Do you remember last season, when folks were touting Ryan Grant as one of the greatest running backs in the league? As long as you only counted statistics from Week Eight on, Grant was second only to the great LaDanlian Tomlinson in terms of rushing production. We heard that a lot as we entered the playoffs last year, about how strong Grant was the second half of the season.
Now we had to do that, because Grant only had 27 total yard in his first six games combined. But, when you looked at the shorter timeframe, it made him seem comparable,e with LT.
So, here we are in 2008, and as long as you only count the statistics from Week Twelve on, the Packers have the exact same record as the Detroit Lions....0-5. So, for the last month-plus, the Packers are just as bad as potentially the worst team in the history of the NFL.
Now, reality: the Packers aren't as bad as the Lions. The Packers have been in every single game they've played in this season (except the Saints game), while the Lions have been repeatedly on the wrong end of double-digit losses.
This is the problem when you manipulate statistics, though, and only look at small snapshots or time frames. Is Ryan Grant really a peer of LaDanlian Tomlinson because he had similar stats for half a season? Of course not, and it is pretty clear that Grant isn't the best back in the league this year (of course, neither is Tomlinson, but he's had eight years of wear and tear on his body, not one).
Similarly, as the Packers go in to face the decrepit Lions next week, neither are the Packers as bad as they are, despite that they are both 0-5 in their last five games.
But, let's not lose the impact of reality: the Packers should not lose this game. The Lions are the far inferior team. And trust me, there will be plenty of people noting that the Packers finished the season 0-6 and the Lions 1-0 if the Packers lose.
Funny how stats work, isn't it?