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
Zero2Cool (2h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (3h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (13h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (20h) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (21h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (21h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
dfosterf (25-Mar) : The hip drop enforcement will be in the form of fines, etc. Not flags
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
13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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