OldSchoolSnapper

They really were not very good for a team that won 12 games. The first 6 games or so of the season they could have easily been 2-4. Wilson is holding that team up more than Rodgers is.

Not exactly excited about LAR. Seems like we get the hot Wild Card team. I wasn't all that impressed with Seattle this year though.

I'm not really worried about the Saints. I just don't think they can stop us from scoring enough.

Typically when Packers juggernaut teams lose it's because their offense is slowed down. This defense is good enough to do that. The other team's quarterback doesn't really matter that much. Green Bay's defense, which has rounded out nicely over the last 7 weeks or so, is capable of looking really bad. Goff has enough talent to have a good game against the Packers. I consider the Packers a pretty decent favorite over any team in the NFC. My preference is that they don't have to play Tampa or LA, the two superior defensive teams. I still think they'll beat either one.

The Seahawks gig is blowing for most of a game and then making it exciting in the end, so I don't count them out here. I don't really want to play Wilson, though I think it's mostly just stigma with Seattle. But the Rams might be the biggest matchup problem in the NFC for the Packers.

I also never really buy in the whole "they lost by 3 and didn't take 3 earlier in the game" exercise. The flow of the game changes based on every call.

LOL. As I've said 100 times. Why do we slow the game down and waste our time with anti-climactic replay reviews if we insist on continuing to bungle calls that badly. There is no way possible to watch that replay and decide that isn't a fumble. I don't know what these people are looking at. It's a joke. Never mind that getting every call right isn't that important anyway, but we STILL GET THEM WRONG

I mean, he's one guy. Their defense was the best one in the league the first year he was in Chicago. The Packers also sucked, and were much better the next two seasons.

I think he meant his best year in Chicago, but PFF literally records every play. They note things like a perfect throw that a WR dropped, a player who didn't make a tackle, but absorbed a double team to free up a LB, etc. It's a much more in depth system than just picking out stats and dividing it by snaps or something. They have a staff of roughly 600 people that does this. If a safety gets roasted on a deep pass in which a cornerback clearly blew an assignment, they may rate the safety a 0 for the play, rather than -2 (everything is graded -2 to +2). All this to say that there are major flaws with just looking at TFL and Sacks and determining a player's value when someone like Mack has 900 snaps a year.

If you love SW, and even if you don't, the Rise of the Resistance attraction at Disney World is truly revolutionary as far as theme park attractions go.

The help was already there in the form of development that fans never account for, similar to how they almost never account for regression. The Packers clearly saw a future for Tonyan or they don't claim him off waivers and tender him for two straight statistically unimpressive years. Scantling isn't everyone's favorite player but he's been a contributor and did seem to take a step toward being a big play speed option this year. Jenkins has become a nice lineman. You don't always have to sign big names to improve. Plus, they did sign Funchess, who possibly could have been a nice depth addition, but it didn't work out with Covid.

This was a popular discussion with my family yesterday- the question was 'are the Packers good enough to beat the Chiefs,' and my response was that I'm not sure the Cheifs make it there. They remind me a lot of the '11 Packers, honestly. Ugly defense, great QB/offensive play, but may have played their best football too early in the season and kind of 'uglied' their way into the playoffs. I think you can make a really good case for 4-5 of the AFC teams to make the Super Bowl, and I think the pathway there is harder than in the NFC. I don't disagree with you, but I looked at the numbers just now. The AFC went 35-28-1 against the NFC this year. That is a pretty good margin, and to have 7 teams with 11 or more wins makes their playoff field look strong. But, three of the four divisions went exactly .500 (24-24) head to head in their intra-conference games. The AFC North got to feed on the NFC East, and three of their teams made the playoffs because of it. BAL, CLE, PIT went 11-1 against the NFC East. I think Pittsburgh has been exposed in the last month, and, without knowing tiebreakers, if either Baltimore or Cleveland plays any other NFC division, they probably don't go 4-0 and one of them probably isn't still alive today. The Packers meanwhile embarrassed the 4th seed in the AFC, easily beat Houston, looked like crap against Jacksonville, but would have gone 4-0 without that laughable self-destruction in Indy, another playoff team. The Bills might be more of a matchup issue for the Packers than the Chiefs. But if the question is can the Packers beat ___? I think the answer is yes, they can beat anyone...whereas last year there were a couple teams I would have said no to that question.

NFL teams do tank. They're just usually more covert about it. Bill Polian can claim what he wants, what exactly was "Suck for Luck." When you sit on cap dollars because you know the team isn't going to be relevant, you are by default not putting the best product possible on the field. I'll concede there's a difference between that kind of organizational goal and what they did last night. Honestly though, going from 9 to 6 is probably not going to make any difference for Philly. You either draft a good player at either spot or you don't. Either pick should be an impact player.

Agree. They split with Seattle, who is completely vulnerable week to week. I think Packers fans are overdoing the Tampa fear factor anyway. The Packers defense has come together a lot since October, putting Brady in GB in mid January is not a nice hot day in the Florida sun, and if Rodgers doesn't essentially throw two pick sixes I think that game is completely different. Tampa's defense, while pretty good, is not the 2000 Ravens they were hyped to be after that game...and how healthy is Evans? I'm not really concerned with having to play Tampa. This is the first playoffs in a long time where I think the Packers should really beat anyone in the field. Doesn't mean they will, but none of these teams strike fear in me. I think the Packers are better than all of them and Rodgers is on fire. It feels like most of the last decade there has been a team I try to see how we can avoid playing. I don't see that team this year.

I think that it hit the Giants was just a bit of icing on top. I think they would have done it to anybody, but that adds a nice storyline going forward. It would be a little juicier if the Giants were 10-6 and not 6-10, though.

Sorry but I really doubt anyone, players included, looks back on this and gives a crap if the Eagles start off 2-0 next year. The core vets, Wentz, Ertz, Jeffrey, probably Kelce, on that team are out the door anyway. I think the Internet is massively overreacting. If they had just benched Hurts the entire game and said they didn't want to risk him getting hurt in a meaningless game, everyone would likely call it tanking but they wouldn't be acting like it was so egregious. I just don't think a 4-win team pulling one crappy QB for another against a 6-win team is really a big deal at all.

It's a highly situational stat, which is why I get annoyed with the "their record at home is X-X" Dissect their playoff losses at home. One was a reeling, injured team getting run over by Michael Vick. Another was a 10-6 team playing a 10-6 division rival. Another was an 8-7-1 team playing SF, who was way better, and wound up in the NFCCG or Super Bowl, I can't recall. But they likely get demolished in SF. The fourth game was the OT loss to NYG with Favre - and I would say playing in GB got the game to OT when the brutal conditions contributed to Tynes's multiple missed kicks. The only dud that most folks didn't see coming was the '11 game with NYG (who won the Super Bowl). The rest were mediocre teams, badly injured teams, or teams straight up worse than who they were playing. I don't even think the fans are the major advantage unless you're in a handful of stadiums. It's the simple pleasure of sleeping in your own bed, knowing your environment, your food, your surroundings that I think most players love. You get ta month where you don't have to travel if you win a couple games.

I heard Tin Boyle is starting the divisional game for that reason.

Having a hard time understanding the rage over this when Hurts was 7/20 with 72 yards and a pick at the time of being pulled. I can believe they were tanking but the alarmist response on Twitter and here seems a bit much. Wentz is gone, so I don't see the harm in tossing your 3rd stringer in a semi meaningful situation in a real game to see how he fares, if he's going to be your backup QB next year. I'm not saying that was the reason it went down, but this isn't like Hurts had 350 yards. Much ado about nothing IMO. The Giants were 6-10 and Philly is free to protect its best interests. I don't see a strong argument that this threatens competition. He was sucking before he got benched.

I would say that lack of HFA cost the Packers a trip to the Super Bowl in 2014, even though they should have won anyway, I don't think it's even very close if played in GB. I don't think it would have mattered last year, but I don't think they lose by 30. That season is especially demoralizing because they were analytically the best team in the NFL and all they had to do was beat a bad Bills team to get HFA. Going to NOLA or SEA would be worse with fans, but I still have a strong preference to not do either one.

I don't agree, think you are underplaying it. Rodgers has said multiple times they need to get a NFCCG at home. Some of the games the Packers were not even favored to win despite being at home. Other times they were just not very good. This year they are the best team and have home field advantage. Their "first ever loss at home" was always a bit of a ruse seeing how they went about 30 years without playing a playoff game there. It's not about having home field as much as it's having to go to Seattle or New Orleans. I don't know what relevance games back in 2002 have to now. Right now it's advantageous for the Packers to be at home. I think 43 year old Brady in Green Bay in January is a far cry from letting him play in Tampa, and the Packers now don't have to travel, sleep in hotels or use someone else's facility for a month. It's a huge advantage, the players think it's a huge advantage. It doesn't win games on its own and it doesn't mean you'll go 11-0 at home.

Unfortunately it's lining up for us to be playing Tampa first. The one team I want no part of. I'm not concerned if that's who it is. This is going to be a freezing game at Lambeau, with a better Packers team. That game was just off. They opened up dominant and then just came unglued after the picks. Just a bad day. Nothing's automatic but the Packers really should win the NFC the way Rodgers is playing.

So the Bears live to see another day and get obliterated in New Orleans. Anyone know the likely day the Packers would play. Saturday vs Sunday? Looks like Tampa is a likely opponent, but Sea/LAR is an intriguing matchup that could send the Rams to GB too.

At least the Packers have done this already this year.

Beat me to it. Nobody would be dissecting the holes he ran through if he were 5'9 and 205. He looks like a more athletic Eddie Lacy. What matters to me is that he was productive on 21 carries. There was no way to evaluate him on the 0-5 he had been getting.