NFC Divisional Playoffs: (4) Green Bay Packers @ (1) Dallas Cowboys

[BleacherBum2310]

Quote: Originally Posted by rkwittem

I hate, hate, hate this mentality. Aaron Rodgers is not the same player in the playoffs as he is in the regular season. He is not a Tom Brady type who is the same guy from week 1 to week 20. I'm sure this will chafe you and irritate you that someone doesn't bend over backwards to accomodate everyone who wants to put Aaron Rodgers on the NFL Mount Rushmore of all time but he is overrated when viewed in this light. He's a phenomenal talent- arm, mobility, etc. But his playoff resume is underwhelming. And that's not the defense's fault or Jermichael Finley or whoever else GB fans blame when stuff goes bad. (That's not to excuse them but if he's going to get 110% of the credit, he better take the criticism when it comes.) And Dallas is many times better. Dak isn't a rookie anymore. Dez will be available for this game. Anthony Brown has improved. The pass rush has improved. Any improvement GB has made in terms of health and play level is met by a separate and equal improvement for Dallas. And the Cowboys didn't just lose their most explosive skill player. Scandrick won't have to cover Adams. Claiborne will be back. Adams benefited greatly from being option #3 in that game and getting that same level of attention. This time around, he's option #1A or #1B to Randall Cobb. He won't surprise anyone.

Actually Rodgers playoff numbers are identical to his Regular season numbers the only way it changes is if you are a QB winzz guy. Cowboys defense is improved and pass rush might be good but Packers probably have the best Pass Blocking OL in football and Cowboys D is 18th in passing defense DVOA and Rodgers just torched the #2 DVOA defense who were also top 5 vs 1/2/3 WR's. and if you wanna compare this to the earlier game which was Rodgers worst game of the season go right ahead my man.

Cowboys do have the alot of the advantages but the one reason many give Packers a chance is #12.

[roadman]

For those that saying Rodgers is not the same player in the playoffs as he is in the regular season:

Here is a stat I just plucked off Twitter:

Rodgers and Montana, they both have five playoff games of 120 or better passer ratings -- the most in NFL history.

Just putting that out there.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by areobee401

Don't mind me. I'm just here for the post game discussion.

If the packers win the biggest mouth piece in here will disappear like in years past.

*my biggest issue with the over the top talk btw. Say what you want, just be accountable.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

100% agree. But let me ask you this: How exactly should they be judged then? Especially if we know that teams can change over the course of the year and that no team will look the same in Week 17 that they did in Week 1?

I guess I just don't buy into "peaking at the right time" or "getting hot before the playoffs", unless there's some major injury, player returning from IR, some other change that would cause the earlier games to be skewed. To me, week 8 is just as good a data point as week 17. After all, if a team/player could turn on the "switch" at the right time, why would the switch ever be off? And if there's no switch, they're just as capable of regressing back to the bad habits as they are of continuing the win streak. We've seen extended stretches of both.


It's all a piece of the puzzle and just randomly throwing out something because it happened a little while ago instead of yesterday seems arbitrary and narrative driven.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by dsallupinyaarea

I guess I just don't buy into "peaking at the right time" or "getting hot before the playoffs", unless there's some major injury, player returning from IR, some other change that would cause the earlier games to be skewed. To me, week 8 is just as good a data point as week 17. After all, if a team/player could turn on the "switch" at the right time, why would the switch ever be off? And if there's no switch, they're just as capable of regressing back to the bad habits as they are of continuing the win streak. We've seen extended stretches of both. It's all a piece of the puzzle and just randomly throwing out something because it happened a little while ago instead of yesterday seems arbitrary and narrative driven.

The Packers basically didn't have a running game at all before they moved Ty Montgomery to running back full-time, following a slew of injuries at the position (Eddie Lacy, James Starks, Don Jackson). Montgomery hasn't been a superstar, not at all, but he's at least been effective and competent in limited touches, which is far more than could be said for any Packers RB previously this year. The Packers also acquired Christine Michael off waivers during the back half of the season, who again while he isn't a superstar at least is competent (at one point this year Christine Michael was the season leading rusher for both the Packers and the Seahawks). They also were down a bunch of DBs during the lowest part of the first half of their season.

I don't think there's any one player who's come back for Green Bay to make them dangerous. Rather it's a bunch of players who have come back to make the team as a whole better bit by bit.

[cable guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by dsallupinyaarea

I guess I just don't buy into "peaking at the right time" or "getting hot before the playoffs", unless there's some major injury, player returning from IR, some other change that would cause the earlier games to be skewed. To me, week 8 is just as good a data point as week 17. After all, if a team/player could turn on the "switch" at the right time, why would the switch ever be off? And if there's no switch, they're just as capable of regressing back to the bad habits as they are of continuing the win streak. We've seen extended stretches of both. It's all a piece of the puzzle and just randomly throwing out something because it happened a little while ago instead of yesterday seems arbitrary and narrative driven.

Yeah but there have been those teams, that get hot at midseason or so.... And They roll right on thru to the Super Bowl. It makes no sense. BUT, I actually love what your saying. And really hope Dallas can stop that momentum, and prove they are worthy of being the #1 team in the NFC.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[ProfessaPackMan]

Quote:

I guess I just don't buy into "peaking at the right time" or "getting hot before the playoffs", unless there's some major injury, player returning from IR, some other change that would cause the earlier games to be skewed.

Even though there's evidence and history to suggest that it's pretty much true? Hell, Eli has pulled 2 SB rings out of his *** from doing this and there's a handful of other teams that have done it as well over the years. This is true across any sport, especially in the NBA/NFL. And in some cases, they carry that momentum(good or bad)into the next year. That goes for players as well.

Quote:

To me, week 8 is just as good a data point as week 17.

Oh of course, there's some evidence that can still carry some weight over the course of the season. Especially for things like Defense, Run Game, Pass Game, etc.



Keyword "some", because as we've seen, teams can adjust and "evolve" over the course of 16 weeks. The Steelers are a prime example of that this year, especially on the Defensive side. Could also mention the Patriots as well. Hell, we've already forgotten that either of these teams actually lost games based on how they've looked lately.

Quote:

It's all a piece of the puzzle and just randomly throwing out something because it happened a little while ago instead of yesterday seems arbitrary and narrative driven.

Man, there's a narrative to everything in Sports as I'm sure you know. Even if it's lazy or not. This is what we as Sports Fans do. We place more emphasis on one but then brush off the others because....who the hell knows why. It never makes sense to me either, lol.

[cable guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by cjonesfan921

This is the only take on the game that I won't bother entertaining... Only because, each game is truly independent of others. Rodgers is on fire, though. And, I don't expect that to not be the case on Sunday. Sent from my Pixel XL using Operation Sports mobile app

Yes. I agree totally. Dallas totally did not match up well against the Giants.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk