Number 1 rank Defense

[sharpe1027]

Allowing points period, doesn't matter whether by run or pass. Why would it matter with just run? MN is better at preventing points. That is the goal.

Actually, the the best at Defense can do is to score points. Total points scored by Vikings = 8; Total points scored by Packers = 18

The second best thing is to get a turnover. Vikings = 19; GB=27

Specifically regarding the points given up, the fact that Packers have the worst special teams in the league would seem to be an unfair burden to how many points they give up. To be fair, it may also lead to less total yards given up.

[Partial]

how is forcing one turnover and giving up 27 points better than not forcing a turnover but pitching a shutout

[boiga]

What does Mn's run D actually do better than GB? Be run against less? Am I missing something? GB's is tougher to gain yards on or score on. What are you hanging your hat on?

According to FO, Minnesota has by far the best defensive line in "power" situations :

Power Success: Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer.

Teams only succeed in those situations against Minnie 39% of the time. The next best is Washington, who give up a 50% success rate. GB gives up 68% in power situations and is ranked 23rd.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/dl

Thats a huge strength of Minnie's D to which other teams can not compare.

However, GB, Minn, and Ariz are all more or less tied for 1st in the percentage of running plays that are stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage (26%)

In regards to the whether the Packers have a historically elite defense, well, according to FO, our current D would be ranked 6th last year, when Pitt, Balt, Phi, Tenn, and Minn all had stronger defenses than they do this year.

[ThunderDan]

how is forcing one turnover and giving up 27 points better than not forcing a turnover but pitching a shutout

But players on Ds have to force TO to have an impact; otherwise they are vanilla Hawks.

Now you are arguing that 11 assignment sure players are better than playmakers!

[Partial]

how is forcing one turnover and giving up 27 points better than not forcing a turnover but pitching a shutout

But players on Ds have to force TO to have an impact; otherwise they are vanilla Hawks.

Now you are arguing that 11 assignment sure players are better than playmakers!

I'm not at all. Are you kidding me? You need a team loaded with playmakers to pitch a shutout. I'm not implying turnovers are a bad thing; I'm proving that the poster made a short-sighted statement.

[ThunderDan]

how is forcing one turnover and giving up 27 points better than not forcing a turnover but pitching a shutout

Since you brought this up I want statistics on total shutouts verses shutouts with no turnovers. How often do shutouts occur without a turnover?

[Partial]

how is forcing one turnover and giving up 27 points better than not forcing a turnover but pitching a shutout

Since you brought this up I want statistics on total shutouts verses shutouts with no turnovers. How often do shutouts occur without a turnover?

Why are you baiting me? Who cares how often they are? Who knows. Surely not I in both cases. Both are absolutely irrelevant. If you're interested, look it up. It was a point that clearly went over your head.

[ThunderDan]

how is forcing one turnover and giving up 27 points better than not forcing a turnover but pitching a shutout

Since you brought this up I want statistics on total shutouts verses shutouts with no turnovers. How often do shutouts occur without a turnover?

Why are you baiting me? Who cares how often they are? Who knows. Surely not I in both cases. Both are absolutely irrelevant. If you're interested, look it up. It was a point that clearly went over your head.

But is that like saying would you rather win $50 or $20,000,000 but the odds of winning the $20M is 100,000,000 to 1; meaning it doesn't happen.

Who doesn't want to win $20M but I would guess I'll be dead before I win the lottery if I played every week and not just once.

I'll take the $50 please.

[ThunderDan]

In 2009 there have been 6 shutouts.

SEA vs STL (28-0) 1 turnover
NYG vs TB (24-0) 1 turnover
SEA vs JAC (41-0) 2 turnovers
GB vs DET (26-0) 3 turnovers
NYJ vs OAK (38-0) 4 turnovers
BAL vs CLE (16-0) 2 turnovers

So all 6 shutouts the Ds have created turnovers.

[ThunderDan]

how is forcing one turnover and giving up 27 points better than not forcing a turnover but pitching a shutout

Since you brought this up I want statistics on total shutouts verses shutouts with no turnovers. How often do shutouts occur without a turnover?

Why are you baiting me? Who cares how often they are? Who knows. Surely not I in both cases. Both are absolutely irrelevant. If you're interested, look it up. It was a point that clearly went over your head.

Is this a "new" trick for you? When I have made points in the past you have demanded statistics to backup my points. When I present the stats you say stats don't matter.

I am asking for you to do the same.

[Waldo]

The vikings are #1 against the run

I really don't see why. They are giving up fewer YPG, but the Pack has them beat at YPC, and is just as good at not allowing long runs or rushing TD's. And the Pack has faced better backs, Gore was healthy for our bout with SF, we've faced AD twice, not Grant, Dallas' rushing attack, and we've faced Benson, who they have yet to play. The only top back they've faced is Steven Jackson, who we've also played.

Because yardage stats don't mean much on their own. Combine that with say points allowed, it means much more.

That's fine.

GB, like Mn, has given up 3 rushing TD's.

There have been less rushing attempts against Mn's D, which means that Mn gives up more TDs/attempt than GB. Mn also gives up more yards per rush than GB.

An opponent that runs the ball will on average gain more yards and score more often against Mn than they will against GB. And these stats are based on GB facing a better group of runners.

Why again is Mn that best run D?

It's Brett Favre. He's just like a kid out there. The other players like to actually have fun playing football when they are playing with Brett, therefore the bunch of guys having fun with Brett are better than everyone else, because they too are just like kids out there. Smiling and happy.

Ok Waldo, let's just cut to the chase....throw out all the bullshit and see where the rubber meets the road. How do the teams match up in Red Zone defense. THAT is the bottom line, I don't care how you spin it.

I can't answer the question but I'll google away and see if I can find it.

Nice strawman argument.

I questioned Mn's #1 ranking at run D. Neither of you have been able to give any decent reason as to why Mn has a better run D. So....change the subject and the parameters of the argument, and argue something else.

[boiga]

Waldo, I just said why Minn's rush D is better.

They stop people on 3rd or 4th and short 29% more often than we do. Doesn't that qualify as a valid difference?

[mngolf19]

The vikings are #1 against the run

I really don't see why. They are giving up fewer YPG, but the Pack has them beat at YPC, and is just as good at not allowing long runs or rushing TD's. And the Pack has faced better backs, Gore was healthy for our bout with SF, we've faced AD twice, not Grant, Dallas' rushing attack, and we've faced Benson, who they have yet to play. The only top back they've faced is Steven Jackson, who we've also played.

Because yardage stats don't mean much on their own. Combine that with say points allowed, it means much more.

That's fine.

GB, like Mn, has given up 3 rushing TD's.

There have been less rushing attempts against Mn's D, which means that Mn gives up more TDs/attempt than GB. Mn also gives up more yards per rush than GB.

An opponent that runs the ball will on average gain more yards and score more often against Mn than they will against GB. And these stats are based on GB facing a better group of runners.

Why again is Mn that best run D?

It's Brett Favre. He's just like a kid out there. The other players like to actually have fun playing football when they are playing with Brett, therefore the bunch of guys having fun with Brett are better than everyone else, because they too are just like kids out there. Smiling and happy.

Ok Waldo, let's just cut to the chase....throw out all the bullshit and see where the rubber meets the road. How do the teams match up in Red Zone defense. THAT is the bottom line, I don't care how you spin it.

I can't answer the question but I'll google away and see if I can find it.

Nice strawman argument.

I questioned Mn's #1 ranking at run D. Neither of you have been able to give any decent reason as to why Mn has a better run D. So....change the subject and the parameters of the argument, and argue something else.

Change the subject? I'm quoting you and replying to it. What are you talking about? You made the statement that "without QB pressure the Vikes passing defense is terrible" I replied with the obvious DUH and said that would be the case for any defense. You state "An opponent that runs the ball will on average gain more yards and score more often against Mn than they will against GB." Well if that were true, then I guess GB would have given up less points on the season than MN. But they haven't.

Not changing subject. Replying to your posts. Why are you stuck on yardage? Points win games. Score more or give up less. Vikes have been doing both this year, hence the 10-1.

[Zool]

Wouldnt YPA and YPG be a better indicator than anything else?

GB is 4th(tied) at 3.6ypa
MN is 8th(tied) at 3.9ypa

GB is 6th(tied) at 271 rushes on the season
MN is 1st at 228 rushes on the season

GB is 4th at 980 total yards rushing allowed
MN is 2nd at 898 total yards rushing allowed

Both teams have given up 3td's. I guess I'd call it a close race.

[Partial]

Right, who cares? Both are very good at it. Vikes D is better imo. It's the pass rush that's the difference.