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:
cheesey said: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:
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.
DoddPower said:cheesey said: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:
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.
eh, i don't know about that. it's still relevant if teams ran less, simply because they couldn't resist passing the ball against them.
DoddPower said:cheesey said: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:
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.
eh, i don't know about that. it's still relevant if teams ran less, simply because they couldn't.
Dr. Z also picked the Saints to go to the Super Bowl last year. What was their record again?
arrowgargantuan said:DoddPower said:cheesey said: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:
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.
eh, i don't know about that. it's still relevant if teams ran less, simply because they couldn't.
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.
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.
This guy needs to take his act on the road cuz he's hysterical.
tromadz said:This guy needs to take his act on the road cuz he's hysterical.
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.
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.
Oh! Oh! Pick me!!! I can answer that!!!!Andy said:Dr. Z also picked the Saints to go to the Super Bowl last year. What was their record again?
Hello Packerpeople,
I'm from Germany and I have a burning question:
Can anyone tell me what the word "curse" means?
NodakPaul said: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.
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.
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.