The Green Bay Packers are ....

[scharpcheddar]

Comparing win, loss records in the parity era is a waste of time. The league wants it so everyone's 9-7, 8-8, total parity chaos.
The Packers will lose the conference championship to the Niners.

[Joemailman]

Comparing win, loss records in the parity era is a waste of time. The league wants it so everyone's 9-7, 8-8, total parity chaos.
The Packers will lose the conference championship to the Niners.

So why are there 3 teams in the NFC at 13-3 and 5 others with 5 wins or less? Doesn't sound like parity to me.

[scharpcheddar]

So why are there 3 teams in the NFC at 13-3 and 5 others with 5 wins or less? Doesn't sound like parity to me.

Do you take everything literally? Do you understand context and variables?
Yes, teams have winning and losing records. But you still debate those records by comparing the win- loss of who they beat.
Parity= everyone sucks. Everyone sinks to the lowest common denominator.
If the sport were real, you wouldn't have as many teams on the playoffs bubble in week 15 threw 17. It's all artificial drama.

[hoosier]

"Context and variables": in other words, I can make absolute statements and, when the fallacies are pointed out to me, I can fall back on the premise that it's all relative. Uh huh.

[Vincenzo]

14.9 million people watch the average NFL football game, yet “it’s all artificial drama.” Sorry, not buying ANY of it.

[texaspackerbacker]

What's your point?

These teams were above .500 when we played them:

Minnesota (1-0) W
Dallas (3-1) W
Detroit (2-1-1) W
Oakland (3-2) W
Kansas City (5-2) W
Carolina (5-3) W
San Francisco (9-1) L
Chicago (7-6) W
Minnesota (10-4) W

8-1

I looked again, and yes the Lions were 2-1-1, not 1-2-1 as I thought. You are correct.

[Sparkey]

So why are there 3 teams in the NFC at 13-3 and 5 others with 5 wins or less? Doesn't sound like parity to me.

I wouldn't use the word parity in the context of win/loss records. I think parity in the NFL more accurately reflects the ability that teams have of going from "worst to first" in any given season. The NFL is an interesting league in that it deals with "small sample sizes" to decide on a yearly basis who makes the playoffs and who does not. It then uses the 1 game elimination format to decide winners in the playoffs. Essentially allowing outlier performances to effect the outcomes of games.

Think about the NFL in comparison to MLB and the NBA. Mlb plays a 162 game season to effectively eliminate small sample size success and then best of 5 and 7 game series to determine who advances in a playoff. The NBA in the same way plays enough games to more accurately allow the best teams to reach the post season and then the finals.

With the NFL, a few injuries at key points in a season can make or break a teams ability to reach the post season because of the limited number of games. So parity isn't something the league could ever change, because it is built into the fabric of how the league operates.

[texaspackerbacker]

I wouldn't use the word parity in the context of win/loss records. I think parity in the NFL more accurately reflects the ability that teams have of going from "worst to first" in any given season. The NFL is an interesting league in that it deals with "small sample sizes" to decide on a yearly basis who makes the playoffs and who does not. It then uses the 1 game elimination format to decide winners in the playoffs. Essentially allowing outlier performances to effect the outcomes of games.

Think about the NFL in comparison to MLB and the NBA. Mlb plays a 162 game season to effectively eliminate small sample size success and then best of 5 and 7 game series to determine who advances in a playoff. The NBA in the same way plays enough games to more accurately allow the best teams to reach the post season and then the finals.

With the NFL, a few injuries at key points in a season can make or break a teams ability to reach the post season because of the limited number of games. So parity isn't something the league could ever change, because it is built into the fabric of how the league operates.

All of which translates to LUCK being a bigger factor in the NFL.

[Fritz]

The Green Bay Packers are . . .

screwed if Rodgers doesn't play better.

This makes me mad - the defense is good enough to win a championship. The special teams are at least okay, maybe a little better than that now that Scott and Crosby are back in form and Ervin's returning for them. The offensive line is solid, and Aaron Jones is a rising star. Davante Adams is the Pro Bowl receiver. Lazard is pretty good. Tight ends not so much.

But Rodgers was the weak point in Detroit, and he hasn't played will for a few games now. He runs the offense just fine, but he doesn't make the throws very well, at least not the long ones. He needs to play better if this team's going to make a run. He's got to figure out how to get his touch back.

[George Cumby]

The Green Bay Packers are . . .

screwed if Rodgers doesn't play better.

This makes me mad - the defense is good enough to win a championship. The special teams are at least okay, maybe a little better than that now that Scott and Crosby are back in form and Ervin's returning for them. The offensive line is solid, and Aaron Jones is a rising star. Davante Adams is the Pro Bowl receiver. Lazard is pretty good. Tight ends not so much.

But Rodgers was the weak point in Detroit, and he hasn't played will for a few games now. He runs the offense just fine, but he doesn't make the throws very well, at least not the long ones. He needs to play better if this team's going to make a run. He's got to figure out how to get his touch back.

Rodgers career QBR is 102.4. This season he's 95.4. His career completion percentage is: 64.6, this season: 62.

Enviable by most standards, but like others, I agree he's the problem.

[Fritz]

Rodgers career QBR is 102.4. This season he's 95.4. His career completion percentage is: 64.6, this season: 62.

Enviable by most standards, but like others, I agree he's the problem.

Isn't his completion percentage the last three or four games something awful, like barely above fifty percent?

[George Cumby]

Isn't his completion percentage the last three or four games something awful, like barely above fifty percent?

Get ready to vomit:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/8439/aaron-rodgers

[pbmax]

Rodgers career QBR is 102.4. This season he's 95.4. His career completion percentage is: 64.6, this season: 62.

Enviable by most standards, but like others, I agree he's the problem.

He is basically missing 2-4 big plays he'd hit in other years.

[George Cumby]

He is basically missing 2-4 big plays he'd hit in other years.

Which is ok against lesser teams but I fear SF or NO will capitalize in a way weaker teams can't.

[Fritz]

Which is ok against lesser teams but I fear SF or NO will capitalize in a way weaker teams can't.

What he say.