macbob
15 years ago

Saw this on the espn boards and normally do not pay any really attentiuon to the noodle that posted it, but it gives a little more beef to last year and this year



Last year the Packer opponents were a combined 98-110. In fact, the Packers only played 4 winning teams. Of those teams, 2 were on losing streaks when they played. As for the others, they beat the Redskins and lost to Dallas. 7 of the teams they played had a losing record. They faced a team with a losing record 9 times.

This year the Packer opponents were a combined 110-98. The Packers played 8 teams with a winning record and only 3 had a losing record. They faced a team with a losing record 4 times and a team with a winning record 10 times.

This year the Jet opponents were a combined 91-116. In fact, the Jets only played 4 teams with a winning record. 7 of the teams they played had a losing record. They faced a team with a losing record 8 times and a team with a winning record 6 times.

"longtimefan" wrote:




Something I have not heard was schedule from last year to this and this sort of makes sense too



I'm having trouble making the numbers add up. We played 16 opponents, who each played 16 opponents. The total records of our opponents then should be 16x16, or 256 games. Whoever posted those stats only came up with 208. Looks like they counted the Lions, Vikings, and Bears records once, when we faced them twice. And there's no way the Jets opponents records could add up to an odd number.

If we adjust for L/V/B, Packer opponents this year were 129-129. And adjusting the Jets for M/NE/B, their opponents were 120-135 (still short a game, and I'm too lazy to go back and add up their opponents to see where the problem is).

Doing the same adjustment to last year's stats, our opponent records would have been 120-136. That's assuming whoever did the original stats did them correctly.
UserPostedImage
longtimefan
15 years ago

Saw this on the espn boards and normally do not pay any really attentiuon to the noodle that posted it, but it gives a little more beef to last year and this year



Last year the Packer opponents were a combined 98-110. In fact, the Packers only played 4 winning teams. Of those teams, 2 were on losing streaks when they played. As for the others, they beat the Redskins and lost to Dallas. 7 of the teams they played had a losing record. They faced a team with a losing record 9 times.

This year the Packer opponents were a combined 110-98. The Packers played 8 teams with a winning record and only 3 had a losing record. They faced a team with a losing record 4 times and a team with a winning record 10 times.

This year the Jet opponents were a combined 91-116. In fact, the Jets only played 4 teams with a winning record. 7 of the teams they played had a losing record. They faced a team with a losing record 8 times and a team with a winning record 6 times.

"macbob" wrote:




Something I have not heard was schedule from last year to this and this sort of makes sense too

"longtimefan" wrote:



I'm having trouble making the numbers add up. We played 16 opponents, who each played 16 opponents. The total records of our opponents then should be 16x16, or 256 games. Whoever posted those stats only came up with 208. Looks like they counted the Lions, Vikings, and Bears records once, when we faced them twice. And there's no way the Jets opponents records could add up to an odd number.

If we adjust for L/V/B, Packer opponents this year were 129-129. And adjusting the Jets for M/NE/B, their opponents were 120-135 (still short a game, and I'm too lazy to go back and add up their opponents to see where the problem is).

Doing the same adjustment to last year's stats, our opponent records would have been 120-136. That's assuming whoever did the original stats did them correctly.



Okay, I took each team and counted our division opp twice

07
120-136
w/o division opp 76-84
final record for the PACK 13-3

08
129-127
w/o division opp 91-69
final record for the PACK 6-10

Did the saeme for the JETS

07
134- 122
w/o division opp 86-74
final record for the JETS 4-12


08
120- 135 ( one less cuz of the Bengles tie game )
w/o division opp 62- 97
final record for JETS 9-7


Now it looks a little more noticeable?

Year the PACK and JETS did good, their non division opps had bad records...

Year PACK and JETS did poorly their non division opps had great records


thats not just a coincidence dont you think?
dhazer
15 years ago
I'm just trying to figure out what all these posts are about we finished 6-10 plain and simple. Don't tread on the past look to the future lol.

Sorry trying to have some fun. Like i think i have shown numbers could be played with to prove any point.
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
macbob
15 years ago

Okay, I took each team and counted our division opp twice

07
120-136
w/o division opp 76-84
final record for the PACK 13-3

08
129-127
w/o division opp 91-69
final record for the PACK 6-10

Did the saeme for the JETS

07
134- 122
w/o division opp 86-74
final record for the JETS 4-12


08
120- 135 ( one less cuz of the Bengles tie game )
w/o division opp 62- 97
final record for JETS 9-7


Now it looks a little more noticeable?

Year the PACK and JETS did good, their non division opps had bad records...

Year PACK and JETS did poorly their non division opps had great records


thats not just a coincidence dont you think?

"longtimefan" wrote:



If you subtract out the Packer's record (13-3 and 6-10) out of our opponents records (to factor out the Packer's performance) you get:

07: 117-123
08: 119-121

Basically, our opponents were no more difficult in 08 than they were in 07 (at least, they did just as well against the rest of the league in 07 as in 08).

We just did not do as well in the close games, going 1-7 in games decided by 7 pts or less, when last year we were 5-1 in similar games. Reverse those results (7-1 this year, 1-5 last year) and we would have been 12-4 this year, 9-7 last year.

We were 1 TD worse this year than last year, and that was mostly defense (with a little special teams mixed in).
UserPostedImage
longtimefan
15 years ago

Okay, I took each team and counted our division opp twice

07
120-136
w/o division opp 76-84
final record for the PACK 13-3

08
129-127
w/o division opp 91-69
final record for the PACK 6-10

"macbob" wrote:



If you subtract out the Packer's record (13-3 and 6-10) out of our opponents records (to factor out the Packer's performance) you get:

07: 117-123
08: 119-121

Basically, our opponents were no more difficult in 08 than they were in 07 (at least, they did just as well against the rest of the league in 07 as in 08).

.

"longtimefan" wrote:



okay your confusing me?

07 packers were 13-3 and the opponents record was 120-136

Take away the pack record wouldnt that be

120- 13 = 107
136- 3 = 133

or 107-133

then 08

129 - 6 = 123
127 - 10 =117

or 123-117

I think that is right, not sure how you got yours
Pack93z
15 years ago
Longtime.. they would be flipped in that example.. you would subtract our wins from the opponents losses.. since we added to that total.. and the same for the losses..

I don't put alot of stock into that debate.. but that is the basis of that example.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
4PackGirl
15 years ago
something to chew on...hmm not exactly what i thought this thread was about. damn! carry on.
Pack93z
15 years ago

something to chew on...hmm not exactly what i thought this thread was about. damn! carry on.

"4PackGirl" wrote:



Chewing?!? Note to self.. ahhhh nevermind..

Add another loss in my column.

Maybe that is why the Packers lost 10 this year.. chewing. :shock:
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
longtimefan
15 years ago

Longtime.. they would be flipped in that example.. you would subtract our wins from the opponents losses.. since we added to that total.. and the same for the losses..

I don't put alot of stock into that debate.. but that is the basis of that example.

"pack93z" wrote:



okay got ya thanks!!

but why take their record out to start with?

The packers played those teams, and it counts..Just like you can't take away a 50 yard run for a td when figuring out stats for a RB
4PackGirl
15 years ago
ok, perhaps nibbling would have been a better term. stick that in your imagination & run with it!! :D

dang, what was the topic again??
Fan Shout
dhazer (3h) : wow the last 2 picks are really stupid and probably will be special teams players Top 10 draft pick next year book it
TheKanataThrilla (3h) : I think he ended up with a terrible RAS score
dhazer (3h) : Anyone know what went on with Kitchens from Florida? At 1 point he was to be the Packers 1st round and he is way down the board now
Martha Careful (19h) : Z, could you please combine my thread with yours please. I obviously did not see it when I Created it
Martha Careful (23h) : Re: 'Kool-Aid' McKinstry. Other than Icky Woods, has there ever been a good NFLer with a childish nickname?
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Packers looking to trade up
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Flag?
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Sag?
Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : It rhymes with "bag."
beast (26-Apr) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word
Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : Not THAT f-word.
Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : fuck
beast (25-Apr) : 49ers are Cap Tight
beast (25-Apr) : Fuck
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : Kanata, I will be when I'm on my lunch later
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Love you NSD
Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Huh. I guess the F-word is censored in this fan shout.
Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Anyone who doesn't hang out in the chat probably smokes pole.
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : GoPackGo Thinking CB is the pick tonight
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Anyone hanging out in the chat tonight?
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : whoa...49ers have had trade conversations about both Deebo Samuel and Brandon Aiyuk
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : I hope they take a Punter at 9th overall. Be bold!
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : I may end up eating those words but I think they need a lot more talent then their 4 picks can provide
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : I really hope they stand pat and Draft a WR
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : @DMRussini
Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : The Chicago Bears are very open for business at 9 and telling teams they are ready to move for the right price, per source
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend Penei Soul 4yrs - 112mil
buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend St. Brown 4 years 120mil and
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : Now look, trading up to 13 to take a TE might not seem like a good idea later but it will be later!
dfosterf (24-Apr) : (Your trade up mock post)
dfosterf (24-Apr) : Mucky- The only thing fun to watch would be me flipping the f out if Gute goes up to 13 and grabs Brock Bowers, lol
beast (24-Apr) : DT Byron Murphy II, Texas... whom some believe is the next Aaron Donald (or the closest thing to Donald)
Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : What? And who?
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : *sad Mucky noises*
Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : @JoeJHoyt Murphy said he’s been told he won’t slide past pick No. 16.
wpr (23-Apr) : Just about time to watch Sonny Weaver stick it to the seahags. I never get tired of it.
Martha Careful (23-Apr) : *game plan
Martha Careful (23-Apr) : IMHO, not even close. He is not a guy you game play around.
Mucky Tundra (23-Apr) : is Aiyuk worth a 1st rounder?
Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : 49ers are seeking a 1st round pick in exchange for WR Brandon Aiyuk
Mucky Tundra (22-Apr) : Based on Gutes comments, now I don't feel as silly having 13 picks in my mock the other day
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Zach Wilson to Broncos.
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Gutekunst says he'd love to have 13 or 14 picks. He's trading back huh lol
beast (22-Apr) : Someday we'll have a draft betting scandal
beast (21-Apr) : Sometimes looking extremely amazing, sometimes looking extremely lost
beast (21-Apr) : I haven't looked into the QBs, but some have suggested Maye has some of the most extremely inconsistent tape they've seen
beast (21-Apr) : Well it also sounds like Patriots are listening to trade offers, not that seriously considering any, but listening means they aren't locked
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Maye needs to be AFC
Mucky Tundra (21-Apr) : Not liking the idea of the Vikings getting Maye
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Vikings HC joked that he may or may not have sent flowers to Bob Kraft. That's where rumor came from.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
3m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

14m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

26-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.