Looking Ahead to 2009
by Brandon
on Dec 9, 2008 12:00 PM CST
in Looking Ahead to 2009
6 comments
They are not yet mathematically eliminated from the playoff picture. But I'm done with 2008. I'll watch the last three games and hope for the best. But the Packers won't be playing any football after December 28th.
The losses at Tennessee, at Minnesota, and at New Orleans were justifiable. Two close losses, on the road, against good teams. The loss vs. Carolina was justifiable too. Carolina is playing better than the Packers.
But losing at home to an inferior Houston team was the final straw. They should have won their last four games against inferior teams (Houston, Jacksonville, Chicago and Detroit). Now I'm wondering if they'll win any of those games.
Despite all the injuries they are losing close games. Except for losses at Tampa Bay and New Orleans, all of them have been within one score. There is a lot to look forward to in 2009. They are one of the youngest teams in the NFL. They should get a high draft choice in every round, and GM Ted Thompson is one of the best talent evaluators in the NFL. And they shouldn't lose anyone in free agency after this season.
I'll look at a bunch of stuff over the next few months leading up to the draft. But I'll start with Net Points. Despite a 0.385 winning percentage, the Packers have outscored their opponents this season. From an article about how the Packers' defense won't keep scoring TDs after this season, the "Pythagorean Expectation" states that a team's net points is a better indicator for next season then their win-loss record. The Packers rank 14th in the NFL by Net Points after week 14:
| Teams | Wins | Losses | Net Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| z- Tennessee Titans | 12 | 1 | 148 |
| z- New York Giants | 11 | 2 | 140 |
| Baltimore Ravens | 9 | 4 | 116 |
| Pittsburgh Steelers | 10 | 3 | 106 |
| Philadelphia Eagles | 7 | 5 | 76 |
| Carolina Panthers | 10 | 3 | 69 |
| Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 9 | 4 | 65 |
| New York Jets | 8 | 5 | 62 |
| Atlanta Falcons | 8 | 5 | 52 |
| z- Arizona Cardinals | 8 | 5 | 49 |
| San Diego Chargers | 5 | 8 | 43 |
| New Orleans Saints | 7 | 6 | 40 |
| Indianapolis Colts | 9 | 4 | 39 |
| Green Bay Packers | 5 | 8 | 36 |
| Dallas Cowboys | 8 | 5 | 32 |
| Minnesota Vikings | 8 | 5 | 31 |
| Chicago Bears | 7 | 6 | 26 |
| New England Patriots | 8 | 5 | 25 |
| Miami Dolphins | 8 | 5 | 9 |
| Buffalo Bills | 6 | 7 | 4 |
| Denver Broncos | 8 | 5 | -20 |
| Houston Texans | 6 | 7 | -25 |
| Washington Redskins | 7 | 6 | -28 |
| San Francisco 49ers | 5 | 8 | -41 |
| Jacksonville Jaguars | 4 | 9 | -42 |
| Cleveland Browns | 4 | 9 | -53 |
| Seattle Seahawks | 2 | 11 | -98 |
| Oakland Raiders | 3 | 10 | -120 |
| Kansas City Chiefs | 2 | 11 | -131 |
| Cincinnati Bengals | 1 | 11 | -191 |
| Detroit Lions | 0 | 13 | -194 |
| St. Louis Rams | 2 | 11 | -225 |
0 recs |
6 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
that's the first time this year
I’ve ever seen the Lions better than anyone.
Is it a coincidence that the top-8 teams are some of the best defenses in the NFL? I say no, and I say “never give up, never surrender,” because the day we surrender is the day we lose hope, and the day we lose hope is the day we stop hoping.
/yogi berra’d
"I'm so clean, cats think I sip Ajax."
by Mitchell_M on
Dec 9, 2008 12:09 PM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not sure what your criteria is...
But to call the 2008 Texans “inferior” compared to the 2008 Packers is wrong.
Again, I’m not sure what you look at to come up with that assertion – and I know stats don’t always tell the whole story, but:
Overall offense (yardage):
Texans: 3rd in NFL (4th in passing, 11th in rushing)
Packers: 11th in NFL (10th in passing, 18th in rushing)
Overall defense (yardage):
Texans: 20th (18th in passing, 24th in rushing)
Packers: 24th (12th in passing, 27th in rushing)
The Texans defense gives up one more point per game, and the Packers offense scores about four more points per game.
My point is not to come in here and say the Texans are way better than Green Bay, but to just say that I think “inferior” is a bit much. Detroit is inferior to Green Bay. Oakland, Cincy, Seattle, San Fran, etc., those teams are inferior.
I guess I’m just looking for a little respect for my constantly-disrespected team… which of course, is an earned reputation. I mean, the Saints aren’t a “good team” by my standards at all. They’re a good offense, sure. They’re only a game better than the Texans, and they’re a butter soft, finesse team that plays no defense whatsoever.
Anyway – the Texans put 549 yards on Green Bay, and all 21 points you scored were off turnovers. It really shouldn’t have been as close as it was… so if you think the Packers are a better team – I’m fine with that… but the gap isn’t that big, and personally I would say that a win on your home field, plus the statistical domination we laid down (Packers were 1-10 on third down) shows that we are in fact a better team… but are very evenly-matched.
Just my opinion. Not trying to be a troll. I know some Texans fans who went to the game, and they couldn’t say enough good things about Packer fans.
www.HoustonDiehards.com
by HoustonDiehards on
Dec 10, 2008 3:13 AM CST
reply
actions
0 recs
I think the biggest thing in regards to Houston
and the lack of respect thing is that they’re still a new team, and expansion franchises are usually a joke for the first few years. Besides, once the Texans make the playoffs, which I’m thinking happens in ’09 or ’10, it will be difficult to not consider them a regular team.
"I'm so clean, cats think I sip Ajax."
by Mitchell_M on
Dec 10, 2008 7:26 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not to mention...
we entered that game with identical records and we play in a much tougher division.
I’m really having a hard time figuring out how the Texans are inferior to the Packers right now by any reasonable metric.
Yay, sports.
by MDC on
Dec 10, 2008 8:57 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Mostly because Packer fans thought we had at least a 10-6 type team this year and are really disappointed.
by Trent Durrington on
Dec 12, 2008 11:19 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Back to my preview
I’m way late on this reply, but this goes back to my preview. Those ranks used above are the official NFL stats, which don’t take into account that Houston leads the league in INTs thrown. It also underrates the Packers’ pass defense, which has given up some yardage, but is filled with a bunch of ball hawks who have returned a number of INTs for TDs. Statistically speaking, the Packers are a superior team.
That said, both teams are trending in different directions. Houston’s run offense is getting better now that it’s Steve Slaton 100% of the time. Also, the Packers’ pass defense has been in free fall since injuries nailed them at safety and they’ve been juggling the lineup with Charles Woodson now playing at safety.
Houston might be feeling better now that they beat AFC leading Tennessee this weekend, but the Packers played Tennessee into OT in Tennessee. Houston’s now trending ahead, but the Packers are pretty similar. Two weeks ago, I think it was fair to call Houston inferior.
by Brandon on
Dec 15, 2008 12:28 AM CST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
New FanPost
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
