You should also include the Packers stats against their division. You know. Detroit, Chicago, and Minnesota. LOL.
I'm not the one who made the initial claim that the Packers have the best scoring offense in the league.
The Packers run a balanced offense, and you should know if you were an adult during the Cowboys run in the 90s, we weren't a high-flying offense putting 40 burgers on teams.
Rather, we gave teams a heavy dose of Emmitt, sprinkled in with passes to (primarily) Irvin and Novacek. We grind the ball, took time off the clock, wore the other team down and walked away with the win.
Simply because a team has the best scoring offense does not
necessarily mean they have the best offense or the best team.
The 1990-91 Buffalo Bills had the highest-scoring offense in the league but lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl, who a very pedestrian offense by comparison.
Similarly, the 1998-1999 Minnesota Vikings had the highest-scoring defense in the NFL. But we know what happens when the Falcons played the Vikings in the NFC Championship Game.
It's not always high scores that tells you about the superiority of a team - even though you have to have the most points in any contest to be declared the winner.
Rather, it's
HOW you score and under what conditions and what variables.
I contend that even though the Cowboys have the highest-scoring team in the league, their offense is not better than the Packers' offense for one major reason - Aaron Rodgers - and because I think they utilize their running backs better than we do - although statistically we have more rushing yards than the Packers do.
