Love how Packers fans declare...

[PakAttack86]

Let's look at some statistics shall we? I want to dissect the conclusion you're coming to when asserting that Green Bay has a terrible defense. Overall defense is ranked 15th in the league in terms of total yards allowed both passing and rushing, and since there are 32 teams in the league, correct me if I'm wrong, but this would put us around average. Not fantastic, not terrible, but average.

Let's move on to where defensive stats really shine in the playoffs; turnovers and defensive stops. Green Bay was ranked 9th in the NFL in sacks, where Seattle was only ranked 20th. Check mark Green Bay. Green Bay was ranked 7th in interceptions, Seattle was ranked 18th. Check mark Green Bay. Green Bay was ranked FIRST in turnover differential with a +14 margin, while Seattle was ranked 4th with a +9. Check mark Green Bay.

People forget that it's the opportunistic defense with the turnovers that wins championships, not the defense that allows the least amount of yards. So I'll go ahead and wait for your retort and explanation on these facts. Defenses that lead the league in turnovers are certainly not terrible.

Yeah, you're right. that stat really worked well for Chicago all those years, eh?

Nice try, sweetie, but your weak-ass argument using selective stats holds no water. Looking at actual meaningful stats has you Packers as the #16 defense by DVOA, and even lower than that by weighted DVOA. Middle of the road, shitty, soft-ass defense. Seattle's is a WHOPPING 17.5% ahead of GB's by weighted DVOA. that's not even in the same area code.


XOXO,

Ted Turner's teeth.

It's absolutely precious that you are that naive to suggest the most heavily analyzed and talked about defensive stat, turnover differential, to you has no serviceable meaning in the NFL. You also substantially lose all credibility by comparing Green Bay who has had tremendous success over the last decade versus a downright terrible Chicago Bears team who has had nothing to show for their defensive talent in the same time frame with the exception of one super bowl appearance that they lost in.

The fact of the matter is everyone except for you (delusions of grandeur are all too common with fan bases and teams who have found recent success) knows that this Green Bay team is not going to roll over for Seattle. It's going to be a close game, with a margin of victory no greater than 3 points for whoever comes out as the winner. I'll eagerly be looking forward to you whining about a bad call or two that "made this game closer than it should have been", and serve you a plate of crow if Green Bay does in fact pull off the upset.

turnover differential is the most heavily analyzed and talked about defensive stat? prove that..

you were giving statistical analysis above. you're ignoring it, as other Pack fans have in numerous other threads. this isnt a "lets talk stats, but only these stats" thread. there are some bright football people on here, and one just provided a refute of your post.

and if "everyone" knew that Green Bay is not going to roll over to Seattle, then the line wouldnt be a touchdown.

i believe the game will be close. but quit whimpering because some fans statistically see the game as a mismatch.

That same "bright" fan that you're touting, is the same fan that has already made it clear that Seattle is going to win by an extremely wide margin. While that is his opinion and he has that right, I think that if he had any "bright" football knowledge spots then he'd probably never had created such a silly thought to begin with.

Also, no offense, but tune in to any ESPN or NFL Network coverage preview of the games, and I dare you to highlight a moment where any analyst is covering DVOA stats. You know why you won't find it? Because they're talking about turnover differentials, peanalties/discipline, and yardage stat lines.

 

[E.Lacy27]

You're looking at one game in which the defense was good and using it to say the defense is bad because other things could have happened. Using one game against a very good offense and hypotheticals in no way justifies a defense that sucks dog balls.

Well, I never said it sucked dog balls. I think it is an opportunistic, but average in most other ways type defense with a couple of good pass rushers. Dangerous at home with a good get off, but not so much on the road. I think it lacks team speed at all but a couple of positions when compared to our D, and misses more tackles. I think Dom Capers would be better suited to control offenses a bit more and guess what they are going to do a bit less.

I don't think the defense last week was good at all, I think it was lucky. Dallas averaged 5.2 yards per run, that is pretty damn bad. Romo averaged over 10 yards per attempt, that is terrible too. Dallas couldn't turn those easy yards into points, to tip of the cap to the Packers for rising up to make stops a few times and limiting the total number of plays the Boys got, but on a per play basis, getting yards was not a problem for the Cowboys.

They were also lucky not getting flagged for diving at Romo's knees once, and lucky not getting flagged for a late hit on his legs another time.

I lost track of how was quoting my posts regarding the sucking dogs balls, but either way that's all my points was. It's that the defense does not suck as a poster above tried to say.

Last week, Packers allowed 21 points vs a team that averages over 29. They only have up 7 points in the 2nd half, created a big turnover, and gave the ball back to the offense to seal the game. You can pick out a couple stats that were not good, but the bottom line is they got it done.

 

[Uncle Si]

Yeah, you're right. that stat really worked well for Chicago all those years, eh?

Nice try, sweetie, but your weak-ass argument using selective stats holds no water. Looking at actual meaningful stats has you Packers as the #16 defense by DVOA, and even lower than that by weighted DVOA. Middle of the road, shitty, soft-ass defense. Seattle's is a WHOPPING 17.5% ahead of GB's by weighted DVOA. that's not even in the same area code.


XOXO,

Ted Turner's teeth.

It's absolutely precious that you are that naive to suggest the most heavily analyzed and talked about defensive stat, turnover differential, to you has no serviceable meaning in the NFL. You also substantially lose all credibility by comparing Green Bay who has had tremendous success over the last decade versus a downright terrible Chicago Bears team who has had nothing to show for their defensive talent in the same time frame with the exception of one super bowl appearance that they lost in.

The fact of the matter is everyone except for you (delusions of grandeur are all too common with fan bases and teams who have found recent success) knows that this Green Bay team is not going to roll over for Seattle. It's going to be a close game, with a margin of victory no greater than 3 points for whoever comes out as the winner. I'll eagerly be looking forward to you whining about a bad call or two that "made this game closer than it should have been", and serve you a plate of crow if Green Bay does in fact pull off the upset.

turnover differential is the most heavily analyzed and talked about defensive stat? prove that..

you were giving statistical analysis above. you're ignoring it, as other Pack fans have in numerous other threads. this isnt a "lets talk stats, but only these stats" thread. there are some bright football people on here, and one just provided a refute of your post.

and if "everyone" knew that Green Bay is not going to roll over to Seattle, then the line wouldnt be a touchdown.

i believe the game will be close. but quit whimpering because some fans statistically see the game as a mismatch.

That same "bright" fan that you're touting, is the same fan that has already made it clear that Seattle is going to win by an extremely wide margin. While that is his opinion and he has that right, I think that if he had any "bright" football knowledge spots then he'd probably never had created such a silly thought to begin with.

Also, no offense, but tune in to any ESPN or NFL Network coverage preview of the games, and I dare you to highlight a moment where any analyst is covering DVOA stats. You know why you won't find it? Because they're talking about turnover differentials, peanalties/discipline, and yardage stat lines.

i dont think you're capable of understanding a bit of bravado based sarcasm. i mean i live in the midwest too, place is miserable. people use "finger quotes" as some sort of passive aggressive sword. peaches and i are probably the smartest people you'll every meet from the Great lakes to the mouth of the Mississippi.

i know when i want some hard hitting analysis about an upcoming football game I tune into Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin

christ on a bike... theres a reason they dont talk about it.. its actual statistical analysis and theyve no idea what the hell it is.

People want this game to be close. but every conversation i hear starts with the "can the Packers beat Seattle." Not much the other way around. should tell you something

 

[fan4life]

There is really only one Defensive Statistic that matters: Scoring.

Seattle is #1 in the league, allowing 15.9 pts/game.
Green Bay is #11, allowing 21.8 pts/game.

Since neither team is prone to giving away points on 'careless' turnovers, GB's advantage on offense (#1/scoring 30.4 pts/game) and Seattle's lower number (#5/scoring 24.6 pts/game) should be a good contest that pits each team's strength against its opponent's relative weakness.

But GB is not dealing with 'normal circumstances'. GB's Defense may very well hold Seattle's offense between 21.8 and 24.6 pts/game. OTOH, the difference between GB scoring 30.4 pts/game and Seattle holding them to 15.9 pts/game depends, for the most part, on Aaron Rodgers' ability to make plays.

IE, there's a reason why oddsmakers have SEA a 7-point favorite. Hint: it's not that they expect Seattle's offense to explode against a crappy GB defense. Methinks they ARE expecting a gimpy QB help his offense bring their best against the league's toughest defense.

 

[Scottemojo]

You're looking at one game in which the defense was good and using it to say the defense is bad because other things could have happened. Using one game against a very good offense and hypotheticals in no way justifies a defense that sucks dog balls.

Well, I never said it sucked dog balls. I think it is an opportunistic, but average in most other ways type defense with a couple of good pass rushers. Dangerous at home with a good get off, but not so much on the road. I think it lacks team speed at all but a couple of positions when compared to our D, and misses more tackles. I think Dom Capers would be better suited to control offenses a bit more and guess what they are going to do a bit less.

I don't think the defense last week was good at all, I think it was lucky. Dallas averaged 5.2 yards per run, that is pretty damn bad. Romo averaged over 10 yards per attempt, that is terrible too. Dallas couldn't turn those easy yards into points, to tip of the cap to the Packers for rising up to make stops a few times and limiting the total number of plays the Boys got, but on a per play basis, getting yards was not a problem for the Cowboys.

They were also lucky not getting flagged for diving at Romo's knees once, and lucky not getting flagged for a late hit on his legs another time.

I lost track of how was quoting my posts regarding the sucking dogs balls, but either way that's all my points was. It's that the defense does not suck as a poster above tried to say.

Last week, Packers allowed 21 points vs a team that averages over 29. They only have up 7 points in the 2nd half, created a big turnover, and gave the ball back to the offense to seal the game. You can pick out a couple stats that were not good, but the bottom line is they got it done.

They did get it done. With luck. An almost TD by Bryant and a fumble on a play where Murray was just about to take one for a TD.
Bottom line, they got it done. But if you can't figure out how a Hawk fan would watch that game and feel confidence that our offense will be fine vs your D, you are being intentionally thick.

 

[E.Lacy27]

You're looking at one game in which the defense was good and using it to say the defense is bad because other things could have happened. Using one game against a very good offense and hypotheticals in no way justifies a defense that sucks dog balls.

Well, I never said it sucked dog balls. I think it is an opportunistic, but average in most other ways type defense with a couple of good pass rushers. Dangerous at home with a good get off, but not so much on the road. I think it lacks team speed at all but a couple of positions when compared to our D, and misses more tackles. I think Dom Capers would be better suited to control offenses a bit more and guess what they are going to do a bit less.

I don't think the defense last week was good at all, I think it was lucky. Dallas averaged 5.2 yards per run, that is pretty damn bad. Romo averaged over 10 yards per attempt, that is terrible too. Dallas couldn't turn those easy yards into points, to tip of the cap to the Packers for rising up to make stops a few times and limiting the total number of plays the Boys got, but on a per play basis, getting yards was not a problem for the Cowboys.

They were also lucky not getting flagged for diving at Romo's knees once, and lucky not getting flagged for a late hit on his legs another time.

I lost track of how was quoting my posts regarding the sucking dogs balls, but either way that's all my points was. It's that the defense does not suck as a poster above tried to say.

Last week, Packers allowed 21 points vs a team that averages over 29. They only have up 7 points in the 2nd half, created a big turnover, and gave the ball back to the offense to seal the game. You can pick out a couple stats that were not good, but the bottom line is they got it done.

They did get it done. With luck. An almost TD by Bryant and a fumble on a play where Murray was just about to take one for a TD.
Bottom line, they got it done. But if you can't figure out how a Hawk fan would watch that game and feel confidence that our offense will be fine vs your D, you are being intentionally thick.

Peppers being a freak and making a play is not luck. I'll give you that Bryant's catch was, but that is a play where you have to give credit to the offense when it's due. That was a fantastic play.

I didn't even mention the Packers defense vs. the Seahawks.

Again, all I did was respond to the conception to the Packers defense sucking, which is just not true.

 

[forgivenhawksfan]

Aaron Rodgers played 3 Top-10 Pass Ds on the road, including Seahawks: 56-of-102, 536 yards, 5.25 Y/A, 2 TD, 3 INT, 64 QB rating, 0-3 record

 

[bigtrain21]

There is really only one Defensive Statistic that matters: Scoring.

Seattle is #1 in the league, allowing 15.9 pts/game.
Green Bay is #11, allowing 21.8 pts/game.

Since neither team is prone to giving away points on 'careless' turnovers, GB's advantage on offense (#1/scoring 30.4 pts/game) and Seattle's lower number (#5/scoring 24.6 pts/game) should be a good contest that pits each team's strength against its opponent's relative weakness.

But GB is not dealing with 'normal circumstances'. GB's Defense may very well hold Seattle's offense between 21.8 and 24.6 pts/game. OTOH, the difference between GB scoring 30.4 pts/game and Seattle holding them to 15.9 pts/game depends, for the most part, on Aaron Rodgers' ability to make plays.

IE, there's a reason why oddsmakers have SEA a 7-point favorite. Hint: it's not that they expect Seattle's offense to explode against a crappy GB defense. Methinks they ARE expecting a gimpy QB help his offense bring their best against the league's toughest defense.

Good numbers but I think the more relevant #s are the home/road splits for each team. GB scores 21 ppg while giving up 23.75 ppg on the road. Seattle scores 24.88 ppg and gives up 16.63 ppg at home.

 

[PackerNation]

The word on cornerback Byron Maxwell is less positive. Maxwell had trouble breathing during the game, forcing the Seahawks to turn to Tharold Simon, and Carroll said it’s too early to say if he’ll be well enough to play against the Packers.

“He was real sick,” Carroll said. “He’s had a history of some chest stuff. He’s had pneumonia before and all that. So he was uncomfortable and he couldn’t catch his breath in normal fashion. He could play a play, but he didn’t know if he could play a sequence. Hopefully, we’ll get him back next week.”

Where'd you get that quote from? And when was it said?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... n-maxwell/

2 days ago.

Do you have an update stating that Maxwell is 100% and ready to go?

EDIT: UPDATE (1/12, 12:40 p.m. PT): During his Monday afternoon press conference, after meeting with Maxwell and team trainers, Carroll said Maxwell seems like he's recovered and should be OK for Sunday's matchup with the Packers.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

As for week 1 compared to now, Luke Willson just said this morning on Brock & Salk that the Seahawks aren't putting much stock into the film from that game. He said they are focusing much more on the recent 4-5 games.

I think both teams will be ready for the current version of their opponent. The tricky thing is, our defense – which has given up 5 TDs in the past 7 games – doesn't change much from week to week. It just gets better at doing what it does.

 

[PakAttack86]

i dont think you're capable of understanding a bit of bravado based sarcasm. i mean i live in the midwest too, place is miserable. people use "finger quotes" as some sort of passive aggressive sword. peaches and i are probably the smartest people you'll every meet from the Great lakes to the mouth of the Mississippi.

i know when i want some hard hitting analysis about an upcoming football game I tune into Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin

christ on a bike... theres a reason they dont talk about it.. its actual statistical analysis and theyve no idea what the hell it is.

People want this game to be close. but every conversation i hear starts with the "can the Packers beat Seattle." Not much the other way around. should tell you something

Statistical breakdowns on the level that you're describing in my opinion have no place in sports, where every new game essentially resets the stat sheets. You could be statistically the worst team in the league, and win against the best team in the league the very next day- and the end result of THAT scenario is going to create an imbalance in the overall stats that probably means more nothing than something, but stat junkies will say otherwise.

The only stats that matter on game day is the score, but I'll take the team that wins the turnover battle ANY day of the week. We'll just have to agree to disagree on what stats truly matter. As far as "can the Packers beat Seattle?" you're absolutely right, it is not a shocker that Green Bay is the underdog against a very strong home Seattle team, just like every other team would be an underdog versus Green Bay at home.

 

[Chawks1]

How's Green Bay on the road this year? How many winning teams did they beat?

 

[Scottemojo]

i dont think you're capable of understanding a bit of bravado based sarcasm. i mean i live in the midwest too, place is miserable. people use "finger quotes" as some sort of passive aggressive sword. peaches and i are probably the smartest people you'll every meet from the Great lakes to the mouth of the Mississippi.

i know when i want some hard hitting analysis about an upcoming football game I tune into Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin

christ on a bike... theres a reason they dont talk about it.. its actual statistical analysis and theyve no idea what the hell it is.

People want this game to be close. but every conversation i hear starts with the "can the Packers beat Seattle." Not much the other way around. should tell you something

Statistical breakdowns on the level that you're describing in my opinion have no place in sports, where every new game essentially resets the stat sheets. You could be statistically the worst team in the league, and win against the best team in the league the very next day- and the end result of THAT scenario is going to create an imbalance in the overall stats that probably means more nothing than something, but stat junkies will say otherwise.

The only stats that matter on game day is the score, but I'll take the team that wins the turnover battle ANY day of the week. We'll just have to agree to disagree on what stats truly matter. As far as "can the Packers beat Seattle?" you're absolutely right, it is not a shocker that Green Bay is the underdog against a very strong home Seattle team, just like every other team would be an underdog versus Green Bay at home.

Turnovers are part of DVOA.

There is no perfect stat. DVOA, however, has proven fairly accurate as a predictive stat. Saints fans didn't like DVOA last year either, as it rewards efficiency over yards, but it proved to be quite accurate in 2013.

Of course you like the turnover stat, it's the one that makes you feel best about your chances to win.

 

[scutterhawk]

I just wonder who the Seahawks will face in Super Bowl 48, Brady or Luck.

 

[Uncle Si]

i dont think you're capable of understanding a bit of bravado based sarcasm. i mean i live in the midwest too, place is miserable. people use "finger quotes" as some sort of passive aggressive sword. peaches and i are probably the smartest people you'll every meet from the Great lakes to the mouth of the Mississippi.

i know when i want some hard hitting analysis about an upcoming football game I tune into Deion Sanders and Michael Irvin

christ on a bike... theres a reason they dont talk about it.. its actual statistical analysis and theyve no idea what the hell it is.

People want this game to be close. but every conversation i hear starts with the "can the Packers beat Seattle." Not much the other way around. should tell you something

Statistical breakdowns on the level that you're describing in my opinion have no place in sports, where every new game essentially resets the stat sheets. You could be statistically the worst team in the league, and win against the best team in the league the very next day- and the end result of THAT scenario is going to create an imbalance in the overall stats that probably means more nothing than something, but stat junkies will say otherwise.

The only stats that matter on game day is the score, but I'll take the team that wins the turnover battle ANY day of the week. We'll just have to agree to disagree on what stats truly matter. As far as "can the Packers beat Seattle?" you're absolutely right, it is not a shocker that Green Bay is the underdog against a very strong home Seattle team, just like every other team would be an underdog versus Green Bay at home.

thats fine... if the only stat that matters on game day is the score, than the only true defensive stat to look at is defensive scoring, of which we know Seattle is #1.

you are just picking a stat that helps build your confidence in your team, which is a legitimate thing to do. but to say "statistical breakdowns on that level" have no place in sports is simply ignoring the massive efforts put in by coaches and their staffs in the work they do in: bringing players in, setting up game plans, making adjustments during the game. this is true in every sport by the way. to suggest that a statistically poor team can beat a statistically great team any day so stats dont matter is saying the same thing as a team who creates turnovers lost to a team that gives them away so that stat doesnt matter. youre all over the map in your argument.

also, i dont think Green Bay would be more than a 1 point favorite at home vs. Seattle, and I can see that money switching to even or perhaps Seattle -1 to -2 by kickoff.

 

[PakAttack86]

How's Green Bay on the road this year? How many winning teams did they beat?

On the flip side of this question, Green Bay had one less home loss than Seattle did. Against the very team the Packers recently defeated.

 

[PakAttack86]

you are just picking a stat that helps build your confidence in your team, which is a legitimate thing to do. but to say "statistical breakdowns on that level" have no place in sports is simply ignoring the massive efforts put in by coaches and their staffs in the work they do in: bringing players in, setting up game plans, making adjustments during the game. this is true in every sport by the way. to suggest that a statistically poor team can beat a statistically great team any day so stats dont matter is saying the same thing as a team who creates turnovers lost to a team that gives them away so that stat doesnt matter. youre all over the map in your argument.

also, i dont think Green Bay would be more than a 1 point favorite at home vs. Seattle, and I can see that money switching to even or perhaps Seattle -1 to -2 by kickoff.

One point or 50 point favorites, does it matter? Either would add a victory, but again maybe that's just our difference in the boundaries of statistics we appreciate. I honestly don't think I'm all over the map with my argument, I just don't look as deeply into it as you do. To me the simple things in each game are the biggest difference makers; Did player A get a turnover in the red zone, and did team A follow up with a score? If the answer is yes, give me Team A to win today.

If team A does this consistently, it shows they can continually create this scenario and it builds confidence and this is what Green Bay has been able to do and has done better than Seattle. Does not necessarily mean it will happen on Sunday, but I like the pattern that has been shown.

By that same token I also expect Seattle to allow less yards and Green Bay to give up more yards. But let's take a giant step back to what prompted me bringing up the turnover differential stat anyways; the original responder to my message declared my stat not meaning anything, and I respectfully disagree.

 

[Scottemojo]

Green Bay has turned the ball over 13 times this year.
Seattle? 14.

Either team counting on a bunch of turnovers would be stupid.

 

[RCATES]

How's Green Bay on the road this year? How many winning teams did they beat?

On the flip side of this question, Green Bay had one less home loss than Seattle did. Against the very team the Packers recently defeated.

What does this have to do with his question of what has GB done on the road this year? You know because this game is on the road not in GB.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Let's look at some statistics shall we? I want to dissect the conclusion you're coming to when asserting that Green Bay has a terrible defense. Overall defense is ranked 15th in the league in terms of total yards allowed both passing and rushing, and since there are 32 teams in the league, correct me if I'm wrong, but this would put us around average. Not fantastic, not terrible, but average.

23rd overall against the run. That's not average.. that's near the bottom of the league.

10th overall against the pass. That's a nice number sure.. but the team you're playing is run oriented.

Let's move on to where defensive stats really shine in the playoffs; turnovers and defensive stops. Green Bay was ranked 9th in the NFL in sacks, where Seattle was only ranked 20th. Check mark Green Bay. Green Bay was ranked 7th in interceptions, Seattle was ranked 18th. Check mark Green Bay. Green Bay was ranked FIRST in turnover differential with a +14 margin, while Seattle was ranked 4th with a +9. Check mark Green Bay.

:lol:

Holy misleading stats Batman!

Packers - 41 sacks
Seahawks - 37 sacks

Packers - 18 interceptions
Seahawks - 13 interceptions

Here's the fun stat.. remove those two games against the Bears.. you know, with the human turnover machine that is Jay Cutler.. and the two teams are even. Sacks btw are the most overrated stat in football.. what matters is pressure, and over the last 10 games the Seahawks have brought continuous pressure. And they don't do that with exotic blitzes like Capers and co.. they do that with 4 guys.

People forget that it's the opportunistic defense with the turnovers that wins championships, not the defense that allows the least amount of yards. So I'll go ahead and wait for your retort and explanation on these facts. Defenses that lead the league in turnovers are certainly not terrible.

You seem to forget that the team that you're about to face not only surrenders the least amount of yards through the air, but the 3rd least on the ground.. and umm.. they're kind of good at forcing a turnover, unless you've lived under a rock the last 2+ seasons.

But hey, go ahead and grasp at whatever straw you need to spin an argument that the Packers defense is on par with the Seahawks.