Greg C.
14 years ago
Typical Belichick. He says a lot but doesn't really say anything. Wins are more important than stats? Points are the most important stat? Who woulda thunk it!

I like stats because they are fun and sometimes revealing. I'm not going to let Bill Belichick spoil my party.

I wonder if someday we can have a discussion about stats without somebody feeling the need to point out that wins and losses are more important than stats.
blank
Pack93z
14 years ago
It isn't about stats not being important.. it is many stats can be canceled out by other stats..

IMO.. a low time of possession number would negatively influence your defensive numbers because they would have to face more plays per game, and later in the game due to fatigue factor would give up more yards/points.

In other words.. looking just at defensive numbers without looking at correlating stats and measuring the impact of them.. can one really say that the single stat is the root cause for the effect?

A team that has a grinding running game, will dominate the time of possession and elevate the numbers of defense, making it appear that they are better than they are.

I love stats.. but stats have correlations to other stats.. and we can argue endlessly which is the most important.

Apparently I should have pared down the quote..
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Greg C.
14 years ago
That's all very true, pack. Your statements have been a lot more insightful than the Belichick quote.

I'd be interested to look into the time of possession thing more. I've always thought that a TOP advantage was usually more of an effect of winning (or having a lead) than a cause of it--sort of like rushing yards.
blank
zombieslayer
14 years ago
Agreed Greg about the running. I think it's the same with TOS but this year has been weird. One of our losses, we had the ball 36 minutes to their 24 and still lost.

There is no catch all stat. There is no magic formula to winning a SB. You can increase your odds by having the #1 D as it happened 4 times in the past decade.

Belichick was taking a page out of Mike Ditka's book by slamming people who use stats. Well, I happen to like stats. We all do. If you play fantasy football, you love stats. When you argue who is better than who, you use stats. Stats are another form of dick measuring contests between fans. My team is better than your team. Oh yeah? Prove it. OK, fine, here are these stats...

Well, just for fun, I'll give you even more stats. These are the past 10 Super Bowl winners with their Offense rankings, ther Defense rankings, the point differential ratings, and the takeaway/giveaway differential rankings. The '07 Giants are the one team where a stat nut would just take a look at them and say WTF?

Have fun with this.


Year   Team   O   D   Diff   T/G
2000   Rvns    14  1    2     1
2001   Pats    6   6    7     9
2002   Bucs    18  1    2     1
2003   Pats    12  1    6     2
2004   Pats    4   2    1     8
2005   Stlr    9   3    5     9
2006   Clts    2   23   9     6
2007   Gnts    14  17   13    26
2008   Stlr    20  1    5     11
2009   Stns    1   20   1     3

Funny thing looking at it was the '07 Giants even were -9 when it comes to Takeaways/Giveaways. They had an average O, a mediocre D, lousy when it comes to turnover ratio, yet they manage to win it all.

It happens. The game is weird. But historically, when the Packers lead the league in D, we get a Championship. That's what I can make out of all this jazz.

(by the way, getting that graph to line up isn't easy).
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Greg C.
14 years ago
The '07 Giants were a slightly above average team that just got blazing hot at exactly the right time. That's really all there is to it.

The big exceptions to the "defense wins championships" mantra during the 2000's are the '06 Colts and the '09 Saints. But the Colts were the exception that proved the rule. As I recall, their offense kind of sputtered in the playoffs that year, while their defense got hot, with Bob Sanders coming back from an injury, and really it was their defense that they rode to the championship.

That leaves last year's Saints as the only team of the past decade that really and truly relied on their offense more than their defense to win in the playoffs.
blank
buckeyepackfan
14 years ago

The '07 Giants were a slightly above average team that just got blazing hot at exactly the right time. That's really all there is to it.

The big exceptions to the "defense wins championships" mantra during the 2000's are the '06 Colts and the '09 Saints. But the Colts were the exception that proved the rule. As I recall, their offense kind of sputtered in the playoffs that year, while their defense got hot, with Bob Sanders coming back from an injury, and really it was their defense that they rode to the championship.

That leaves last year's Saints as the only team of the past decade that really and truly relied on their offense more than their defense to win in the playoffs.

"Greg C." wrote:



Just to add to this, if I remember right, The Saints last year did have the most takeaways last year and led the NFL in defensive scores. Their ranking may not have been high but the TOS was the best in the league.

I think the one constant in football has always been win the turnover battle and you wil winn most games.
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
Cheesey
14 years ago
Bart Starr in the 1960's didn't have great passing stats. The defense was what kept them in the games. Starr was great and getting what he could, and not making the big mistakes.
Today, if you don't have a good defense, you are in trouble. Look at the 1989 Packers. "Majic" scored like crazy, but our D gave up almost as many points. Every game was a shootout. It was an exciting season, but had we had a decent defense, we would have won the SB. (IN my opinion)
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
14 years ago



There is no catch all stat. There is no magic formula to winning a SB. You can increase your odds by having the #1 D as it happened 4 times in the past decade.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



That is the point.. there is no one stat that can completely and directly correlate to success by itself.

Even my TOP argument can be altered with big explosive plays.. but I would argue, more so than not, if you control the ball.. you dictate the 3rd down conversions, score on a greater percentage of drives and thus keep the opposing offense off the field.. thus keeping their conversion ration lower and less points upon the board.

So if you are score on a greater number of drive, keep the ball out of the offenses hands, you defense rank with be greater and it will lead to more wins.

But I agree.. it is not a magic formula and there will be anomalies to be found where teams do something irregular, lets say lead the league in forcing turnovers and scoring with them and alter the importance of the others.

There is a reason I preach balance, it might not guarantee a victory, but it most definitely will improve your odds.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
yooperfan
14 years ago

Bart Starr in the 1960's didn't have great passing stats. The defense was what kept them in the games. Starr was great and getting what he could, and not making the big mistakes.
Today, if you don't have a good defense, you are in trouble. Look at the 1989 Packers. "Majic" scored like crazy, but our D gave up almost as many points. Every game was a shootout. It was an exciting season, but had we had a decent defense, we would have won the SB. (IN my opinion)

"Cheesey" wrote:



Let us not forget; Starr not only had a great defense during his playing days but a great running game as well.
He called his own game and was a master at controlling the clock.
zombieslayer
14 years ago
Well, when I have time later, I'll show stats of passing vs rushing. I've had a million of them in other threads. I really think D is a lot more important than O balance and can prove it with stats.

I'll use both Packers championship teams and SB teams from the past 10 years. The thing both have in common is the #1 stat of all is an elite D. If there's one cliche that works, it's D wins championships. That is above all the other stats.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Fan Shout
beast (15m) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (16m) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (17m) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (4h) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (4h) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (4h) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (6h) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (6h) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (6h) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (9h) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (10h) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (17h) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (17h) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (17h) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (18h) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Game not over yet
beast (19h) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (19h) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (19h) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (19h) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (20h) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Oh snap!!!
Zero2Cool (20h) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
Zero2Cool (20h) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
Mucky Tundra (21h) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
packerfanoutwest (21h) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome
Zero2Cool (23h) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.
Zero2Cool (23h) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jan) : what's so funny?
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Bears are finalizing a deal to hire Ben Johnson as their head coach. (via @tompelissero )
Mucky Tundra (20-Jan) : Looks like Lions OC Ben Johnson is going to be the Bears coach
Mucky Tundra (20-Jan) : TD but another failed 2 pt conversion!
Mucky Tundra (20-Jan) : Ravens still alive, but barely
Mucky Tundra (19-Jan) : Or not...BUT THAT CATCH BY NACUA
Mucky Tundra (19-Jan) : WE MAY HAVE BEEN PREMATURE KANATA
TheKanataThrilla (19-Jan) : Time to make dinner
TheKanataThrilla (19-Jan) : Ouch!!!! Dagger for the Eagles
Mucky Tundra (19-Jan) : DAGGER
TheKanataThrilla (19-Jan) : pass plays
TheKanataThrilla (19-Jan) : Seems some of their passes are too deep. Reminds me of MLF as well.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jan) : Oren Burks with a clutch pass break up...I will now light myself on fire
Mucky Tundra (19-Jan) : a run on 2nd down and 17 from McVay? So that's where MLF gets it from!
Mucky Tundra (19-Jan) : Do or die time for the Rams
TheKanataThrilla (19-Jan) : Kicking field goals are impressive
Mucky Tundra (19-Jan) : Oh that might be a backbreaker
Mucky Tundra (19-Jan) : That's what I thought too, just wasn't sure
TheKanataThrilla (19-Jan) : Kicking doesn't make much sense
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.