Or to put it more simply, you still need a D in today's NFL.
Our O didn't put up 40+ pts yesterday and because of that, we lost.
We can't expect our O to put up that many points every week.
My bad feeling about the game started when the Giants were trying to run out the clock in the 2nd Q and ended up with a TD because everyone on our D forgot how to tackle.

NSD, two of the four QBs are "elite" QBs.
I hate Manning but he had a pretty good regular season and he looked way better than Matt Ryan or Aaron Rodgers the last two weeks.
If its Giants v. Pats in the SB, the whole theory has a lot of holes.
Unless the Ravens pull off something insane, I think you will see the Pats in the Super Bowl.
Even the 49ers, I don't think their D played awesome in the Saints game, it was really the Offense that won that game for them with that crazy drive at the end.


Also unrelated but like I said in another thread a while back, is home field really "home field" for the Packers in January.
We're kind of built like a Dome team for an explosive offense.
In a Dome, I think we destroy the Giants.

There are only 32 starting QBs in the league.
Therefore, no more than 3 or 4 quarterbacks can be called "elite"; otherwise you are stretching the meaning of the word beyond recognition.
From a statistical point of view, Eli Manning was certainly excellent this year, but he was not elite.
But that's not the point. The point is the two "elitest" quarterbacks are sitting at home right now, while two quarterbacks who are far from elite will be playing in their respective conference championships.
Meanwhile, two of the best defenses in the league -- and one that after a terrible start to the season is newly resurgent -- are propelling their teams toward a championship berth.
You need more than an elite quarterback to make a championship run.

And even if the most unlikely scenario pans out -- the Giants and Patriots both make it to the Super Bowl -- it in no way invalidates the theory.
Two or three exceptions in the history of the sport don't discredit the correlation.
That's the whole concept of outliers.
Over time, all trends tend to regress back to the mean, and I have no doubt this one will as well.

Something I forgot to mention in my previous post was that never in the history of the current playoff format have the higher seeds/home teams started out 8-0.
The home teams had already gone 7-0 in this tournament, so unfortunately, yet again the Packers were on the wrong side of history.

"The offensive line is a revolving door . . . the receivers can't hold onto the ball when it really counts . . . the running game can't close out games . . . and the defense simply cannot get a stop when it really matters."

I think you take it too far. They played an awful game yesterday. For much of the season the defense DID come up with a stop when it mattered, and if they couldn't, the offense came up with big plays. The receivers held on to plenty of balls when it counted. The running game wasn't often asked to close out games, though the few times it was they got the job done.

I'm not delusional -- Green Bay needs to improve in a number of areas. But they were still one of the top teams this season, no doubt. It's all about playing well in the tournament, like the 2010 Packers. This team didn't play well yesterday. In fact, they played their worst game of the season. It happens, and I fail to see how the whole situation requires complexity.

evad04;202872"The offensive line is a revolving door . . . the receivers can't hold onto the ball when it really counts . . . the running game can't close out games . . . and the defense simply cannot get a stop when it really matters."

I think you take it too far. They played an awful game yesterday. For much of the season the defense DID come up with a stop when it mattered, and if they couldn't, the offense came up with big plays. The receivers held on to plenty of balls when it counted. The running game wasn't often asked to close out games, though the few times it was they got the job done.

I'm not delusional -- Green Bay needs to improve in a number of areas. But they were still one of the top teams this season, no doubt. It's all about playing well in the tournament, like the 2010 Packers. This team didn't play well yesterday. In fact, they played their worst game of the season. It happens, and I fail to see how the whole situation requires complexity.

A similar thing happened to the Patriots last year. I figured with the year Brady had, even with their shaky D that they would likely go to the SB. They came out flat in the divisional round at home against the Jets and were chasing them from the get go.

Was very similar to this years Packers because overall the Patriots went 14-2 but you could say in all 3 phases they'd be the worst 14-2 team you would ever see.

If it's 3 or 4, who is your #4 QB in the league, if not Manning. He has a SB, plays outdoors, puts up awesome numbers, has beat Favre, Rodgers and Brady in the playoffs (including Favre and Rodgers on the road).
I hate him but I was wrong on him, after yesterdays game, I think there is no doubt he is an "elite" QB - which my definition is the top 3-4 QBs in the league.


It's difficult to win without a superstar D but its not impossible by any means.
The Saints won two years ago with a D that gave up 350+ yards I am pretty sure. Everyone on O (except for Driver but including Rodgers, Jennings, Grant, etc.) crapped the bed. It happens, we faced a hot team at the wrong time coming off rusty.
Its hard to win back to back Super Bowls.
It sucks but I think it's just one of those days where we were just beat.
I don't think the team was fundamentally flawed or anything, we went 15-1.
We counted on the O for a lot of those games, the O sucked and that's on them just as much as it is on the D.
If you give me the option of having our team or the 49ers, I'll take our team even with their mighty D - the O just picked the wrong day to not show up. But may be that is just me - I still think we're the better team than the Giants, the 49ers, etc.
If we played them in a 7 game series, we win but its one and done, oh well.
If the O showed up yesterday without all those turnovers and strange onside kick call and strange 4th and 5 call, I bet the Giants get to may be 23 points.

Just something I noticed because of last nights game.
Desmond Bishop doesn't really get enough credit.
He was probably the best player on the field last night offense or defense for the Packers.
He had several big games this year as well and was one of the most reliable players on D throughout the year.

[On a second thought, I will erase this comment to not cause the usual debate between me and NSD - very mature of me :)]

Stevetarded;202876Just something I noticed because of last nights game.
Desmond Bishop doesn't really get enough credit.
He was probably the best player on the field last night offense or defense for the Packers.
He had several big games this year as well and was one of the most reliable players on D throughout the year.

No.
I noticed it too.

A lot of folks think we need a rusher opposite of CM3 to take some pressure off CM3.
I actually think we need one from the DL; someone to replace C Jenkins.
Looking back, I think losing C Jenkins is probably the top factor to why our D went from elite last year to mediocre this year.
Yes, the Collins injury is a factor as well.
But nobody from the DL this year was generating enough pressure.
C Jenkins did last year.

zombieslayer;202881No.
I noticed it too.

A lot of folks think we need a rusher opposite of CM3 to take some pressure off CM3.
I actually think we need one from the DL; someone to replace C Jenkins.
Looking back, I think losing C Jenkins is probably the top factor to why our D went from elite last year to mediocre this year.
Yes, the Collins injury is a factor as well.
But nobody from the DL this year was generating enough pressure.
C Jenkins did last year.

we need another LB to get pressure BUT... It will only help us so far because they will have to fend off that OLB and Clay but that's kind of easy do with just outside pressure, the linebacker would see more of the same with being double teamed or just being foreced to take the long way around. We need to get some pressure up the middle, doesn't even have to be sacks but just a push up the middle with Raji which will give no escape from the outside rush from the LB's.

All the great 3-4 D's have good push up the middle and TWO pass rushing LB's. Then keep in mind that Bishop coming through the middle will just add to the havoc.