Vikings, Seahawks or Redskins Lie Ahead

24
Russell Wilson

Russell Wilson

The Green Bay Packers’ playoff fate is pretty clear. They’ll play either the Minnesota Vikings or Seattle Seahawks at Lambeau Field in the first round or they’ll head to Washington.

Obviously, for one of the first two scenarios to play out, the Packers need to beat the Vikings in week 17. That would make them NFC North champions and give them their home playoff game.

A loss gives the Vikings the division and drops the Packers to the No. 5 seed. That’s how they end up facing Washington, which clinched the NFC East this past weekend. The Packers cannot drop to No. 6 because of their early-season win over the Seahawks.

Here’s how the Packers would get each result.

Vikings at Packers: Green Bay beats Minnesota, Seattle beats Arizona. A Minnesota loss and Seattle win drops the Vikings to the No. 6 seed.

Seahawks at Packers: Green Bay beats Minnesota, Arizona beats Seattle. Minnesota remains at No. 5 with a loss, as long as Seattle also loses.

Packers at Washington: Minnesota beats Green Bay.

Some people have suggested the Packers are better off losing to the Vikings in week 17 so they can face Washington in the first round.

That’s a pretty stupid suggestion. If they beat the Vikings in week 17 it will be the second time this season they’ve done so. Why wouldn’t the Packers want to face a team they obviously own at home in the first round?

We get it. Washington plays in the NFC Least, but they’ve been playing some decent ball lately. They’ve won their last three and have put up at least 35 points in their last two. That Kirk Cousins creep can roll.

The Packers want nothing to do with Washington right now.

If they’re going to have a shot at a first-round win, the Packers want the Vikings.

About The Author

Monty McMahon is one of the founders of Total Packers. He is probably the most famous graduate of UW-Oshkosh next to Jim Gantner.

24 Comments on "Vikings, Seahawks or Redskins Lie Ahead"

  1. Richard

    Losing intentionally is stupid? It avoids a Seattle trip to Lambeau, which would probably set these losers back a few seasons, similar to 2004 loss at Lambeau to the Viqueens in the playoffs. It already appears this team is on the way down, if they are going to suck for a few seasons they’d be better off playing Cousins in DC. At least they’d have a 50/50 shot at winning that one

    • icebowl

      Nice scenario summary Monty…

      I agree with you Richards, though IMO – It don’t matter much who they play in the first round, at home or on the road, this team ain’t going anywhere…..

    • Phatgzus

      It absolutely is. Think of the message it sends to your players and the rest of the league-that is EXACTLY how you lose players’ confidence, control of a team, a coaching job, and eventually a career. Football players, are people, not fucking binary code, what do you think happens to them psychologically when you pretty much fucking tell them “I don’t think you’re good enough to even bother trying”? What do you think happens physically when your confidence is shattered by a leader you’re supposed to trust? Especially when you’re facing a team that apparently is intimidated by you. You don’t steal the acne-ridden, four-eyed nerd’s lunch money for 4 years of high school then on graduation day pick a fight with him then curl up into a fucking ball and start bawling and screaming your lugs out for mommy. No, you beat the shit out of him until one day, 20 years down the road, he surpasses you and gets his due. Only THEN do you even consider giving up, for the briefest of moments, before deciding to beat his ass again and then quit and then bone his hot wife, once again reclaiming your position atop the food chain.

  2. Richard

    It’s also worth noting that this game being flexed works out beautifully. The Packers will know what they have to do to avoid Seattle by kickoff since the Seahawk-Cardinal game will be over by them. Thanks NFL

  3. CO Bob

    Agree with Richard…rather play Washington in round 1. Best chance of winning round one and….um…more time to iron out the “kinks.”
    (Yes I’m laughing a little….)
    Not taking this season too seriously at this point. Just letting it ride and enjoying what’s left.

  4. If you look at the positives, all the playoff teams except Washington, and maybe Seattle have reasons to play the season out with their starters. In addition all the playoff teams are playing against division rivals. This usually means physical close games. You never know how each team will come out of those type of games health wise. What looks like bad or good match ups may change after this weeks games.

    A lot can change from week to week in the NFL, except maybe the Packer Offense.

  5. Richard

    Green Bay should be afraid of every playoff team at this point. The point is that Washington is a better matchup, even if it ends up a loss. These guys aren’t going anywhere, but the young guys need all the playoff experience they can get. Losing by 30 at Lambeau to Seattle is probably not going to help them much

  6. Richard

    For the people still expecting a deep playoff run (instead of realistically viewing that scenario as a miracle), consider that the arc of the 2010 championship is very similar to 1996. Progressively getting worse but still making the playoffs. Last years once in a lifetime playoff collapse was this generations 4th and 26 moment, and now we are likely about to get the Randy Moss mooning experience all over again in a few weeks

  7. Cheese

    A home playoff game brings tourists and more money for the local economy. Other than that I don’t see the Packers having an advantage on any team the way this season is going.

  8. Andy Pants

    @Tyko Steamboat, I don’t think it’s true that the hardest thing to do is beat a team three times in one season, at least not in the context of when a team has already won the first two games.

    I did a cursory Google search and found that this scenario has happened 20 times as of September 2014. The team that had won the first two games won the third game 13 out of those 20 times. That’s a 65% chance. It doesn’t appear to be true that it would be anything worth avoiding. Sure, if you had to play a team three times in a row, you’ll likely lose once. But that’s not the scenario the Packers would be facing. They would only have to beat the Vikings once, after having already shown to be superior twice, and they would be doing it at home. So the odds of beating the Vikings are good (probably 65%).

  9. Richard

    The idea of beating a team 3 times is a little misleading because with both teams locked into the playoffs and the possibility of a rematch one week later, there is a question of how much effort each team is actually putting into a win week 17 and whether or not they might be holding certain things back for the playoff matchup.

    • Phatgzus

      We’ve already beaten a division rival 3 times in a season in the McCarthy-Rodgers era, I don’t think this team lacks for enthusiasm vs. divisional foes.

Comments are closed.