Pro Football Reference Blog

Only three teams in 70 years have never trailed by more than 7 points in a season -- and two of the three did it in the same year in the same division. Go figure.

Neat stat! But...

This year, in games decided by 7 points or less, the Packers were 6-6, including playoffs. 4-6 in the regular season. The point is, regardless of "keeping it close," they were still a sub-0.500 team when they did. I don't know how this stacks up against the rest of the NFL, but that doesn't scream "great team" to me. It screams average: when in a close game, their chances are at the league average.

Confession: yes, I'm a Bears fan.

Sorry to nitpick, but the Packers actually DID trail the Fins early 7-3 and 13-10, Just saying

But yeah, that stat is truly astonishing. Thanks for bringing it to the light of day It's stuff like that which makes me visit here every day.

Regardless if the packers were sub .500 in close games, they were still in the games. They put themselves in a position to win each week which obviously not every team can say.

Confession: yes, Im a packers fan and yes it was awesome to see gb beat chi.

Dan -

I don't see you advertising how incredibly lucky the Bears season was. If Calvin Johnson doesn't worry about showboating, Bears aren't in the playoffs. Should I mention the four third-string QBs the Bears played against? Or the fact they lost their only two road games to teams with winning records? Or the week they played Philly, the Eagles lost both starting corners in practice that week?

And lastly, allow me to add, the Packers are NFC champs and playing in the Super Bowl while the Bears are trying to figure out if they have the QB they thought they had.

Interesting that the Browns entered the NFL in 1950 and didn't fall more than two touchdowns behind in a game until the last game of the 1953 season, when they had already wrapped up the division title.

the spread (which isn't a true handicap as it is partially based on the perception of the betting public)

I'm no gambler, so correct me if I'm wrong. But it's my understanding that the spread -- at least the initial spread -- is very much a true handicap. If the public subsequently bets one way, the line will move. But if they opened the lines trying to pander to vast numbers of betting Notre Dame or Cowboys or Red Sox fans, the sharks would take advantage of those opportunities and make a killing.

JWL-

Was that to win the game or cover the spread?

JT-

The line always takes into account where they think the money will lie. They can't afford to get hammered by early action if their spread is off. They take into account both the public money and the shark action. Of course, more often than not, the "betting line" will be close to a "true handicap". But the lines makers are always looking at where they anticipate the money landing. A big reason the Packers are favorites right now.

I'm also stunned at this stat...you're going to win some and lose some, but being within a score of your opponent for 18 straight games is nothing short of amazing...it makes you wonder "what if" had the Pack kept Grant/Finley/etc all year...perhaps all the adversity inspired their 'win or go home' mentality these past 4 games, and they wouldn't even be here? I love football.

That's also a reason I favor Pittsburgh in this game, if it's close, I trust Roethlisberger to get a late score much more than I trust Rodgers, we've just seen Ben do this time and again over his 7 seasons in the league.

@#9 (Tom Football). I brought up my Bears' fandom only out of full-disclosure. So let me waste my time and clarify: the Packers were a better team than the Bears this year. Happy?

That isn't the point of the first part of this post, though. The stat presented tells me a couple of things:

1. The Packers were never in a deep deficit at any point in the season. That is, regardless of the team they were playing against, they were never outside of a one score game. That is extremely fascinating and very, very rare and pretty impressive considering things like starting their #2 QB against a team that looked unbeatable (the Pats) and keeping up with them.

2. Their record when not blowing out teams was near 0.500. I don't disagree with Jason's (#8) statement above, but that's not what that team was this year. A better scenario is:

4x 45-0 victories
6x 17-16 wins
6x 17-16 losses

This tells me a team is incredibly well balanced and about 25% of the time, both sides of the ball are playing at their full potential. But it also tells me that their ability to 1) score late or 2) prevent scoring late is average at best. They lost to the Bears on MNF because they allowed a 2:15 drive on 7 plays at the end. They lost two overtime games because their defense allowed significant drives for field goals.

This isn't a damning thing; All teams do this stuff. But calling this "keeping it close" stat as some sort of sign of greatness is wrong. They're a great team for other reasons (the ability for the offense to put up 30+ on any given day, the defense in general, etc.), not because they never get down by more than 7 points.

Re: Dan #21

I heard this stat on the TV broadcast of one the Packers' playoff games, and the thought I had was this--they are pretty good, and never are out of the game. This means that they are well balanced--in other words, their offense gets consistent scoring to support the defense when it's playing below par, and the defense stuffs the other team to support the offense when it's sputtering. I don't think it's lucky at all--I think it supports SRS' opinion of the team--the 2nd best in the NFL, and the best NFC team.
BTW, if you don't read Football Outsiders, they have an older article that talks about close games and blowout games. The short version is that great teams dominate the bad teams on their schedule, and don't give them chances at an upset. Winning the close ones is pretty much a function of luck, a good long-range FG kicker, refs missing one in your favor, etc. In that respect this year, GB has actually been below average, as you mention. This means that their W-L record will be worse than their true ability. I think the Steelers of 2007 and GB getting to the SB this year reflect that--both teams W-L record were not reflective of their true ability. We can all site teams that were the reverse (ATL this year, for instance).

RE: 17

Against the spread. That's why there were 7 pushes in my total record there.

If you hop over to Advanced NFL stats they will prove to you that you should give no weight to teams that "win close games". And what more that it is very predictive of future winning to "stay in games". Its capped off by the fact that teams that lose close games in the regular season stomp all over teams that won close games (i.e. got lucky) come playoff time.
http://community.advancednflstats.com/2010/12/is-close-game-clutch-play-story.html

There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Its a study, it says what it says with as much force as it has sample size. It has a large sample size. Its interesting that one game can be analyzed like that. But that's why the study isn't based on one game. Its based on ALL the games for many years.

Also, that's the point. History has shown that football is about how often you play efficiently. Teams that play efficiently more often win more games in the future then teams the play less efficiently, regardless of past wins and losses. The Falcons were a good team, but they weren't as good as the Packers by any measure we have other then Wins and Losses. And since Wins and Losses do not predict future wins and losses as well as the Simple Ranking on Pro-Football Ref here or the medium sophistication system at Advanced NFL Stats, why would anyone put any stock in Record over these other systems.

Re #18, I would guess that one team was the 85 Bears. They blew out everybody in the playoffs that year I think.

Re #30: Scott, I kind of agree with you here. But my theory is that most games with a close final score are games that either team probably could have won depending on one or two plays that could have gone either way (dropped interception, missing a first-down by an inch, missed field goal, etc.). While blowout games are generally games that only one team had a chance of winning. Because of this, records in blowout games probably tell us more about the quality of a team than records in close games. (Yeah, occasionally there are times when a game is a blowout but the other team comes back to make the game close in garbage time. But if they get close enough, this still probably tells us the matchup was close, because if one earlier play had gone the other direction maybe the outcome would be different).