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)
reed
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
Zero2Cool (6h) : Finally got new site to keep folks logged in. New tech is pain sometimes
dfosterf (21h) : Taylor Elgersma is going to be very hard to hide.
Mucky Tundra (23-Aug) : Matthew Golden=DAWG (so load the wagons!!) !!!!!
dfosterf (18-Aug) : We do have good depth at running back imo. Still so frustrating. Bitching about it is a futile excercise, which I plan to do anyway.
Mucky Tundra (17-Aug) : Whoops, I thought Zero was saying it was a surprise the Brewers lost and not Lloyd being hurt
Mucky Tundra (17-Aug) : Not a surprise; inevitable
Zero2Cool (17-Aug) : Brewers streak ends at 14
Zero2Cool (17-Aug) : SURPRISE
Mucky Tundra (17-Aug) : @mattschneidman Matt LaFleur on MarShawn Lloyd: “He’s gonna miss some time.”
Mucky Tundra (16-Aug) : CLIFFORD WITH THE TD WITH UNDER 2 TO GO!!!!!
Zero2Cool (16-Aug) : 90 MINUTES UNTIL FAKE KICKOFF!!
Martha Careful (16-Aug) : I think Ruven is a bot, but regardless should be stricken from the site.
Zero2Cool (14-Aug) : Packers RB Josh Jacobs ranked No. 33 in NFL 'Top 100'
dfosterf (13-Aug) : The LVN Musgrave collision- Andy Herman said Musgrave seemed to be the one most impacted injury-wise
dfosterf (13-Aug) : a lower back injury
dfosterf (13-Aug) : Doubs says he's "fine" after injury scare. Some reported it as z
Mucky Tundra (13-Aug) : With LVN that is; need to see what happens in the next practice
Mucky Tundra (13-Aug) : beast, reading about what happened, it sounded like one of those "two guys collide and are moving slow afterwards" type of deals
beast (12-Aug) : I believe Musgrave has been injured every single season since at least a Sophomore in highschool
packerfanoutwest (12-Aug) : Matt LaFleur: “Highly unlikely” Jordan Love plays more this preseason
dfosterf (12-Aug) : Doubs, Savion Williams, LVN, Musgrave all banged up to one degree or another, missing one here I forget
Zero2Cool (12-Aug) : RB Tyrion Davis-Price is signing with the Green Bay Packers.
Zero2Cool (12-Aug) : zero help, dominated. preseason
beast (12-Aug) : QB Jordan Love has surgery
beast (12-Aug) : Martha said Morgan had a lot of help, I didn't watch the OL so I can't say.
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers LT Jordan Morgan did not allow a single pressure across 23 pass-blocking snaps vs. Jets last night, per PFF
Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : With buckeye and the reasonable couple, we're currently sitting at 10
buckeyepackfan (10-Aug) : Just posted to re-up on our FFL.
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : If healthy after, then thats all I care. Well, no drops would be nice
wpr (10-Aug) : I made it through the 1st Q.
dfosterf (10-Aug) : Just gotta figure out how.
dfosterf (10-Aug) : Could have been a worse start, so there is that.
beast (10-Aug) : Yeah, someone tell the Packers football season has started, seems like they weren't ready for it
Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : Sooooooo many penalties
Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : It may only be preseason, but this game is a trip to the dentist
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers do bad -- FREAK OUT!!!!!!
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers do good -- eh only preseason
dfosterf (10-Aug) : Well that half was fun
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Great, zayne is down
Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : 13 minutes away from kickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkoffff
Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : Had Celebration of Life for my uncle up north. wicked rain hope it dont come south
Mucky Tundra (9-Aug) : THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE PLAYING FOOTBALL TONIGHT!!!!!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!!
Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : Woo-hoo
TheKanataThrilla (9-Aug) : NFL Network is broadcasting the game tonight, but not in Canada. Not sure why as no local television is showing the game.
beast (8-Aug) : But the Return from IR designations had to be applied by the 53 man cutdown.
beast (8-Aug) : It's a new rule, so it's not clear, but my understanding was that they could be IR'd at any time
Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : *had to be IRed at 53
Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : beast, I thought the designate return from IR players had to be IR at cutdowns to 53, not before
beast (8-Aug) : It's a brand new rule, either last season or this season, prior, all pre-season IRs were done for the season
beast (8-Aug) : But the Packers would have to use one for their return from IR spots on him, when they cut down to 53.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
2h / Fantasy Sports Talk / macbob

4h / Around The NFL / beast

23-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

23-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / isaiah

22-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

19-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Aug / Around The NFL / isaiah

18-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

15-Aug / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

13-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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