OT - The NFC

So I think the AFC is frankly looking pretty boring right now. Pats are the clear cut favorite and look like the best AFC team. Broncos are probably still the 2nd best but haven't looked like it recently. Colts, Bengals both look like pretenders. KC will be a little interesting to see if they can push the Broncos but IDK.

To me the NFC is by far the more interesting conference with way more questions than answers.

Arizona beat Detroit (1 seed crushing 2 seed). How far can that D take em with Drew at the helm? Also I am curious to see how good Detroit is and how they bounce back vs the Pats. GB is arguably the best NFC team and has been the Patriots of the NFC in some respects.

Philly could be good but need Foles back. Dallas is a bit interesting too and I want to see if Romo can make some playoff noise. Seattle to me is still a team that needs to be given its due respect.

NFC south SUCKS. a 4-6 team would make the playoffs right now if they started today. That is gonna squeeze a legit contender out and add a ton of drama down the stretch. Will the Atlanta make it in over Seattle, Philly, Green Bay? Could be.

What are your thoughts?

Not sure why everyone is afraid of GB. I think we match up well with them. I was more afraid of last night's game going into it than I am about GB.

FourierSeries said:

Not sure why everyone is afraid of GB. I think we match up well with them. I was more afraid of last night's game going into it than I am about GB.

Click to expand...

Rodgers. That's the only reason.

FourierSeries said:

Not sure why everyone is afraid of GB. I think we match up well with them. I was more afraid of last night's game going into it than I am about GB.

Click to expand...

I'm not afraid, but GB is substantially better than Indy. Even more so if you only count recent performance.

If you were nervous at all for Indy, you should be doubly or triply nervous for the Packers.

Oswlek said:

I'm not afraid, but GB is substantially better than Indy. Even more so if you only count recent performance.

If you were nervous at all for Indy, you should be doubly or triply nervous for the Packers.

Click to expand...

Not sure I agree.
Both are bad defensively and both are good not consistently great offensively.
Very similar teams IMO, and if they played each other I'd call it a pickem.

Oswlek said:

I'm not afraid, but GB is substantially better than Indy. Even more so if you only count recent performance.

If you were nervous at all for Indy, you should be doubly or triply nervous for the Packers.

Click to expand...

Colts allowed 98 rushing yards per game before last night, Packers allow 139 at a 4.5 clip.
If you cannot stop the Patriots running game, you won't hold them under 35 points.

AndyJohnson said:

Not sure I agree.
Both are bad defensively and both are good not consistently great offensively.
Very similar teams IMO, and if they played each other I'd call it a pickem.

Click to expand...

Rodgers is far less of a risk taker though, thats the huge difference giving a significant edge to GB. GB has the same number of turnovers as us but 3 more takeaways.

22 Takeaways (2nd, behind Houston, we're tied for 6th with 19)
8 Giveaways (Tied for first with New England (GB +14, NE +11, good for 1st and 2nd)

Indy is 13th with a +1 and twice as many giveaways as NE or GB, at 16.

They might be similarly productive teams, but GB will not gift you anything like the Colts will. That makes them a much tougher opponent.

I see their "Home Field Advantage" far less important than the Colts as it basically mimics our home with what should be less noise than Indy had.

Rodgers is still the biggest difference between the Colts and the Packers and he's a pretty big difference. Luck might be good, but he's not close to Rodgers yet. Rodgers is the real deal both mentally and physically, Luck is only on his way.

Edit: I do agree defensively they are both bad, with the Colts having the edge on being less sucky. I just can't take GB lightly, even if they were identical to the Colts, simply because of Rodgers.

I think the NFC has 9 teams that could realistically beat the Patriots

Cowboys - Romo can win it for either team
Eagles - QB is now a huge question mark, and the defense can be had
Packers - Rodgers doesn't handle adversity within a game particularly well, and the defense is poor
Lions - Stafford is a stronger armed Romo, and the defensive secondary can be had
Saints - Lots of offensive talent, but the defense has major problems and this is a definite dome team
49ers - QB is a weakness and the defense isn't the all world group it's been
Seahawks - Post SB blues, personnel defections and overrated to start with
Cardinals - QB will be a question mark all season long
Rams

They've all got issues, though, and they've all got more question marks than the Patriots. These next two weeks will go a long way towards seeing how the Patriots match up with the best of the NFC. Next week is a game against the league's #1 scoring defense, and the following week is on the road against the #1 scoring offense in the NFL.

PatsSox363804 said:

Rodgers. That's the only reason.

Click to expand...

If that's the only reason, then it's not a big enough reason to be afraid. One guy is not going to beat us. Belichick is good at taking away the other team's best weapon. In this case it will be Rodgers. How else can they beat us if we keep him in check? He'll get his yards but I don't see him putting up more than 21 points.

strngplyr said:

Rodgers is far less of a risk taker though, thats the huge difference giving a significant edge to GB. GB has the same number of turnovers as us but 3 more takeaways.

22 Takeaways (2nd, behind Houston, we're tied for 6th with 19)
8 Giveaways (Tied for first with New England (GB +14, NE +11, good for 1st and 2nd)

Indy is 13th with a +1 and twice as many giveaways as NE or GB, at 16.

They might be similarly productive teams, but GB will not gift you anything like the Colts will. That makes them a much tougher opponent.

I see their "Home Field Advantage" far less important than the Colts as it basically mimics our home with what should be less noise than Indy had.

Rodgers is still the biggest difference between the Colts and the Packers and he's a pretty big difference. Luck might be good, but he's not close to Rodgers yet. Rodgers is the real deal both mentally and physically, Luck is only on his way.

Edit: I do agree defensively they are both bad, with the Colts having the edge on being less sucky. I just can't take GB lightly, even if they were identical to the Colts, simply because of Rodgers.

Click to expand...

The fact that Rodgers is a better QB does not mean the Packers are a better team.
The Packers just got blown out 44-23 3 weeks ago by a terrible Saints team, and scored 16 and 7 points in their other 2 losses.
Their defense might very well be the worst of all the SB contenders.

Pats are the best team in the league right now. The rest of the league is in shambles....just how I like it.

FourierSeries said:

If that's the only reason, then it's not a big enough reason to be afraid. One guy is not going to beat us. Belichick is good at taking away the other team's best weapon. In this case it will be Rodgers. How else can they beat us if we keep him in check? He'll get his yards but I don't see him putting up more than 21 points.

Click to expand...

That's not really how that works.

Belichick takes away the QB's best weapon.

I thought GB was a better rushing team but they are 18th in rush yards per game while Indy is 17th. That's a nice little twist that will make defending GB easier than I thought. I still think Nelson & Cobb is a tougher duo to defend than Hilton and Wayne but the way Revis is playing does it even matter? Rodgers is definitely better than Luck though.

Jangles said:

That's not really how that works.

Belichick takes away the QB's best weapon.

Click to expand...

He takes away what the team does best. GB's strength is the passing game. This year he has the personnel to do that as we've seen against Denver and Indy.

FrodoBagginz said:

Pats are the best team in the league right now. The rest of the league is in shambles....just how I like it.

Click to expand...

How are GB, KC, DAL, AZ and DET in shambles?

Patriots have a better QB than GB. At Lambeau I think they cancel each other out, but or strength is the secondary and we can very much take away Nelson and Cobb away from Rodgers

Pats-Phan said:

I thought GB was a better rushing team but they are 18th in rush yards per game while Indy is 17th. That's a nice little twist that will make defending GB easier than I thought. I still think Nelson & Cobb is a tougher duo to defend than Hilton and Wayne but the way Revis is playing does it even matter? Rodgers is definitely better than Luck though.

Click to expand...

Eddie Lacy is a legit running threat. They only run him around 15 times a game. Not sure how the Pats run D will do but if they give him the rock 25 times, he will pick up some yards. They use him in the passing game as well.

With all that said, GB is an outstanding offensive football team. With that said, if they can somehow keep Nelson and Cobb in check (essentially do what they did last night), Pats have a great chance. GB's D hasn't really played a good offense except NO and they put up 44 on 'em. Pats SHOULD equal that mark.

I don't like to look ahead too much when it comes to specific match ups. However when I look at GB I am not too worried.

Browner on Nelson w/ help, Revis on Cobb. Contain those 2 and you stop their O as they are about 60% of it. Lacy can catch some but that alone won't kill you & I don't think they will be bale to run on the Patriots too well as their OL is not a great run blocking group.

Their D does not concern me. I expect 40 points to be scored on them by the Pats and I don't think GB can do that to the Pats D.