This is exactly what I mean about the lack football acumen, nothing personal but please read on...
You mean to tell me that in the first 3 weeks of the season when we played 2 playoff bound teams, completely sold out to stop 2 running quarterbacks, and one of the quarterbacks had what is by far and away the best passing day of his career, that our defense looks worse because of inflated passing stats? The news is shocking to me.
Did you completely forget why we got torched in the passing game the first 3 weeks? It is because we sold out against the run which not surprisingly coincides with us being one of the best rushing defenses in the league, who would of thunk it?
Detroit - no Calvin Johnson in this game making their passing game inefective
Cleveland - lol
Baltimore - 20 million a year QB? LMAO, never was, never will be
Minnesota - need I say more
So your focus group of playing 2 pathetic, horribly bad teams, 1 team that is really bad and missing its top weapon, and one team who has a QB that is not worth half of what he is being paid, is a large enough sample size to say "hey no Matthews and we were awesome against some completely sorry teams without him!"
Yes we were much better against the pass without Matthews against some really bad teams when we were not selling out against the run, that deserves a golf clap. Notice how the run defense got worse when we stopped selling out against the run?
Our defense has been horrible after a multitude of injuries, clay with a club on his hand for two weeks and a cast the rest & the loss of Aaron Rodgers? Really? Again, I am shocked, shocked I tell you! When are people going to start to understand that an inept offense makes a defense look much worse than they are? Look at the Eagles, great offense, one of the best, but they are not on the field very much which turns their defense into one of the worst in the league. The packers during this time are just like the Eagles offense, a lot of 2 minute drives and off the field but the difference is until the last few games they were not scoring points.
You see what I am getting at here? I can take a player (the loss of Rodgers) and point out why the defense has been worse, just like you trying to point out that the defense is worse because clay is on the field. It is preposterous to truly claim that either of them is the cause when there are a multitude of factors contributing to the porous defense.
That is the problem, "opponent aside" and the situation is what you are completely ignoring to try and support any completely ridiculous theory that the defense is better without Matthews on the field. You can point to stats all day long to support a theory, however if you don't take into account the situation as well, you are not in any way analyzing the situation correctly.
I am sorry, but claiming the defense is better without Matthews is the very definition of an armchair coach, there is not a single offensive coordinator in the league that would tell you that they would rather play the Packers with Clay Matthew than without him.
You mean to tell me that in the first 3 weeks of the season when we played 2 playoff bound teams, completely sold out to stop 2 running quarterbacks, and one of the quarterbacks had what is by far and away the best passing day of his career, that our defense looks worse because of inflated passing stats? The news is shocking to me.
Did you completely forget why we got torched in the passing game the first 3 weeks? It is because we sold out against the run which not surprisingly coincides with us being one of the best rushing defenses in the league, who would of thunk it?
Detroit - no Calvin Johnson in this game making their passing game inefective
Cleveland - lol
Baltimore - 20 million a year QB? LMAO, never was, never will be
Minnesota - need I say more
So your focus group of playing 2 pathetic, horribly bad teams, 1 team that is really bad and missing its top weapon, and one team who has a QB that is not worth half of what he is being paid, is a large enough sample size to say "hey no Matthews and we were awesome against some completely sorry teams without him!"
Yes we were much better against the pass without Matthews against some really bad teams when we were not selling out against the run, that deserves a golf clap. Notice how the run defense got worse when we stopped selling out against the run?
Our defense has been horrible after a multitude of injuries, clay with a club on his hand for two weeks and a cast the rest & the loss of Aaron Rodgers? Really? Again, I am shocked, shocked I tell you! When are people going to start to understand that an inept offense makes a defense look much worse than they are? Look at the Eagles, great offense, one of the best, but they are not on the field very much which turns their defense into one of the worst in the league. The packers during this time are just like the Eagles offense, a lot of 2 minute drives and off the field but the difference is until the last few games they were not scoring points.
You see what I am getting at here? I can take a player (the loss of Rodgers) and point out why the defense has been worse, just like you trying to point out that the defense is worse because clay is on the field. It is preposterous to truly claim that either of them is the cause when there are a multitude of factors contributing to the porous defense.
That is the problem, "opponent aside" and the situation is what you are completely ignoring to try and support any completely ridiculous theory that the defense is better without Matthews on the field. You can point to stats all day long to support a theory, however if you don't take into account the situation as well, you are not in any way analyzing the situation correctly.
I am sorry, but claiming the defense is better without Matthews is the very definition of an armchair coach, there is not a single offensive coordinator in the league that would tell you that they would rather play the Packers with Clay Matthew than without him.
, but I don`t see whats so special about Perry. I`ve never been that impressed with him individually. Again, just my two cents worth. I`m sure I`m missing something.
