Mike McCarthy: Programs win championships

[eyecatcher]

I certainly am no fan of the Packer D, 2010 excepted, of course. And, certainly, just using numbers doesn't account for how the game might have been played differently. However, that's something we'll never know, and if I've got this right, the playoff losses in question were:

2009 - 45/51 - obviously a win with any kind of D
2011 - 20/37 - still a loss if they give up 23
2012 - 31/45 - another with with a decent D
2013 - 20/23 - a loss despite hitting the Pats number on the head
2014 - 22/28 - holding them to 23 is still a loss (although being an OT game makes it confusing)
2015 - 20/26 - holding them to 23 is still a loss (although being an OT game makes it confusing)
2016 - 21/44 - still a loss if they give up 23

Thus, that's seven playoff losses, only two of which would have otherwise been wins

While true that some of those games would be losses even if they gave up only 23 points, you really can't come to that conclusion because a better D puts the ball in your offenses hands for more time. A team scoring 40+ points typically has the ball longer than a team scoring 23.

 

[Half Empty]

The post to which I replied was "Our defense in the playoffs have given up an average of 41 points per game since AR has been starting QB which is also basically having MM as coach. The Patriots have given up 23 points per game on average in the playoffs on defense since BB arrived. The Patriots have 5 titles and we have 1. I think that tells it all right there." I was attempting to temper the contention that 41/23 is the reason for 5/1. I thought I took TW and Eyecatcher into consideration when I said "And, certainly, just using numbers doesn't account for how the game might have been played differently. However, that's something we'll never know".


If someone had just said that having a better defense would have resulted in more SB wins, there wouldn't be anything to address. If one is going to use numbers...

 

[eyecatcher]

I thought I took TW and Eyecatcher into consideration when I said "And, certainly, just using numbers doesn't account for how the game might have been played differently. However, that's something we'll never know".

And I wasn't trying to argue with you. Just chiming in on the conversation. You made good points.

 

[Half Empty]

Oops. Must be getting sensitive in my old age. This is the second time I've climbed on someone for agreeing with me. Just came across differently. Sorry.

 

[eyecatcher]

Oops. Must be getting sensitive in my old age. This is the second time I've climbed on someone for agreeing with me. Just came across differently. Sorry.

Not a problem. I did quote you and contradict some of what you said. We will always see things a little differently since I see them half full.

 

[Budman]

Oops. Must be getting sensitive in my old age. This is the second time I've climbed on someone for agreeing with me. Just came across differently. Sorry.

Don't sweat it. We've become accustomed to it from you