Official Super Bowl Thread?!

[Gunakor]

I'm not seeing the correlation in your argument. I don't think we would have put up anywhere near the offensive performance that the Cards did against the Steelers. We would have been blown out.

Remind me again Partial, how many times were we blown out this season? One? Against the top rated offense in the NFL at the time? At their place?

How many top teir defenses did we play against this season? Were we blown out in any of those games?

I don't think we'd have been blown out here either.

[Partial]

Are you kidding me? Our anemic offense wouldn't put up more than a score or two against the Steelers.

If you noticed, the big plays the Cards had came over the middle. How many times did A-Rod use the middle this season? Very rarely.

I'm not going to get into it as I did a detailed analysis earlier of how the offense fared in CRUCIAL games this season.

[Gunakor]

Are you kidding me? Our anemic offense wouldn't put up more than a score or two against the Steelers.

If you noticed, the big plays the Cards had came over the middle. How many times did A-Rod use the middle this season? Very rarely.

I'm not going to get into it as I did a detailed analysis earlier of how the offense fared in CRUCIAL games this season.

Just like our anemic offense wouldn't have been able to keep pace with the Panthers. Or the Titans. Seeing as how those and any of the other games we lost this year could be considered crucial games, I don't buy your arguement. Furthermore, I can't understand you describing an offense which produced a 1200 yard RB, a 4000 yard QB, and (2) 1000 yard WR's as "anemic".

[SnakeLH2006]

...Just jumping in here, but yeah that is asinine as our O was pretty good this year. If anything, our front 7 on D was anemic. Just sayin....

[mraynrand]

What is this LeBron chalk move that Holmes did that people are bitching about now? Apparently, he used the football as a prop, which is a 15 yard penalty on the kick-off, that was never enforced.

Call me dumb, but I care about the NBA as much as I care about NASCAR, but what exactly is this chalk move?

I remember KG doing this where he puts a ton of chalk on his hands by the scorers table, then claps his hands and gets the guys there all covered with it.

LeBron has decided to do the same except he now throws it up in the air like a mushroom cloud because he simply doesn't have enough attention still.

He does it before every home game. We are all witnesses.

[Partial]

Are you kidding me? Our anemic offense wouldn't put up more than a score or two against the Steelers.

If you noticed, the big plays the Cards had came over the middle. How many times did A-Rod use the middle this season? Very rarely.

I'm not going to get into it as I did a detailed analysis earlier of how the offense fared in CRUCIAL games this season.

Just like our anemic offense wouldn't have been able to keep pace with the Panthers. Or the Titans. Seeing as how those and any of the other games we lost this year could be considered crucial games, I don't buy your arguement. Furthermore, I can't understand you describing an offense which produced a 1200 yard RB, a 4000 yard QB, and (2) 1000 yard WR's as "anemic".

This team is very solid within the 30s but it cannot score when it needs to. It's a finesse offense. I outlined the offensive struggles in this thread. Go back and look at them. I don't count scoring 45 points against Detroit and 15 against Tennessee to average 30 points a game. I think of it as one good game and one bad game.

[Gunakor]

I don't count scoring 45 points against Detroit and 15 against Tennessee to average 30 points a game.

Maybe, but that's you. The NFL adds 45 to 15, divides by two, and comes up with an average of 30 points a game. That simple formula for coming up with scoring averages has worked flawlessly for eons.

Note that the Titans have a top tier defense in the NFL - #1 at the time of the game - while the Lions do not. If you expect to score as many points against the Titans as you do against the Lions you are bound to be disappointed. The difference in scoring in those two games is completely understandable. That's why they keep track of scoring averages in the first place.

[Partial]

And that is why actuaries make the big bucks. Because that sort of statistic is too simplistic to have any sort of value.

Looking at the total scoring per game is really stupid. You've got to look at the performance as a singular object. We did not perform adequately at all, by any stretch of the imagination, in the games I listed.

You can argue it until you're blue in the face, but you'd look awfully silly. How many attempts did we have to score? Why didn't we capitalize? Sure, they have a good defense, but that does not excuse poor execution. Obviously it is more of a challenge to step up and win.

One offensive touchdown in key games is completely unacceptable. It's pathetic to try and justify anything else. For having two top 12 receivers and pretty good back and TE groups, it's even sadder!

We'll see what happens next year, but I suspect we're about average yet again.

[Bossman641]

And that is why actuaries make the big bucks. Because that sort of statistic is too simplistic to have any sort of value.

Looking at the total scoring per game is really stupid. You've got to look at the performance as a singular object. We did not perform adequately at all, by any stretch of the imagination, in the games I listed.

You can argue it until you're blue in the face, but you'd look awfully silly. How many attempts did we have to score? Why didn't we capitalize? Sure, they have a good defense, but that does not excuse poor execution. Obviously it is more of a challenge to step up and win.

One offensive touchdown in key games is completely unacceptable. It's pathetic to try and justify anything else. For having two top 12 receivers and pretty good back and TE groups, it's even sadder!

We'll see what happens next year, but I suspect we're about average yet again.

Wouldn't it make more sense then to look at where the opposing defenses were ranked when we played them and not where they finished the year at, which are the numbers you used? The NFL is a league of trends, teams go on hot streaks. Look at the Giants last year.

Aren't looking at stats for the whole season too simplistic overall? Maybe we should break it down into chunks. Fact - the Houston team we played at the end of the year was certainly not the same Houston team that was playing the rest of the year. They gave up 29 ppg thru 10 and only 17.83 over their last 6. The Jaguars were pretty consistently bad so their average works pretty well. The Titans and their defense were playing better than anyone in the league at the time we played them. The Vikings struggled to a 3-4 start and an average of 23.86 ppg allowed before turning it around and going 7-2 while only giving up 18.44 ppg.

Maybe rather than judging teams based on defensive statistics we should only look at their win-loss record. After all, that's all that matters right (cough*Vince Young*cough). If a team is that good and has a dominating ball-control offense (Titans and Vikings), that certainly gives your offense less chances to score. Maybe we should go through and weigh every team's stats to standardize them all, after all how is it fair to compare stats for the teams in the NFC South against the pathetic NFC and AFC West.

You choose to ignore statistics when they go against your argument and then turn around and argue them to the death when they do.

One last thing, do we have a good offense or a bad offense? I've seen you call them anemic, and then turn around and tout the greatness of the WR's and TE's. If so, who do you blame?

[Partial]

So Minne and Tenn both have "dominating ball control offenses" and when we played them we held them to relatively low point totals, so clearly our defense did it's job. Nice.

However, we scored one offensive touchdown in each of those games. Is that good, or is that bad, BM? If you were the coach of a team with a dynamic, difference making receiving corps, a 4th year vet 1st round pick at QB, and a running back who finished the previous year as well as anybody in the league, would you settle for this?

I surely would not. The offense underachieved any way you slice it.

As for who I blame.. I have noted numerous times how MM is not the answer as a HC. His play calling sucked this year compared to last. Likewise, the limitations of going from a savvy veteran quarterback who can read defenses to an average quarterback who struggled big time with reading defenses obviously contributed to the change in style of play calling.

[mraynrand]

I didn't read through the game thread, but is it safe to assume Partial placed the blame for this loss solely on the shoulders of Warner and the Cardinal offense? After all, if they had scored more than a measly 23 points, the defense never would have been in the precarious position of being expected to hold a lead with 2.5 minutes left.

See... this is where you come off as a jag..

Fact: The Texans were the 22nd ranked defense.
Fact: The Jaguars were the 17th ranked defense.
Fact: The Vikings were the 6th ranked defense.
Fact: The Titans were the 7th ranked defense.

In all of those games, are offensive performances were terrible.

Fact: Against Tennessee.. We scored one touchdown. The Cardinals scored 3 against a far superior defense.

Fact: Against Minnesota, we scored one offensive touchdown right away and couldn't get anything going for the rest of the game. We stayed in the game based on defensive touchdowns and special teams. The Cardinals scored 3 touchdowns against a far superior defense.

Fact: Against Houston, we put up 3 touchdowns. They are one of the very worst defenses in the league, and we were supposed to be one of the dominant offensively. To contrast, The Cardinals scored 3 against a far superior defense.

Fact: Against Jacksonville, we scored 1 touchdown. They are a below average defense. To contrast, The Cardinals scored 3 against a far superior defense.

I'm not seeing the correlation in your argument. I don't think we would have put up anywhere near the offensive performance that the Cards did against the Steelers. We would have been blown out.

I don't blame the offense for the Cardinals because they put up 23 points against the #1 defense in the league... Not the 22nd or 17th.. (where we scored less).

IMO, That is a pretty successful offensive day against the #1 ranked defense, where putting up 16 and 20 points against the 22nd and 17th ranked defenses is a poor offensive day. Can't really complain about the 23 points, and you certainly cannot compare the Packers struggling offensively against by in large average defenses to the Cardinals playing the far and away premiere defense of the NFL.

Ya know, this was a pretty good post - pretty well argued. Maybe it was worth posting it and 'walking away'...

[Bossman641]

So Minne and Tenn both have "dominating ball control offenses" and when we played them we held them to relatively low point totals, so clearly our defense did it's job. Nice.

However, we scored one offensive touchdown in each of those games. Is that good, or is that bad, BM? If you were the coach of a team with a dynamic, difference making receiving corps, a 4th year vet 1st round pick at QB, and a running back who finished the previous year as well as anybody in the league, would you settle for this?

I surely would not. The offense underachieved any way you slice it.

As for who I blame.. I have noted numerous times how MM is not the answer as a HC. His play calling sucked this year compared to last. Likewise, the limitations of going from a savvy veteran quarterback who can read defenses to an average quarterback who struggled big time with reading defenses obviously contributed to the change in style of play calling.

You'll get no argument from me on the Minn game. The Packers had no business being in that game at all, defense and special teams were the only things keeping them in it. The offense played like shit, and the OL was completely overmatched. It still hurt to lose it, but that would have been absolutely stealing a game.

If I remember correctly, the offense struggled in the red zone in the Tenn game. I have no problem placing the majority of blame on them in that game either.

[Partial]

So Minne and Tenn both have "dominating ball control offenses" and when we played them we held them to relatively low point totals, so clearly our defense did it's job. Nice.

However, we scored one offensive touchdown in each of those games. Is that good, or is that bad, BM? If you were the coach of a team with a dynamic, difference making receiving corps, a 4th year vet 1st round pick at QB, and a running back who finished the previous year as well as anybody in the league, would you settle for this?

I surely would not. The offense underachieved any way you slice it.

As for who I blame.. I have noted numerous times how MM is not the answer as a HC. His play calling sucked this year compared to last. Likewise, the limitations of going from a savvy veteran quarterback who can read defenses to an average quarterback who struggled big time with reading defenses obviously contributed to the change in style of play calling.

You'll get no argument from me on the Minn game. The Packers had no business being in that game at all, defense and special teams were the only things keeping them in it. The offense played like shit, and the OL was completely overmatched. It still hurt to lose it, but that would have been absolutely stealing a game.

If I remember correctly, the offense struggled in the red zone in the Tenn game. I have no problem placing the majority of blame on them in that game either.

Smart man. For what its worth, the Packers have the talent to compete with either of those teams. In both instances though, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[gbgary]

One offensive touchdown in key games is completely unacceptable. It's pathetic to try and justify anything else. For having two top 12 receivers and pretty good back and TE groups, it's even sadder!

The offense underachieved any way you slice it.

As for who I blame.. I have noted numerous times how MM is not the answer as a HC. His play calling sucked this year compared to last. Likewise, the limitations of going from a savvy veteran quarterback who can read defenses to an average quarterback who struggled big time with reading defenses obviously contributed to the change in style of play calling.

i agree. i said, several times this year, that the offense over-taxed the defense by not staying on the field and doing their part. that as bad as the defense was the offense was worse. for me mm's play calling combined with rodgers' inexperience were the main reasons. rodgers played very well for a first year qb. i'm very excited about his future here but only time, experience and more talent around him will reap success. offensively i think another really good receiver and a tight end are a must along with a better o-line. i think the d can be mostly fixed in FA (i won't hold my breath though) but the draft needs to go to the offense. they've got to be able to pile up first downs.

[red]

well maybe holmes didn't have both feet down.

pft, has a pic up showing his feet and the right foot is clearly off the ground. the problem is, we don't know where in the catch that pic was taken

i thought for sure after watching the replays that he was in, now maybe i doubt that