How Will The Packers Do In The Postseason?

[denverYooper]

Not going to read his article, but he's probably right. The AFC is super weak this year, so the Broncos will probably survive the divisional round. Meanwhile, there is no possible way for the Seahawks to play the Cowboys, as the top seed. Meaning that they will likely advance to the NFC Championship game.

Bingo. The odds are that the Packers will draw the strongest divisional matchup.

I'll still take Rodgers and Green Bay's offense at home this year against Dallas's defense as the difference. Dallas's defense only looks better because their offense has been controlling the ball. But ball control alone isn't likely to beat Green Bay at home.

[Pugger]

They are a hard-hitting, fearsome defense, but they feast on bad QB play and errors. For example, against the Rams. Shawn Hill is a fantastic journeyman QB, and played quite well in Seattle. Two huge errors - a juggled reception went for a pick six and a fumble going in for a TD (through the end zone for a touchback) amounted to a 14 point difference. Otherwise the game was extremely tight.

Folks are touting Seattle's defense during the last 6 weeks of the season. However, here are the QBs they faced during that time: the Cards' Ryan Lindley twice, an erratic Kaepernick twice, Mark Sanchez and Shawn Hill. Not exactly a murderers row of QBs. Kaep has been a thorn in our side but his play this year has been rather poor at times. If Carson Palmer doesn't get hurt I suspect AZ wins that division instead of the seachickens.

[denverYooper]

Now watch Detroit and Carolina win this weekend.

Carolina would make me more nervous than Dallas.

[mraynrand]

Last September, I don't remember anybody predicting that the Seattle defense would suffocate the Packers. The few lonely voices were right.

It ran pretty typical. But it was more that people thought the Packer O was going to be fabulous because of the preseason, not that Seattle didn't have a good defense.

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...cussion-Thread

[Pugger]

my dream situation would be Arizona and Detroit both winning.

we will have issues beating Dallas, Carolina, and Seattle if Rodgers mobility is severely hampered.

The only team with a better D than the Lions here is Seattle.

[pbmax]

pbmax, you are missing my point.
I do not have a strong opinion about whether you are right or wrong.
I disagree with your sense of certainty. I'm saying that statistical measures are suspect. And you come back with the stats that have already been cited.

The Badgers were favorites against Ohio State, based on previous performances. A few analysts said that was ridiculous.
The Badgers were said to have a great D. I thought that was silly.

Football is not very predictable.

Whether the Seattle defense is better this year or not going into playoffs is subjective opinion, requiring the weighing of many intangibles.

It is uncertain whether Seattle will dominate defensively. I don't have a strong sense, but I think the people picking a Tenacious D will be right.

After 16 games, football teams are very predictable. Matchups, gameplans, execution and luck are unpredictable (some by definition). Since we are not talking about the result, but only the play of the Defense over the latter portion of the season, its far simpler to assess them than to predict a game outcome.

By no measure other than talking heads are the Seahawks as good on D as they were last year. This is the bias of recent memory. It ignores their opponents. The Seattle D last year was '85 Bear good, meaning one of the all time great Defenses. This year's team hasn't done that.

My apologies for repeating Yoop's previous post.

No one is arguing they are terrible or won't give the Packers fits. But the recent stories about the return of the Seattle D to the level of last year (a counter narrative to their obvious slippage in the first half of the year) is itself overblown.

Conventional wisdom always produces over-reactions because its based on a recent event that is assumed to become a trend.

The Badgers were favored because Ohio State had an unknown at QB. By the end of the first Quarter, it was clear he wasn't the weak link the bettors imagined. Perhaps you think there is that kind of talent to be found on the Seahawks bench, but given the results while they were injured, I tend to doubt it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It ran pretty typical. But it was more that people thought the Packer O was going to be fabulous because of the preseason, not that Seattle didn't have a good defense.

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...cussion-Thread

Its not that Seattle was good, they were outstanding.

[pbmax]

It ran pretty typical. But it was more that people thought the Packer O was going to be fabulous because of the preseason, not that Seattle didn't have a good defense.

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...cussion-Thread

I was stunned they had that kind of trouble, but that is often the case for the Packers early in the year. 2011 was an aberration. I still think there are limitations to how good this offense can be because they are so dependent on 2 receiving options. But that still doesn't explain the first Seattle game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Now watch Detroit and Carolina win this weekend.

Forget it.

After 16 games, football teams are very predictable.

[Pugger]

Bingo. The odds are that the Packers will draw the strongest divisional matchup.

I'll still take Rodgers and Green Bay's offense at home this year against Dallas's defense as the difference. Dallas's defense only looks better because their offense has been controlling the ball. But ball control alone isn't likely to beat Green Bay at home.

If you go nfl.com and look at team stats our D right now is ranked higher than Dallas' in total yards and passing. They are better than we are against the run but just last Sunday we put up 150+ yards on the #1 run D in the league.

[Pugger]

Now watch Detroit and Carolina win this weekend.

Carolina would make me more nervous than Dallas.

Because...?

[Packers4Glory]

It might be. But the "not-to-worry, the Seattle D is over-rated narrative" that has been repeated in this forum is underblown. What we need is to be simply blown.

Last September, I don't remember anybody predicting that the Seattle defense would suffocate the Packers. The few lonely voices were right.

This playoff season, the voices saying Seattle D will dominate - and the voices aren't so lonely - may prove right. Seattle is good enough that this is credible intuition. There are intangibles, there is room for disagreement.

well that's what happens when your game plan only covers half the field because you think Sherman is Deion Sanders incarnate.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I was stunned they had that kind of trouble, but that is often the case for the Packers early in the year. 2011 was an aberration. I still think there are limitations to how good this offense can be because they are so dependent on 2 receiving options. But that still doesn't explain the first Seattle game.

As I recall, Green Bay went into that first game disrespecting the environment and the opponent (except of course for their puzzling reverence for "Sherman Island"...calling plays in a hurry up offense with sign language and relying on some secret defensive alignment that would astound the football world. On top of all this they played the entire 2nd half with the human turnstyle at OT.

Don't think we're likely to make those mistakes again.

[mraynrand]

Its not that Seattle was good, they were outstanding.

People were predicting the Packers wouldn't be suffocated because of the way they played in the preseason. Many, many people thought Seattles' defense was outstanding. The Superbowl was fresh in everyone's minds. People aware of Packer history knew that great offensive teams (like teams that generate say 560 points) can lose to aggressive defenses, even at home when favored and with the NFL MVP. So 2011, the Superbowl all suggested a possibility that the Packer O could get spanked, but many bought into the great Packer offense meme, moreso than the "Seattle's defense ain't that good." That's just my impression, I wasn't posting here in the early fall.

[Bossman641]

Let's also not forget that Linsley was starting his first ever game in week 1, that it took Lacy until about week 8 (Saints) to hit his stride, or that Cobb didn't really take off until week 7. I'm not sure how much can really be taken from the matchup earlier this year.