You weren't talking about the game, you were talking about ranking of defenses. Ironically, this is the logical fallacy of "moving the goalpost." If 6.3 yards per game is all that separates 2 Defenses, no one can say one is better than the other. If in this case both teams played Detroit, but when NE played them Stafford and the back-up were out, that easily accounts for 99 yards that separates the 2 D's.
Our team is built differently than NEs. the goal is to max the offense and since the rules favor the offense, it's a good idea. Saying Mel Bount and D. Randall in the same sentence is football blasphemy. But, the rules today take the vast gap in talent between them and reduce the gap in performance that otherwise would've existed between them if it was 1980.
This is why, when the O is performing up to the level it should, we win, because it overcomes any deficiency that may exist in the defense. When the O sucks, or sucks at crunch time we lose. If Hundley was the QB, the formula would be different; but we'd have 22M or 2.5 more real good or 5 more decent defensive players.
If you want to find out why why haven't been to 2-3 more SB since 2010, ya gotta look at #12. Its never one thing; but each time we lost if Rodgers played his average game, at the right time, we would have won.
Originally Posted by: Barfarn