Who can hang with Pats? Pick the Pack

[AdamJT13]

Be sure and discount the fact that Green Bay and Chicago are hated rivals. Can't compare teams that are rivals and what they do against other teams. You can't really compare what one team did another anyway. Different day, different game. Green Bay beat Minnesota by 34 to nothing. Dallas only beat them by 34 14 or something like that.

Comparing scores might not be relevant. But that doesn't change the fact that Green Bay LOST to a team that is 3-6 in its other games.

 

[circasurvive]

If anyone watched the Bears Pack game it was the fault of reciever James Jones who fumbled twice on drives that should have ended up as TDs leading to a Packer victory. Dallas lost to the Patriots. Id say that the losses equal each other. The Packers have had a tougher schedule if you go by opponents win loss record.

 

[SacredStar]

Be sure and discount the fact that Green Bay and Chicago are hated rivals. Can't compare teams that are rivals and what they do against other teams. You can't really compare what one team did another anyway. Different day, different game. Green Bay beat Minnesota by 34 to nothing. Dallas only beat them by 34 14 or something like that. You know what that means for Thursday. NOTHING>>>>>

In the first game, Green Bay beat Minny by only 7. But you're right, that means nothing now.

 

[SacredStar]

If anyone watched the Bears Pack game it was the fault of reciever James Jones who fumbled twice on drives that should have ended up as TDs leading to a Packer victory. Dallas lost to the Patriots. Id say that the losses equal each other. The Packers have had a tougher schedule if you go by opponents win loss record.

Just curious circa......Cowboys fan or Packers fan?

 

[AdamJT13]

If anyone watched the Bears Pack game it was the fault of reciever James Jones who fumbled twice on drives that should have ended up as TDs leading to a Packer victory.

Both of his fumbles came in the first quarter. One came in the red zone, but the other came near midfield. Every time after that, whenever the Packers got inside the Bears' 40, they either had to settle for a field goal or Favre threw an interception. Considering that fact, you can't just assume that the Packers would have scored touchdowns on both of those drives, let alone one of them.

After the second fumble, which didn't lead to any points for Chicago, Green Bay led 7-0. The Packers still led 17-7 at halftime. But the Bears completely dominated the Packers in the second half, outscoring them 20-3 and outgaining them 163-98, holding them without a single first down for five consecutive possessions and picking off Favre twice.

Yeah, blame Jones' first-quarter fumbles for the loss when the entire Packers team got manhandled in the second half and blew a double-digit lead over a bad team. That makes sense.

Dallas lost to the Patriots. Id say that the losses equal each other.

Oh, and everyone agrees with you. The Bears are equal to the Patriots. Good point.

The Packers have had a tougher schedule if you go by opponents win loss record.

The Cowboys have had three games against teams that have only one loss against the rest of the league. The Packers can't say the same thing about ANY of their opponents. Only one of their opponents even has fewer than five losses, and it's a team that Dallas beat twice by double digits.

And if you look past simple win-loss records, Dallas has actually played a more difficult schedule. DVOA and Sagarin rank Dallas' schedule the 10th and 11th-toughest, respectively, compared to 17th and 16th for the Packers.

 

[SuspectCorner]

Bill Parcells said "you are what your record says you are." The Pack is 10-1. The Cowboys are 10-1. This should be a great game and I'm sure glad it's being played at Texas Stadium. This should give the Cowboys an edge - and they better take advantage of it. Or they should count on packing the cold-weather gear at least once during the upcoming Playoffs.

I wouldn't minimizing Green Bay's record any more than I would minimize Dallas'. The game is yet to be played and absolutely nothing is settled.

 

[Sarge]

They also played San Diego and Denver when those teams were in an early season funk.

That is to suggest that both of these teams are out of their funk?

They are both still VERY average football teams, but I get your point.

 

[Clove]

Both teams are good obviously, we'll see who has that little extra something coming up soon, and settle it on the field. However, we DO know we can keep up with the NE Patriots, and that the Pats can't stop our offense, we did that ourselves.

 

[Chuck 54]

I actually agree with this writer, but not because of GB's defense. We'll find out how good they are on Thursday. If their defense shuts us down and we get spanked, then I'll tip my hat to the writer.

The main reason I think GB may match up best with NE is because no one's defense can shut down NE...that's a fact...no one will shut them down this year; too many weapons.

However, there are teams, including Dallas, GB, and INDY, who can beat NE.

Anyone who defeats NE will do it with some opportune breaks or stops on defense, along with a possible big play on special teams...but the real key is offense. Whoever defeats NE will do it with an offense that can score with them. Dallas scored with them into the 3rd quarter when we were controlled by errors, penalties, and possibly calls...NE pulled away at that time.

GB matches up great with NE because NE has a solid defense, but not an '85 Bears defense. Who...Who, including Dallas, can match up with the 5 receivers in GB? You cannot win by pressuring GB and Favre when they have 4-5 receivers out there...not possibly. Favre gets rid of the ball so fast it's unlikely anyone could get consistent pressure on him.

The key is being in position to make good, solid tackles on all those short/quick passes over the middle. A team that blitzes frequently and tries to pressure Favre is asking for trouble...those strong/fast WRs will take that short pass and take it a long long way.

It's better to just let it go....accept that GB will complete tons of passes, make lots of first downs, and score in the 20's, probably the high 20's. You have to make the tackles that will result in some 3rd downs that give you a chance to stop them enough times to force FG's and some punts.

And, like NE, Indy, and Dallas, you have to score with them. Today's NFL, and this year's championship, will be about offense, not defense.

Tony will have to have a sharp game this Thursday...if he underthrows as many passes as he did on T-Day, it will be trouble. GB's defense is every bit as good as ours.

 

[The Patriot]

Both teams are good obviously, we'll see who has that little extra something coming up soon, and settle it on the field. However, we DO know we can keep up with the NE Patriots, and that the Pats can't stop our offense, we did that ourselves.

The Pats couldn't stop your offense surrounding halftime but other than that they were pretty solid. I think you more proved that you could get to Brady.

 

[vicjagger]

Be sure and discount the fact that Green Bay and Chicago are hated rivals. Can't compare teams that are rivals and what they do against other teams. You can't really compare what one team did another anyway. Different day, different game. Green Bay beat Minnesota by 34 to nothing. Dallas only beat them by 34 14 or something like that. You know what that means for Thursday. NOTHING>>>>>

Actually, I was pointing out what the poster that I was quoting eliminated. You see, he used the term "strength of schedule", but then provided the stats for "strength of victory", thus eliminating the examination of the strength of the losses, which clearly favors Dallas.

Also, I chose not to mention the rivalry aspect of the game, because anyone can validly counter-argue that playing the Bears twice per year gives the Packers an advantage. And I'd have been owned!