Your Team Philosophy· Page 11

HoustonMatt
Registered

16 years ago

But there is a difference, football is a team sport not an individual performance. And I'm not saying ignoring stats but use ones that have some subjectivity and opinion in them and watch the tape. So basically just said I'm right other than me assuming which I'm not sure I'm wrong about doing that ether.

And good luck with the chick.

"beast" wrote:

You're absolutely right and I think we're essentially in agreement outside of semantics. In baseball it's much easier to single out a player's contributions to the team than it is in football because football is more inter-connected. Really, how does one properly attribute a 5 yd run amongst the rb and o-line? It'll be tough and most definitely still involve some subjectivity, but the idea is to strip away the subjective to the furthest extent possible.

My original post wasn't so much about debating either one of you, as much as it was designed to get current football fans thinking about the sub-par statistics we are forced to use. Baseball is light years ahead in this regard. As Whiskey pointed out,, there are some sites attempting to improve stats (Football Outsiders is another), but we're still lacking.

As for the girl, turns out she was 19. I'm pushing 27 and so is my roommate. I have no clue what he was doing bringing a 19 year old chick over here. 21+ is my policy. Thanks for the best wishes though!

blank

beast
Select Member

16 years ago

#102

As for the girl, turns out she was 19. I'm pushing 27 and so is my roommate. I have no clue what he was doing bringing a 19 year old chick over here. 21+ is my policy. Thanks for the best wishes though!

"mattresell" wrote:

:icon_smile: That's reminds me of a time I was 18 and my 19 old friend got me to be his "wing man" for this chick... I told him no at first because I thought she was 17 and naive about things. He was like no she got to be at least 18 and he though she was 19 or 20.... So I agreed and we went over and got to get to know her... turn out she just had her 15 birthday a week earlier... and we complete backed off as soon as we found that out... She didn't look 15 at all.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

16 years ago

#103

You're an idiot, and I'm done trying to talk sense to a jackass.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:

This is uncalled for and unacceptable. Consider this your warning.

porky88
Veteran Member

16 years ago

#104

For every Joe Gibbs' Redskins, Bill Walsh 49ers, and John Elway Broncos there is the Ravens, Bears or the Buccaneers.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:

Oh, fo shizzle.

But like I've said half a dozen times on this thread, super D teams win ONE SB while super O teams win DYNASTIES.

I'd rather have a DYNASTY than a single SB win.

"porky88" wrote:

70's Steelers
90's Cowboys
00's Patriots

All defenses.

Like I said Troy Aikman only threw for 20 touchdowns one time in his career. The rest of the way it was a dominate defense with a running game that got the job done.

70's Steelers notorious for their defense.

00's Patriots pretty good defense. Yeah Tom Brady was fantastic, but that defense shut down a Rams offense in the Super Bowl that was unbelievable. They also stopped an Eagles offense that was unbelievable.

You take the offense in the regular season and you can go 13-3 and reach the Super Bowl.

I'll take the defense and go 11-5 and beat you in the Super Bowl.

You know both ways work and the fact that you can make legit cases for 99 Rams or a 85 Bears just proves it's a team sport. You build a good team and you can win in a number of ways.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

70s Steelers - Bradshaw, Webster, Stallworth, Swann, Harris
90s Cowboys - Aikman, Irvin, Smith, Johnston, and one of the best O-lines ever
00s Pats - Brady, Brown, Dillon, Vinatieri (best clutch kicker in his prime)

Those teams were no slouches on offense.

Take a moment and read that article I linked earlier. It has some interesting analysis of offensive and defensive standard deviations from expected performance in the playoffs historically.

"porky88" wrote:

Citing Lynn Swann. He's only one of the most overrated receivers to play the game. If you want crazy stats, look at his and I don't mean crazy in good.

Troy Brown and Corey Dillon really don't put that much fear in defenses. Although Dillon was rock solid for the one championship he was there for.

I'm of the opinion Dallas had one of the best teams ever so I would argue top to bottom you'll fine talent on their team.

Again every point made in this thread has something in common. It all proves this is a team sport.

I look at the dynasty teams and I see teams with efficient Hall of Fame QB's and excellent defenses. Even the 49ers. Top to bottom, they're all good and that's why they're a dynasty.

http://www.row12.com/

zombieslayer
Registered

16 years ago

#105

Lynn Swann was incredible. He made catches other WRs dreamed of catching.

Those teams you cited were complete teams. They were balanced. Solid O, solid D.

One thing I noticed in this thread is no one successfully countered WhiskeySam's stat of 11-6.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

porky88
Veteran Member

16 years ago

#106

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I actually pointed out two of those teams (Giants and Colts) and gave examples of how their defense actually won games for them in the post season or had a bigger impact in the post season than their offense did.

Ironically it was mentioned No. 1 Rams O vs. No. 1 Bucs D in the NFC Title game in 99 and how the O beat the D.

Yeah by a score of 11-6. High powered offense really did a lot in that game.

As far as Swann

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SwanLy00.htm

He's in the Hall of Fame for the way he caught the ball. Not that he actually did that all the time.

5,500 receiving yards and 51 touchdowns in 9 years.

http://www.row12.com/

zombieslayer
Registered

16 years ago

#107

"porky88" wrote:

In defense of Swann, he played in a time when WRs weren't prima donnas and took hits all the time. Now, you can't even look at a WR wrong without drawing a flag. The rules have changed. So 5500 yards and 51 TDs in 9 years was a lot for that time period.

The 11-6 stat was for 11 SB winning teams having a higher ranked O over 6 teams having a higher ranked D.

I think in the end, BALANCE wins. I'm just saying if you absolutely had to choose a #1 O or a #1 D or else the bad guys will shoot your dog, I'd choose a #1 O.

EDIT: By the way, yeah, that is ironic about '99. But s*** happens I guess.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

obi1
Registered

16 years ago

#108

OK,

HOw about this?

IF you could have a top 5 Offense or Top 5 Defense but your team was going to be mediocre(10~20) on the other side of the ball... Which would you rather have, Based on the stats that was provided by Zombieslayer???

blank

WhiskeySam
Registered

16 years ago

#109

"porky88" wrote:

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I think Zombie gave a nice summation of Swann. RE: the Giants, I'll mention that it was the defense AND the mature play of Eli Manning that won the title. After all, Eli rallied the Giants from 4th quarter deficits twice in the Super Bowl, the second after his defense wasn't able to hold the Pats.

Nemo me impune lacessit

WhiskeySam
Registered

16 years ago

#110

"obi1" wrote:

I'd still take the O because the analysis on another site showed that statiscally top offenses are much greater than the average offense than top defenses are greater than average defenses. Essentially, that says it's easier for a defense to be better than average than for an offense to be better than average. Of course, I might be biased towards the Big O because I'm still an Oscar Robertson fan.

Nemo me impune lacessit

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (5h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (10h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (11h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (21h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (21h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (22h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS