macbob
16 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.
longtimefan
16 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
16 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
16 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).
longtimefan
16 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
16 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
16 years ago
something to chew on...hmm not exactly what i thought this thread was about. damn! carry on.
Pack93z
16 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
16 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
16 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
Mucky Tundra (1h) : @AaronNagler · 2m Both Jordan Love and Malik Willis were Limited participants at Packers practice today.
Zero2Cool (3h) : Johnson didn't make it until 2020. Ring 2023. 🤷 Personally, he should have been in years prior to Hall.
Zero2Cool (3h) : HUMP DAY
beast (4h) : Guys that have a good shot at making the NFL Hall of Fame usually get into their teams pretty fast
beast (4h) : Yeah, but is Kampman and the others in the NFL Hall of Fame?
Zero2Cool (4h) : Johnson was Hall of Fame, 2020. Should haev been in Ring a year later, not three years.
Zero2Cool (4h) : I could be wrong there though
Zero2Cool (4h) : Guys like Kampman, Tim Harris, Al Harris, etc all over 15 years. Hall of Fame is 5 year wait
Zero2Cool (4h) : I guess I see players in Packers Hall come way later
beast (4h) : Yeah, usually teams hall of fames are a much lower bar than the NFL
Zero2Cool (4h) : is it uncommon for Hall before Ring?
Zero2Cool (4h) : S Xavier McKinney named first-team All-Pro by NFLPA
beast (6h) : I missed it, sorry, but he got into the NFL Hall of Fame years before that
Zero2Cool (6h) : Jones took his sweet ole time!
Zero2Cool (6h) : Yeah, he's in the ring of honor, just saw video and his name is up there
Zero2Cool (6h) : Didn't they have a thing in 2023 for Jimmy's ring of honor? I swear I saw it
beast (6h) : Though if they're legitimately trying to re-sign MM, then it makes sense.
beast (6h) : Jerry Jones still hasn't put Jimmy Johnson in the Ring of Honor, but he's in the NFL's Hall of Fame, Jones is petty
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Unless the Cowboys are planning an extension, seems kinda petty
beast (19h) : Cowboys denied Bears request
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : From what I'm reading, MM is under contract through the 14th of January; after that he's free game
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : McCarthy let go or not extended??
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Chicago Bears have asked the Dallas Cowboys permission to interview Mike McCarthy for head coaching vacancy
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : The winners page that is
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : I was not hoping for that. It messes up the page lol
beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3.
beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3.
beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : congrats beast on 2024 !
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : congrats porky on winning 2023 pick'em! (oops sorry)
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : Packers have $60M+ of 2025 cap space on paper TODAY.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Missed FG into a Lions TD; that'll do pig, that'll do
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : That might be it for the Vikings
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Oh so the refs do know what intentional grounding is
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : what the hell was that Goff?! Not much pressure and he just air mails it to Harrison
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : They really need to to get rid of the auto first down for illegal contact
Martha Careful (6-Jan) : watching the Vikings and Lions it's understandable why they swept the Packers. So much better product
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Even when GB got pressure he was throwing darts; vs no pressure on that last pass he just air mails an open guy
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : didn't have guys in his face ... pressure makes difference
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Where was this Darnold vs GB?
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : BALL DON'T LIE
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : how was that not a safety? Goff throws it at an offensive lineman
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Zero, I thought that was a given! ;)
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Zero I looked through earlier and noticed the same thing. Bonkers year. I just wonder if beast put any money on games
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : I'm hoping for BLOODBATH. Pummel one another.
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : 8 people in pick'em would have won any year with their total lol
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : I'm rooting for the Lions to lose.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : God help me but I'm rooting for the Vikings to...Vikings to...Christ I can't say it
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : 4 td for Rodgers
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : Chiefs got shutout
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17h / Around The NFL / beast

7-Jan / Fantasy Sports Talk / wpr

7-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

7-Jan / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6-Jan / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

3-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.