That team would have two wins with an average quarterback under center. He’s absolutely put them on his back.
I agree. I also think that at least part of the reason Favre is playing so well in Minnesota this year is that he has a very good team around him. I strongly believe that Brett has always tried to carry his team on his shoulders when he doesn’t believe that they’re able to do it on their own. That’s what seems to lead to the “stupid Brett” plays, when he tries to make something out of nothing.
I think that’s a big reason why Favre frequently played poorly in '03-'06…and I tend to think that, if Favre was playing for the Packers this year, his play would be closer to what it was in those years than what it has been for the Vikings this year.
I’ve never been a huge McCarthy fan, and I’m becoming even less so this year. The lack of discipline is incredibly frustrating to watch.
BTW, and apropos of very little…
Will the Packers’ next head coach also be named Mike?
I mean, I’m a big fan of the name (being a Mike, myself), but it’s kinda funny that they’ve had three straight head coaches named Mike. Who would they get next, if they canned McCarthy?
Just, please, don’t let it be Mike Tice. I hate that guy.
Would Mike Shanahan be willing to take his show to Green Bay? Would the Packers foot the bill for him? Hmmm.
It doesn’t seem likely to me. In the post-Lombardi era, they’ve only twice hired coaches with prior NFL head-coaching experience (Forrest Gregg and Ray Rhodes), and neither of those worked out so well.
Things like that usually seem to be cyclical with most organizations. The fact that it’s been so long and that the results with unproven OCs have recently been pretty poor it seems like it’d encourage them to try a different path. Logically I’d bet they go with a proven HC or with a DC the next time around.
Shanahan would probably be a really good fit. As a Bears fan having him calling plays with Rodgers and those WRs would scare the crap out of me. Presumably he’d recreate the Broncos O line schemes and make a running game out of nothing too. I wonder what level of control Shanahan will demand and if there’s any way Teddy boy is able to coexist with him (assuming the Pack keep him) and if GM Shanahan will undermine coach Shanahan enough to keep the Pack at around .500.
Would Shanahan want to be in Green Bay? Does he want a bigger stage? Would Green Bay be able to afford him? Would they be able to if they fire both TT and MM clearing up two salaries to make room for Shanny. These are questions that will be asked if the Pack end up behind the Bears in the division.
Packers behind the Bears this year? What ARE you smoking??? :eek:
Have the Lions been mathematically eliminated yet?
From the division title race, yes. At 8-1, Minnesota can finish no worse than 8-8; at 1-8 Detroit can finish no better than 8-8. Minnesota holds the primary tiebreaker, with two head-to-head wins.
From the wild card? Probably, but I can’t say for sure without looking at the schedule more closely than I’m prepared to.
The Lions aren’t mathematically eliminated from the playoffs… there would have to be six 8-1 (or better) teams with a tie breaker advantage.
On the other hand, the Lions are not going to make the playoffs.
No. But they have in every other conceivable way.
Not necessarily. The teams ahead of them probably play each other in such a way that one of them has to win 9 games.
Simplified example:
In a 5-team league, where one team is 0-2, one is 2-0 and two make the playoffs, so the standings look like this:
Team A: 2-0 (wins over Teams B and C)
Team B: 1-1 (win over team E, loss to A)
Team C: 1-1 (win over D, loss to A)
Team D: 1-1 (win over E, loss to C)
Team E: 0-2
The following games still have to be played: A/E, A/D, B/C, B/D, C/E. Even if E wins both remaining games, one out of B and D must mathematically win another game, and both would have the tie breaker advantage over E.
Let’s say that all NFC-NFC games that do not involve the Lions are either (a) won by current division leaders, OR (b) end in a tie, that all AFC-NFC games that do not involve the Lions or current division leaders are won by the AFC team, and of course, that the Lions win out. The Lions would be in the playoffs as a wild card. So they are not mathematically eliminated, and we don’t really have to look at who plays whom around the NFC.
A team with more wins than losses would be ahead of an 8-8 team, regardless of how many games it ties; there is no points system used in the NFL standings. For example, under your scenario, there are four NFC teams which could tie all their remaining games to finish 5-4-7, placing them ahead of the Lions in the standings.
“Tie games count as one-half win and one-half loss for both teams”
So those teams are 7-9, the Lions are 8-8 (in this admittedly bizarre scenario).
???
5 + 7/2 = 5 + 3.5 = 8.5 wins. So those teams are 8.5 - 7.5
Huh? 7/2 = 3.5. Those teams are effectively 8 1/2 - 5 1/2.
Bizarre but awesome scenario.
ETA: What Tom said.
My bad, I was looking at the 4 as ties. Not because it wasn’t written correctly, but because I was thinking that there would be about four games that need to be ties.
We can just give the teams losses to division leaders (Lions are eliminated from the North and sure as hell can’t win the North, East or West), and we can give them losses to the AFC teams they play. If we’re just looking at how the Lions can make the playoffs (or whether it’s possible), let’s start there. If we do, I think it’s clear that that it’s practically impossible for the other games to be so arranged that anyone else in the NFC HAS to have 9 wins (let alone two teams).
Well, yes, but it’s also practically impossible that two non-division-winning teams in the NFC will not have 8 wins.