Today's optimistic Vandermause Packers column from GBPG

[Badgerinmaine]

Mmmmmm...a delicious pitcher of Kool-Aid...
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080503/PKR07/80503026/1954/PKR03
Gulp, gulp!

[Joemailman]

http://mccs1977.com/Images/Politics/Kool-AidMan.jpg

[Badgerinmaine]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[RashanGary]

I'll be curious to see the dline and Rodgers. If Jolly, Harrell and Rodgers show up kickin ass in preseason, I'll start sippin the sweet stuff. If these guys don't look good, I could see a very average season.

[Bretsky]

I'll be curious to see the dline and Rodgers. If Jolly, Harrell and Rodgers show up kickin ass in preseason, I'll start sippin the sweet stuff. If these guys don't look good, I could see a very average season.

Somebody has to fill the void left by Cory Williams on the pass rush and pressures at the DT position

The OG position has to step up and be consistent

AROD has to show consistency

Not too big of a falloff due to age at CB and OT (I'm most confident in this)

If the above does not occur we're just decent IMO.

[Joemailman]

I think the interior OL is the key. If they can attain some consistency in the running game, I think ARod has the talent and the weapons to make the offense go.

[Scott Campbell]

Fluffy like a pillow.

[CaliforniaCheez]

It feels good to be a winner.

I'm not too worried. The coaching staff is working these players into solid pros.

Why worry about Blackmon's foot, Clifton's durability, or things beyond control??

The quantity of players is becoming quality players and many cut will find jobs elsewhere.

Life is good.

[b bulldog]

This team has a ton of questions, I guess it is all on how you want to look at them. I think they will be a 9-7 or 10-6 type team. The oline, mostly interior is a question, can Grant do it all year and is Jackson a capable second stringer, Rodgers is a huge question, no passrushing DE found to surplant Jenkins/KGB, the corners age and the S play. My biggest question is can Rodgers stay healthy and can they find a passrush because it was missing for the last 8 games of the season last year and that was with 99.

[texaspackerbacker]

Good article.

Ultimately, it's all going to come down to Aaron Rodgers. I have a good feeling about that, though. Brett Favre had a great year last season after going through extraordinary preparation. However, prior to that, his game had been slowly degrading--to the point where Favre without the special prep would have been passed up by the improving Rodgers--IMO.

Secondarily, as somebody said, the O Line needs to pick up where it left off. that means the interior three--whoever that ends up being--needs to improve more than Clifton and Tauscher degrade with age. I think that is a reasonable expectation. Last year's injuries gave the Packers a better degree of depth and experience playing together for more players.

Beyond that, the draft should bring improvement and depth at the various other positions cited, with no regressing at all--with the possible exception of QB.

So if Rodgers comes through, there's no reason the Packers shouldn't do at least as well as last season--other than little things like luck, injuries, and the prospect of a more difficult schedule.

[Rastak]

It feels good to be a winner.

I'm not too worried. The coaching staff is working these players into solid pros.

Why worry about Blackmon's foot, Clifton's durability, or things beyond control??

The quantity of players is becoming quality players and many cut will find jobs elsewhere.

Life is good.


What did you win?

[HarveyWallbangers]

What did you win?

Being a Vikings fan, I don't think you want to go there.
:bump:

[RashanGary]

McCarthy had some very complimentary things to say in todays press gazette article. I'm getting more and more excited to see Rodgers play. Common sense says you should doubt a first year starter, but there is a part of me that remembers how well he played coming in cold in the Dallas game, sees how strong armed and mobile he is and listens to the coaches speak about how well he understands and runs the offense. That part of me wants to be very optimistic. If Rodgers can play similarly to guys like Rivers, Rothisberger and Romo have early, I think the Packers have every bit as much of a chance as they would have with a 39 year old Favre.


Two things I'm looking for with Rodgers that will be an improvement over Brett:

1. They can use more moving pockets with Rodgers rolling out. This sets up the stretch zone runs because lineman can't tell if it's a stretch run or a roll out pass. Denver does this to set up their run game.

2. When they go 4 or 5 wide, they have one more weapon that we didn't have last season - that is Rodgers abilty to run for first downs. Well, Jordy Nelson over Krob too. Defenses were playing all out against the pass last year in 5 wide. They would use LB's to cover short stuff, CB's to press recievers and safeties to protect deep. Nobody was watchign the QB. Now, teams will either have to watch Rodgers and open up something else or sell out on the pass, giving Rodgers the ablity to pikc up an easy 7. If Rodgers is as good of a decision maker, as mobile, strong armed and accurate as they say, he should be able to tear defenses apart when they spread them out.


Overall there are no limiations. He can make every throw. He knows the entire playbook. He understands the entire offense. He can move. He is accurate. How will he respond under pressure? All we have is the Dallas game to judge that, but it does look like he has a chance, maybe a good chance and if it works out the Packers shouldn't miss a beat. Damn, that would be exciting becuase it might mean another 10 years of NFCN dominance and Viking/Bear/Lion envy to deal with.

[RashanGary]

This pre season is going to be more interesting than it has been in years. Every year is interesting because you want to see what you have, but this year, with the QB position changing for the first time in ages, it's even more intriguing.

I'll be at OTA's. I don't know how to judge the QB position, so I won't be watching that, but I do remember watching last year and not noticing any change when Favre came out and Rodgers came in. The offense didn't stumble at all with Rodgers and now Rodgers will have the advantage of playing with the same starting group that all know what they are doing rather than the B team that was just learning the scheme.

[Badgerinmaine]

What did you win?

Poor Rastak..he's probably had enough Grain Belt after last season that his memory is fading... :glug:
http://images.620wtmj.com/images/620wtmj_120907williamsap.JPG

[Packnut]

This pre season is going to be more interesting than it has been in years. Every year is interesting because you want to see what you have, but this year, with the QB position changing for the first time in ages, it's even more intriguing.

I'll be at OTA's. I don't know how to judge the QB position, so I won't be watching that, but I do remember watching last year and not noticing any change when Favre came out and Rodgers came in. The offense didn't stumble at all with Rodgers and now Rodgers will have the advantage of playing with the same starting group that all know what they are doing rather than the B team that was just learning the scheme.


Rodgers will be fine if he can take a hit and get back up on a consistent basis. I've seen enough on him to know he'll be a good WC offense QB. His ability is one thing I don't worry about.

[wist43]

The offense moved the ball last year b/c of Favre... when teams began to focus on stopping him that opened up the running game at the same time that the OL began to gel a little bit and Grant stepped to the fore.

Teams will be prepared for the running game and make Rodgers prove it... I don't know why everyone is getting a fuzzy feeling about Rodgers ??? b/c of 3/4 of a game under center in mop-up duty against Dallas??? I have higher hopes for Brohm.

Beyond that, it's not like the Packers don't have problems in the here and now... Harris, Woodson, Clifton, and Tausher are all vital cogs, and all of them have shown cracks in the armor; can Lee be good enough to take over the Nickel role??? If not, then we only have 2 viable, NFL ready CB's on the roster... everyone else is "developing" and surely has a bullseye on their back.

We can't expect any new starters out of this draft - and the new starter we'll get from last years draft (Harrell) is a step in the wrong direction. Rouse probably deserves a shot at unseating either Collins or Bigby, probably Collins, but they likely view Collins as a much better matchup in coverage than Rouse, so that doesn't seem likely to happen.

And then there is the incalcuable loss of Favre... if they struggle early, I think it's just as likely that they could be in for a very long season as they could ride Rodgers arm to glory.

They'll be in the hunt for the division probably, but not a serious threat to make a playoff run - not with Rodgers as the starter. He's going to be under a ton of pressure, he's proven to be fragile... just don't see it.

[oregonpackfan]

Packer fans definitely have more optimism this year rather than at the beginning of last season.

One huge variable to always consider is: season-ending injuries to key players.
Last season, the Packers were generally spared key injuries to their starting players. Hopefully, that will proved true for this season as well.

[ahaha]

The offense moved the ball last year b/c of Favre... when teams began to focus on stopping him that opened up the running game at the same time that the OL began to gel a little bit and Grant stepped to the fore.


I've heard this opinion a lot, and it really bothers me. I think the reason our offense moved from mediocre to explosive was the receiver play and improved pass blocking. It didn't take half the season for other teams to figure out we couldn't run the ball. Those early opponents knew it was all about stopping the pass. They tried and most failed. And then Grant emerged with some improvement in the run blocking, and our offense became a dominant group. That Seattle game was a thing of beauty. 6 straight touchdown drives in a play-off game. That is amazing.
Favre had his best year in over a decade because of his teamates, especially the receiving corps.

[The Leaper]

I have higher hopes for Brohm.

Why? The guy has a longer injury history than Rodgers does, and clearly wasn't viewed as a superior QB by most NFL GMs.

Rodgers has shown consistent improvement year-to-year in the Packer system...just as Brunell, Hasselbeck and others have shown in the system previously. Granted, his durability is a concern...but if healthy, there is little reason to doubt Rodgers' ability to make an impact.

[The Leaper]

Favre had his best year in over a decade because of his teamates, especially the receiving corps.

I agree. Favre's season was spurred by the development of Jennings and the ability of McCarthy to both understand the strengths of his QB and also effectively alter/tweak the offensive plan of attack when he needed to during the course of a game.

Favre wasn't suddenly better than he was in 2005 or 2006. The offense as a whole was put into more positions to succeed by the coaching staff, and the group as a whole took advantage of it.

[Tarlam!]

Wisty! You're REALLY back!!!! I've missed you!

[texaspackerbacker]

Same old doom and gloom wist.

I disagree, Leaper and others. It's true that Favre had a great year after a downward trend for several previous ones; And it's true that he had a lot of weapons with the young receivers and Grant. However, IMO, it was Favre himself and his enhanced off-season training regimen that caused his improvement. He said as much in his explanation for his retirement.

If we think back 2 and 3 years, Favre missed a lot of open receivers and put a lot of balls up for grabs. Also, many questioned his ability to throw the long ball, and I remember thinking his release was really getting slow. And in addition to all that, he seemed more prone to fumble when hit, or even make unforced errors with the ball.

All that improved last season, and it wasn't just because of the receivers and Grant.

[The Leaper]

If we think back 2 and 3 years

Right...back when Taco Wallace was one of our WRs getting playing time.

Case closed.

[texaspackerbacker]

I was thinking more along the lines of pre-injury Javon Walker, two years younger Donald Driver, healthy Robert Ferguson, and Terrence Iforgothislastname, the guy with the neck injury.

[The Leaper]

I was thinking more along the lines of pre-injury Javon Walker, two years younger Donald Driver, healthy Robert Ferguson, and Terrence Iforgothislastname, the guy with the neck injury.

Then you would be thinking 2004...where Favre posted stats relatively similar to 2007.

Also, Robert Ferguson was never healthy or a weapon...and Terrence Murphy never saw the field in a meaningful game for the Packers.

When Favre was given weapons, he was always been successful Tex. Favre has always been the constant in the Packer offense the last 15 years. It wasn't Favre that created the success in 2007...it was Jennings, Jones, Lee, Grant, etc.

[Packnut]

The reason Favre had a great year had very little to do with his ability but more with some talent surrounding him. It's just mind-boggling to me the way some of you guys view the QB position.

Why is it so hard to understand that any QB, I don't give a damn which one you name, played better with an increase in talent around him?

I hate to make it this simple, but the reality is Favre played better cause he had some freakin HELP for a change.

While no one can predict the future, one can make an educated guess that Rodgers will succeed because he has loads of talent surrounding him at the skill positions. It's also a proven fact that QB's who have a few years to sit and learn have a higher chance of success than those thrown into the fire.

Our only 2 questions on offense imo, are will the interior of the line improve and will the ZBS work on a more consistent basis?

[Packnut]

The offense moved the ball last year b/c of Favre... when teams began to focus on stopping him that opened up the running game at the same time that the OL began to gel a little bit and Grant stepped to the fore.

Teams will be prepared for the running game and make Rodgers prove it... I don't know why everyone is getting a fuzzy feeling about Rodgers ??? b/c of 3/4 of a game under center in mop-up duty against Dallas??? I have higher hopes for Brohm.

Beyond that, it's not like the Packers don't have problems in the here and now... Harris, Woodson, Clifton, and Tausher are all vital cogs, and all of them have shown cracks in the armor; can Lee be good enough to take over the Nickel role??? If not, then we only have 2 viable, NFL ready CB's on the roster... everyone else is "developing" and surely has a bullseye on their back.

We can't expect any new starters out of this draft - and the new starter we'll get from last years draft (Harrell) is a step in the wrong direction. Rouse probably deserves a shot at unseating either Collins or Bigby, probably Collins, but they likely view Collins as a much better matchup in coverage than Rouse, so that doesn't seem likely to happen.

And then there is the incalcuable loss of Favre... if they struggle early, I think it's just as likely that they could be in for a very long season as they could ride Rodgers arm to glory.

They'll be in the hunt for the division probably, but not a serious threat to make a playoff run - not with Rodgers as the starter. He's going to be under a ton of pressure, he's proven to be fragile... just don't see it.

What have you specifically seen from Rodgers that puts the doubt in your mind?

[Bretsky]

The offense moved the ball last year b/c of Favre... when teams began to focus on stopping him that opened up the running game at the same time that the OL began to gel a little bit and Grant stepped to the fore.

Teams will be prepared for the running game and make Rodgers prove it... I don't know why everyone is getting a fuzzy feeling about Rodgers ??? b/c of 3/4 of a game under center in mop-up duty against Dallas??? I have higher hopes for Brohm.

Beyond that, it's not like the Packers don't have problems in the here and now... Harris, Woodson, Clifton, and Tausher are all vital cogs, and all of them have shown cracks in the armor; can Lee be good enough to take over the Nickel role??? If not, then we only have 2 viable, NFL ready CB's on the roster... everyone else is "developing" and surely has a bullseye on their back.

We can't expect any new starters out of this draft - and the new starter we'll get from last years draft (Harrell) is a step in the wrong direction. Rouse probably deserves a shot at unseating either Collins or Bigby, probably Collins, but they likely view Collins as a much better matchup in coverage than Rouse, so that doesn't seem likely to happen.

And then there is the incalcuable loss of Favre... if they struggle early, I think it's just as likely that they could be in for a very long season as they could ride Rodgers arm to glory.

They'll be in the hunt for the division probably, but not a serious threat to make a playoff run - not with Rodgers as the starter. He's going to be under a ton of pressure, he's proven to be fragile... just don't see it.

What have you specifically seen from Rodgers that puts the doubt in your mind?

He rolls out well; he runs well.......he doesn't fear running much......he doesn't feel the rush as good as Favre..........all that couple with his injuries worry me

Not to mention.........his arm is not as strong as Favre even at age 39. He won't have the same velocity to fit some of those throws in.

I'm in the middle on Rodgers overall; but until we see him do it over a course of time there will be doubt

I do like reading wist in here to debate some of the fluff as well.

[Patler]

Not to mention.........his arm is not as strong as Favre even at age 39. He won't have the same velocity to fit some of those throws in.


The same could be said for most of the other NFL starters as well. Comparing his velocity to Favre's is hardly relevant to the liklihood that he can be a successful starter.

In fact, it can be argued (and has been) that Favre's ability to fit balls in where no one else could was a detriment and a benefit, because he felt he could ALWAYS do it, which lead to many of his interceptions. A QB who knows when he can and when he can't get a ball to a receiver may make fewer costly turnovers as well as fewer bind-boggling completions. The net benefit or loss from those two conflicting results is yet to be seen.

[texaspackerbacker]

Leaper, I have never been one to badmouth Brett Favre, and I certainly wouldn't deny the quality of the Packer receivers last year and this year. I'm just saying it was a combination of that and his extraordinary preparation last season.

As for the idea of fluff/KoolAid versus negativity, what gets me is when the negativists act like they are being realistic. All objective evidence says that barring injuries or extreme bad luck or a total flop by Aaron Rodgers, '08 should be every bit as good or better than '07. Thus, KoolAid IS realism.

[Packnut]

The offense moved the ball last year b/c of Favre... when teams began to focus on stopping him that opened up the running game at the same time that the OL began to gel a little bit and Grant stepped to the fore.

Teams will be prepared for the running game and make Rodgers prove it... I don't know why everyone is getting a fuzzy feeling about Rodgers ??? b/c of 3/4 of a game under center in mop-up duty against Dallas??? I have higher hopes for Brohm.

Beyond that, it's not like the Packers don't have problems in the here and now... Harris, Woodson, Clifton, and Tausher are all vital cogs, and all of them have shown cracks in the armor; can Lee be good enough to take over the Nickel role??? If not, then we only have 2 viable, NFL ready CB's on the roster... everyone else is "developing" and surely has a bullseye on their back.

We can't expect any new starters out of this draft - and the new starter we'll get from last years draft (Harrell) is a step in the wrong direction. Rouse probably deserves a shot at unseating either Collins or Bigby, probably Collins, but they likely view Collins as a much better matchup in coverage than Rouse, so that doesn't seem likely to happen.

And then there is the incalcuable loss of Favre... if they struggle early, I think it's just as likely that they could be in for a very long season as they could ride Rodgers arm to glory.

They'll be in the hunt for the division probably, but not a serious threat to make a playoff run - not with Rodgers as the starter. He's going to be under a ton of pressure, he's proven to be fragile... just don't see it.

What have you specifically seen from Rodgers that puts the doubt in your mind?

He rolls out well; he runs well.......he doesn't fear running much......he doesn't feel the rush as good as Favre..........all that couple with his injuries worry me

Not to mention.........his arm is not as strong as Favre even at age 39. He won't have the same velocity to fit some of those throws in.

I'm in the middle on Rodgers overall; but until we see him do it over a course of time there will be doubt

I do like reading wist in here to debate some of the fluff as well.


No doubt Brett was one of a kind. Rodgers will not be anywhere near the caliber of our HOF QB. However, that said, I am of the opinion that he does'nt have to be in order to succeed and I'll explain why.

Favre played on some awful defensive teams. He knew going in if he does'nt put up 24+, the chances are they would lose. Since 96/97, he really did'nt have any help from his wideouts. I was never a Freeman fan and Brooksie going down really hurt. So Brett pretty much carried us.

Fast forward to now. While we have a bland-less clue-less defensive cooridinator , we have enough talent on the defensive side to make up for the piss poor coaching. Rodgers does'nt have to win by himself. He can afford to throw it away or take a sack. He has a lot less pressure on him than Brett did.

Rodgers has the best 4 WR combo in the NFL. NO ONE has anything near our #3 and #4. I would also argue that the Lee/Finley duo has the POTENTIAL to be outstanding. Rodgers also has a run game, all-be-it inconsistent. Still, Grant has the ability to take it to the house which EVERY defense will have to respect.

My point is Rodgers has more going for him now than Brett did since 96/97. If ever a new QB was in a perfect position, Rodgers is. He does'nt have to be anywhere near #04.

[wist43]

He doesn't have Brett's arm, durability, or experience...

but WTH, it's the offseason - Super Bowl or bust :)

[Packnut]

He doesn't have Brett's arm, durability, or experience...

but WTH, it's the offseason - Super Bowl or bust :)


Well, you'll have to excuse my Rodgers-euphoria, lest I fall into a deep dark depression about not seeing #04 playing for the Green and Gold again. :cry: :cry: :cry:

(trying to put a positive spin on what is a rotten situation)

[wist43]

I'm not negative per se... it's simply in my nature to see and address the problems that I feel will prevent us from winning a championship - in this case, the lack of a championship calibur QB.

I don't believe Rodgers can deliver a championship, so I'm looking beyond him, which is why I'm glad they brought Brohm in. I don't know if Brohm is the guy or not, but I'm reasonably sure Rodgers isn't.

I'd like to see the team do well, win the division, etc... but, if that's all we're going to be capable of with Rodgers at the helm I'd just as soon move on in an attempt to find "the guy".

[RashanGary]

I'm not going to come out and predict grand things, but all Rodgers has done the last two off seasons is perform at a high level (+100 QB ratings). Then he had one real chance last regular season and he showed he could do it then too against a pass rush that was relentless.

Maybe he'll flop, but I'm coming around to the idea that maybe he is good. I'm trying to hold off any real predictions until after the preseason games. If he reads defenses well, adjusts the play at the line, makes good decisions and good throws, I'll be ready to commit to a big year. If not, I'll temper my enthusiasm.

[Joemailman]

He doesn't have Brett's arm, durability, or experience...

but WTH, it's the offseason - Super Bowl or bust :)

Well okay, but the same could be said for Eli Manning. Did you happen to catch the Super Bowl on TV?

[RashanGary]

Some people are scared of their own shadows. There are no sure things anywhere you look. Why not embrace change and see the positive potential with the negative. Everything is not a cloud of doom.

[The Leaper]

He doesn't have Brett's arm, durability, or experience...

but WTH, it's the offseason - Super Bowl or bust :)

Well okay, but the same could be said for Eli Manning. Did you happen to catch the Super Bowl on TV?

Plenty of Packer fans were also saying the same thing about a young QB named Brett Favre in 1993 and 1994...that he wasn't championship caliber and that Holmgren should put Brunell in.

To claim Rodgers doesn't have the ability to win a title before he even gets to start one game in the league is looney. I'm fine with claiming Green Bay would have a better chance to win with Favre, but Rodgers could easily put up a very strong season with the offense he should have to work with. Time will tell...I'm not writing the kid or 2008 season off already as a lost cause.

[vince]

I'm not negative per se... it's simply in my nature to see and address the problems that I feel will prevent us from winning a championship - in this case, the lack of a championship calibur QB.

I don't believe Rodgers can deliver a championship, so I'm looking beyond him, which is why I'm glad they brought Brohm in. I don't know if Brohm is the guy or not, but I'm reasonably sure Rodgers isn't.

I'd like to see the team do well, win the division, etc... but, if that's all we're going to be capable of with Rodgers at the helm I'd just as soon move on in an attempt to find "the guy".
wist, you're a great sport and all, but your negative spin has been consistently wrong for the last two years and counting. During McCarthy's first year, you assessed the team as "at least two years from being remotely competitive." I'm glad this upcoming year we'll finally be able to witness a "competitive" team...

Around the same time, you suggested that, even though the Packers team came together strong to finish 8-8 that year, the team was really a only 4-12 team, since that was the record you predicted they'd achieve that year before the season began.

Last year, you pretty much disappeared altogether.

You're likely no more correct in your negative assessment about Rodgers than you've been with the rest of your negative "assessments" for the last two years.

[RashanGary]

Pessemism is a cognitive disease that greatly distorts ones view of reality. These people are consistantly wrong because they are unable to see reality. They only see the chicken little version that their brain extrapolated from one gloomy piece of data. Sometimes it's schemed up without one iota of data. It's just a big gloomy halucination that they try to pass off, to themselves and others, as reality. Let us try to better understand those who are blinded from the light of the sun, not laugh at them for their consistant awkward and dilusional views of the world. They cannot help their inability to logically reason in these cases, it's a disease. It's who they are.

Symptoms:

Always pointing out when something is wrong, but never having any answers

Overuse of words and phrases like, such as: "we're doomed", "we're screwed", "It's not going to get better", "we're lacking", "our team is insufficiantly prepared for. . . ", "this isn't the answer"

Receives advice from friends and family to look on the bright side more often

Often wonders why the rest of the world can't see the gloomy reality for what it is


If you or anyone you know has these symptoms have them call 1-800-itsOKman

There is a good chance this person is dangerously close to suicide and needs your help. Please, don't delay. Call now.

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/IMR/IMR256/woman-holding-pills_~IE079-010.jpg

Life is a dark and violent thunderstorm for some people. Don't let your loved one make that final decision of what buzz to feel before they turn off the lights for good. Really, that buzz will probably be good for about 2 minutes but then it will be illness, followed by regret as they realize they acctually want to live, but are too intoxicated to walk to the phone for help. The next think they'll see is satans lair and a big well endowed horse with sharp horns and a gotee preparing to throttle them. Please, do you want your loved one to be throttled in hell by an evil horned horse for the rest of eternity? NO, you don't. Call now.

[Lurker64]

I'm not negative per se... it's simply in my nature to see and address the problems that I feel will prevent us from winning a championship - in this case, the lack of a championship calibur QB.

Like Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, or Kurt Warner?

The last 12 superbowls have been won by those guys, Manning, Brady, Elway, and Favre. I think there's a bit of a divide between the former group and the latter, but I could be wrong.

[RashanGary]

Do you have a point, Lurker?

[Lurker64]

Do you have a point, Lurker?

I'm just wondering:
a) What "Championship Caliber QB" means, exactly.
b) Whether or not Wist believes that Rodgers can't be a better player than, say, Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson (and c) if anybody can, with a straight face, say Rodgers couldn't hold Dilfer's jock.)

[RashanGary]

haha, sorry. I thought you were saying something completely different. Plus, I have an bad attitude toward you right now :)

[RashanGary]

1 Time Winners in last 27 years (The year of Montanta's first ring):
Aaron Rodgers?
1. Eli Manning #17 defense
2. Peyton Manning #1 defense
3. Ben Rothlisbuger #3 defense
4. Brad Johnson #1 defense
5. Trent Dilfer #1 defense
6. Kurt Warner #4 defense
7. Brett Favre #1 defense
8. Steve Young #6 defense
9. Mark Rypien #2 defense
10. Jeff Hostetler #1 defense
11. Doug Williams #6 defense
12. Phil Simms #2 defense
13. Jim McMahon #1 defense
14. Jim Plunket #14 defense
15. Joe Theisman #1 defense




Multi Winners (In last 27 years):
1. Tom Brady #2 defense
2. Tom Brady #1 defense
3. Tom Brady #4 defense
4. John Elway #8 defense
5. John Elway #6 defense
6. Troy Aikman #3 defense
7. Troy Aikman #2 defense
8. Troy Aikman #5 defense
9. Joe Montana #3 defense
10. Joe Montana #8 defense
11. Joe Montana #1 defense
12. Joe Montana #2 defense

[RashanGary]

Average defense ranking for 1 time winners = #4.0 defense
Average defense ranking for multi winners = #3.7 defense



Now I will remove the high two and low two from both multi winners and 1 time winners just to get rid of unusually high or low data.


Average defensive rank for 1 time winners = #2.5 defense
Average defensive rank for mulit winners = #3.4 defense





1 time SB winners seem to need about the #2 or #3 defenses to win
mult winners seem to need #3 or #4 defenses to win


Do we have a #2 defense? If you answer that with a "NO", then I think the chances are good we don't win the SB next year. If you can honestly say "yes" (and I don't know how you could), then I think you can say we will compete for the SB. It would seem both 1 time winners and multi winners need really good teams around them.


I certainly think the Packers can be playoff competive, but with or without Brett, I think it was going to be a struggle to win the SB because of our pass rush.

[Packnut]

Average defense ranking for 1 time winners = #4.0 defense
Average defense ranking for multi winners = #3.7 defense



Now I will remove the high two and low two from both multi winners and 1 time winners just to get rid of unusually high or low data.


Average defensive rank for 1 time winners = #2.5 defense
Average defensive rank for mulit winners = #3.4 defense





1 time SB winners seem to need about the #2 or #3 defenses to win
mult winners seem to need #3 or #4 defenses to win


Do we have a #2 defense? If you answer that with a "NO", then I think the chances are good we don't win the SB next year. If you can honestly say "yes" (and I don't know how you could), then I think you can say we will compete for the SB. It would seem both 1 time winners and multi winners need really good teams around them.


I certainly think the Packers can be playoff competive, but with or without Brett, I think it was going to be a struggle to win the SB because of our pass rush.


We have the talent on defense, we do not have quality coaching. Succesful defensive coordinators all have one thing in common. They devise blitz packages that when called at the right time, are un-stopable. Fritz had Butler for an example. Knew how to use him and had a knack for when to call it. Look at how well the Giants D played. The guy in Philly has made a living off of it.

We have Bob Sanders. :roll:

[Bretsky]

We definitely share the same enthusiasm for Bob Sanders P'nut

I'm in the middle on AROD; he certainly has the talent around him where if he's smart he can be successful.

[RashanGary]

I think he can have some success too. Playoffs in the 1st year constitutes success. Winning a championship is another thing. That Dline is going to have to take a big step forward. Where does it come from though?

Harrell, Jolly, Thompson, Mongomery, Hunter


ummmm.... Forgive me while I doubt it.

[texaspackerbacker]

So now we get criticism of Bob Sanders and the Packers defensive coaching staff.

There is no question that the Packers played good defense last season. There's no question that we have quite a few good players on D. The question is, did the Packer D UNDER-ACHIEVE compared to what the quality of personnel would have been expected to accomplish? Or did decent, but not really all that great Packer personnel OVER-ACHIEVE mainly because of the schemes they used--Batesian-style defense, DEs set up wider than normal, press coverage by Corners with Safety help over the top, etc.?

I say it is the latter, I say that Sanders et al are to be praised for getting more out of the Packer defense that sum total of quality of individuals would have justified.

[RashanGary]

I'm a very big believer in talent over coaching. IF the Packers had Strahan, Tuck and Osi Uminyora instead of Kamp, Jenkins and KGB, I think we would have won the game and maybe the SB.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm a very big believer in talent over coaching. IF the Packers had Strahan, Tuck and Osi Uminyora instead of Kamp, Jenkins and KGB, I think we would have won the game and maybe the SB.

Which makes my point: the coaching staff did a great job to get as much out of what we had as they did.

[RashanGary]

I agree. I think they did a fine job with good but not great talent. Great talent makes coaches look like geniuses and bad talent makes them look idiotic. Everyone thinks they can call a better game, but when the guys on the other side are better, how are you going to overcome that? .

[Bretsky]

So now we get criticism of Bob Sanders and the Packers defensive coaching staff.

There is no question that the Packers played good defense last season. There's no question that we have quite a few good players on D. The question is, did the Packer D UNDER-ACHIEVE compared to what the quality of personnel would have been expected to accomplish? Or did decent, but not really all that great Packer personnel OVER-ACHIEVE mainly because of the schemes they used--Batesian-style defense, DEs set up wider than normal, press coverage by Corners with Safety help over the top, etc.?

I say it is the latter, I say that Sanders et al are to be praised for getting more out of the Packer defense that sum total of quality of individuals would have justified.

Ah Tex.......you've been away too long. I've was hammering Sanders two years ago when the last four games may have saved his job. He's bland and unimaginative. Our defense should have been better last year IMO.
Watching the Giants game over a couple times has renewed my distaste.

[RashanGary]

The Giants don't get away with anything without the stud DE's. That coach would look like an idiot if he didn't have great talent on the Dline.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Giants don't get away with anything without the stud DE's. That coach would look like an idiot if he didn't have great talent on the Dline.

Very true ..... but we aren't talking about the Giants coaches; We're talking about the Packers coaches--who presided over an outstanding D on a 13-3/14-4 team. And they did it without DEs as good as the Giants, with OK but not great DTs, with everybody's former favorite whipping boy at MLB, with a very very good, but not exactly all pro--yet anyway weakside OLB, with a strongside OLB that almost everybody sees as sub-standard. with two outstanding, but aging Corners who probably accomplished more good than at any time in their careers, one Safety who is currently everybody's favorite whipping boy, and another Safety who came out of nowhere to play outstanding in the scheme. The backups were pretty much unheralded also.

Why is it so difficult, Bretsky and others, to give credit to the coaches--Sanders and even the damn near unmentionable Schottenheimer--for scheme that brought better defense than expected from the individual players?

[wist43]

Man, you guys surely do shovel some shit...

I've been consistent, and the things that I said needed to happen for them to be competitive came to pass - to the shock of many. I give TT credit for that, and give McCarthy credit for that. I've liked TT's drafts for the most part, even if I haven't agreed with some of the picks - most notably Harrell and Rodgers.

That said, I'm sorry to interupt your love fest... I see I've been away too long... did you rah rah guys run off anyone who predicted less than 13-3???

Vince,

The reason I disappeared had nothing to do with PR, I'm going thru a divorce, trying to sell a house, working two jobs, and trying to get moved to Florida - I think that'd be enough to keep most folks busy.

JH,

Save the psychology... I've met you remember??? You're a kid, a nice kid, but don't think you can start swimming around in my head - you're out of your league.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Average defensive rank for 1 time winners = #2.5 defense
Average defensive rank for mulit winners = #3.4 defense

What is the rank here, points allowed? Yards allowed. Either way. Those are incredibly telling statistics.

[Bretsky]

The Giants don't get away with anything without the stud DE's. That coach would look like an idiot if he didn't have great talent on the Dline.

Very true ..... but we aren't talking about the Giants coaches; We're talking about the Packers coaches--who presided over an outstanding D on a 13-3/14-4 team. And they did it without DEs as good as the Giants, with OK but not great DTs, with everybody's former favorite whipping boy at MLB, with a very very good, but not exactly all pro--yet anyway weakside OLB, with a strongside OLB that almost everybody sees as sub-standard. with two outstanding, but aging Corners who probably accomplished more good than at any time in their careers, one Safety who is currently everybody's favorite whipping boy, and another Safety who came out of nowhere to play outstanding in the scheme. The backups were pretty much unheralded also.

Why is it so difficult, Bretsky and others, to give credit to the coaches--Sanders and even the damn near unmentionable Schottenheimer--for scheme that brought better defense than expected from the individual players?


I gave a ton of credit to the offensive coaches for covering up a weak interior OL throughout the season. MM with his superior play calling that essentially redesigned the game plans into a pass first happy offense.....and then developed a run offense when teams focused on stopping the pass.

Sanders had a very deep defense; they were not loaded with superstars but they had players good enough to make plays. Sanders is slow to adjust anything; I don't know how anybody could watch the Giants game and not admit this. I hold the Packers players on defense in a higher regard than you IMO....based on your explanation.

[texaspackerbacker]

Specifically what do you disagree with in my descriptions? I tried to be as fair and balanced as possible.

As for the Giants game, you had, first and foremost, an inspired Giants team playing way over their heads. I'm willing to bet that the upcoming season will prove that big time. Secondly, Al Harris wore down and looked old--after playing so well all season. Thirdly, Favre and the offense failed to deliver--in part due to great Giants D, in part due to the weather, in part due to ....... whatever unknown factors.

How would you have had Sanders adjust? Take out Harris? Put Bush, Williams, or whoever on Burris? Blow up everything and go to a zone D? I just can't see any obvious thing he could have done other than staying the course.

[Bretsky]

Tex,

IMO the talent on our D was well above average. Obviously they missed Jolly a lot. I agree our DE's were not as good as the Giants...not close......but we still do have one of the best defensive ends in the game in Kampman and a well above average pair. Nick Barnett is one of the better MLB's in the game. Hawk is above average. We had two of the best CB tandems in the game and possibly the best. Collins made some improvements the year Schottenheimer was not here, and then seemed to regress again last year. Maybe I'm still upset at the NYG game; I think our scheme was horrible and the lack of adjustments made by Sanders were inexcusable. We were getting no rush, and we let Burress dominate us. We took nothing away. A good coach makes adjustments. He's bland IMO.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

If Rodgers can play like Romo did his first year starting, then the offense will be very good. The offense is loaded with weapons this year. Two great tackles, Grant, Jackson, Lee, Finley, and four very good Wr's. Rodgers has no reason not to succeed, and if he doesn't succeed with this offense then he will never be good. Talk about walking in to a perfect situation. Not to mention playing three years behind maybe the best QB to ever play.



BTW, JH shouldn't your name be Jordy Nelson by now? :)

[Bretsky]

Specifically what do you disagree with in my descriptions? I tried to be as fair and balanced as possible.

As for the Giants game, you had, first and foremost, an inspired Giants team playing way over their heads. I'm willing to bet that the upcoming season will prove that big time. Secondly, Al Harris wore down and looked old--after playing so well all season. Thirdly, Favre and the offense failed to deliver--in part due to great Giants D, in part due to the weather, in part due to ....... whatever unknown factors.

How would you have had Sanders adjust? Take out Harris? Put Bush, Williams, or whoever on Burris? Blow up everything and go to a zone D? I just can't see any obvious thing he could have done other than staying the course.


You put a safety over the top to take away Plaxico; Sanders finally figured it out in about the middle of quarter three. Meanwhile he let Plaxico light us up for about 9 catches and 150 yards before making any sort of adjustment.
Could have also sent some stunts and complex blitz packages. But the Giants OL did bring their A+ game.

[texaspackerbacker]

Specifically what do you disagree with in my descriptions? I tried to be as fair and balanced as possible.

As for the Giants game, you had, first and foremost, an inspired Giants team playing way over their heads. I'm willing to bet that the upcoming season will prove that big time. Secondly, Al Harris wore down and looked old--after playing so well all season. Thirdly, Favre and the offense failed to deliver--in part due to great Giants D, in part due to the weather, in part due to ....... whatever unknown factors.

How would you have had Sanders adjust? Take out Harris? Put Bush, Williams, or whoever on Burris? Blow up everything and go to a zone D? I just can't see any obvious thing he could have done other than staying the course.


You put a safety over the top to take away Plaxico; Sanders finally figured it out in about the middle of quarter three. Meanwhile he let Plaxico light us up for about 9 catches and 150 yards before making any sort of adjustment.
Could have also sent some stunts and complex blitz packages. But the Giants OL did bring their A+ game.

And then what happened? They started to run on us, right?

I don't know about you, but when most people say "bland", they mean they wish there was more blitzing. I'm damn thankful we didn't blitz more, as too much blitzing invariably does more harm than good.

I called our DTs "OK but not great"--how is that different than what you said? My description of Hawk also is about the same as what you said. I said Barnett USED TO BE the whipping boy. He became great in the Bates/Sanders system. Woodson and Harris were best or close based on PERFORMANCE IN THE SCHEME--not so much when looking at their measurables or raw ability.

I still say, it was scheme more than personnel, which amounts to good coaching.

[Bretsky]

Specifically what do you disagree with in my descriptions? I tried to be as fair and balanced as possible.

As for the Giants game, you had, first and foremost, an inspired Giants team playing way over their heads. I'm willing to bet that the upcoming season will prove that big time. Secondly, Al Harris wore down and looked old--after playing so well all season. Thirdly, Favre and the offense failed to deliver--in part due to great Giants D, in part due to the weather, in part due to ....... whatever unknown factors.

How would you have had Sanders adjust? Take out Harris? Put Bush, Williams, or whoever on Burris? Blow up everything and go to a zone D? I just can't see any obvious thing he could have done other than staying the course.


You put a safety over the top to take away Plaxico; Sanders finally figured it out in about the middle of quarter three. Meanwhile he let Plaxico light us up for about 9 catches and 150 yards before making any sort of adjustment.
Could have also sent some stunts and complex blitz packages. But the Giants OL did bring their A+ game.

And then what happened? They started to run on us, right?

I don't know about you, but when most people say "bland", they mean they wish there was more blitzing. I'm damn thankful we didn't blitz more, as too much blitzing invariably does more harm than good.

I called our DTs "OK but not great"--how is that different than what you said? My description of Hawk also is about the same as what you said. I said Barnett USED TO BE the whipping boy. He became great in the Bates/Sanders system. Woodson and Harris were best or close based on PERFORMANCE IN THE SCHEME--not so much when looking at their measurables or raw ability.

I still say, it was scheme more than personnel, which amounts to good coaching.

Maybe we're not that different as far as grading the personnell goes; I'd actually feel is was our personnell that allowed us to succeed in spite of the coaching

[Packnut]

So now we get criticism of Bob Sanders and the Packers defensive coaching staff.

There is no question that the Packers played good defense last season. There's no question that we have quite a few good players on D. The question is, did the Packer D UNDER-ACHIEVE compared to what the quality of personnel would have been expected to accomplish? Or did decent, but not really all that great Packer personnel OVER-ACHIEVE mainly because of the schemes they used--Batesian-style defense, DEs set up wider than normal, press coverage by Corners with Safety help over the top, etc.?

I say it is the latter, I say that Sanders et al are to be praised for getting more out of the Packer defense that sum total of quality of individuals would have justified.


If ou recall, the biggest knock on the Giants BEFORE theplay-offs even begain was their defense. Add all the injuries and you can see how their coaching got the most out of mediocre talent. The Giants defensive backfield ain't exactly gonna put fear in anyone.

Did you by any chance notice how some of the blitz schemes confused Brady? THAT, my friend is coaching!

May-be you missed a few things last season. Like how TE's had career games against us week in week out. Why did it take so long to fix the problems? Where were the adjustments?

Why in the biggest game of the year was their ZERO adjustment? Man, if you think that is coaching then God help us all.

As far as your arguement about the talent level goes, many considered GB to have one of the top defensive lines in football. Barnett had his best season. Hawk has all the tools and talent in the world and was the 5th pick in the freaking draft, yet I would think most agree, he does'nt get many chances to make big plays in that scheme. Your comment about "aging" corners is wrong. They were not "aging" last season nor will they be this season. How the hell is 30, 31 or even 32 old for a CB? Several corners throughout the history of the league have had pro-bowl seasons at that age.

Good coaches utilize the talent they have. We all agree Bigby's main talent is playing a Butler style of defense yet Sanders refused to get creative and create some blitz packages for him.

Sanders will blitz on 1st down and once in a great while on second down, but the biggest blitz down in all of football goes un-noticed by him. I can count on my fingers the number of 3rd down blitz's he called.

You cannot count onyour D line to always get pressure so a defensive coordinator MUST be creative. Sanders is not. Every offense knows what they are going to see from him. It's not the mount of blit's that count but the quality and a knack for when to call them.

[Bossman641]

I'm not gonna sit here and defend Sanders, because I certainly think that he could do a better job of drawing up a defense, but I have no problem with the 3rd down defense that we played. For as much as people complained about our 3rd down defense, we ranked 3rd in the league last year, only allowing 33%. Even during the postseason we ranked 2nd in 3rd down D at 33% again.

Blitzing, especially on 3rd down is high-risk high-reward. I'd like to see Sanders take his chances more on 1st and 2nd down. IMO, the goal on 3rd down is just to get off the field. I don't care if we give up 8 yards on 3rd and 10, as long as we stop them. Of course, you're missing out on some turnovers then but you're also probably picking up a lot more stops.

The problem with the Giants game was our inability to pick up 3rd downs, not to stop them. We were 1/10 on 3rd down. Awful, you're not gonna win a game that way. Too few run attempts, Favre misfiring, just bad all around. We only gave up 6/16 3rd down attempts. The time of possession was 40-20. It was a bad game plan, bad adjustments, bad execution.

[texaspackerbacker]

So this seems to be coming down to what I would call the biggest pre-planned blunder in football, blitzing. I say again, I'm damn thankful Sanders and the Packers don't do more of it.

Bigby's strength is blitzing? Come on, when was there ever any evidence of that? Harris and Woodson either were or are 32 and 34. I think that qualifies as aging, especially the way Harris faded at the end of the season. I have hopes that Harris can do a Favre-like conditioning program, and get back to where he should be this year, but his late season swoon, especially in the Giants game, was NOT something that could have been anticipated or blamed on coaching.

What the Giants did against New England--the blitz packages and all--was an all out gamble against a vastly superior team. It worked, and yes, that IS great coaching--every gamble THAT WORKS ends up being great coaching.

What would the Packers have done against New England? I don't know. Maybe they too would have conceded that New England was way better and thrown the kitchen sink at them in blitzes--either successfully or not, or maybe they would have regarded New England as within reach quality-wise, and gone with business as usual.

PackNut, I'll put my descriptions of the quality of Packer D personnel over yours any day. The Packers D Line one of the best in the NFL? I'm as big a homer as anybody, and even I wouldn't make that claim. They had one really outstanding player, and even he kinda disappeared in the Giants game.

[Packnut]

So this seems to be coming down to what I would call the biggest pre-planned blunder in football, blitzing. I say again, I'm damn thankful Sanders and the Packers don't do more of it.

Bigby's strength is blitzing? Come on, when was there ever any evidence of that? Harris and Woodson either were or are 32 and 34. I think that qualifies as aging, especially the way Harris faded at the end of the season. I have hopes that Harris can do a Favre-like conditioning program, and get back to where he should be this year, but his late season swoon, especially in the Giants game, was NOT something that could have been anticipated or blamed on coaching.

What the Giants did against New England--the blitz packages and all--was an all out gamble against a vastly superior team. It worked, and yes, that IS great coaching--every gamble THAT WORKS ends up being great coaching.

What would the Packers have done against New England? I don't know. Maybe they too would have conceded that New England was way better and thrown the kitchen sink at them in blitzes--either successfully or not, or maybe they would have regarded New England as within reach quality-wise, and gone with business as usual.

PackNut, I'll put my descriptions of the quality of Packer D personnel over yours any day. The Packers D Line one of the best in the NFL? I'm as big a homer as anybody, and even I wouldn't make that claim. They had one really outstanding player, and even he kinda disappeared in the Giants game.


It seem's you want to throw out the majority of the season in order to justify your opinion. Your focusing on the last few games when our line was unable to get pressure. I'm talking about the whole season.

How many times did the analysts on ESPN or the NFL network praise our line for the pressure it was applying? May-be you missed it. I did'nt.

My basis for this debate is that good coordinators have a plan "b" when "a" does'nt work. Sanders does'nt. He's the Mike Sherman of defensive coordinators-un-able or un-willing to adjust to game situations.

As far as your comments about blitzing goes, it's an effective tool of any defense but like a tool it has to be used the right way. I suggest you watch the SB over again and take notice how confused Brady was at times. He could'nt tell where the pressure was coming from. That is what I'm talking about.

Down-playing the talent on the Packer D in order to support your opinion of Sanders is just plain wrong. The talent is there. The job of a good coach is to bring that talent out and utilize what his players bring to the table.

Sanders cost us that championship game because he could not counter what Coughlin was doing. He could have dropped our LB on Harris's side in order to take that short throw away. He could have brought saftey help. He could have had some BALLS and odered Harris to back off 5 yds. The point that you seem to be missing is that he was slow to correct the problems. By the time he did, it was to late.

Sanders gets paid a lot of cash to do his job. Just like when players don't preform, coaches should be held to the same standards.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm throwing out the majority of the season? You mean that part where we went 13-3 and had one of the most successful defenses in the league?

All I'm reading here is how Sanders blew the game against the Giants--never mind the whole offensive side of the football; Never mind that Harris uncharacteristically played lousy; Never mind the fact that Kampman couldn't do what he had been doing all season. Never mind the fact that the Giants played an inspired game--way above their heads, which next season will prove when they settle back to mediocrity.

[RashanGary]

Average defensive rank for 1 time winners = #2.5 defense
Average defensive rank for mulit winners = #3.4 defense

What is the rank here, points allowed? Yards allowed. Either way. Those are incredibly telling statistics.

This is points allowed (which I see as a combo of Defense, ST's and offensive ball control)

I think it shows that good QB's can win with a really good surrounding team and great QB's can win with a really good surroudnign team. The constant from Dilfer to Elway and Johnson to Brady is that the surrounding teams are always top notch. Thompson and McCarthy always say it's a team game, and they mgiht be on to something.

Rodgers certainly doesn't have to be great (if history tells us anything), but the team around him has to be better if he's going to have a chance.

[b bulldog]

The Packers Dline was out of gas by week 11 of the season. All of this stuff about how great 99 was is all fine and dandy but when he was heavily relied upon because of injury, he was MIA. Our Dline lacks playmakers. Kampy is a good DE but he needs someone on the other side to open things up a bit and the interior rush was nonexistent once certain players weren't allowed time off due to the rotation they were in before injury. The Giants game did show as did the Cowboyss game that Harris is terrible aginst the fade route and really doesn't play the ball very well when it is in the air. Eli had all day to throw and the Giants absolutely owned the trenches. Justin Tuck dominated in the playoffs!!!!!!

[RashanGary]

Pretty good summary, bulldog. Jolly is going to be coming back from injury. He's young and able so he should bouce back, but odds are it will be a season long process getting him back to 100%.


This really is the year of Harrell. I don't expect him to come in and be the best DT in football or even a top 5 DT, but in order for the Packers Dline to play as well as they did last year (which still isn't enough), he's going to have to be better than Corey Williams. It's doubtfull to me.


I think Rodgers can be OK, but will likely be a step down. I think the ST's WILL be much improved through depth, continuity and a combination of Blackmon/Nelson and maybe Jennings returing kicks and punts. I think the run game will be better with growth, continuity and compeition in the interior line. I think the defense will probably be similar with improved depth at CB and LB but the DL taking a slight step back. Overall I see the team slightly worse than last year with a harder schedule and most likely not getting everything to fall right the way it did last year.

At the end of the day, I could see the Packers anywhere between 7-9 and 12-4. My guess is 9-7 and winning the NFC North because we beat the Vikes twice. Rodgers health will play a role because rookies are almost never ready to win games. Other than QB or DL, I think this team can sustain injuries at the other positions and still roll on relatively uneffected.

Overall, I think they're a good team, but the defensive and ball control issues are too much to overcome with or without Favre. I think the Packers were somewhere between 3rd and 6th best team last year, but to win the Championship you have to be #1 and to do that you usually need a top 2 or 3 defense. We're just not there in my opinion.

[vince]

Average defensive rank for 1 time winners = #2.5 defense
Average defensive rank for mulit winners = #3.4 defense

What is the rank here, points allowed? Yards allowed. Either way. Those are incredibly telling statistics.

This is points allowed (which I see as a combo of Defense, ST's and offensive ball control)
JH, while the premise of your argument holds basically true in that teams win Super Bowls, not QBs, Super Bowl Champions don't need to have nearly as good of defenses as the statistics you cite would indicate. Not sure where you got those numbers, but they're wrong. Here are the last 15 Super Bowl competitors and their defensive rankings by POINTS ALLOWED, as you indicated your numbers represent.

Season......SB Winner...............Pts. Allowed Rank.......Super Bowl Runner-up........Pts. Allowed Rank
93.............Dallas Cowboys................2......................Buff alo Bills...................5
94.............San Francisco 49ers..........6......................San Diego Chargers............9
95.............Dallas Cowboys................3......................Pitt sburgh Steelers.............9
96..............Green Bay Packers..........1......................New England Patriots..............14
97..............Denver Broncos...............6.....................Green Bay Packers.............5
98..............Denver Broncos..............8......................Atlant a Falcons..............4
99..............St. Louis Rams..............4......................Tennessee Titans...............15
00..............Baltimore Ravens..........1.......................New York Giants...............5
01..............New England Patriots.......6.....................St. Louis Rams...............7
02.............Tampa Bay Buccaneers....1.....................Oakland Raiders.............6
03..............New England Patriots.......1....................Carolina Panthers............10
04..............New England Patriots.......2....................Philadelphia Eagles...............2
05..............Pittsburgh Steelers.........3....................Seattle Seahawks............7
06..............Indianapolis Colts..........23..................Chicago Bears................3
07...............New York Giants.............17.................New England Patriots..............4

Averages........................................5. 6................................................. ..........................7

While defenses are consistently in the top 10, and a dominating defense goes a long way toward super bowl contention, they don't need to be nearly as dominating as your numbers indicate in order to win the Super Bowl. Defenses need to be playing well in the playoffs, but a top 10 defense - averaging in the bottom half of the top 10, combined with a good offense, clearly leads to a great chance at a Super Bowl Championship.

[RashanGary]

I have numbers a page or two back, Vince. You're right about the colts though. I was getting my stat from nfl.com/history and then the last two years I switched. In the switch I made a mistake.


I still ended up taking out the highest two. The Colts would be one of those highest two. When doing that, it adds in 14 from when the raiders won and bumps the averages up to about even - 3.5. If you take out the high two on yours it ends up at 3.5 as well


I didn't want unusual exceptions throwing off the data. Ultimately it's how a defense/STs play in the playoffs, not the regular season that counts, but I don't know where to get that stat and over 27 years, after removing unusual data, I think a pretty reliable theme is gained from the regular season stat. The theme is that great QB's or good QB's both require the same thing - (a great surrounding cast) I don't think it's a stretch to say people far overrate the importance of the QB because they see a couple QB's win many and they assume it was the QB. Reality is that they need the same surrounding cast as the 1 time winners and maybe a bunch of guys who never won are better than the guys who did, but never had the surroudning team or health bounce the right way in the post season. It's a team game with team wins and I think Brett Favre was on to something when he says the QB takes more blame than he deserves in the bad times and gets more credit than he deserves in the good times. It's the team.

[vince]

I have numbers a page or two back, Vince. You're right about the colts though. I was getting my stat from nfl.com/history and then the last two years I switched. In the switch I made a mistake.


I still ended up taking out the highest two. The Colts would be one of those highest two. When doing that, it adds in 14 from when the raiders won and bumps the averages up to about even - 3.5. If you take out the high two on yours it ends up at 3.5 as well


The average defense in points allowed over the last 27 years is still 3.5 more or less after removing unusually high and low data. Go back adn look at the data. You'll see I removed the high two and low to from the 1 time winners and multi winners just to disregard the unusual data and focus on the typical situation that is required to win the SB. I didn't want unusual exceptions throwing off the data. The odds are you need a top 3 or 4 defense to win a SB, but circumstances arise where a defense plays bad in the reg season and turns it on in the playoffs. Ultimately it's how a defense plays int he playoffs, not the regular season that counts, but I don't know where to get that stat and over 27 years, after removing unusual data, I think a pretty reliable theme is gained. The theme is that great QB's or good QB's both require the same thing - (a great surrounding cast)
OK. However, that's where statistics get misused. In this case in particular, you don't (shouldn't) ignore ANY instances when averaging the results. That's the point of averaging - to come to a reasonable generalization about a set of statistics. Ignoring any outlyers, particularly in a set of ranked numbers where there is a limitation to the values (1 to 32), creates a bias which, in most cases including this one, can lead to faulty conclusions. Those teams won the Super Bowl and should be included in any pool of Super Bowl winners - plain and simple.

Averaging a lot of low numbers with one or two high numbers effectively gives much greater (appropriately) weight to the low numbers - without ignoring the instances that tend to disprove the conclusion.

Using your numbers would lead to the conclusion that a Top 3 defense is practically required to win the Super Bowl, particularly for one-time winners. I'd say that's why Harv pointed out how "telling" those (skewed) results are. Only about half the winners accomplished that though. Half didn't. A conclusion where there's only a 50/50 (or 60/40) chance of being right is not a good basis upon which to draw any conclusion.

The general theme, although you exaggerated it, obviously holds though in both instances.

[vince]

I went back and looked at your original posts, and after stating the statistics, you drew a conclusion that the Packers aren't likely to win the Super Bowl by asking this question...

Do we have a #2 defense?
By concluding that a #2 defense is required to win the Super Bowl is just not an accurate conclusion. A #2 or better defense was only achieved by 37% of the last 15 Super Bowl champions. An overwhelming percentage of Super Bowl Champions had lower than a #2 defense...

Obviously, it's difficult to win the Super Bowl, and I'm not arguing that the Packers will win it this year. I'm just pointing out that skewing results leads to faulty conclusions, and that the Packers could very well win the Super Bowl, but they will likely need a top 10 defense. Last year, they were 11th I believe.

[RashanGary]

Vince, I really wasn't trying to extrapolate all kinds of crazy assumptions out of it. I was trying to find a common tendency of SB winners - that's really it.

I think the the theme is that good and great QB's alike don't do it alone and shouldn't get the credit or blame that they get by some people here. That's really the only conclusion I drew from any of this. Maybe the stat seemed to do one thing or another, but I explained what I was doing the whole way and didn't extraoplate it in any specific, crazy way. As it relates to this team, I didn't specifically say it, but I also think that losing Brett is not nearly as important as many here think it is. IF the team is good and the QB is OK, they have a chance. Further, my problem with the Packers isn't the QB just yet, it's the defesne.

If our defense is top 10 (and I think it is), 11% of teams have won the SB with that type of defense. Our chances aren't very good. That's my point.

[texaspackerbacker]

I honestly don't have much faith in all this statistics stuff--there are always exceptions--like the Colts a couple of years ago, and occasionally teams like the Giants last year who get lucky and/or peak at the right time.

Just for curiosity, though, where did the Packers rank last season in points allowed and yardage allowed?

[vince]

Vince, I really wasn't trying to extrapolate all kinds of crazy assumptions out of it. I was trying to find a common tendency of SB winners - that's really it.

I think the the theme is that good and great QB's alike don't do it alone and shouldn't get the credit or blame that they get by some people here. That's really the only conclusion I drew from any of this. Maybe the stat seemed to do one thing or another, but I explained what I was doing the whole way and didn't extraoplate it in any specific, crazy way. As it relates to this team, I didn't specifically say it, but I also think that losing Brett is not nearly as important as many here think it is. IF the team is good and the QB is OK, they have a chance. Further, my problem with the Packers isn't the QB just yet, it's the defesne.

If our defense is top 10 (and I think it is), 11% of teams have won the SB with that type of defense. Our chances aren't very good. That's my point.
Agreed with all that JH. I'm not trying to beat you up or anything - just make clear that most Super Bowl winners don't have Top 2 or 3 defenses, even though that improves one's chances...

Last year, the Packers finished with the 11th best D in total yards and 6th in total points.