and we had the second worst defense in league history this year. League History!
and went 15-1.....
you don't need defense to win games lol
people judge defenses by yards and not points now? Interesting
and we had the second worst defense in league history this year. League History!
and went 15-1.....
you don't need defense to win games lol
people judge defenses by yards and not points now? Interesting
Yes that is a testament to our ability to throw the ball.Green Bay actually had the third highest 3rd down completion rate in the NFL this past year behind New Orleans and San Diego.
You like to talk about stats. Well guess what our defense this season was ranked second worst all time. That's pretty bad.
And yes it would be nice to be able to convert 3rd and short on the ground for once.
The giants finished 32nd in rushing in the league this year.
people judge defenses by yards and not points now? Interesting
There was actually a drive in the SB that proves yards can matter regardless of points. Was listening to it on the radio days ago and it was interesting.
That drive the Giants had 3rd and 7 in.....I think sometime in the early to middle of the 4th against the Pats. Eli calls timeout. Then a penalty by a Pats defensive player puts them in 3rd and short. Giants converted and ended up then taking minutes off the clock and yards. They did not score on that drive but it ended up taking off time/drive far enough down the field to help pin the Pats back after a Giants punt.
If the Pats stopped the Giants on third down they would have had favorable field position and a lot more time left in the game in the end.
Yards are not everything. But, it can play a huge part in field position and TOP, which the Giants dominated in the SB. The Giants by controlling the clock/field position at times put Brady in a hole.
On the first drive of the SB the Giants also did not score but by driving far enough down the field they were able to pin the Pats back which helped to create the safety.
by considerably you mean it became average.And their run game picked up considerably in the playoffs.
by considerably you mean it became average.
your splitting yards into different types, which clouds the overall picture. Close yardage in a 4th quarter game that is within a score is different than the Panthers chucking up the ball at will in the 4th quarter when the game has already been decided.
Yes its tough when you cant get your team off the field, but what decides a game is points, not yards.
Since Rodgers took over as QB here is how the Packers have finished each regular season in scoring offense and points per game:
2008: 5th; 26.2 ppg
2009: 3rd; 28.8 ppg
2010: 10th; 24.2 ppg
2011: 1st; 35.0 ppg
Average finish: 5th in the league in scoring at 28.6 ppg. I’m going to go way out on a limb and say I think the Packers problems are on the other side of the ball.
You can tie a bow on a pig but at the end of the day it's still a pig.
Wait a second, are you saying the Packer defense was the best in the NFL last season? Your nuts!The Packers defense was bad last season and has to improve. So no one who is making the obvious point the Packers defense was not the worst in the league is refuting that. One would think making the point that in a sport in which the number of points decides the winner, points are the most important statistic would be met with a universal response of "Well duh!". But one would be wrong. Some apparently believe it's yards that appear on scoreboards around the league.
If you had to choose between two bad options, which would you choose?
1) 32nd in yards surrendered and 19th in points surrendered, or
2) 32nd in points surrendered and 19th in yards surrendered.
For those of you arguing that yards are more important than points, keep this in mind: If the Packers' D were described by 2) instead of 1) to be consistent when posters like ivo610, I and others would argue the Packers D was the worst, you would have to argue, 'No, no they were 19th!'.
As to what anyone saw on the field you did indeed see a bad defense. You saw a defense that had trouble stopping teams on third downs and you saw a defense that had trouble stopping teams in the red zone. But the Packers weren't the worst in the league in either category, they were 26th and 20th respectively. Again, bad but not the worst. You also saw a defense that led the league in interceptions with 31. That was 8 more than any other team. And you saw a defense that had the fewest penalties in the league. All that combined, mostly bad with a couple of positives, combined to put the Packers at 19th in the league in scoring defense. Bad, but not the worst.
The Football Outsiders website offers what they describe as "innovative" stats. I suggest their site to anyone who wants to delve deeply into NFL statistical analysis. They have developed DVOA which stands for "defense-adjusted value over average" and they use that stat to rate teams in defensive efficiency. LINK to ratings. For the 2011 regular season they grade the Packers defense as the 23rd vs. the pass and the 26th vs. the run for an overall rating of 24. (BTW, on the linked page is a link to learn more about DVOA, if you are interested.) Again, bad but not the worst.
I'd expect Vikings fans to advance the idea that the Packers' defense was the worst in the league; why Packers fans insist on that characterization is frankly beyond me.
I'm not sure this holds water, just a random thought I had based on an earlier post: yards given up does mean loss of time of possession. If we have the ball for a limited amount of T.O.P we do not score as many points so surrendering fewer points may not matter because the opposing team does not need to score as many to beat us. This is arguably what happened with both the Chiefs and the Giants when we did not score nearly as many points as was typical. (I'll hunker down and cover up now because I am not even sure I believe this, but I would love to see it at least discussed).