Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Mike Daniels could propel the Packers defense
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jaybadger82" data-source="post: 448998" data-attributes="member: 6211"><p>1) I agree with Dodd's general dissatisfaction with the defense but his thinking above sucks.</p><p> </p><p>2) GreenBlood has a valid gripe: How the hell do you disagree with a post that nearly exclusively contains statistical fact? You're welcome to point out if a stat has been fudged. You might argue that the stat is flawed or that it's poor support for a particular argument, but it's just mentally stunted to click "disagree" without further comment. If you can't show that Blood's numbers are inaccurate, then you're basically disagreeing with mathematical reality because it doesn't conform to your opinion. Poor use of the "disagree" button as a crutch for mental laziness.</p><p> </p><p>3) I too would like to see the defense get off the field more often on third down next season. However, I wouldn't discount our defense's proclivity for turning over opponents. And the idea of trading turnovers for third down stops sets up a false dichotomy, as if the two were mutually exclusive. I don't see why our defense can't get more stops on third down <em>and </em>continue to force a high number of turnovers.</p><p> </p><p>4) Criticizing statistics in general because a couple of them don't conform to your subjective perspective is further evidence of mental laziness. (You should have just posted, "Numbers make Dodd angry!") If you're going to argue that the defense was "bad and needs serious improvement," then you should use your imagination and counter GreenBlood's points-allowed stat with numbers that support your position (perhaps something like <a href="http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/thirdDownConvPct/position/defense" target="_blank">this</a>, showing the conversion rate on third down given up by the Packer defense last season). But when your argument basically boils down to, "The defense was bad because I say it was bad," then I come away thinking you're an idiot (even though we've reached the same conclusion about last year's D).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jaybadger82, post: 448998, member: 6211"] 1) I agree with Dodd's general dissatisfaction with the defense but his thinking above sucks. 2) GreenBlood has a valid gripe: How the hell do you disagree with a post that nearly exclusively contains statistical fact? You're welcome to point out if a stat has been fudged. You might argue that the stat is flawed or that it's poor support for a particular argument, but it's just mentally stunted to click "disagree" without further comment. If you can't show that Blood's numbers are inaccurate, then you're basically disagreeing with mathematical reality because it doesn't conform to your opinion. Poor use of the "disagree" button as a crutch for mental laziness. 3) I too would like to see the defense get off the field more often on third down next season. However, I wouldn't discount our defense's proclivity for turning over opponents. And the idea of trading turnovers for third down stops sets up a false dichotomy, as if the two were mutually exclusive. I don't see why our defense can't get more stops on third down [I]and [/I]continue to force a high number of turnovers. 4) Criticizing statistics in general because a couple of them don't conform to your subjective perspective is further evidence of mental laziness. (You should have just posted, "Numbers make Dodd angry!") If you're going to argue that the defense was "bad and needs serious improvement," then you should use your imagination and counter GreenBlood's points-allowed stat with numbers that support your position (perhaps something like [URL='http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/thirdDownConvPct/position/defense']this[/URL], showing the conversion rate on third down given up by the Packer defense last season). But when your argument basically boils down to, "The defense was bad because I say it was bad," then I come away thinking you're an idiot (even though we've reached the same conclusion about last year's D). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
Today at 3:25 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
Today at 12:29 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Cornelius Weems
Today at 12:05 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 7:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Yesterday at 6:52 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Mike Daniels could propel the Packers defense
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
