1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Mike Daniels could propel the Packers defense

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by FrankRizzo, Jun 5, 2012.

  1. DoddPower
    Offline

    DoddPower Nick Perry is watching you, NFL QB's!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    817
    Location:
    Raleigh, N.C
    Ratings:
    +54 / 5 / -1
    It doesn't sound ridiculous at all to want CONSISTENT 3rd down stops as opposed to living or dying by the turnover, which is exactly what they did. If they couldn't get a turnover, the drive was almost always going to end up in points or at least keep Rodger's off the field for awhile. Way too many gambles, which resulted in way too many big plays. Obviously a turnover every drive would be better than a sack and a punt. The point is, that's not going to happen. No team is going to be able to always get an interception when it matters most, especially against elite teams. I'll take my chances of a consistent and relentless pass rush over hoping for turnover. Thirty one interceptions does not a good defense make by itself, last season being a perfect example. Giving much credit to the defense for the 15 wins doesn't make much sense to me. The offense very obviously carried this team. The Packers defended a total of 1049 plays last season. 1049 / 31 turnovers = almost 34. That means the Packer's got one interception out of every 34 plays (or ~3%). What about the other plays when teams are driving up and down the field, with little or no pressure, keeping Rodger's off the field, and scoring a significant amount of points? I understand other things can factor into that equation like sacks, etc., but that's obviously not something they were very good at either and the point still remains the same. I don't mean to minimize the importance of interceptions by any means, but I'll take a team that pressure the quarterback, tackles well, and is assignment sure and only gets ~20 interceptions than one that is none of those and get's 31 interceptions. One of the main reasons they won the turnover battle is because the Packer's only threw 8 interceptions all year. Most defenses would win the turnover battle with passing stats like that.

    It doesn't make any difference to me if anyone thinks we weren't as bad as other teams. I don't use other crappy teams to justify my teams play. I know what I saw on the field and it was a BAD defense. It wasn't the worst ever and perhaps not the worst in the league, but it was still bad. Definitely not a championship defense. They don't even have to be elite for the this team to win the Super Bowl, but in my opinion, they have to be much, much better. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, but mine won't change on this topic because I know what I saw on the field. I'm not using yards or points as the basis of my opinion. Just my interpretation of what I saw on the field.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,830
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,619 / 77 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    Cant believe I have to explain this..

    Your making up something..

    I think his point was that sometimes a team got a 3rd down and ended up scoring a TD..

    He rather have the D stop that team on that 3rd down,..Then get a int later on that didnt led to us getting any points
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. DoddPower
    Offline

    DoddPower Nick Perry is watching you, NFL QB's!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    817
    Location:
    Raleigh, N.C
    Ratings:
    +54 / 5 / -1
    hah, I couldn't believe the point wasn't translated, as well. As I said, it goes without saying that an interception every play would be ideal. The scenario was silly. The fact remains that there are going to be many more plays where the defense is NOT getting interceptions, and I would argue that what they do during those plays is more important than the interceptions. Generating significant pressure, solid tackling, and being assignment sure consistently will still lead to a lot of interceptions anyway, in addition to being solid when they aren't getting interceptions.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. gwh11
    Offline

    gwh11 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +88 / 3 / -0
    You stated in an earlier post in this thread the following:
    "They are overall a good defense in desperate need of some help on the DL, and they got that."
    So, yes, you did say the defense was "good".
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. AmishMafia
    Offline

    AmishMafia There's cheese under that hat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,231
    Location:
    PENDING
    Ratings:
    +1,566 / 55 / -5
    This defense was a top 5 defense in 2010. What has changed? We lost Collins and Jenkins. Two really good players. We also had a fraction of Tramon and several other players regressed. We are not that far removed - talent wise - from our top 5 defense of 2010. There was even improvement in 2 spots - Bishop played better in 2011 and at the one safety position with Burnett over Peprah (I know Peprah ended up replacing Collins and playing anyway).

    I don't think anyone would disagree that if the Packers want to make some improvements - they should be looking at the defensive side of the ball. Our offense was historically good, our defense was pitiful. Was it the worst in NFL history - as some have purported? Hell no. They weren't the worst defense in the NFC last year.

    A couple of things to remember on the positive side:

    1. Packers had an amazing offense and teams had to constantly be going for big plays in order to keep up. This put a weekly strain on our defense.
    2. We had a 'big play' offense that did not specialize in ball-control slow methodical drives. Not sure what the stats are but I bet we set a record for average time off the clock on a scoring drive. This of course kept our defense 'in the line of fire' more often than can be normally expected.
    3. Interceptions count for something in the weighing of the defense. That alone should move us off of the bottom of barrel.
    4. The defense's main objective is to stop the other team. Period. Valuing a defense based on points allowed has some merit. Valuing a team solely on points or on yards is not being fair either.

    I will go on record right here and now and say we will have a very good defense this year. I will predict a top 10 defense (based on points) this season. I think we will have the greatest point differential in the NFL (Points scored - Points given up). Why? I don't think we were ever that far off. I think Tramon back to 100% alone will have a significant boost. The added draft talent on defense will just be icing on the cake.


    BTW: How can you argue it wasn't BPA in the draft? We traded up for #2 and #3. Obviously if they are going to be there at our picks we don't trade up. By the time you hit the 4th round there is probably a dozen players with similar grades, there is bound to be one there that also fits a need.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. PFanCan
    Offline

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,354
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ratings:
    +728 / 14 / -3
    I had no faith in the defense last season. They gambled way too much-- resulting in many take-aways, but also produced some disheartening big plays for the other team. And the poor tackling was comical at times.

    I understand that they weren't the worst by many measures, but relative to the greatness that the offense was, the defense seemed horrible.

    Nothing wrong with wanting the Packers org to focus on making the defensive unit better. Always room for improvement. Even after a 15-2 season.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. PFanCan
    Offline

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,354
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ratings:
    +728 / 14 / -3
    I will up the ante on Amish's prediction:

    I predict that Mike Neal will actually play to his potential this year.

    I say this as he has been humbled & disgraced and is currently a cornered "beast". I think, as long as he avoids being injured, he is going to bring some nasty to our DL.
  8. VolvoD
    Offline

    VolvoD Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,069
    Location:
    York, PA
    Ratings:
    +624 / 14 / -10
    Remember when this thread was about Mike Daniels?
  9. DoddPower
    Offline

    DoddPower Nick Perry is watching you, NFL QB's!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    817
    Location:
    Raleigh, N.C
    Ratings:
    +54 / 5 / -1
    The highlight reel shown during the draft makes him look absolutely dominant. I know that's the purpose of a highlight reel and all that, but still. He looked unstoppable and single handedly shutdown the entire offense on those plays. If he can bring anything like that to the Packer's, he will be a great situation pass rusher.
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 2
  10. GreenBlood
    Offline

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652 / 39 / -2
    We got INTs because we have guys that know how to go out there and get them. If your theory held true and it wasn't because of anything our defense did, then EVERY team would have 30+ INTs. So as you are so fond of saying, let's cut the BS here.

    I never said the defense didn't need help. That's a figment of your imagination. But I DO recognize that there are a lot of shades of gray regarding NFL defenses (30 to be exact, assuming the best is white and the worst is black). YOU, however seem to think if a defense isn't great, then it's the worst.

    You still think the Vikes defense is better than ours? Not going to touch that one, are you?
  11. GreenBlood
    Offline

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652 / 39 / -2
    So let me make sure I understand you. You think our defense was the WORST in the NFL? Worse than Tampa Bay, Buffalo, Minnesota, St. Louis?

    You also must consider that a lot of the teams which had fewer yards than us often found themselves in a situation where the other team was running the ball a ton to run out the clock in the 4th quarter because they had big leads. That is automatically going to result in fewer yards given up. The Packers didn't have anyone doing that last year against them. In every single game, the other team's offenses were going full throttle all the way to the final buzzer against the Packers. That's also a big reason why New Orleans and New England also gave up a ton of yards. On ESPN a few months ago they made note of the fact that opposing teams only ran the ball an average of 5.9 times against us in the second half last year. That was the lowest in the league. Surely you understand how that factors into total yards allowed, right? And yes, it also factored into how many INTs we had.

    I'm sorry, but the idea that the Packers had the worst defense in the NFL last year simply holds no water, no matter how many times you say it. They need pass rush help, and they got that, and you'll be amazed at how much that will help the rest of the defense. I would venture to say our pass rush could be the best in the next 2 or 3 years.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  12. GreenBlood
    Offline

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652 / 39 / -2
    No, he specifically said he'd trade INTs for 3rd down stops.
  13. GreenBlood
    Offline

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652 / 39 / -2
    Let me clarify then. The point that was intended was that the rest of the defense was good. Our DL was terrible, thus making our defense overall to be very mediocre, but certainly NOT the worst.
  14. jaybadger82
    Offline

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    764
    Ratings:
    +346 / 20 / -6
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
    1) I agree with Dodd's general dissatisfaction with the defense but his thinking above sucks.

    2) GreenBlood has a valid gripe: How the hell do you disagree with a post that nearly exclusively contains statistical fact? You're welcome to point out if a stat has been fudged. You might argue that the stat is flawed or that it's poor support for a particular argument, but it's just mentally stunted to click "disagree" without further comment. If you can't show that Blood's numbers are inaccurate, then you're basically disagreeing with mathematical reality because it doesn't conform to your opinion. Poor use of the "disagree" button as a crutch for mental laziness.

    3) I too would like to see the defense get off the field more often on third down next season. However, I wouldn't discount our defense's proclivity for turning over opponents. And the idea of trading turnovers for third down stops sets up a false dichotomy, as if the two were mutually exclusive. I don't see why our defense can't get more stops on third down and continue to force a high number of turnovers.

    4) Criticizing statistics in general because a couple of them don't conform to your subjective perspective is further evidence of mental laziness. (You should have just posted, "Numbers make Dodd angry!") If you're going to argue that the defense was "bad and needs serious improvement," then you should use your imagination and counter GreenBlood's points-allowed stat with numbers that support your position (perhaps something like this, showing the conversion rate on third down given up by the Packer defense last season). But when your argument basically boils down to, "The defense was bad because I say it was bad," then I come away thinking you're an idiot (even though we've reached the same conclusion about last year's D).
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. jaybadger82
    Offline

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    764
    Ratings:
    +346 / 20 / -6
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
    Well, he will be playing for a contract...
  16. AmishMafia
    Offline

    AmishMafia There's cheese under that hat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,231
    Location:
    PENDING
    Ratings:
    +1,566 / 55 / -5
    Picking just 7 plays for a clip I think you could make AJ Hawk look dominant.
  17. FrankRizzo
    Offline

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,868
    Location:
    Dallas
    Ratings:
    +1,667 / 62 / -35
    Packer Fan Since:
    1969
    To summarize what I said:

    #Our defense was terrible last year.
    Yes terrible. Not good, not great, not okay, not bad, but they were terrible by anynoe's definition if they are thinking winning Super Bowls.

    Average yard per play.
    Average yards per game.
    Third down conversion rated.
    All atrocious.
    Stats don't say it all, but those of us who were at some of those games, like the Charger game, realized that we were feast or famine. We had to gamble all the time on the back end because there was no pass rush, no pressure on QBs. Sometimes, our guys guessed right and had picks, but often times they.... well we know the stats.
    There were worse defenses, but not by much.
    Last year. That's the good news. That was last year. Last year we signed zero defensive free agents, and our top picks were an offensive lineman and a WR.

    This year, no coincidence, we used our first 5 or 6 picks on defense, and shockingly, Teddy signed some free agents. All on defense.

    The reason he has focused on defense, is because #Our defense was terrible last year.
    Last year is over.

    This year, our defense will be closer to the top ten than dead last in yards allowed and yards per play.

    Do we all agree on that, and do we all agree that we love Mike Daniels and believe, as the author of the article stated, that Daniels was a good pick and we are excited about him and we expect he's going to make some big plays for us?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. GreenBlood
    Offline

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652 / 39 / -2
    This much is true. If there's one thing Neal did in college was bring the nasty. I think Daniels brings some too.
  19. GreenBlood
    Offline

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652 / 39 / -2
    "Anyone's definition?" I'm sorry. I had to fix that for you. Unless you are saying that anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you is nobody.

    Mitigating factors:

    1) Opponents always playing from behind and never trying to run out the clock.

    2) Brief scoring drives by our offense puts our defense on the field more than most teams.

    3) Offense passes the ball 68% of the time. Ever notice how the top defenses in terms of yards allowed tend to have clock-killing run-first offenses? (Steelers, Niners, Texans, Ravens, Jets) Ever notice how the teams that pass the most tend to give up more yards on defense? (Packers, Saints, Patriots, Lions). That's NOT a coincidence.

    4) Key starters routinely sitting out most of the 4th quarter after blowing out the other team, including Woodson, Matthews and Raji.

    See above.

    Seven teams were worse. BTW, we were one of the best on 4th down.

    Yes, that's why I provided you with some context.

    I've been to plenty of games as well. If you think being there makes you a higher authority somehow, you are mistaken. You actually see more on a big fat TV screen than you can see at the game. BTW, do you drink at the games?

    BINGO! Now you're getting it. The problems our defense had stemmed primarily from a poor pass rush. If you want to say our pass rush was terrible, I would agree with that. But you want over-generalize for some reason.

    And you don't think losing a Pro Bowl safety had anything to do with that? Losing Collins was HUGE factor!

    Au contraire, mon ami. The Bucs were BY FAR the worst defense in the NFL and it's not even close. They gave up about 50 more points than anyone else (almost 150 more than us), had fewer sacks than us, far fewer turnovers, same points per play. I would say another 4-6 were clearly worse than us, all factors considered and another 3 or 4 weren't any better. And I think you'll find I'm not the only one that holds that opinion.

    Specifically, pass rush.

    Again, he specifically went after pass rushers, because that's where the weakness was.

    Not if all the mitigating factors I listed above are still in play. I don't care how good your defense is. When you pass 68% of the time and routinely score very quickly, you're not going to make the top 10 in yards allowed, but you very well might in POINTS allowed.

    Anyone have any stats on opponents' points per possession?
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. FrankRizzo
    Offline

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,868
    Location:
    Dallas
    Ratings:
    +1,667 / 62 / -35
    Packer Fan Since:
    1969
    Obviously, the pass rush was the main reason our defense was horrible last year. That we agree with.
    And Nick Collins was great, not just good or a guy. He was great, very underrated, very under-appreciated.
    He wasn't there to cover up for the lack of pass rush, which was mostly the reason why the coverage was exposed.
    But Tramon wasn't himself either, injured, and Sam Shields played poorly.

    Add all those things up, and it was a bad, bottom-5 defense.
    And Mike Daniels if healthy, will help it be better.

    You can call it bad, someone call it awful, Woodson call it weak. I call it terrible. But again, that was last year.
    We'll be beter because we added a bunch of pass-rush, and some coverage.
  21. DoddPower
    Offline

    DoddPower Nick Perry is watching you, NFL QB's!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    817
    Location:
    Raleigh, N.C
    Ratings:
    +54 / 5 / -1
    Did you read my post? Specifically this part?

    As I noted, I said it was a BAD defense. Not the worst, but still not good. I'm sorry, but simply not being the worst defense in the league doesn't reassure me in any sense. I never want to be in a situation where I'm comparing the Packer's to the Vikings. I can live with the Packer's not being the best defense, but simply not being the worst isn't good enough for me. Maybe I'm too picky, but it is what it is. Different things appease us all.

    As to Jaybadger's response, I also responded with some numbers. Sure, perhaps I disagreed with the wrong post, but oh no, forgive me for not using the disagree button as you see fit! How horrible! It was more a response to his earlier post in that I simply disagree with the fact that the defense wasn't bad. As I said in a previous post, the Packer's only intercepted the ball ~ 3% of the plays. I conceded that I would prefer more solid play for the other ~90% of the plays (giving some room for sacks in addition to that 3%) and a few less interceptions (I specifically said somewhere around >20). I also never meant to convey that they have to sacrifice interceptions for third down stops entirely. I only meant that a few less interceptions and many more sacks and third down stops would be preferable. It amazes me how some of you are missing my point. The main point is interceptions are always going to make up a small percentage of the defensive snaps. I think the defense would be better overall if they played significantly better for the other 90% of the plays they defend. Yes, I would gladly take a few less interceptions for more sacks, more third down stops, and many more three and outs. Why? Because I believe such things would be more easier to consistently achieve than the constant gambling for interceptions. When fundamentally sound defense is played, the interceptions come along with 3rd down stops, sacks, etc. When the fundamentals get sloppy, some big highlight plays may happen, but more highlight plays will be made for the opposing offense. The 2011 Packer's played too much of a gamble defense. It produces some wonderful highs, but also some miserable lows. The tackling, pass rush, communication, and talent all must get much better. Once again, as I said, I think it will. Unfortunately, it didn't happen last season.

    Additionally, this is forum. It's a place for opinions. I'm not writing a survey of the literature for a grant proposal. I do that enough during the 9-5. Most of the things I'm saying are my opinion, and that should be rhetorical. I am completely justified in saying that I think the Packer's defense was bad based on what I saw upon the field. It was my experience, and I'm speaking to it. No one else has to agree with me, but one doesn't only have opinions that others agree with (at least I hope not). There are statistics available to support the argument that the Packer's defense was bad, but I find those as more of a given (in fact, some have already been posted in this same thread. I didn't feel the need to repeat them, but maybe I should have. 32 in total yards, passing yards, yards per game, net passing yards per game, 30th in 1st downs per game, tied for 20th in 3rd downs made but 7th in percentage, 2nd worst in penalties, 20th in forced fumbles, tied for 26th in recovered, etc. Enough to say they weren't very good). So the defense was 19th (I previously said 18th) in points allowed and got lots of turnovers. That's great and in no way am I attempted to diminish that. But the number of obvious communication breakdowns, the lack of pass rush, amount of yards given up, etc. were inexcusable, at times. I'm not sure if there are statistics that track communication breakdowns in the secondary, but any average viewer could tell that was a major issue. I have seen it discussed in detail around several forums, also. Some even argued that it was a bigger problem than the pass rush, although I still firmly believe a great pass rush resolves most other issues.

    My central argument remains the same: I want and expect better play from the Packer's overall and less reliance on gambling for interceptions. A league leading 3% of defensive snaps resulting in interceptions, or even a hypothetical 5-8% isn't enough to justify a good defense, per se. Significant improvement is needed throughout the other 90%+ of the defensive snaps. Continue to be assignment sure, communicate effectively, rush the passer consistently, wrap up when tackling, and the interceptions will still be there in significant quantities in addition to getting the opposing offense off the field in several other ways. The cumulative effect will be much greater than simply a lot of interceptions. Mostly, just like the 2010 Packer defense.
  22. GreenBlood
    Offline

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652 / 39 / -2
    Just wait until they're healthy and Sam get's past his sophomore slump. I think we were still in the top 3 somewhere in passes defended.

    Bottom-5? Okay... I can probably buy into that. But I would say there's 3 or 4 other teams that would tie for that spot, leaving only maybe 22 or so teams you can really say were better.

    I'll leave it at this. I would say that the Bucs, Bills, Rams, Colts and Vikings were definitively worse than ours was. The Saints, Patriots, Chargers and Panthers certainly weren't any better. There might even be 1 or 2 more you could add to that list (Giants, Lions). I won't say anything more about that. If anyone wants to explain how any of those teams defenses were better than ours, I'd be interested in learning why.

    BTW, I think the pass rush will be much improved with or without Daniels, actually. But Daniels certainly has that "heart and soul of the defense" potential about him.

    That we will.

    We also need to find a viable replacement for Collins. It's clear that Peprah isn't the long-term answer. Maybe start Williams and Shields/whomever at CB and put Wood at S? It's at least worth a look. He can buy us a year or two to find another stud safety.
  23. GreenBlood
    Offline

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652 / 39 / -2
    One last thing I'm going to post regarding our defense. Remember when AmishMafia and I made the argument about other teams playing from behind and never trying to run down the clock against us and us sitting starters in the 4th quarter as having a major impact on the yards we gave up? I have searched but have not yet been able to find any stats on total yards allowed by quarter. However on www.teamrankings.com, they do have stats for opponents scoring by quarter. Here's where we fell by quarter:

    1st quarter we were 16th in points allowed. (4.5 points)
    2nd quarter we ranked 14th. (6.3 points)
    3rd quarter we ranked 9th. (3.9 points)
    4th quarter? We dropped to 31st. (8.6 points)

    What does that tell us? It tells us that something changed in the 4th quarter. What changed? Well, among other things, we sat Matthews, Raji, Woodson and Williams a lot in the 4th quarter last year. But we already knew that. But now you know the impact that sitting those guys had when trash time came around. And quite often, the entire 4th quarter was trash time for us. If you assume a rough correlation between points and yards, then you can also assume we likely weren't anywhere near the bottom of the NFL in terms of yards allowed when you look at the first 3 quarters. I'm going to continue to look for yards by quarter stats, but I bet it's pretty similar to points by quarter.

    Here is an excellent article by Brian Burke, who is one of the most respected statisticians in the sports world, on why our defense isn't as bad as some statistical categories seem to indicate. Take heart, our defense is only a few minor adjustments away from being very good again. He actually spells out what many of us have felt in our gut but not been able to put into words. Overall, he ranks our defense 21st best in the end. Fair warning: it's a very technical article. But the most important thing is that he has no built-in bias toward the Packers. So his calculations and opinions are far more objective than any of ours on this forum.

    http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/12/epx.html
  24. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,830
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,619 / 77 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975

    We were tied for 4th worse..Only 3 were worse

    http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...ory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-s=DOWN_3RD_PERCENTAGE



    http://www.packers.com/team/statistics.html

    Total plays 988, total passes 552 att is not passing 68% of the time it is about 56% of the time...However-----they completed 68.1% of their passes...Not sure if you meant they completed 68% or not??

    Cant find points per possession...but figured out points per play

    Pack...359 points 1049 plays for their opponents is 0.34 points per play

    Vikings....449 points, 1027 plays is 0.473 points per play

    Bucs...494 points and 1002 plays is 0.493

    Bills...434 and 1003 plays is 0.432

    Colts...430 and 1062 plays is 0.404

    Saints... 339 and 1010 plays is 0.335





    Here is another one that shows how bad our D was..

    http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...nsiveStatisticCategory=SCORING&qualified=true

    Packers were 2nd in most 20+ yards plays
    • Like Like x 1
  25. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,830
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,619 / 77 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page