quote:

Originally posted by BackThePack:

quote:

Originally posted by Endo:

quote:

Originally posted by BackThePack:
It was never said in the first place. AGAIN , All thats ever been said about our D is that it would improved over last year AND it HAS!

-

Nice try,but no.

Nice selective cut and clip,Endo.

Thanks, but these are your words not mine. They show show your argument and attitude for what it is so why waste space with more of the same words?

You say the defense has improved since last season; that was all anybody expected. Nobody could deny that has happened but there were plenty of 'all-knowing' media folk who predicted the Packers D would be top ten and could be dominant.

Packhead gave the reference you said didn't exist, which was still somehow not satisfactory. He also never stated that "the defense was not improved over last year" instead simply that the defense hasn't lived up to expectations. That is a completely reasonable argument which was blown out of proportion.

I happen to agree that while the defense has gotten better. They are capable of playing at a much higher level but have not achieved nearly their potential. That is not to say I think the coaches (aside from Shotty because I see the same late-play safety mistakes) have done a bad job. They have done decently, imo, but could do much better with the talent on defense.

For most of our games past the first quarter we have played up (in score) and the offense has been the driving force of this team while the defense the backbone. Yet all season we have not found the quarterback with more than the DL, found an answer for the opponents TE, had reliable safety coverage. A strong backbone of a D would not allow a 1st on 3rd & 19. There have been many third downs the D got us off the field this year when they wouldn't have last year but some bonehead plays they allow show how much farther they have to go.

It is said by the players that this defense forces a team to put together a whole drive to beat them and that is mainly what we've seen. Its been a bend-but-don't break D that doesn't force alot of turnovers nor blitz much but will smartly get off the field in seven plays. That is good and consistent and solid for the coaches to plan around as it helps field position and the offensive game plan. When this team doesn't have the lead it can be patient but can likely run out of time. When competing against the best of the league (or a team on a great day) this play may be good enough for second place. I don't have the confidence in Sanders either to tweak the D for the most difficult of games. He may be capable of it but he has yet to prove it, and he will certainly show whether or not he can during the playoffs.

quote:

Originally posted by Endo:
You say the defense has improved since last season; that was all anybody expected. Nobody could deny that has happened but there were plenty of 'all-knowing' media folk who predicted the Packers D would be top ten and could be dominant.

GB now is 15th overall, 6th in scoring defense, and are +4 in takeaways. Over their remaining games, they take on oppenents with a combined winning percentage of .375.

By that time, I would be more then willing to bet GB gets to the top 10. They were there around the 1/2 way point of the season but then took on and had difficult games with Detroit, Dallas, Denver, and at KC.

They'll be in the top 10 by the time this is said and done.

Let's not forget that the last game against Dallas, they were missing how many starters? Put KGB, Jolly and Woodson out there, and I think that Dallas has a much tougher time moving the ball.

quote:

Originally posted by packerboi:
GB now is 15th overall, 6th in scoring defense, and are +4 in takeaways. Over their remaining games, they take on oppenents with a combined winning percentage of .375.

By that time, I would be more then willing to bet GB gets to the top 10.

The more games you play, the tougher it is to move up (or down). I'd be surprised if they can make up that much ground in 4 games, but we'll find out.

The difference from 15th to 10th is only 9 yards per game.

quote:

Originally posted by scoop:

quote:

Originally posted by packerboi:
GB now is 15th overall, 6th in scoring defense, and are +4 in takeaways. Over their remaining games, they take on oppenents with a combined winning percentage of .375.

By that time, I would be more then willing to bet GB gets to the top 10.

The more games you play, the tougher it is to move up (or down). I'd be surprised if they can make up that much ground in 4 games, but we'll find out.

How many spots did they move up in the last 4 games of last year? I remember it being pretty significant.

They have a good chance to move up to the top twelve in NFL defenses by the end of the year. Most of the teams they have played were in the better half at the time they played. I would agree that has skewed the stats against the defense. If they finish in the top 8/quartile then they will have met my hopes stat-wise. The Aikman(?) defense rankings are just as meaningful, too, imo.

Also- this defense has had pretty much everyone available for every game before the pokees which is rare in the Not For Long season.

quote:

Originally posted by Endo:

Thanks, but these are your words not mine. They show show your argument and attitude for what it is so why waste space with more of the same words?

No,what you did was snip a post of mine,selectively, so you could act like a tool with the icon of yours. So you can take the "attitude" comment and look hard into the mirror,hypocrite.

quote:

Originally posted by Endo:
You say the defense has improved since last season; that was all anybody expected. Nobody could deny that has happened but there were plenty of 'all-knowing' media folk who predicted the Packers D would be top ten and could be dominant.

ok then lets see them. We seen Bob McGinn and Merrel Hoge stat that, that's not "plenty". What "plenty" of folks said was that our defense would or could be improved. There young and improving game after game why some people can not see that is beyond ridiculous.

and what packhead original said was:

"I agree, I'm not sold on Sanders at all. This was billed as a top ten D coming into the season , but they've played far from that. The run D isn't too bad (12th overall just behind the Cards), but the pass D has looked bad all season ... 23rd in the league at this point and barely ahead of the Cards & Bears.

The safties play has been very poor, I just hope Shotts is gone after this season. I have absolutely no faith in the Packers D shutting down a great passing O like NE/Dallas ... those teams we'd just plain have to out score."


Not during the season,not pregame before hand. Im talking BEFORE the season started like he said. Not many people were up in arms about our defense of how great or good it was going to be. In fact,not many people were high on the Packers this offseason or preseason.

My point(since both of you obviously missed it) was that some of you are freaking exaggerating of what exactly was said by the media,and are disappointed because someone in the media gave you false sense of hope? here,this bares repeating. "SOME-ONE-FROM-THE-MEDIA said"

Honestly,those idiots are mostly wrong in the first place so what does it matter if or it wasnt billed as a top ten defense because someone from the media said it? Does it mean it's suddenly a failure? Because Merrel Hoge and Bob McGinn said so? Cut it out! Especially preseason-offseason predications? WOW!

I even gave you two an example of that,show us what the majority said about the predications of the NFCN this year in preseason-offseason. MOST of them had us in last or second to last place(some had us as a wildcard).

I could really see being disappointed if Ted Thompson or Mike McCarthy came out and said something like that,but to watch some of you on this forum be disappointed or upset because of what some clowns from the media said is ridiculous! Where in the hell is the perspective in that?
.

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelpee:
Could the Pack give the Pats a run for the money? Absolutely.

But what ended up costing the Ravens last night, was the penalties they kept getting giving the Pats yet another chance to score.

If the Pack makes it to the SB, they have to cut down on the number of penalties. If they can do that, then yes, the Pack could once again beat the Pats in the SB. A very sweet thought in itself.

The number of penalties committed has little to do with the games outcome.

Really??

So I suppose giving a team a first down instead of forcing them to punt the ball does not affect the outcome.

Geez for as long as I can remember people here have bitched about (insert players name) making stupid penalties. Makes you wonder why coaches get their panties in a wad when their players keep getting flagged by the refs. Whatever are they thinking since according to you those penalties have little to do with the outcome of the game.

quote:

Originally posted by heyward:
After watching last week's game against Dallas, the thought of Tom Brady and those receivers going up against Jarrett Bush, Nick Collins and Atari Bigby is downright scary. I also wonder if we can pressure Brady. Both the Eagles and Ravens used exotic looks and/or sophisticated blitzes to bother Brady. Unless Bob Sanders is holding back, I wouldn't expect to see much in the way of exotic looks and/or sophisticated blitz packages from the Packers.

Sums up my thoughts pretty much. One of the keys to the Eagles and Ravens being able to do what they did was put pressure on Brady. Can our D do that? Maybe but it will be tough.

Is Bigby related to Carroll? The similarities are scary.

Except that Bigby has a bigger upside and wasn't a completely wasted first-round pick. He's also not a cancer in the locker room, hasn't punched out any teammates and to my knowledge hasn't been arrested recently. I too am concerned with his brain farts, but if Woodson and Harris believe in the guy, then he deserves more than 12 games to prove whether or not he's worth the spot. Again, though, my non-sensical fan-based patience is wearing thin. However, two of the best CB's in the league probably know a bit more about football than a Booger in California or a rodent in Massachusetts.

In regards to the penalty issue, below is a link to a recent article that discusses it. I'll make no judgment myself, but feel free to make up your own minds:

Statistical Analysis of Penalty Yards vs. Game Outcome

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelpee:

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelpee:
If the Pack makes it to the SB, they have to cut down on the number of penalties.

The number of penalties committed has little to do with the games outcome.

Really??

So I suppose giving a team a first down instead of forcing them to punt the ball does not affect the outcome.

Geez for as long as I can remember people here have bitched about (insert players name) making stupid penalties. Makes you wonder why coaches get their panties in a wad when their players keep getting flagged by the refs. Whatever are they thinking since according to you those penalties have little to do with the outcome of the game.

A team could commit only 1 penalty in a game, but if that resulted in a second chance at a game-winning chip shot FG, well that is costly. Conversely, a team could commit 15 penalties on 1st and 10, and then stop the opponents next 3 plays (defensive penalty) or drive the length of the field for a TD (offensive penalty), not costly...

quote:

Is Bigby related to Carroll? The similarities are scary.

Bigby may have some coverage issues but he does a solid job of tackling. Carroll delivered his best hits in the locker room or bar.

I think Carroll could have a bright future in the pet-washing industry. Anyone who has a pet knows that when bath time comes, holding onto them/preventing them from scurrying away is like wrestling a greased pig. I've never seen anyone better at grabbing onto someone as they try to run away than Hwy 28, and he'd probably quickly rise to the top of the industry after all the boxing glove training he's completed. Just tell him not to hold onto them, and he'll never fail to keep your dog or cat in place.

Bigby's alternative career would be limited to that of a body double if anymore Predator movies are released, so there's another contrast between the two.

quote:

Originally posted by RatPack:

quote:

Is Bigby related to Carroll? The similarities are scary.

Bigby may have some coverage issues but he does a solid job of tackling. Carroll delivered his best hits in the locker room or bar.

Simply false. The one thing Carroll did do well was hit for a midget corner. Carroll was tough and had amazing upside. Too bad that was it.

Carroll v. Bigby in terms of tackling ability is a qualitative argument, but I can't say Carroll had 'amazing' upside. He was definitely physically gifted, but by all accounts he was an idot. To me, a better comparison would be Carroll vs. the immortal Torrance Marshall - very physically gifted, but too dumb to ever move towards reaching their potential. If you're not bright enough to apply yourself properly towards improving, then by nature your upside is limited, IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD:
Carroll v. Bigby in terms of tackling ability is a qualitative argument, but I can't say Carroll had 'amazing' upside. He was definitely physically gifted, but by all accounts he was an idot. To me, a better comparison would be Carroll vs. the immortal Torrance Marshall - very physically gifted, but too dumb to ever move towards reaching their potential. If you're not bright enough to apply yourself properly towards improving, then by nature your upside is limited, IMHO.

I would agree that's a very good analogy/comparison. IF, (huge, betting odds in Vegas if) Carroll could have pulled his head out, he had tremendous gifts. I do understand your point about his brainlessness limiting his upside, but I always hope that's something guys can overcome, especially at certain positions (CB, RB, DE mainly).