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!
    Dismiss Notice

Dr. Z Sports Illustrated picks Vikes for Super Bowl

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by PackOne, Jun 22, 2008.

  1. PackOne

    PackOne Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    Ratings:
    +4
  2. Andy

    Andy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    146
    Ratings:
    +0
    Dr. Z also picked the Saints to go to the Super Bowl last year. What was their record again?
     
  3. flep

    flep Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +0
    Its the AP factor methinks.

    Stop him and you stop the queens. Simple as.
     
  4. nathaniel

    nathaniel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    905
    Ratings:
    +0
    Dr. Z is also an avid Packer Hater, so anything he can do to piss off Packer fans, he does.
     
  5. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    This guy needs to take his act on the road cuz he's hysterical.
     
  6. Sadie

    Sadie Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    33
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wow, that's all I have to say.

    Can he be realistic for a second? Minnesota is a one dimensional team until T-Jack shows he can formulate a consistent passing attack, they will be a .500 team or worse.
     
  7. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I want some of what "Dr. Z" is smoking.
    But it's a lock now........the Vikings CAN'T win the SB. Has Dr. ZzZzZzzzz..........sorry.........dozed off for a second.......EVER been right???

    I like where he said the Vikings were #1 against the run........yeah, but why run when you can PASS the ball down the field and the Vikings D can't stop it? REAL brilliance there! :lol:
     
  8. Andy

    Andy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    146
    Ratings:
    +0
    EVERYONE talks about how great the Viqueen D is. Granted it will be tougher with the Jared Allen pick up, but the Packer defense gave up less points than the Vikes last year and the Packer D should be better too this year, and has a MUCH better secondary. And the Packer offense is much better all around. I'll put my money on Aaron Rodgers, rather than Tavaris Jackson ANYDAY.
     
  9. DoddPower

    DoddPower Nick Perry is watching you, NFL QB's!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    817
    Ratings:
    +54
    Exactly. Anyone know the actual amount of runs attempting against the Viking's D vs. that of other teams? I imagine they rank somewhere in the higher 20's or so in the league of rushing attempts against them.

    If so, that stat becomes fairly irrelevant.
     
  10. arrowgargantuan

    arrowgargantuan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,645
    Ratings:
    +4
    eh, i don't know about that. it's still relevant if teams ran less, simply because they couldn't.
     
  11. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Blue = added by me
     
  12. DoddPower

    DoddPower Nick Perry is watching you, NFL QB's!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    817
    Ratings:
    +54
    I don't agree with that entirely. If a team has a good (but maybe not great) run defense and a POOR secondary, it only makes sense to attack one's weakness as opposed to their strength. Mike McCarthy did a great job of that for most the season.

    Basically what I'm saying is perhaps their number 1 rated run defense stat is somewhat inflated. As I said, I don't have the stats in front of me, but any stat like that is relative, which must be kept in mind. If a team game plans to pass the ball 80% of the time because they are certain it will work, then of course less rushing yards will be gained.

    I'm not saying the Vikings run defense isn't really good, because I know better. However, I'm just saying that it's interesting to ponder. Maybe one of the knowledgeable stat guys on here can find the stats to compare and discuss? I'm interested at least.
     
  13. nathaniel

    nathaniel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    905
    Ratings:
    +0
    Is he talking about actual rushing yards or is he talking percentages? Teams may not rush against you as much because of your horrible secondary, but you still have to stop the rushes they do attempt. If he's talking yardage, his point might be valid, but if he's talking percentages, then maybe not. After all, Green Bay's defense was considered one of the best in the league last year, but when all the numbers were finalised we ended up as the 11th best defense in the entire league. Really good, but not necessarily elite.
     
  14. TheStone

    TheStone Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    156
    Ratings:
    +10
    Hello Packerpeople,

    I'm from Germany and I have a burning question:
    Can anyone tell me what the word "curse" means?

    Thank you!
    :wink:

    P.S.: I already asked the dictionary for the word for "Vollidiot" and
    it says "moron".
     
  15. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    I was about to post the same thing under the title "When will people learn?"

    This could have something to do with the Jared Allen factor.
     
  16. NodakPaul

    NodakPaul Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    256
    Ratings:
    +0
    I can help you out. After all, I have posted them before (but some people have selective memory :wink: ).
    http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...ue&Submit=Find&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1

    Using total yards per game is a poor way to rank a defense. If we went by just yards per game, Minnesota would be dead last in Passing D, and #1 in running D. But, as pointed out, that leaves the reasons behind it open to interpretation.

    A better stat to look at is yards per attempt. Minnesota is actually #2 in yards per rushing attempt, and #14 in yards per passing attempt. Obviously, the rushing D is still better than the passing D, but it is much less bipolar.

    Saying that teams didn't run against the Vikings because it was easier to pass than run is true. But it doesn't mean that the rushing Defense was overrated. It was still a very stout run defense - with the lone exception coming against the Packers.

    Minnesota's secondary isn't weak, as has been said here. The pass rush was rather weak, and there were some coverage holes at safety. Both of those areas have been addressed. I think it is a fairly safe bet to say that Minnesota will be in the top 10 if not top 5 overall defense this year.

    However, I am not convinced that our offense will be able to carry us all the way to the superbowl. TJack only needs to be mediocre for us to pose a very real threat to the Packers for the NFC North title. But he needs to be better than mediocre to carry us into the superbowl.
     
  17. NodakPaul

    NodakPaul Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    256
    Ratings:
    +0
    Correct. The Vikings D was second in yards per rush attempt last year and 14th in yards per pass. That is a much better way to rank the defense.

    I would like to see a link putting GB at 11 though. Everything I have seen puts them at 8 or 9 overall.

    EDIT: NEver mind, I see where you got it. That is the ranking on nfl.com when you view game stats overall. In all actuality it is just the yards per game. Again, a poor way of ranking a team.

    FYI: In points per game, GB is #6 and Minnesota is #12. That is probably the most important stat. :wink:
     
  18. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Well he doesn't have Favre to kick around anymore.. so out of sheer boredom he has one upped himself.. he picked the Vikes because he knows that Cheeseheads and Cowpoke fans across the land will write into his mailbox... seriously, I really don't know how this guy keeps his own column.. he is consistently off mark.. the flamming "redhead" has more knowledge in her right pinky when it comes to predictions than this clown has.

    Wait maybe he is brilliant in a way.. writing backassward predictions to draw more readers and he keeps his column for being consistently wrong.. yep maybe he is brilliant in the Norm type of way.
     
  19. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    The Vikings are much like the Bears of a few years ago although I'm not sure they have the special teams the Bears had.

    They play good defense and have a running game. Not sure about special teams.

    The PROBLEM is the really good teams have great QB's, or, at the very least, an outstanding pass offense and the Vikings don't have that. They don't have a QB with any consistancy. They don't have a WR corp that scares anybody. They're pass protection is spotty at best. AND, I haven't seen anything in their pass offense schemes that causes any concern.

    I also beg to differ regarding ARod. The other QB's that this bozo named did not have the supporting cast he does nor did they have the opportunity to learn from the sidelines for this many years preparing themselves and learning the little things necessary to be successful.

    I believe the number of QB's drafted high that were lucky enough to get in this position have probably done quite well. The problem is most get thrown in before they are read. Big difference.
     
  20. Toronto_Cheesehead

    Toronto_Cheesehead Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    192
    Ratings:
    +0
    Making Packer fans mad isn't really a good reason to fire a guy. He criticized Favre a lot, but when you throw picks like Favre did a few years ago, the criticism is warranted. Anyways, who cares about a silly Super Bowl prediction anyways. They're just fluff pieces to give the average fan something to get riled up about. Dr. Z's at his best when it comes to analysis of players and games. He's one of the few guys that doesn't get caught up in highlight reel plays, and actually can go indepth about line play and defense. Reasons like that, and not his failures at predicting Super Bowl winners, are why he is able to keep his own column.
     
  21. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Actually, there is only one stat that really matters when ranking a D - points against. With PA, the Vikes' D is almost as good as ours. With their huge acquisition, if it pans out, expect us to be neck and neck this year.

    Now, back to Dr. Z, didn't he pick us to be 6-10 last year? I wouldn't take anything that guy says seriously. My dog knows football better than he does.
     
  22. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Oh! Oh! Pick me!!! I can answer that!!!!

    It's what Viking fans do everytime the playoffs start!!! :wink: :lol:
     
  23. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Vikings were a popular pick for the Super Bowl not to long ago as well so this shouldn't really be new territory. Picks really shouldn't be a factor in what you think of a team regardless in my opinion. I said on here before if they had a good QB I'd pick them to go to the Super Bowl.

    I just don't see that QB though.
     
  24. DoddPower

    DoddPower Nick Perry is watching you, NFL QB's!

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    817
    Ratings:
    +54
    While I see where you're coming from with the Points Against stat, I continue to disagree a bit. Even if a Defense minimizes the amount of points scored, let's say, limiting drives to field goal, if those drives are time consuming drives, it keeps the offense for the Pack off the field. Which means our explosive offense can't score. A team doesn't have to score a lot of points to win a ballgame.

    I believe that points against is comparable to the time the defense is out on the field. A defense that has lots of three and outs and gives their offense lots of opportunities is more then likely minimizing points against, but giving the team a chance to score more, and control the pace of the game.

    Just something to consider.
     
  25. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    True. There's truth to any of those stats then. But when the game is over, the only 2 stats that matter are the points you score vs the points your opponent scores. That's why I like to keep things simple. A good O scores more points than their friends on the D allows. A good D allows less points than their friends on the O score.

    We had the 4th best O last year and the 6th best D out of 32 teams.
     

Share This Page