This is funny looking back at it now. Several years ago on a website that should not be named, RaiderPride was ranting about how Defense wins Championships. I told him he was full of it and how sick I am of stupid worn out clichs, then in my attempt to prove him wrong, I ended up proving him right.

Whoops.

So for you sports history fans, a little bit on the Green Bay Packers and how we won our Championships not because of a high profile running game or a sexy Quarterback, it was because of Defense.

The Green Bay Packers since 1921 have won 12 Championships, which is more than any other team. I'm not going to go back all the way to 1921 because a) I'm lazy, and b) I'll put you to sleep. Instead, we'll start from the Lombardi years.

Vince Lombardi, the greatest coach ever, took over a pathetic 1-10-1 team in 1959 and in his very first year, coached the team to a winning record at 7-5-0. The very next year, we were in the Playoffs. We won 5 Championships under Lombardi including the first 2 SBs and 1 Championship (Super Bowl) since. These are the Green Bay Packers Championships since our first Lombardi one in 1961, the regular season record, and the Offense and Defense rankings.

Year     Record    Off    Def
1961     11-3        1      2
1962     13-1        1      1
1965     10-3-1     8      1
1966     12-2        4      1
1967     9-4-1       9      3
1996     13-3        1      1

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I used to be like you, zombie. I thought "defense wins championships" was an empty cliche. Then I saw the same numbers you did and had to change my tune. Facts are awful that way sometimes.

One question: Do you know if those rankings are based on yards or on points?

"Greg C." wrote:

Bill Belichick explains which stats he likes
Posted by Michael David Smith on November 17, 2010, 10:41 AM EST

A year ago, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was asked to explain the decline in statistical production from Randy Moss, and he bristled at the question.

Stats are for losers, Belichick said then. The final score is for winners.

Belichick no longer has to defend Moss, but he does still have some thoughts on stats. And although hes not exactly backing down on his statement that the score is what matters, he did revise and extend his remarks about stats when asked by reporters whether the statistical numbers have any meaning.

I think they all have meaning; its just the priority of the stats, Belichick said. Wins is number one. Points is number two, because that correlates to winning.

Although points havent correlated to winning for the Detroit Lions this year, in general Belichick is right about that. And he said the other stats he looks at are all related to points.

And then you get to the things that correlate to scoring, which [are] red area, big plays, and third down becomes a part of that because of being able to sustain drives and that type of things, Belichick said. But if you make big plays, then third down becomes less important. You can offset any good numbers with bad numbers. You can offset bad numbers with good numbers, but in the end, its about getting points on the board and keeping them off. . . . Im not saying theyre not significant, they are, but the ones that correlate the highest to winning, you still have to consider them as the most important.

So stats arent necessarily for losers. As long as the stats in question correlate to the Patriots becoming winners.

"PFTalk" wrote: