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!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Defense Wins Championships.

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Cheesehead625, Feb 3, 2014.

  1. Alex

    Alex Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    407
    Ratings:
    +213
    Out of curiosity, what happeend to Kerry Rhodes? Talk about a guy we could use. I know he didn't play last year, for whatever reason, but the year before he had 67 tackles, 4 interceptions, 2 forced fumbles, and a sack. Not to mention he's 6'3". Probably wouldn't happen, but I feel like it'd be worth taking a look at him, I can't imagine he'd be too expensive either.
     
  2. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    I don't know if this is bullsh!t or not, but......

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/13/whatever-happened-to-kerry-rhodes/
     
  3. Defense92

    Defense92 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +74
    Grab, grab, grab!
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  4. Alex

    Alex Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    407
    Ratings:
    +213
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Shawnsta3

    Shawnsta3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,029
    Ratings:
    +369
    Fun fact of the day: The Packers ranked eighth in the league in sacks (pass rush) last year. We finished with the exact same number of sacks as the Seattle Seahawks did.

    With guys like Clay Matthews, Mike Daniels, Nick Perry, Datone Jones all likely here for the long run our pass rush is in good hands for the future. The run defense on the other hand...
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,104
    Ratings:
    +4,072
    For me it's the pass defense I have a problem with.
     
  7. NOMOFO

    NOMOFO Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,105
    Ratings:
    +394
    Like somebody here said...When Clay was out we had damn near no pass rush. It was pathetic. At least part of the blame falls on the d-line. ...and as far as the run defense, it was near the top of the nfl early this year until guys started going down.
     
  8. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    5,430
    Ratings:
    +2,387
    The total number of sacks is a very misleading statistic. PFF had the Packers pass rush ranked 29th in the league last year and I tend to agree with them.
     
  9. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,179
    Ratings:
    +2,367
    PFF should should put together a sacks-per-rush-man stat since they're breaking down every play anyway.

    Capers defenses are always in or near the top 5 in blitz frequency. Our 4 man rush (even with Matthews) hasn't been anything to write home about. 3 man rush? Fuggetabotit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,917
    Ratings:
    +3,009
    That’s right but the Seahawks finished the regular season first in opponent’s passer rating at 63.4, while the Packers finished 25th at 95.9. No stat is a perfect predictor but that’s a pretty stark difference. And we’ve seen Capers’ D at its best creates turnovers, particularly INTs. The Seahawks finished first in the league with 28 INTs, the Packers tied for 26th with 11.

    Despite the Packers finishing in a tie for 8th with Seattle in sacks I don’t think their pass rush is "in good hands" - they need to improve it next season. And while consistent pressure makes a defensive backfield’s job easier, even without it I can’t think of an excuse for a team’s starting safeties combining for 6 passes defensed and 0 INTs, or the 4 players that played safety during the regular season finishing with a combined 7 passes defensed and 0 INTs.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. NOMOFO

    NOMOFO Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,105
    Ratings:
    +394
    I agree. At times this year it was some of the very worst pass rush I have ever seen from the Packers. There were games I watched where we counted play after play that we literally didn't move off the line.
     
  12. gonzozab

    gonzozab Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    41
    Ratings:
    +14
    No, the OP is exactly right and saying this is a myth is just something fashionable to say nowadays without any proof to back it up. Five times the #1 offense played the #1 defense in the Super Bowl and only once did the team with the #1 offense win (49ers over Broncos when San Francisco was considered a dynasty) and that doesn't include Tampa Bay destroying Oakland. Mere matcups don't win Super Bowls by five touchdowns.
     
  13. NOMOFO

    NOMOFO Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,105
    Ratings:
    +394
    How often in the modern era of football did the #1 o play the #1 d? cuz... today's nfl is NOTHING like it was 15 years ago much less 30. so, that stat proves nothing if you are looking at pre-rule changes that skew offense. I agree there was a day when defense won championships.

    ....beyond that...I tend to think post #25 here gives a much better picture on head to head stats to disprove your theory.
     
  14. gonzozab

    gonzozab Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    41
    Ratings:
    +14
    No, the OP is exactly right and saying this is a myth is just something fashionable to say nowadays without any proof to back it up. Five times the #1 offense played the #1 defense in the Super Bowl and only once did the team with the #1 offense win (49ers over Broncos when San Francisco was considered a dynasty) and that doesn't include Tampa Bay destroying Oakland. Mere matcups don't win Super Bowls by five touchdowns.
     
  15. gonzozab

    gonzozab Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    41
    Ratings:
    +14
    Rule changes further prove my point. Every rule change in the past 5-10 years has been geared to benefit offenses, yet the Giants can shut down Tom Brady, Randy Moss and company that entered the Super Bowl 18-0 averaging well over 30 points per game and hold them to 14. The Steelers can beat Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald and the Cardinals offense, and the Seahawks nearly shut out Peyton Manning, making him look like Rex Grossman. The Saints are the only great offense to win, but it was a pick six that clinched the victory.
     
  16. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,104
    Ratings:
    +4,072
    You never asked for any! I have plenty and would be happy to to show you. You just jump on the cliche bandwagon. Go back 1 year, remember that mighty SF defense? 2nd best defense in the nfl and 11th best offense when they played the ravens with the #10 offense and the #12th best defense. With a superior Defense the 9ers should have dominated if you believe in that cliche.

    Lets go back the previous year. Giants with a #9 offense and a #25 defense (YES 25TH RANKED), beat NE who had a better offense and defense (#3 and #15). How the hell did two teams without a top 10 defense make it to the SB?!?!? Thats impossible! (please note sarcasm)

    Then there was that 2010 season. The Packers went up against the best defense in the league in the SB and got stomped. Thats how it went right? No? Oh right Packers won with their 10th ranked offense.

    Back another year we had the colts and the saints. Saints came in with the #1 offense and the #20 defense facing the 7th rated D and the 8th ranked O. Team with the #1 offense and 20th ranked Defense won.

    2008, well here you go, the team with the #1 defense won. We found 1 example!

    2007 1st ranked offense and 4th ranked defense of the undefeated patriots faced the Giants who had a 14th ranked offense and 17th ranked defense. The team with the worse offense and worse defense won (hint great matchup for Giants).

    Should I continue?

    the number of Super Bowl champs with a top 10 offense? Thirty-eight. And a top 3 offense? Twenty.

    There have been 427 NFL playoff games over the last 45 seasons. The better defensive teams have won 58 percent of them. The better offensive teams have won 62 percent of the time.

    Among the 45 NFL Super Bowls, the better defensive team — measured by points allowed that season— has won 29 times. The better offensive team won 25 times. (Note that adds up to 53, which means that some teams are the better offensive and defensive team in the Super Bowl. Nineteen Super Bowls have featured a team superior on both sides of the ball. Those teams have won 14 of those games.)

    Credit - http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/20/does-defense-really-win-championships/ for those last 3 tidbits
     
  17. Forderick

    Forderick Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    144
    Ratings:
    +82
    58+62= 120 or am i missing something here?
     
  18. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,104
    Ratings:
    +4,072
    Teams can be better at both. Click the link for a better explanation
     
  19. Pugger

    Pugger Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    414
    Ratings:
    +5
    With our offense we don't need the best defense in the league to be successful. If we have just a little better than average D we can terrorize the league with the best QB in the business and finally a running game defenses have to respect. :D
     
  20. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,129
    Ratings:
    +402
    I agree, however my point was in regards to signing both Nelson AND Cobb. It will be VERY difficuly to field an adequate defense when you're spending $20m on a QB, potentially $20m on two WRs and $12m on your starting guards in 2015. That's $52m in cap space tied up on offense. Add in CM3's $13m charge and suddenly there isn't a whole lot of money left to field other impact players on defense. Our offense without Cobb (for example) should still be plenty good enough to win a title while the money that goes to signing Cobb could be used on an above average safety and an upgrade at ILB (for example).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    798
    Ratings:
    +335
    Eventually we're going to have to restructure Rodgers and Clays deals in order to create the space to sign some players. We won't have to do it to the extent of teams like Dallas or Pittsburgh who sign players they can't afford but we will have to. Cobb and Jordy have to be extended IMO. Financially we are in very good shape to make some moves and build this team where it needs to be.
     
  22. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    5,430
    Ratings:
    +2,387
    Restructuring Rodgers and Matthews contracts won´t be easy though, as the prorated bonus of those two contracts already count $11.1 million towards the cap until 2017 and there´s no way to do anything about that.
     
  23. Ace

    Ace Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    798
    Ratings:
    +335
    Well that's for the powers at be to figure out. Clay also needs to figure out a way to stay healthy because his presence makes the D that much better... obviously. I would still do that contract everyday because he is that much of a difference maker, and not JUST as a pass rusher as I've heard some say (not on these boards).
     
  24. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,129
    Ratings:
    +402
    Just curious why we "have" to re-sign both Nelson and Cobb? Rodgers is a very good QB and very good QBs don't need amazing wide receivers (quick, name two good WRs that Brady had during his Super Bowl runs). A great QB can make an entire offense better. There isn't a comparable position on defense; you have to pay more guys on defense than you do on offense when you have a great QB (eg, on defense you can't get away with one great defensive end and mediocre talent elsewhere while a great QB can do very well with mediocre talent).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Carl

    Carl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,754
    Ratings:
    +1,017
    The Packers look to the future enough so that they don't have to get into the situation where they push more cap into future years.

    All Dallas does is make the contract different so the cap hit is greater in a future season, just putting off the problem for another year. Eventually, it will catch up and they will be in a cap mess for a few years. TT is smart enough to not put the team in that situation.
     

Share This Page