These are the last five games GB played. The games 'down the stretch', where they were jockeying for playoff position. You would think these would be the games where the defense would RISE UP!!!

Well, the orange column is the sack totals. You can see the 7 vs. Seattle - Seattle was one of the worst teams in the league last year, allowing 54 sacks. But great - they did what you're supposed to do. New Orleans, that game was pretty much over at halftime, or they probably would have had even more there as well.

But look at the other 3 games.

1 vs. Detroit. OK, Detroit was really good at not giving up sacks. Fine.

But 1 vs. MN. And if you were to look back, you'd see that they only allowed 2 in the other game vs. MN. That's 3 total sacks in 2 games. MN allowed an average of just under 3 sacks per game. So that's... not ideal.

And finishing off with Chicago, at home. This was a team that allowed a total of 68 sacks. No, that's not a typo. 68 sacks. 4 sacks per game. And GB only managed one against them. Looking back to the other Chicago game, GB got 3 sacks that day. So that's 4 total in two games. Again, Chicago averaged allowing 4 per game...

So yes, I can see some inconsistency when a team gets 8 sacks against TEN, 7 against Seattle, and a couple other really good totals, but then, in 4 games vs. Chicago and Min, it takes two games to get each of those teams' season average per-game...

I would also mention that if you look beyond sack numbers (which were overall very good), the team was tied for 12th in hurry percentage, tied for 21st in knockdown percentage, and 16th in overall pressure percentage. LINK These aren't the numbers you'd expect for a team with the 8th most sacks. What is says to me is either they got home, or they often didn't get close.

All this is not to say "THE PASS RUSH SUCKS!! GET RID OF EVERYONE!!" But it is to say, yes, there was some inconsistency, and yes, there is room for improvement. And while I was definitely on the Derrick Harmon bandwagon (and I will go to my grave wondering if they'd have taken him if he'd been there), but personally, I think they have some guys on the roster to make that improvement. I'm looking at Karl Brooks and Brenton Cox - two guys who just seemed to get better and better as the year went on. I think those two could/should see some increased playing time next year. Add in anything they get from Oliver as a KGB-lite type player, and they might just bring some of those other pressure numbers more in line with an 8th overall sack total...

But you're right about one thing: your what-aboutism with Philadelphia. It's a valid point: their pass rush overall during the regular season lagged behind GB in every category. Frankly, they SHOULD be getting those questions too. But I can answer that question with one number.

6

That is the number of times Philadelphia sacked Patrick Mahomes in the Super Bowl.

Do you know how many previous games in his career Patrick Mahomes had been sacked six times?

The answer is zero.

So I think it's a case of recency bias. What people remember about GB is yet another playoff loss. It wasn't a terrible game; certainly not by the defense anyway. But it was just another ho-hum playoff exit. But they also remember two games in a row of 1 sack against two of the worst pass-protecting teams in the league.

What people remember about Philadelphia's pass rush is the first time Patrick Mahomes was ever sacked six times in a single game. And oh, by the way, it happened in the Super Bowl. A whole lot of inconsistency goes ignored when you go to the Super Bowl and you play a defensive game like that.

I suspect that if Philadelphia hadn't won that game - and in particular, if their pass rush had played just up to their normal stats, #1, they would have lost, and #2, all the talk in Philadelphia would have been: "gotta fix the pass rush... it cost us the Super Bowl". It's true in all sports - winning cures all.