How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? (1 Viewer)

[sho nuff]

Someone check on sho because I don't think he took his meds today.

Thanks for again making it personal rather than discussing the topic.Im glad you think its all about me.

 

[sho nuff]

You clearly show how desperate you are to try and negate anything that Brett Favre will do for a football team. It is funny to watch.

The desperation is in you having to make things up about what I am doing in order to try bashing me.

No one needs to make things up to bash you......you are doing just fine by yourself. :(

Then why do you and others keep doing it?

 

[zDragon]

The Packers are struggling because of every OTHER decision Thompson made this offseason. The Favre call was the only one that he got right.

The Packers' regression without Favre and the Jets' improvement with him would strongly suggest otherwise.

Really!?!?!?!?!I would say the decision to run Thomas Jones more along with the addition of Jenkins has had a greater effect on the team. What did Favre do against the Broncos anemic defensive backfield that makes you feel he is still a great playmaker?

Maybe having Favre under center has helped improve the running game.

Maybe...did it help Brandon Jackson to start last year?

You are out of control....comparing Jackson to Thomas Jones :( :(

All I have heard is how Brett would make the run game great.Yet, last year, the run game stunk up the joint to start the year...with the great #4 at QB playing well.

Perhaps a solid Oline and a decent running back helps that huh?

Sure, Brett helps some...but the fact that the jets added a great guard and their younger Olineman have stepped up even more (Ferguson and Mangold). that those things have had a big part of that success as well.

Im not comparing the two RBs....just that Brett does not always make running games just click.

You clearly show how desperate you are to try and negate anything that Brett Favre will do for a football team. It is funny to watch.

Very.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

You clearly show how desperate you are to try and negate anything that Brett Favre will do for a football team. It is funny to watch.

The desperation is in you having to make things up about what I am doing in order to try bashing me.

No one needs to make things up to bash you......you are doing just fine by yourself.

Then why do you and others keep doing it?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Someone check on sho because I don't think he took his meds today.

Thanks for again making it personal rather than discussing the topic.Im glad you think its all about me.

Who posted in: How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now?

Poster Posts

sho nuff 315

Phase of the Game 96

Ookie Pringle 86

zDragon 42

ScottyFargo 41

springroll 38

Challenge Everything 37

hauser42 26

phthalatemagic 25

Just Win Baby 25

packersfan 21

Sabertooth 19

bcr8f 19

Mr.Pack 16

teamroc 15

Phurfur 14

Chachi 14

Stinger Ray 14

griz145389 11

Ozymandias 11

pack66 11

H.K. 10

Aaronstory 10

CletiusMaximus 9

JamesTheScot 9

Ditkaless Wonders 9

Underachievers 9

Man in the yellow hat 9

Ghost Rider 8

Anthony Borbely 8

Flash 8

Carter_Can_Fly 8

CalBear 8

Irish 8

KnowledgeReignsSupreme 7

Chicago Hooligan 7

J R 7

mozzy84 6

Kleck 6

GreenNGold 6

Mr Anonymous 6

puckalicious 5

encaitar 5

FavreCo 5

renesauz 5

Bl Deep 4

Chreesto 4

munchkin 4

Kitrick Taylor 3

KingPrawn 3

Jeremy 3

Keith Lewis 3

Neil Beaufort Zod 3

BigSteelThrill 3

Mr. Brownstone 3

deep vacuum 3

Young 8 3

Doctor DR 3

gonzobill5 3

badSSmofo 3

jurrassic 2

Big Score 2

Sweetness_34 2

plymkr 2

Steeler 2

Boot 2

twistd 2

Raider Nation 2

simey 2

ookook 2

The Jacket 2

Pipes 2

Warhogs 2

BigRed 2

Sleeperz 2

TitusIII 1

The Moz 1

towney 1

ScoobyDoo 1

Papa Georgio 1

Leroy's Aces 1

thatguy 1

Broadway Joe 1

Frank Black 1

PizzaDeliveryGuy 1

Gambino 1

King of the Jungle 1

pigskinliquors 1

MDSkinner 1

Sack-Religious 1

kipper76 1

scrumptrulescent 1

Ron_Mexico 1

trader jake 1

Maven 1

bucsbaby 1

Mimo 1

MCguidance 1

FunkyPlutos 1

gman74 1

Linus Scrimmage 1

meanjoegreen 1

scooterg61 1

Horses Mouth 1

LAUNCH 1

Maurile Tremblay 1

T.A. 1

NinerK 1

Joe Bryant 1

KellysHeroes 1

KingAlfred 1

Balance 1

Gopher State 1

Pigskin Fanatic 1

gigantor 1

timschochet 1

az_prof 1

Routilla 1

Da Guru 1

Donnybrook 1

fatness 1

flapgreen 1

Manster 1

Iwannabeacowboybaby! 1

smackdaddies 1

HornedOne 1

JFT Ben 1

Pskov1420 1

bumpman 1

 

[parasaurolophus]

something about this post seems very familiar.Almost like I have seen a similar argument in other threads about a certain running back.

Only you would be wrong.I have never said to just look at 5 games when it concerned Grant.In fact, I said that the season was not yet over after the first 4-5 games and lets see what happens when he and the line got healthy. They did...and they were running well...and those that were writing him off looked foolish for doing so.Those that wanted to just get rid of him after the Indy game missed out on some very productive games from their RB.But spin it how you want...I know you will.

You may have never come out and stated "please only look at a 5 game stretch for Ryan Grant" in those exact words. But to deny that you havent been using his streak of 4 very mediocre with a splash of 2 good games as your defense for your stance on Ryan Grant, even so far as to claim that people should be eating crow about a running back that has 3 tds this year and is averaging 3.8 ypc. I would say it is pretty obvious that you have used a small subset of games to try and make your point, because certainly using the entire season thus far does your argument no good.Obviously without differing opinions during the season we wouldnt have anything to talk about. This thread has offered great debate/amusement. If we all just sat and waited til the end of the season, well what would we do today? I just take serious issue with the attitude of being 100% right about guys like Grant who have such crappy numbers. Crow is what people who thought Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, Vince Young, or Ron Dayne were going to be the next best thing, or even average players should be eating. Crow is not what somebody who has written off Ryan Grant should be eating right now. To tell people to do so obviously means that you are looking at a small set of games. People who supported signing him shouldnt be eating it other. The only people who should be doing so are people who drafted him in the first rd of a fantasy draft.

 

[sho nuff]

something about this post seems very familiar.Almost like I have seen a similar argument in other threads about a certain running back.

Only you would be wrong.I have never said to just look at 5 games when it concerned Grant.In fact, I said that the season was not yet over after the first 4-5 games and lets see what happens when he and the line got healthy. They did...and they were running well...and those that were writing him off looked foolish for doing so.Those that wanted to just get rid of him after the Indy game missed out on some very productive games from their RB.But spin it how you want...I know you will.

You may have never come out and stated "please only look at a 5 game stretch for Ryan Grant" in those exact words. But to deny that you havent been using his streak of 4 very mediocre with a splash of 2 good games as your defense for your stance on Ryan Grant, even so far as to claim that people should be eating crow about a running back that has 3 tds this year and is averaging 3.8 ypc. I would say it is pretty obvious that you have used a small subset of games to try and make your point, because certainly using the entire season thus far does your argument no good.Obviously without differing opinions during the season we wouldnt have anything to talk about. This thread has offered great debate/amusement. If we all just sat and waited til the end of the season, well what would we do today? I just take serious issue with the attitude of being 100% right about guys like Grant who have such crappy numbers. Crow is what people who thought Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, Vince Young, or Ron Dayne were going to be the next best thing, or even average players should be eating. Crow is not what somebody who has written off Ryan Grant should be eating right now. To tell people to do so obviously means that you are looking at a small set of games. People who supported signing him shouldnt be eating it other. The only people who should be doing so are people who drafted him in the first rd of a fantasy draft.

4 very mediocre with 2 good games? Are you kidding?Have you watched the guy play?its clear early in the year he was not playing like last year, not hitting the holes, not running as agressive. Whether it was the injury or not, I don't know. But many wrote him off.Since he has started to look healthy and practice fully all week, he has looked much better (and helping him is that the line has looked better too).My stance on Ryan Grant has not waivered...he is the starting running back in a good offense and has the chance to put up solid numbers this year. Never have I called the guy a stud. But I will defend him from people who think he is "average at best" as some have called him.and I agree on those who took him any higher than maybe 12th...a case could have been made for him there...I thought he was more of a 2nd round pick (depending on how QB or WR heavy a draft may go).I did not draft him as I had the first pick and he never made it back to me.The point is, he is a talented enough back in a good offense with a line that was improving down the stretch last year. The injury and missing practice time most likely hurt his start to the year and some just thought that was it. I think we have seen over the past month and a half that he can still run well.

 

[zDragon]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense also held the following teams below thier avg pts per game this year.

 

[Andy Herron]

I think there's another factor that needs to be weighed in here-

The conditional fourth-round pick that Green Bay acquired from the New York Jets in August for quarterback Brett Favre already has become a third-round pick. It’s on the verge of going up to a second-round pick, and could very well wind up as a first-round pick.

With four games remaining this season and with the Jets holding first place in the AFC East with an 8-4 record, Green Bay is all but assured of receiving New York’s second-round pick.

The trade called for the Packers to get the Jets’ third-round pick if Favre played in 50 percent of the plays this season; that has already happened.

It becomes a second-round pick if Favre plays 70 percent of the Jets’ plays, which he will, and if the Jets make the playoffs, which seems almost certain.

And it will become a first-round pick if Favre plays in 80 percent of the plays, which he is on pace to do, and if the Jets make it to the Super Bowl.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I think there's another factor that needs to be weighed in here-The conditional fourth-round pick that Green Bay acquired from the New York Jets in August for quarterback Brett Favre already has become a third-round pick. It’s on the verge of going up to a second-round pick, and could very well wind up as a first-round pick.With four games remaining this season and with the Jets holding first place in the AFC East with an 8-4 record, Green Bay is all but assured of receiving New York’s second-round pick.The trade called for the Packers to get the Jets’ third-round pick if Favre played in 50 percent of the plays this season; that has already happened.It becomes a second-round pick if Favre plays 70 percent of the Jets’ plays, which he will, and if the Jets make the playoffs, which seems almost certain.And it will become a first-round pick if Favre plays in 80 percent of the plays, which he is on pace to do, and if the Jets make it to the Super Bowl.

You're right, that's an excellant piece of the puzzle to consider. They knowingly traded away a player who was capable of reaching those plateaus to another team for an unknown quantity that may or may not have the chance to one day impact a Championship run the way that Favre can, but is unlikely to do so. Based on that alone, the value that they got for Favre was not enough, so it was a bad trade for the Packers.I am sure they have other quality stars they could have traded away for picks this year, as they clearly need to rebuild and think of a few seasons down the line.

 

[sho nuff]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense also held the following teams below thier avg pts per game this year.

I picked the last 2 games because of glaring deficiencies in the defense. That you can't see that is laughable. But look at all year, the D has not played nearly as well as last. You picked the last 5 games prior to that because it included a great game against Indy and Chicago in that time period...but ignore the last 2 weeks and still think QB is the biggest dropoff...no matter how many people tell you how ludicrous that notion is.Wow...bringing up the 3 and 29 again. Sure it hurt...though, you again fail to mention the D had not stopped the Saints offense much and gave up 31 points prior to those things. Why do you always ignore that?Defense last year gave up over 6 points per game less than this year and 40 rushing yards per game less. They gave up 11 fewer TDs in 16 games than the D has given up in 12 games this season.Through 12 games Rodgers has thrown for 2897 yards, 20 TDs, 10 INTs at 63.6% with a 91.2 rating (yes, I hate that number)Through 12 games last year, Favre threw for 3412 yards, 22 TDs, 10 INTs, at 67%...I cant find his rating through 12 games though.Basically under 600 yards difference (and Favre threw the ball 439 times to Rodgers 404) 2 TDs, same INTs.The dropoff that has happened has been expected and its not near the over 6 points per game and 40 rushing yards per game dropoff that the D has had.

 

[zDragon]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense held the Titans (11-1) to 19 points (6 below their average). Possibly two turn-overs by Rodgers could have been a factor in this game. Loss.The defense held Indy to 14 points (7 below their average). Win.The defense held Vikings to 19 points or 4 below their scoring average.The defense held the Bucs to 30 points (7 over their average). Loss. Take away the 7 points on the Buc fumble return for a TD and they hold them to the season average of the Bucs. Pretty sure converting 30% of first downs and throwing three picks did not help the defense any.Vikings take two the defense held them to (9 over the scoring average). Loss. Is a 9% 3rd down conversion average good for an offense?The defense held the bears to 3 points (20 pts below their scoring avg).The defense is tied for third in interceptions, 1st for TD scored on picks, and have another 10 turn-overs on FF and a TD.Luckily for the pack they don't really have any good teams left to play so they can pad the Win column and everyone can feel good about it.

 

[sho nuff]

Keep posting about averages...its great.

The only average you need to know.

Over 6 points more per game than last season. and you still claim it was not a big dropoff or far worse than last year.

Oh...and the Vikings scored 24 points against GB on offense (28 total but 4 were by safety).

The defense let Tennessee run for 178 yards.

Yes...rodgers mistakes hurt them that game (as did McCarthy inexplicably not running the ball more that game IMO)

You keep saying I am cherry picking...yet you keep focusing on 5 games in the middle of the season (and really only Indy and Chicago were good games by the defense to any person who actually watched the games).

Why do you ignore the whole season and the last 2 weeks?

Why do you only focus on those 5 games and two drives for New Orleans that started on the 3 and 29? Rather than the numerous other NO scoring drives that game?

Its because, you just cannot admit your point about QB being the biggest dropoff is simply not supported in the numbers or in how each unit has played this year.

 

[parasaurolophus]

something about this post seems very familiar.Almost like I have seen a similar argument in other threads about a certain running back.

Only you would be wrong.I have never said to just look at 5 games when it concerned Grant.In fact, I said that the season was not yet over after the first 4-5 games and lets see what happens when he and the line got healthy. They did...and they were running well...and those that were writing him off looked foolish for doing so.Those that wanted to just get rid of him after the Indy game missed out on some very productive games from their RB.But spin it how you want...I know you will.

You may have never come out and stated "please only look at a 5 game stretch for Ryan Grant" in those exact words. But to deny that you havent been using his streak of 4 very mediocre with a splash of 2 good games as your defense for your stance on Ryan Grant, even so far as to claim that people should be eating crow about a running back that has 3 tds this year and is averaging 3.8 ypc. I would say it is pretty obvious that you have used a small subset of games to try and make your point, because certainly using the entire season thus far does your argument no good.Obviously without differing opinions during the season we wouldnt have anything to talk about. This thread has offered great debate/amusement. If we all just sat and waited til the end of the season, well what would we do today? I just take serious issue with the attitude of being 100% right about guys like Grant who have such crappy numbers. Crow is what people who thought Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, Vince Young, or Ron Dayne were going to be the next best thing, or even average players should be eating. Crow is not what somebody who has written off Ryan Grant should be eating right now. To tell people to do so obviously means that you are looking at a small set of games. People who supported signing him shouldnt be eating it other. The only people who should be doing so are people who drafted him in the first rd of a fantasy draft.

4 very mediocre with 2 good games? Are you kidding?Have you watched the guy play?its clear early in the year he was not playing like last year, not hitting the holes, not running as agressive. Whether it was the injury or not, I don't know. But many wrote him off.Since he has started to look healthy and practice fully all week, he has looked much better (and helping him is that the line has looked better too).My stance on Ryan Grant has not waivered...he is the starting running back in a good offense and has the chance to put up solid numbers this year. Never have I called the guy a stud. But I will defend him from people who think he is "average at best" as some have called him.and I agree on those who took him any higher than maybe 12th...a case could have been made for him there...I thought he was more of a 2nd round pick (depending on how QB or WR heavy a draft may go).I did not draft him as I had the first pick and he never made it back to me.The point is, he is a talented enough back in a good offense with a line that was improving down the stretch last year. The injury and missing practice time most likely hurt his start to the year and some just thought that was it. I think we have seen over the past month and a half that he can still run well.

of course I have watched him play. I live in milwaukee and dont have the ticket. The bears game and the minny loss were his two best games. Minny has the 2nd ranked run defense and the packers couldnt do anything in the passing game. so 16 for 75 and 1 td against them was pretty solid. The bears have the 6th ranked and we know what he did to them. 20 carries for 86 yards, 18 for 83, 33 for 90, 31 for 105 are pretty mediocre when you consider that is almost his entire body of work for those games, adding only 2 catches and only 1 td, against the 12th, 21st, 22nd, and 25th ranked rushing defenses.

 

[sho nuff]

something about this post seems very familiar.Almost like I have seen a similar argument in other threads about a certain running back.

Only you would be wrong.I have never said to just look at 5 games when it concerned Grant.In fact, I said that the season was not yet over after the first 4-5 games and lets see what happens when he and the line got healthy. They did...and they were running well...and those that were writing him off looked foolish for doing so.Those that wanted to just get rid of him after the Indy game missed out on some very productive games from their RB.But spin it how you want...I know you will.

You may have never come out and stated "please only look at a 5 game stretch for Ryan Grant" in those exact words. But to deny that you havent been using his streak of 4 very mediocre with a splash of 2 good games as your defense for your stance on Ryan Grant, even so far as to claim that people should be eating crow about a running back that has 3 tds this year and is averaging 3.8 ypc. I would say it is pretty obvious that you have used a small subset of games to try and make your point, because certainly using the entire season thus far does your argument no good.Obviously without differing opinions during the season we wouldnt have anything to talk about. This thread has offered great debate/amusement. If we all just sat and waited til the end of the season, well what would we do today? I just take serious issue with the attitude of being 100% right about guys like Grant who have such crappy numbers. Crow is what people who thought Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, Vince Young, or Ron Dayne were going to be the next best thing, or even average players should be eating. Crow is not what somebody who has written off Ryan Grant should be eating right now. To tell people to do so obviously means that you are looking at a small set of games. People who supported signing him shouldnt be eating it other. The only people who should be doing so are people who drafted him in the first rd of a fantasy draft.

4 very mediocre with 2 good games? Are you kidding?Have you watched the guy play?its clear early in the year he was not playing like last year, not hitting the holes, not running as agressive. Whether it was the injury or not, I don't know. But many wrote him off.Since he has started to look healthy and practice fully all week, he has looked much better (and helping him is that the line has looked better too).My stance on Ryan Grant has not waivered...he is the starting running back in a good offense and has the chance to put up solid numbers this year. Never have I called the guy a stud. But I will defend him from people who think he is "average at best" as some have called him.and I agree on those who took him any higher than maybe 12th...a case could have been made for him there...I thought he was more of a 2nd round pick (depending on how QB or WR heavy a draft may go).I did not draft him as I had the first pick and he never made it back to me.The point is, he is a talented enough back in a good offense with a line that was improving down the stretch last year. The injury and missing practice time most likely hurt his start to the year and some just thought that was it. I think we have seen over the past month and a half that he can still run well.

of course I have watched him play. I live in milwaukee and dont have the ticket. The bears game and the minny loss were his two best games. Minny has the 2nd ranked run defense and the packers couldnt do anything in the passing game. so 16 for 75 and 1 td against them was pretty solid. The bears have the 6th ranked and we know what he did to them. 20 carries for 86 yards, 18 for 83, 33 for 90, 31 for 105 are pretty mediocre when you consider that is almost his entire body of work for those games, adding only 2 catches and only 1 td, against the 12th, 21st, 22nd, and 25th ranked rushing defenses.

He also ran well against Tennessee and Indy (hardly just mediocre games)And he was going well again in the first half against the Saints...No doubt he was not effective against the Panthers though.But we have seen more from him now that he has been healthy...that even against some good run Ds (Minny, Chicago, Tenneseee) that he can run pretty well and still hit the holes.The difference from last year is one the coaches have talked about...making that last guy miss and taking it to the house on the long run.

 

[zDragon]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense also held the following teams below thier avg pts per game this year.

I picked the last 2 games because of glaring deficiencies in the defense. That you can't see that is laughable. But look at all year, the D has not played nearly as well as last. You picked the last 5 games prior to that because it included a great game against Indy and Chicago in that time period...but ignore the last 2 weeks and still think QB is the biggest dropoff...no matter how many people tell you how ludicrous that notion is.Wow...bringing up the 3 and 29 again. Sure it hurt...though, you again fail to mention the D had not stopped the Saints offense much and gave up 31 points prior to those things. Why do you always ignore that?Defense last year gave up over 6 points per game less than this year and 40 rushing yards per game less. They gave up 11 fewer TDs in 16 games than the D has given up in 12 games this season.Through 12 games Rodgers has thrown for 2897 yards, 20 TDs, 10 INTs at 63.6% with a 91.2 rating (yes, I hate that number)Through 12 games last year, Favre threw for 3412 yards, 22 TDs, 10 INTs, at 67%...I cant find his rating through 12 games though.Basically under 600 yards difference (and Favre threw the ball 439 times to Rodgers 404) 2 TDs, same INTs.The dropoff that has happened has been expected and its not near the over 6 points per game and 40 rushing yards per game dropoff that the D has had.

You selected data to fit your need. Why didn't you select say the Chicago, Tennessee, or Indy games?Because holding teams below the season average for scoring does not make your point. Therefore I consider it Cherry picking.No I explained why I picked the five games I did. I went backwards from where you started to enlarge to sample size. Interesting how you want to ignore a huge fact in the NO game since it doesn't fit your argument. The Saints are giving up more pts per game than the packers are are worse pass defense. Yet the Packers could not score. If you don't think giving the Saints the ball on the 3 and 29 is huge then I don't know what is. They are lucky the Defense got one of the Picks back almost immediatly. You realize the Packer Offense only ran close to 10 plays in the 3rd quarter against a BAD defense right. Of course 3 picks didn't effect this game at all. Did I mention the Saints also have a bad Defense.I'm not ignoring what the defense did. Everyone KNEW the saints were going to score. My point is in a game like that you do not give the HIGH POWERED offense the all on the 3 and 29. You lose if you offense is dead for a quarter. Could the point difference have anything to do with less yards from the passing game you pointed out, having an inexperienced leader, maybe the 9% 1st down conversion rating against the bucs or a quarter of not moving the ball against the Panthers and Saints. Maybe the Offense just isn't as good as last year and the defense is on the field more or defending worse field position (see Panthers and Saints games for two good examples).Did I mention the Saints have a worse defense?

 

[sho nuff]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense also held the following teams below thier avg pts per game this year.

I picked the last 2 games because of glaring deficiencies in the defense. That you can't see that is laughable. But look at all year, the D has not played nearly as well as last. You picked the last 5 games prior to that because it included a great game against Indy and Chicago in that time period...but ignore the last 2 weeks and still think QB is the biggest dropoff...no matter how many people tell you how ludicrous that notion is.Wow...bringing up the 3 and 29 again. Sure it hurt...though, you again fail to mention the D had not stopped the Saints offense much and gave up 31 points prior to those things. Why do you always ignore that?Defense last year gave up over 6 points per game less than this year and 40 rushing yards per game less. They gave up 11 fewer TDs in 16 games than the D has given up in 12 games this season.Through 12 games Rodgers has thrown for 2897 yards, 20 TDs, 10 INTs at 63.6% with a 91.2 rating (yes, I hate that number)Through 12 games last year, Favre threw for 3412 yards, 22 TDs, 10 INTs, at 67%...I cant find his rating through 12 games though.Basically under 600 yards difference (and Favre threw the ball 439 times to Rodgers 404) 2 TDs, same INTs.The dropoff that has happened has been expected and its not near the over 6 points per game and 40 rushing yards per game dropoff that the D has had.

You selected data to fit your need. Why didn't you select say the Chicago, Tennessee, or Indy games?Because holding teams below the season average for scoring does not make your point. Therefore I consider it Cherry picking.No I explained why I picked the five games I did. I went backwards from where you started to enlarge to sample size. Interesting how you want to ignore a huge fact in the NO game since it doesn't fit your argument. The Saints are giving up more pts per game than the packers are are worse pass defense. Yet the Packers could not score. If you don't think giving the Saints the ball on the 3 and 29 is huge then I don't know what is. They are lucky the Defense got one of the Picks back almost immediatly. You realize the Packer Offense only ran close to 10 plays in the 3rd quarter against a BAD defense right. Of course 3 picks didn't effect this game at all. Did I mention the Saints also have a bad Defense.I'm not ignoring what the defense did. Everyone KNEW the saints were going to score. My point is in a game like that you do not give the HIGH POWERED offense the all on the 3 and 29. You lose if you offense is dead for a quarter. Could the point difference have anything to do with less yards from the passing game you pointed out, having an inexperienced leader, maybe the 9% 1st down conversion rating against the bucs or a quarter of not moving the ball against the Panthers and Saints. Maybe the Offense just isn't as good as last year and the defense is on the field more or defending worse field position (see Panthers and Saints games for two good examples).Did I mention the Saints have a worse defense?

Why did I not pick the other games...because they did not just happen.I can breakdown each game this year if you like.Yes...the defense has played some good football at times. For the most part, on the entire season, they have easily been the biggest dropoff on this team and its not even close. No amount of your spin or only discussing 5 games is going to change that.I don't ignore anything in the NO game...the D had already given up 31 points prior to those 2 starting positions you like to bring up. It is you who is ignoring the rest of that game to focus on 2 scoring drives. Great...take those out, they still give up 37 points that game without those two drives. That is still not acceptable and worse than last year's per game average.If you don't think giving up 31 points through one drive of the 2nd half is huge, I don't know what is.The offense Im talking about is ranked 10th in the league in passing yards and 12th in total yards.Where is the defense?Simply put...the defense has been the bigger problem this year...not the passing offense.No amount of 5 game samples is going to save your argument about QB being the biggest dropoff.

 

[zDragon]

Keep posting about averages...its great.The only average you need to know.Over 6 points more per game than last season. and you still claim it was not a big dropoff or far worse than last year.Oh...and the Vikings scored 24 points against GB on offense (28 total but 4 were by safety).The defense let Tennessee run for 178 yards.Yes...rodgers mistakes hurt them that game (as did McCarthy inexplicably not running the ball more that game IMO)You keep saying I am cherry picking...yet you keep focusing on 5 games in the middle of the season (and really only Indy and Chicago were good games by the defense to any person who actually watched the games).Why do you ignore the whole season and the last 2 weeks?Why do you only focus on those 5 games and two drives for New Orleans that started on the 3 and 29? Rather than the numerous other NO scoring drives that game?Its because, you just cannot admit your point about QB being the biggest dropoff is simply not supported in the numbers or in how each unit has played this year.

No it's not. Why are you all the sudden pointing out rushing yardage when the only average we needed to know was the 6pt per game drop-off in points given up. They held the titans to 19points which is below the Titans season average for scoring. It's also funny how know you Bring Mccarthy into it as a problem in that game versus two late turn-overs. Sure it's the Defense and mccarthy fault for losing that one.Fact is that Tenn game was well played by the D and the Pack could not overcome mistakes.I did not ignore any games I have games from the entire year including the first game. Your the one focusing on two games. I have included your two Cherry Picked games plus 5 others which enlarges our data set to 7 which you seem to be opposed to. I even went back and included the Tampa game and the 1st game of the season (thats up to 9 games).here I'll even add another for 10 games versus your two games.Seattle. The defense held them to 17 points which once again is below Seattle avg points per game for the year. Think this is the game where the defense smoked them for two picks and nothing yardage wise for over a quarter.I also pointed out the Bucs game since the defense was within 7 of what the Bucs normally score. The point being turn-overs effected that games core by 7 points. You can also add another 7 points from the Saints game. I won't include the other 7 since the Defense saved the day with a pick.I picked the 3 and 29 to show how the offense hurt the defense. Especially since you like to point to the 6pt lower number. The Interception to the 3yd line gave up 6 points. Luckily the defense stopped the saints when put in a bad position IMMEDIATELY after being put in a bad position or it would be 14. You also have to look and see that the offense only ran about 10 plays against a TERRIBLE defense in the 3rd quarter.Keep giving a top ranked offense the ball and they will score. What did the packer Offense do they gave them the ball!Sure they put up points in the first half that what a high powered offense does. Why couldn't GB match it when the Saints have a worse pass defense and overall worse defense? Oh yeah they didn't move the ball outside of throwing picks or punting for the majority of the 3rd quarter.

 

[sho nuff]

Keep posting about averages...its great.The only average you need to know.Over 6 points more per game than last season. and you still claim it was not a big dropoff or far worse than last year.Oh...and the Vikings scored 24 points against GB on offense (28 total but 4 were by safety).The defense let Tennessee run for 178 yards.Yes...rodgers mistakes hurt them that game (as did McCarthy inexplicably not running the ball more that game IMO)You keep saying I am cherry picking...yet you keep focusing on 5 games in the middle of the season (and really only Indy and Chicago were good games by the defense to any person who actually watched the games).Why do you ignore the whole season and the last 2 weeks?Why do you only focus on those 5 games and two drives for New Orleans that started on the 3 and 29? Rather than the numerous other NO scoring drives that game?Its because, you just cannot admit your point about QB being the biggest dropoff is simply not supported in the numbers or in how each unit has played this year.

No it's not. Why are you all the sudden pointing out rushing yardage when the only average we needed to know was the 6pt per game drop-off in points given up. They held the titans to 19points which is below the Titans season average for scoring. It's also funny how know you Bring Mccarthy into it as a problem in that game versus two late turn-overs. Sure it's the Defense and mccarthy fault for losing that one.Fact is that Tenn game was well played by the D and the Pack could not overcome mistakes.I did not ignore any games I have games from the entire year including the first game. Your the one focusing on two games. I have included your two Cherry Picked games plus 5 others which enlarges our data set to 7 which you seem to be opposed to. I even went back and included the Tampa game and the 1st game of the season (thats up to 9 games).here I'll even add another for 10 games versus your two games.Seattle. The defense held them to 17 points which once again is below Seattle avg points per game for the year. Think this is the game where the defense smoked them for two picks and nothing yardage wise for over a quarter.I also pointed out the Bucs game since the defense was within 7 of what the Bucs normally score. The point being turn-overs effected that games core by 7 points. You can also add another 7 points from the Saints game. I won't include the other 7 since the Defense saved the day with a pick.I picked the 3 and 29 to show how the offense hurt the defense. Especially since you like to point to the 6pt lower number. The Interception to the 3yd line gave up 6 points. Luckily the defense stopped the saints when put in a bad position IMMEDIATELY after being put in a bad position or it would be 14. You also have to look and see that the offense only ran about 10 plays against a TERRIBLE defense in the 3rd quarter.Keep giving a top ranked offense the ball and they will score. What did the packer Offense do they gave them the ball!Sure they put up points in the first half that what a high powered offense does. Why couldn't GB match it when the Saints have a worse pass defense and overall worse defense? Oh yeah they didn't move the ball outside of throwing picks or punting for the majority of the 3rd quarter.

Because rushing yardage is now not about defense anymore? I posted it because I thought it was bad, I did not realize how much worse than last year it was til I looked. Its horrible.2 late turnovers? The first turnover was early in the 3rd...the 2nd in the middle of the 3rd..And I never claimed it was the defenses fault or just McCarthy's fault for losing that game. You are making things up. Which is not shocking right now.You ignored the past 2 games...quit saying you did not ignore any. You cherry picked 5 games while ignoring the last 2. I simply posted the 2 most recent games that were glaringly bad by the defense.You picked the 3 and 29 because you think it makes your point...but each time you forget what the D had already done that game and that field position did not seem to be why the Saints were scoring alot of points that day.Spin away...its all you have left to try and defend this defense.Do you notice not even Ookie or Phase or Spring will touch that? And they love to argue against me.Nobody will support you in defending this defense. There is a reason for that.

 

[zDragon]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense also held the following teams below thier avg pts per game this year.

I picked the last 2 games because of glaring deficiencies in the defense. That you can't see that is laughable. But look at all year, the D has not played nearly as well as last. You picked the last 5 games prior to that because it included a great game against Indy and Chicago in that time period...but ignore the last 2 weeks and still think QB is the biggest dropoff...no matter how many people tell you how ludicrous that notion is.Wow...bringing up the 3 and 29 again. Sure it hurt...though, you again fail to mention the D had not stopped the Saints offense much and gave up 31 points prior to those things. Why do you always ignore that?Defense last year gave up over 6 points per game less than this year and 40 rushing yards per game less. They gave up 11 fewer TDs in 16 games than the D has given up in 12 games this season.Through 12 games Rodgers has thrown for 2897 yards, 20 TDs, 10 INTs at 63.6% with a 91.2 rating (yes, I hate that number)Through 12 games last year, Favre threw for 3412 yards, 22 TDs, 10 INTs, at 67%...I cant find his rating through 12 games though.Basically under 600 yards difference (and Favre threw the ball 439 times to Rodgers 404) 2 TDs, same INTs.The dropoff that has happened has been expected and its not near the over 6 points per game and 40 rushing yards per game dropoff that the D has had.

You selected data to fit your need. Why didn't you select say the Chicago, Tennessee, or Indy games?Because holding teams below the season average for scoring does not make your point. Therefore I consider it Cherry picking.No I explained why I picked the five games I did. I went backwards from where you started to enlarge to sample size. Interesting how you want to ignore a huge fact in the NO game since it doesn't fit your argument. The Saints are giving up more pts per game than the packers are are worse pass defense. Yet the Packers could not score. If you don't think giving the Saints the ball on the 3 and 29 is huge then I don't know what is. They are lucky the Defense got one of the Picks back almost immediatly. You realize the Packer Offense only ran close to 10 plays in the 3rd quarter against a BAD defense right. Of course 3 picks didn't effect this game at all. Did I mention the Saints also have a bad Defense.I'm not ignoring what the defense did. Everyone KNEW the saints were going to score. My point is in a game like that you do not give the HIGH POWERED offense the all on the 3 and 29. You lose if you offense is dead for a quarter. Could the point difference have anything to do with less yards from the passing game you pointed out, having an inexperienced leader, maybe the 9% 1st down conversion rating against the bucs or a quarter of not moving the ball against the Panthers and Saints. Maybe the Offense just isn't as good as last year and the defense is on the field more or defending worse field position (see Panthers and Saints games for two good examples).Did I mention the Saints have a worse defense?

Why did I not pick the other games...because they did not just happen.I can breakdown each game this year if you like.Yes...the defense has played some good football at times. For the most part, on the entire season, they have easily been the biggest dropoff on this team and its not even close. No amount of your spin or only discussing 5 games is going to change that.I don't ignore anything in the NO game...the D had already given up 31 points prior to those 2 starting positions you like to bring up. It is you who is ignoring the rest of that game to focus on 2 scoring drives. Great...take those out, they still give up 37 points that game without those two drives. That is still not acceptable and worse than last year's per game average.If you don't think giving up 31 points through one drive of the 2nd half is huge, I don't know what is.The offense Im talking about is ranked 10th in the league in passing yards and 12th in total yards.Where is the defense?Simply put...the defense has been the bigger problem this year...not the passing offense.No amount of 5 game samples is going to save your argument about QB being the biggest dropoff.

I did not focus on 5 games.My sevenMinTbSeaIndTenMinChiPlus your twoCarNoLet's throw in the atlanta game.The pack give up +3 on the Falcons season scoring average. I guess we should note they had a few secondary members injured not sure who or how many. They still come up with a Pick and a FF. Offense hands the ball over on a Pick. Maybe this is another time to point out that the offense did not move the ball in the 1st quarter for a total of 8 plays including the punts. Otherwise it was Atlanta ball all quarter. Once again your going back to your two cherry picked games versus my large sample of games.It was expected to be a shoot-out and the Packers had some blanks.

 

[zDragon]

Keep posting about averages...its great.The only average you need to know.Over 6 points more per game than last season. and you still claim it was not a big dropoff or far worse than last year.Oh...and the Vikings scored 24 points against GB on offense (28 total but 4 were by safety).The defense let Tennessee run for 178 yards.Yes...rodgers mistakes hurt them that game (as did McCarthy inexplicably not running the ball more that game IMO)You keep saying I am cherry picking...yet you keep focusing on 5 games in the middle of the season (and really only Indy and Chicago were good games by the defense to any person who actually watched the games).Why do you ignore the whole season and the last 2 weeks?Why do you only focus on those 5 games and two drives for New Orleans that started on the 3 and 29? Rather than the numerous other NO scoring drives that game?Its because, you just cannot admit your point about QB being the biggest dropoff is simply not supported in the numbers or in how each unit has played this year.

No it's not. Why are you all the sudden pointing out rushing yardage when the only average we needed to know was the 6pt per game drop-off in points given up. They held the titans to 19points which is below the Titans season average for scoring. It's also funny how know you Bring Mccarthy into it as a problem in that game versus two late turn-overs. Sure it's the Defense and mccarthy fault for losing that one.Fact is that Tenn game was well played by the D and the Pack could not overcome mistakes.I did not ignore any games I have games from the entire year including the first game. Your the one focusing on two games. I have included your two Cherry Picked games plus 5 others which enlarges our data set to 7 which you seem to be opposed to. I even went back and included the Tampa game and the 1st game of the season (thats up to 9 games).here I'll even add another for 10 games versus your two games.Seattle. The defense held them to 17 points which once again is below Seattle avg points per game for the year. Think this is the game where the defense smoked them for two picks and nothing yardage wise for over a quarter.I also pointed out the Bucs game since the defense was within 7 of what the Bucs normally score. The point being turn-overs effected that games core by 7 points. You can also add another 7 points from the Saints game. I won't include the other 7 since the Defense saved the day with a pick.I picked the 3 and 29 to show how the offense hurt the defense. Especially since you like to point to the 6pt lower number. The Interception to the 3yd line gave up 6 points. Luckily the defense stopped the saints when put in a bad position IMMEDIATELY after being put in a bad position or it would be 14. You also have to look and see that the offense only ran about 10 plays against a TERRIBLE defense in the 3rd quarter.Keep giving a top ranked offense the ball and they will score. What did the packer Offense do they gave them the ball!Sure they put up points in the first half that what a high powered offense does. Why couldn't GB match it when the Saints have a worse pass defense and overall worse defense? Oh yeah they didn't move the ball outside of throwing picks or punting for the majority of the 3rd quarter.

Because rushing yardage is now not about defense anymore? I posted it because I thought it was bad, I did not realize how much worse than last year it was til I looked. Its horrible.2 late turnovers? The first turnover was early in the 3rd...the 2nd in the middle of the 3rd..And I never claimed it was the defenses fault or just McCarthy's fault for losing that game. You are making things up. Which is not shocking right now.You ignored the past 2 games...quit saying you did not ignore any. You cherry picked 5 games while ignoring the last 2. I simply posted the 2 most recent games that were glaringly bad by the defense.You picked the 3 and 29 because you think it makes your point...but each time you forget what the D had already done that game and that field position did not seem to be why the Saints were scoring alot of points that day.Spin away...its all you have left to try and defend this defense.Do you notice not even Ookie or Phase or Spring will touch that? And they love to argue against me.Nobody will support you in defending this defense. There is a reason for that.

I'm not ignoring any games. Your the one that said pts allowed was the one to know. They gave up 19 points regardless of how many yards they gave up on the ground.Why do you keep saying I Cherry picked five when I keep adding games for you? Fact 1: The Panthers gave up 31 points and won.Fact 2: The Saints defense gave up 21 points in the first half and they won.Your the only one spinning. I would think in a 24 to 21 game two picks to start the 3rd one resulting in a touchdown would be big. Put I could be wrong since the highly ranked saints D only gave up 21 points in the first half. I mean heck if the Green Bay Defense gave up 19 the whole game we would win that one I'm sure.Seems like you brought McCarthy into the situation to share blame with the defense. So I thought they were late quarter turn-overs from memory. The fact is they cost the Packers in a close game.Why would I care who supports me. Does that somehow magically make your argument valid?I'm just glad to know that field position, turn-overs, 3 and outs, etc no longer effect a defenses ability. I mean heck when a game is 24 to 21 going into the third it helps to throw two picks and not move the ball for HALF the remaining game. To boot this is even easier on the Defense when it's a top ranked offense.

 

[parasaurolophus]

something about this post seems very familiar.Almost like I have seen a similar argument in other threads about a certain running back.

Only you would be wrong.I have never said to just look at 5 games when it concerned Grant.In fact, I said that the season was not yet over after the first 4-5 games and lets see what happens when he and the line got healthy. They did...and they were running well...and those that were writing him off looked foolish for doing so.Those that wanted to just get rid of him after the Indy game missed out on some very productive games from their RB.But spin it how you want...I know you will.

You may have never come out and stated "please only look at a 5 game stretch for Ryan Grant" in those exact words. But to deny that you havent been using his streak of 4 very mediocre with a splash of 2 good games as your defense for your stance on Ryan Grant, even so far as to claim that people should be eating crow about a running back that has 3 tds this year and is averaging 3.8 ypc. I would say it is pretty obvious that you have used a small subset of games to try and make your point, because certainly using the entire season thus far does your argument no good.Obviously without differing opinions during the season we wouldnt have anything to talk about. This thread has offered great debate/amusement. If we all just sat and waited til the end of the season, well what would we do today? I just take serious issue with the attitude of being 100% right about guys like Grant who have such crappy numbers. Crow is what people who thought Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, Vince Young, or Ron Dayne were going to be the next best thing, or even average players should be eating. Crow is not what somebody who has written off Ryan Grant should be eating right now. To tell people to do so obviously means that you are looking at a small set of games. People who supported signing him shouldnt be eating it other. The only people who should be doing so are people who drafted him in the first rd of a fantasy draft.

4 very mediocre with 2 good games? Are you kidding?Have you watched the guy play?its clear early in the year he was not playing like last year, not hitting the holes, not running as agressive. Whether it was the injury or not, I don't know. But many wrote him off.Since he has started to look healthy and practice fully all week, he has looked much better (and helping him is that the line has looked better too).My stance on Ryan Grant has not waivered...he is the starting running back in a good offense and has the chance to put up solid numbers this year. Never have I called the guy a stud. But I will defend him from people who think he is "average at best" as some have called him.and I agree on those who took him any higher than maybe 12th...a case could have been made for him there...I thought he was more of a 2nd round pick (depending on how QB or WR heavy a draft may go).I did not draft him as I had the first pick and he never made it back to me.The point is, he is a talented enough back in a good offense with a line that was improving down the stretch last year. The injury and missing practice time most likely hurt his start to the year and some just thought that was it. I think we have seen over the past month and a half that he can still run well.

of course I have watched him play. I live in milwaukee and dont have the ticket. The bears game and the minny loss were his two best games. Minny has the 2nd ranked run defense and the packers couldnt do anything in the passing game. so 16 for 75 and 1 td against them was pretty solid. The bears have the 6th ranked and we know what he did to them. 20 carries for 86 yards, 18 for 83, 33 for 90, 31 for 105 are pretty mediocre when you consider that is almost his entire body of work for those games, adding only 2 catches and only 1 td, against the 12th, 21st, 22nd, and 25th ranked rushing defenses.

He also ran well against Tennessee and Indy (hardly just mediocre games)And he was going well again in the first half against the Saints...No doubt he was not effective against the Panthers though.But we have seen more from him now that he has been healthy...that even against some good run Ds (Minny, Chicago, Tenneseee) that he can run pretty well and still hit the holes.The difference from last year is one the coaches have talked about...making that last guy miss and taking it to the house on the long run.

well we will have to agree to disagree then. I think 31 carries for 105 yards against the 25th ranked rushing defense is mediocre.I think 20 carries for 86 yds and no catches and no TDs is mediocre. I also think having to mention a half of football where he was going well, is pretty much the definition of mediocrity for a running back.

 

[sho nuff]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense also held the following teams below thier avg pts per game this year.

I picked the last 2 games because of glaring deficiencies in the defense. That you can't see that is laughable. But look at all year, the D has not played nearly as well as last. You picked the last 5 games prior to that because it included a great game against Indy and Chicago in that time period...but ignore the last 2 weeks and still think QB is the biggest dropoff...no matter how many people tell you how ludicrous that notion is.Wow...bringing up the 3 and 29 again. Sure it hurt...though, you again fail to mention the D had not stopped the Saints offense much and gave up 31 points prior to those things. Why do you always ignore that?Defense last year gave up over 6 points per game less than this year and 40 rushing yards per game less. They gave up 11 fewer TDs in 16 games than the D has given up in 12 games this season.Through 12 games Rodgers has thrown for 2897 yards, 20 TDs, 10 INTs at 63.6% with a 91.2 rating (yes, I hate that number)Through 12 games last year, Favre threw for 3412 yards, 22 TDs, 10 INTs, at 67%...I cant find his rating through 12 games though.Basically under 600 yards difference (and Favre threw the ball 439 times to Rodgers 404) 2 TDs, same INTs.The dropoff that has happened has been expected and its not near the over 6 points per game and 40 rushing yards per game dropoff that the D has had.

You selected data to fit your need. Why didn't you select say the Chicago, Tennessee, or Indy games?Because holding teams below the season average for scoring does not make your point. Therefore I consider it Cherry picking.No I explained why I picked the five games I did. I went backwards from where you started to enlarge to sample size. Interesting how you want to ignore a huge fact in the NO game since it doesn't fit your argument. The Saints are giving up more pts per game than the packers are are worse pass defense. Yet the Packers could not score. If you don't think giving the Saints the ball on the 3 and 29 is huge then I don't know what is. They are lucky the Defense got one of the Picks back almost immediatly. You realize the Packer Offense only ran close to 10 plays in the 3rd quarter against a BAD defense right. Of course 3 picks didn't effect this game at all. Did I mention the Saints also have a bad Defense.I'm not ignoring what the defense did. Everyone KNEW the saints were going to score. My point is in a game like that you do not give the HIGH POWERED offense the all on the 3 and 29. You lose if you offense is dead for a quarter. Could the point difference have anything to do with less yards from the passing game you pointed out, having an inexperienced leader, maybe the 9% 1st down conversion rating against the bucs or a quarter of not moving the ball against the Panthers and Saints. Maybe the Offense just isn't as good as last year and the defense is on the field more or defending worse field position (see Panthers and Saints games for two good examples).Did I mention the Saints have a worse defense?

Why did I not pick the other games...because they did not just happen.I can breakdown each game this year if you like.Yes...the defense has played some good football at times. For the most part, on the entire season, they have easily been the biggest dropoff on this team and its not even close. No amount of your spin or only discussing 5 games is going to change that.I don't ignore anything in the NO game...the D had already given up 31 points prior to those 2 starting positions you like to bring up. It is you who is ignoring the rest of that game to focus on 2 scoring drives. Great...take those out, they still give up 37 points that game without those two drives. That is still not acceptable and worse than last year's per game average.If you don't think giving up 31 points through one drive of the 2nd half is huge, I don't know what is.The offense Im talking about is ranked 10th in the league in passing yards and 12th in total yards.Where is the defense?Simply put...the defense has been the bigger problem this year...not the passing offense.No amount of 5 game samples is going to save your argument about QB being the biggest dropoff.

I did not focus on 5 games.My sevenMinTbSeaIndTenMinChiPlus your twoCarNoLet's throw in the atlanta game.The pack give up +3 on the Falcons season scoring average. I guess we should note they had a few secondary members injured not sure who or how many. They still come up with a Pick and a FF. Offense hands the ball over on a Pick. Maybe this is another time to point out that the offense did not move the ball in the 1st quarter for a total of 8 plays including the punts. Otherwise it was Atlanta ball all quarter. Once again your going back to your two cherry picked games versus my large sample of games.It was expected to be a shoot-out and the Packers had some blanks.

Throw in the entire season...quit continuing to just add games at your convenience and talk about holding teams at their scoring average.We are talking about comparing 2007 defense to 2008.2008's version of the GB Packers defense is far worse than 2007. You simply cannot deny that. Its true, its factual.QB play in 2008 is not the biggest dropoff. Again, a point that stats and watching the games simply does not bear out.I guess you should note that the defense could not stop Michael Turner or Roddy White either.Im not going to my 2 games. I am talking about the entire season.That it was expected to be a shootout does not excuse the defense.6+ points more per game. You simply cannot spin that into something that is good...nor can you put that all on the offense.

 

[sho nuff]

Keep posting about averages...its great.The only average you need to know.Over 6 points more per game than last season. and you still claim it was not a big dropoff or far worse than last year.Oh...and the Vikings scored 24 points against GB on offense (28 total but 4 were by safety).The defense let Tennessee run for 178 yards.Yes...rodgers mistakes hurt them that game (as did McCarthy inexplicably not running the ball more that game IMO)You keep saying I am cherry picking...yet you keep focusing on 5 games in the middle of the season (and really only Indy and Chicago were good games by the defense to any person who actually watched the games).Why do you ignore the whole season and the last 2 weeks?Why do you only focus on those 5 games and two drives for New Orleans that started on the 3 and 29? Rather than the numerous other NO scoring drives that game?Its because, you just cannot admit your point about QB being the biggest dropoff is simply not supported in the numbers or in how each unit has played this year.

No it's not. Why are you all the sudden pointing out rushing yardage when the only average we needed to know was the 6pt per game drop-off in points given up. They held the titans to 19points which is below the Titans season average for scoring. It's also funny how know you Bring Mccarthy into it as a problem in that game versus two late turn-overs. Sure it's the Defense and mccarthy fault for losing that one.Fact is that Tenn game was well played by the D and the Pack could not overcome mistakes.I did not ignore any games I have games from the entire year including the first game. Your the one focusing on two games. I have included your two Cherry Picked games plus 5 others which enlarges our data set to 7 which you seem to be opposed to. I even went back and included the Tampa game and the 1st game of the season (thats up to 9 games).here I'll even add another for 10 games versus your two games.Seattle. The defense held them to 17 points which once again is below Seattle avg points per game for the year. Think this is the game where the defense smoked them for two picks and nothing yardage wise for over a quarter.I also pointed out the Bucs game since the defense was within 7 of what the Bucs normally score. The point being turn-overs effected that games core by 7 points. You can also add another 7 points from the Saints game. I won't include the other 7 since the Defense saved the day with a pick.I picked the 3 and 29 to show how the offense hurt the defense. Especially since you like to point to the 6pt lower number. The Interception to the 3yd line gave up 6 points. Luckily the defense stopped the saints when put in a bad position IMMEDIATELY after being put in a bad position or it would be 14. You also have to look and see that the offense only ran about 10 plays against a TERRIBLE defense in the 3rd quarter.Keep giving a top ranked offense the ball and they will score. What did the packer Offense do they gave them the ball!Sure they put up points in the first half that what a high powered offense does. Why couldn't GB match it when the Saints have a worse pass defense and overall worse defense? Oh yeah they didn't move the ball outside of throwing picks or punting for the majority of the 3rd quarter.

Because rushing yardage is now not about defense anymore? I posted it because I thought it was bad, I did not realize how much worse than last year it was til I looked. Its horrible.2 late turnovers? The first turnover was early in the 3rd...the 2nd in the middle of the 3rd..And I never claimed it was the defenses fault or just McCarthy's fault for losing that game. You are making things up. Which is not shocking right now.You ignored the past 2 games...quit saying you did not ignore any. You cherry picked 5 games while ignoring the last 2. I simply posted the 2 most recent games that were glaringly bad by the defense.You picked the 3 and 29 because you think it makes your point...but each time you forget what the D had already done that game and that field position did not seem to be why the Saints were scoring alot of points that day.Spin away...its all you have left to try and defend this defense.Do you notice not even Ookie or Phase or Spring will touch that? And they love to argue against me.Nobody will support you in defending this defense. There is a reason for that.

I'm not ignoring any games. Your the one that said pts allowed was the one to know. They gave up 19 points regardless of how many yards they gave up on the ground.Why do you keep saying I Cherry picked five when I keep adding games for you? Fact 1: The Panthers gave up 31 points and won.Fact 2: The Saints defense gave up 21 points in the first half and they won.Your the only one spinning. I would think in a 24 to 21 game two picks to start the 3rd one resulting in a touchdown would be big. Put I could be wrong since the highly ranked saints D only gave up 21 points in the first half. I mean heck if the Green Bay Defense gave up 19 the whole game we would win that one I'm sure.Seems like you brought McCarthy into the situation to share blame with the defense. So I thought they were late quarter turn-overs from memory. The fact is they cost the Packers in a close game.Why would I care who supports me. Does that somehow magically make your argument valid?I'm just glad to know that field position, turn-overs, 3 and outs, etc no longer effect a defenses ability. I mean heck when a game is 24 to 21 going into the third it helps to throw two picks and not move the ball for HALF the remaining game. To boot this is even easier on the Defense when it's a top ranked offense.

Because you have just now added some games...but you still don't want to talk about the entire year.You bring up scoring averages...but you keep bringing up where they gave up even more than a team is averaging anyway.Fact 1. The Panthers giving up 31 and winning is irrelevant. Fact 2...as is the Saints giving up 21 in the first half.Neither of those 2 things change the FACT that GB's defense is far worse this year than last.That is not spin by me. That is the numbers...that is the result of watching these games. Some nice turnovers have helped from time to time...but all in all, the defense this year simply is not as good as last year.What makes my argument valid is its factual. You can't spin your way out of it.The defense is not playing well and is far worse than last year.24-21 at the half...31-21 after the first drive of the 2nd half. 51 points overall. No matter how hard you try, that is not good defense and not all the offenses fault. The offense did their job in the first half and the D still gave up 24 points.

 

[sho nuff]

something about this post seems very familiar.Almost like I have seen a similar argument in other threads about a certain running back.

Only you would be wrong.I have never said to just look at 5 games when it concerned Grant.In fact, I said that the season was not yet over after the first 4-5 games and lets see what happens when he and the line got healthy. They did...and they were running well...and those that were writing him off looked foolish for doing so.Those that wanted to just get rid of him after the Indy game missed out on some very productive games from their RB.But spin it how you want...I know you will.

You may have never come out and stated "please only look at a 5 game stretch for Ryan Grant" in those exact words. But to deny that you havent been using his streak of 4 very mediocre with a splash of 2 good games as your defense for your stance on Ryan Grant, even so far as to claim that people should be eating crow about a running back that has 3 tds this year and is averaging 3.8 ypc. I would say it is pretty obvious that you have used a small subset of games to try and make your point, because certainly using the entire season thus far does your argument no good.Obviously without differing opinions during the season we wouldnt have anything to talk about. This thread has offered great debate/amusement. If we all just sat and waited til the end of the season, well what would we do today? I just take serious issue with the attitude of being 100% right about guys like Grant who have such crappy numbers. Crow is what people who thought Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, Vince Young, or Ron Dayne were going to be the next best thing, or even average players should be eating. Crow is not what somebody who has written off Ryan Grant should be eating right now. To tell people to do so obviously means that you are looking at a small set of games. People who supported signing him shouldnt be eating it other. The only people who should be doing so are people who drafted him in the first rd of a fantasy draft.

4 very mediocre with 2 good games? Are you kidding?Have you watched the guy play?its clear early in the year he was not playing like last year, not hitting the holes, not running as agressive. Whether it was the injury or not, I don't know. But many wrote him off.Since he has started to look healthy and practice fully all week, he has looked much better (and helping him is that the line has looked better too).My stance on Ryan Grant has not waivered...he is the starting running back in a good offense and has the chance to put up solid numbers this year. Never have I called the guy a stud. But I will defend him from people who think he is "average at best" as some have called him.and I agree on those who took him any higher than maybe 12th...a case could have been made for him there...I thought he was more of a 2nd round pick (depending on how QB or WR heavy a draft may go).I did not draft him as I had the first pick and he never made it back to me.The point is, he is a talented enough back in a good offense with a line that was improving down the stretch last year. The injury and missing practice time most likely hurt his start to the year and some just thought that was it. I think we have seen over the past month and a half that he can still run well.

of course I have watched him play. I live in milwaukee and dont have the ticket. The bears game and the minny loss were his two best games. Minny has the 2nd ranked run defense and the packers couldnt do anything in the passing game. so 16 for 75 and 1 td against them was pretty solid. The bears have the 6th ranked and we know what he did to them. 20 carries for 86 yards, 18 for 83, 33 for 90, 31 for 105 are pretty mediocre when you consider that is almost his entire body of work for those games, adding only 2 catches and only 1 td, against the 12th, 21st, 22nd, and 25th ranked rushing defenses.

He also ran well against Tennessee and Indy (hardly just mediocre games)And he was going well again in the first half against the Saints...No doubt he was not effective against the Panthers though.But we have seen more from him now that he has been healthy...that even against some good run Ds (Minny, Chicago, Tenneseee) that he can run pretty well and still hit the holes.The difference from last year is one the coaches have talked about...making that last guy miss and taking it to the house on the long run.

well we will have to agree to disagree then. I think 31 carries for 105 yards against the 25th ranked rushing defense is mediocre.I think 20 carries for 86 yds and no catches and no TDs is mediocre. I also think having to mention a half of football where he was going well, is pretty much the definition of mediocrity for a running back.

I don't think 20 for 86 against TN was mediocre at all. I think that game he should have gotten the ball far more. He was ripping off nice 5-6 yard runs left and right against the Titans.He was doing well in that half of football. Its not under his control that the team was down a quick 17 points in the 2nd half and they got away from the run game.There were times last year I thought the same thing...McCarthy seems to get away from things like that too quickly IMO.

 

[JohnnyU]

Everything is cool right now, so don't jump my a---ss yet, but is it ok to say right now that it isn't OK to bump this thread once Favre is dead? .......or Rodgers wins a Super Bowl?.....or 3 years has passed? For God's sake, please do not bump this after 3 years. If you do, you should be banned for life.

 

[Aaronstory]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

 

[Sabertooth]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Pretty much. The manlove for Brett is sickening. He's a ####### traitor to boot. Fun guy, good ole boy....backstabber.

 

[sho nuff]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where has anyone written in this thread that the biggest drop off for the Packers is at the QB position?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Pretty much. The manlove for Brett is sickening. He's a ####### traitor to boot. Fun guy, good ole boy....backstabber.

Can I maintain my undying manlove for Brett Favre and wish him the best of success with the Jets while still steadfastly believing that Ted Thompson unequivocally made the best move for the Packers for this year and beyond? Of course he was a bit juvenile and perhaps his behavior was a bit unkind to his teamates and Packer fans, but we never thought he was a smart, mature man, a good role model or a wise decision-maker; we just enjoyed watching him play on Sundays.

 

[Aaronstory]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where has anyone written in this thread that the biggest drop off for the Packers is at the QB position?

You have to wade through zDragon's missives to sho nuff - but they are there repeatedly.

 

[Aaronstory]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where did I say this?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Pretty much. The manlove for Brett is sickening. He's a ####### traitor to boot. Fun guy, good ole boy....backstabber.

Can I maintain my undying manlove for Brett Favre and wish him the best of success with the Jets while still steadfastly believing that Ted Thompson unequivocally made the best move for the Packers for this year and beyond? Of course he was a bit juvenile and perhaps his behavior was a bit unkind to his teamates and Packer fans, but we never thought he was a smart, mature man, a good role model or a wise decision-maker; we just enjoyed watching him play on Sundays.

I just puked.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where did I say this?

Why don't you show us where someone wrote the biggest drop off for the Packers has been at QB like you implied up above.

 

[zDragon]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense also held the following teams below thier avg pts per game this year.

I picked the last 2 games because of glaring deficiencies in the defense. That you can't see that is laughable. But look at all year, the D has not played nearly as well as last. You picked the last 5 games prior to that because it included a great game against Indy and Chicago in that time period...but ignore the last 2 weeks and still think QB is the biggest dropoff...no matter how many people tell you how ludicrous that notion is.Wow...bringing up the 3 and 29 again. Sure it hurt...though, you again fail to mention the D had not stopped the Saints offense much and gave up 31 points prior to those things. Why do you always ignore that?Defense last year gave up over 6 points per game less than this year and 40 rushing yards per game less. They gave up 11 fewer TDs in 16 games than the D has given up in 12 games this season.Through 12 games Rodgers has thrown for 2897 yards, 20 TDs, 10 INTs at 63.6% with a 91.2 rating (yes, I hate that number)Through 12 games last year, Favre threw for 3412 yards, 22 TDs, 10 INTs, at 67%...I cant find his rating through 12 games though.Basically under 600 yards difference (and Favre threw the ball 439 times to Rodgers 404) 2 TDs, same INTs.The dropoff that has happened has been expected and its not near the over 6 points per game and 40 rushing yards per game dropoff that the D has had.

You selected data to fit your need. Why didn't you select say the Chicago, Tennessee, or Indy games?Because holding teams below the season average for scoring does not make your point. Therefore I consider it Cherry picking.No I explained why I picked the five games I did. I went backwards from where you started to enlarge to sample size. Interesting how you want to ignore a huge fact in the NO game since it doesn't fit your argument. The Saints are giving up more pts per game than the packers are are worse pass defense. Yet the Packers could not score. If you don't think giving the Saints the ball on the 3 and 29 is huge then I don't know what is. They are lucky the Defense got one of the Picks back almost immediatly. You realize the Packer Offense only ran close to 10 plays in the 3rd quarter against a BAD defense right. Of course 3 picks didn't effect this game at all. Did I mention the Saints also have a bad Defense.I'm not ignoring what the defense did. Everyone KNEW the saints were going to score. My point is in a game like that you do not give the HIGH POWERED offense the all on the 3 and 29. You lose if you offense is dead for a quarter. Could the point difference have anything to do with less yards from the passing game you pointed out, having an inexperienced leader, maybe the 9% 1st down conversion rating against the bucs or a quarter of not moving the ball against the Panthers and Saints. Maybe the Offense just isn't as good as last year and the defense is on the field more or defending worse field position (see Panthers and Saints games for two good examples).Did I mention the Saints have a worse defense?

Why did I not pick the other games...because they did not just happen.I can breakdown each game this year if you like.Yes...the defense has played some good football at times. For the most part, on the entire season, they have easily been the biggest dropoff on this team and its not even close. No amount of your spin or only discussing 5 games is going to change that.I don't ignore anything in the NO game...the D had already given up 31 points prior to those 2 starting positions you like to bring up. It is you who is ignoring the rest of that game to focus on 2 scoring drives. Great...take those out, they still give up 37 points that game without those two drives. That is still not acceptable and worse than last year's per game average.If you don't think giving up 31 points through one drive of the 2nd half is huge, I don't know what is.The offense Im talking about is ranked 10th in the league in passing yards and 12th in total yards.Where is the defense?Simply put...the defense has been the bigger problem this year...not the passing offense.No amount of 5 game samples is going to save your argument about QB being the biggest dropoff.

I did not focus on 5 games.My sevenMinTbSeaIndTenMinChiPlus your twoCarNoLet's throw in the atlanta game.The pack give up +3 on the Falcons season scoring average. I guess we should note they had a few secondary members injured not sure who or how many. They still come up with a Pick and a FF. Offense hands the ball over on a Pick. Maybe this is another time to point out that the offense did not move the ball in the 1st quarter for a total of 8 plays including the punts. Otherwise it was Atlanta ball all quarter. Once again your going back to your two cherry picked games versus my large sample of games.It was expected to be a shoot-out and the Packers had some blanks.

Throw in the entire season...quit continuing to just add games at your convenience and talk about holding teams at their scoring average.We are talking about comparing 2007 defense to 2008.2008's version of the GB Packers defense is far worse than 2007. You simply cannot deny that. Its true, its factual.QB play in 2008 is not the biggest dropoff. Again, a point that stats and watching the games simply does not bear out.I guess you should note that the defense could not stop Michael Turner or Roddy White either.Im not going to my 2 games. I am talking about the entire season.That it was expected to be a shootout does not excuse the defense.6+ points more per game. You simply cannot spin that into something that is good...nor can you put that all on the offense.

M. Turner is averaging 100 yds a game he got 121. Think that might have to do with the Packers running 6 plays the entire first quarter not including punts?Fact: It was a 3 point game.Fact: The offense cost them 3 points on penaltiesFact: The offense ran 6 plays in the first quarterFact: The offense generated one turn overFact: With the score tied the offense throws a pick and gives the Falcons the ball on the GB19. (Sound familiar??) (oh yeah, 6 points here, interesting). Probably didn't effect the outcome of the game. Fact: The defense generated two turn-oversFact: The Falcons gave up 24 points and won.Now with the facts listed above I see the offense had nothing to do with the loss at all. Just that measly 6 points a game difference the D is giving up. Man if they could only have stopped that final 70-80 yd scoring drive against one of the best (top 5 or 6) offenses in the league. Oh,yeah I mean if they could have stopped that 19 yard drive staring at the GB19 after the offense threw a pick in the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

[zDragon]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where did I say this?

Why don't you show us where someone wrote the biggest drop off for the Packers has been at QB like you implied up above.

I think that is biggest drop this year on the team. Your playing a 13-3 SOS and you went from a very talented QB to a talented QB that saw very few snaps. You lost the leadership of a veteran QB that the players had faith in to a 1st year QB that will be learning all this on the job and the team has to learn to trust and get the job done.Did the packers do the right thing yes.

 

[Aaronstory]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where did I say this?

Why don't you show us where someone wrote the biggest drop off for the Packers has been at QB like you implied up above.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=9618557I never blamed Rodgers for the loses. I said the largest drop-off was at the QB position.

Do I get a prize? Jesus...

 

[Phase of the Game]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Pretty much. The manlove for Brett is sickening. He's a ####### traitor to boot. Fun guy, good ole boy....backstabber.

Can I maintain my undying manlove for Brett Favre and wish him the best of success with the Jets while still steadfastly believing that Ted Thompson unequivocally made the best move for the Packers for this year and beyond? Of course he was a bit juvenile and perhaps his behavior was a bit unkind to his teamates and Packer fans, but we never thought he was a smart, mature man, a good role model or a wise decision-maker; we just enjoyed watching him play on Sundays.

How are you related to Ted Thompson?

 

[sho nuff]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where did I say this?

Why don't you show us where someone wrote the biggest drop off for the Packers has been at QB like you implied up above.

He did not imply it....he said it...and he is right...it has been said.And nobody here has said they have not been impacted at all.

Not one single person has said that.

 

[Aaronstory]

Oh, and Stinger Ray:

 

[Stinger Ray]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where did I say this?

Why don't you show us where someone wrote the biggest drop off for the Packers has been at QB like you implied up above.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=9618557I never blamed Rodgers for the loses. I said the largest drop-off was at the QB position.

Do I get a prize? Jesus...

So one person stated it. WOW! You almost would think you implied many people where stating that in this thread.

 

[sho nuff]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense also held the following teams below thier avg pts per game this year.

I picked the last 2 games because of glaring deficiencies in the defense. That you can't see that is laughable. But look at all year, the D has not played nearly as well as last. You picked the last 5 games prior to that because it included a great game against Indy and Chicago in that time period...but ignore the last 2 weeks and still think QB is the biggest dropoff...no matter how many people tell you how ludicrous that notion is.Wow...bringing up the 3 and 29 again. Sure it hurt...though, you again fail to mention the D had not stopped the Saints offense much and gave up 31 points prior to those things. Why do you always ignore that?Defense last year gave up over 6 points per game less than this year and 40 rushing yards per game less. They gave up 11 fewer TDs in 16 games than the D has given up in 12 games this season.Through 12 games Rodgers has thrown for 2897 yards, 20 TDs, 10 INTs at 63.6% with a 91.2 rating (yes, I hate that number)Through 12 games last year, Favre threw for 3412 yards, 22 TDs, 10 INTs, at 67%...I cant find his rating through 12 games though.Basically under 600 yards difference (and Favre threw the ball 439 times to Rodgers 404) 2 TDs, same INTs.The dropoff that has happened has been expected and its not near the over 6 points per game and 40 rushing yards per game dropoff that the D has had.

You selected data to fit your need. Why didn't you select say the Chicago, Tennessee, or Indy games?Because holding teams below the season average for scoring does not make your point. Therefore I consider it Cherry picking.No I explained why I picked the five games I did. I went backwards from where you started to enlarge to sample size. Interesting how you want to ignore a huge fact in the NO game since it doesn't fit your argument. The Saints are giving up more pts per game than the packers are are worse pass defense. Yet the Packers could not score. If you don't think giving the Saints the ball on the 3 and 29 is huge then I don't know what is. They are lucky the Defense got one of the Picks back almost immediatly. You realize the Packer Offense only ran close to 10 plays in the 3rd quarter against a BAD defense right. Of course 3 picks didn't effect this game at all. Did I mention the Saints also have a bad Defense.I'm not ignoring what the defense did. Everyone KNEW the saints were going to score. My point is in a game like that you do not give the HIGH POWERED offense the all on the 3 and 29. You lose if you offense is dead for a quarter. Could the point difference have anything to do with less yards from the passing game you pointed out, having an inexperienced leader, maybe the 9% 1st down conversion rating against the bucs or a quarter of not moving the ball against the Panthers and Saints. Maybe the Offense just isn't as good as last year and the defense is on the field more or defending worse field position (see Panthers and Saints games for two good examples).Did I mention the Saints have a worse defense?

Why did I not pick the other games...because they did not just happen.I can breakdown each game this year if you like.Yes...the defense has played some good football at times. For the most part, on the entire season, they have easily been the biggest dropoff on this team and its not even close. No amount of your spin or only discussing 5 games is going to change that.I don't ignore anything in the NO game...the D had already given up 31 points prior to those 2 starting positions you like to bring up. It is you who is ignoring the rest of that game to focus on 2 scoring drives. Great...take those out, they still give up 37 points that game without those two drives. That is still not acceptable and worse than last year's per game average.If you don't think giving up 31 points through one drive of the 2nd half is huge, I don't know what is.The offense Im talking about is ranked 10th in the league in passing yards and 12th in total yards.Where is the defense?Simply put...the defense has been the bigger problem this year...not the passing offense.No amount of 5 game samples is going to save your argument about QB being the biggest dropoff.

I did not focus on 5 games.My sevenMinTbSeaIndTenMinChiPlus your twoCarNoLet's throw in the atlanta game.The pack give up +3 on the Falcons season scoring average. I guess we should note they had a few secondary members injured not sure who or how many. They still come up with a Pick and a FF. Offense hands the ball over on a Pick. Maybe this is another time to point out that the offense did not move the ball in the 1st quarter for a total of 8 plays including the punts. Otherwise it was Atlanta ball all quarter. Once again your going back to your two cherry picked games versus my large sample of games.It was expected to be a shoot-out and the Packers had some blanks.

Throw in the entire season...quit continuing to just add games at your convenience and talk about holding teams at their scoring average.We are talking about comparing 2007 defense to 2008.2008's version of the GB Packers defense is far worse than 2007. You simply cannot deny that. Its true, its factual.QB play in 2008 is not the biggest dropoff. Again, a point that stats and watching the games simply does not bear out.I guess you should note that the defense could not stop Michael Turner or Roddy White either.Im not going to my 2 games. I am talking about the entire season.That it was expected to be a shootout does not excuse the defense.6+ points more per game. You simply cannot spin that into something that is good...nor can you put that all on the offense.

M. Turner is averaging 100 yds a game he got 121. Think that might have to do with the Packers running 6 plays the entire first quarter not including punts?Fact: It was a 3 point game.Fact: The offense cost them 3 points on penaltiesFact: The offense ran 6 plays in the first quarterFact: The offense generated one turn overFact: With the score tied the offense throws a pick and gives the Falcons the ball on the GB19. (Sound familiar??) (oh yeah, 6 points here, interesting). Probably didn't effect the outcome of the game. Fact: The defense generated two turn-oversFact: The Falcons gave up 24 points and won.Now with the facts listed above I see the offense had nothing to do with the loss at all. Just that measly 6 points a game difference the D is giving up. Man if they could only have stopped that final 70-80 yd scoring drive against one of the best (top 5 or 6) offenses in the league. Oh,yeah I mean if they could have stopped that 19 yard drive staring at the GB19 after the offense threw a pick in the last 5 minutes of the game.

Nobody in this thread has stated that the offense had nothing to do with any of the losses. But one person continues to deny that the defense is far worse than last year and the biggest dropoff of this team.You can spin it as much as you want.Im done with that portion of the conversation. Its ridiculous for you to continue this spin.6+ points per game difference...40 yards rushing per game difference...11 TDs through 12 games difference given up on the ground.Meanwhile, the QB play has barely dropped at all, a drop was expected but so far he has been better than expected and pretty much equal to what his predecessor has done on the year.

 

[zDragon]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where did I say this?

Why don't you show us where someone wrote the biggest drop off for the Packers has been at QB like you implied up above.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=9618557I never blamed Rodgers for the loses. I said the largest drop-off was at the QB position.

Do I get a prize? Jesus...

Hey this thread is getting cluttered up with something me or Sho didn't type. This needs to end

 

[Stinger Ray]

Oh, and Stinger Ray:

you got me.....and found ONE person!! Good for you, ace.

 

[sho nuff]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where did I say this?

Why don't you show us where someone wrote the biggest drop off for the Packers has been at QB like you implied up above.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=9618557I never blamed Rodgers for the loses. I said the largest drop-off was at the QB position.

Do I get a prize? Jesus...

So one person stated it. WOW! You almost would think you implied many people where stating that in this thread.

He never implied that any more people said it.He said anyone thinking it...because other than me, the one poster who has been dominating this thread over the past few days is the one saying it and continuing to defend the defense.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Why did you just look at a first half and 2 games?I simply pointing at that over a 5 game stretch the defense did bettter than Ari, NYG, Pit, NYJ and probably others that have winning records. That in the 5 games prior they held teams below their yearly average pts per game. Should I point out that the Broncos, Cardinals and Saints have worse defenses but better records?I also pointed out that the Panthers had a worse two halfs of football and the same bad two games and ended up going .500 and stead of o'fer.I simply took a random bit of data from where you cherry picked data to make you point. BTW Pit gave up 86 points or +5 in the same 5 game period.If you want to make it about Favre then the Jets offense went from 25th in pts per game to 2nd this year. The Jets defense is giving up 22.3 pts per game this year to the packers 24.6. The Jets are 8-4 with a similar defense.Bretts completing 68.7% of his passes in a new offensive scheme Aaron is only completing 63.6 in a offense he has worked in.Seems to me Favre has been a bigger positive for the Jets than Rodgers for the Packers but as you mentioned this was expected this year.Makes you go Hmmmm.

I merely pointed out the last two games in which the offense scored a good amount of points...yet the defense was pitiful (yet you keep trying to defend this defense which has given up more than 6 points per game more than last year. And you still don't think thats the biggest dropoff on the team (which is ludicrous).Cherry picking data? Not at all...look at the whole year if you want to. I pointed out the last two games because they refute some of the crap people have been whining about the offense being the reason the defense was not doing well...time of posession and all of that. Now the offense is rolling and time of posession has been in gB's favor...yet the defense is still porous. Maybe...just maybe, its the defenses problem it gives up points and not Aaron Rodger's fault.You also realize the Jets played with Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemons last year right? And that of course Brett Favre playing even average would have been a huge improvement.Rodgers has more yards, the same # of TDs, fewer INTs than Brett Favre on the year. Yet his "team" is worse.Perhaps you will see its not just the QB that is the problem and its not even close to the biggest dropoff this year.When the defense is giving up 6+ points per game more than last year and almost 40 yards per game more on the ground. 17 rushing TDs allowed so far this year...only 6 all of last year.The defense is the biggest dropoff and that is painfully obvious to nearly everybody who watches football.

You simply cherry picked data that supports your point. The last two games.I simply pointed out the FIVE previous games from where you cherry picked your data in which the defense did well and held the competition below their season average. The 5 games were simply to see how far back I could go before the defense gave up over 80 points. I also pointed out that Cardinals (7-5) 132 a lower ranked defense than Packers Giants (11-1) 107 Steelers (9-3) 86 (some say this is a good offense yet they gave up more points than the packers) Jets (8-4) 88 and giving up only 2 more points per game. I also pointed out that the Panther defense gave up 31 points in the last game they played and won. 76 points in two games that were picked by you and some large number when just grabbing a half to use as you did in the last two games.You can also look and see that the Saints defense is worse rankings wise than the packers and giving up more points per game. They are 24th in the league against the pass. Yet they manage to stomp the Packers into the ground. Seems like the Offense should be able to put up the same amount of points as the Saints since the Defenses were on equal footing. Curious if three picks and giving them the ball on the 3 and 29 hurt any.The defense also held the following teams below thier avg pts per game this year.

I picked the last 2 games because of glaring deficiencies in the defense. That you can't see that is laughable. But look at all year, the D has not played nearly as well as last. You picked the last 5 games prior to that because it included a great game against Indy and Chicago in that time period...but ignore the last 2 weeks and still think QB is the biggest dropoff...no matter how many people tell you how ludicrous that notion is.Wow...bringing up the 3 and 29 again. Sure it hurt...though, you again fail to mention the D had not stopped the Saints offense much and gave up 31 points prior to those things. Why do you always ignore that?Defense last year gave up over 6 points per game less than this year and 40 rushing yards per game less. They gave up 11 fewer TDs in 16 games than the D has given up in 12 games this season.Through 12 games Rodgers has thrown for 2897 yards, 20 TDs, 10 INTs at 63.6% with a 91.2 rating (yes, I hate that number)Through 12 games last year, Favre threw for 3412 yards, 22 TDs, 10 INTs, at 67%...I cant find his rating through 12 games though.Basically under 600 yards difference (and Favre threw the ball 439 times to Rodgers 404) 2 TDs, same INTs.The dropoff that has happened has been expected and its not near the over 6 points per game and 40 rushing yards per game dropoff that the D has had.

You selected data to fit your need. Why didn't you select say the Chicago, Tennessee, or Indy games?Because holding teams below the season average for scoring does not make your point. Therefore I consider it Cherry picking.No I explained why I picked the five games I did. I went backwards from where you started to enlarge to sample size. Interesting how you want to ignore a huge fact in the NO game since it doesn't fit your argument. The Saints are giving up more pts per game than the packers are are worse pass defense. Yet the Packers could not score. If you don't think giving the Saints the ball on the 3 and 29 is huge then I don't know what is. They are lucky the Defense got one of the Picks back almost immediatly. You realize the Packer Offense only ran close to 10 plays in the 3rd quarter against a BAD defense right. Of course 3 picks didn't effect this game at all. Did I mention the Saints also have a bad Defense.I'm not ignoring what the defense did. Everyone KNEW the saints were going to score. My point is in a game like that you do not give the HIGH POWERED offense the all on the 3 and 29. You lose if you offense is dead for a quarter. Could the point difference have anything to do with less yards from the passing game you pointed out, having an inexperienced leader, maybe the 9% 1st down conversion rating against the bucs or a quarter of not moving the ball against the Panthers and Saints. Maybe the Offense just isn't as good as last year and the defense is on the field more or defending worse field position (see Panthers and Saints games for two good examples).Did I mention the Saints have a worse defense?

Why did I not pick the other games...because they did not just happen.I can breakdown each game this year if you like.Yes...the defense has played some good football at times. For the most part, on the entire season, they have easily been the biggest dropoff on this team and its not even close. No amount of your spin or only discussing 5 games is going to change that.I don't ignore anything in the NO game...the D had already given up 31 points prior to those 2 starting positions you like to bring up. It is you who is ignoring the rest of that game to focus on 2 scoring drives. Great...take those out, they still give up 37 points that game without those two drives. That is still not acceptable and worse than last year's per game average.If you don't think giving up 31 points through one drive of the 2nd half is huge, I don't know what is.The offense Im talking about is ranked 10th in the league in passing yards and 12th in total yards.Where is the defense?Simply put...the defense has been the bigger problem this year...not the passing offense.No amount of 5 game samples is going to save your argument about QB being the biggest dropoff.

I did not focus on 5 games.My sevenMinTbSeaIndTenMinChiPlus your twoCarNoLet's throw in the atlanta game.The pack give up +3 on the Falcons season scoring average. I guess we should note they had a few secondary members injured not sure who or how many. They still come up with a Pick and a FF. Offense hands the ball over on a Pick. Maybe this is another time to point out that the offense did not move the ball in the 1st quarter for a total of 8 plays including the punts. Otherwise it was Atlanta ball all quarter. Once again your going back to your two cherry picked games versus my large sample of games.It was expected to be a shoot-out and the Packers had some blanks.

Throw in the entire season...quit continuing to just add games at your convenience and talk about holding teams at their scoring average.We are talking about comparing 2007 defense to 2008.2008's version of the GB Packers defense is far worse than 2007. You simply cannot deny that. Its true, its factual.QB play in 2008 is not the biggest dropoff. Again, a point that stats and watching the games simply does not bear out.I guess you should note that the defense could not stop Michael Turner or Roddy White either.Im not going to my 2 games. I am talking about the entire season.That it was expected to be a shootout does not excuse the defense.6+ points more per game. You simply cannot spin that into something that is good...nor can you put that all on the offense.

M. Turner is averaging 100 yds a game he got 121. Think that might have to do with the Packers running 6 plays the entire first quarter not including punts?Fact: It was a 3 point game.Fact: The offense cost them 3 points on penaltiesFact: The offense ran 6 plays in the first quarterFact: The offense generated one turn overFact: With the score tied the offense throws a pick and gives the Falcons the ball on the GB19. (Sound familiar??) (oh yeah, 6 points here, interesting). Probably didn't effect the outcome of the game. Fact: The defense generated two turn-oversFact: The Falcons gave up 24 points and won.Now with the facts listed above I see the offense had nothing to do with the loss at all. Just that measly 6 points a game difference the D is giving up. Man if they could only have stopped that final 70-80 yd scoring drive against one of the best (top 5 or 6) offenses in the league. Oh,yeah I mean if they could have stopped that 19 yard drive staring at the GB19 after the offense threw a pick in the last 5 minutes of the game.

Meanwhile, the QB play has barely dropped at all, a drop was expected but so far he has been better than expected and pretty much equal to what his predecessor has done on the year.

Except that 0-4 record in crunch time for Rodgers.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Anyone who thinks the biggest drop off for the Packers from last year to this year is at the quarterback position has not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Anyone who thinks the Packers haven't been impacted by the loss of Favre have not watched any Packer games this year or simply doesn't know anything about football.

Where did I say this?

Why don't you show us where someone wrote the biggest drop off for the Packers has been at QB like you implied up above.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=9618557I never blamed Rodgers for the loses. I said the largest drop-off was at the QB position.

Do I get a prize? Jesus...

So one person stated it. WOW! You almost would think you implied many people where stating that in this thread.

the one poster who has been dominating this thread over the past few days

and we all know that just drives you nuts!!

 

[sho nuff]

Except that 0-4 record in crunch time for Rodgers.

Yes...because Favre would have never thrown an INT late in a game right?Or Favre would have helped Crosby kick that FG against Minny...or tackled the returner for Carolina as he ripped off another 40 yard return. Or sacked Delhomme before he could toss it up to Smith.Yawn...same old same old.