Bus Cook - QB agent specialist

[Gunakor]

I disagree. In many of the games they lost the offense was horrible. What is your excuse for the abysmal performances in Jax, Tenn and Minne?

I'm not looking at individual games. The season is over now, so you don't have to do that either. I'm looking at the whole season.

If those are the only 3 games that you can point to that were abysmal performances, then that means that the other 13 performances were fine. 13 good performances in 16 opportunities is fine by me. You don't put up SEASON totals like that if your offense only has one or two good games.

You just won't be happy unless our offense scores 45 points on a weekly basis, will you?

[Partial]

The point is looking at an average is foolish. We could crush the bears 10000-0 and that would certainly impact the averages over the course of the entire season, yet the offense could be putrid in other games.

They had some ok games, some good games, and some awful games. The offense was not as spectacular as its made out to be here.

I'll be happy if they put up 24 points and can sustain drives in the second half of the ball game. Can't really blame a defense for blowing a lead when they're sucking wind from playing the entire second half 'cause the O cannot sustain a drive.

[Gunakor]

The point is looking at an average is foolish. We could crush the bears 10000-0 and that would certainly impact the averages over the course of the entire season, yet the offense could be putrid in other games.

They had some ok games, some good games, and some awful games. The offense was not as spectacular as its made out to be here.

I'll be happy if they put up 24 points and can sustain drives in the second half of the ball game. Can't really blame a defense for blowing a lead when they're sucking wind from playing the entire second half 'cause the O cannot sustain a drive.

Looking at specific games that fit your arguement and ignoring the games that don't is what sounds foolish Partial. A yearly average takes into account every game, every snap. It accounts for every opponent you've faced, not just the ones that you struggled with, but not just the ones that you dominated either. It gives you the clearest overall picture of how talented the team is. I mean, we aren't going to play the elite defenses of the NFL like the Vikings and the Titans every week. To single those games out as proof that the offense was subpar on the entire season is incredibly foolish IMO.

Besides, who did the Packers beat 10000 to 0 that skewed the season stats so dramatically?

[Partial]

The point is they cannot have awful games and expect to be a good team. Consistency is king. The Packers offense was NOT consistent at all. Not at sustaining drives, or scoring points.

[Dylan McKay]

The point is they cannot have awful games and expect to be a good team. Consistency is king. The Packers offense was NOT consistent at all. Not at sustaining drives, or scoring points.

ok, but regardless of the sitch with Favre we sort of expected inconsistencies with the offense with a new first year starter, well i sure did.

[PlantPage55]

The point is they cannot have awful games and expect to be a good team. Consistency is king. The Packers offense was NOT consistent at all. Not at sustaining drives, or scoring points.

That's 10x better than our defense and special teams being consistently PUTRID.

[Gunakor]

The Packers offense was NOT consistent at all. Not at sustaining drives, or scoring points.

The Packers punted the ball 65 times last year. About 4 a game. Mason Crosby attempted 34 FG's, about 2 a game. The Packers lost 8 fumbles on the season on offense, and Rodgers threw 13 INT's. So 21 offensive drives ended with a turnover, just under 1.5 per game. The only thing I'm missing is how many drives ended due to the clock running out, but given what I could find, it looks on average to be between 7 and 8 offensive drives per game that did not score a touchdown.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that's too horrible at all. Certainly not indicative of a team that consistently struggles to sustain drives.

[Partial]

The point is they cannot have awful games and expect to be a good team. Consistency is king. The Packers offense was NOT consistent at all. Not at sustaining drives, or scoring points.

That's 10x better than our defense and special teams being consistently PUTRID.

What its the chicken or the egg. Was the defense bad because they were always on the field? I'd say that is a definite possibility.

[Partial]

What about 3 and outs? What about moving the ball for a minute and then punting? The bottom line is they had plenty of putrid offensive performances, yet those are the games the defense gets blamed for giving up the lead.

I notice a strong correlation.

[Gunakor]

The point is they cannot have awful games and expect to be a good team. Consistency is king. The Packers offense was NOT consistent at all. Not at sustaining drives, or scoring points.

That's 10x better than our defense and special teams being consistently PUTRID.

What its the chicken or the egg. Was the defense bad because they were always on the field? I'd say that is a definite possibility.

The Packers were 8th in the league in 2008 averaging 31:37 TOP. Go back to 1995, and you'll find that our offense led by league MVP Brett Favre averaged 31:20 TOP

In 1996, the offense led by league MVP Brett Favre averaged 31:57 TOP. We had the #1 ranked defense that year.

In 1997, the offense led by league MVP Brett Favre only held the ball for 30:05 per game.

[Partial]

I don't care what they were. Look at the second halves of ball games with your eyes. They were beyond awful in the second half of a lot of games.

Again, you're looking at averages which account for the really good to offset the really bad. If they simply improve the really bad, they'll be a much better team.

Consistency is king. Bottom line. Replace those awful offensive performances with 3 average to above average performances, and this team is 9-7 instead of 6-10. Huge difference.

[Gunakor]

Of course I'm looking at averages! Again, averages tell the whole story, not just the part you wanna bitch about.

Replace 2 missed FG's with game winners and we are already 8-8 without any additional offensive contributions whatsoever. Doesn't that make a huge difference too?

I think we just saw different things with our eyes last season. I saw a team that had plenty of sustained drives on offense, scored plenty of points, were in position to win every single game save 2, and were let down week after week by a defensive collapse during our opponents last drive. That's what I saw with my eyes.

[Partial]

I saw a gassed defense at the end of games because the offense couldn't sustain a drive in the second half. I saw plenty of one touchdown performances. Field goals don't win in the NFL. Gotta turn 'em into TDs.

[Gunakor]

I saw a gassed defense at the end of games because the offense couldn't sustain a drive in the second half. I saw plenty of one touchdown performances. Field goals don't win in the NFL. Gotta turn 'em into TDs.

Twice this season a FG would have won the game for us, remember? Twice. Try to convince any NFL player or coach that FG's don't win games. Or, try to convince any kicker that missed FG's don't lose games. That entire argument is bullshit.

[Lurker64]

I saw a gassed defense at the end of games because the offense couldn't sustain a drive in the second half. .

I saw a gassed defense at the end of games frequently, but to say that was only because of the offense's inability to sustain drives is frankly laughable. The defense was gassed in large part because of their inability to get off the field. The defense, which was so good on 3rd downs in 2007, was absolutely terrible on 3rd downs in 2008.

A certain responsibility of the defense is to get itself off the field. The Ravens and Steelers didn't sustain a lot of drives last year (both teams had bad offenses by any standards), but neither defense gassed very often since they were getting themselves off the field with great consistency.