Generally, we do beat teams we're supposed to beat.

But that doesn't mean we don't shit ourselves in the process. The problem is that, since we won anyway, everyone excuses the self shitting, allowing it to continue.

By allowing it to continue, we decrease our margin for error, and we get what happened in the playoffs this year.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Go back and Watch the NFCCG against Seattle.

Do you think the Seahawks were the better team?

Did the Packers even belong on the same field with them? Do you attribute the outcome to a superior performance by the winners, or Minnesota-style self-shitting by the team that lost?

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

I think there is a difference between a better team on paper and a better team on any given Sunday. We were the better team in the NFCCG and let the game go. We were the better team against the Pats. We were not the better team against the Saints.

The problem I have is the number of times we are the better team on a given Sunday and lose. We only beat the teams that we are better on paper than, and quite often lose to teams who are inferior teams. Just once I would like us to go into a game where Vegas has us as underdogs and beat the snot out of them. We never seem to do that. This is what pisses me off with Mike is he can't seem to coach us to a win where we are not the favourite going in.

And for the record if it gets brought up, we were the favourites against the Pats. I had this argument in another forum and the person I was debating with said we did beat a superior team in the Patriots, but the fact is we were predicted to win that game and a SuperBowl game against the Pats would have been a pick'em according to Vegas so it is not just Lambeau Field that gave us the edge.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla 

Would you rather be a routinely bad team that occasionally wins a game that we are predicted to lose? But never loses to inferior teams because there are so few of them?

Without detailed analysis, I would guess that the Packers were favored to win 13-14 of the 16 games this year. Statistically, it is more common to lose games to inferior teams since most teams are inferior.

From 1972 to 1982, the Packers failed to go to the playoffs. I am betting they very seldom lost to inferior teams. Simply as there were so few of those teams!

The problem I have is remembering some of the bad times in Packerland. I appreciate 2014 more than most of you because I remember the time before Favre. When losing a playoff game wasn't a concern. When high draft picks were wasted. When the Packers were never a 'Game of the Week' and rarely a primetime setting.

Trivia Question- What was the last NFL team to have back to back HOF QB's?

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

Without detailed analysis, I would guess that the Packers were favored to win 13-14 of the 16 games this year. Statistically, it is more common to lose games to inferior teams since most teams are inferior.

From 1972 to 1982, the Packers failed to go to the playoffs. I am betting they very seldom lost to inferior teams. Simply as there were so few of those teams!

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

We only have three players with superior talent: Rodgers, Sitton, and Matthews. Everybody else is a role player and many excel at doing their jobs. This team this year blew a remarkable opportunity and that's the bottom line. Moving on!

Originally Posted by: DakotaT