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
The problem of franchising Flynn.
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="TJV" data-source="post: 436619" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">Almost all of us who keep insisting points are the most important defensive stat are not arguing the Packers defense is OK, just that there's no need to exaggerate how bad it was. </span></span></p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><span style="color: black">Are turnovers the only stat that "usually returns to the mean"? IOW, should we expect the Packers points and (the less important) yards surrendered to also revert to the mean? But if it just TOs that are "wildly inconsistent" instead of comparing the Saints 2010 and 2009 defenses, let's look at the three years of the Capers-led Packers defense. That's certainly more relevant to the Packers, right? These are regular season stats from the NFL website:</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">In 2009 the Packers' D was first in INTs with 30 and recovered 10 fumbles for a total of 40 TOs.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">In 2010 the Packers' D was second in INTs with 24 and recovered 8 fumbles for a total of 32 TOs. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">In 2011 the Packers' D was first in INTs with 31 and recovered 7 fumbles for a total of 38 TOs.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">So under Capers, the Packers' regular season mean with regard to TOs is 28.3 INTs and 8.3 recovered fumbles for an average of 36.6 TOs. Reverting to the Packers' D mean doesn't look so bad, does it? And these stats look pretty consistent, don't they? Also noteworthy IMO is the year they won it all was the worst of the three regarding these stats, owing mostly to the late season surge, no doubt. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">But you are right in saying the defense didn't pass the eye test. Not only that, but in McGinn's season ending grades he had the Packers 26th in third down defense and 20th in red-zone defense. While that's really bad, it's not the worst in the league. Small comfort I know, but it has the advantage of being true. </span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 436619, member: 4300"] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]Almost all of us who keep insisting points are the most important defensive stat are not arguing the Packers defense is OK, just that there's no need to exaggerate how bad it was. [/FONT][/COLOR] [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=black]Are turnovers the only stat that "usually returns to the mean"? IOW, should we expect the Packers points and (the less important) yards surrendered to also revert to the mean? But if it just TOs that are "wildly inconsistent" instead of comparing the Saints 2010 and 2009 defenses, let's look at the three years of the Capers-led Packers defense. That's certainly more relevant to the Packers, right? These are regular season stats from the NFL website:[/COLOR][/FONT] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]In 2009 the Packers' D was first in INTs with 30 and recovered 10 fumbles for a total of 40 TOs.[/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]In 2010 the Packers' D was second in INTs with 24 and recovered 8 fumbles for a total of 32 TOs. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]In 2011 the Packers' D was first in INTs with 31 and recovered 7 fumbles for a total of 38 TOs.[/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]So under Capers, the Packers' regular season mean with regard to TOs is 28.3 INTs and 8.3 recovered fumbles for an average of 36.6 TOs. Reverting to the Packers' D mean doesn't look so bad, does it? And these stats look pretty consistent, don't they? Also noteworthy IMO is the year they won it all was the worst of the three regarding these stats, owing mostly to the late season surge, no doubt. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]But you are right in saying the defense didn't pass the eye test. Not only that, but in McGinn's season ending grades he had the Packers 26th in third down defense and 20th in red-zone defense. While that's really bad, it's not the worst in the league. Small comfort I know, but it has the advantage of being true. [/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Magooch
Latest posts
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 9:46 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: tynimiller
Today at 9:23 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: rmontro
Today at 9:07 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: tynimiller
Today at 8:51 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: rmontro
Today at 8:27 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The problem of franchising Flynn.
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
