PFT: " 49ers have a better formula than the Packers to win games in January "

Originally posted by lamontb:
Didn't the packers a non running team win the bowl last year? Beating a running team that had a solid defense in ATL.

Umm, they beat the Falcons on indoor turf, built for speed.

They could have lost, and maybe should have lost, to the Bears:
- Rodgers had a QB rating of 55 and they only ran for 100 total yards.
- BJ Raji got an INT for a Touchdown
- Cutler got hurt, then performed poorly as a result, then was replaced by Hanie

* If you avoid Chicago's mistakes, the 49ers can win that game.

Originally posted by IWasWrongRubber:
Green Bay hasn't faced a good defense yet. There aren't many in this year's NFL. You have Baltimore, Pittsburgh and us. I don't know if you want to add Detroit to this list or not. I'm not adding Tampa Bay because, well, we had our way with that defense earlier this season.

Point is -- Aaron Rodgers hasn't faced a tough defense yet. I still think games against Detroit and Chicago will give him trouble, but we'll see. Time will tell.

Personally? I believe the NFC Championship Game won't be played in the frozen tundra. It will be placed here in San Francisco. It will be cold and foggy, but not snowy. And it will be an epic showdown between San Francisco and Green Bay -- a showdown that the 49ers will win.

This is our year.

Packers strength of schedule so far has been weak. 28-37. 49ers opponents are 32-32

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by GolittaCamper:
Ask yourself this, who is better built to win the frozen tundra? A passing team built for speed, or a running team that is a defensive juggernaut?

Didn't the packers a non running team win the bowl last year? Beating a running team that had a solid defense in ATL.

true. but the Packers averaged over 100 yards rushing a game in the playoffs, which was about the same amount they averaged during the season as well, and about as much as they are averaging this year. that's not great but its enough to be effective.

so in some ways the fact that the Packers aren't a very good running game is something of a myth, even though by the numbers they are a bottom third running team. I'm going to retract any statements I've made about that as a weakness, because for the Pack it isn't about piling up yards in the run game its about selective running. They ran very effectively in the playoffs in particular.

whats more important is defense. The Packers defense was very good in the secondary during the playoffs, and this year it is a weakness. They still create turnovers and make some big plays but they arent' so good at limiting the score.

Packers defense just like last year made plays when needed. Rodgers still carried/carrying the team, but that defense is still making plays. Even against the Chargers this week, they had 2 pick 6, and a late INT that sealed the game.

I'm so excited I'm giddy like a little girl.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by GolittaCamper:
Ask yourself this, who is better built to win the frozen tundra? A passing team built for speed, or a running team that is a defensive juggernaut?

Didn't the packers a non running team win the bowl last year? Beating a running team that had a solid defense in ATL.

true. the Packers averaged over 100 yards rushing a game in the playoffs, which was about the same amount they averaged during the season as well, and about as much as they are averaging this year.

so in some ways the fact that the Packers aren't a very good running game is something of a myth, even though by the numbers they are a bottom third running team. I'm going to retract any statements I've made about that as a weakness, because for the Pack it isn't about piling up yards in the run game its about selective running. They ran very effectively in the playoffs in particular.

whats more important is defense. The Packers defense was very good in the secondary during the playoffs, and this year it is a weakness. They still create turnovers and make some big plays but they arent' so good at limiting the score.

True. Starks did show up for them come playoff time.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by lamontb:
Didn't the packers a non running team win the bowl last year? Beating a running team that had a solid defense in ATL.

Umm, they beat the Falcons on indoor turf, built for speed.

They could have lost, and maybe should have lost, to the Bears:
- Rodgers had a QB rating of 55 and they only ran for 100 total yards.
- BJ Raji got an INT for a Touchdown
- Cutler got hurt, then performed poorly as a result, then was replaced by Hanie

* If you avoid Chicago's mistakes, the 49ers can win that game.

That was a game last year and the Niners aren't the Bears a team that is more familiar with the Packers. Scratch the coulda, woulda, and shoulda's. The Packers won. That just makes no sense at all to compare what happened vs the Bears last year and apply to a possible match up this year. I mean how do we know that the Niners couldn't overcome 4 turnovers b/c they created 5 from the Packers? And yea they won in ATL, but Lambeau is their home stadium so I'm sure they are more than prepared to play on the frozen tundra. They are used to the cold and the frozen ground. it would make sense if they were to say well the niners would be more suited than the Saints/Giants to go to Lambeau and get a win b/c of their run 1st style.

Originally posted by GolittaCamper:

Ask yourself this, who is better built to win the frozen tundra? A passing team built for speed, or a running team that is a defensive juggernaut?

Away field advantage

The comments section cracks me up. LOL!!

I see comment like "Everyone knows that the way you win in the playoffs is an overwhelming offense. Rodgers>Smith".

Ya know what? That's true...until its not. People always act as if the way you win in the NFL is static. It never changes.

There are comments in there saying that running the ball and playing good D worked in the 70's but not now. Actually, it worked well in teh 80's (Redskins) and 90's (Cowboys) too, but we won't go into that.

In that very comment they say the NFL has changed but fail to realize that it CONTINUES to change. If everyone is geared to pass and stop the pass, doesn't it stand to reason that a team built to attack where you're weak seem to have an advantage?

Thats OK tho. As I've said before...just let them think that. When January comes and the Niners beat the Pack you can say "told ya". The world will be shocked and we can say "dude...I've been trying to tell you this since November".

Formula is one thing, play calling and execution another.

I don't watch too many GB games (usually watching either my game, my friend's Titans, or lightly cheering on the team playing the Cowpies), but shouldn't we be worried about A.J. Hawk and Clay Matthews putting a hurt on Gore? Ideally, a true Niners fan would say "Screw that!! THEY should be worried about Gore steamrolling them over", but his hip injury still concerns me and I still can't shake off all the bad luck we have had throughout the short amount of time I've been watching the Niners play (this is my 4th year watching).

Every week I keep crossing my fingers for Alex to turn up the heat, but if we're really keeping the offense under the tarp, then we won't see him try anything too flashy until we play a big team or in the playoffs...

Originally posted by 49erFanInTX83:
I don't watch too many GB games (usually watching either my game, my friend's Titans, or lightly cheering on the team playing the Cowpies), but shouldn't we be worried about A.J. Hawk and Clay Matthews putting a hurt on Gore? Ideally, a true Niners fan would say "Screw that!! THEY should be worried about Gore steamrolling them over", but his hip injury still concerns me and I still can't shake off all the bad luck we have had throughout the short amount of time I've been watching the Niners play (this is my 4th year watching).

Every week I keep crossing my fingers for Alex to turn up the heat, but if we're really keeping the offense under the tarp, then we won't see him try anything too flashy until we play a big team or in the playoffs...

It's got to happen at some point i think.

Originally posted by 49erFanInTX83:
I don't watch too many GB games (usually watching either my game, my friend's Titans, or lightly cheering on the team playing the Cowpies), but shouldn't we be worried about A.J. Hawk and Clay Matthews putting a hurt on Gore? Ideally, a true Niners fan would say "Screw that!! THEY should be worried about Gore steamrolling them over", but his hip injury still concerns me and I still can't shake off all the bad luck we have had throughout the short amount of time I've been watching the Niners play (this is my 4th year watching).

Every week I keep crossing my fingers for Alex to turn up the heat, but if we're really keeping the offense under the tarp, then we won't see him try anything too flashy until we play a big team or in the playoffs...

Not really worried about that. Hawk isn't all that and Matthews is mostly an edge rusher. When the Niners line up with extra tackles and TEs his speed will be neutralized.

Originally posted by GolittaCamper:
Ask yourself this, who is better built to win the frozen tundra? A passing team built for speed, or a running team that is a defensive juggernaut?

The bears have thought the same, yet were destroyed by us.
I would not count the Packers out, now they are very sexy, a lot of passing a lot of points, speed. Yet I would never rule out a Dom Capers defence.

Allthough I do not belive that the Packers will win back to back! They will beaten by a team in a game which they would usually win 9 out of 10 times just as teh Giants did wit the Pats. Will that loss be somewhere in the playoffs or in the SB, it's yet to be seen.

the niners have the formula to beat the packers hell yeah! rushing 4 - dropping 7 and still getting a pass rush. no running game to worry about. people dont even know! these experts probably think the niners blitz a lot the way the defense is playing.

Originally posted by nickbradley:
Packers strength of schedule so far has been weak. 28-37. 49ers opponents are 32-32

I'm of the opinion you need to take the head to head games out of that stat. If your team wins, it weakens the strength of schedule of your opponents, if it loses it strengthens it. So, using your numbers and 8-0 for the Packers and 7-1 for us, it looks like this.

Packers strength of schedule 28-29, .491 win %
49er 31-25, .553 win %