2011 Packers (15-1) had the worst defense

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
Beyond having the 32nd ranked defense in the NFL, the Packers had the 27th ranked running attack.

So in other words, they had no defense and no running game.
You're right that they had no running game, but it's inaccurate to say they had no defense, for reasons already discussed. Rodgers had arguably the best season ever for a QB, so take nothing away from him. But the Packers held opposing QB to an 80 rating, which is good enough for a winning record regardless of Rodgers' accomplishments. That defense was average at worst.
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
Did I say all else kind of being equal or you said it?
The only way to determine which of the two offenses wins more games is to add another variable (points allowed by that team's defense) which has nothing to do with the two offenses anyway.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
The only way to determine which of the two offenses wins more games is to add another variable (points allowed by that team's defense) which has nothing to do with the two offenses anyway.

You mean the offense has to score more than the defense allows to win a game? Brilliant, but what does that have to do with my point about what averages across a season of a certain measurable tell us in regards to an alleged great offense?
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
You mean the offense has to score more than the defense allows to win a game? Brilliant, but what does that have to do with my point about what averages across a season of a certain measurable tell us in regards to an alleged great offense?
If your point wasn't that the more consistent (yet lower-scoring) offense would win more games, then what was it?
 

CCBoy

Well-Known Member
Messages
47,031
Reaction score
22,617
Percy, simply stating the facts can be brutal to another's position.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
If your point wasn't that the more consistent (yet lower-scoring) offense would win more games, then what was it?

How about this:

They are nothing but averages across a game.

I could be 8-8, pass 600 yards in our 8 wins and 200 yards in our 8 losses in the same amount of series per game. Yet, our averages across the whole season are nothing short of spectacular, ranking us 5th. But supposedly our offense is all world, even though eight games, we absolutely blew. Then there is the issue of blow-outs. We could score 14 pts in two games in the fourth quarter, like we did in blow-outs against the Bears and Saints, when the defenses were playing soft. That would boost our 'passing efficiency' rating enough to up our rank by scores per drive say .3, which is significant according to that measurement and jump us up a few rankings. And further if you look at the number .3 as an average, saying you get a total of 10 drives, that is a single field goal per every ten drives. Is that telling us much in the scheme of the judgement of an offense in a particular game?
 

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
How about this:
Right, I get the theory. I'm just wondering why you don't test it. Apply it to NFL offenses in 2013.

Like I said, you could compare the scoring variance from game-to-game for just the top 10 offenses in points per drive and get a good idea of how Dallas' variance compares to the rest of the league. Then (since we're now dealing with real games) you can add situational context to find out how much scoring our defense necesitated, and how much occurred in games that were out of reach.

Obviously the same scenarios repeat throughout the league, so you have to expand your thinking beyond the Cowboys' bubble. It's all relative.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
Right, I get the theory. I'm just wondering why you don't test it. Apply it to NFL offenses in 2013.

Like I said, you could compare the scoring variance from game-to-game for just the top 10 offenses in points per drive and get a good idea of how Dallas' variance compares to the rest of the league. Then (since we're now dealing with real games) you can add situational context to find out how much scoring our defense necesitated, and how much occurred in games that were out of reach.

Obviously the same scenarios repeat throughout the league, so you have to expand your thinking beyond the Cowboys' bubble. It's all relative.

We were 8-8 and we switched OC and Wade Wilson went up to the booth, and people speculated Garrett took the reigns back. I'm concerned with why the Cowboys don't perform.
 
Top