PakAttack86":22yequmx said:
Holy misleading stats Batman!
My stats were taken directly from the ESPN stat line, so no, not misleading in any shape or form.
You posted
rankings based on statistics. You did that because 9th in sacks looks a lot better than 20th in sacks. The difference in actual numbers is 4 sacks, or .25 sacks per game. You deliberately tried to mislead (check mark Green Bay) and got called on it (check mark Seattle).
PakAttack86":22yequmx said:
Hahaha, I knew you could put a positive spin on it. You had to go into your way-back machine for that one. Well done! You're right. That was before PC (Pete Carroll). He is a defensive guru. That is why we have been the #1 ranked D in allowing the fewest points the NFL the last 3 years!
Again, back to the present day...we are talking THIS team. The World Champs. Coached by Pete Carroll. He has Rodgers figured out. Ask the Bronco fans how the #1 scoring offense in the history of the NFL did against us.....on a neutral field.
You used the word "ever", I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect. I'm not arguing that Seattle isn't a defense that demands respect, but to suggest that there are no chinks in that armor is irresponsible and this Packers squad has the tools to compete and win.
Chinks in the armor of
this defense? Which has
NONE of the players from the defense you're citing? Under a different head coach, different coaching staff, and different general manager? Different uniforms even! We might as well discuss the merits of the current Seahawks offense versus your 1958 squad.
He did use the word "ever" so you get a figurative cookie for that one. But you're really coming across like the kid in class who tells the teacher which kid threw a paper airplane while she was out of the room. Nobody likes that kid except his own mom, and she kind of has to.
If you weren't constantly deflecting, posting weak, ticky-tack arguments, and cherry-picking numbers, you might engage some of the better football minds around here. As it is, you're coming in on the heels of a bunch of Panther trolls who sounded a lot like you. If you wonder why you're getting more sarcasm and smack than you'd like, there it is.
E.Lacy27":22yequmx said:
Actually, the Packers had a better points per game against than the Panthers and Rams. Overall, those two defenses are probably still better, but not enough to make the Packers defense suck in comparison.
The Seahawks lost to the Rams 28-26. The Seahawks beat the Raiders 30-24. The Rams beat the Raiders 52-0. The Seahawks beat the Rams 20-6. Go ahead and untangle that puzzle.
But first,
here's a fun read about the state of Green Bay's run defense from 2 months ago.
Article about the NFL-worst run D after week 8":22yequmx said:
While it's easy to refer to the Packers' run defense as the worst in the NFL due to the yards-allowed-per-game statistic, Capers isn't a fan of the meaning behind those numbers.
"Over the years, that run defense statistic is different than what it used to be," he said. "It just is. There's some other things that affect winning and losing a lot more than that."
Capers sounds like PakAttack86. Or is it the other way around? See, it is true that "some other things affect winning and losing a lot more than that." Yeah, things like scoring more points than your opponent. And of course
all stats are different than what they used to be. Eras change, players change, rules change. Duh. But dead last is dead last, however you try to spin it. "No matter how you look at it, we've got to play the run better," said Capers. Again, as they say at Mensa: "Duh."
But hey, that's all history and the Pack went 7-1 since then. They're on a roll. No doubt we'll see two hot teams in a showdown for the conference this Sunday. Should be fun.
:snack:
