This team vs the 1997 team

[Greenbayphil]

The same defense that stopped the Saints twice on 4th down, including the game clinching stop, the defense that intercepted Newton 3 times and stopped him on a game clinching 4th down, the defense that intercepted Orton 3 times and ran one back for a touchdown, the defense that intercepted Ponder 2 times, that intercepted Rivers YET AGAIN 3 times, TWO ran for touchdowns and the last one a game clinching, and that intercepted the Buccanneers 2 times and stopped them on a game clinching 4th down? Is that the defense you're talking about? The defense that, outside of the first game against Drew Brees, hasn't allowed any other QB to have an 100 rating game?

And why would that defense cost you in january, if it hasn't so far and it didn't last year, with the same scheme and personel? Because, magically? Because, what, we're gonna face better defenses than the Bears' and the Lions'? Better offenses than the Saints' and the Lions'? And we're undefeated with this defense, and not only that, we've won every single game by more than 6 points, and there hasn't been an instance this season that a team had the chance to win the game in the last 2 minutes! I'm talking about this team being so good that we don't need to play 60 minutes to win a game!!!!!

Is THAT the defense you're talking about????

Yes the defense that has been bailed out by an offense that really hasn't ever been seen before, its rare that an offense stays so consistent at this level.

Though whats going to happen if the defense does give up 30+ points and the offense cant get rolling (like the first half of the Lions game) are you going to be so ecstatic then? I know I won't be.



p.s those are some pretty neat stats there.

 

[PackersRS]

Yes the defense that has been bailed out by an offense that really hasn't ever been seen before, its rare that an offense stays so consistent at this level.

Though whats going to happen if the defense does give up 30+ points and the offense cant get rolling (like the first half of the Lions game) are you going to be so ecstatic then? I know I won't be.



p.s those are some pretty neat stats there.

I only posted 1 stat (about QB rating), the rest were all amazing plays this awful defense made. Funny that when I say game clinching you seem to dismiss it, saying the offense bailed the D out... Oh well... The stats and the tape are out there, and there're still games to come, you'll see for yourself in time how good this D is...

 

[ivo610]

duh, this team, bc Matt Flynn is on it.

 

[Greenbayphil]

I only posted 1 stat (about QB rating), the rest were all amazing plays this awful defense made. Funny that when I say game clinching you seem to dismiss it, saying the offense bailed the D out... Oh well... The stats and the tape are out there, and there're still games to come, you'll see for yourself in time how good this D is...

my point is why should our D be in a game clinching drive when we have scored the likes of 42, 30, 45, 33 and 35 points?
Its crazy, scoring 45 points on offense and the other team are still trying to drive down to tie the game up?
We should have those games locked up.

And yes for example the defense comes up with interceptions which is great, but 3 interceptions and your still on the field trying to make sure the other team doesn't tie the game up?

 

[PackersRS]

my point is why should our D be in a game clinching drive when we have scored the likes of 42, 30, 45, 33 and 35 points?
Its crazy, scoring 45 points on offense and the other team are still trying to drive down to tie the game up?
We should have those games locked up.

And yes for example the defense comes up with interceptions which is great, but 3 interceptions and your still on the field trying to make sure the other team doesn't tie the game up?

Because when you're up 21 points your D isn't going to play as hard as when it's a 1 possession game...

And even besides all that they're still #13 in points per game! Even if you don't consider turnovers, but you should because they're #1 in the league, just in terms of points given up, and all games they play the opposing team has to score in bunches to keep up, and the D is #13 in ppg, ahead of the Bears!!! So how can this D be a bad D if they're #1 in forced turnovers and top 15 in points per game? Because of stupid yards that don't mean anything?

 

[Greenbayphil]

So how can this D be a bad D if they're #1 in forced turnovers and top 15 in points per game? Because of stupid yards that don't mean anything?

No because the simple fact is, the only reason we are 11-0 is because our offense has been able to put up as many points as it has, not because of turnovers.

 

[PackersRS]

No because the simple fact is, the only reason we are 11-0 is because our offense has been able to put up as many points as it has, not because of turnovers.

The reason the offense has put up so many points is because they get at least 2 more possessions per game... Your whole reasoning is flawed man. Football is a team game. What the D does affects the offense and vice versa. The offense putting so many points gives leeway for the defense.

Again, just look at how many points this D has given up when the game is close. They've never let the other team take a lead in the 4th quarter.

 

[Greenbayphil]

The reason the offense has put up so many points is because they get at least 2 more possessions per game... Your whole reasoning is flawed man. Football is a team game. What the D does affects the offense and vice versa. The offense putting so many points gives leeway for the defense.

Again, just look at how many points this D has given up when the game is close. They've never let the other team take a lead in the 4th quarter.

I dont think my reasoning is flawed hence why we have an official defensive issues thread, you are the one who is making up petty excuses for their poor play.

There has been alot of games this season in which if the offense hadnt put up as many points as it did, then we would have lost the game.

 

[Greenbayphil]

Also I'd like to add, yes we are 13th in scoring, however lets take the 2 games that were blowouts defensively,

The rams 24-3
The viking 45-7

Now both of those games were blowouts and rightly so as they are 2 of the worst teams in the NFL

If you dont count those games we are averaging 9th worst in scoring which is good enough to be tied with the Chiefs and right behind the Rams.

 

[PackersRS]

You're resulting to discounting games where the D was good because the opponents were subpar.

I'm done with this conversation.

 

[Greenbayphil]

You're resulting to discounting games where the D was good because the opponents were subpar.

I'm done with this conversation.

No im discouting them because these teams are definetly not going to relflect playoff teams at all.

Plus its only 2 games, that shows you how much those 2 blowouts are actually contributing to that elusive stat PPG for this team

 

[PackersRS]

No im discouting them because these teams are definetly not going to relflect playoff teams at all.

Plus its only 2 games, that shows you how much those 2 blowouts are actually contributing to that elusive stat PPG for this team

So other defenses have not faced poor quality teams? And I can also discredit the Saints' and the Panthers' game, because both are top 10 passing offenses in yards and those games are contributing to the Packers' lower ranking in passing yards.

And if you're going to do this silly thing, you shouldn't count the defensive TDs in our offense scoring...

Again, flawed argument. Wake me up when you stop making things up to support what you're saying. For crying out loud man, you're honestly defending that 2 games shouldn't be counted because those teams were weak... That is beyond ridiculous...

 

[Greenbayphil]

So other defenses have not faced poor quality teams? And I can also discredit the Saints' and the Panthers' game, because both are top 10 passing offenses in yards and those games are contributing to the Packers' lower ranking in passing yards.

And if you're going to do this silly thing, you shouldn't count the defensive TDs in our offense scoring...

Again, flawed argument. Wake me up when you stop making things up to support what you're saying. For crying out loud man, you're honestly defending that 2 games shouldn't be counted because those teams were weak... That is beyond ridiculous...

Your taking what I'm saying and twisting it, I said if you take away the 2 games by 2 of the worst teams in the NFL (Therefore it should have been a blowout anyway) then our ppg ranking drops from 13th to 23rd, thats a massive difference for just 2 games. Nothing to do with the saints or panthers and passing yards per game.

Im just trying to say that the PPG rank we have, I dont think is very well reflected considering the way we have played the majority of the other games.

This team was no.2 in scoring last year and only 0.5 away from being no.1, its more or less the exact same players.

This team is 3rd worst in yards.
4th worst in 3rd down conversion
middle of the way for points and sacks.


The only decent stat we have is No.1 in takeaways and Interceptions
If we live by the interceptions then I don't think it is going to get us very far,

Say what you want but Defense wins championships and its the offense that has been winning games for us so far.

 

[PackersRS]

You really don't see anything wrong with a theory that simply takes away two arbitrarily chosen games to make it's point? Ok then...

 

[Greenbayphil]

You really don't see anything wrong with a theory that simply takes away two arbitrarily chosen games to make it's point? Ok then...

It's to do with consistency and we have consistently given up large amount of points with the exception of 2 games.
If you cant see what I am trying to say then you are either ignorant or delusional.

 

[BoilerUp]

Yeah I really do not care about the amount of points the D gives up. Other teams know they have to put up a lot of points to beat the Pack so all teams we play know they have to air it out a lot, which is going to inflate a lot of the yards given up. Also whenever we have been down the D has been there to keep us in it, Carolina, Atlanta, and Detroit come to mind. When we are up by a couple of touchdowns you can tell the D plays more of a bend but don't break, hence the yards given up but still not really giving up a lot of points.

The thing that concerns me the most is the poor 3rd down conversion rate which I think is a result of a lack of a pass rush on opposing QB's.

 

[TJV]

Would I prefer the Packers D give up points this season at the same rate the '96 Packers D did? Certainly but Packers RS is correct, of course it's a team game and the Packers per game point differential this year is +14.1. The 2007 Patriots point differential was an astounding +19.7 and that leads me to another point about this Packers team and their D. Perhaps one of the reasons the Pats couldn't finish that season with a title was they were involved in so many blow outs, they weren't as prepared mentally for close game as they otherwise would have been. Whether that's true or not my point is this Packers team is mentally tough. They're down 13 or 14 points early? No problem. The opponent is driving to tie or take the lead in the fourth quarter? No problem. Their only up by 2 late in the game and need a long TD drive to wrap up the win? No problem. No, this doesn't guarantee they'll go 19-0 or win a title. But after overcoming extreme adversity last year, they have been hardened by a bunch of close games this season. BTW, this years' D is giving up about 7 1/2 more points/game than the fantastic '96 version and about 3 1/2 more per game than the '07 Pats. (All stats are for the regular season.)

I understand the lure of saying except for this or that the stat would be different. Except for so-and-so's 50 yard run… Except for those 2 INTs, so-and-so's QB rating would have been… Problem is facts are facts and stats are stats. Subject to interpretation of course but for example when Greenbayphil says except for these two games the Packers D would be… don't you have to go through every team in the league and throw out the blowouts against "bad teams" they were involved in too? Also, you want to throw out the 45-7 blowout vs. the Vikings, how about the 33-27 win against the same team three weeks earlier?

 

[Greenbayphil]

how about the 33-27 win against the same team three weeks earlier?

No because that is the sort of game this defense has been playing consistently, which was my point.
Look I might be completely wrong here (though I don't think I am)

I would just rather the defense didn't give up as many points as they do.
The opposing team can have all the yards they want aslong as we keep them to a low score

Perfect example being Lions game there on Thanksgiving.

But if we go into the playoffs and the defense gives up 30+ points, thats where my concerns are.

 

[TJV]

So you want to throw out one game against the Vikings and not the other? IMO that points out the fallacy of throwing out any games. If you can't make your point using the stats as they are, you should reexamine your point - again just my opinion. And if you insist on tampering with stats as you compare one team to the league, you have to tamper with the stats of all teams consistently in order to even begin to make that point, don't you?

 

[Greenbayphil]

So you want to throw out one game against the Vikings and not the other? IMO that points out the fallacy of throwing out any games. If you can't make your point using the stats as they are, you should reexamine your point - again just my opinion. And if you insist on tampering with stats as you compare one team to the league, you have to tamper with the stats of all teams consistently in order to even begin to make that point, don't you?

It has nothing to do with the team, it's to do with the fact that those 2 games make such a huge difference in our PPG, meaning that the stat is inconsistent and does not reflect the way the team has been playing, what is so difficult to understand about that?

 

[TJV]

I understand what you're doing by manipulating stats. I thought I conveyed this in my previous post but let me spell out what you apparently don't understand: When you removed those two Packers games as aberrations because they were against "2 of the worst teams" and then declared without them, the Packers "are averaging 9th worst in scoring which is good enough to be tied with the Chiefs and right behind the Rams", you failed to manipulate the stats of the other teams in the league in a similar manner. For example, what about their games against the worst scoring teams in the NFL? If it makes sense to throw out "aberrations" for the Packers as you rank them against other teams, what about the influence on the stats of other teams' games against Seattle, Washington, Cleveland, Kansas City, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Jacksonville, all of whom are averaging less than 17 points per game?

Furthermore, in order for the comparison to make sense, you have to go through the entire NFL schedule and throw out any and all the games you view as aberrations for other teams whether or not they were against low-scoring teams.

The Packers are averaging allowing 20.6 points per game. The two games you want to exclude as aberrations are 17.6 and 13.6 points fewer than their average. If you are going to do that, why not exclude the games against the Chargers and the Saints, 17.4 and 13.4 points higher than their average? All four games are similar in deviation from the norm, aren't they? IOW, the two deviations above the norm would make a "huge difference in our PPG", basically offsetting the "huge difference" you cited. But if you do that, you have to exclude such games for all the other teams if you want to fairly compare the Packers to them.

Instead of doing all that work why not just recognize reality and use the actual statistics? And if you can't…

 

[Greenbayphil]

I understand what you're doing by manipulating stats. I thought I conveyed this in my previous post but let me spell out what you apparently don't understand: When you removed those two Packers games as aberrations because they were against "2 of the worst teams" and then declared without them, the Packers "are averaging 9th worst in scoring which is good enough to be tied with the Chiefs and right behind the Rams", you failed to manipulate the stats of the other teams in the league in a similar manner. For example, what about their games against the worst scoring teams in the NFL? If it makes sense to throw out "aberrations" for the Packers as you rank them against other teams, what about the influence on the stats of other teams' games against Seattle, Washington, Cleveland, Kansas City, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Jacksonville, all of whom are averaging less than 17 points per game?

Furthermore, in order for the comparison to make sense, you have to go through the entire NFL schedule and throw out any and all the games you view as aberrations for other teams whether or not they were against low-scoring teams.

The Packers are averaging allowing 20.6 points per game. The two games you want to exclude as aberrations are 17.6 and 13.6 points fewer than their average. If you are going to do that, why not exclude the games against the Chargers and the Saints, 17.4 and 13.4 points higher than their average? All four games are similar in deviation from the norm, aren't they? IOW, the two deviations above the norm would make a "huge difference in our PPG", basically offsetting the "huge difference" you cited. But if you do that, you have to exclude such games for all the other teams if you want to fairly compare the Packers to them.

Instead of doing all that work why not just recognize reality and use the actual statistics? And if you can't…

Maybe I'm just going mad.
And I'm beyond tired with trying to explain myself.
So I will just accept that I am wrong.
Heres to 13th in scoring...
And our awesome defense...