Dawg noted in the comments that I made a mistake when reading the tie breaking procedures. If the Seahawks and Packers finish with the same record, the tie breaker will be conference record, not division record as I wrote in my Packers Playoff post.

I made the mistake because I still mix up division and conference. The Packers are in the NFC North division and the NFC conference. The rules state that "If the tied clubs are from different divisions" then the second tie breaker is "Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference". I mistook division for conference and picked the wrong tie-breaker.

I also need to clarify what I meant by "the Packers are 1 game ahead of the Seahawks (Seattle would probably win the tie breaker)". The Packers are 11-2 and the Seahawks are 10-4, so the Packers are 2 games up in win-lose, but effectively only 1 game up because right now the tie-breaker would go to the Seahawks. Ironically, Seattle would win either tie-breaker, division or conference record.

It is also important to note that any talk of a tie breaker assumes that the Seahawks win out, and the Packers drop two of three. The Packers could drop all 3 and Seattle could lose a game, but what is the point of that? If the Packers lose out the season, they will not go far in the playoffs, and I will eat my hat.

So given that the Packers would have to drop 2 of 3 to force a tie breaker, and all of their games are in the conference, they would necessarily lose the tie breaker to Seattle.

With that help from Dawg, the Packers playoffs picture is even clearer.

In order to get the second seed in the playoffs, they need to (Remember, the Packers losing 3 of 3 is not in the relm of possibility!):

1. Win two of 3 or
2. Have Seattle lose a game.

Very simple. The second seed in the NFC playoffs is pretty much a lock for the Packers.

If you live in the alternate land of Seattle, for the Seahawks to get the second seed in the playoffs, they would need to win out, and have Green Bay lose 2 of 3.

Finally, Dawg mentioned that the Packers have "plenty to play for for that 1st seed - Dallas *could* lose 2 of their last 3". That is the only place I would disagree, and only slightly. I'm not sure how much of an advantage Lambeau in January is for this Packers team. They are a fast, spread team, not so much a pound it in the middle team (unless they are playing the 31st ranked rushing defense like they did against Oakland.) I think getting healthy and rotating players is more important than holding on for the first seed. Which I don't see Dallas losing anyway, they have a soft schedule as well.

Thanks Dawg for the comments, and the clarification.