heh, you got us there. I pretty much missed that as well. But to be honest, 12 4th down stops doesn't reassure me much. I mean, I guess it's better than five stops, but it still doesn't mean much to me. Neither does the 26th ranked 3rd down percentage that the Packer's defense had (not to mention all the other bad stats). They were third in 4th down percentage though, if that comforts anyone.

Re: which MLB to start: I don't think there's any question Bishop is the #1 MLB right now. I'm pretty sure the coaching staff agrees with that sentiment, although admittedly I can't be certain of that yet. Bishop is a much better run defender and, according to some, often has tougher responsibilities in coverage. As I said, I'm pretty sure Rasaam (sp?) stated such, and I'm sure he knows more than me. It seemed that way to me, as well, but the qualitative assessment doesn't mean much.

Does anyone remember how some of the passing statistics often used here stacked up between Hawk and Bishop in 2010? I can't remember off the top of my head.

I'm all for Hawk. I hope he has the strongest season of his career and plays way better than Bishop could dream of. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Overall, both Hawk and Bishop are average LB's, in my opinion. The Packer's can win with them, but it'd be nice to have an improvement.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 

Well, my point is that they eye test is going to be much more likely to be misinterpreted than stats are. Because if someone doesn't like Hawk, they are going to look at his plays in a negative light. Where they will be more forgiving (or forgetting) of Bishop getting burned repeatedly, seeing Hawk anywhere near a busted play will lead to blaming him.

I wouldn't say stats tell people all they need to know, just that stats won't have the same glaring and huge gaps that the eye test will have. They can be misinterpreted, but they can't be missed due to a bias like the eye test.

You can't even have two guys compare their eye tests. There is no scale, no bench marks, no average and no way to be consistent.

In the NO game, the D had a couple huge 4th down stops (counting the un-timed down at the end of the game). They held the Saints to 1 of 4 in the red zone and 1 of 2 in goal to go opportunities.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

Bishop allowed something like a 122 rating when his guy was targeted. Hawk allowed something like an 85.

That was through 11 games. Bishop missed the next 3 games and Hawk missed the next 2. I didn't see an update after that.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

You kind of got that backwards. The other team had to go for it on 4th down because we stopped them on 3rd.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

I'm thinking that the other team felt they got enough yards on three downs to merit an attempt on fourth. Suppose it all matters when the 4th down was too, but I noticed you didn't state that either because if they were down by 20 with 5 minutes to go ... they have nothing to lose. The stat just doesn't mean anything without the details.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

But the same things can be said about 3rd down success. If the 3rd downs were in prevent with a 3 score lead, giving up yards, first downs and even a few points in exchange for running the opponent out of clock is a safe bet.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

Screw that, get them off the field on first down with a turnover!

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Except for the fact that the Packer's defense was the worst in allowing explosive plays of 20+ yards. It's not like teams routinely had to methodically drive the field to score points. They were often scored pretty quickly, especially at times (the Charger's game immediately comes to mind), often unnecessarily putting the pressure back on the offense to either attempt to run the clock or more often score more.

Also, I'd gladly trade that 25% 4th down conversion rate for the Packer's defense (a measly 12 total attempts) for an improved 3rd down percentage (26th). Forth down attempts will happen some, but 3rd down is obviously much more common and usually be more important. After all, 12 plays is just 12 plays. How many third down plays occur in a season?


EDIT: Or better yet, keep the 25% 4th down percentage, and just improve the 3rd down percentage (43%). I don't mean to make it sound like the two should be mutually exclusive. Hopefully the point came across. It's more of a priority thing.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 

I would still start Hawk over Bishop.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister