Most Amazing Stat Of The Season

[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