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
beast (13h) : Yeah, but also some of the wording suggestions Jax only pranked called the QB, not the others... and if he had an open spreadsheet & 3 calls
beast (13h) : Thank goodness he's not leaving the Turtle in the Red Tide
Mucky Tundra (13h) : Cowboys 1st round pick Tyler Booker will indeed be bringing his pet turtle to Dallas with him
Mucky Tundra (14h) : that contained all prospects info and contact
Mucky Tundra (14h) : beast, according the Falcons statement Jax came across it on an ipad. If I had to guess, probably an open spread sheet or something
Zero2Cool (14h) : Simmons put up an emoji with cheese.
beast (14h) : Not sure anyone is interested in Isaiah Simmons... Collin Oliver might of taken his potential slot
beast (14h) : I'm going with Jax Ulbrich is not telling the whole truth... he accidentally came across it? Why would a defensive coordinator have a QB #?
Zero2Cool (15h) : He's not that great, but final piece of the script.\
Zero2Cool (15h) : If we add Isaiah Simmons, book your Super Bowl tickets
Mucky Tundra (15h) : Colts 1st round TE Tyler Warren also got prank called, was that Jax Ulbrich as well?
Zero2Cool (15h) : Jax Ulbrich, Jeff Ulbrich’s son, released an apology for his role in the Shedeur Sanders prank call.
Martha Careful (15h) : apparently he did not participate in practice or play on the east west shrine game nor the NFL combine. The kid was a mediocre spoiled brat
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Yeah that one that was a super wounded duck that Sanders supporters are highlighting to prove a point
Zero2Cool (16h) : Shough is the guy who missed guys at combine isn't he?
beast (16h) : It's not official until I'm dead! I have a chance still! (Not really)
Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : I could feel my body decomposing in real time when I read that
Mucky Tundra (27-Apr) : @MIKEYSAINRISTIL Tyler Shough will officially be the last person drafted to the NFL born in the 1900’s
Mucky Tundra (26-Apr) : saw the tweet, he meant the city
Mucky Tundra (26-Apr) : Was that for the team or the city?
Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter · 3m Draft grade is in: Green Bay gets an A. The people, the city, the venue were all superb. NFL Draft’s next
Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : Matt LaFleur says Jaire Alexander is participating in #Packers offseason program, which has been conducted virtually during this first week
Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : ✅ ...
buckeyepackfan (26-Apr) : Check
Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : Matthew Golden cahanged 81 to 22??
TheKanataThrilla (26-Apr) : Sam Howell to Vikings...guess no Aaron
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : 1 round 7 min, with one extra minute if there is a trade. 2nd round 4 minutes, 3rd -3, 2 thereafter IMO
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Agree
dfosterf (26-Apr) : Great idea imo
dfosterf (26-Apr) : 1st round to 7 minutes with one extension
dfosterf (26-Apr) : NFL comissioner wants to shorten the 2st
Mucky Tundra (26-Apr) : @jalenreagors They’re discussing if Sheduer can go back to college on NFL Network LMFAOOOOO
beast (26-Apr) : Great point Martha
beast (26-Apr) : Buddy Ryan used to say if a candy bar goes missing, there are two to blame, Rex and Rob 🤪 jk 😁
Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Bum Phillips used to say there are two ways to get better. Get better players or get players to play better. We have a new DL coach
Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : Yes. Look at the losses last year. They can win.
beast (26-Apr) : Can Packers win with their current DL?
bboystyle (26-Apr) : waiting for a pass rusher.
dfosterf (25-Apr) : 5 minutes between picks in the 3rd
dfosterf (25-Apr) : 3rd. Hate this phone
dfosterf (25-Apr) : 4rd
dfosterf (25-Apr) : 5 minutes in the 4
dfosterf (25-Apr) : 7 minutes between picks in the 2nd round
Martha Careful (25-Apr) : Sorry to bitch, but the headline writers in that section absolutely mislead, or don't know how to read. It is maddening
Martha Careful (25-Apr) : No thanks. Not a dependable guy to be in the right place and run the right route. Dumb as a box of rocks.
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : Losing 2nd round pick for a one year rental, not ideal. Especially a headcase.
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Pickens for Jaire may be interesting. Definitely not sure we want Pickens long term.
dfosterf (25-Apr) : No.Absolutely not
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : NO NO NO NO NO NO!!1 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
dhazer (25-Apr) : scenario: Our main prospects are off the board when our pick comes around, do we just throw a 2nd round pick at Pittsburgh for Pickens
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
Recent Topics
12h / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

15h / Around The NFL / bboystyle

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16h / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

27-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

27-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

27-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

27-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

27-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

27-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

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