PDA

View Full Version : Best Defensive Division in Football?


Bearsfan123
09-11-2007, 03:40 PM
You look at three out of the four teams, the Lions being the exception, and we have three very deep, very talented defenses in this division. Each D-line has at least 2 guys on it that are considered great talents/great fits. Some of the best Linebackers in the league are in this division. Corners and safeties are good, really this is the only part of the D where the NFC North isnt a leader, but due to the Cover 2 scheme the way they play is a bit different anyway.

bearsfan_51
09-11-2007, 04:39 PM
It just depends on how you look at it. We're probably the only division that has three very good defenses but the Lions defense is so god awful that collectively I just don't know. The AFC East, for example, doesn't have any weak defenses. The Jets are the weakest of the four and they're nowhere near as bad as the Lions.

bearfan
09-11-2007, 05:34 PM
I think w/in 2-3 years the NFC North will be one of the best divisions in football. Vikes, Lions, Pack and Bears have the makings for good offenses, and like you said 3/4 of the teams have good defenses.

yo123
09-11-2007, 07:57 PM
I think w/in 2-3 years the NFC North will be one of the best divisions in football. Vikes, Lions, Pack and Bears have the makings for good offenses, and like you said 3/4 of the teams have good defenses.



I think its stretching to say we could have a good offense. Adequate maybe, but not good.

Don Vito
09-11-2007, 07:59 PM
AFC East and North are both pretty good.

Crazy_Chris
09-12-2007, 02:43 AM
It just depends on how you look at it. We're probably the only division that has three very good defenses but the Lions defense is so god awful that collectively I just don't know. The AFC East, for example, doesn't have any weak defenses. The Jets are the weakest of the four and they're nowhere near as bad as the Lions.

Very true i look at it the the other way... IMO The Quality of the other 3 defenses makes up for the lack of defense for the lions.

TitleTown088
09-12-2007, 03:14 AM
Man, I just don't know... The lions defense is just plain terrible. The other three should be great this season though.

Bearsfan123
09-12-2007, 08:19 PM
well with the exception of the Lions (who btw seem to be the opposite of every other NFC North team) Id say this division is at least top 3 with strong arguments for it being #1.

TacticaLion
09-18-2007, 12:36 PM
The Cover 2 can get by with shortcomings at CB... and, with a healthy Bullocks, our safeties would be solid. Sims is a complete beast, and our DLine is one of the best.

We don't have a great (or good) defense, but, for a Cover 2, we have the right personnel.

awfullyquiet
09-19-2007, 02:09 AM
*sigh*

what makes a good line tactica? production? sacks hurries hits? average YPC? the fact they (meaning the lions) could probably give up 400 yards to jamal lewis (if we were playing the AFCN this year) makes them a good line?

show me something!

TacticaLion
09-19-2007, 11:34 AM
*sigh*

what makes a good line tactica? production? sacks hurries hits? average YPC? the fact they (meaning the lions) could probably give up 400 yards to jamal lewis (if we were playing the AFCN this year) makes them a good line?

show me something!
Their effect on the game. Want to see something? In how many different ways? Let me break it down:

Stats:

Yards Against PG (NFL Rank) - Bears (5th), Packers (14th), Vikings (20th), Lions (22nd).

Pass Defense (NFL Rank) - Bears (13th), Packers (14th), Lions (21st), Vikings (25th).

Run Defense (NFL Rank) - Bears (4th), Vikings (6th), Packers (13th), Lions (14th).

Sacks (Number/NFL Rank) - Bears (6/T-8th), Lions (6/T-8th), Packers (5/T-13), Vikings (2/T-24th)

INTs (Number/NFL Rank) - Lions (5/T-1st), Vikings (5/T-1st), Bears (3/T-5th), Packers (2/T-13th)

FFs (Number/NFL Rank) - Bears (4/T-4th), Lions (3/T-10th), Packers (1/T-23rd), Vikings (0/T-30th)

Player Stats

Dewayne White - 10 TOT, 1 Sack, 1 INT, 2 FF
Shaun Rogers - 1 TOT, 1 FR (1 FG Block)
Cory Redding - 7 TOT
Kalimba Edwards - 5 TOT, 2.5 Sacks, 2 FF, 1 FR

Big Plays

Week 1 - Shaun Rogers blocked a Janikowski FG.

Week 1 - Dewayne White dropped back into coverage and intercepted a McCown pass that stopped a comeback drive.

Week 1 - Dewayne White sack/forced a fumble on McCown late in the game to put the game away. (He also forced another fumble on the same play.)

Week 2 - Shaun Rogers recovered a fumble in OT to set-up the game winning FG.

A Defensive Linemen has turned the game in our favor in each of our first 2 games, and our defense is (statistically) not last or not far behind the other defenses in the NFC North. I, personally, don't think that "team" stats mean much, but the plays they've made do. You've been shown.

So, wait... what was your point again? "I can see clearly now the bullshits gone"...

Smokey Joe
09-19-2007, 07:39 PM
Their effect on the game. Want to see something? In how many different ways? Let me break it down:

Stats:

Yards Against PG (NFL Rank) - Bears (5th), Packers (14th), Vikings (20th), Lions (22nd).

Pass Defense (NFL Rank) - Bears (13th), Packers (14th), Lions (21st), Vikings (25th).

Run Defense (NFL Rank) - Bears (4th), Vikings (6th), Packers (13th), Lions (14th).

Sacks (Number/NFL Rank) - Bears (6/T-8th), Lions (6/T-8th), Packers (5/T-13), Vikings (2/T-24th)

INTs (Number/NFL Rank) - Lions (5/T-1st), Vikings (5/T-1st), Bears (3/T-5th), Packers (2/T-13th)

FFs (Number/NFL Rank) - Bears (4/T-4th), Lions (3/T-10th), Packers (1/T-23rd), Vikings (0/T-30th)

Player Stats

Dewayne White - 10 TOT, 1 Sack, 1 INT, 2 FF
Shaun Rogers - 1 TOT, 1 FR (1 FG Block)
Cory Redding - 7 TOT
Kalimba Edwards - 5 TOT, 2.5 Sacks, 2 FF, 1 FR

Big Plays

Week 1 - Shaun Rogers blocked a Janikowski FG.

Week 1 - Dewayne White dropped back into coverage and intercepted a McCown pass that stopped a comeback drive.

Week 1 - Dewayne White sack/forced a fumble on McCown late in the game to put the game away. (He also forced another fumble on the same play.)

Week 2 - Shaun Rogers recovered a fumble in OT to set-up the game winning FG.

A Defensive Linemen has turned the game in our favor in each of our first 2 games, and our defense is (statistically) not last or not far behind the other defenses in the NFC North. I, personally, don't think that "team" stats mean much, but the plays they've made do. You've been shown.

So, wait... what was your point again? "I can see clearly now the bullshits gone"...
Well, I wouldn't call either Minnesota or Oakland top offenses... so making plays on them isn't that tough.

TacticaLion
09-19-2007, 09:10 PM
Well, I wouldn't call either Minnesota or Oakland top offenses... so making plays on them isn't that tough.He asked to be shown something, so I showed him something. He wanted to know what makes our DLine good, and I gave him a variety of information.

Not much else to say about that, huh "awfullyquiet"?

P-L
09-19-2007, 09:27 PM
Well, I wouldn't call either Minnesota or Oakland top offenses... so making plays on them isn't that tough.

Well Atlanta and Denver didn't make many plays on those teams. Atlanta didn't record a sack and only 1 turnover against Minnesota. Denver recorded 3 sacks and forced three turnovers against Oakland. The Lions recorded 3 sacks against Oakland and forced three turnovers. Lions forced more fumbles (5) than Denver did against Oakland (1). Against the Vikings? They recorded 5 turnovers and 2 sacks. If making plays on those offenses were easy you'd think the Falcons and Broncos could've out performed the Lions. Detroit has forced 10 turnovers, the most of any team in the league. The Vikings have forced 9 turnovers. But making plays against the Falcons and Lions isn't that tough, so why don't we just completely discredit them while we are at it?

TacticaLion
09-19-2007, 09:33 PM
Well Atlanta and Denver didn't make many plays on those teams. Atlanta didn't record a sack and only 1 turnover against Minnesota. Denver recorded 3 sacks and forced three turnovers against Oakland. The Lions recorded 3 sacks against Oakland and forced three turnovers. Lions forced more fumbles (5) than Denver did against Oakland (1). Against the Vikings? They recorded 5 turnovers and 2 sacks. If making plays on those offenses were easy you'd think the Falcons and Broncos could've out performed the Lions. Detroit has forced 10 turnovers, the most of any team in the league. The Vikings have forced 9 turnovers. But making plays against the Falcons and Lions isn't that tough, so why don't we just completely discredit them while we are at it?

I should've just waited and let you respond.

GB12
09-19-2007, 09:35 PM
AFC East and North are both pretty good.
Not really. The Ravens are great, Steelers are pretty good, and the Bengals and Browns are god awful.

neko4
09-19-2007, 09:38 PM
So what is the arguement here, that lions dont have the worst D in the division, or that the NFC North has the best defensive division.

BrownsTown
09-19-2007, 09:46 PM
AFC East, and AFC West (When did that happen?) both have better defenses. Maybe NFC East too. The Bears are really the only defense that scares me. The Vikings are one dimensional, and the Packers are still young.

bearsfan_51
09-19-2007, 09:56 PM
AFC East, and AFC West (When did that happen?) both have better defenses. Maybe NFC East too. The Bears are really the only defense that scares me. The Vikings are one dimensional, and the Packers are still young.

The NFC East? Is that a ******* joke?

ny10804
09-19-2007, 10:00 PM
Detroit clearly has the worst defense. Sure, 19 PPG allowed is OK, but it's come against two putrid offenses. Minny was 23rd/26th last year in YPG/PPG, and Oakland was dead last in both categories.

Green Bay's allowed 13 points each to the Iggles (2nd/6th) and the Brandon Jacob-less Giants (14th/11th).

Minny gave up 3 points to the Joey Harrington-led Falcons (25th/12th) and 20 to the Lions (22nd/21st).

Chicago gave up 14 points to SD (4th/1st) and 10 to KC (15th/16th).

I think the D-ranks are as follows:

1. Chicago (by a decent margin)
2. Green Bay (by a decent margin)
3. Minny (by a large margin)
4. Detroit

neko4
09-19-2007, 10:02 PM
AFC East, and AFC West (When did that happen?) both have better defenses. Maybe NFC East too. The Bears are really the only defense that scares me. The Vikings are one dimensional, and the Packers are still young.
seriously, is that a joke?

BrownsTown
09-19-2007, 10:10 PM
seriously, is that a joke?

Well everyone talks about how good Oakland is...San Diego has the best NT and best OLB in football...Denver has the best set of corners in the NFL...and KC continues to improve.

BuckNaked
09-19-2007, 10:12 PM
Well everyone talks about how good Oakland is...San Diego has the best NT and best OLB in football...Denver has the best set of corners in the NFL...and KC continues to improve.

Talking about the NFC East buddy.

neko4
09-19-2007, 10:12 PM
Well everyone talks about how good Oakland is...San Diego has the best NT and best OLB in football...Denver has the best set of corners in the NFL...and KC continues to improve.
i was talking about the nfc east like bf51, you could make a good arguement for the west

BrownsTown
09-19-2007, 10:27 PM
i was talking about the nfc east like bf51, you could make a good arguement for the west

Oh, the NFC East? Well obviously they don't have a team as good as the Bears which is why I'd put them ahead right now, but Dallas has a good D, Phili does when it's healthy...I don't know if the Giants will be that bad for the entire year, I think they'll improve. But right now NFC North is certainly better.

bearsfan_51
09-19-2007, 11:18 PM
Dallas' defense is so incredibly overrated. I've been hearing about how good and young they are for years now and they've never done ****.

neko4
09-19-2007, 11:29 PM
Dallas' defense is so incredibly overrated. I've been hearing about how good and young they are for years now and they've never done ****.
http://media.bonnint.net/apimage/5b366b74-53b6-4ae0-8cb9-57c04e853277.jpg

awfullyquiet
09-20-2007, 05:26 AM
Dallas' defense is so incredibly overrated. I've been hearing about how good and young they are for years now and they've never done ****.

agreed.

they've never been anything more than mediocre.
they have the same hype as eli manning did.
but spread over 9 people, a reformed thug, and a safety who can't cover.

Smokey Joe
09-23-2007, 02:12 PM
what was that about Detroit's D?

bearsfan_51
09-23-2007, 02:19 PM
Not only does Detroit have the worst defense in the NFL, they might have the worst defense in the history of the NFL.

Addict
09-23-2007, 02:26 PM
Not only does Detroit have the worst defense in the NFL, they might have the worst defense in the history of the NFL.

second worst! Expansion bucs.

bearsfan_51
09-23-2007, 02:27 PM
second worst! Expansion bucs.
Touche....touche.

neko4
09-23-2007, 02:34 PM
Worst Non-Expansion team defense then

P-L
09-23-2007, 04:37 PM
Not only does Detroit have the worst defense in the NFL, they might have the worst defense in the history of the NFL.

I wrong in thinking that our defense wasn't in the bottom five, but that is the most absurd statement I've read in my entire life. I don't see how our defense is any worse than Cleveland's or Buffalo's. I admit after today's performance that we are in the discussion for worst defense, but saying we have the worst defense in the history of the NFL after one freaking game is asinine.

bearsfan_51
09-23-2007, 04:50 PM
I wrong in thinking that our defense wasn't in the bottom five, but that is the most absurd statement I've read in my entire life. I don't see how our defense is any worse than Cleveland's or Buffalo's. I admit after today's performance that we are in the discussion for worst defense, but saying we have the worst defense in the history of the NFL after one freaking game is asinine.

It was a joke. I'm sure you're salty after watching the Lions get smacked but really...chill out.

That said...if Detroit isn't the worst D in the league....there's really not much of an argument against that statement. How are the Lions better than anyone else you mentioned? Their D-line is above average, Sims is pretty good, and the rest is below-average to terrible. To say that is "the most absurd statement I've ever read in my entire life" is funny. The difference between the Lions defense and putting absolutely nobody out there was minimal today. The Eagles could have scored 80 points had they not already been up by 3-4 touchdowns the entire game.

Addict
09-23-2007, 05:15 PM
It was a joke. I'm sure you're salty after watching the Lions get smacked but really...chill out.

That said...if Detroit isn't the worst D in the league....there's really not much of an argument against that statement. How are the Lions better than anyone else you mentioned? Their D-line is above average, Sims is pretty good, and the rest is below-average to terrible. To say that is "the most absurd statement I've ever read in my entire life" is funny. The difference between the Lions defense and putting absolutely nobody out there was minimal today. The Eagles could have scored 80 points had they not already been up by 3-4 touchdowns the entire game.

not true! Brian Westbrook accidentially bumped into a lions defender a bunch of times!

thule
10-01-2007, 03:03 AM
The NFC East looks a lot tougher after that showing today from the Giants. The Cowboys are allowed 1 TD on defense in the past 2 weeks. The Redskins defense is nasty this year. The eagles I would put at average...but still not bad.

neko4
10-01-2007, 03:05 AM
Packers have held soap this year on defense. When we stopped the run we couldnt stop the pass and vice versa. We're still playing good D though. Bears have a ton of inujries. Minny struggled against the pass this week, their first week against elite competition

TacticaLion
10-01-2007, 11:21 AM
Ha.

All of this talk about how horrible the Lions' defense is, yet Griese throws 3 INTs and the Bears get a total of 69 rushing yards.

Iamcanadian
10-08-2007, 02:06 AM
I think w/in 2-3 years the NFC North will be one of the best divisions in football. Vikes, Lions, Pack and Bears have the makings for good offenses, and like you said 3/4 of the teams have good defenses.

I don't know how you can say that. My Lions are faced with the possible jumping of Martz to another HCing position and Kitna is 35 and probably only has one more season before he hangs it up.
The Bears have an aging OL, no decent QB and now appear very average at RB.
GB's offense is built around Favre who is probably gone in 3 years. They also have a weak running game.
Finally, Minny has a suspect HC, and a very suspect QB.

I just don't see any long term potential for the NFC North as far as offense is concerned. We are going to remain near the bottom of divisions unless there is a remarkable increase in talent into the Division especially at QB.

Moses
10-08-2007, 02:17 AM
I don't know how you can say that. My Lions are faced with the possible jumping of Martz to another HCing position and Kitna is 35 and probably only has one more season before he hangs it up.
The Bears have an aging OL, no decent QB and now appear very average at RB.
GB's offense is built around Favre who is probably gone in 3 years. They also have a weak running game.
Finally, Minny has a suspect HC, and a very suspect QB.

I just don't see any long term potential for the NFC North as far as offense is concerned. We are going to remain near the bottom of divisions unless there is a remarkable increase in talent into the Division especially at QB.

It's basically impossible to predict how teams will be 3 years from now. With parity and free agency the way it is you can go from zero to hero in a couple years or vice versa.

TacticaLion
10-08-2007, 01:06 PM
It's basically impossible to predict how teams will be 3 years from now. With parity and free agency the way it is you can go from zero to hero in a couple years or vice versa.

It's hard to predict anything in the NFL... but I think IAC has a good point.

umphrey
10-18-2007, 02:05 PM
New question: are the Bears still the best defense in the division?

IMO, this year both the Pack and the Vikes have played better

Moses
10-18-2007, 06:14 PM
New question: are the Bears still the best defense in the division?

IMO, this year both the Pack and the Vikes have played better

Packers are the best this year, so far.

http://i23.tinypic.com/23hvn0m.jpg

Twiddler
10-18-2007, 06:20 PM
New question: are the Bears still the best defense in the division?

IMO, this year both the Pack and the Vikes have played better

If healthy I think the Bears are still the best in the division. Without a doubt.

Addict
10-19-2007, 10:12 AM
Packers are the best this year, so far.

http://i23.tinypic.com/23hvn0m.jpg

Glad to see my lions are bringing up the rear, allowing others to shine.

cowboysforever
10-20-2007, 12:49 PM
Problem with saying that about the NFC North Defenses is they play each other and the Offenses in that Division suck with the exception of the Lions.

Addict
10-20-2007, 12:55 PM
Problem with saying that about the NFC North Defenses is they play each other and the Offenses in that Division suck with the exception of the Lions.

You know AD leads the league in rushing, right?

cowboysforever
10-20-2007, 02:01 PM
Addict, I am not sure what Adrian Peterson has to do with the fact the Offenses in the NFC North stink -- which is why the NFC North Defenses are being over-rated somewhat. But I am sure you will explain.

Bears have no running game and have rotating QBs.
Greenbay has no running game --- unless they play the Bears.
Detroit has no running game.
Minnesota has no passing game or QB.

One example the Bears, stomped by Dallas, Minnesota and Detroit for over 30 points. Where dominated by Greenbay for one half.

Greenbay, does have a good D but what top flight Offense have they played so far? Giants? Eagles? San Diego? All those teams have been hot and cold on Offense. Greenbay has played them all when cold.

Detroit why bother.

Minnesota does stop the run but last in the pass. To boot what good offensive team have they played? Detroit is about as good as it gets. KC, Atl, CHi and GB don't count as quality offenses.

I think AFC South Defenses have something to say in this discussion. Avg Rank 9. 3 in the Top 8. AFC North has two in the top 5.

And if we want to pull out names in those Divisions: McGhee, McNair, Rothlesberger, Hines Ward, Parker, Carson Palmer, TJ, Harrison, Jacksonville's RBs, Peyton Mannig, Chad Johnson, Schaub, A Johnson ..............

NFC North is sadly not very good but getting better. If Chicago can regain form and the rest of the teams keep getting talent (as they have) then maybe next year ....

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:14 PM
Addict, I am not sure what Adrian Peterson has to do with the fact the Offenses in the NFC North stink -- which is why the NFC North Defenses are being over-rated somewhat. But I am sure you will explain.

Bears have no running game and have rotating QBs.
Greenbay has no running game --- unless they play the Bears.
Detroit has no running game.
Minnesota has no passing game or QB.

One example the Bears, stomped by Dallas, Minnesota and Detroit for over 30 points. Where dominated by Greenbay for one half.

Greenbay, does have a good D but what top flight Offense have they played so far? Giants? Eagles? San Diego? All those teams have been hot and cold on Offense. Greenbay has played them all when cold.

Detroit why bother.

Minnesota does stop the run but last in the pass. To boot what good offensive team have they played? Detroit is about as good as it gets. KC, Atl, CHi and GB don't count as quality offenses.

I think AFC South Defenses have something to say in this discussion. Avg Rank 9. 3 in the Top 8. AFC North has two in the top 5.

And if we want to pull out names in those Divisions: McGhee, McNair, Rothlesberger, Hines Ward, Parker, Carson Palmer, TJ, Harrison, Jacksonville's RBs, Peyton Mannig, Chad Johnson, Schaub, A Johnson ..............

NFC North is sadly not very good but getting better. If Chicago can regain form and the rest of the teams keep getting talent (as they have) then maybe next year ....

well, you say 'offenses suck' yet the league's leading rusher (which is, if I'm not mistaken, offense) is in our division as well.

But yes, our defenses are overrated, but do keep in mind that the Lions' defense has been mediocre forever, the Bears are injury ravaged more than anything, Packers are still building and that the Vikes are bothered more than anyting by their lack of a pass rush.

I honestly believe the Pack is coming up right now, the Bears just need some more depth, the Vikes are one good pass rusher away and the Lions need some talent and some more defensive drafting.

Right now, they're overrated, but it's definately coming.

cowboysforever
10-20-2007, 02:42 PM
Right now, they're overrated, but it's definately coming.

In summary, we agree.

Addict
10-20-2007, 02:47 PM
In summary, we agree.

yes, I was just saying, the NFL's leading rusher is in our division as well, so our offenses (counting the Lions, in spite of some off-games) aren't all that bad. Bears O isn't very good, but the Packers (in spite of poor rushing) are dangerous offensively.

cowboysforever
10-20-2007, 03:16 PM
yes, I was just saying, the NFL's leading rusher is in our division as well, so our offenses (counting the Lions, in spite of some off-games) aren't all that bad. Bears O isn't very good, but the Packers (in spite of poor rushing) are dangerous offensively.

Not peeing on anyone Cheerios but those O's are all middle to lower end. THe D's are middle to slightly above.

I think those teams, however, are brining in some serious talent. What they need now are quality QB play.

Moses
10-20-2007, 03:18 PM
Not peeing on anyone Cheerios but those O's are all middle to lower end. THe D's are middle to slightly above.

I think those teams, however, are brining in some serious talent. What they need now are quality QB play.

Packers and Lions both have good quarterback play.

cowboysforever
10-20-2007, 03:27 PM
Packers and Lions both have good quarterback play.

maybe me, but other than 38 tear old favre ........ i can name only 1 division with worse qbs ..... afc east, mayne followed ny nfc south.

1 great qb does not make up for 3 uhhhhh ugggggggs

Geo
10-20-2007, 03:30 PM
Packers are the best this year, so far.

http://i23.tinypic.com/23hvn0m.jpg
Uh, I hate rankings based on yardage. They're a useless measure, go with scoring defense. It's actually credible and speaks to effectiveness.

Scoring defense rankings. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=C6B2318F3FCC0FB93BB79D614 48FE1DF?season=&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=1&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=SCORING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1)

umphrey
10-20-2007, 05:44 PM
Greenbay, does have a good D but what top flight Offense have they played so far? Giants? Eagles? San Diego? All those teams have been hot and cold on Offense. Greenbay has played them all when cold.


You could say that about anyone, anytime.

The Cowboys are 5-1 because they played 5 teams that were cold and 1 team that actually showed up.

Moses
10-20-2007, 06:10 PM
Uh, I hate rankings based on yardage. They're a useless measure, go with scoring defense. It's actually credible and speaks to effectiveness.

Scoring defense rankings. (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=C6B2318F3FCC0FB93BB79D614 48FE1DF?season=&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=1&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&statisticCategory=SCORING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1)

Scoring defence has its shortcomings as well. What if your offence is amazing, has the ball most of the time, and always leaves you in good field position?

cowboysforever
10-20-2007, 10:59 PM
You could say that about anyone, anytime.

The Cowboys are 5-1 because they played 5 teams that were cold and 1 team that actually showed up.

Oh I agree totally. Fans frequently over rate teams based on playing bad competition.

cowboysforever
10-20-2007, 11:00 PM
Scoring defence has its shortcomings as well. What if your offence is amazing, has the ball most of the time, and always leaves you in good field position?

You mean like the New England Patriots Geriatric Defense this year?

Addict
10-21-2007, 05:45 PM
You mean like the New England Patriots Geriatric Defense this year?

? NE's defense is one of the best in the nfl.

cowboysforever
10-22-2007, 09:43 PM
? NE's defense is one of the best in the nfl.

First I was responding to an intelligent conceptual point by pointing out a real data point. New England masking a bad D with a great O.

Remember this was the point made ........

"Originally Posted by Moses Scoring defence has its shortcomings as well. What if your offence is amazing, has the ball most of the time, and always leaves you in good field position?"

So.... yes I think New England's Defense is very over rated. They are playing games up by 14 and 21 points. So much easier to play D when the other team is one dimensional.

Too bad My Cowboys have problems covering. Would have been nice to see the NE Defense have to play that extra 20 minutes.......

bearsfan_51
10-22-2007, 10:33 PM
If the Pats defense is overrated I shudder to think what the Cowboys defense is.

Addict
10-23-2007, 02:58 AM
First I was responding to an intelligent conceptual point by pointing out a real data point. New England masking a bad D with a great O.

Remember this was the point made ........

"Originally Posted by Moses Scoring defence has its shortcomings as well. What if your offence is amazing, has the ball most of the time, and always leaves you in good field position?"

So.... yes I think New England's Defense is very over rated. They are playing games up by 14 and 21 points. So much easier to play D when the other team is one dimensional.

Too bad My Cowboys have problems covering. Would have been nice to see the NE Defense have to play that extra 20 minutes.......

a cowboys fan calling NE's defense overrated...

what's that saying? The coal calling the kettle black?

THE COWBOYS REASON THEY LOST!

"If the game had lasted three days, Brady could have gotten bored and the defense tired and then Romo and his iron lungs would have brought us victory!"

that's great dude, just great.

cowboysforever
10-23-2007, 11:05 AM
a cowboys fan calling NE's defense overrated...

what's that saying? The coal calling the kettle black?

THE COWBOYS REASON THEY LOST!

"If the game had lasted three days, Brady could have gotten bored and the defense tired and then Romo and his iron lungs would have brought us victory!"

that's great dude, just great.

I don't think the Cowboy D is over rated at all. We are OK. Not great and not even very good. Most mediots have similar opinions and point out the bad pass D.

So, I do not understand the reaction since I at no point spoke of the Cowboys in a positive light. Nor do I think anyone thinks the Cowboys D is very good.

Regardless, Pats D is over rated IMHO and is a huge beneficiary of that fantastic finesse passing game Brady is leading.

They are Air Belichick!

Addict
10-23-2007, 12:24 PM
I don't think the Cowboy D is over rated at all. We are OK. Not great and not even very good. Most mediots have similar opinions and point out the bad pass D.

So, I do not understand the reaction since I at no point spoke of the Cowboys in a positive light. Nor do I think anyone thinks the Cowboys D is very good.

Regardless, Pats D is over rated IMHO and is a huge beneficiary of that fantastic finesse passing game Brady is leading.

They are Air Belichick!

true, they depend on their passing game a great deal, and yes they are sligthly overrated, I'll give you that. They're not the rock-solid #1 in the NFL defense and all that.

However I don't think you could say the pass D is that bad. They missed a starting safety in Rodney Harrison, and they've faced some of the best passing offenses (Cinci, Dallas) in the NFL and held their own. Asante Samuel is no bum either.

Dallas D has been enormously hyped (read it back, some people'd make you believe Jesus Christ* plays linebacker for you guys), maybe not by you but you're a Cowboys fan so I assumed, sorry if I was wrong.

TacticaLion
10-30-2007, 10:08 AM
This thread is funny...

Scotty D
10-30-2007, 03:15 PM
Detroit's D is picking up. I hear that the secondary problems aren't necessarily talent but just blown assignments which are now being fixed.

TacticaLion
10-30-2007, 05:47 PM
Detroit's D is picking up. I hear that the secondary problems aren't necessarily talent but just blown assignments which are now being fixed.
We lack "names", but compensate with solid pressure and great coaching. In the Chicago game, our safeties did a great job of getting over and covering the deep ball... something that didn't happen much in the previous games.

Our D has been impressive this year... if the running game sticks around, we'll continue to surprise.

Addict
10-31-2007, 07:06 AM
We lack "names", but compensate with solid pressure and great coaching. In the Chicago game, our safeties did a great job of getting over and covering the deep ball... something that didn't happen much in the previous games.

Our D has been impressive this year... if the running game sticks around, we'll continue to surprise.

hell all we have to do is not get run over to surprise, it's the advantage of being a perennial loser.

TacticaLion
11-04-2007, 05:50 PM
This thread gets better and better...

Crazy_Chris
11-06-2007, 03:34 PM
This thread gets better and better...

why is that?

TacticaLion
11-06-2007, 04:49 PM
why is that?

Many of the posts in this thread take shots at the Lions' D... when their D has been the best at one of the most important aspects of the game: takeaways.

The DLine has been great, the LBers have been OK and the secondary has played way above expectations.

You look at three out of the four teams, the Lions being the exception, and we have three very deep, very talented defenses in this division.

It just depends on how you look at it. We're probably the only division that has three very good defenses but the Lions defense is so god awful that collectively I just don't know.

IMO The Quality of the other 3 defenses makes up for the lack of defense for the lions.

Man, I just don't know... The lions defense is just plain terrible. The other three should be great this season though.

Detroit clearly has the worst defense.

Not only does Detroit have the worst defense in the NFL, they might have the worst defense in the history of the NFL.

This was said to be a joke...

The ******** humors me.

Crazy_Chris
11-06-2007, 05:11 PM
It reminds me of the 2005 Cincinatti Bengals they lead the league in takeaways but their defense still wasn't that great. Basically what i see is a defense that lives for the Take Away and without the Takeaway they are rather bad. Evidenced by the 21 Touchdowns you have already given up this year... Don't get me Wrong Being oppurtunistic is a good thing, and it's usually a result of good D-line play. But it's not the only thing. I Would still put the lions as the worst defense in the Division.

TacticaLion
11-06-2007, 07:21 PM
It reminds me of the 2005 Cincinatti Bengals they lead the league in takeaways but their defense still wasn't that great. Basically what i see is a defense that lives for the Take Away and without the Takeaway they are rather bad. Evidenced by the 21 Touchdowns you have already given up this year... Don't get me Wrong Being oppurtunistic is a good thing, and it's usually a result of good D-line play. But it's not the only thing. I Would still put the lions as the worst defense in the Division.
Wow... the 2005 Bengals went 11-5 with "that defense". I guess "that defense"... the defense built around creating the turnover... must be somewhat effective.

"Without the takeaway they are rather bad." Wow... really? I'm guessing that, if you take passing TDs away from the Patriot's offense, it wouldn't be all that great, would it? If you take away the best part of a unit, it probably wouldn't be all that impressive... but, the point is that the Lions have been forcing many turnovers with a game plan, not luck. Expect the trend to continue.

I still find this thread funny.

GB12
11-06-2007, 07:33 PM
Wow... the 2005 Bengals went 11-5 with "that defense". I guess "that defense"... the defense built around creating the turnover... must be somewhat effective.

"Without the takeaway they are rather bad." Wow... really? I'm guessing that, if you take passing TDs away from the Patriot's offense, it wouldn't be all that great, would it? If you take away the best part of a unit, it probably wouldn't be all that impressive... but, the point is that the Lions have been forcing many turnovers with a game plan, not luck. Expect the trend to continue.

I still find this thread funny.
The Lions rank
28th in yards
23rd in points
23 in 3rd down %
30th in 1st downs allowed per game

Yeah I'd say that's pretty damn bad. The fact that they get all those turnovers and still rank that low(particularly yards and points) just make it worse. Face it the Lions defense is still not good.

bearsfan_51
11-06-2007, 07:36 PM
Other than my posts, which were clearly meant to be over the top, I still don't see what you're getting at Tactica.

As bad and banged up as the Bears defense has been this year, it's still better than the Lions, as are the Packers and Vikings. The Lions are still the worst defense in the division. Are they better than a lot of people expected? Sure. But that's not saying a whole lot. The Lions are winning because they have a great offense that requires the other teams offense to press and turn the ball over. Considering the level of talent what the Lions have done this year is impressive, but hardly worth talking **** about. (Which would explain why nobody even responded to your first post)

Scotty D
11-06-2007, 07:44 PM
Those numbers are probably a bit "inflated" due to the Eagles and Redskin games. Not saying you should take them out of the equation, but just thought I'd say.

GB12
11-06-2007, 07:51 PM
Those numbers are probably a bit "inflated" due to the Eagles and Redskin games. Not saying you should take them out of the equation, but just thought I'd say.
I had a feeling someone would say that. Giving up 56 points should nevere happen especially to a "good defense". Look at the team that did it to you too, the Eagles only average 14 points a game excluding the Detroit game. It's not even like you were playing the Patriots you gave up 56 to a team that is one of the worst scoring offenses in the NFL.

TacticaLion
11-06-2007, 08:22 PM
GB12... you're missing something: 1st in takeaways. I know it helps your case to leave it out, but it's an important stat. Other than my posts, which were clearly meant to be over the top, I still don't see what you're getting at Tactica.

As bad and banged up as the Bears defense has been this year, it's still better than the Lions, as are the Packers and Vikings. The Lions are still the worst defense in the division. Are they better than a lot of people expected? Sure. But that's not saying a whole lot. The Lions are winning because they have a great offense that requires the other teams offense to press and turn the ball over. Considering the level of talent what the Lions have done this year is impressive, but hardly worth talking **** about. (Which would explain why nobody even responded to your first post)The Lions have been winning because they have a "great offense"? Are you kidding?

Riiiiight. In the last 3 games (all wins), Kitna has 2 touchdowns. 2. In 3 games. Kevin Jones? 2 TDs... in 3 games. Roy Williams? 0 TDs. Yep... its been that "great offense" thats won those games.

vs Bucs: Kevin Jones and Calvin Johnson both rush for a TD... Calvin's set-up by a red zone fumble recovery. Jason Hanson kicks 3 FGs (9 points). Hanson: 9 - Lions' offense: 14.

vs Bears: 4 Lions' interceptions. Kevin Jones gets 1 TD, but Jason Hanson gets another 3 FGs (9 points). Hanson: 9 - Lions' offense: 7.

vs Broncos: Kitna throws for 2 TDs and Duckett rushes for 1. 1 Lions' interception... for a TD. Lions defense adds 5 sacks and 3 FFs/FRs (one for a TD). Hanson kicks 3 more FGs (9 points). Hanson: 9 - Lions' offense: 21 - Lions' defense: 14. In other words, the Lions' kicker and defense outscored the Lions' offense.

Totals:
Lions' offense: 42
Rest of team: 41

Man... that's a great offense. Carrying the team, huh? Get that garbage off the board.

The Lions are winning games because they're pressuring the opposing offense into making mistakes... period. It has been the defense, not the offense, that has led us to a 6-2 record.

GB12
11-06-2007, 08:27 PM
GB12... you're missing something: 1st in takeaways. I know it helps your case to leave it out, but it's an important stat.
No I didn't and it actually helps my case. "The fact that they get all those turnovers and still rank that low(particularly yards and points) just make it worse." Getting a lot of takeaways doesn't mean you have a good defense, especially when they're that bad everywhere else.

Scotty D
11-06-2007, 08:43 PM
No I didn't and it actually helps my case. "The fact that they get all those turnovers and still rank that low(particularly yards and points) just make it worse." Getting a lot of takeaways doesn't mean you have a good defense, especially when they're that bad everywhere else.

So are you saying turnovers are luck? Getting a lot of takeaways doesn't mean you have a good defense?

neko4
11-06-2007, 08:47 PM
Lets put it this way, is the lions defence better than any other team in the divisions?
I would have to say no.

yodabear
11-06-2007, 08:48 PM
NFC west is better. NFC West is the class of football.

Scotty D
11-06-2007, 08:50 PM
NFC west is better. NFC West is the class of football.

Special Ed class.

yodabear
11-06-2007, 08:51 PM
Special Ed class.

No, the NFC west is great.

GB12
11-06-2007, 08:56 PM
So are you saying turnovers are luck? Getting a lot of takeaways doesn't mean you have a good defense?
No and kind of. They are doing a great job getting turnovers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have a good defense. When they are that low in all the other categories turnovers don't do enough to push you out of bad. Plus by getting turnovers it stops the other team from scoring. The Lions have the most turnovers but yet they still give up a lot of points. Turnovers are what's keeping them from being a bottom 5 defense.

TacticaLion
11-06-2007, 08:59 PM
No I didn't and it actually helps my case. "The fact that they get all those turnovers and still rank that low(particularly yards and points) just make it worse." Getting a lot of takeaways doesn't mean you have a good defense, especially when they're that bad everywhere else.
Getting a lot of takeaways doesn't mean you have a good defense? Are you kidding?

Getting a few takeaways... the lucky fumble or the horrible pass... might mean you don't have a good defense. Forcing a ton of turnovers from pressure on the QB and solid play in the secondary is the sign of a good defense.

The Lions have the most turnovers but yet they still give up a lot of points. God, this is such a trash argument.

Yeah, the Lions gave up 56 points to the Eagles... we got that one. Over the last 3 games, the Lions' have given up an average of 10 points while scoring an average of 28... and have 9 takeaways in that span (compared to 2 turnovers - 0 INTs).

You can use whatever stats you'd like, but it has been the Lions defense that has won them their games this season.

bearsfan_51
11-06-2007, 08:59 PM
GB12... you're missing something: 1st in takeaways. I know it helps your case to leave it out, but it's an important stat. The Lions have been winning because they have a "great offense"? Are you kidding?

Riiiiight. In the last 3 games (all wins), Kitna has 2 touchdowns. 2. In 3 games. Kevin Jones? 2 TDs... in 3 games. Roy Williams? 0 TDs. Yep... its been that "great offense" thats won those games.

vs Bucs: Kevin Jones and Calvin Johnson both rush for a TD... Calvin's set-up by a red zone fumble recovery. Jason Hanson kicks 3 FGs (9 points). Hanson: 9 - Lions' offense: 14.

vs Bears: 4 Lions' interceptions. Kevin Jones gets 1 TD, but Jason Hanson gets another 3 FGs (9 points). Hanson: 9 - Lions' offense: 7.

vs Broncos: Kitna throws for 2 TDs and Duckett rushes for 1. 1 Lions' interception... for a TD. Lions defense adds 5 sacks and 3 FFs/FRs (one for a TD). Hanson kicks 3 more FGs (9 points). Hanson: 9 - Lions' offense: 21 - Lions' defense: 14. In other words, the Lions' kicker and defense outscored the Lions' offense.

Totals:
Lions' offense: 42
Rest of team: 41

Man... that's a great offense. Carrying the team, huh? Get that garbage off the board.

The Lions are winning games because they're pressuring the opposing offense into making mistakes... period. It has been the defense, not the offense, that has led us to a 6-2 record.

Wow...those are some great stats. Here are some of mine.

Lions offense: 6th overall
Lions defense: 23rd overall

Good stuff though...really...

neko4
11-06-2007, 09:01 PM
Once again is the lions D better than the others in the division. Better yet, is the DET D better than 16 teams in the league

TacticaLion
11-06-2007, 09:06 PM
Wow...those are some great stats. Here are some of mine.

Lions offense: 6th overall
Lions defense: 23rd overall

Good stuff though...really...

Read the post... regardless of what "ranking" you found to represent the Lions' defense, the defense has played well and the offense has struggled. Period.

Once again is the lions D better than the others in the division. Better yet, is the DET D better than 16 teams in the leagueThe Lions' have the most points off turnovers in the NFL. Most points off turnovers. The defense created those turnovers.

So, yes... when I look at that stat, and see that the defense has created multiple opportunities for the offense to be successful, I'd say they're a good defense. You may choose to rate a defense by points or yards allowed... but, when the defense can create (or give) points to a team, it's a big deal. The Lions' D has done just that.

bearsfan_51
11-06-2007, 09:10 PM
Cool....well I guess you proved your point and showed us.

http://www.hollywoodnugget.com/store/images/chocolate_chip.jpg

Enjoy.

P-L
11-06-2007, 09:18 PM
The Lions defense has played better since the bye week, there is no questioning that. Sure, they played horrible defense the first five weeks. However, Marinelli fixed some things during the bye week and we are playing much better. The defensive ranks are fun to throw out, because it doesn't take into account that we've gotten BETTER. The defense over the last three weeks is not the same defense that played in the first five weeks. I'll admit that I am skeptical that they can keep up their play, but if they do those defensive ranks will improve.

TacticaLion
11-06-2007, 09:32 PM
Yannow what? I'm tired of these ******** arguments. Lets try something...

I removed the game with the most points against for each team, then averaged their "points allowed".

Packers:
16.4 (Bears game removed)

Vikings:
17.5 (Bears game removed)

Lions:
18.4 (Eagles game removed)

Bears:
20.5 (Lions game removed)

With the worst performance removed, the Bears allow, on average, the most points against. Notice that the Lions (3rd) are closer to the Packers (1st - 2 points behind) than the Bears (4th) are to the Lions (3rd - 2.1 points behind).

In other words? Some stats are ********. Takeaways and points off takeaways aren't one of those stats. The Lions are 1st (in the NFL) in both.

neko4
11-06-2007, 09:35 PM
Bears have had injury problems, so i think tht can compensate for some of the points given open

bearsfan_51
11-06-2007, 10:13 PM
No he's right, the Lions have the best defense in football. I don't even know why you're arguing.

Clearly his stats are best. It makes total sense to get rid of one of the games that happened, and that in no way has to do with the fact that it helps his already brilliant argument.

And points off turnovers? Man...that's totally a reflection of the defense!!


Thank you so much for getting rid of all of these ****** arguments.

Jagonsucker
11-06-2007, 10:42 PM
lions have a good d-line and good linebackers but their corners arent that great. Keep in mind we have a very old Kennoy kennedy as our SS and a rookie Gerald Alexander(whos been doing pretty good for a rookie) as our FS..our defense is far from great but that D-line we have is very good. And thats whats making things happen for our team.

Crazy_Chris
11-07-2007, 02:31 AM
No he's right, the Lions have the best defense in football. I don't even know why you're arguing.

Clearly his stats are best. It makes total sense to get rid of one of the games that happened, and that in no way has to do with the fact that it helps his already brilliant argument.

And points off turnovers? Man...that's totally a reflection of the defense!!


Thank you so much for getting rid of all of these ****** arguments.

I think we agree with Tatica on one thing and that is...

We too find this thread funny now

Addict
11-07-2007, 03:00 AM
I think we agree with Tatica on one thing and that is...

We too find this thread funny now

it's hilarious.

TacticaLion
11-07-2007, 12:20 PM
Bears have had injury problems, so i think tht can compensate for some of the points given openI'm not saying that, when healthy, the Bears aren't one of the best defenses in the NFL. But, as it stands now, they haven't performed well.

Clearly his stats are best. It makes total sense to get rid of one of the games that happened, and that in no way has to do with the fact that it helps his already brilliant argument.

And points off turnovers? Man...that's totally a reflection of the defense!!Points off turnovers IS a reflection of the defense. Without the ball, the offense wouldnt've been able to put points on the board.

Looking at only a few stats and not others (or actual situations) is ignorant.

Stat: Osi Umenyiora is averaging 1.0 sack a game in 2007... which leaves him on pace to finish with 16 for the year.

Truth: Osi has been sackless for 5 of his 8 games this year, and only had one in each of two other games. In the final game, against a young, struggling LT, he had 6 sacks. Is it reasonable to expect consistent sack numbers (1 per game) from Osi by looking only at his average? Yes. Knowing the situation, is it? No.

If it makes you feel better thinking that the Bears' defense has outplayed the Lions' defense from one skewed stat, so be it. Enjoy it. Let it compensate for the record... I don't care.

But... know that, for 7 of the 8 games this season, the Lions' defense averaged fewer points against than the Bears.

GB12
11-07-2007, 03:22 PM
Looking at only a few stats and not others (or actual situations) is ignorant.

If it makes you feel better thinking that the Bears' defense has outplayed the Lions' defense from one skewed stat, so be it. Enjoy it. Let it compensate for the record... I don't care.
That's exactly what YOU are doing, not us. I gave you 4 good stats in which the Lions suck in, turnovers don't make up for all that. All of those except maybe one are bettter indicators on how good a defense is than turnovers.

TacticaLion
11-07-2007, 04:43 PM
That's exactly what YOU are doing, not us. I gave you 4 good stats in which the Lions suck in, turnovers don't make up for all that. All of those except maybe one are better indicators on how good a defense is than turnovers.There is a difference...

The Lions' defense has at least 1 takeaway each game this season... and only 1 game with 1. Takeaways (in order): 3, 5, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 4. That isn't just a bunch of takeaways in a few easy games... that's steady performance throughout the entire season.

When you mention "Points Against" or "Yards Against", you have to realize that the Lions had one game (Eagles) that was incredibly swayed and manipulated those stats (as shown before). If you remove the 5 takeaway performance and average the Lions' takeaways per game, they're still at 2.7 (from 3). That isn't as big of a drop off as the "Points Against" stat is without the Eagles game (23.1 with, 18.4 without).

Many stats are misleading... but the Lions' takeaways are not. The defense has consistently taken the ball away and are the reason we're 6-2.

Crazy_Chris
11-07-2007, 08:11 PM
There is a difference...

The Lions' defense has at least 1 takeaway each game this season... and only 1 game with 1. Takeaways (in order): 3, 5, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 4. That isn't just a bunch of takeaways in a few easy games... that's steady performance throughout the entire season.

When you mention "Points Against" or "Yards Against", you have to realize that the Lions had one game (Eagles) that was incredibly swayed and manipulated those stats (as shown before). If you remove the 5 takeaway performance and average the Lions' takeaways per game, they're still at 2.7 (from 3). That isn't as big of a drop off as the "Points Against" stat is without the Eagles game (23.1 with, 18.4 without).

Many stats are misleading... but the Lions' takeaways are not. The defense has consistently taken the ball away and are the reason we're 6-2.

Every Single Game minipulates the stats you can't sit there and act like that game doesn't matter because you got blown out. They layed 56 points on you and they do count.

A stat that is not misleading is 21 touchdowns allowed by your defense. Hence why what i see is a defense that lives and dies with takeaways. Undoubtingly without those take aways the number of touchdowns allowed would be much much higher.

Leading the league in take aways is a good accomplishment and no one is trying to diminish that accomplishment however that one accomplishment isn't the only part of your defense. you have to take it in perspective with everything else and the fact is those takeaways are pretty much the only thing that defense has going for it.

Everyone has admitted that this Defense is better than any of us expected. But it's still not better than any other in the division. And i probably wouldn't put it in the top half of all the NFL Defenses either. And to be truly honest it hasn't even faced it's toughest oppoents offensively yet so im still skeptical.

TacticaLion
11-07-2007, 08:33 PM
A stat that is not misleading is 21 touchdowns allowed by your defense. Hence why what i see is a defense that lives and dies with takeaways. Undoubtingly without those take aways the number of touchdowns allowed would be much much higher.Right. 8 of those 21 touchdowns were scored in that Eagles game. Lets do the math:

21 touchdowns against / 8 games: 2.6 touchdowns against (average)

13 touchdowns against / 7 games: 1.85 touchdowns against (average)

Same average (over 8 games): 15 (14.8)... better than the Bears and tied with the Packers.

This highlights my point (and thank you for bringing it up): one game/situation can make a stat misleading. The Lions, over 7 games, allow an average of 1.85 touchdowns against... but allowed 8 TDs against the Eagles alone. Do the Lions, on average, allow 8 TDs?! No. It's the exception... a rarity... and, when factored into their TDs against, makes the stat unrealistic.

Every Single Game minipulates the stats you can't sit there and act like that game doesn't matter because you got blown out. They layed 56 points on you and they do count.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not denying the fact that we allowed 56 points against the Eagles. I'm simply saying that that game was the exception and is not the norm for the Lions' defense. 8 TDs against in one game... with 13 TDs against over the rest of the seven.

Is Osi's 6 sack game the "norm"... his "average"? No. Neither is 56 points (8 TDs) against.

Crazy_Chris
11-07-2007, 08:53 PM
Right. 8 of those 21 touchdowns were scored in that Eagles game. Lets do the math:

21 touchdowns against / 8 games: 2.6 touchdowns against (average)

13 touchdowns against / 7 games: 1.85 touchdowns against (average)

Same average (over 8 games): 15 (14.8)... better than the Bears and tied with the Packers.

This highlights my point (and thank you for bringing it up): one game/situation can make a stat misleading. The Lions, over 7 games, allow an average of 1.85 touchdowns against... but allowed 8 TDs against the Eagles alone. Do the Lions, on average, allow 8 TDs?! No. It's the exception... a rarity... and, when factored into their TDs against, makes the stat unrealistic.



Don't get me wrong: I'm not denying the fact that we allowed 56 points against the Eagles. I'm simply saying that that game was the exception and is not the norm for the Lions' defense. 8 TDs against in one game... with 13 TDs against over the rest of the seven.

Is Osi's 6 sack game the "norm"... his "average"? No. Neither is 56 points (8 TDs) against.

No a "misleading stat" would say if out of those 56 points 28 of them were from Return Touchdowns(punt/kickoff/int/fum). All 56 is on your defense and its not like you had a bunch of key starters injured(bears) so i see no reason that game isn't the "norm".

The fact is you haven't really played much Productive offense's outside of maybe Denver(yards wise) which they played with backup Qb and Unhealthy RB most of the game. Come back when you face Dallas, Green bay(2), New York Giants, and San Diego(underachieving at the moment but we all know what they are capable of) why don't we see how you perform against them first. To be honest im not sold you will even be able to stop AD the second time around.

bearsfan_51
11-07-2007, 08:56 PM
If it makes you feel better thinking that the Bears' defense has outplayed the Lions' defense from one skewed stat, so be it. Enjoy it. Let it compensate for the record... I don't care.

But... know that, for 7 of the 8 games this season, the Lions' defense averaged fewer points against than the Bears.
Dude...I agree with you.

Paris Lenon > Brian Urlacher

It's settled.


I mean...honestly I don't even know why you're arguing. This thread is hilarious. You were so right and we were all so wrong. You shouldn't even bother talking to us...just read your stats aloud and laugh. It's quite impressive actually.

TacticaLion
11-07-2007, 09:09 PM
No a "misleading stat" would say if out of those 56 points 28 off them were from Return Touchdowns. All 56 is on your defense and its not like you had a bunch of key starters injured(bears) so i see no reason that game isn't the "norm". You don't see that it isn't the norm? I even broke it down for you:

1 game: 8 TDs against (8 TD average)
7 games: 13 TDs against (1.85 TD average)

How can't you see it? If we averaged 1.85 TDs against over 7 games, but allowed 8 in one game, how can you suggest that that's our "norm"?

The fact is you haven't really played much Productive offense's outside of Denver and they played with backup Qb and Unhealthy RB most of the game. Come back when you face Dallas, Green bay(2), New York Giants, and San Diego(underachieving at the moment but we all know what they are capable of) why don't we see how you perform against them first. To be honest im not sold you will even be able to stop AD the second time around.
Haha... I know you aren't, and I wouldn't expect you to be (looking at your sig space). No one thought our "horrible" defense could stop him the first time.

I never said our defense would be stellar (or even great) against the better offensive teams... that wasn't this conversation and isn't what I'm talking about. I'm responding to the claims that use the current "Points Allowed" and "TDs Against" stats as proof that our defense is the worst in the NFC North. The stats are misleading... (and, oh yeah... we have the most takeaways).

Crazy_Chris
11-08-2007, 01:14 AM
You don't see that it isn't the norm? I even broke it down for you:

1 game: 8 TDs against (8 TD average)
7 games: 13 TDs against (1.85 TD average)

How can't you see it? If we averaged 1.85 TDs against over 7 games, but allowed 8 in one game, how can you suggest that that's our "norm"?

Haha... I know you aren't, and I wouldn't expect you to be (looking at your sig space). No one thought our "horrible" defense could stop him the first time.

I never said our defense would be stellar (or even great) against the better offensive teams... that wasn't this conversation and isn't what I'm talking about. I'm responding to the claims that use the current "Points Allowed" and "TDs Against" stats as proof that our defense is the worst in the NFC North. The stats are misleading... (and, oh yeah... we have the most takeaways).

Just exactly what Defense in the NFC North would you say the lions are better than??

Football Fan
11-08-2007, 02:21 AM
As long as the detroit lions play this season is the topic, heres something I just came across.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=683877

"41-23 Combined record of Detroit's final eight opponents. The combined record of the six teams they have beaten is 19-30."

Looks like were going to see how detroit does against the better teams in the league.
Im not going to try to make a prediction concidering the season there having so far. Although I do think they will beat arizona this week.

TacticaLion
11-08-2007, 12:44 PM
Just exactly what Defense in the NFC North would you say the lions are better than??They've played (much) better than the Bears defense so far... and Minnesota/Green Bay have top defenses. Looking back on what was said about the Lions' defense in this thread, you should be able to see the ********.
As long as the detroit lions play this season is the topic, heres something I just came across.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=683877

"41-23 Combined record of Detroit's final eight opponents. The combined record of the six teams they have beaten is 19-30."

Looks like were going to see how detroit does against the better teams in the league.
Im not going to try to make a prediction concidering the season there having so far. Although I do think they will beat arizona this week.If the Lions were the same team as last year, that number would be much closer to .500 (we had 1 win at this point... opponents would be 24-25). So far, we've played the defending NFC Champs (twice), the Broncos (playoff team), the Eagles (playoff team in 2006), the Redskins (lost 20 consecutive in Washington, 5-3 in 2007), the Vikings (entered the game with a losing streak), the Raiders (fairly weak) and the Bucs (4-2 when we played them). It's easy to look at the overall wins and losses... but, considering the opponents we've played, standing at 6-2 is impressive.

Yes, the road ahead is much harder. If we can beat the Cards, I expect us to finish 9-7. If we lose this Sunday, I expect 8-8. One upset can leave us 10-6. Either way, we've exceeded expectations.

bearsfan_51
11-12-2007, 09:29 AM
They've played (much) better than the Bears defense so far.
Much better huh? Let's compare.

The Bears are better in:

1)Yards per game
2)Points per game
3)Pass Defense
4)Sacks
5)3rd down conversion %
6)Red zone defense

The Lions are better in:

1)Run defense
2)Turnovers



Yeah...much better. Way to show us all again. This thread is HILARIOUS!!!

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 11:29 AM
Much better huh? Let's compare.

The Bears are better in:

1)Yards per game
2)Points per game
3)Pass Defense
4)Sacks
5)3rd down conversion %
6)Red zone defense

The Lions are better in:

1)Run defense
2)Turnovers



Yeah...much better. Way to show us all again. This thread is HILARIOUS!!!
Ha... you're a joke.

3rd down conversion %!? REALLY?! Man... you and the Falcons... two elite defenses... just dominant with that 3rd down conversion %. You're right... you've gotta think of the Bears as an elite defense with that 3rd down conversion %. Hell... at least top 4, right?

Great argument. List as many defensive stats under a "The Bears are better in:" list and prove your point. Bears: 6, Lions: 2. You win.

Can I try? Here... I'll go ahead and adjust the "The Lions are better in:" list... just to see how horrible our defense really is (compared to the elite Bears defense, of course).

The Lions are better in:
1)Total Tackles
2)Solo Tackles
3)Assisted Tackles
4)Passes Defended
5)Interceptions
6)Interception TDs
7)Interception Yards
8)Longest Interception Returns
9)Forced Fumbles
10)Recovered Fumbles
11)Fumble TDs
12)Yards Allowed Per Play
13)4th Down Conversion %
14)Interception TDs Allowed
15)Fewer FGs Made Against
16)Safeties
17)Yards Per Catch Allowed
18)20+ Yard Catches
19)Rushing Yards Allowed
20)Rushing Yards Average
21)Rushing Yards Allowed Per Game
22)Rushing TDs Allowed
23)Longest Rush Allowed
24)20+ Yard Rushes Allowed
25)40+ Yard Rushes Allowed
25.5)QB Rating Against

There... I gave you 25.5 stats that the Lions are statistically better than the Bears in... 25.5! That makes the count - Bears: 6, Lions: 25.5. That's how you win an argument like this, right?

Learning from the best.

bearsfan_51
11-12-2007, 12:06 PM
Haha...I hope you realize most of those statistics are ********. At least I'm hoping that's the point here.

3rd down conversion % isn't the be all and end all, but it is pretty important considering that most drives are either sustained or ended by what an offense is able to do on 3rd down.

Where in that did I say the Bears were an elite defense? You can call names and make **** up, but the fact of the matter is that you have yet to get one person to agree with you.

And I know what you'll say "I don't care what anyone else thinks blah blah blah.."

But clearly you do.

You were hoping that by bringing up some random quotes and talking aimless trash that at least one person would say, "wow..you were so right...we were all so wrong", hence why I've been mocking you for the last 2-3 pages while everyone continued to disagree with you and point out (rightfully so) that while the Lions defense has improved slightly above expectations, they are still very bad, and still the worst in the division.

So yes...this thread is hilarious. It's hilarious how laughably smug you've been about this when you've got nothing but one actual stat to even remotely back up your argument. The Lions have given up more yards, and more points, than any other team in the division. You can try to angle that or buttfuck it all you want, but that's the truth, and that's why everyone is calling you out once again for the incredibly biased homer that you are.

Anyway...I'm done with this. You are so frustratingly biased it's impossible to even conduct an argument. Believe that the Lions have a good defense all you like. Honestly I wouldn't be suprised if they finish 2-5 and miss the playoffs again.

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 12:59 PM
The mocking has gone down quite a bit, though... especially after week 8. Interesting...

The Bears' defense is average... at best. They've allowed 340 yards per game (22nd in the NFL) and 20.8 points per game (17th in the NFL), but only have 6 INTs (T-28th in the NFL).

In other words: the Bears don't do anything well... whereas the Lions can at least create turnovers (once again, 1st in the NFL) on a regular basis. Which defense would you rather have... one that excells at nothing, or another that can at least do something?

Good point. Call it what you will, but this isn't "homerism"... these are facts. Don't lose hope, though... there's always next year.

someone447
11-12-2007, 01:51 PM
You don't see that it isn't the norm? I even broke it down for you:

1 game: 8 TDs against (8 TD average)
7 games: 13 TDs against (1.85 TD average)

How can't you see it? If we averaged 1.85 TDs against over 7 games, but allowed 8 in one game, how can you suggest that that's our "norm"?


Haha... I know you aren't, and I wouldn't expect you to be (looking at your sig space). No one thought our "horrible" defense could stop him the first time.

I never said our defense would be stellar (or even great) against the better offensive teams... that wasn't this conversation and isn't what I'm talking about. I'm responding to the claims that use the current "Points Allowed" and "TDs Against" stats as proof that our defense is the worst in the NFC North. The stats are misleading... (and, oh yeah... we have the most takeaways).

Obviously the Packers are just as good as the Patriots, after all that loss to the bears should just be thrown out. The Packers are undefeated if you throw that game out!!!

someone447
11-12-2007, 01:55 PM
The mocking has gone down quite a bit, though... especially after week 8. Interesting...

The Bears' defense is average... at best. They've allowed 340 yards per game (22nd in the NFL) and 20.8 points per game (17th in the NFL), but only have 6 INTs (T-28th in the NFL).

In other words: the Bears don't do anything well... whereas the Lions can at least create turnovers (once again, 1st in the NFL) on a regular basis. Which defense would you rather have... one that excells at nothing, or another that can at least do something?

Good point. Call it what you will, but this isn't "homerism"... these are facts. Don't lose hope, though... there's always next year.

The Lions are also quite adept at giving up points. They have given up the most in the division. Go ahead and take as many turnovers as you want, I would rather have 0 turnover, yet give up 14 points a game, then average 4 turnovers a game and give up 21.

GB12
11-12-2007, 03:11 PM
Much better huh? Let's compare.

The Bears are better in:

1)Yards per game
2)Points per game
3)Pass Defense
4)Sacks
5)3rd down conversion %
6)Red zone defense

The Lions are better in:

1)Run defense
2)Turnovers



Yeah...much better. Way to show us all again. This thread is HILARIOUS!!!

I think you're forgetting that turnovers are the only thing that matters.

neko4
11-12-2007, 03:16 PM
Isnt like half the bears secondary injured? Doesnt that makeup for all the bad defense?

bearsfan_51
11-12-2007, 03:32 PM
Yes and no. Mike Brown and Vasher have been hurt almost the entire season, along with Kevin Payne and Brandon McGowan, effectively nullifying out safety depth and the opportunity to bench Archuleta who has been predictably suspect in coverage.

The bigger problems has come from the loss of Dvoracek at NT and Urlacher playing with an apparent arthritic back however. Our pass defense hasn't been great but our run defense is arguably even worse. It's now widely assumed that Briggs will resign with the Bears, in large part due to his play this season and the fact that he has clearly eclipsed Urlacher as the best linebacker on our team.

umphrey
11-12-2007, 06:10 PM
The mocking has gone down quite a bit, though... especially after week 8. Interesting...

The Bears' defense is average... at best. They've allowed 340 yards per game (22nd in the NFL) and 20.8 points per game (17th in the NFL), but only have 6 INTs (T-28th in the NFL).

In other words: the Bears don't do anything well... whereas the Lions can at least create turnovers (once again, 1st in the NFL) on a regular basis. Which defense would you rather have... one that excells at nothing, or another that can at least do something?

Good point. Call it what you will, but this isn't "homerism"... these are facts. Don't lose hope, though... there's always next year.

TacticaLion's advice to the Bears:

1. Stop playing football in the first half. Give up as many yards/points as you can so the game is decidedly over and the score is in the neighborhood of 56-0.
2. Spend the next 2 quarters going for strips and interceptions, the game is over the other team won't care anymore.
3. Now that you are leading the league in turnovers, by virtue you have the #1 defense in the league.
4. ..........
5. Championship

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 06:21 PM
The Lions are also quite adept at giving up points. They have given up the most in the division. Go ahead and take as many turnovers as you want, I would rather have 0 turnover, yet give up 14 points a game, then average 4 turnovers a game and give up 21.

Right. Once again, the PPG argument. Gotchya.

1. Stop playing football in the first half. Give up as many yards/points as you can so the game is decidedly over and the score is in the neighborhood of 56-0.
2. Spend the next 2 quarters going for strips and interceptions, the game is over the other team won't care anymore.
That would make sense... if the takeaways came only in those games where the Lions' were blown out.

It's a shame that they've done it in every game (9), and not just the losses (3).

Look at the Lions... you know what I see? A struggling, underachieving offense... led by an indecisive, aged QB behind a patchwork OLine with a hesitant but powerful RB and wasted talent at WR. Now, look at the Lions' record: 6-3... and in the mix for a playoff berth.

You know why they have even 1 win, let alone 6? The defense. Although the defense gets thrown under the bus time and time again, they've made huge plays when the team has needed it. This young, weak defense lacking "talent" spends more than half of every game on the field... but makes plays. Sacks... FFs... INTs... TDs... the defense has done it all this year.

If you look past stats and actually look at games and performances, the Lions' defense is performing like a top 10 defense. Anyone who's watched a game can see it. The only defense in the division I'd rather have is the Packers... but, with a few more solid players, I'm not so sure.

So... that's why I find this thread "funny". As much **** has been talked about the Lions' defense in this thread, they're doing more than other defenses in the NFL (and in this division) with much less talent than those defenses.

neko4
11-12-2007, 06:23 PM
Yeah, Roy and Furrey, what wastes
I dont even know what you mean by that statement

Xiomera
11-12-2007, 06:24 PM
The Lions are also quite adept at giving up points. They have given up the most in the division. Go ahead and take as many turnovers as you want, I would rather have 0 turnover, yet give up 14 points a game, then average 4 turnovers a game and give up 21.

WHY?

If you force four turnovers a game, it would be almost impossible to not score 14 points or more as a result of turnovers. Your offense would only have to be completely inept to not be able to score 10 points on its own accord.

Not saying the Lions method of playing defense is great, but it is effective.

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 06:25 PM
Yeah, Roy and Furrey, what wastes
I dont even know what you mean by that statement

Riiiight. Roy, Furrey and CJ have stats (this season) that reflect their talent.

Good one.

bearsfan_51
11-12-2007, 06:26 PM
If you look past stats and actually look at games and performances, the Lions' defense is performing like a top 10 defense.
http://www.ageconcernkingston.org/images/3peoplelaughing_000.jpg

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 06:31 PM
[*img]I'ma idiot.[/*img]
The Lions have scored half of their total points off takeaways and/or from their defense. Without those points, this team would be winless.

bearsfan_51
11-12-2007, 06:35 PM
If you look past stats and actually look at games and performances, the Lions' defense is performing like a top 10 defense.
http://granitegrok.com/pix/laughing_dog.jpg

someone447
11-12-2007, 06:50 PM
WHY?

If you force four turnovers a game, it would be almost impossible to not score 14 points or more as a result of turnovers. Your offense would only have to be completely inept to not be able to score 10 points on its own accord.

Not saying the Lions method of playing defense is great, but it is effective.

I'm not saying the Lions defense isn't good. I am just saying that TacticaLion is completely leaving out every stat but turnovers. I still think the Lions have the worst defense in the division. However, all 4 teams have above average defenses(Lions last at around 15 in the league.)

Moses
11-12-2007, 07:36 PM
The Lions have scored half of their total points off takeaways and/or from their defense. Without those points, this team would be winless.

My question is this: How does a defence devise a method to create turnovers? I think turnovers are generally caused by mistakes by the other team or a nice individual effort by a defender. I don't think you can depend on them.

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 07:38 PM
I'm not saying the Lions defense isn't good. I am just saying that TacticaLion is completely leaving out every stat but turnovers. I still think the Lions have the worst defense in the division. However, all 4 teams have above average defenses(Lions last at around 15 in the league.)

Leaving out every stat? I've acknowledged every stat... but a number isn't everything when looking at a team. A team allows 3 points one game... and 56 the next. What is that team's "average points against"? 29.5. They haven't allowed 30 points, on average, over the two games... but that's what that stat implies.

The Lions' defense has given up a lot of points in a few games, which have made that stat much higher than it realistically is. Regardless, they've forced turnovers in every game (4 in every game for the last 3 games) and have won from those turnovers. Turnovers often dictate the outcome of the game, which is why I think our defense has been good-great this year.

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 07:42 PM
My question is this: How does a defence devise a method to create turnovers? I think turnovers are generally caused by mistakes by the other team or a nice individual effort by a defender. I don't think you can depend on them.Scheme.

Pressure on the QB often leads to mistakes (fumbles, bad passes, tipped passes), which lead to turnovers. Good safety play in the Cover 2 can also lead to interceptions. Both have happened quite a bit this year.

Marinelli has also said that he wants to stop the big play and can live with the short pass/run. He'd rather it take a team 12 plays to score vice 3 and, in the process, risk making mistakes/self destructing. In this case, that's a part of the scheme.

neko4
11-12-2007, 07:44 PM
Oh thats why yall look so goood on D, Cover 2, not man enough to play Bump?

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 07:48 PM
Oh thats why yall look so goood on D, Cover 2, not man enough to play Bump?Yeah... **** Super Bowls, right? Silly Colts/Bears... "wimps".

Good teams play to win, not play to show their "manliness".

neko4
11-12-2007, 07:53 PM
Al Harris and Charles Woodson show their manlines all the time, theyre kinda like big hairy American winning machines

They piss excellence

And i think we do play to win, dont you?

Moses
11-12-2007, 07:55 PM
Yeah... **** Super Bowls, right? Silly Colts/Bears... "wimps".

Good teams play to win, not play to show their "manliness".

One season doesn't make a scheme. I'm not sold the Cover 2 is any more effective at creating turnovers than any other scheme. For one, it tends to be vulnerable to the run and can have trouble generating a sufficient pass rush.

someone447
11-12-2007, 07:57 PM
Al Harris and Charles Woodson show their manlines all the time, theyre kinda like big hairy American winning machines

They piss excellence

And i think we do play to win, dont you?

The Lions are 6-3 against a weak schedule, and now Lions fans are talking **** like they own the place.

1957!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

someone447
11-12-2007, 07:59 PM
One season doesn't make a scheme. I'm not sold the Cover 2 is any more effective at creating turnovers than any other scheme. For one, it tends to be vulnerable to the run and can have trouble generating a sufficient pass rush.

I think it is funny how he says 3rd down% doesn't matter, but turnovers mean everything. If you stop them on third down, they turn the ball over the next down.

neko4
11-12-2007, 08:09 PM
hey someone447!
You play at Portland St right? Do you ever tell Glanville your a packer fan and ask him what he thought about favre?
Sorry to derail the convo

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 08:14 PM
Al Harris and Charles Woodson show their manlines all the time, theyre kinda like big hairy American winning machines

They piss excellence

And i think we do play to win, dont you?
Suggesting that one scheme is "less-manly" than another is pathetic.

One season doesn't make a scheme. I'm not sold the Cover 2 is any more effective at creating turnovers than any other scheme. For one, it tends to be vulnerable to the run and can have trouble generating a sufficient pass rush.I'm sorry that you're not sold on it... but many of our takeaways have come from the defensive scheme. It would be hard to suggest that the two aren't related.
The Lions are 6-3 against a weak schedule, and now Lions fans are talking **** like they own the place.That really didn't make sense. Considering the post you quoted, how does me disagreeing with that ******** "manliness is more important than the scheme" argument suggest that I think I own the place? Good one.
I think it is funny how he says 3rd down% doesn't matter, but turnovers mean everything. If you stop them on third down, they turn the ball over the next down.I never said that turnovers mean everything. Good try, though.

Oh, and yes... stopping them on 3rd down gets you the ball on the following play (or gives them a FG opportunity)... whereas a takeaway stops the drive where it is (1st down, 2nd down, 3rd down)... and takes away the FG attempt.

If you take the ball away on 2nd down, they can't play on 3rd down...

neko4
11-12-2007, 08:15 PM
Unless you get the interception the endzone for a touchback and the other team had the ball back at the 38+

Moses
11-12-2007, 08:16 PM
Do you honestly believe that you can depend on stopping teams by constantly taking the ball away? I just don't see it. Some teams or players are simply not going to turn the ball over very often.

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 08:25 PM
Do you honestly believe that you can depend on stopping teams by constantly taking the ball away? I just don't see it. Some teams or players are simply not going to turn the ball over very often.
No... not consistently. That wasn't what I said.

Most of our takeaways are from our scheme... that's what my point was. Do I think we'll do it consistently? Not necessarily. But, we also don't give up 56 points "consistently". Our takeaways are much more consistent than our other stats (PPG, YPG).

I agree... teams wont always turn the ball over. Certain defensive schemes can force turnovers, though.

someone447
11-12-2007, 08:39 PM
hey someone447!
You play at Portland St right? Do you ever tell Glanville your a packer fan and ask him what he thought about favre?
Sorry to derail the convo

Not yet I haven't, but before I am done here I will. We haven't exactly been having a good season(2-8, ugh), so now isn't the time. But during the offseason I am going to be spending a lot of time in the coaches office, since I want to coach, so it will probably come up.

someone447
11-12-2007, 08:42 PM
That really didn't make sense. Considering the post you quoted, how does me disagreeing with that ******** "manliness is more important than the scheme" argument suggest that I think I own the place? Good one.
I never said that turnovers mean everything. Good try, though.

Oh, and yes... stopping them on 3rd down gets you the ball on the following play (or gives them a FG opportunity)... whereas a takeaway stops the drive where it is (1st down, 2nd down, 3rd down)... and takes away the FG attempt.

If you take the ball away on 2nd down, they can't play on 3rd down...

You have been talking **** saying how great the Lions d was all thread. The post I quoted was just the first one I clicked on...

We have given you all sorts of stats, yet you say they don't matter because of the turnovers.

GB12
11-12-2007, 08:49 PM
No... not consistently. That wasn't what I said.

Most of our takeaways are from our scheme... that's what my point was. Do I think we'll do it consistently? Not necessarily. But, we also don't give up 56 points "consistently". Our takeaways are much more consistent than our other stats (PPG, YPG).

I agree... teams wont always turn the ball over. Certain defensive schemes can force turnovers, though.
Maybe not 56, but they have now given up over 30 points 3 times now. With games against NY, GB, Dallas, and SD that probably wasn't the last one either.

TacticaLion
11-12-2007, 09:09 PM
Maybe not 56, but they have now given up over 30 points 3 times now. With games against NY, GB, Dallas, and SD that probably wasn't the last one either.

We've also given up 17, 16, 7 and 7. Our PPG without the Eagles game: 20 (T-12th in the NFL). With? 24 (24th in the NFL). That's a big jump.

You have been talking **** saying how great the Lions d was all thread. The post I quoted was just the first one I clicked on...

We have given you all sorts of stats, yet you say they don't matter because of the turnovers.How great the Lions' D is? What?

I started this conversation with the following post:
why is that?

Many of the posts in this thread take shots at the Lions' D... when their D has been the best at one of the most important aspects of the game: takeaways.

The DLine has been great, the LBers have been OK and the secondary has played way above expectations.

You look at three out of the four teams, the Lions being the exception, and we have three very deep, very talented defenses in this division.

It just depends on how you look at it. We're probably the only division that has three very good defenses but the Lions defense is so god awful that collectively I just don't know.

IMO The Quality of the other 3 defenses makes up for the lack of defense for the lions.

Man, I just don't know... The lions defense is just plain terrible. The other three should be great this season though.

Detroit clearly has the worst defense.

Not only does Detroit have the worst defense in the NFL, they might have the worst defense in the history of the NFL.

This was said to be a joke...

The ******** humors me.

Read the comments about the Lions' D and tell me how accurate they are... that has been my point. I think turnovers are important and a big part of the game... and the fact that the Lions' D has forced so many (and scored from those opportunities) is impressive... but the D has played way above expectations and isn't the "awful" and "plain terrible" defense that was stated above.

neko4
11-12-2007, 09:12 PM
Al Harris, Charles Woodson and Jarrett Bush's (He gets the yeller one) balls.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41B5Q4AT0YL.jpg

Fisher and Bryant's balls...

Football Fan
11-13-2007, 03:00 AM
Maybe not 56, but they have now given up over 30 points 3 times now. With games against NY, GB, Dallas, and SD that probably wasn't the last one either. Its probably going to get real ugly for them, I thought they would at least have beat Arizona. Im not going to nock the value of turn overs, but I think its going to become real obvious that detroit needs a lot more than a few turn overs to keep the rest of the teams they face from putting up big numbers on offense. In fact if detroit misses the playoffs it will likely be because the defense cant hang with the average or better teams in the league. Most people knew at the beginning of the season that detroits defense would be their biggest problem. I think we will see that down the final stretch and nobody but a few detroit fans will be surprized.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 06:30 AM
Its probably going to get real ugly for them, I thought they would at least have beat Arizona. Im not going to nock the value of turn overs, but I think its going to become real obvious that detroit needs a lot more than a few turn overs to keep the rest of the teams they face from putting up big numbers on offense. In fact if detroit misses the playoffs it will likely be because the defense cant hang with the average or better teams in the league. Most people knew at the beginning of the season that detroits defense would be their biggest problem. I think we will see that down the final stretch and nobody but a few detroit fans will be surprized.Of course "most people" knew that the defense was their biggest problem... on paper, the offense looks great. It hasn't been that way, though. If Detroit misses the playoffs, it'll be because the offense will continue to disappoint. The offense, not the defense, has been the weak link on the team this year.

I said it in another thread: if we beat Arizona, we'd finish 9-7. If not, we'd finish 8-8. So, if we miss the playoffs, I won't be that surprised.

Football Fan
11-13-2007, 12:22 PM
Of course "most people" knew that the defense was their biggest problem... on paper, the offense looks great. It hasn't been that way, though. If Detroit misses the playoffs, it'll be because the offense will continue to disappoint. The offense, not the defense, has been the weak link on the team this year.

I said it in another thread: if we beat Arizona, we'd finish 9-7. If not, we'd finish 8-8. So, if we miss the playoffs, I won't be that surprised.
Detroit gave up 31 points last week and thats what is going to lose games. Yeah there were turn overs, but thats where your defense has to come in and get the stops on 3rd down. Giving up 25+ points is likely to be the norm during most of the next 7 games. That will be on the defense.
24th in the league with 24 points per game given up is all on the defense, no excuses. Its about stopping other teams on 3rd downs and not giving up the touchdowns and good defenses will do that.

Scotty D
11-13-2007, 12:24 PM
Didn't Pittsburgh lose to Arizona in Arizona this year? Steve Young said that the desert is where teams go to die. Detroit just flops on the road take it for what you will.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 12:28 PM
Detroit gave up 31 points last week and thats what is going to lose games. Yeah there were turn overs, but thats where your defense has to come in and get the stops on 3rd down. Giving up 25+ points is likely to be the norm during most of the next 7 games. That will be on the defense.No.

The Lions turned the ball over (on offense) 5 times... whereas the defense forced 4 turnovers (1 INT, 3 FFs). I don't care how great your defense is... if you turn the ball over 5 times, there's a good chance that you'll lose. The defense played a solid game, but the Cards had great field position on most drives.

Did you watch the game? Apparently not. It wasn't the defense's fault... the offense failed miserably.

neko4
11-13-2007, 01:51 PM
Didn't Pittsburgh lose to Arizona in Arizona this year? Steve Young said that the desert is where teams go to die. Detroit just flops on the road take it for what you will.
Dont the lions have a history have being bad on the road?

Football Fan
11-13-2007, 02:05 PM
No.

The Lions turned the ball over (on offense) 5 times... whereas the defense forced 4 turnovers (1 INT, 3 FFs). I don't care how great your defense is... if you turn the ball over 5 times, there's a good chance that you'll lose. The defense played a solid game, but the Cards had great field position on most drives.

Did you watch the game? Apparently not. It wasn't the defense's fault... the offense failed miserably.I didnt see much of the game, so I really cant comment to much on it. Aparently detroit had -1 on turn overs though, thats not horrible. Regardless I fully expect to see a lot of points to be put up against detroit during the final stretch of the season. The giants are next, so we will see how the defense handles them. Detroit started out a 1 point favorite, but that already has changed to a 2 point underdog. Its expected that about 50 points will be scored in the game.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 04:35 PM
I didnt see much of the game, so I really cant comment to much on it. Aparently detroit had -1 on turn overs though, thats not horrible. Regardless I fully expect to see a lot of points to be put up against detroit during the final stretch of the season. The giants are next, so we will see how the defense handles them. Detroit started out a 1 point favorite, but that already has changed to a 2 point underdog. Its expected that about 50 points will be scored in the game.Yeah... Detroit had a -1 in turnovers. In other words, the offense turned the ball over 5 freaking times (and punted 4 times) and the defense still managed to get 4 takeaways. I repeat: the offense turned the ball over 5 (freaking) times and the defense still managed to get 4 takeaways.
Detroit gave up 31 points last week and thats what is going to lose games.Detroit gave up 31 points because they turned the ball over, not because the defense didn't perform. They gave the ball away 9 times... there were 9 situations where the offense failed to perform.

This is a great example of what I've been talking about through this thread. "Detroit has the worst PPG against in the division! The defense sucks!". When you look into it, you see something much different.

And, yes... you'll probably see a lot of points put up against us during the final stretch. Why? We face the Cowboys (2nd in the NFL in scoring), Packers (twice, 6th in the NFL in scoring), Giants (8th in the NFL in scoring) and the Chargers (10th in the NFL in scoring). I wont think less of the defense for giving up points against these teams... but, if the D can manage to continue to create turnovers, it'll say a lot.

someone447
11-13-2007, 04:48 PM
Well, I guess when you are a Lions fan, you learn to celebrate mediocrity.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 04:51 PM
Well, I guess when you are a Lions fan, you learn to celebrate mediocrity.

Wow... pointless... has nothing to do with the post. Good one, though... you'll probably get a good laugh from the other Vikes/Bears/Packers' fans on the board. Just a shame that you can't give a real response.

someone447
11-13-2007, 05:39 PM
Wow... pointless... has nothing to do with the post. Good one, though... you'll probably get a good laugh from the other Vikes/Bears/Packers' fans on the board. Just a shame that you can't give a real response.

What, like the ones we have all been making for 5 pages? The ones that you continuously ignore? Those real responses? You claiming turnovers nullify the points given up(or even funnier, if you throw out certain games) are not worthy of any more real responses.

bearsfan_51
11-13-2007, 05:43 PM
What, like the ones we have all been making for 5 pages? The ones that you continuously ignore? Those real responses? You claiming turnovers nullify the points given up(or even funnier, if you throw out certain games) are not worthy of any more real responses.

It's totally pointless. The funny thing is that he plays it off as if the Bears/Packers/Vikings fans have an anti-Lions agenda when it's really just everyone recognizing his ****** arguments for what they are. I mean...to unite those three fans over anything is a remarkable feat in itself.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 06:34 PM
What, like the ones we have all been making for 5 pages? The ones that you continuously ignore? Those real responses? You claiming turnovers nullify the points given up(or even funnier, if you throw out certain games) are not worthy of any more real responses.

I've ignored nothing. A few stats don't tell everything about a team. "The Lions gave up 31 points!" Yeah... and turned the ball over 5 times.

I never said that turnovers nullify the points given up... once again, nice job of putting words in my mouth (or words on my posts... or something). They don't nullify anything... but they're important to consider when evaluating a defense.

Never mind. I guess the concept is just too confusing to some.

someone447
11-13-2007, 07:58 PM
It's totally pointless. The funny thing is that he plays it off as if the Bears/Packers/Vikings fans have an anti-Lions agenda when it's really just everyone recognizing his ****** arguments for what they are. I mean...to unite those three fans over anything is a remarkable feat in itself.

No kidding, he thinks that we even CARE about the Lions. They have been the league whipping boy for so long that I am happy they are doing good. Once a decade is good for a team. It is like anyone with the Bucks or Brewers, they should just be happy for us that we have a decent team.

yodabear
11-13-2007, 08:46 PM
Dont the lions have a history have being bad on the road?

No, the Lions have a history of being bad anywhere.

Scotty D
11-13-2007, 08:50 PM
No, the Lions have a history of being bad anywhere.

1-8

Bulger's contract 60 million

yodabear
11-13-2007, 08:52 PM
1-8

Bulger's contract 60 million

1-8 and coming back and it was 65 million.

Scotty D
11-13-2007, 08:53 PM
1-8 and coming back and it was 65 million.

Touche my friend.

yodabear
11-13-2007, 08:57 PM
Touche my friend.

Me, u, shower right now. Don't tell Xiomera.

Scotty D
11-13-2007, 08:58 PM
Me, u, shower right now. Don't tell Xiomera.

Xio and me have somethign to tell you...

yodabear
11-13-2007, 08:59 PM
Xio and me have somethign to tell you...

What? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Scotty D
11-13-2007, 09:00 PM
What? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Two Lions and a Ram.

yodabear
11-13-2007, 09:01 PM
Two Lions and a Ram.

Sounds like a painful bedroom.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 10:48 PM
We're probably the only division that has three very good defenses but the Lions defense is so god awful that collectively I just don't know. The AFC East, for example, doesn't have any weak defenses. The Jets are the weakest of the four and they're nowhere near as bad as the Lions.Points Per Game (Allowed)
Lions - 24 PPG (24th in NFL)
Jets - 25.3 PPG (27th in NFL)

Yards Per Game (Against)
Lions - 354.7 YPG (26th in NFL)
Jets - 380.2 YPG (30th in NFL)

3rd Down %
Lions - 47% (29th in NFL)
Jets - 48% (32nd in NFL)

Interceptions
Lions - 15 (2nd in NFL)
Jets - 7 (T-23rd in NFL)

GB12
11-13-2007, 10:56 PM
Points Per Game (Allowed)
Lions - 24 PPG (24th in NFL)
Jets - 25.3 PPG (27th in NFL)

Yards Per Game (Against)
Lions - 354.7 YPG (26th in NFL)
Jets - 380.2 YPG (30th in NFL)

3rd Down %
Lions - 47% (29th in NFL)
Jets - 48% (32nd in NFL)

Interceptions
Lions - 15 (2nd in NFL)
Jets - 7 (T-23rd in NFL)
It's too bad that those stats are misleading and don't mean anything.

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 11:08 PM
It's too bad that those stats are misleading and don't mean anything.
FINALLY! Someone else that sees things my way.

someone447
11-13-2007, 11:11 PM
FINALLY! Someone else that sees things my way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You did not sense his sarcasm?

TacticaLion
11-13-2007, 11:27 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You did not sense his sarcasm?You didn't sense mine?

Wow... and you laughed.

bearsfan_51
11-13-2007, 11:36 PM
Way too bring up something I said two months ago that everyone has already recognized was off the mark.

Really scrapping the bottom of the barrel here.


And nobody buys that you got that. Nobody buys basically anything you say in case you haven't noticed.

TacticaLion
11-14-2007, 12:29 AM
Way too bring up something I said two months ago that everyone has already recognized was off the mark.

Really scrapping the bottom of the barrel here.


And nobody buys that you got that. Nobody buys basically anything you say in case you haven't noticed.Yep... off the mark... and it wasn't just that one quote. Quite a few of them, actually.

Apparently, they should see through your exaggerated ********. You make bold claims time and time again... but, when they're given back to you, use the "I said it before" excuse, as if it justifies your ignorance.

Tired of inserting foot in mouth? Stop making outrageous statements.

bearsfan_51
11-14-2007, 12:51 AM
Says the man who said the Lions are a top 10 defense.

It wasn't that outrageous to say that the Lions were a terrible defense 2 months ago. Hell it's not that outrageous now, just a bit overstated.

The rest of your dribble I'm not even responding to...I've said before that you're not worth my time and it seems that others are realizing that as well.

In fact, I just realized there is an ignore function here. I'll be putting that to good use.

TacticaLion
11-14-2007, 01:45 PM
Says the man who said the Lions are a top 10 defense. Actually, I said that the Lions are performing like a top 10 defense.
If you look past stats and actually look at games and performances, the Lions' defense is performing like a top 10 defense.On paper, the Lions' defense is below average. We have a horrible secondary, holes at SLB and MLB and a solid DLine... when healthy (which is rare). But... they've scored 2 TDs and their turnovers have led to 94 offensive points. In other words: the Lions' defense alone has scored or created more points than the 49ers offense. They are also tied for 3rd in the NFL with 26 sacks.

What's more? The Lions' offense is 30th in the NFL in 3rd Down Conversion % (32%), is tied for 3rd in the NFL with fumbles lost (11) and is tied for 12th in the NFL with interceptions thrown (10). Looking at those stats, it's incredible that the Lions' defense only "gives up 24 PPG".

Yes... performing like one, not is one. Good try, though.

Addict
11-17-2007, 12:32 PM
Says the man who said the Lions are a top 10 defense.

It wasn't that outrageous to say that the Lions were a terrible defense 2 months ago. Hell it's not that outrageous now, just a bit overstated.

The rest of your dribble I'm not even responding to...I've said before that you're not worth my time and it seems that others are realizing that as well.

In fact, I just realized there is an ignore function here. I'll be putting that to good use.

it took you nearly three years to figure that out?

someone447
11-17-2007, 02:39 PM
it took you nearly three years to figure that out?

You have to forgive him, he is a bears fan, they aren't the brightest people.

Addict
11-19-2007, 01:59 PM
You have to forgive him, he is a bears fan, they aren't the brightest people.

that's true. It's the wind I suppose.

bearsfan_51
12-02-2007, 01:56 PM
Man this Lions defense is awesome.

GB12
12-02-2007, 02:07 PM
Man this Lions defense is awesome.
Back to back games of 37+. Going for 3 straight next week against Dallas.

bearsfan_51
12-02-2007, 02:09 PM
Dude don't throw your crazy stats at me. Pssh...points allowed?

The Lions defense is awesome, anyone that's not a total dumbass knows that.

Crazy_Chris
12-03-2007, 01:03 AM
This Thread is Hilarious!

Football Fan
12-03-2007, 07:33 PM
Back to back games of 37+. Going for 3 straight next week against Dallas.Everyone saw this comming.

TacticaLion
12-08-2007, 04:11 AM
Man this Lions defense is awesome.

Yeah... and the Bears are a top 10 football team. You probably thought that at one time, huh? Oh the ignorance.

If Jackson can control the ball and not make stupid mistakes, the Vikings will be a great team (barring injuries, of course). They've got the OLine, the RBs and the defense... and are finally bringing it all together.

Yeah... and the Packers. Enough said. We play the Cowboys... yep... we'll give up some points. But, at the time I made that argument, our defense was making a ton of plays and winning games for us. Their play was overshadowed by a few misleading stats.

*Oh yeah... and the Bears are still last in the NFC North. The Vikes have an easy schedule to end the season and the Pack will win a few more. 3rd in the NFC North? Wow... what a football team. I guess I was right when I said they were overrated...

bearsfan_51
12-08-2007, 04:19 PM
Yeah... and the Bears are a top 10 football team. You probably thought that at one time, huh? Oh the ignorance.

If Jackson can control the ball and not make stupid mistakes, the Vikings will be a great team (barring injuries, of course). They've got the OLine, the RBs and the defense... and are finally bringing it all together.

Yeah... and the Packers. Enough said. We play the Cowboys... yep... we'll give up some points. But, at the time I made that argument, our defense was making a ton of plays and winning games for us. Their play was overshadowed by a few misleading stats.

*Oh yeah... and the Bears are still last in the NFC North. The Vikes have an easy schedule to end the season and the Pack will win a few more. 3rd in the NFC North? Wow... what a football team. I guess I was right when I said they were overrated...
Stop qualifying things and making stupid excuses. You're a homer and you're constantly wrong. At least have the sack to admit it. The Lions defense sucks. It sucks. So just say "yes the Lions suck, I was wrong. I thought we were going to win 10 games, we'll now be lucky to win 7. We've lost a ridiculous amount of games in a row because we couldn't beat a good/healthy team if our life depended on it. We still suck. We'll always suck. That's why we are the Lions." I admitted I was wrong about the Bears a long time ago, they've clearly been a massive dissapointment.

So, for those that are keeping track at home, until further notice.

Bearsfan_51 = 1 nutsack
Tactica = NO nutsack

TacticaLion
12-08-2007, 08:09 PM
Stop qualifying things and making stupid excuses. You're a homer and you're constantly wrong. At least have the sack to admit it. The Lions defense sucks. It sucks. So just say "yes the Lions suck, I was wrong. I thought we were going to win 10 games, we'll now be lucky to win 7. We've lost a ridiculous amount of games in a row because we couldn't beat a good/healthy team if our life depended on it. We still suck. We'll always suck. That's why we are the Lions." I admitted I was wrong about the Bears a long time ago, they've clearly been a massive dissapointment.

So, for those that are keeping track at home, until further notice.

Bearsfan_51 = 1 nutsack
Tactica = NO nutsack
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...

It's much easier to admit that the Bears are a massive disappointment (it's just obvious... watch a game) than admitting that the Lions will always suck (because everyone gets lucky eventually... yes, even the Lions will). I need better terms to earn my nutsack...

I will admit that we can't beat a healthy team (and lost to a few teams with health issues)... but health is a part of the NFL. I can't control that Redding wanted to take a nap on Cutler's leg... Redding is a big, mean man and Cutler (and his short bus disposition) had it coming. Either way, yes... we can't beat a healthy team.

When I was making an argument for the Lions' defense, they were playing at a very high level. They were making a ton of plays and we actually won games because of it. A few stats didn't tell the story accurately, and I hate when people make statements with only those stats in mind. But, now? Nah. Rogers ran outta gas, the secondary has always been horrible and we have one player in our starting LB group that deserves to start. Unless they do something drastic, I can admit: the Lions defense is a bad NFL defense. It doesn't help that they spend the entire game on the field, but we really lack talent.

At one point in time, I thought the Lions COULD win 10 games. I thought, realistically, they'd win 9... but it seems I was also off the mark there. If they win 7, I'm happy. Hell... just stay at 6, Lions... what's the best case scenario: make the playoffs just to lose in the Super Bowl? **** that. I'd rather have a top 10 pick than a "I Made It To The Super Bowl And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt" door prize.

GB12
12-08-2007, 09:06 PM
At one point in time, I thought the Lions COULD win 10 games. I thought, realistically, they'd win 9... but it seems I was also off the mark there. If they win 7, I'm happy. Hell... just stay at 6, Lions... what's the best case scenario: make the playoffs just to lose in the Super Bowl? **** that. I'd rather have a top 10 pick than a "I Made It To The Super Bowl And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt" door prize.
I guess that's what being a Lions fan does to you.

bearsfan_51
12-08-2007, 09:57 PM
I guess that's what being a Lions fan does to you.

To be fair, the Lions have never been to the Superbowl so he has no idea what that feels like.

someone447
12-09-2007, 02:36 AM
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...

It's much easier to admit that the Bears are a massive disappointment (it's just obvious... watch a game) than admitting that the Lions will always suck (because everyone gets lucky eventually... yes, even the Lions will). I need better terms to earn my nutsack...


That is like saying even the Cubs will get lucky and win a World Series, both teams are just doomed to perpetual failure.

singe_101
12-10-2007, 05:19 PM
The Vikings are looking very good. Their pass defense has been underrated for 2, 3 years now. Check the defensive stats, not exactly P. Manning there other than attempts.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/min2007.htm

Geo
12-10-2007, 06:52 PM
What? The Vikes pass defense stunk last year, it was pathetic and maybe the worst in the league.

It's gotten better this season, thanks to replacing the overrated Mike Tomlin (btw better job against Brady yesterday guy) with the superior defensive coordinator in Leslie Frazier. It still has much more room to improve, however. Actually having a consistent pass rusher worth a darn would be a great start.

Crazy_Chris
12-10-2007, 07:46 PM
Eh im not really sure it's gotten better this year. The pass D is allowing opposing QB's to have a higher completetion percentage and more yards per attempt it has also already allowed more passing TD's

2006 Pass Defense

CMP:355 ATT:598 CMP%:59.4% Yards:4015 YPA:6.71 TD:15 INT:21

2007 Pass Defense(3 games to go)

CMP:345 ATT:542 CMP%:63.1% Yards:3800 YPA:7.01 TD:17 INT:15

Granted, as of recently the pass defense has gotten A LOT better but early in the season it was much worse than 2006 version. Although I should also mention our weakness wasn't exposed until week 8 in 2006.

Gay Ork Wang
01-14-2008, 12:54 PM
Oh man, this thread is probably with the Jordyzzz Nelsonzzz thread one of the funniest Threads ive ever seen.

bigbluedefense
03-08-2008, 10:55 PM
The NFC East? Is that a ******* joke?

The NFC East had all 4 teams rank in the top 10 on defense. The answer to this question is the NFC East, and its not even close.

Giants ranked 7, followed by Washington at 8, followed by Dallas at 9, and Philly at 10.

bigbluedefense
03-08-2008, 10:55 PM
oh crap, i didn't realize how old this thread was....

bearsfan_51
03-08-2008, 10:57 PM
The NFC East had all 4 teams rank in the top 10 on defense. The answer to this question is the NFC East, and its not even close.

Giants ranked 7, followed by Washington at 8, followed by Dallas at 9, and Philly at 10.
I don't care what the numbers say, Dallas is not a top 10 defense. The other three are questionable, but none of them are really intimidating in the least.

Geo
03-08-2008, 10:58 PM
Pre-emptive strike against BBD and his guaranteed NFC East claim:

No, bud. The AFC South is the strongest defensive division. Granted, the Texans don't have a secondary, and you can pass on the Jags with ease.

The Giants suck at safety and their linebackers can't cover, the Cowboys defense just isn't that good, the Eagles can't generate a worthwhile pass rush, and ditto the Redskins plus worse secondary/coaching, although they upgraded big-time from Gregg Williams (very overrated) to Greg Blache.

bigbluedefense
03-08-2008, 11:03 PM
I don't care what the numbers say, Dallas is not a top 10 defense. The other three are questionable, but none of them are really intimidating in the least.

i admit that all 4 defenses may be overrated. i think the Giants defense has the most potential heading into this upcoming season, but having all 4 rank in the top 10 is still impressive no matter how you cut it.

and yes, the Dallas defense can be had through the air. no question about it.

but can't you say the same about the NFC North? I think the bears (when healthy) and the Pack can hang with us, but the Vikings and Lions have no pass rush.

I expect the Giants, Cowboys (if theyre not dumb and address needs with their picks) and Eagles defenses to be better this upcoming year. I expect Washington to drop off.

How is the Giants defense not intimidating? I think by the end of the offseason, we'll make enough moves to have one of the best defenses in football.

bigbluedefense
03-08-2008, 11:05 PM
Pre-emptive strike against BBD and his guaranteed NFC East claim:

No, bud. The AFC South is the strongest defensive division. Granted, the Texans don't have a secondary, and you can pass on the Jags with ease.

The Giants suck at safety and their linebackers can't cover, the Cowboys defense just isn't that good, the Eagles can't generate a worthwhile pass rush, and ditto the Redskins plus worse secondary/coaching, although they upgraded big-time from Gregg Williams (very overrated) to Greg Blache.

We actually upgraded LB by not resigning our guys. Wilkinson is the coverage LB we desperately need. Safety, yes as of right now thats not looking too good. But we didn't have the draft yet, its too early to write off anybody.

For this upcoming year, its hard to project yet because theres so much that can happen from now until the beginning of the season. The AFC south can very well make a big splash. I think all 4 defenses will improve this offseason.

For this past year however, it was the NFC East.

Geo
03-08-2008, 11:05 PM
I've mentioned this before but ... the Packers defense should be better than what it actually is. It's built better than it is. That puzzles me.

I know the talent at corner falls off hard past Harris and Woodson, but still.

Geo
03-08-2008, 11:06 PM
Also, while Pierce is a huge liability in coverage, he sniffs out screen passes very well. I'll give him that.

neko4
03-08-2008, 11:10 PM
I've mentioned this before but ... the Packers defense should be better than what it actually is. It's built better than it is. That puzzles me.

I know the talent at corner falls off hard past Harris and Woodson, but still.
we cant cover TE's to save our life. I also feel like AJ Hawk and Nick Collins didnt play up to potential

bigbluedefense
03-08-2008, 11:10 PM
Also, while Pierce is a huge liability in coverage, he sniffs out screen passes very well. I'll give him that.

he's so huge for our defense. he has more responsibility than any MIKE in the NFL, and is probably the smartest LB ive seen since Mike Singletary. He's a big reason why we won the SB. I could explain in detail exactly what he does at a later time.

But yeah...id love to see him drop 15 pounds. He's been enjoying food a little too much the past 2 years.

I've mentioned this before but ... the Packers defense should be better than what it actually is. It's built better than it is. That puzzles me.

I know the talent at corner falls off hard past Harris and Woodson, but still.

I agree completely. I think they can get far too passive and vanilla at times. Their defense is just far too simple. Very vanilla.

bigbluedefense
03-08-2008, 11:12 PM
we cant cover TE's to save our life. I also feel like AJ Hawk and Nick Collins didnt play up to potential

Hawk is an NFL MIKE forced to play WILL because you can't bench Barnett who is a beast in his own right.

Hawk would beast it at MIKE, but what are the Pack supposed to do? You can't bench Barnett.

On top of that, Hodge is rotting on the bench.

DaBear89
03-08-2008, 11:15 PM
he has more responsibility than any MIKE in the NFL

that is one pretty ballsy statement to make. especially considering that this is a NFCN thread. i think you kno where im going with this...if you dont you are dumb

Geo
03-08-2008, 11:17 PM
His coverage is also the reason the Patriots scored their first touchdown, but I hear you. Pierce is a thumper, that's his game. He's the Giants' Jeremiah Trotter, his presence does a lot for the run defense even when they are aggressive.

Re: the Packers, as I've said, I like how it's built. That's how I would want to build a 4-3 defense in all likelihood, I really like what Ted Thompson has done there and overall. So maybe I'm expecting too much, thinking the Packers should be better.

Hodge is very much a thumper, as is Desmond Bishop, the MIKE from Cal Berkeley that Thompson picked up last April. They'll be great special teamers. If they can provide more than one dimension, then maybe more.

bigbluedefense
03-08-2008, 11:18 PM
that is one pretty ballsy statement to make. especially considering that this is a NFCN thread. i think you kno where im going with this...if you dont you are dumb

more mental responsibilty.

Urlacher chases TEs down a seem. No one does it better, but thats far from having the most responsibility. He didn't even call in the plays when Mike Brown was on the field.

While Urlacher is the best at what he does, he doesn't have any more responsibility than guys like Brackett or Henderson.

bigbluedefense
03-08-2008, 11:22 PM
His coverage is also the reason the Patriots scored their first touchdown, but I hear you. Pierce is a thumper, that's his game. He's the Giants' Jeremiah Trotter, his presence does a lot for the run defense even when they are aggressive.

Re: the Packers, as I've said, I like how it's built. That's how I would want to build a 4-3 defense in all likelihood, I really like what Ted Thompson has done there and overall. So maybe I'm expecting too much, thinking the Packers should be better.

Hodge is very much a thumper, as is Desmond Bishop, the MIKE from Cal Berkeley that Thompson picked up last April. They'll be great special teamers. If they can provide more than one dimension, then maybe more.

during the SB, steve spagnuolo gave AP 2 plays. The first play was the playcall. If Brady sniffed out the pass rush, the 2nd play was the opposite play that was designed to attack the pass protection adjustments that Brady would make. (this was figured out by studying the first time we both met). Now AP had to recognize if Brady figured out what we were doing or not, and had to time his audible in a way that everyone on defense knew what we were doing, but also in a way that it would be too late for Brady to counteraudible.

On top of that, if AP saw something Spagnuolo didn't see, he had the luxury of audibling to his own play.

Thats why they couldn't block our pass rush the 2nd time. Without a guy like AP, we can't pull that off. He's widely considered the smartest MIKE in the NFL, and he's huge for us. Im very critical of his game on the field, but one thing i can't deny is his leadership, and his mental ability. No one is better than him in that regards.

DaBear89
03-08-2008, 11:24 PM
more mental responsibilty.

Urlacher chases people down. No one does it better
fixed :P

He didn't even call in the plays when Mike Brown was on the field.
and when was that in the past 4 years? not that i truly believe it anyway

Geo
03-08-2008, 11:24 PM
Brackett's a coverage guy, and he's not very effective when he tries to blitz on those rare occassions. He does a solid job against the run, but he's not the guy who is going to make many plays in that area. He'll get swallowed up by bigger lineman and tight ends. It is what it is, it's the sacrifice for having the benefit in the pass defense. You wish you could have a do-it-all guy, but those are hard to find. Although I think Freddy Keiaho could be a better MIKE, but he's starting at WLB and Brackett is entrenched for the time being.

As for how well Brackett's defensive calls on the field are ... I couldn't speak knowledgably on that from outside.

bigbluedefense
03-08-2008, 11:28 PM
Im not questioning how good Urlacher is. He's the prototype Tampa 2 MIKE. All Im saying is he doesn't have the most responsibility out of all the MIKEs in the NFL.

I don't think thats unfair to say. If you look at a guy like Ray Lewis, although washed up, he has more responsibility. He's in that hybrid 3-4/46, thats demanding both mentally and physically.

Geo
03-08-2008, 11:35 PM
Btw, I think the NFC North is still up there and very much in the discussion.

The Bears defense wasn't healthy all of last year, when they are we know what they can do. Especially as I still like replacing Rivera with Babich.

Add in the Packers, if they can cut down on the penalties some and be more consistent, then they're better. The Vikings will continue to improve in pass defense with Leslie Frazier at the helm, he does an exceptional job with def backs.

The Lions ... are the Lions.

GB12
03-08-2008, 11:36 PM
Hawk is an NFL MIKE forced to play WILL because you can't bench Barnett who is a beast in his own right.

Hawk would beast it at MIKE, but what are the Pack supposed to do? You can't bench Barnett.

On top of that, Hodge is rotting on the bench.
It'd be interesting to see how they'd do if they switched posistions. I would not mess with it because Barnett has been great in the middle, but it's something to think about.

Hodge is in no win situation. He's not going to take the MLB or WLB spot because of Hawk and Barnett and he's in no way a SLB. He's a quality backup, but we might want to look into trading him before his contract is up because I can't imagine he'd want to resign here.

Re: the Packers, as I've said, I like how it's built. That's how I would want to build a 4-3 defense in all likelihood, I really like what Ted Thompson has done there and overall. So maybe I'm expecting too much, thinking the Packers should be better.

Hodge is very much a thumper, as is Desmond Bishop, the MIKE from Cal Berkeley that Thompson picked up last April. They'll be great special teamers. If they can provide more than one dimension, then maybe more.
I don't think it's too much to expect us to be better. Like BBD said there's not a whole lot of variation with our defense. It's pretty much the same couple plays. We rely on pressure from our front four, which I like and we're capable of getting, but I think it'd be beneficial to blitz more. All three of our linebackers are good at getting to the quarterback when we do blitz, but for some reason Bob Sanders doesn't like to send them too much. There was a game that he let Barnett blitz and it was very effective, but then we never went back to that in later games.

Hodge fits that description perfectly, but I wouldn't include Bishop in that. Bishop is above average against the run and well below average against the pass. Hodge could possibly be a starter someday while Bishop is no more than a special teamer. You mentioned special teams in your post and Bishop should be a great one, but Hodge is nothing out of the ordinary.

bearsfan_51
03-08-2008, 11:38 PM
more mental responsibilty.

Urlacher chases TEs down a seem. No one does it better, but thats far from having the most responsibility. He didn't even call in the plays when Mike Brown was on the field.

While Urlacher is the best at what he does, he doesn't have any more responsibility than guys like Brackett or Henderson.

I'm assuming you've never played MIKE linebacker if you think callling in the plays is a difficult assignment.

Geo
03-08-2008, 11:40 PM
Yeah, with the speed Hawk and Barnett have, they could be effective as blitzers.

And I'm a big fan of the Packers' strong rotation on the defensive line. Does Cullen Jenkins slide inside to tackle much on pass-rushing downs?

bearsfan_51
03-08-2008, 11:43 PM
In regards to the Giants, there are about 3-4 players on that defense that I would consider anything better than good/average, one less if Strahan retires.

Don't get me wrong, their defensive end tandem is phenominal, the best in recent memory, but that lack of quality around it has burnt the Giants at times too. They were a team that got really hot at the right time, but I still question if they are even a top 10 team in the NFL.

GB12
03-08-2008, 11:44 PM
Yeah, with the speed Hawk and Barnett have, they could be effective as blitzers.

And I'm a big fan of the Packers' strong rotation on the defensive line. Does Cullen Jenkins slide inside to tackle much on pass-rushing downs?
Yeah, KGB-Jenkins-Jolly-Kampman

Williams was the other DT last year, but Jolly will do just fine.

bearsfan_51
03-08-2008, 11:48 PM
In regards to the defense, I know it sounds crazy, but Dusty Dvoracek is so instrumental. If you can get your hands on the San Diego game, he's 90% of the reason why LT was getting shut down. When Dusty went out we lost the game. He's much more important than Mike Brown IMO, though having Mike around would do wonders for our defense as well.

I'm not optomistic about much for the Bears next year, other than we'll be better than the Lions, but the defense has a chance to return to the top 10 if it can stay healthy. There's really no reason why not.

Geo
03-08-2008, 11:51 PM
That's interesting to hear, considering the line has Harris, Ogunleye, and Brown. Hmm.

bearsfan_51
03-08-2008, 11:59 PM
That's interesting to hear, considering the line has Harris, Ogunleye, and Brown. Hmm.
The NT is so important in the Tampa 2 for stopping the run though. Part of the issue was also Mark Anderson not being able to stop the run, but the bigger issue is that Dvoracek was not only able to hold his position but collapse the pocket, which is very difficult from the NT position. Tommie is pretty good against the run but his whole purpose is essentially to penetrate so often he can be eluded. O-Gun is pretty good against the run too, but if you're relying on your defense end to stop the run in a Tampa 2, you've got issues. That's why I've always been in favor of Mark Anderson over Brown. Anderson isn't the problem, it's that our nose tackle wasn't doing a good enough job. I actually like Anthony Adams as a situational run stuffer, he reminds me of Ian Scott in that regard, but Dusty is special in a way that Anthony simply can't be.

It was also an issue of injuries/sucky play in our secondary. When your MLB is required to make up for lapses with your safties, that's going to severly limit your ability to stop the run. It was really a matter of pick your poison last year, except we never really stuck to one thing and ended up sucking at both.

bigbluedefense
03-10-2008, 08:46 PM
Btw, I think the NFC North is still up there and very much in the discussion.

The Bears defense wasn't healthy all of last year, when they are we know what they can do. Especially as I still like replacing Rivera with Babich.

Add in the Packers, if they can cut down on the penalties some and be more consistent, then they're better. The Vikings will continue to improve in pass defense with Leslie Frazier at the helm, he does an exceptional job with def backs.

The Lions ... are the Lions.

it very well can be. im just talking about this past year. this past year it was the NFC East, we had all 4 in the top 10, i mean come on, what more do you need?

As for this upcoming year, who knows. way too early to tell. It can be the East, the AFC South, the NFC North, lots of possibilities. its waaay too early to say anything.

But this past year, it was the East. I don't see how its not.

I'm assuming you've never played MIKE linebacker if you think callling in the plays is a difficult assignment.

Its not just about calling in the plays. Youre a huge Singletary fan, you know that. Its about lining guys up, making the necessary adjustments to the playcall based on what the offense is doing, if you have the luxury that AP had, audibling to a different play if you see something, moving guys in position etc.

Sure, calling in the play itself is not difficult. But im not just talking about that. Theres more to the mental side of the MIKE position than that.

In regards to the Giants, there are about 3-4 players on that defense that I would consider anything better than good/average, one less if Strahan retires.

Don't get me wrong, their defensive end tandem is phenominal, the best in recent memory, but that lack of quality around it has burnt the Giants at times too. They were a team that got really hot at the right time, but I still question if they are even a top 10 team in the NFL.

well, like i said, i don't want to project too much this year because the offseason is far from over. we don't know what will happen from now till the end of it.

i think youre underrating some of the talent though. yes, our secondary talent outside of Ross and Wilson (when he was here) was average, but our pressure more than made up for it. And our dline in general, not just Osi and Strahan was great. We had 4 DEs who could start for a lot of teams, we had Alford who was a great penetrating UT, our starting DTs were more situational run thumpers than important pieces to our dline. Tuck was so strong he played UT both in the nickel and base 4-3, we were stacked with talent along the entire line.

And that will mask a lot of weaknesses in the back 7. Remember, its not necessarily how much talent you have, its where you have it thats important.

And theres more than 4 good players on our defense. Strahan, Osi, Tuck, Kiwi, Alford, Ross, Pierce. Thats 7 by my account. Im not going to sing the praises of others because outside the giant and NFC East fanbase, no one will know who im talking about, but those 7 guys are at the very least "good" to me.

bearsfan_51
03-10-2008, 09:01 PM
I said better than good/average, meaning very good I guess. Of that list I would say the obvious two defensive ends, Pierce, and maybe Tuck and Ross.

bigbluedefense
03-10-2008, 09:03 PM
I said better than good/average, meaning very good I guess. Of that list I would say the obvious two defensive ends, Pierce, and maybe Tuck and Ross.

id take Ross off the list then. not yet. he's gotta prove it first. for now he's good, with potential to be better.

question, wasn't alex brown on the market? or will you guys keep a 3 DE rotation going?

Geo
03-10-2008, 09:08 PM
I wish Kiwanuka didn't have to deal with the linebacker experiment shenanigans, but it's a necessary evil with Strahan still playing. Umenyiora is injured every year, so maybe he'll see time at DE yet.

BBD, Kiwi lines up inside at DT in the 4 Aces formation, right?

Damix
03-10-2008, 09:11 PM
I wish Kiwanuka didn't have to deal with the linebacker experiment shenanigans, but it's a necessary evil with Strahan still playing. Umenyiora is injured every year, so maybe he'll see time at DE yet.

BBD, Kiwi lines up inside at DT in the 4 Aces formation, right?

He does, but I'm not sure if that will continue into next year with Alford proving to be capable at getting after the passer.

scottyboy
03-10-2008, 09:12 PM
I wish Kiwanuka didn't have to deal with the linebacker experiment shenanigans, but it's a necessary evil with Strahan still playing. Umenyiora is injured every year, so maybe he'll see time at DE yet.

BBD, Kiwi lines up inside at DT in the 4 Aces formation, right?

he does, but with the amount of stunts and twists we use, it doesn't matter all that much. Alot you'll see Strahan and/or Osi coming up the middle

bearsfan_51
03-10-2008, 09:12 PM
id take Ross off the list then. not yet. he's gotta prove it first. for now he's good, with potential to be better.

question, wasn't alex brown on the market? or will you guys keep a 3 DE rotation going?

We signed Brown to a 2 year extension. 15 million in new money so he's under contract for 4 more years.

So yeah.

We also drafted Dan Bazuin in the late 2nd last year and have Israel Idonije. Idonije can play UT and special teams, no idea what happens to Bazuin.

bigbluedefense
03-10-2008, 09:14 PM
I wish Kiwanuka didn't have to deal with the linebacker experiment shenanigans, but it's a necessary evil with Strahan still playing. Umenyiora is injured every year, so maybe he'll see time at DE yet.

BBD, Kiwi lines up inside at DT in the 4 Aces formation, right?

yes, he was an inside guy. when we come out with 4 DEs, we do a lot of twisting and stunting because we have enough speed inside with Kiwi and Tuck to make it work. From my recollection, he mostly got his sacks by holding his ground, and letting the qb run right into him. The qb usually had to run around and away from our other DEs and that allowed Kiwi to just try to clog linemen and fall onto the qb who was busy running away from Osi, Tuck and Strahan.

As for the LB experiment, Im personally in favor it it. Why? Because its the only way i can see us realistically keeping 3 quality DEs long term. Having Kiwi allows us to move the investment to a different position technically. And in his hybrid role, we do alot of zone blitzing or Cover 2, so his coverage responsibilities are minimal.

He's also not strong enough in his current frame to play DE fulltime. especially LE.

He is a playmaker though, and if he does move fulltime to DE he's going to be a very very good DE with the right development. The problem is we can't keep him, Tuck and Osi long term as full time DEs. I just don't see it working. I think we'll see some big strides at LB this year. He was improving a lot in that role before he got hurt. Another year under his belt, hopefully he'll improve.

bigbluedefense
03-10-2008, 09:16 PM
We signed Brown to a 2 year extension. 15 million in new money so he's under contract for 4 more years.

So yeah.

We also drafted Dan Bazuin in the late 2nd last year and have Israel Idonije. Idonije can play UT and special teams, no idea what happens to Bazuin.

i think you guys can run a similar 4 ace package of your own this year. Lovie should give it a shot.

VoteLynnSwan
03-10-2008, 09:43 PM
well Tommie Harris would HAVE to be on the field no matter what... so if we say went with a lineup of

Anderson, Harris, Brown, Ogunleye

that wouldn't be a bad idea on passing situations.

bigbluedefense
03-10-2008, 09:48 PM
well Tommie Harris would HAVE to be on the field no matter what... so if we say went with a lineup of

Anderson, Harris, Brown, Ogunleye

that wouldn't be a bad idea on passing situations.

yeah thats what i was thinking. Harris is like a bulkier version of Tuck anyway. He can twist and stunt with the best of them. he has to stay on that field, perhaps only get off for breathers.

Extending Brown was a wise move too. Andersen gets paid peanuts anyway (what a steal btw), and by the time his contract comes around, Brown is gonezo.

bearsfan_51
03-10-2008, 09:55 PM
They'll likely extend Anderson much earlier than that. The Bears are like the Eagles in that regard.

And we sub Tommie rather frequently VLS. Israel Idonije usually plays NT in passing situations, I've seen Brown play UT but he isn't particularly good at it.

awfullyquiet
03-20-2008, 03:40 AM
wow. i read this thread from start to finish.

this has been a ******** season. i think bf called the nfc east 'a joke'.

anyway. i'm a big proponent of the 5-2 for the bears. 3 inside (anderson, dusty, harris), two over the strong side (ogunleye, bazuin), lb's cheat weak. sure, it might require the occasional coverage by an end over the middle or flat... but. speed isn't an issue with the de's. no-sir-ee-bob. this would be a real real real aggressive blitz package. i think it could be effective if you line up briggs over too.

i guess, in my mind, it'd be very suitable for cover-3 too.

neko4
03-21-2008, 03:33 PM
wow. i read this thread from start to finish.

this has been a ******** season. i think bf called the nfc east 'a joke'.

anyway. i'm a big proponent of the 5-2 for the bears. 3 inside (anderson, dusty, harris), two over the strong side (ogunleye, bazuin), lb's cheat weak. sure, it might require the occasional coverage by an end over the middle or flat... but. speed isn't an issue with the de's. no-sir-ee-bob. this would be a real real real aggressive blitz package. i think it could be effective if you line up briggs over too.

i guess, in my mind, it'd be very suitable for cover-3 too.
Maybe Green Bay should go 5-2

/////////////Hawk-Barnett
KGB-Jenkins-Pickett-Jolly-Kampman
rotate Cole and Harrell in, and put Poppinga back at DE where he played in college and have him go in everynow and then


or maybe 4-4

Hawk-Hodge-Barnett-Poppinga
Jenkins-Pickett-Jolly-Kampman

or stick Bigby at Hawk's spot and Hawk at Hodge's spot and Hodge on the bench

PACKmanN
03-22-2008, 02:08 AM
Hawk is an NFL MIKE forced to play WILL because you can't bench Barnett who is a beast in his own right.

Hawk would beast it at MIKE, but what are the Pack supposed to do? You can't bench Barnett.

On top of that, Hodge is rotting on the bench.

Barnett has said he will play both the MIKE and WILL position but not the SAM. That being said, Barnett is the leader of the defense, and every defense leader is the MIKE.

And the other part about us being better, we should, but we rely on Woodson and Harris too much and hardly blitz with the LBers. Maybe it could have been Poppinga poor coverage skills not allowing us to blitz, so we will see now that we signed Chillar.

GB12
03-22-2008, 12:11 PM
Barnett has said he will play both the MIKE and WILL position but not the SAM. That being said, Barnett is the leader of the defense, and every defense leader is the MIKE.
No he hasn't. I dont know where you keep getting this from, but he never said that. He said that he likesplaying MLB and doesn't want to move at all. Now that he got a new contract he might be willing with some convincing, but there's no point in moving him as there are very few MLBs in the league I'd rather have.

someone447
03-22-2008, 03:47 PM
Maybe Green Bay should go 5-2

/////////////Hawk-Barnett
KGB-Jenkins-Pickett-Jolly-Kampman
rotate Cole and Harrell in, and put Poppinga back at DE where he played in college and have him go in everynow and then


You know what that is? That is essentially a 3-4, you just subbed Kampmann for a rush backer.

KGB-Jenkins-Pickett-Kampmann-Poppinga
Hawk-Barnett

bigbluedefense
03-23-2008, 08:59 PM
Barnett has said he will play both the MIKE and WILL position but not the SAM. That being said, Barnett is the leader of the defense, and every defense leader is the MIKE.

And the other part about us being better, we should, but we rely on Woodson and Harris too much and hardly blitz with the LBers. Maybe it could have been Poppinga poor coverage skills not allowing us to blitz, so we will see now that we signed Chillar.

its a great problem to have really. youre essentially 3 deep at MIKE, and have 3 quality MIKEs on the roster. Even Hodge was pretty good when given the chance. Im a big Barnett fan, he's a great player. The problem is not maximizing Hawk's talents, but hey, what can you do.

i think your DC is just way too vanilla. a great defense needs great players and great coaching. you can't totally rely on the players, because sooner or later they won't execute up to par, and you can't totally rely on coaching because players make plays. a great/dominant defense has a good mix of the 2, and with GB, i see great players but poor coaching. he needs to mix it up more. or at least do a better job disguising the plays. its so obvious what your defense is doing.

awfullyquiet
03-23-2008, 10:59 PM
Maybe Green Bay should go 5-2

/////////////Hawk-Barnett
KGB-Jenkins-Pickett-Jolly-Kampman
rotate Cole and Harrell in, and put Poppinga back at DE where he played in college and have him go in everynow and then


or maybe 4-4

Hawk-Hodge-Barnett-Poppinga
Jenkins-Pickett-Jolly-Kampman

or stick Bigby at Hawk's spot and Hawk at Hodge's spot and Hodge on the bench

i really don't think that'd work as nice as you'd think, well, because of the way the packs defense works. it's passive, to the point it requires you to bend but not break, it's a real fantastic front four that allows woodson and harris to wreck havoc. not to say you couldn't run a 4-4 or 5-2, it's just that you don't need to. sure, you do what works though, and what works is that passiveness. keep the play in front of you...

dropping atari down a bit to toy teams would be fantastic sliding him on the outside of hawk. put hawk in coverage, switch zones... really, the team shouldn't be sitting back and playing neutral on aggression, when i think of the packers in all that i've seen (which is a lot. i watch around 60% of packers games only to rip on them at chicago residents who happen to be packers fans. like my younger brother). it's not that the players aren't aggressive, it's just i don't think that there's a need for a full formation change for the packers in order to get 'more pressure' you generate significant pressure with your front four. you just have to blitz hawk more (who two years ago racked up what? 8 sacks? he's certainly capable to shed blockers). throw in some misdirection. a few stunts. corner blitz. zone blitz. it'd be a great day.

neko4
03-24-2008, 02:49 PM
im just day dreaming. I would like to see us blitz more. we do good enough with 4, id really like to see 5 guys

GB12
09-07-2008, 12:36 PM
How 'bout that Lions defense.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
09-07-2008, 05:57 PM
How 'bout that Lions defense.


North can not be considered best defensive division because of the Lions. That performance today has to be the worst case of a team not being able to tackle in the history of the universe. A team full of blind grandma midgets with no legs and arthritis and alzheimers could have tackled better. Heck get Millen to actually play and we'd do better. Redding and Darby were invisible, and Lenon is just a terrible terrible Mike and he's been our starter for 3 years. How can Millen not judge linebackers. He's a former good LB in the NFL. I've never lost hope on a team in Week 1 but I think after that performance I just might have too. Hope they win but know they won't. And if Millen isn't fired, and I mean fired out of a cannon into the sun, then thats just not fair.

umphrey
09-08-2008, 11:21 AM
I'm not sure why the legion of Lions fans haven't burned down Millen's house carrying pitch forks and torches yet, while the Lions fans on the police force twiddle their thumbs and look at the sky.

Sportsfan486
09-10-2008, 08:08 PM
I'm not sure why the legion of Lions fans haven't burned down Millen's house carrying pitch forks and torches yet, while the Lions fans on the police force twiddle their thumbs and look at the sky.

I think it's because all of the Lions fans on the police force owned guns and thusly have shot themselves by now.

bearsfan_51
10-11-2008, 03:22 PM
Come back Tactica. I miss you. :(