What division played the NFC west this year? The south, so there you have their inflated records with Tampa at 8-5 with no wins against teams with winning records. New Orleans is 10-3 with ONE win over a plus 500 team (Tampa). The west is really pitiful this year and skews the records. It is my belief that of all the teams in the NFC other than the west, the only team that would not be leading that division if it were in it is Carolina (and possibly Detroit)...so that means that 4 of the 5 worst teams in the NFC are in the same division.
The NFC West is 5-15 against teams not in the AFC or NFC West (and 2 of those wins are over Carolina). Its terrible and has been terrible for years.

2009: 10-6 Arizona was 2-2 against teams over 500...just 4 games!

2008: 9-7 Arizona was 2-7 against teams at 500 or better.

2007: 10-6 Seattle was 1-2 against plus 500 teams...3 games!

2006: 9-7 Seattle was 1-3 against plus 500 teams

2005: The super bowl 13-3 Seahawks were 3-2 against plus 500 teams. This is the last team that came out of the west who was in the top 5 in the NFC IMO. No other teams in the west were over 500 during this span.

This plus 500 team stuff? This year the packers have/will play 8 teams that are currently over 500 and are 2-3 against them, so its not like teams dont play hard schedules. Since the SB hangover of 2006 for the Seahawks, the division has been embarrassingly terrible and in my opinion hasnt deserved a playoff bid.

"Broforis" wrote:

Very interesting stuff here. Brother just wrote this to me in an email, and I'm stealing it and posting it here. :)

"Broforis" wrote:

What's your brother's point? In general, the Packers have fallen flat on their faces against winning teams this year. Of the two teams they have beaten -- the Eagles and the Jets -- I have no confidence they could beat the Eagles in a rematch (or even 5 times out of 10), and the Jets have only scored an offensive touchdown against one winning team all year. So it's not like the Packers are exactly impressing with their dominance either.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Ah. I was wondering if he was basically saying that you can't read much into it one way or the other.

Is your brother old, by the way? ;)

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote: