Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Are Packers satisfied with the current playoffs format structure?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 431987" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="color: #141414"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"> I've made the point that poin</span></span><span style="color: #141414"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">ts allowed is THE defensive stat since that’s how games are determined, so I certainly agree with that point. However I disagree with your assertion that the Packers had “one of the top defenses in the league”. What I would point to first is the eyeball test. You, like every other Packers fan, saw opposing QBs have way too much time to throw, time after time throughout the season. And you saw that happen far too often on critical third downs. As to your point about point differential I would suggest that was due almost entirely to the Packers’ prolific offense. But the eyeball test is the essence of subjectivity so that probably won’t do for someone citing the Simpson Paradox. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #141414"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">IMO emphasizing the points allowed stat as you do and noting the Packers were 22nd in that category (19th in the regular season) directly contradicts your assertion the Packers had one of the top defenses in the league. Because as you said, games are won by points, not yards and I would add games are also not won by “yards per point efficiency”. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #141414"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">In McGinn’s final grades columns (since jsonline.com has become a quasi pay site I’m not sure if I should link this. But I trust everyone can find it with their 20 free stories per month) he notes the following. First with regard to their pass defense which he grades a D: </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'tahoma'">T</span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000">he defense certainly excelled in taking the ball away and penalties, which were a problem on both sides of the ball a few years ago are no longer a big problem. (McCarthy did indeed “get that fixed”.) But look at the first and third paragraphs. They both speak to the notion that the Packers 2011 defense was anything but at or near the top of the league. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000">McGinn gives the Packers rush defense a D+ and writes: </span></span></p><p> <span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'tahoma'">Of course the missed tackles stat – almost 9 per game – and the first down stat relate to the entire defense, not just the rush D; they just appeared in that paragraph. But they too indicate the D was not good, let alone very good. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'tahoma'">I don’t think the Packers defense was the worst in the league and the stats and analysis you provide support that view. But I think you go too far in saying it was a top defense since even the Packers’ coaching staff wouldn’t advance that view. IMO the Packers defense was below average in 2011. During the regular season I think they were about where they appeared in points allowed: I would say slightly above that ranking because of the turnovers it created, but still below average. Having posted that, I do think the offense was more responsible for the playoff loss than the defense. </span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 431987, member: 4300"] [COLOR=#141414][FONT=Tahoma] I've made the point that poin[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#141414][FONT=Tahoma]ts allowed is THE defensive stat since that’s how games are determined, so I certainly agree with that point. However I disagree with your assertion that the Packers had “one of the top defenses in the league”. What I would point to first is the eyeball test. You, like every other Packers fan, saw opposing QBs have way too much time to throw, time after time throughout the season. And you saw that happen far too often on critical third downs. As to your point about point differential I would suggest that was due almost entirely to the Packers’ prolific offense. But the eyeball test is the essence of subjectivity so that probably won’t do for someone citing the Simpson Paradox. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#141414][FONT=Tahoma]IMO emphasizing the points allowed stat as you do and noting the Packers were 22nd in that category (19th in the regular season) directly contradicts your assertion the Packers had one of the top defenses in the league. Because as you said, games are won by points, not yards and I would add games are also not won by “yards per point efficiency”. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#141414][FONT=Tahoma]In McGinn’s final grades columns (since jsonline.com has become a quasi pay site I’m not sure if I should link this. But I trust everyone can find it with their 20 free stories per month) he notes the following. First with regard to their pass defense which he grades a D: [/FONT][/COLOR] [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000][FONT=tahoma]T[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=tahoma][COLOR=#000000]he defense certainly excelled in taking the ball away and penalties, which were a problem on both sides of the ball a few years ago are no longer a big problem. (McCarthy did indeed “get that fixed”.) But look at the first and third paragraphs. They both speak to the notion that the Packers 2011 defense was anything but at or near the top of the league. [/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=tahoma][COLOR=#000000]McGinn gives the Packers rush defense a D+ and writes: [/COLOR][/FONT] [COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=tahoma]Of course the missed tackles stat – almost 9 per game – and the first down stat relate to the entire defense, not just the rush D; they just appeared in that paragraph. But they too indicate the D was not good, let alone very good. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=tahoma]I don’t think the Packers defense was the worst in the league and the stats and analysis you provide support that view. But I think you go too far in saying it was a top defense since even the Packers’ coaching staff wouldn’t advance that view. IMO the Packers defense was below average in 2011. During the regular season I think they were about where they appeared in points allowed: I would say slightly above that ranking because of the turnovers it created, but still below average. Having posted that, I do think the offense was more responsible for the playoff loss than the defense. [/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
scheeler
ExpatPacker
Green_Bay_Packers
Latest posts
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: OldSchool101
35 minutes ago
Draft Talk
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 3:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 2nd Rd pick #58 Javon Bullard S
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 3:28 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Not too soon 2024 roster prediction
Latest: Sanguine camper
Today at 3:00 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 1:57 PM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Are Packers satisfied with the current playoffs format structure?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top