2011 Packers (15-1) had the worst defense

[percyhoward]

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.

You're talking about game-to-game variance in scoring. The way to figure this out would be to take the top 10 offenses and compare how their points per drive varies from one game to another.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

I wonder if the 90's cowboys made as many excuses and rationalizations as gets made this generation.

 

[CCBoy]

Proof only has to be a preponderance of actual information...not intensity of emotions shown.

What does a projection of the quarterback with Green Bay have to do with credibility, and hence team relying upon Tony Romo? There are many, actually good, players in the NFL. Tony Romo is one of them...and yes, he plays for the Dallas Cowboys.

Don't look now, he's about to lead them into Training Camp in 3, 2, 1....begin

 

[CCBoy]

I wonder if the 90's cowboys made as many excuses and rationalizations as gets made this generation.

More, they came in on the tail of the departing Landy era...and that wasn't pretty at all. Then, there were the Kennedys assasinations.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

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.

True, in 2011 they threw Matt Flynn in at the end of the season and he had 6 TDs in one game. That was how good things were flowing for their system in that particular season. Having said that I still think they are going to always be good as long as they have Mike McCarthy calling plays. I don't think the average fan knows how highly McCarthy is regarded in this area. As someone alluded to above, that would be Aaron's biggest obstacle if he were magically transported here. No McCarthy and a roster filled out by Jerry, complete with no depth at any position.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

He takes about twice as many sacks late in close losses, and his TD % goes way down. He also gets little help from his defense and special teams in those situations.

 

[percyhoward]

I wonder if the 90's cowboys made as many excuses and rationalizations as gets made this generation.

I don't believe you really wonder that. I think you're just tired of discussing negatives.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

I wonder if the 90's cowboys made as many excuses and rationalizations as gets made this generation.

There weren't any excuses. Everybody knew they were bad when Jimmy Johnson got here. The difference is they improved every year until they won the SB and it was easy to see. Halfway into the 1990 season you could see the team getting better. And once they won the SB it was just like Al Davis said. Just win baby. lol

 

[khiladi]

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

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

Quite easy, based upon mathematics. A rough example:

You score 30 and 10 one game, putting you at 20.
The other guy scores 20 and 20, at 20 a game.

 

[CCBoy]

Quite easy, based upon mathematics. A rough example:

You score 30 and 10 one game, putting you at 20.
The other guy scores 20 and 20, at 20 a game.

For those who made it through Calculus...OK.

 

[xwalker]

Quite easy, based upon mathematics. A rough example:

You score 30 and 10 one game, putting you at 20.
The other guy scores 20 and 20, at 20 a game.

The team scoring 20 every game could be losing all of them. At least the Cowboys would likely be winning many of the games where they scored 30.

 

[percyhoward]

You score 30 and 10 one game, putting you at 20.
The other guy scores 20 and 20, at 20 a game.

OK, so two equally efficient offenses. Add one point to either of them--doesn't matter which--and that becomes the more efficient offense.

Let's say you add the point to the first offense. Are you saying you still prefer the second one because it's more consistent?

 

[khiladi]

The team scoring 20 every game could be losing all of them. At least the Cowboys would likely be winning many of the games where they scored 30.

What does that have to do with the point about consistency in the offense? When is 10 points every a good offensive output?

 

[khiladi]

OK, so two equally efficient offenses. Add one point to either of them--doesn't matter which--and that becomes the more efficient offense.

Let's say you add the point to the first offense. Are you saying you still prefer the second one because it's more consistent?

Did the point really sail over your head?

Since when does scoring ten points ever win games? I'd gladly take the more consistent one just on quick glance.

 

[Idgit]

What does that have to do with the point about consistency in the offense? When is 10 points every a good offensive output?

He wants a lot of points, consistently.

 

[xwalker]

What does that have to do with the point about consistency in the offense? When is 10 points every a good offensive output?

A team that scores 20 every game in the modern NFL is below average. A team that scores 30 every other game must have big play potential but is inconsistent.

Based on averages, the 20 points per game team is likely to be 0-16 while the other team is likely to be 8-8.

If you had said one team always scores 30 while the other team alternates between 40 and 20, then it would be different; although, it's still difficult to know because if the team has a super long time of possession while only scoring 20 and the team that always scores 30 has very short time of possession, then the opposing offense is likely to score less against the team with the longer TOP.

 

[percyhoward]

I'd gladly take the more consistent one just on quick glance.

Then you would take the less efficient offense, in this case.

 

[percyhoward]

If you had said one team always scores 30 while the other team alternates between 40 and 20, then it would be different; although, it's still difficult to know because if the team has a super long time of possession while only scoring 20 and the team that always scores 30 has very short time of possession, then the opposing offense is likely to score less against the team with the longer TOP.

Good point. That's why points per drive has a higher win correlation than points per game.

 

[percyhoward]

He wants a lot of points, consistently.

I'll take the offense that scores the most points, regardless of consistency. The more points the better, and you never know when you're going to need them anyway.

 

[khiladi]

Then you would take the less efficient offense, in this case.

It all depends on the definition of 'efficiency'. My offense is more efficient at scoring points across games then yours is. And in the end, it's about winning games, not fulfilling certain criteria to meet one particular definition that people wouldn't even agree on.