Do the statistics tell the real story?

[Farveulous]

This season the Packers have a top rated defense and a top rated offense. But they are in a position where they are fighting for a wild card spot to make the playoffs. They have been beaten soundly by the Vikings and I find it hard to believe they can beat a team like the Saints.

So it would seem that even though they are statistically one of the best teams in football there is something missing.

Coaching? Maybe. Special teams? Definitely.

So are the Packers a really good team, or just one that is piling up stats against weaker opponents?

[Wilbur]

IMO, the Packers are a good team - verging on great - which is hampered by a few average position coaches and good to mediocre game-day coaching. The talent on the Packers has gotten the team to the point of taking the next step ... some Oline and a few other positions can be upgraded, but I feel that more improvement would come from upgrading a few coaching positions than anything else the Packers could do.

[weeds]

Who was the NFL coach that said that 'stats' are for the fans and sportscasters? Dealing with flippin' numbers day-in and day-out, 12 hours per day, six days per week ... numbers do not always reflect reality and can be manipulated to say whatever the 'manipulator' wants them to say.

Oh... the Pack could be on the verge of 'good'...we'll see...

[bulldog]

Originally Posted by weeds

Who was the NFL coach that said that 'stats' are for the fans and sportscasters? Dealing with flippin' numbers day-in and day-out, 12 hours per day, six days per week ... numbers do not always reflect reality and can be manipulated to say whatever the 'manipulator' wants them to say.

Oh... the Pack could be on the verge of 'good'...we'll see...

Right on Weeds
I hope that sinks in for some people on this board.
IMO-Most of those people who deal in Football stats know shit about football.

[cgc73]

There's certainly room for manipulation when deciding which stats to select and present.

But at the same time I think whatever coach said that was being a bit disingenuous if he tries to claim that stats are "just for fans". If that were the case teams wouldn't bother with things such as tendency charts -- which are stats themselves of course. So really I can only imagine that what the coach meant was: "the stats that are publicly presented as metrics don't mean crap." I'm sure that teams absolutely have customized stats that they feel are important for their particular team but that they're hardly going to publish. The stats that are out there are of a one-size-fits-all variety and it is a bit dangerous I suppose to try to draw too strong of conclusions from those.

Football though, like most things in life, is utterly measurable. Just a question of selecting the right things to measure -- obviously that's where the great difficulty comes in.

[Galileo]

Originally Posted by bulldog

Right on Weeds
I hope that sinks in for some people on this board.
IMO-Most of those people who deal in Football stats know shit about football.

That would explain why most NFL teams have a statistician on their payroll.

Oh, actually it doesn't. Exactly the opposite.

The person who draws blood may not know shit about medicine, but a doctor can tell a lot from the tests that are run on it. A careful analysis of statistics can tell you a lot of things that you aren't seeing with your eyes.

I would disagree with Favrelous's initial premise. Are the Packers "fighting" for a wild card spot or do they have the "inside track" for a spot? Were the Packers "beaten soundly by the Vikings" or did the Packers play poorly in a couple phases of the game and were close in the 4th quarter?

The Packers are a good team. They're a better team right now than they were earlier in the year. And yes, they've been hurt badly by poor special teams play (where the statisticians have us ranked 32 out of 32).

[weeds]

Damn .... the ST play just plain pisses me off ... 32nd is too high.

[bulldog]

[quote=Galileo;352041]That would explain why most NFL teams have a statistician on their payroll.

Oh, actually it doesn't. Exactly the opposite.

The person who draws blood may not know shit about medicine, but a doctor can tell a lot from the tests that are run on it. A careful analysis of statistics can tell you a lot of things that you aren't seeing with your eyes.

I am not saying football stats do not have a place in football but they are not the ALL.
But do they tell the real story maybe but not all the time.

I think Galileo even you would have to agree with that.

[TAYLORBOY]

Originally Posted by weeds

Who was the NFL coach that said that 'stats' are for the fans and sportscasters? Dealing with flippin' numbers day-in and day-out, 12 hours per day, six days per week ... numbers do not always reflect reality and can be manipulated to say whatever the 'manipulator' wants them to say.

Oh... the Pack could be on the verge of 'good'...we'll see...

Bud Grant.......

I seem to remember his quote as :"stats are for the losers"

[Rossum20]

It depends who is telling the story.


*Cough.

[Fantasy Ninja]

Originally Posted by Farveulous

This season the Packers have a top rated defense and a top rated offense. But they are in a position where they are fighting for a wild card spot to make the playoffs. They have been beaten soundly by the Vikings and I find it hard to believe they can beat a team like the Saints.

So it would seem that even though they are statistically one of the best teams in football there is something missing.

Coaching? Maybe. Special teams? Definitely.

So are the Packers a really good team, or just one that is piling up stats against weaker opponents?

Everyone piles up stats on weaker opponents. I think this team is getting marginally better each week. If that continues, they'll make some noise in the playoffs this season. The Saints just about lost to the Deadskins.

[Farveulous]

Well, after the losses to the Steelers and the Cardinals it should be apparent to everyone that this defense is not as good as it's statistical rating.

This defense has a long way to go before it is ready for playoff football.

[BTP]

Originally Posted by Farveulous

Well, after the losses to the Steelers and the Cardinals it should be apparent to everyone that this defense is not as good as it's statistical rating.

.

or it could be that both of those teams coaches understand the 3-4 pretty well and understand it's weaknesses.

Don't let that simple fact slip away from you either. I would assume that does have some bearing on it.

[Farveulous]

The simple fact is that a truly good, #1 defense does not get torched for 500yards, ever.

They don't have breakdowns in basics either..as Capers himself said.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/81328997.html

[Kakunga]

In the NFL stats are not all equal. Why? Cause the teams do not all play the same schedule. Each year you play different teams and we know they are not equal. Who the Colts play is quite different then who we(Packers) may play. When you get to play teams like the Lions twice, Cleveland, the Rams
and Tampa Bay you might have better defensive stats then if you were to play New England, The Indy Colts, Arizona(when the game matters).
When this Packer team faced elite quarterbacks it usually got beat up pretty bad. I don't really think the Packers were the #2 overall defense. The amount of yardage Green Bay gave up in 16 games says that, but reality is we were really not that good.