happened in the first half of the season and they had been picking up steam the last few weeks I would be optimistic, not at a kool-aid extremist level like you, but very hopeful. What good is winning the division at 13-3 when the reward is a visit to or from Bosa and his homies?

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not automatically assuming we lose to the Niners, but 13-3 and losing in the conference finals would be a damn successful season IMO - just like if the Badgers lose to Ohio State again. As I've said many times, I'll take being near the top almost every year over winning it all and then falling back for a decade or so like some teams - the Giants come to mind, probably among others.

[Radagast]

At the beginning of any season, we look at the schedule and say to ourselves this is a strong team or they are a weak team. However the truth is only on display following week 8 or 9.

As it turns out, GB has been fortunate in 2019 to play the AFC West and the NFC East. Losses to the Eagles and the Chargers aside, GB has dominated these two fairly weak divisions. GB's record would be quite different had they had the NFC West and the AFC South on the 2019 schedule. The SF loss only points out how not ready GB is to win a SB this season. While I applaud the current team over the last few teams. GB clearly needs to improve in two areas, WR and Offensive Line play. For me it all boils down to player personal. GM Gutekunst has been dealing with each problem position so far and I'm sure he will do so with these areas of interest as well.

Many variables are involved in a won/loss record. Strength of schedule, injuries, the weather, and luck. GB is having a very good year, but their just not a SB winning team. With a few player improvements they might be contenders in 2020.

[George Cumby]

I'm not automatically assuming we lose to the Niners, but 13-3 and losing in the conference finals would be a damn successful season IMO - just like if the Badgers lose to Ohio State again. As I've said many times, I'll take being near the top almost every year over winning it all and then falling back for a decade or so like some teams - the Giants come to mind, probably among others.

WTF?

I agree with this post.

[MadtownPacker]

I'm not automatically assuming we lose to the Niners, but 13-3 and losing in the conference finals would be a damn successful season IMO - just like if the Badgers lose to Ohio State again. As I've said many times, I'll take being near the top almost every year over winning it all and then falling back for a decade or so like some teams - the Giants come to mind, probably among others.Man getting that close only makes it worse!! :lol:

Not so sure about the 10 years. 1996 and 2010 is not as good as 1996, 2006, and 2016 if the price is some crappy seasons in between which we have had. I’m of the mentality that Packers have to capitalize on the end of Rodgers time.

[MadtownPacker]

At the beginning of any season, we look at the schedule and say to ourselves this is a strong team or they are a weak team. However the truth is only on display following week 8 or 9.

As it turns out, GB has been fortunate in 2019 to play the AFC West and the NFC East. Losses to the Eagles and the Chargers aside, GB has dominated these two fairly weak divisions. GB's record would be quite different had they had the NFC West and the AFC South on the 2019 schedule. The SF loss only points out how not ready GB is to win a SB this season. While I applaud the current team over the last few teams. GB clearly needs to improve in two areas, WR and Offensive Line play. For me it all boils down to player personal. GM Gutekunst has been dealing with each problem position so far and I'm sure he will do so with these areas of interest as well.

Many variables are involved in a won/loss record. Strength of schedule, injuries, the weather, and luck. GB is having a very good year, but their just not a SB winning team. With a few player improvements they might be contenders in 2020.Nice post Rad. Agree that it needs to come together next year cuz I don’t see Rodgers playing until he is 45 (Tex) or maybe even 40.

[MadtownPacker]

WTF?

I agree with this post.
I defend your right to love Tex’s asshole!!
:lol:

[George Cumby]

Eeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwww!!!!!

[pbmax]

Packers so far this year:

Division: 3-0

Conference (no Division Games): 3-2

AFC West: 3-1

Yep. Its the damn weak AFC West and NFC East that are puffing up the Packers record.

Counting is an underrated skill these days.

[George Cumby]

Rodgers QB rating 102. Better than I thought.

Good enough to win a lot of games. Enough to with the Owl? If the rest of the team plays better, maybe, but I have my doubts.

[Joemailman]

beveaux1, esoxx, LEWCWA, and ThunderDan have been officially eliminated.

:pack::glug::wave::pack:

In the crosshairs:

bobblehead, Fosco33, Gotarace, jklowan, Joemailman, mraynrand, SudsMcBucky, The Shadow, and Zool

[pbmax]

Going to be eating a lot of crow when tex is right and Packers have first round bye.

##knock on wood##

[texaspackerbacker]

Damn Straight!

[Zool]

In August, I would have been pretty glad to be right, now I really hope I was wrong.

[Fritz]

I see that my prediction of 6 - 10 was actually correct, if you're predicting how well the team would do based on their talent and the inexperience of the coaching staff. However, the team has been very, very lucky all year long, which I did not factor into my rational, thoughtful prediction.

In truth, then, I was correct. They are a 6 - 10 team, but they just got super lucky this year. And that will end soon, when they lose two of the last three and miss the playoffs.

You can apologize to me now, Tex.

[pbmax]

I see that my prediction of 6 - 10 was actually correct, if you're predicting how well the team would do based on their talent and the inexperience of the coaching staff. However, the team has been very, very lucky all year long, which I did not factor into my rational, thoughtful prediction.

In truth, then, I was correct. They are a 6 - 10 team, but they just got super lucky this year. And that will end soon, when they lose two of the last three and miss the playoffs.

You can apologize to me now, Tex.

Weird year when reality doesn't measure up to Fritz, but does measure right up to tex.

Bonkers.

[texaspackerbacker]

What's weird about it? This year, like every year, I honestly couldn't see any team on the schedule that was clearly better. I just figured they fuck up a few games - as they say, shit happens.

I suspect there are a lot of other closet homers in here too. All season, there have been hardly any picks against the Packers in the Pick'em, and a lot of people give them more confidence points than even I do. For some odd reason, it seems like a lot of people think they have to bad mouth the good guys - Packers, Badgers, Brewers, Bucks. We are really blessed to have probably the best all around group of teams to root for of anybody in the country - and a lot of people can't do anything except piss and moan.

[MadtownPacker]

Don’t you say 13-3 every year Tex?

[texaspackerbacker]

No. I think I said 14-2 last year, but Rodgers got hurt.

[Joemailman]

bobblehead, Fosco33, Gotarace, jklowan, Joemailman, mraynrand, SudsMcBucky, The Shadow and Zool have been officially eliminated.

:pack::glug::wave::pack:

[pbmax]

Down to tex and me. tex wins and they get a bye. I win, they might lose at home to San Fran.

[beveaux1]

Down to tex and me. tex wins and they get a bye. I win, they might lose at home to San Fran.

I'm rooting for Tex. Sorry, PB.

[pbmax]

I'm rooting for Tex. Sorry, PB.

I understand.

I am too.

[Joemailman]

Cheesehead Craig, RashanGary, Rutnstrut, smuggler, Tony Oday, Upnorth have been officially eliminated.

:pack::glug::wave::pack:

It's Tex vs pbmax.

[texaspackerbacker]

Isn't homerism a wonderful thing! And it helps in "Pick'em" too.

[Fritz]

Tex, I hope your 13 -3 comes true. Let's not have to suffer some ridiculous loss next week.

Man, was I ever wrong about this team. The Smith Brothers really changed the calculus.

[pbmax]

Tex, I hope your 13 -3 comes true. Let's not have to suffer some ridiculous loss next week.

Man, was I ever wrong about this team. The Smith Brothers really changed the calculus.

You misspelled Fackrell, but he doesn't mind.

Also Savage helps. I would comment on another DB's health but I'm not gonna jinx this thing now.

[Upnorth]

Cheesehead Craig, RashanGary, Rutnstrut, smuggler, Tony Oday, Upnorth have been officially eliminated.

:pack::glug::wave::pack:

It's Tex vs pbmax.

Glad I was wrong this way

[bobblehead]

Tex, I hope your 13 -3 comes true. Let's not have to suffer some ridiculous loss next week.

Man, was I ever wrong about this team. The Smith Brothers really changed the calculus.

Is it possible a new found commitment to the run game that keeps offenses off the field and defenses on the field causing more manageable downs and distances had something to do with it as well? Its not always JUST about the points scored by an offense, sometimes its which D gets gassed first.

[pbmax]

Is it possible a new found commitment to the run game that keeps offenses off the field and defenses on the field causing more manageable downs and distances had something to do with it as well? Its not always JUST about the points scored by an offense, sometimes its which D gets gassed first.

I think the D is playing well enough to get them the lead. Which the normally zero turnover offense can hang on to.

The Packers have led in TOP by more than a minute in 9 of 15 games. When leading TOP? 7-2 or 77.8%

When even (Oakland, Wash)? 2-0, 100%

When losing TOP (NYG, Denver, Chicago, LAC)? 3-1, 75%

There was a writeup of TOP recently, I think I posted it, that the evidence that the D gets more tired is very thin,

[texaspackerbacker]

The defense played like crap for 8 or 9 weeks in the middle of the season, but we still won most of those games. Now, they seem to be back where they should be, although I still have doubts about our pass coverage if the pass rush doesn't get home.

TOP is a good thing, but not essential, as your stats show, pbmax.

I have always considered lack of turnovers the primary good thing, but the Viking game proves we can even win a game with a few turnovers. The run game - and by extrapolation, the decency of the O Line compared to what they used to be - has helped a lot. I always said, if we had a O Line and RB(s) like the Badgers, I'd be all for running a lot more. Well, to some extent we do. And we still have the GOAT QB who can take over as needed. I wonder, though, if Lane Taylor hadn't been injured if Jenkins would have languished on the bench, and the whole season woulda been worse.

What we still need to prove is that we can win a game against a team with a dominating pass rush. The Bears and Vikings should have been good, but as good as the Niners and Chargers? I don't know.

Bottom line, the Packers seem to be peaking at the right time, and the top rival teams, some anyway, seem to be fading.

[Joemailman]

We have a winner!
Congratulations Tex!!
Drinking the Kool-aid pays off!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KjZpox43b6A/S9cVNQfDIII/AAAAAAAAACs/FsDgQnuF4pA/s1600/kool+aid+man+copy.jpg

[pbmax]

Came real close to 12-3-1 which I have been predicting for a decade.

[George Cumby]

:glug:

[Fosco33]

Do we start a playoff prediction poll??