I could make a case how the packers went on 1 lucky ******** run and packer fans fail to see how mediocre the team really is.
Go ahead, id love to hear it.
I could make a case how the packers went on 1 lucky ******** run and packer fans fail to see how mediocre the team really is.
I think I got him already ivo lolGo ahead, id love to hear it.
Yeah, I too would live to hear it. I could understand if say, we were only competitive for that one year but an 80-42 record under McCarthy in reg./ postseason would be hard to argue about the Packers only being " lucky"It might have been lucky but the packers lost to those "lucky" Giants both times. And the 2nd time got beat quite soundly I might add.
I could make a case how the packers went on 1 lucky ******** run and packer fans fail to see how mediocre the team really is. Not only have they lost the last 2 years in the playoffs, they looked lost and really bad. I don't mind losing but at least make the other team earn the win.
Go ahead, id love to hear it.
Sorry, while mediocre is a bit too harsh and while their record has been good, can anyone honestly say that the defence was good enough to win during the 15-1 season. and even last year. They have been embarrassed the last 2 years in the playoffs. So while their regular season has been great, their playoffs since the super bowl have been bad. And dare I say mediocre?
Sorry, while mediocre is a bit too harsh and while their record has been good, can anyone honestly say that the defence was good enough to win during the 15-1 season. and even last year. They have been embarrassed the last 2 years in the playoffs. So while their regular season has been great, their playoffs since the super bowl have been bad. And dare I say mediocre?
Don't forget historically bad.defense? why don't you go look at where our D was ranked in 2011, then go look where it was ranked in 2012. We made a LEGIT improvement and are still going to be getting better. Going from dead last to middle of the league is a vast turn aound in such a short time frame.
By historically you mean the last two years?Don't forget historically bad.
Didn't we set a record back in 2011 that the Saint's (not to be outdone) broke this year for statistically worst defense in NFL history?By historically you mean the last two years?
Yep, but that's like saying the south historically loses revolutions.Didn't we set a record back in 2011 that the Saint's (not to be outdone) broke this year for statistically worst defense in NFL history?
More along the lines of saying the Holocaust being a historic slaughter. I take "Historically" to mean notable/significant when compared to past records. Nobody had ever put up such bad numbers. The 72 Dolphins had a historic season.Yep, but that's like saying the south historically loses revolutions.
I take "historically" to mean they have a track record of the same type of performance. Napoleon had his Waterloo but you'd never say that he was "historically" a loser would you?
Short term yes, but historically I'd say not a chance.
Sorry, while mediocre is a bit too harsh and while their record has been good, can anyone honestly say that the defence was good enough to win during the 15-1 season. and even last year. They have been embarrassed the last 2 years in the playoffs. So while their regular season has been great, their playoffs since the super bowl have been bad. And dare I say mediocre?
Ah okay. But I'd say that there have been far greater slaughters. WWII is supposed to have killed 66 million all told and Mao killed about 40 mil. The Holocaust, though revolting by it's nature isn't in the same league as those slaughters. You see, it's a matter of perspective. I suppose you might say it's more notable but it's not historic.More along the lines of saying the Holocaust being a historic slaughter. I take "Historically" to mean notable/significant when compared to past records. Nobody had ever put up such bad numbers. The 72 Dolphins had a historic season.
You can't do that, I mean, the Vikings without AP are average right? The Patriots without TB are average right? Who's strong once their blue chip players go down?I understand where you are coming from, Ford. What I would say is the Packers other than Aaron Rodgers have a pretty mediocre team, and heaven forbid we lose him, I would fear a drop off a lot like the Colts when Peyton went down.
At the same time you'd never say the Dolphins are historically good.More along the lines of saying the Holocaust being a historic slaughter. I take "Historically" to mean notable/significant when compared to past records. Nobody had ever put up such bad numbers. The 72 Dolphins had a historic season.
True, The Armenian slaughter was bigger if I recall, but nobody says anything about that one, and I was using Historic as a synonym to notable. We'll get past it, and quite frankly our defense has been worse than 2011 before, but I'll still remember it because the statistics we put up set an NFL record.Ah okay. But I'd say that there have been far greater slaughters. WWII is supposed to have killed 66 million all told and Mao killed about 40 mil. The Holocaust, though revolting by it's nature isn't in the same league as those slaughters. You see, it's a matter of perspective. I suppose you might say it's more notable but it's not historic.
The Packers had a poor defense that year but it would be a silly argument to say they were historically bad wouldn't you? They won plenty of games so it goes unnoticed because they weren't so bad that they couldn't stay in games. Perspective Hypon. Plenty of people will note the futility that the Lions enjoyed during their 0-16 season and many will call their defense bad but fans are a forgiving group and I think most will look past 2011 as a season in which the Packers had a poor defense. You as a fan might remember it as historically bad but I doubt many else will agree. Teams threw on us all day long to get back into games, and that increased the yardage total but not points scored.
It was good enough to win 15 games and bad enough to lose 2..mediocre? I get what your saying, but by that definition the 15 other teams to be eliminated were just that as well..Only 1 team takes it.. Our defense might be "mediocre", but this is a team sport, and as a "team" there are only about two who've done it better in the last 5 years.. Far from mediocreSorry, while mediocre is a bit too harsh and while their record has been good, can anyone honestly say that the defence was good enough to win during the 15-1 season. and even last year. They have been embarrassed the last 2 years in the playoffs. So while their regular season has been great, their playoffs since the super bowl have been bad. And dare I say mediocre?
I don't know, I think the Armenian numbers are at about 1.5 million which is my point: Stalin: 20 mil (1928-1953) and Vietnam 4.2 million and the second Congo war (1998-2002) 3.8 million are all modern numbers. It depends on your perspective on what is an atrocity or more notable. It just wasn't possible to kill as many people in the past as modern technology allows modern times but Genghis Khan did try: 40 mil.True, The Armenian slaughter was bigger if I recall, but nobody says anything about that one, and I was using Historic as a synonym to notable. We'll get past it, and quite frankly our defense has been worse than 2011 before, but I'll still remember it because the statistics we put up set an NFL record.
Yeah, I too would live to hear it. I could understand if say, we were only competitive for that one year but an 80-42 record under McCarthy in reg./ postseason would be hard to argue about the Packers only being " lucky"
No. In one category, passing yards, we set a record. But one category does not completely describe a defense. Our defense was towards the middle of the pack in points given up and we were 2nd best in creating turnovers. It all adds up to a bad but not a 'historically' bad defense by any means. There were 3 or 4 teams that season alone that had worse defenses.Didn't we set a record back in 2011 that the Saint's (not to be outdone) broke this year for statistically worst defense in NFL history?
Agree to a point. Ron Wolf didn't have the length at Green Bay Polian had at Indy. My point is it seems that Polian's word is being offered as a "How to Do It" in the NFL. I question why so? His track record is no better and maybe worse than some others that did it different ways. There, I've now made a comparison.
I still feel the 9ers were top to bottom the better team. The giants? Not as much.