2011 Packers (15-1) had the worst defense

[khiladi]

It's quite true: I'm comprehending nothing of the argument you're making. This sentence, for example:
"the statement 'turnovers don't affect the outcome of a game' is a logical corollary to what the Garrett-homers SAID. What does that mean? What your claiming I said the Garrett-homers said is not what I claimed they said, but the natural corollary to what "they" said."

What? How does that statement correlate to 'what the Garrett-homers SAID' at all? As near as I can tell, you're citing things that are largely unrelated to your original argument, and then trying to tell me they correlate logically when they don't. Though, the vagueness of 'what the Garrett-homers SAID' and the mish-mosh of your own posts from another thread confused things further, I have to admit.

In any event, turnovers do affect the outcomes of games. And nothing any Garrett-supported did to try to explain the errors in your reasoning in that other thread contradicts that as far as I can tell. If I'm still misunderstanding your argument, I apologise, I'm trying my best, but it's difficult with all the floundering and cherry picking involved.

What was my original argument? And your talking vagueness?

 

[khiladi]

So multiply all the averages by 16, and go by season totals. Since everybody plays the same number of games, the rankings stay the same anyway.

How does that change my point? Super Bowls aren't awarded by average rankings nor do averages across a season tell you why a team won or lost a game, nor do they always reflect the real story. You can be all-world one game and suck the next from an offensive perspective, yet your average across a season would be amongst the best. It doesn't mean your offense was consistent though.

 

[khiladi]

If we signed Aaron Rodgers, we'd likely be headed towards 6-10, given his inability to play defense and even worse play than Romo in the "clutch" that you trolls are so obsessed with.

I'm a Romo fan, but this is just absurd...

 

[burmafrd]

I'm a Romo fan, but this is just absurd...

Rogers on this team would not make that much difference. Yes he is a better QB then Romo but the difference is not enough to make up for the other areas we are weak in.

 

[Hoofbite]

Rogers on this team would not make that much difference. Yes he is a better QB then Romo but the difference is not enough to make up for the other areas we are weak in.

Not that I really care, but doesn't the thread title pretty much indicate that Rodgers could make a difference.

Granted he'd have to have a similar year but he's at least shown that he could.

 

[Hoofbite]

You're right. The Saints and Bears game did lower the defense rankings a bit. But really.. the Cowboys defense was far from one of the worst in the league. It was average, and very very good at creating turnovers.

Saints, Bears, Broncos, Lions

Jeez, that's 1/4th of the season.

Maybe - just maybe - they were bad.

 

[khiladi]

Rogers on this team would not make that much difference. Yes he is a better QB then Romo but the difference is not enough to make up for the other areas we are weak in.

I was referring to the poster that said we would be 6-10 with Rodgers. That's just ridiculous. We needed one game to make the play-offs. I think Rodgers could have done that.

 

[khiladi]

You forgot to add that Dez had OWNED flowers all day too. One on one with Flowers right there was a sure touchdown. What does Romo do? Audibles and throws a screen pass to the rookie TW that lost like 5 yards on the play.

The thing that is absurd is, per our coaches, Romo has two options, one a run and the other a pass, based upon the formations the defense gives. How the hell was that even an audible look in that situation is a head scratcher...

I also don't know what Romo was thinking. He didn't even look that way and if he did, just blown the whole play up and tossed it to Dez.

 

[DFWJC]

How does that change my point? Super Bowls aren't awarded by average rankings nor do averages across a season tell you why a team won or lost a game, nor do they always reflect the real story. You can be all-world one game and suck the next from an offensive perspective, yet your average across a season would be amongst the best. It doesn't mean your offense was consistent though.

I think the Giants' defense proved that in 2007. They got it together in the playoffs and slowed down several really good or even historically great offenses.
So yeah, there are anomalies.

 

[DFWJC]

The thing that is absurd is, per our coaches, Romo has two options, one a run and the other a pass, based upon the formations the defense gives. How the hell was that even an audible look in that situation is a head scratcher...

I also don't know what Romo was thinking. He didn't even look that way and if he did, just blown the whole play up and tossed it to Dez.

The GB ending was my least favorite series of plays by the offense all season. Infuriating. Bad moment for the QB and the coaches.
I realize GB was so stacked vs the obvious run that there was fear of strip or blowup, but to throw it there just did not make sense.
There were other times that may have been frustrating, but that was the only time where I was really beyond just teed off.
In other words, if that was mostly it, Romo had an outstanding season.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I'm a Romo fan, but this is just absurd...

Why? Because I don't worship Rodgers? Outside of his stat padding, risk aversion and sack-taking to keep his rating high, I don't really see much of a difference between him and any of the other non-Manning quarterbacks. He wouldn't make it here, he'd have to take chances.

 

[Hoofbite]

Why? Because I don't worship Rodgers? Outside of his stat padding, risk aversion and sack-taking to keep his rating high, I don't really see much of a difference between him and any of the other non-Manning quarterbacks. He wouldn't make it here, he'd have to take chances.

I agree. Outside of being a great QB he's really not much different than other QBs.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I agree. Outside of being a great QB he's really not much different than other QBs.

Rodgers is indeed a great quarterback.

 

[khiladi]

Why? Because I don't worship Rodgers? Outside of his stat padding, risk aversion and sack-taking to keep his rating high, I don't really see much of a difference between him and any of the other non-Manning quarterbacks. He wouldn't make it here, he'd have to take chances.

You don't have to worship Rodgers to know he's a great QB, who throws the best over-the-shoulder sideline pass in the game. If that's not risk taking I don't know what is. I don't think any QB throws better than him on the run, and Rodger's offense by default is heavily built on it, with all the roll-outs and bootlegs they run.
And he throws roughly around as much as Romo does, and his completion percentage is right there.

He just throws more TDs than Romo.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

You don't have to worship Rodgers to know he's a great QB, who throws the best over-the-shoulder sideline pass in the game. If that's not risk taking I don't know what is. I don't think any QB throws better than him on the run, and Rodger's offense by default is heavily built on it, with all the roll-outs and bootlegs they run.
And he throws roughly around as much as Romo does, and his completion percentage is right there.

He just throws more TDs than Romo.

He does not take chances. He is risk averse. He will not force throws and takes tons and tons of sacks because he is so determined not to. He has the lowest interception percentage in NFL history. Which is fine when you have Mike McCarthy and the deepest, best group of receivers in the NFL (certainly from 2010-2012). Not so good when you have Jerry. He would put up pretty stats but have no luck here and people would be wondering why we lose 51-48 games with him.

 

[CATCH17]

I'm a Romo fan, but this is just absurd...

Same.. Romo is the man but Rodgers is at another level.

The only thing that could slow Rodgers down in Dallas is having an unimaginative coach like Jason Garrett calling the plays for him.

 

[percyhoward]

I think the Giants' defense proved that in 2007. They got it together in the playoffs and slowed down several really good or even historically great offenses.
So yeah, there are anomalies.

That's a different argument though. Is the regular season always predictive of the postseason? No.

Does that mean the Dallas offense was more inconsistent than the rest of the league's offenses in 2013? Very different question.

 

[perrykemp]

He does not take chances. He is risk averse. He will not force throws and takes tons and tons of sacks because he is so determined not to. He has the lowest interception percentage in NFL history. Which is fine when you have Mike McCarthy and the deepest, best group of receivers in the NFL (certainly from 2010-2012). Not so good when you have Jerry. He would put up pretty stats but have no luck here and people would be wondering why we lose 51-48 games with him.

Big Rodgers fan here, however, I think there is an element of truth in your line of reasoning. He doesn't force throws which is a wonderful thing, however, that can hurt when trying to come from behind.

On the other hand, I believe Rodgers taking all those sacks as opposed to putting the ball up for grabs has been a net positive.

I'm curious to see how Rodgers does now that he doesn't have a roster of 5 WRs who were/are/have the potential to be 1000yard/10td receivers like he had in 2011 when he had Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, Jordy Nelson, James Jones, and Randall Cobb.

 

[xwalker]

How does that change my point? Super Bowls aren't awarded by average rankings nor do averages across a season tell you why a team won or lost a game, nor do they always reflect the real story. You can be all-world one game and suck the next from an offensive perspective, yet your average across a season would be amongst the best. It doesn't mean your offense was consistent though.

How can the average be among the best if they suck every other game?

1 suck + 1 all-world = middle of the pack average

 

[DFWJC]

Saints, Bears, Broncos, Lions

Jeez, that's 1/4th of the season.

Maybe - just maybe - they were bad.

They were unbelievably bad. If not for being above average at getting some turnovers, it would have even been worse.
So instead of an F- or an F, they were an F or a D-. I think the 1st Philly game at least gets them above the absolute worst ever Dallas defense...maybe.