ChicagoViking wrote:
Statistics? WTF are you talking about? While neither team was stellar, the Vikings beat the Packers in nearly every possible defensive statistical category last season. According to NFL.com, the Pack did not have a top 5 secondary and did not have a rushing D that led the league in YPG.
Here are some key defensive stats for the 2015 regular season from NFL.com:
Pts per game allowed:
Vikings - 18.9 (5th)
Packers - 20.2 (12th)
Yds per game allowed:
Vikings - 344.2 (13)
Packers - 346.7 (15)
Yds per play allowed:
Vikings - 5.4 (14)
Packers - 5.5 (17)
Rushing yds per play allowed:
Vikings - 4.3 (21)
Packers - 4.5 (26)
Rushing yds per game allowed:
Vikings - 109.2 (17)
Packers - 119.1 (21)
What am I missing?
Raptor had pointed out the rushing ypg, I had been looking at 'Postseason" rushing ypg when I said that, my mistake, as I said, Raptorman pointed that out a page or two back.
The secondary spent most of the year in the top 3 before the AZ game without Shields and Randall knocked them out of the top 5, still, I was just a ranking off, I thought they finished 5th not 6th.
Idk what your point is, those stats for the most part support what I was saying, I wasnt stating the Packers D to be better then the Vikes, simply that the Vikes D clearly wasnt on such an exaggerately different level than some have tryed to insinuate (Again, the statistics that added seem to be imply this), the Packers were actually ranked higher then the Vikes up until sometime around week 6-8 if I recall correctly. (Which I only state because you seem to misunderstand my comment in the quote you quoted)
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011