The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

While the Pack may not be historically great, the have an enviable schedule. They might just pull it off..

Vikings, Bucs, @Lions, @Giants, Raiders, @Chiefs, Bears, Lions.

Any given Sunday... But the Packers are solid favorites in all those games. Providing they don't pull their starters... I give 'em about a 25% chance of pulling it off.

Who spoils their run?

Lions twice is tough.  Bears is no gimmie.

@Giants won't be easy, either! Look what we did to Tom Brady on the road - we can bring the heat on Rodgers as well.

Not historically great? Best offense I've seen since Fastest Show on Turf. I would give them better than average odds of 16-0. If I was on PTI I'd say 70% chance. -EK

^^ That Giants game is the biggest hurdle by far, IMHO. Very good passing game and a D that leads the league in sacks. Tough game, no question, and the main reason I give the Pack "only" a 25% chance of pulling off the 16 Ws.

The Bears and Lions are overrated, IMHO, with stats inflated by weak opponents. The Lions defense is solid, but I don't see Stafford keeping up with Rodgers... Just too many weapons. As for the Bears, their offensive output is weak and their D is below average against #1 receivers. I could see them getting stomped.

Rodgers has been historically great, but their running game, defense, and special teams have all been average at best.

As for your odds... That's insane. I'm going to assume you don't gamble.... What you're proposing is that the Packers are about 20-1 favorites in EVERY game.

FYI, looking up the Vegas odds, Green Bay are 2-1 to win the Super Bowl, 6-1 to go 16-0, and 10-1 to do both.

I'd give'em 75% chance or better.  GB offense puts up big numbers, the remaining teams on their schedule can't match that offensive firepower.

Will we see in a few weeks Shula and the other 72 dolphins get interviewed about the Packers possibly be going undefeated.

I think the lions will be a tough match and Green Bay will go 1-1 against them. other than that i can see the Packers winning 15.

No, I don't gamble. But, I know that they averaging 34 ppg, and winning by nearly two TD's per game; when you do that, you don't really need a stellar defense- just one that is good, which I believe theirs is. A ton of the points scored against them have been when they're up 20+ points and seem to let off the gas.  They're a 2 TD favorite again this week, and they've been at least a ten point favorite in about half their games. This is, of course, why I don't gamble, but the "eyeball" test tells me that of their remaining games, the Giants are the only one I see them losing. They've already beaten the Saints, and won in Chicago, and in Atlanta. To me, that seems like about 70%. Again, I'm out of my comfort zone on this stuff, but it doesn't seem as outlandish as you make it sound. If they go 15-1, I'd feel like my "likelihood" wasn't far off. If they go 16-0, good for them. -EK

They lose on Thanksgiving Day.  You heard it here first.

^ Actually, I've already heard this somewhere else. I did not hear it here first.

Ok who's the smart ass that posted, "they'll lose tonight (meaning the Vikings game). You heard it here first," then deleted their post? 'Fess up!!! -EK

I think they could easily pull of the 16-0 record if they keep playing the way they are right now. However as we get deeper into the winter games the weather can be a factor and they are not a strong running team. May not matter if Aaron keeps throwing at the clip he is now but the weather could very well effect that and the wideouts ability to make the grab or get decent traction to make the cuts necessary on the field to be in position for the pass!!!!!

Regular season they really have only 2 hard games left. That is AT the Giants. and home vs Chicago. (Lions have fallen apart, KC,TB stink and Oakland is nothing special). I mean any given Sunday but aside from Giants and Bears they don't play anybody really good down the stretch.

They could easily be unbeaten in the regular season. Playoffs though is a different beast. Their defense has been bad this year. Get some bad weather or a tight game and they can be had easily.

Even though they lost this week the more I watch the Giants the more I like them. If they get Bradshaw back their offense is very good. And they are the ONLY team in the league that can get a pass rush with their front 4 and don't have to blitz.

I doubt they will go 16-0.  But this is the best Packers team I've seen in a long time.  They're almost Tecmo-Bowl like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a43kowi2ncI&feature=related


 :-[

This is the best TEAM I've seen in a long time. Even better than the 2007 Patsies.

Who cares if Green Bay goes 16-0? That's already been done. What I want to know is GB gonna go 19-0. That's the number to shoot for in my humble opinion. That's not been done yet.

yep! And if they do god bless them. Tip your cap to them.

I have a theory that Miami won't be good again until someone else goes undefeated

lol, maybe

I always found it sad how some Dolphins fans cling to that record. Records are made to be broken, if someone does it god bless them. If I am lucky enough to see it and if it happens in my lifetime, great!

I mean its not like they take away the Super Bowl the Fins won in 1972 if someone else goes unbeaten.

The Patriots' defense was better, IMHO.

I'm still not convinced that Green Bay's offense is historically great. It's certainly the best this year, but if you compare it to the 2007 Patriots, well, the Patriots certainly had a better running game. Is Green Bay's passing game better than that of the 2007 Patriots? I don't know...

I'd be more comfortable if the Pack had played some better defenses. Chicago and Atlanta are the best they've come up against.  Overall, I think the Packers have been lucky in terms of schedule. There just aren't a lot of good defenses on their schedule (yeah, I'm not sold on the Bears... at all). We'll see what happens when they go to Detroit on Thanksgiving, that should give us an indication, even though the Lions do have a very young D that I wouldn't be surprised to see Rodgers pick apart.

^^ Why the Lions stink. They have been playing poorly and dirty. They got a few lucky wins with some miracle comebacks early in the year. Aside from that they have been an ordinary team.

GB plays the Giants and Bears they are the only true tests they have left.

And Aaron Rodgers, I don't care what the stats say, he is having the single greatest year any QB has had. It goes beyond numbers, he doesn't make any mistakes and makes big plays when needed. He is playing at the highest level any QB has ever played at in NFL maybe ever for at least a single season.

^^Were you around to see Marino in '84?  That was pretty darn impressive too and I watched it first hand as well. I'd still give the nod to Marino in that year. Rodgers numbers are better in some respects this year, but QB's and receivers weren't protected like they are now.

564 Attempts
362 Completions
64.2 % completion rate
5,084 yards
9 yards per completion
48 TD's
17 INT's
13 Sacks - This pretty darn impressive for 564 attempts.

If a team's going to be 19-0 I'd much rather it was Green Bay.

Amen.....As long as it is not the Jets, Patriots, or Bills I would be able to stomach it.....well and maybe the fucking Cowboys lol!!!!!

Not to speak for MikeO, but cross-era comparisons may be fun for some, but they're pretty useless. The comparison here has to be other 'recent' quarterbacks. I'd go as far back as Warner and The Greatest Show on Turf (so late 90s) -- any earlier and it just becomes meaningless, IMHO.

I think the comparison holds if you're looking at the original vs. what the game has become.  Marino's stats may have doubled given how much teams throw now, but he was the first quarterback to throw the ball all over the field like that.

It was unheard of at the time, now it's commonplace, much as Johnny U's 2 minute drill was unheard of and now it's standard practice.

I was around and I said the stats won't back me up. And its more than just stats. Stats arent' everything. But just from the eyeball test, Rodgers is at a higher level.  Just on a one year basis, not comparing careers. Higher level might not mean a stats monster. He won't have Dan's stats from 84. But gun to my head to win a game, Rodgers today or Marino  from 84.....its not even close give me Rodgers this year. He's playing at the highest level any QB has ever played at.

I believe ESPN recently analyzed this and determined that Brees' 2009 was the best year of any QB they could find... even better than Brady's 07.

They need to reanalyze, then. In addition to starting the season with a eight consecutive games with a passer rating of at least 110.0 here are his "on pace" numbers vs. some of the all time records. If he finishes how he started, he is going to shatter a handful of them, and easily surpass Brees 2009.

NFL Single-Season Quarterback Records and Rodgers' current pace:

Record             Owner         Year      Number      Rodgers' 2011 Pace
Passing Yds:    Dan Marino 1984     5,084          5,238
Passing TDs:   Tom Brady   2007       50             48
QB Rating:       Manning      2004     121.1         129.1
Completion %: Brees          2009      70.6%        72.5%
Total Offense:  Brees          2009      4,976        5,492
TDs Accounted Brady          2007        52            52



-EK

Rodgers 2011:
Completion %- 72.9
Passing yards- 2869
Pass TDs- 28
Total yards- 3017
Total TDs- 30

Brady 2007 (through 9 games):
Completion %- 73.2
Passing yards- 2686
Pass TDs- 33
Total yards- 2725
Total TDs- 35

Rodgers has more passing yards and rushing yards, while Brady had a better comp. % and 5 more TDs.  Oh, and in Brady's 10th game in 2007?  31/39, 373yds, 5 TDs.  So I doubt Rodgers will make up any ground through 10 games.

The point is, when you extrapolate early season results to 16 games, you frequently get "record-breaking" numbers.  How many times has a QB been "on pace" to break Marino's yards record?  How many times have they been "on pace" to get more than 48 TDs?  At the end of the season, those stats always slow down.

Hell, right now, Rodgers is on pace to barely beat Marino's yards record (he's on pace to throw for 5,100 yards; I don't know how you came up with 5,238), but both Brady and Brees are on pace to shatter Marino's yards record (Brady 5,390, Brees 5,321).  Do you seriously believe Tom Brady is going to better Marino's 27-year-old record by over 300 yards?

Yes, it's easy to extrapolate numbers early. 3-4 weeks in is early. 9 weeks into a season, with these kinds of numbers, doesn't give me any reason to believe he will slow down. This season has to be included in the "all-time" discussion right now, and if he finishes, it will be the most prolific season by a QB in a single year. -EK

Was that using their god awful Total qbr.  Don't believe anything from espn.

Well I think he invited the comparison when he said that he was playing the best any QB has ever played.

Regarding Brees being on pace to break Marino's record.  He is....but so is Brady.

Brees has more total yards 3,326 than Brady 3,032, but the Saints have played one more game and are now on bye.  By Sunday night Brady could be ahead of Brees. 

Patriots also have a pretty weak schedule coming up.  Saints is quite a bit harder.  OTOH, NE has plenty of games outside in the Northeast which can make the passing game harder. The Saints remaining schedule is mostly in domes only game outside is in Tenn. 

Hoodie, I pointed that out already:  if you think 10 weeks is an accurate representation of what post-week-17 stats will look like, both Brady and Brees will shatter Marino's yardage record.

Oh, and through 9 games in 2007:  Brady was on pace to throw 58 TDs.  That didn't exactly go as planned, either.

Passing numbers almost always decline in December. Weather being the main culprit. Green Bay has one heck of a 'cold weather' end to the season with 5 of their last 6 games (played Nov. 24 - Jan. 1) outdoors in cold weather stadiums (Detroit, NY, GB, (KC), GB, GB). A bit of inclement weather and Rodgers' stats will take a big hit.


I don't think anyone is questioning its place in the discussion (right now).

I REALLY like Aaron Rodgers and the Packers.

If there's a team (besides the niners) to break all of the Dolphins' and Marino's records I'd like for it to be the Packers.  They are the ones who should be labeled "America's Team" ... although I feel like it's a crap label regardless.

Your point about Brady not staying on pace is more relevent to Brady than it is to Brees.  While everyone loves to pontificated about the difference in eras/rules, most people ignore the biggest factor:field conditions.  Every QB plays better in a dome or nice weather than outdoors in bad weather.  Brady's yards will likely drop as the season goes on as the weather turns nasty both at home and on the road.  Brees won't have the same problem. 

By way of example Peyton Manning plays better indoors than he does outdoors 98.7 vs. 90.8.  Tom Brady also playes better indoors than outdoors 103.1 vs. 95.0. 

If you compare TB vs PM indoors you see that Brady is significantly better 103.1 vs. 98.7 and if you compare them outdoors Brady comes out signficantly higher 95.0 vs 90.8.  However, overall the edge is slight 95.7 vs. 94.9.  This is because Tom Brady plays most of his games outdoors where it is harder to throw and Peyton plays most of his games indoors where it is easier.

Same deal when comparing Jim Kelly to Marino. Quite possibly if Marino was in Buffalo and Kelly was in Miami, Kelly would have broken multiple records and Marino would be an after thought.  Both the same era, but one played in nice weather one played in horrible weather.  Or comparing Brees to Rodgers.  Lot harder to complete a pass Green Bay than in the dome in NO. 

Didn't Kelly play on Turf? How often were the field conditions really a hinderance? Marino played on grass and in the rain that was probably a bigger hinderance then Kelly playing in the cold.

The truth is that Kelly had a number of great seasons, though not quite as good as Marino. At best if you switched the 2, Kelly would have maybe broken a few more records and Marino would have won a couple of Super Bowls. :)

Turf vs grass is not much of a factor in the passing game more of a factor for the rushing game and then it tends to hurt the defense and help the offense.

Passing game: 1. wind, 2 rain/snow, 3 cold.  While wind and rain does occur in south florida not with the frequence it does in the North.  Florida does have huricanes but that would cancel a game not screw up the passing stats.   

Kelly did play on turf.  What Kelly had that Marino didn't was a running game.   

Both guys ended up with some pretty innovative shit.  Kelly ran the no-huddle and made the 3WR set commonplace.  Thurman was also the prototype scatback in that he could take outlet passes and turn them into big plays.  Andre Reed was able for most of his career to thrive catching passes in traffic over the middle.
It worked in the snow and it worked in the cold because they didn't have to throw it 30 yards downfield.  Go back and look at the 1990 playoff game.  Reed and Thomas ate us alive and if Kelly threw the ball over 30 yards more than three times the whole game, I'd be shocked. 

Marino scored a lot of points because he could throw balls through windows that no one knew were there. 

If you switch the two, Marino probably has two Superbowl rings and maybe Kelly is still a top tier quarterback. 

I disagree. The game is faster on turf and WR's can make quicker cuts, both help WR's seperate from DB's better. And yes the DB's can also run faster on turf and cut quicker, but they are always reacting to WR's so it still favors the WR's.

I think rain/snow interfere with passing stats more than either wind or cold do and it rains plenty in South Florida. Don't get much snow, but there aren't any more games played in snow than their are in the rain. Still think it's pretty much a wash between Kelly and Marino.

^^^
Turf IS faster.  But it's faster for both teams.  It's very hard to describe.  It's like asphalt vs. concrete.  Everyone's faster on it.

But since WR's know where they are going and DB's don't that gives them a bigger edge. If everyone is slow, than the short time it takes for a DB's to react to a WR's break isn't much of an advantage, but as things get faster, that reaction times means bigger seperation from the defender. It may only be 3 inches difference, but that 3 inches can be the difference between a ball tipped out of the way and a completed pass.

12-0... Looks very possibly now with 3 home games and a trip to KC. I think they have a better than 50/50 chance, provided they go for it, of course.

No.

In a span of a few minutes, the 13-0 and 0-13 teams reversed their fortunes.

I want to open up a bottle of champagne with Manny Fernandez and Csonka tonight!

I think it's hilarious that the only QB to walk away with a win after playing the Packers is the much maligned Kyle Orton.  Great job by KC today from top to bottom.

So by Ross putting the squash on the Orton trade in August, Mr. Ross may have protected the 1972 Dolphins Perfect Season because of how things played out.

Go figure!

It was his master plan all along!   :P

I actually wanted to see the Packers go unbeaten. Something cool and historical I could say I actually witnessed as an NFL fan. Oh well.

Not me.  If I was a fan of any other team, I wouldn't mind.  BUT, I am not.  This is a Dolphin record.  This is a record I sweat out every season.