One of the reason I quote stats is, although people rarely play their average, people also rarely are represented by their worst game or worst performance.

Tomorrow I will have to look up the 3rd downs in the 4th quarters compared to 3rd downs the rest of the the quarters. Like I said, some 3rd downs matter more than others. Giving up a bunch before a pick, doesn't matter. Giving up a bunch with an 18 point lead doesn't matter. Giving up a bunch before a 4th down stop doesn't matter. Giving up a bunch before they clock runs out before they score, doesn't matter.

If you take out the 3rd down conversions that didn't matter, you might find the Packers were above average in giving up 3rd downs that actually mattered. Just like they were better than average giving up net points in quarters 1-3. In fact they were one of the best in the league.

Sure there were some stinkers, but if you look at any body else in the league, even the one who got 2 MVP votes, he had some fairly massive failures against some pretty crappy teams. Brees threw picks and cost his team games against horrible teams, and he was in the argument for MVP. The vaunted 49er D gave up 38 points to the Cowboys. Who only had a 100.1 season passer rating. (Their toughest opponent)

So the Packers D had a couple bad ones. So they were not as good in the 4th quarters. OVERALL they were not nearly as bad a I see written, posted or commented on.

A great deal of which is because people are angry and disappointed. Which is why they so vehemently defend bashing the D in spite of the numbers that contradict it.

Now I wouldn't say they didn't need improvement. But I also believe the dropped passes were even more instrumental in causing the Packers to struggle as much as a 15-1 team can be said to struggle.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

I understand part of this argument, and have heard variations of it several times before. Even if the Packer's defense wasn't as bad as some make them out to be, they were still pretty bad, and there are numbers to support that statement as well. Finding a few talking points that makes them look pretty good, taking out certain situations, etc. just doesn't comfort me at all, but I suppose I'm a hard ass. The fact that the Packer's D was good for the first three quarters and bad in the 4th also doesn't reassure me. I'd prefer my defense to be good the entire game, especially in the last quarter when many games are ultimately decided. The Packer's high scoring offense often made teams somewhat one dimensional which no doubt lead to more picks and should have lead to fewer points and explosive plays. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. I understand more attempts would be highly correlated with points and such, but the Packer's defense missed many opportunities due to lack of pass rush, poor communication and tackling, and sloppy technique. I suppose I'm trying to say I think they should have been better than they were with some of the players on the field. At least a little.

Every player and team has bad games, yes. But Champion's don't have bad games when it matters most, just like the 2010 Packer's. That's when they have their BEST games. Expectations are high of the Packer's, and rightfully so. I don't want to nitpick and find areas that make the team appear better than many people think. I want a Championship offense and defense throughout the late season and playoffs, just like the Giants late last season. I know we would all want the same thing, because otherwise, we're left having discussions such as this about small statistical details and not talking about being the defending Super Bowl Champions again. Hopefully, that will be the case next season. Our defense doesn't have to be great, just better than it was last season.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 

Actually, I want our D to be great. Speaking from historical purposes only, we've won 4 SBs. Every time, we had a top 5 D. 96, we were #1. 2010, we were #2. We had a dominant D throughout the Lombardi years and it's no coincidence that that's when the Packers were their best.

Last year, we were #19 out of 32 teams. It will be pretty easy to be better than last year.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

heh, well yeah, so do I. I was trying to be modest, I suppose. Or perhaps I was just being realistic. I think every fan of every team would want their offense and defense to be #1 in the league and great. My main point was I don't think they HAVE to be great for the Packer's to have a legitimate chance at winning the Super Bowl. Anything above good will just make things that much easier. Of course, a few bad injuries to the offense and the defense very well might have to be great.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 

Bishop is a better linebacker and football player.

Originally Posted by: Stevetarded 

Understood.

I was just implying that D is more important than O. We had the best O the Packers ever had and we went one and done.

I'd rather see the D go back to 2010 levels and the O slip a little than what we had last year. Those are the types of teams that are more likely to win Playoff games.

Last years' Giants were deceptive. Rankings, they had an average D. But that's because their D was injured up until right before the Playoffs. They really were an elite D. The Saints of 2009 were the exception and far from the rule.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

Why?

That is why were were discussing stats and went off on the tangent about the D.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

Because he has a much larger impact on the game. He is one of the best ILB pass rushers in the league and probably a top 10 run defender/tackler.

Originally Posted by: Stevetarded 

The linebackers for the Packers are a mixed bag; Media Superstar (Matthews), unheralded star (Desmond Bishop), overrated high draft pick (A.J. Hawk) and Journeyman nobody (Erik Walden) and if you asked us to rate them before based on 2010 it would look very similar to how we saw them in this game. Not only did Matthews get pressure he also played the run well as did Bishop. The problems come with Hawk in coverage (as he gave up yards and first downs to both Sproles and Pierre Thomas) and Walden in run defense, where he couldn’t get the better of Jimmy Graham and rushing the passer; generating only an unblocked sack and three late hurries against Jermon Bushrod.

1t. Desmond Bishop, Green Bay Packers: Divisional Playoffs vs. New York Giants (+7.2)

He’d have swapped his joint top-ranked ILB performance for a victory, but Bishop should take plenty of credit for doing his bit to try and stop the Giants. He got plenty of pressure on Eli Manning with two quarterback hits and three hurries on just nine pass rushes, deflected a pass, and added two tackles for losses and two more for short gains. It epitomized the player Bishop can be for the Packers.

I was just implying that D is more important than O. We had the best O the Packers ever had and we went one and done.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

They were an amazing offense during the regular season, but certainly not during the Giants game. Had they played like they did all season, they wouldn't have lost. I understand most of that can be attributed to the Giants defense, but it was just an off day. It wasn't the best offense the Packer's ever had facing the Giants on that particular Sunday. The fumbles, Rodger's missing a wide open pass, a crucial Jennings drop, etc. The offense was mediocre that day. I don't think it was reflective of what they were truly capable of. Unfortunately, that doesn't matter. But I think most Packer fans that watched them all season know it's true.

Originally Posted by: doddpower