OFFICIAL GIANTS PACKER TALK

[Kitten]

Kitten, are you sure about that comment by Belichick? He's never been one to make predictions and is all over players that say stupid stuff in the press.

Perhaps it wasn't Belichick but it was someone from within the Patriots organization. I'll try and do some recon to see who that was. Sorry about that if it wasn't Belichick.

 

[GiantsFan2012]

u said defense can't win u a championship

how is that the same thing that i said

I said your defense puts you in the position to allow your offense to win for you. ??

 

[GiantFan inNH]

No worries.. I live up here in Pats territory and appreciate what they have accomplished, but I am not a pats defender.. Bill did great things as DC of the gmen before ending up in New England. He is very tight lipped personally and barely says anything to reporters

 

[GiantsFan2012]

Perhaps it wasn't Belichick but it was someone from within the Patriots organization. I'll try and do some recon to see who that was. Sorry about that if it wasn't Belichick.

Only thing I can think of is Plax said the Giants would win 21-17, and Brady laughed and said "we're only going to score 17 points? OK...". Other than that the Pats don't speak louder than a mouse fart.

 

[meyerbudNYG]

I said your defense puts you in the position to allow your offense to win for you. ??

and yea, thats not what I said.

I said your offense can get u to the playoffs, but its going to take defense to get through. You can't name me a superbowl winner that has a ring in the past 15 years that didn't have a defense behind it.

LEts look at some of the biggets upsets of the past 5 years: us vs the Pats, KC vs GB this year, all of Saints losses this year.

These were all acheived by defensive performances coupled with a running game that was able to run the clock out

 

[GiantsFan2012]

and yea, thats not what I said.

I said your offense can get u to the playoffs, but its going to take defense to get through. You can't name me a superbowl winner that has a ring in the past 15 years that didn't have a defense behind it.

LEts look at some of the biggets upsets of the past 5 years: us vs the Pats, KC vs GB this year, all of Saints losses this year.

These were all acheived by defensive performances coupled with a running game that was able to run the clock out

Uh....2009 Saints? #1 in offense, #20 in defense.....
2006 Colts #2 in O, #23 in D

 

[meyerbudNYG]

Uh....2009 Saints? #1 in offense, #20 in defense.....
2006 Colts #2 in O, #23 in D

Saints: middle of the pack in giving points up, lead league in takeaways and points scored for a defense. Then in the playoffs the averaged giving up less than 20 points a game

Then the Colts defense averaged giving up 16 points a game in the playoffs. The Colts defense became a different team in postseason and thats th reason they have a ring....

The offense did the same thing it did every year it stalled in the postseason

 

[Kitten]

Only thing I can think of is Plax said the Giants would win 21-17, and Brady laughed and said "we're only going to score 17 points? OK...". Other than that the Pats don't speak louder than a mouse fart.

You're right, that was Plax. I can't find anything on BB saying it although I swear I heard it on our local news in Philly... Oh well, my apologies for the misquote, BB.

 

[GiantsFan2012]

Saints: middle of the pack in giving points up, lead league in takeaways and points scored for a defense. Then in the playoffs the averaged giving up less than 20 points a game

Then the Colts defense averaged giving up 16 points a game in the playoffs. The Colts defense became a different team in postseason and thats th reason they have a ring....

The offense did the same thing it did every year it stalled in the postseason

You can be selective in the stats you decide to look at, but the fact remains the Saints were much more of an offensive team than defensive.

The Colts D was better in the playoffs, that's 4 games out of 20. In no analysis do you go with the smallest possible sample size to judge statistics, lol. The regular season cannot be discounted, you need to get to the playoffs if you want to win the Super Bowl.

To return the question, who was the last **** poor offensive team to win the Super Bowl?

 

[meyerbudNYG]

You can be selective in the stats you decide to look at, but the fact remains the Saints were much more of an offensive team than defensive.

The Colts D was better in the playoffs, that's 4 games out of 20. In no analysis do you go with the smallest possible sample size to judge statistics, lol. The regular season cannot be discounted, you need to get to the playoffs if you want to win the Super Bowl.

To return the question, who was the last **** poor offensive team to win the Super Bowl?

its not selective. That was the truth of the Saints all year that year. Then they went into the playoffs and kept it going.

Colts defense played lights out in that postseason - that was the difference. Both are more telling than the "YARDS GIVEN UP A GAME"

 

[RandyM]

per the weather channel..

High of 35 in Green Bay for Sunday..

 

[GiantsFan2012]

its not selective. That was the truth of the Saints all year that year. Then they went into the playoffs and kept it going.

Colts defense played lights out in that postseason - that was the difference. Both are more telling than the "YARDS GIVEN UP A GAME"

Of course it is selective. You're not going to find one team that won the SB and had 1/3rd of the phase of their game play horrible in the playoffs. So to take a small sample size of 4 games and say that is more telling than 16 is just not accurate.

You look back on that 2006 Colts defense and think it was stout because they strung 4 good games together at the most opportune time?

 

[meyerbudNYG]

Getting to the playoffs is one thing... winning in the playoffs is another

What was the big difference for the COlts then? because the offense did what it does EVERY year as it did in 06. How come lal of a sudden they were beating teams?

 

[GiantsFan2012]

Getting to the playoffs is one thing... winning in the playoffs is another

What was the big difference for the COlts then? because the offense did what it does EVERY year as it did in 06. How come lal of a sudden they were beating teams?

They aren't in the playoffs in 06 if not for the offense, that is the point. Can't win it if you aren't in it, and they were not playing January games because of their defense.

 

[meyerbudNYG]

They aren't in the playoffs in 06 if not for the offense, that is the point. Can't win it if you aren't in it, and they were not playing January games because of their defense.

This isn't a debate about how they got into the playoffs, teh comment was made about CHAMPIONS.

Bottom line is the ydon't win a ring unless the defense plays up...

 

[meyerbudNYG]

and its kind of ironic because its basically the same thing thats going on with the Giants right now. I mean lets just say we go on to win the superbowl from this point.

Yea the offense got us here in the regular season but if we get through the Pack, Saints, and PAts - u think its going to be because of the offense or defense?

 

[GiantsFan2012]

This isn't a debate about how they got into the playoffs, teh comment was made about CHAMPIONS.

Bottom line is the ydon't win a ring unless the defense plays up...

It transitioned to how they got to the playoffs because I guess you're the only analyst who refuses to acknowledge the theory of "small sample size". The '06 Colts defense was good? C'mon now!


And as I said to start all of this, your defense has to put you in a position to win....not sure how that is different than "defense plays up"...........and you never answered my Q. Who was the last SB winner with a pathetic offense and great defense?

 

[GiantsFan2012]

and its kind of ironic because its basically the same thing thats going on with the Giants right now. I mean lets just say we go on to win the superbowl from this point.

Yea the offense got us here in the regular season but if we get through the Pack, Saints, and PAts - u think its going to be because of the offense or defense?

Exactly. When it's all said and done you're going to say the 2011-2012 NYG defense was "good"? No. You'd say they got hot at the right time. Played their best ball when it mattered most. But when you rank the best defenses of all time no one is mentioning the 2011 NYG

 

[meyerbudNYG]

It transitioned to how they got to the playoffs because I guess you're the only analyst who refuses to acknowledge the theory of "small sample size". The '06 Colts defense was good? C'mon now!


And as I said to start all of this, your defense has to put you in a position to win....not sure how that is different than "defense plays up"...........and you never answered my Q. Who was the last SB winner with a pathetic offense and great defense?

jesus god man, do u read?

Its not a small sample size if the sample size ur talking about is the post season. I mean I guess every statistic about some body showing up big in the playoffs is a small sample size and should never be taken into account?

You really make no sense. There hasn't been one team in recent memory that had an offense that didn't have a defenes that won it for them.

If u want me to name the reverse how bout the Baltimore Ravens? How baout the PIttsburgh Steelers for 2005?

Offenses only get u so far, defenses are what put teams over the top.

 

[meyerbudNYG]

Exactly. When it's all said and done you're going to say the 2011-2012 NYG defense was "good"? No. You'd say they got hot at the right time. Played their best ball when it mattered most. But when you rank the best defenses of all time no one is mentioning the 2011 NYG

I never said the Colts were good, i said they playe dlights out in the playoffs which is what got them a ring. Other then their defense playing big in the 06 playoffs, it twas the same Colts team that was high powered that won every year and did nothing in the post season.

Let the Giants go on that run and u bet ur *** the defensive run will be remembered just as much as the offense on the year. Look at 07 - the defense STILL gets talked baout for that superbowl run, they were nothing special in the regular season

 

[GiantsFan2012]

jesus god man, do u read?

Its not a small sample size if the sample size ur talking about is the post season. I mean I guess every statistic about some body showing up big in the playoffs is a small sample size and should never be taken into account?

You really make no sense. There hasn't been one team in recent memory that had an offense that didn't have a defenes that won it for them.

If u want me to name the reverse how bout the Baltimore Ravens? How baout the PIttsburgh Steelers for 2005?

Offenses only get u so far, defenses are what put teams over the top.

Sample size determination is the act of choosing the number of observations to include in a statistical sample. The sample size is an important feature of any empirical study in which the goal is to make inferences about a population from a sample. In practice, the sample size used in a study is determined based on the expense of data collection, and the need to have sufficient statistical power. In complicated studies there may be several different sample sizes involved in the study: for example, in as survey sampling involving stratified sampling there would be different sample sizes for each population. In a census, data are collected on the entire population, hence the sample size is equal to the population size. In experimental design, where a study may be divided into different treatment groups, there may be different sample sizes for each group.
Sample sizes may be chosen in several different ways:

• expedience - For example, include those items readily available or convenient to collect. A choice of small sample sizes, though sometimes necessary, can result in wide confidence intervals or risks of errors in statistical hypothesis testing.

Unless in some far out reach of the world 4 games out of 20, or 20% of your games played, is a LARGE sample size.


And I cannot read..ok, lol.

 

[meyerbudNYG]

Sample size determination is the act of choosing the number of observations to include in a statistical sample. The sample size is an important feature of any empirical study in which the goal is to make inferences about a population from a sample. In practice, the sample size used in a study is determined based on the expense of data collection, and the need to have sufficient statistical power. In complicated studies there may be several different sample sizes involved in the study: for example, in as survey sampling involving stratified sampling there would be different sample sizes for each population. In a census, data are collected on the entire population, hence the sample size is equal to the population size. In experimental design, where a study may be divided into different treatment groups, there may be different sample sizes for each group.
Sample sizes may be chosen in several different ways:

• expedience - For example, include those items readily available or convenient to collect. A choice of small sample sizes, though sometimes necessary, can result in wide confidence intervals or risks of errors in statistical hypothesis testing.

Unless in some far out reach of the world 4 games out of 20, or 20% of your games played, is a LARGE sample size.


And I cannot read..ok, lol.

Thanks for the definition, I work in quality im very familiar with sample size.

But by your theory its just 4 games... might as well be the same 4 game sin the beginning of the year. To suggest that it was only 4 games pretty much disrespects everything football is about.

Regular seasons is the first part of a 2 part season. Its the bigger and less important part

 

[GiantsFan2012]

If you were really in the statistical analysis field you wouldn't say the fact that the 4 games were "bigger games" in terms of importance means anything when you are strictly viewing the data in front of you.


But this is neither Giants nor Packers talk so I'm done with this subject.

 

[meyerbudNYG]

If you were really in the statistical analysis field you wouldn't say the fact that the 4 games were "bigger games" in terms of importance means anything when you are strictly viewing the data in front of you.


But this is neither Giants nor Packers talk so I'm done with this subject.

playoff games are bigger than regular season games

this is undebatable

go ask Tony romo

 

[RandyM]

http://www.gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-news/2012/jan/10/pep-rally-be-held-friday-cheer-packers/