Mr. Scot

Like you told me you were doing...hours ago? I'll give you the best thing I ever heard about stats: Stats can only tell you what happened. They can't tell you why. You need genuine football knowledge for that, and if you don't have it then all the stats in the world aren't going to help you. Wish I could remember who said it, but I remember hearing it very well. And over fifty years of watching, studying and occasionally coaching the game, I've found that to be exceedingly true. I know everybody these days wants to put everything down on a spreadsheet and think that means they understand football. Me? Although I personally like spreadsheets, it doesn't. No more than Madden ratings predict real performance.

And here I thought you'd already proved your point with "overwhelming data" The difference between us is that I don't need to look back at stats to know what I saw. I understood it the first time. And one of the things I understand is that people who have bought into the narrative that the offense was the only bad unit last year are deluding themselves. Our offense was bad, but the best compliment I can give to the defense was "less bad". And no, that doesn't equal "good". The vast majority of that falls on Phil Snow who employed college style schemes against pro offenses and OCs who figured out how to beat him easily while he never came up with any sort of counter. Can they be better this year? If Snow is still the sole DC, I wouldn't bet on it. The overall talent isn't significantly improved with the possible exception of a healthy Jaycee Horn. So unless guys like Wilks or someone can help Phil Snow defend against a pro level attack, I don't see any reason for high expectations.

Well, let's just say I find it preferable to "I didn't watch (or understand) the games, but I looked up stats so I know stuff"

That's the thing... ...I don't. I already knew the defense was bad, and so do many, many others. But the people trying to say the defense is good? What do they cite? Stats. Well...except the ones about wins, losses and scoring (i.e. the only ones that matter).

Overwhelming data...yeah, sure To be clear, wins and losses are the one stat I do care about, because that's the only one that matters. But I'd add this: If you need to resort to some kind of out there, specifically chosen stat in order to prove that someone is good... ...they're not.

This is why I don't care about stats. If you put enough qualifiers on anything, you can make it say what you want. I go by the games I watch, which (Lord help me) is all of them, and those games tell me the offense was terrible, but the defense was also nothing special. it doesn't matter how many stats and qualifiers you throw out. They weren't good enough.

Pretty much. Even the people who haven't thrown that out recently (likely because it actually has been shown to be ridiculous) still like to talk as if the defense last season was something special. "Average at best" is a pretty good description, though I'm not even sure I'd give them that much credit. People really need to learn to stop depending so much on stats and rankings. They don't mean jack.

Ah yes, the old "declare victory and act like you've proven your point when you actually haven't even come close" tactic, a message board favorite Quick tip: Might help if you learn the difference between "first quarter" and "early on" (they're not synonymous).

Burns reminds me a lot of Javon Kearse. Kearse was a dominant pass rusher early on, but only weighed about 240. Over time, he became less effective as teams realized they could run on him. I recall his overall career being relatively short.

These days, I understand the impact of health scares way better than I used to. (for both good reasons and bad)

Garoppolo's salary demands are affected about as much by this as mine are.

Statement from Metchie himself...

It makes sense. I'd add I've seen more than one Bears analyst say the same or similar about Justin fields

I don't plan to change But the two reasons I made the challenge are 1) You're trying to use a single example to ignore the larger picture, thus when asked to expand your focus the "cop out" is on your part because you know once you look at other games, the argument is going to fall flat. And 2) I'm currently following Lady Cowboy Fan around Sam's Club, so not in a position to do anything in-depth, but maybe later Of course, that depends on your answer

Hate to see stories like this...

I'll actually turn the challenge back your way. As mentioned, the Giants are just one example. If your argument that the defense was actually good is true, you should be able to show multiple examples of why it wasn't their fault they gave up nearly 300 points to both bad and good teams over the last 12 games or so. If you can accomplish that, then I'll review the Giants game as you wish. Up for the challenge?

That the Giants are one of several I could have chosen shows how much you're reaching to try to defend this argument.

No problem at all, if the defense was actually good. It wasn't...at all. As others have said, good players, lousy coaching. Snow's schemes got figured out about three games in after he'd feasted on some lousy offenses. From that point on, even sh-t offenses like the Giants could put up big points on us.

Panthers allowed almost 30 points a game to some of the worst teams in the league. "Man, what a dominant defense"

As well thought out a response as I'd expect from you. Let me know the next time people are up for celebrating a 5-12 season because "Hey, we had damn good stats!"

Stats and rankings don't mean sh-t when you're losing games. And yes, poor offense is a factor (never denied that) but using that to say the defense was good is just invalid. The defense sucked from early on in the game, way too soon to blame fatigue. As mentioned, if you can't consistently get through one half of football or come back from halftime looking at least somewhat effective, you've got no claim to being a good defense no matter how bad the offense is. Hell, the Ravens Super Bowl team got through an entire year, playoffs and a championship game despite an offense that was barely functional. That's a unit that can claim to be great. Ours can't even credibly claim to be good.

And gave up a ridiculous amount of points to some of those terrible teams. But hey, #2 defense, right?

No, it wasn't built to stop the run...which is why teams ran at us. And our DC had no schematic adjustments or other responses to fix the issue.

Don't think so...

What takes "mental gymnastics" is suggesting that the defense was actually good. And no, it isn't all because of the offense. Yes, they were terrible and put us in bad situations, but the defense got run over even when they didn't. The "tired" excuse doesn't work either, not when your defense is getting their ass kicked from early on in the game. Even with a bad offense, your defense should be able to last through at least the first half and come back refreshed after halftime. We didn't. As has been said, we had good (in some cases very good) personnel, but lousy coaching, planning and scheming with nearly non-existent adjustments. Unless someone like Wilks steps in and helps, I don't see much reason to expect improvement.