We got guys who can get INTs. We're pretty rare.

Whereas NSD says that's not a good thing, that's a generalization. There are always exceptions to the rule and the '09 Saints and the '11 Packers are the exceptions. We CAN get the INTs so we can safely rely on them.

We got 22 in 11 games. Woodson has 6. Peprah and T Williams each have 4. Burnett has 3. Sam Shields has 2. A bunch of other guys have 1 each.

We also seem to get the sacks when we need to lately. One may look at CM3's numbers and think we've declined but the others have stepped up. Bishop has 5. Walden, Raji, and Wynn each have 3. Woodson's got 2. Yeah, not intimidating sack totals by any means but we keep getting close. QBs don't like being touched, especially Tom Brady whom I'm guessing there's about a 35% chance we face (the Texans aren't going to make it and the other team I think has 1/3rd shot in the AFC is the Steelers as they just win games).

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

We got guys who can get INTs. We're pretty rare.

Whereas NSD says that's not a good thing, that's a generalization.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

That's funny, using D rankings according to this The Packers are going to lose their last 5 games.

I found this article on Packers.com to be very interesting,

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article_ketchman/article-1/Capers-defense-put-a-whippin-on-Lions/8af03261-fc0c-4a85-bd02-c030f7142a17 

seems the game plan was to give the yardage but not the points.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan 

Yet again you completely mischaracterize my position. I LOVE the fact our DBs can consistently get INTs. I HATE the fact that getting INTs is the only way our defense can consistently get off the field. If our defense showed the ability to consistently force three-and-outs, getting off the field and putting our offense back on the field, I would love the fact that they were getting so many INTs. It wouldn't even bother me if they ended drives with INTs more often than three-and-outs. But they can't do that, or at least, I haven't seen any evidence they can. They almost never get a stop on their side of the 50, and usually it's not until the red zone. They spend 6 to 8 minutes at a time on the field instead of putting the ball back in the hands of our offense.

Maybe Dexter_Sinister is right and they are deliberately choosing not to go for the three-and-outs. And maybe that has been the secret for their success in this regular season. I'm skeptical; I think if they could do it, they would. But I'll accept the premise for the sake of argument. It still seems to me that sooner or later, they will probably encounter a team that will so wear them out, they won't be able to get the three-and-out in the 4th quarter when they really need a stop, and it will cost them a game. All we have to do is think back to the debacle of 2009, when, for example, they gave up 500 yards and a last-second touchdown to Ben Roethlisberger. Had they been able to stop the Steelers on the other side of the 50, that never would have happened.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

That's ok. We never had to play the Steelers from behind last year.

And for the record, I'm accepting what Dexter said that we are deliberately sacrificing yards for the possibility of an INT. I agree with you that 3 and outs would be nicer in most cases, but in our case, we get so many INTs that that has become our game plan and it's been somewhat successful so far.

If we win the SB this year, it will be the 2nd time in 3 years when the winning SB team had a mediocre D that relied on takeaways for stops because they couldn't consistently get 3 and outs. Remember what I've preached about NFL trends.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

Eh, yeah. That article might not be bullshit if every single game teams weren't scoring plenty of points. Which...the article seems to think they haven't been. *rolls eyes*

Originally Posted by: TwinkieGorilla 

Roll your eyes all you want Twinkie, then go back AND REALLY READ the article, this was the game plan put into effect FOR THE LIONS GAME.

Dom was willing to give up yardage to keep The lions from hittin the home run with Megatron.
Which is exactly what the defense did.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan 

Roll your eyes all you want Twinkie, then go back AND REALLY READ the article, this was the game plan put into effect FOR THE LIONS GAME.

Dom was willing to give up yardage to keep The lions from hittin the home run with Megatron.
Which is exactly what the defense did.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan