Defense Wins Championships.

Alex

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
604
Reaction score
67
Location
Eden Prairie, MN
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.
 

Oshkoshpackfan

YUT !!!
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
3,286
Reaction score
260
Location
Camp Lejeune NC
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.

I don't know if this is bullsh!t or not, but......

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

Defense92

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
182
Reaction score
24
I said in another thread... I really agree...I can't stand how this team tackles...or should I say fails to tackle. Having said that, the Packers lack of a pass rush is as much to blame as anything for most of those big plays. I don't care who we have back there, with no pass rush it's not going to be good.

Grab, grab, grab!
 

Shawnsta3

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
1,273
Reaction score
137
Location
Manawa & Shawano, WI
I said in another thread... I really agree...I can't stand how this team tackles...or should I say fails to tackle. Having said that, the Packers lack of a pass rush is as much to blame as anything for most of those big plays. I don't care who we have back there, with no pass rush it's not going to be good.
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...
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
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...

For me it's the pass defense I have a problem with.
 

NOMOFO

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
76
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...

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.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
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...

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.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
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.
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.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
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.
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:

NOMOFO

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
76
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.

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.
 

gonzozab

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
287
Location
Parts unknown
Your title thread is a myth and a common misconception. It's a great espn talking point but it's far from the truth.
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.
 

NOMOFO

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
76
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.

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.
 

gonzozab

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
287
Location
Parts unknown
Your title thread is a myth and a common misconception. It's a great espn talking point but it's far from the truth.
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.
 

gonzozab

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
287
Location
Parts unknown
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.
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
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.

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
 

Forderick

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
158
Reaction score
7
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.

58+62= 120 or am i missing something here?
 

Pugger

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
2,613
Reaction score
756
Location
N. Fort Myers, FL
Truth is that you need both. NFL is designed today to make it much easier for offenses to succeed. Packers have the best QB in the NFL. Therefore you really shouldn't need to spend as much on offensive personnel as you do on defensive personnel if you're the Packers. Rodgers makes mediocre receivers look good and he helps the running game just by being in. The rules help the offense. The defense is what needs the most assistance because defenses generally don't have ONE guy that makes everyone better and the rules are all against them.

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
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
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

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).
 

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
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).

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.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
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.

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.
 

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
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.

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).
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
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.

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).
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
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.

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.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top