So was listening to 710 radio.

In 2020 wr have faced the 3rd toughest pass defenses faced in the NFL.

By comparison Rodgers faced 5th easiest, Brees 12th easiest.

We don't do facts here John. The Hawks are the worst at everything, and Lord Rodgers is the greatest we have ever seen.

The give and pull of NFL numbers.

Do the Packers have the 5th easiest? Or are they so good they rack up yards against teams no matter who they are playing?

Just like the strength of schedule math. The 0-16 Browns had a high strength of schedule because they added 16 wins to their opponent's schedule.

Yeah, ok sure. But if Rodgers had DK and Lockett, he would've thrown for at least 6,000 yards and 70 TDs. What's Wilson's excuse?

Good stat John. Not only is he facing tougher pass defenses, but teams are taking away the deep ball, which he thrives at.

All the more frustrating when they don't call the offense to adjust to it. If they are not allowing the long pass, dink and dunk them all day. We have the QB, WR's and TE's to get that done.

sdog1981 wrote:The give and pull of NFL numbers.

Do the Packers have the 5th easiest? Or are they so good they rack up yards against teams no matter who they are playing?

Just like the strength of schedule math. The 0-16 Browns had a high strength of schedule because they added 16 wins to their opponent's schedule.

This is over a 16 game schedule, so 1 or 2 games ar enot enough to skew it like you are alluding to. nice try though

SoulfishHawk wrote:All the more frustrating when they don't call the offense to adjust to it. If they are not allowing the long pass, dink and dunk them all day. We have the QB, WR's and TE's to get that done.

Agreed

John63 wrote:

sdog1981 wrote:The give and pull of NFL numbers.

Do the Packers have the 5th easiest? Or are they so good they rack up yards against teams no matter who they are playing?

Just like the strength of schedule math. The 0-16 Browns had a high strength of schedule because they added 16 wins to their opponent's schedule.

This is over a 16 game schedule, so 1 or 2 games ar enot enough to skew it like you are alluding to. nice try though

Yes, it is, it is for their 16 games. The Jets faced the toughest pass defenses all season because they only threw for 174 yards a game not because the teams they played were that much better than the rest of the NFL. Same thing for the Ravens that only threw from 171 yards per game.

Think of it this way. The Ravens and Titans are 1,2 in NFL for rushing yards per game. Are they both running the ball the same way? Are they both running the same plays? Absolutely not and the run defenses they are playing are not worse than the NFL average.

The Packers threw the ball 37 times less than the Seahawks did this season. Hell, they threw the ball to Davante Adams 149 times the next highest target had 63 targets.

sdog1981 wrote:

John63 wrote:

sdog1981 wrote:The give and pull of NFL numbers.

Do the Packers have the 5th easiest? Or are they so good they rack up yards against teams no matter who they are playing?

Just like the strength of schedule math. The 0-16 Browns had a high strength of schedule because they added 16 wins to their opponent's schedule.

This is over a 16 game schedule, so 1 or 2 games ar enot enough to skew it like you are alluding to. nice try though

Yes, it is, it is for their 16 games. The Jets faced the toughest pass defenses all season because they only threw for 174 yards a game not because the teams they played were that much better than the rest of the NFL. Same thing for the Ravens that only threw from 171 yards per game.

Think of it this way. The Ravens and Titans are 1,2 in NFL for rushing yards per game. Are they both running the ball the same way? Are they both running the same plays? Absolutely not and the run defenses they are playing are not worse than the NFL average.

The Packers threw the ball 37 times less than the Seahawks did this season. Hell, they threw the ball to Davante Adams 149 times the next highest target had 63 targets.

You got to be kidding me, you are trying to rationalize why over a16 games schedule of being the best against the pass still does not mean they are the best against the pass.


wow thanks for the laugh


Sorry 16 games is more than enough of a sample size to determine how good a team is against the pass. Your lame attempt to say the JEst because they only through for 174 a game means they faced top team all season is about as transparent a bunch of BS as I have ever seen. For example the Jets faced NE they are 8th in yards against the pass giving up 222 but the Jets threw for 260. So your whole premise is again wrong.

Over a 16 game schedule you learn which defenses are good and which are not and anyone who half a brain knows that. So again nice try.

But I will help you even more we faced top 10 pass defenses 10 times. Gb 1 time. enough said thanks for playing but the facts show exactly what was said on 710 we faced the 3rd hardest past defense schedule while GB was 5th easiest.

again thanks for playing

John63 wrote:

SoulfishHawk wrote:All the more frustrating when they don't call the offense to adjust to it. If they are not allowing the long pass, dink and dunk them all day. We have the QB, WR's and TE's to get that done.

Agreed

+1

sdog1981 wrote:The give and pull of NFL numbers.

Do the Packers have the 5th easiest? Or are they so good they rack up yards against teams no matter who they are playing?

Just like the strength of schedule math. The 0-16 Browns had a high strength of schedule because they added 16 wins to their opponent's schedule.

This doesnt make sense.

The Packers playing the lions twice or the Ravens once isnt enough to skew their whole season's pass defense numbers.

Are you not understanding what the stat is referencing?

Hawkpower wrote:

sdog1981 wrote:The give and pull of NFL numbers.

Do the Packers have the 5th easiest? Or are they so good they rack up yards against teams no matter who they are playing?

Just like the strength of schedule math. The 0-16 Browns had a high strength of schedule because they added 16 wins to their opponent's schedule.

This doesnt make sense.

The Packers playing the lions twice or the Ravens once isnt enough to skew their whole season's pass defense numbers.

Are you not understanding what the stat is referencing?

The Packers faced the 5th easiest pass defense, threw the ball less, and had better results. The Cardinals faced the same number of elite defenses and have the 6th ranked offense, so are the Cardinals some super-elite club? No, they are not.

The Packers threw the ball less and ran the ball more than the Seahawks and have a higher ranked passing offense by 10 yards per game. Is that somehow saying that the Seahawks should not fear them if they face them in the playoffs? The funny thing is, the Packers run the offense that Pete says he wants to run. If the Seahawks lose to the Packers it will because the Packer's overrated passing game completes passes on 3rd and 5 converting 9/14 third downs.

sdog1981 wrote:

Hawkpower wrote:

sdog1981 wrote:The give and pull of NFL numbers.

Do the Packers have the 5th easiest? Or are they so good they rack up yards against teams no matter who they are playing?

Just like the strength of schedule math. The 0-16 Browns had a high strength of schedule because they added 16 wins to their opponent's schedule.

This doesnt make sense.

The Packers playing the lions twice or the Ravens once isnt enough to skew their whole season's pass defense numbers.

Are you not understanding what the stat is referencing?

The Packers faced the 5th easiest pass defense, threw the ball less, and had better results. The Cardinals faced the same number of elite defenses and have the 6th ranked offense, so are the Cardinals some super-elite club? No, they are not.

The Packers threw the ball less and ran the ball more than the Seahawks and have a higher ranked passing offense by 10 yards per game. Is that somehow saying that the Seahawks should not fear them if they face them in the playoffs? The funny thing is, the Packers run the offense that Pete says he wants to run. If the Seahawks lose to the Packers it will because the Packer's overrated passing game completes passes on 3rd and 5 converting 9/14 third downs.

that wold be incorrect the cardinals face 5 top 10 pass defenses we faced 7.

So once again the FACTS show we faced the 3rd toughest pass defense schedule Packers 5th easiest. What that means is they were able to get up on the score board and then run more at the end. While we were facing tough defenses and our own defense was not good, we had to keep going and do it against much better defenses.

The best D wins this game on Saturday . IMO

John63 wrote:
that wold be incorrect the cardinals face 5 top 10 pass defenses we faced 7.

So once again the FACTS show we faced the 3rd toughest pass defense schedule Packers 5th easiest. What that means is they were able to get up on the score board and then run more at the end. While we were facing tough defenses and our own defense was not good, we had to keep going and do it against much better defenses.

You are incorrect. The Cardinals played 6 and the Seahawks played 8.

Cardinals played: Rams 2 twice, 49ers 2 twice, WFT once, Patriots once so that is 6, and the same 6 the Seahawks played. The only difference is the Seahawks played the Cardinals twice who is the 10th rated passing defense.

John63 wrote:So was listening to 710 radio.

In 2020 wr have faced the 3rd toughest pass defenses faced in the NFL.

By comparison Rodgers faced 5th easiest, Brees 12th easiest.

That is a cool stat... It's fun to play with stats but Stats don't really mean anything...I think Our D has proven that...It's about how this team is playing right now...


LTH

xray wrote:The best D wins this game on Saturday . IMO

The Rams have the better D.

I'm banking on the team that has the better QB.

Fade wrote:

xray wrote:The best D wins this game on Saturday . IMO

The Rams have the better D.

I'm banking on the team that has the better QB.

Dang.... we agree on something...

LTH

sdog1981 wrote:

John63 wrote:
that wold be incorrect the cardinals face 5 top 10 pass defenses we faced 7.

So once again the FACTS show we faced the 3rd toughest pass defense schedule Packers 5th easiest. What that means is they were able to get up on the score board and then run more at the end. While we were facing tough defenses and our own defense was not good, we had to keep going and do it against much better defenses.

You are incorrect. The Cardinals played 6 and the Seahawks played 8.

Cardinals played: Rams 2 twice, 49ers 2 twice, WFT once, Patriots once so that is 6, and the same 6 the Seahawks played. The only difference is the Seahawks played the Cardinals twice who is the 10th rated passing defense.

Yeah missed it, guess what we still played more than the cards

sdog is correct here, it's important to take any comparative NFL opponent stats with a huge grain of salt because your own team affects the numbers. Looking at 1 game or 16 games doesn't change that point because it's either your team making a full impact one time, or 1/16th of the impact 16 times.

To be clear, if Russ could not play this season and we went with Geno all year, we likely would have scored less in all sixteen games. The opposing sixteen defenses we played would all look better, so when you look at the aggregate opponent defense stat it would appear that we played the toughest defensive schedule in the NFL. In reality the difference would be that our offense was much weaker.

sdog1981 wrote:The give and pull of NFL numbers.

Do the Packers have the 5th easiest? Or are they so good they rack up yards against teams no matter who they are playing?

Just like the strength of schedule math. The 0-16 Browns had a high strength of schedule because they added 16 wins to their opponent's schedule.

You can do that with strength of schedule because it works based on wins, so obviously a team that goes 16-0 vs a team that goes 0-16 is going to skew the SOS of their opponents heavily.

However, if you go by passer rating, the Packers were #1 offense, and Seahawks #6. If you go by yards, Packers were #11, Seahawks #13.

So when you compare the strength of passing defense, neither team massively skews the ranking against when compared to the other - it's not like comparing the SoS 14-2 Chiefs to 2-14 Jaguars, but more like... the 13-3 Packers to the 12-4 Seahawks.

So the fact that we played the #3 most difficult slate of passing defense has nothing to do with the fact that we played against them - because we were still ranked number 6. If anything our play will have skewed this DOWN from #2 or #1 rather than the other direction.