NFL 2010 Season Week 17 Picks

Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments

Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments

Haven't read this yet, but I got into a word sparring match on Twitter with this guy. Complete moron.

Looks like a girl wrote that article.

the media does fawn over the Packers in a way that were it made into movie form would be sold at Adult bookstores

They lost 2 games in a row, one of them to the Lions, then beat up on the Giants. They're 1-2 in their last 3. 2-3 in their last 5.

and one of them had nothing to play for.

I don't know what you're talking about with the close losses big win stuff, since that's wholly irrelevant.

Yes, the Packers have had good wins, and tough luck losses, but Packer fans need to a) Stop acting like they own the close loss b) if you want to make some case that it's especially bad for the Packers at some point take some responsibility for them too. Aaron Rodgers is a good QB, no doubt, but I feel like he's getting a pass on the fact that he often fails when the pressure is on with "it's on the defense" hand waving, even though they often end the game with the ball in his hands and he's been given good defenses. We seem to be having the "but look how many heartbreakers they lost" conversation a lot in the Rodgers era.

...

1. I think the Packers are a good team
2. I think the Bears are a good team
3. I think it's funny that Packer fans generally consider the Bears clearly inferior despite a better record and (only now) a split head to head where both games were close. Based on the prevailing opinions of the two teams, the Packers should be embarrassed that they didn't win by 3 touchdowns. Maybe both teams are..wait for it...about as good as their record says they are.

Again, I think the Packers are good. But not great. Or very good. Or significantly above good. Just good. Like a 10-6 team. I don't think a 10-6 "win big/lose close" team is any better suited for the playoffs than a 10-6 team whose wins and losses were mixed. A 14-2 team or 13-3 team whose only losses were close might be something. But at what point are a bunch of close losses just an indication that you're a pretty good but not very good team? I'd say 6 of 16 games would be enough.

Indeed. At some point "we only lose close ones" is an indictment of your team, and not just crap luck. When it's the Lions going 6-10 despite being within 5 of the lead in the 4th quarter of almost every game dropping 7 it's "Well, that's why they're the Lions." When the Packers drop 6 of them it's "oh, what a heat breaker!"

Not to mention that's sort of a crummy heuristic anyway, because the NFL doesn't play until a team wins by at least 7, you only need to win by one. The winning team often could score more, but they play the clock as much as the scoreboard.