DoddPower
12 years ago

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.
zombieslayer
12 years ago

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.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
DoddPower
12 years ago

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.
zombieslayer
12 years ago

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 



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.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Dexter_Sinister
12 years ago

Bishop is a better linebacker and football player.

Originally Posted by: Stevetarded 



Why?

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

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Dexter_Sinister
12 years ago

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 



Indy, Saints and Rams all had weak Ds but great passer rating differentials.

It doesn't matter if it comes from O or D, it matters just how great the difference is.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Stevetarded
12 years ago

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.
blank
porky88
12 years ago

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 


It's true Bishop didn't play as well last season, but he was outstanding in 2010. The below link summarizes his play fairly well. He'll need to rebound next year, but I didn't think his play dipped as much as Hawk's did. Since '10, Bishop's been the better overall player.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/06/04/desmond-bishop-making-his-mark/ 

EDIT: A couple of tidbits from last season. Not sure if these were posted earlier or not.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/09/09/re-focused-saints-packers/ 

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.



I like the foreshadowing of Walden against the run. He was terrible in that department all year.

Bishop did his part in the playoffs.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/05/20/2011s-best-performances-inside-linebackers/ 

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 can't verify everything myself, especially the Giant game. I simply can't workup the courage to re-watch that game. I was also at the game and I was too depressed to pay attention to the details, so my initial analysis doesn’t exist. This does backup the consensus that Bishop is a superior player to Hawk, though. Zero's initial posting also provides a glimmer of hope into Smith, which is why the coaches might be incline to push him into the starting role opposite of Bishop. It's likely they picked up things via film study over the off-season.
DoddPower
12 years ago

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.
Dexter_Sinister
12 years ago

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 



I would actually not credit the Giants D so much. If the receivers didn't drop Rodgers' passes 8 times, he would have completed about 70%. He also ran for 44 yards on critical 3rd downs. The Kuhn fumble in particular when he ran into the back of the O-lineman.

I thought the Giants played their normal game and we gave them about 17 points and wasted opportunities to score about 17 of our own.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : WR who said he'd break Xavier Worthy 40 time...and ran slower than you
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Who?
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Texas’ WR Isaiah Bond is scheduled to visit the Bills, Browns, Chiefs, Falcons, Packers and Titans starting next week.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Spotting ball isn't changing, only measuring distance is, Which wasn't the issue.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : The spotting of the ball IS the issue. Not the chain gang.
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Will there be a tracker on the ball or something?
Zero2Cool (1-Apr) : uh oh
Martha Careful (1-Apr) : Too bad camera's can't spot the ball as well.
Mucky Tundra (1-Apr) : So will the chain gang be gone completely or will they still be around as a backup or whatever?
Zero2Cool (1-Apr) : The method for measuring first downs in the NFL will switch from chain gangs to camera-based technology in 2025, the league announced.
Martha Careful (1-Apr) : A big step in the right direction. Just put in the college system is very very good.
Zero2Cool (1-Apr) : NFL has passed a rule that allows both teams to possess the ball in OT during the regular season
Zero2Cool (1-Apr) : Touchbacks on kickoffs will now bring the ball to the 35-yard line.
beast (31-Mar) : It might of gotten more popular recently, but braiding hair (even men) in certain cultures goes back for centuries.
Martha Careful (30-Mar) : Is men braiding their hair a new style thing? Watching the NCAA men's tournament many players have done
Zero2Cool (29-Mar) : Ha. Well, it'd be nice for folks to reset their own password. Via validated email 😏
beast (29-Mar) : Monopoly was supposed to be an educational game, that show how evil capitalism was and how we should avoid it
beast (29-Mar) : Lol, I was thinking username would be better, as then I wouldn't have to keep an email up to date lol 😂
beast (29-Mar) : Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : I was thinking email because I think it'll make folks keep it up todate lol
wpr (29-Mar) : sure is
Zero2Cool (29-Mar) : Monopoly is a rip off of The Landlord's Game
wpr (27-Mar) : 28 days until the draft
earthquake (27-Mar) : Which seemed strange to my 9 year old self, that you could be a fan for a team other than the one you play for
earthquake (27-Mar) : Nothing eventful happened, other than it being clear that he was a bengals fan
earthquake (27-Mar) : And we went and hung out with him one afternoon, I must have been 9 or so
earthquake (27-Mar) : That’s wild, when I was a kid my friend lived in the same apartment complex in De Pere
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : Only career highspot was a 200 yard rushing game while playing for the Cardinals
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : He is a former Packer. Drafted out of Northern Illinois. Didn't do much in GB.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Despicable
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Former NFL. I think Packers too
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : NFL RB Leshon Johnson has been charged in a massive dog fighting operation, with the FBI seizing over 190 Pit Bulls
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : Some real irony of a QB as short as Wilson playing for the Giants
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : Giants country, let's be the tall beings of lore!
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : Russell Wilson signs with the Giants.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : I was thinking email because I think it'll make folks keep it up todate lol
wpr (25-Mar) : I don't think there is a significant difference. I use a user name for many. Others email.
Martha Careful (25-Mar) : email
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : would it be better to use EMAIL or USERNAME to log into a site?
wpr (25-Mar) : Thanks Zero
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : New forum has the ability to Thank a post now.
beast (24-Mar) : And the only time they have won the Championship in an even year, was the first time they did, in 2006.
beast (24-Mar) : Since 2007, there have been 10 odd numbered years, Wisconsin Women have won the Championship in 7 of those 10 odd numbered years.
buckeyepackfan (24-Mar) : Congratulations Lady Badger Hockey Team. NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Zero2Cool (23-Mar) : I don't think it's completed yet. it was just announced last month, right?
dhazer (23-Mar) : did netflix ever release the Packers documentary
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : And it is glorious!
beast (21-Mar) : Unsigned FA QB Rodgers is supposedly in the Steelers building
Martha Careful (19-Mar) : But I don't own a car! So can I still use it in my apartment?
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : btw, new site auto updates
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : Woohoo!
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
2h / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / dfosterf

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

25-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

24-Mar / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

24-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

21-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.