QCHuskerFan
10 years ago

We were 25th in yards and 24th in points.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&tabSeq=2&season=2013&role=OPP&Submit=Go&archive=false&conference=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&qualified=false 



I'm not going to spend the time right now to pull up the statistics on defense winning titles. This was discussed at length on the forum some years ago and members went back through every single season from 1967 through to the (at the time) present. Defense was the better indicator for success and overwhelmingly so.

I will say, you are focused on yards, which is the wrong statistic. Points win games. Points are what matter. Not surprisingly, points paint a much better picture of a defense's strength and how successful teams have been. By the way, your #7 Texans were #24 in points. Real power house that is.

Also, the bit about "prototypical franchise quarterbacks" is a farce. If we go back to 2000, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Ben Roethlisberger (twice), Eli Manning (twice), Joe Flacco and Russell Wilson have all been a part of Super Bowl winning teams.

Dilfer and Johnson are shit; Flacco and Eli Manning are average. Roethlisberger set the record for worst QB rating (22.6) in a Super Bowl when he won "his" first (though sexy Rexy now holds that distinction with his 7.1) and was shit for the first 58 minutes of "his" second win. He's one of the most overrated QBs of all time thanks to his two rings. He's good, but he doesn't touch the status of the elite quarterbacks; and it's quite rich that you bring up the Steelers when their titles were won largely on the back of their defenses. Russell Wilson is fine. If those are your "prototypical franchise quarterbacks" then half the league has one.

And even when we look at the elite quarterbacks, they often had elite defenses accompany them when they won Super Bowls. Brady's 2001, 2003 and 2004 Pats had the 6th, 1st and 2nd ranked scoring defenses. Rodgers' Packers has the 2nd scoring defense.

The QB may be the most important single position in the game, but the defense is still the more important side of the ball. It's time we fixed ours.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



Sorry I didn't quote the statistics that you deem most important. I will learn from my mistake.

I am not and have never said that Defense was not important.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT DEFENSE IS NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO MORTGAGE OUR FUTURE ON ONE ROLL OF THE DICE AND TRADE FUTURE #1 PICKS AWAY.
BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
steveishere
10 years ago

steve, the shotgun approach could work this draft, given it seems loaded with talent. Ted would have to really hit. I thought last year's draft was quite possibly his best ever at the time. Out of the 11 players drafted last year, we received significant contributions from 3: Lacy, Bakhtiari and Hyde.

Originally Posted by: play2win 



It's loaded with talent but not necessarily the top heavy kind of talent. A lot of the talent are more unproven underclassmen that don't have as much film on them as the more veteran guys. Those guys are going to be available in the mid-later rounds. Like I said there is a record number of underclassmen in this draft that NFL teams haven't done years of scouting on like other players so a lot of good players that would have been drafted much higher in a year or two are going to fall through the cracks and be available but you have to be able to find them. If there's ever a draft to have more picks this is it.
musccy
10 years ago

Dude, you are talking about a 3-4 year window of team building to make SEA the winner it was last season. Is that how long you want to wait, till Rodgers has maybe one or two years left? Not me.

The problem we face is we are currently poised offensively, and incredibly deficient defensively. We just need to add the best playmakers we can to turn that around and be a very, very solid team. I would prefer we did that this offseason, as opposed to stretching it out over however many years, by making some bold moves with draft day trades and FA signings or player trades to add the right players. I don't mind pushing all the chips in at this point. It could be really good for this team.

Originally Posted by: play2win 



Do you know how many Pro Bowlers there have been from the first round of the last two drafts? 9...COMBINED, and of that only 3 defensive players (Eric Reed 2013, Luke Kuechly 2012, Dontari Poe 2012) so the likelihood of the Packers selecting the immediate solution to solve all our deficiencies for 2014 is extremely unlikely, and all it does is hurt future years (Julio Jones trade has already been mentioned, Ricky Williams, RG3 trade...I could go on).

If you can prove that the immediate splash has and will work, I'm all ears. I just don't see compelling evidence that moving up into round 1 is either stable for the long term, or that it's even all that effective in the short term.
play2win
10 years ago

Do you know how many Pro Bowlers there have been from the first round of the last two drafts? 9...COMBINED, and of that only 3 defensive players (Eric Reed 2013, Luke Kuechly 2012, Dontari Poe 2012) so the likelihood of the Packers selecting the immediate solution to solve all our deficiencies for 2014 is extremely unlikely, and all it does is hurt future years (Julio Jones trade has already been mentioned, Ricky Williams, RG3 trade...I could go on).

If you can prove that the immediate splash has and will work, I'm all ears. I just don't see compelling evidence that moving up into round 1 is either stable for the long term, or that it's even all that effective in the short term.

Originally Posted by: musccy 



Yeah, you could indeed go on. Me too... Pretty easy to list all the failed trades, but I know what you are saying. No one can prove anything at this point regarding sure locks to turn our team and defense around.

I was just thinking if Ted wanted to trade away from next year's draft to land a particular player that he wanted, I wouldn't mind seeing it happen. I'm throwing a lot of trust Ted's way in saying that. At least, he would be doing something proactive in an attempt to help his team contend in 2014.

Can he somehow bounce into R1 twice? Who knows, but he did it in 2009, and it paid big dividends. Maybe there is someone special sitting there still at the top of R2 that he wants. I wouldn't have a problem with him trading away picks to get the specific players he thinks will help turn this defense around.

Also, wouldn't it be cool to add a serious WR talent to our roster, some 6-5 dude who catches everything…? If we make a trade, we could pull something like that off while still adding the defensive talent we need. Especially so if we utilize FA correctly.

It really is such a complete crap shoot. I'm just hoping Ted can take the crap out of the shoot… and land some top talents. This is another reason why I want him to get a good FA, or make a trade for a veteran top talent or two. We could use a big infusion of playmakers on D. And, as steve mentioned, maybe the correct move is down, if they can indeed land the players they want and need. Who knows?

Can you imagine if we had drafted both Reid and Kuechly with trades up? That's kind of what I'm getting at. I would not mind seeing that kind of impact added to this Packers team, even if it meant Ted had to trade away from next year.
musccy
10 years ago



Can you imagine if we had drafted both Reid and Kuechly with trades up? That's kind of what I'm getting at. I would not mind seeing that kind of impact added to this Packers team, even if it meant Ted had to trade away from next year.

Originally Posted by: play2win 



Of course that'd be great right now, but if you knew that those two were going to be the best of the 2012 draft back in April of 2012, then props to you, you knew what no other GM did because no other GM traded up for two pro bowlers.

Justin Harrell, Jamal Reynolds, and Sherrod haven't worked for the Packers...they were drafted roughly the same position in the draft so theoretically they're just as likely to pan out as Kuechly and Reid but clearly they didn't. The Browns and Redskins didn't anticipate Weeden and RG3 to have the struggles they've had.

If Ted does a modest trade up, or makes some modest moves in FA, I'm not going to call for his head, but...
mi_keys
10 years ago

Sorry I didn't quote the statistics that you deem most important. I will learn from my mistake.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



Sorry, but I wasn't the one that determined points, not yards, win football games 130+ years ago.

I am not and have never said that Defense was not important.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT DEFENSE IS NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO MORTGAGE OUR FUTURE ON ONE ROLL OF THE DICE AND TRADE FUTURE #1 PICKS AWAY.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



UserPostedImage

That's great. I'm not in the trade away future draft picks camp either or mortgage the current draft for one big move in the first round. I still found that first post I quoted to be bs.


Source for image:
http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1 
Born and bred a cheesehead
play2win
10 years ago

Of course that'd be great right now, but if you knew that those two were going to be the best of the 2012 draft back in April of 2012, then props to you, you knew what no other GM did because no other GM traded up for two pro bowlers.

Justin Harrell, Jamal Reynolds, and Sherrod haven't worked for the Packers...they were drafted roughly the same position in the draft so theoretically they're just as likely to pan out as Kuechly and Reid but clearly they didn't. The Browns and Redskins didn't anticipate Weeden and RG3 to have the struggles they've had.

If Ted does a modest trade up, or makes some modest moves in FA, I'm not going to call for his head, but...

Originally Posted by: musccy 



Really man? I never said anything of the sort that I knew those players would be great. Just imagining how great it would have been for Ted to have known and to have made the moves to get them…

I would love for Ted to get some true impact players like that added to our D.
QCHuskerFan
10 years ago

We were 25th in yards and 24th in points.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&tabSeq=2&season=2013&role=OPP&Submit=Go&archive=false&conference=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&qualified=false 



I'm not going to spend the time right now to pull up the statistics on defense winning titles. This was discussed at length on the forum some years ago and members went back through every single season from 1967 through to the (at the time) present. Defense was the better indicator for success and overwhelmingly so.

I will say, you are focused on yards, which is the wrong statistic. Points win games. Points are what matter. Not surprisingly, points paint a much better picture of a defense's strength and how successful teams have been. By the way, your #7 Texans were #24 in points. Real power house that is.

Also, the bit about "prototypical franchise quarterbacks" is a farce. If we go back to 2000, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Ben Roethlisberger (twice), Eli Manning (twice), Joe Flacco and Russell Wilson have all been a part of Super Bowl winning teams.

Dilfer and Johnson are shit; Flacco and Eli Manning are average. Roethlisberger set the record for worst QB rating (22.6) in a Super Bowl when he won "his" first (though sexy Rexy now holds that distinction with his 7.1) and was shit for the first 58 minutes of "his" second win. He's one of the most overrated QBs of all time thanks to his two rings. He's good, but he doesn't touch the status of the elite quarterbacks; and it's quite rich that you bring up the Steelers when their titles were won largely on the back of their defenses. Russell Wilson is fine. If those are your "prototypical franchise quarterbacks" then half the league has one.

And even when we look at the elite quarterbacks, they often had elite defenses accompany them when they won Super Bowls. Brady's 2001, 2003 and 2004 Pats had the 6th, 1st and 2nd ranked scoring defenses. Rodgers' Packers has the 2nd scoring defense.

The QB may be the most important single position in the game, but the defense is still the more important side of the ball. It's time we fixed ours.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



Based on Scoring Defense, in the 2013 Super Bowl, the #12 team beat the #2 team. Based on yardage, the #17 team beat the #3. Clearly, points tell a much different story...

In that same year, the Seahawks were the #1 Scoring Defense. #2 was the 49ers. #3 was the Bears. Wait. What? But the Bears didn't even make the playoffs. Neither did the #6 or #7 Scoring D. How can that be when the most important thing is defense?

In 2012, 10 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses made the playoffs. The only 2 that didn't were the Saints and Giants. Those 2 teams had won 2 of the previous 3 Super Bowls. So essentially 100% of the top Scoring offenses in 2012 were relevant.

In 2013, 9 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses and Scoring Defenses were in the playoffs. Doesn't appear that Defense is the more important side.

I bet the Ravens wish they knew that you didn't think Flacco was a franchise QB before they gave him that huge contract. Bet they'll check with you next time.

Knowledgeable football people would consider Roethlisburger, Manning and Flacco to be franchise QB's. All they've done is win 5 of the last 9 Super Bowls. The fact that you don't isn't surprising.

The trend in the NFL for the last 20 years has been to encourage offense. To deny that is ridiculous. To state that Defense is more important than Offense is ludicrous.



BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
musccy
10 years ago

Really man? I never said anything of the sort that I knew those players would be great. Just imagining how great it would have been for Ted to have known and to have made the moves to get them…

I would love for Ted to get some true impact players like that added to our D.

Originally Posted by: play2win 



I don't get the point you're trying to make. Of course it'd be nice to have Kuechly and Poe - 31 other teams feel the same way right now.

Are you trying to say "in a dream world it'd be nice if they were in Packer's uniforms" or that Ted should have known better and moved up and selected them?



play2win
10 years ago

I don't get the point you're trying to make. Of course it'd be nice to have Kuechly and Poe - 31 other teams feel the same way right now.

Are you trying to say "in a dream world it'd be nice if they were in Packer's uniforms" or that Ted should have known better and moved up and selected them?



Originally Posted by: musccy 



I guess it would be more in line with the "in a dream world" scenario. Hey, this is a discussion, and a man can dream can't he? Actually, maybe it is a bit of both. As a GM of one of the best teams in the NFL, and with all of the resources they pour into talent evaluation, maybe Ted might have known better to make a bold move, rather than sitting back in a more comfortable, conservative stance.

The bigger point attached to this is imagining if Ted had actually traded up into those prime spots to take those players, and how differently we may have fared. We could have been a much more balanced team, and could have been more of a true contender last season and the season before.

We could stand to add impactful players much like those mentioned. They rarely fall in your lap. But really, this is all speculation amongst us fans, looking back with the benefit of hindsight.

I was simply thinking, wow, what it may have been like had we made some bolder moves and added players like that to this D. Thinking of what this team might be now. The difficult part is looking at what this team is now, and seeing many players added over the last 3 years not panning out, and the holes left to fill in this roster.

Daniels is an exception. Hayward may have some promise based on his rookie year play. Datone Jones could be an ace in the hole if he develops (but I haven't seen anything to make me feel confident that he will be special). Hyde looks like a safe player added to our D, with a bit of a speed limitation. Josh Boyd seems promising after the little bit he got to play.

Nick Perry? The guy has gone MIA far too often. R1 2011
Jerel Worthy? He didn't do much before his ACL, now he's a year out and I don't hold out hope that he will be a big contributor, and I hope I'm wrong there. R2 2011
Sam Barrington - I'm really hopeful he shows something next season. R7 2013
Nate Palmer - Same. R6 2013
McMillian is gone. R4 2012
Manning is gone. R5 2012
Davon House. What do you say? R4 2011
DJ Smith is gone. R6 2011
Ricky Elmore is gone. R6 2011
Lawrence Guy is gone. R7 2011

So, that's ONE player who has contributed and developed pretty well within that 3 year span. Mike Daniels, going into his 3rd year with the team. Another, Casey Hayward, showed incredible promise as a rookie, then was lost to injury his entire 2nd season. Datone didn't really play. Hyde played a lot and shows promise. Boyd hardly played. These are our best 5 players added to our D over this 3 year span.

10 players either are no longer with the team (5), or have failed to contribute (5).

Don't you think Ted maybe should have known better? It is his job to know. How is this shotgun thing working, adding all those picks? Right now, I would say it is not working. I would rather we added (at least) one true impact player per year on D with a more aggressive approach. Yeah, take some chances, trade away a bit to move up and get the goods.

Otherwise, we are left with players like Nick Perry as the best of a very sorry looking group of 10 players Ted chose to take in the manner he prefers. All ten of them could be classified as failures.

Ted needs to do a better job, period. The staff also needs to do a better job of getting these players developed. I thought it was a travesty Datone Jones hardly saw the field last season.
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (2h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (2h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (2h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (4h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (4h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (4h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (4h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (4h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (4h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (4h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (4h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (5h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (6h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (6h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (6h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (6h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (6h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (7h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (7h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (7h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (8h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (8h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (8h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (8h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (9h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (9h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (10h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (10h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (11h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (11h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (11h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (11h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (11h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (11h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (11h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (11h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (11h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (11h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (11h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (11h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (11h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (11h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (11h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (11h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (11h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (11h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (11h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (11h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
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
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

10h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.