THE TRENCHES

[mraynrand]

What is that saying? Again, I'm not saying there isn't a correlation, I'm saying its a stupid statistic.

You could have a dominant D and a dominant O and the opposition is going to throw for a ton of yards because you'll be up so big you take your foot off the gas and play prevent, yet they have to chuck it since they're down by so much.

It's one stat. Looking at one stat is dumb. You've got to look at more than that to even come close to doing any sort of analysis.

The Packers defense is not good in my opinion. I think few here would pick the Packers D in their top 5 D's if they needed to win a game tomorrow and had their choice of any D in the NFL.

OK. Pick your top five.

[ThunderDan]

Yards given up are the absolute stupidest stat to judge a defense.

This is what you said.

If it is the absolute stupidest stat to judge a defense by why have 9 out of the last 10 best YPG teams made the playoff? Now, there is a correlation?

Way to try and change the argument again.

[Partial]

Yards given up are the absolute stupidest stat to judge a defense.

This is what you said.

If it is the absolute stupidest stat to judge a defense by why have 9 out of the last 10 best YPG teams made the playoff? Now, there is a correlation?

Way to try and change the argument again.

I'm not changing any argument. It is one of the stupidest stats to judge a defense on. Far too many variables, quality of opposition, quality of offense, etc all make way too big of an impact on it.

The point I was making is I don't care how many yards my team gives up as long as they don't give up points. There is probably a statistical correlation between the two, sure, but I don't think it's as valuable as some stats.

The Packers have padded stats big time right now because of the Lions and Browns. They're ranked as a better D than Minne right now, but are you tellign me you wouldn't take Minne's vastly superior D over ours? Is this what you're saying?

The one stat that would be killer would be the expected points to produce of opposition versus actual points scored by opposition.

[Bretsky]

Packers rank tied for fourth in total defense (283.4 yards per game allowed), but if you took away performances against the horrible Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, the Packers would rank 21st (338 per game).

[mraynrand]

What is that saying? Again, I'm not saying there isn't a correlation, I'm saying its a stupid statistic.

You could have a dominant D and a dominant O and the opposition is going to throw for a ton of yards because you'll be up so big you take your foot off the gas and play prevent, yet they have to chuck it since they're down by so much.

It's one stat. Looking at one stat is dumb. You've got to look at more than that to even come close to doing any sort of analysis.

The Packers defense is not good in my opinion. I think few here would pick the Packers D in their top 5 D's if they needed to win a game tomorrow and had their choice of any D in the NFL.

OK. Pick your top five.

still waiting

[mraynrand]

Packers rank tied for fourth in total defense (283.4 yards per game allowed), but if you took away performances against the horrible Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, the Packers would rank 21st (338 per game).

What if you took away their games against the 7-1 Vikings?

[Partial]

What is that saying? Again, I'm not saying there isn't a correlation, I'm saying its a stupid statistic.

You could have a dominant D and a dominant O and the opposition is going to throw for a ton of yards because you'll be up so big you take your foot off the gas and play prevent, yet they have to chuck it since they're down by so much.

It's one stat. Looking at one stat is dumb. You've got to look at more than that to even come close to doing any sort of analysis.

The Packers defense is not good in my opinion. I think few here would pick the Packers D in their top 5 D's if they needed to win a game tomorrow and had their choice of any D in the NFL.

OK. Pick your top five.

still waiting

I'm not really interested in responding to a million posts from you. If you honestly believe they're a top 5 D, well, good for you. I do not.

[mraynrand]

What is that saying? Again, I'm not saying there isn't a correlation, I'm saying its a stupid statistic.

You could have a dominant D and a dominant O and the opposition is going to throw for a ton of yards because you'll be up so big you take your foot off the gas and play prevent, yet they have to chuck it since they're down by so much.

It's one stat. Looking at one stat is dumb. You've got to look at more than that to even come close to doing any sort of analysis.

The Packers defense is not good in my opinion. I think few here would pick the Packers D in their top 5 D's if they needed to win a game tomorrow and had their choice of any D in the NFL.

OK. Pick your top five.

still waiting

I'm not really interested in responding to a million posts from you. If you honestly believe they're a top 5 D, well, good for you. I do not.

I never said I thought they were. I'm seeing whether your evaluation of defenses has any merit. I suspect, based on most of the emotionally based garbage you post that it doesn't. Put your money where your mouth is - Who is top 5? I suspect you don't want to list it because it would force you to actually evaluate using some sort of logic.

[Bretsky]

Packers rank tied for fourth in total defense (283.4 yards per game allowed), but if you took away performances against the horrible Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, the Packers would rank 21st (338 per game).

What if you took away their games against the 7-1 Vikings?

Why are you asking me ? If you want to know look it up and argue against the information I just simply copied and pasted

[Partial]

What is that saying? Again, I'm not saying there isn't a correlation, I'm saying its a stupid statistic.

You could have a dominant D and a dominant O and the opposition is going to throw for a ton of yards because you'll be up so big you take your foot off the gas and play prevent, yet they have to chuck it since they're down by so much.

It's one stat. Looking at one stat is dumb. You've got to look at more than that to even come close to doing any sort of analysis.

The Packers defense is not good in my opinion. I think few here would pick the Packers D in their top 5 D's if they needed to win a game tomorrow and had their choice of any D in the NFL.

OK. Pick your top five.

still waiting

I'm not really interested in responding to a million posts from you. If you honestly believe they're a top 5 D, well, good for you. I do not.

I never said I thought they were. I'm seeing whether your evaluation of defenses has any merit. I suspect, based on most of the emotionally based garbage you post that it doesn't. Put your money where your mouth is - Who is top 5? I suspect you don't want to list it because it would force you to actually evaluate using some sort of logic.

I have never claimed to be some guru, I said judging based on yards allowed is stupid. I listed several reasons why there can be anomalies.

I have no idea who the top 5 are, but I can name 5 Ds that I think are better than the Packs. I don't really understand the point of this exercise...

1. Minnesota
2. New York Jets
3. New York Giants
4. Dallas Cowboys
5. Pittsburgh

[Bretsky]

At this point I'd rate my top 6 defenses in no particular order as

Denver
Jets
Indy
New England
Pittsburg
Cincy

In the second tier/group I'd put

Green Bay
Phily
Minnesota
Washington
Dallas
Giants and maybe
Baltimore.......blind faith I guess as they might not deserve to be here


No specific stat formula although I would say that I probably value Points Per Game over yardage

[mraynrand]

Packers rank tied for fourth in total defense (283.4 yards per game allowed), but if you took away performances against the horrible Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, the Packers would rank 21st (338 per game).

What if you took away their games against the 7-1 Vikings?

Why are you asking me ? If you want to know look it up and argue against the information I just simply copied and pasted

Well, I suspect you know what I was driving at - check out other teams - they play stinkers too and their overall stats would look worse if you throw out their worst opponents. Or would look better if you tossed out their toughest games. The Packers are middle of the road right now. Everything - stats, record, gameplay, all support that. No need to gerrymander stats.

[Smidgeon]

Packers rank tied for fourth in total defense (283.4 yards per game allowed), but if you took away performances against the horrible Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, the Packers would rank 21st (338 per game).

What if you took away their games against the 7-1 Vikings?

Why are you asking me ? If you want to know look it up and argue against the information I just simply copied and pasted

Well, I suspect you know what I was driving at - check out other teams - they play stinkers too and their overall stats would look worse if you throw out their worst opponents. Or would look better if you tossed out their toughest games. The Packers are middle of the road right now. Everything - stats, record, gameplay, all support that. No need to gerrymander stats.

2 points for the appropriate use of the word "gerrymander" in a sentence.

[Bretsky]

I think we all agree GB is not a top five defensive team but I'm by no means ready to panic. We're not terrible either. Middle of the pack would certainly be better than last year

[Fritz]

Packers rank tied for fourth in total defense (283.4 yards per game allowed), but if you took away performances against the horrible Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, the Packers would rank 21st (338 per game).

Bretsky, you've made 15,083 posts. If you took away two of them, you'd have 15,081.

The games against Detroit counted last year, too, and how many points did the 0-16 Leos rack up against last year's 4-3 defense in that first game? 28, was it?

Doesn't anybody recall the lousy Packer special teams play on Sunday? Or Jolly's idiotic penalty which occurred after a play was over?

I am unhappy with the lack of pressure on the opposing QB's. But this defense has on the whole been good enough. That's all we all said we wanted after last year, right? "Gee, if they can just be average, that's all they'd need...."

Well, here they are. Maybe a little better than average. But the offense keeps shooting itself in the foot - and I'd argue that the offensive line is s-l-o-w-l-y getting better, and Roders's hesitation on Sunday was very costly. How many sacks did he take when you were screaming "throw it away!"? How many underneath receivers did he bypass - like at the end of the game when both Jones and Jennings were open but Rodgers opted to throw to a double-covered Driver?

He's still a young guy, and my theory is that last year after the season he kept hearing about how he was too careful and robotic, how he checked down too much. So now he's trying to make the big strike, be the big-play QB. And I think that's hurt him and the team. I liked him better when he threw shorter passes and took the five yard gains. I don't know why, but this coaching staff seems like it disdains the shorter gains.

Classic example: second and three, late in the game Sunday. Perfect. There's lots of time on the clock - six minutes, I think - and you're in Viking territory. You need a t.d. to win. Why not call a run on second and three? If you gain a yard or two - a minimal expectation - you set yourself for two shots at a first down with only a yard or two to gain. Then you can play-action or run.

But no. It's a pass call, Lang has a brain fart and Allen rushes in untouched, and now you're third and long.

The other point is the special teams. Of all the criticism of this team, this is the area I believe is the most legitimate area for severe criticism. You keep all those linebackers and Jarrett Bushes because it's all about special teams, and then you suck? You don't bother drafting Kevin Huber from Cinci in the fifth or sixth round, and you have Krapinos? You continue to accrue stupid penalties all over? Every return, it seems?

Idiocy.