2015 Packers notes

  • Thread starter Deleted member 6794
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
The Seattle debacle sticks in most of our minds as to last year's special teams' performance, and this play indicates it may have been coaching as much as individual mistakes:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rgeted-packers-brad-jones-on-fake-field-goal/
This revelation has been hashed over at length in the past, but I'll give it an "informative" because, as you suggest, the flaw may have been in the scheme, not in the player, which seems to have gotten lost in the Jones scapegoating.

The operative word is "tendency". Jones may have been performing his given assignment in the Seattle game as he had in the past.

This play is more plausibly a coaching issue, one of many black marks on the record of the recently departed special team coach. What was his name again? ;) Jones' release is more plausibly a matter of him not playing to his contract as a linebacker, and the dead cap reaching a point where his release was tolerable. I'm inclined to believe his fate was sealed long before the NFCC game.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Few penalties, some very good punt returns and three recovered onside kicks. How can this be? I've been hearing that our ST sucked horribly.

Just curious. How many onside kicks were unsuccessful?

The Packers recovered all onside kicks by other teams during the regular season but none of their own four attempts.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
The Packers returned 47.56% of the kickoffs last season, ranking 19th in the league.




I guess kickoff return TDs aren't included in the data. Three of the five teams which scored one are ranked behind the Packers.



As far as I can tell there was only a single penalty during any of the Packers' kickoff returns and that one was an offensive holding penalty against Brandon Bostick.



The Packers recovered three onside kicks during the 2014 season, tied for second most in the league.



It would take way too long to figure that one out but it's possible it factors in quite a bit.
It's looking like the disconnect between the Packers KO return average and average starting field position might be a collection of small, distorting factors.

KO TDs counting for nothing, even if there were only 6 of them, is one small distortion. It stands to reason those should count as a starting position at the opponents zero yard line. Even if such a thing does not exist, a program could be made to think it does even if a canned query tool cannot. That's not a criticism; we use the tools we have available to us.

On-side kicks are an interesting case. Each one recovered adds a zero yard return, or something close to it, deflating the KO return average, while those plays yield decent field position.

Somebody needs to do a study of KO returner performance that accounts for player judgement. A KO returner's average isn't very relevant if he's padding his numbers with bad returns, such as taking the ball 8 yards deep and running it back to the 19 for a 27 yard return. It seems to me a returner should be judged on the average field position he yields, not the misleading return average. Maybe PFF has something in the archive?

At the extreme the Jets returned 58 KOs, twice as many as the Packers. That disparity is not accounted for by the Jets surrendering 49 more points than the Packers. It would appear the Jets are return happy, running everything out of the end zone. I'd be interested to see how they rank in starting field position. With all those returns and a not very impressive return average, it would stand to reason their starting field position would not be that great.

One thing you might do is compare each team's KO return average ranking to their average starting field position ranking. We know what perfect correlation looks like. Crudely put, 100% uncorrelated (random) would mean the average spread between the two rankings would be 16.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Somebody needs to do a study of KO returner performance that accounts for player judgement. A KO returner's average isn't very relevant if he's padding his numbers with bad returns, such as taking the ball 8 yards deep and running it back to the 19 for a 27 yard return. It seems to me a returner should be judged on the average field position he yields, not the misleading return average. Maybe PFF has something in the archive?

PFF only offers an overall grade for kick returners in which Harris was ranked 21st out of the 46 players that had 10 or more returns in 2014.

At the extreme the Jets returned 58 KOs, twice as many as the Packers. That disparity is not accounted for by the Jets surrendering 49 more points than the Packers. It would appear the Jets are return happy, running everything out of the end zone. I'd be interested to see how they rank in starting field position. With all those returns and a not very impressive return average, it would stand to reason their starting field position would not be that great.

The Jets ranked fourth in LOS after a kickoff last season.

One thing you might do is compare each team's KO return average ranking to their average starting field position ranking. We know what perfect correlation looks like. Crudely put, 100% uncorrelated (random) would mean the average spread between the two rankings would be 16.

I don't have the time to do it for all 32 teams right now but here's how the top 3 in kickoff return average finished in LOS after kickoff:

Baltimore 9th, Kansas City 3rd and Indianapolis 7th. The Bengals finished in first after ranking fourth in kickoff return average.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
PFF only offers an overall grade for kick returners in which Harris was ranked 21st out of the 46 players that had 10 or more returns in 2014.

The Jets ranked fourth in LOS after a kickoff last season.

I don't have the time to do it for all 32 teams right now but here's how the top 3 in kickoff return average finished in LOS after kickoff:

Baltimore 9th, Kansas City 3rd and Indianapolis 7th. The Bengals finished in first after ranking fourth in kickoff return average.
So the Jets and Packers are uncorrelated, Baltimore and Indy are loosely correlated and KC closely correlated. That's less correlation than I would have expected before seeing the Packer data.

I do note that the Jets may have been the beneficiaries of an above average number of on-side and pooch kicks (bad for return average, good for starting LOS):

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/stats/_/name/nyj

It looks like there's 6, maybe more, in the data...I don't think Jace Amaro would have been back deep.

I still think the non-correlation results from a collection of small considerations, some noted earlier, that add up to considerable noise.

As for PFF, I'd view with a high degree of skepticism any rating without transparency of method.

The project of rating KO returners to reflect judgement would be pretty simple, with just a little subjectivity involved, if the data were available. Take every kick a player has the opportunity to return, whether they down it or run it. (There's a little subjectivity in "opportunity", but not a lot). Then divide that total by the total starting LOS, awarding 20 yards for a touchback of course. I'd still want to include TD returns using the opponent's theoretical zero yard line as starting LOS. After that, a rating deduction should be made for lost fumbles...at least 40 yards off the LOS total for change of possession.

Of course this would require reviewing every player on every play to get at "opportunities", something PFF purports to do anyway. Maybe they're ranking is something like what I propose? Who knows.
 
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I do note that the Jets may have been the beneficiaries of an above average number of on-side and pooch kicks (bad for return average, good for starting LOS):

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/stats/_/name/nyj

It looks like there's 6, maybe more, in the data...I don't think Jace Amaro would have been back deep.

The Jets recovered three onside kicks like the Packers as well. I don't have any information about the number of pooch kicks they faced but the one Amaro returned for 21 yards was a short one by the Chiefs' Cairo Santos to keep the ball away from Harvin.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
The Jets recovered three onside kicks like the Packers as well. I don't have any information about the number of pooch kicks they faced but the one Amaro returned for 21 yards was a short one by the Chiefs' Cairo Santos to keep the ball away from Harvin.
This one play might be telling. There could be quite a few pooches in that data for that very reason.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Here's an update on Jason Wilde's most important Packers:
#20: Montgomery
#19: Randall & Rollins
#18: Adams
#17: Jones
#16: Hyde
#15: Perry & Neal

Here's the disclosure: " The Most Important Packers of 2015 list is not a list of the best players on the team’s roster. Rather, the primary factors are the individual player’s talent, the inherent importance of the position he plays and the team’s depth at the position. Think of it as a list of the players the team can least afford to lose if it wants to return to the Super Bowl. The list was formulated through offseason conversations with players and coaches, as well as statistical reviews and player evaluations by ProFootballFocus.com and others."

Link to #15: http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=40&post_id=53581
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Here's an update on Jason Wilde's most important Packers:
#20: Montgomery
#19: Randall & Rollins
#18: Adams
#17: Jones
#16: Hyde
#15: Perry & Neal

Here's the disclosure: " The Most Important Packers of 2015 list is not a list of the best players on the team’s roster. Rather, the primary factors are the individual player’s talent, the inherent importance of the position he plays and the team’s depth at the position. Think of it as a list of the players the team can least afford to lose if it wants to return to the Super Bowl. The list was formulated through offseason conversations with players and coaches, as well as statistical reviews and player evaluations by ProFootballFocus.com and others."

Link to #15: http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=40&post_id=53581
At this rate, it will be 27 players.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Two more for Wilde's list:
#20: Montgomery
#19: Randall & Rollins
#18: Adams
#17: Jones
#16: Hyde
#15: Perry & Neal
#14: Casey Hayward
#13: Ha Ha Clinton Dix

HHCD's quote about the 2-point conversion is in his write up - for any Packers fan who hasn't already read it and shaken your head about it. Wilde does remind us that one play shouldn't overshadow the progress he made last season. Whitt's confident quote about Hayward's ability to play outside is in his write up and Wilde notes again he played outside for 6 games as a rookie when Shields was out with an injury. Assuming Whitt is correct about Hayward's ability to play outside: "If there is a concern about Hayward, though, it is durability". http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=40&post_id=53601
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Two more for Wilde's list:
#20: Montgomery
#19: Randall & Rollins
#18: Adams
#17: Jones
#16: Hyde
#15: Perry & Neal
#14: Casey Hayward
#13: Ha Ha Clinton Dix

A couple of thoughts:

Wilde doesn't say Perry & Neal; he says Perry/Neal. Hair splitting perhaps, but it goes to the point they are not both important per se; it is important that one or the other play well, or that in combination the team gets 800 decent OLB snaps out of them. (Wilde's snap counts include special teams and Neal's D-line work). If, for example, Neal secures the #3 spot as he did last season, taking most of the snaps when Matthews in the middle, there really isn't an argument for Perry as important as the #4 OLB who's primary value is giving the other 3 guys a blow. It's "/" and not "&" because Wilde can't decide which will win the job, or if they'll split time. I don't blame him.

Randall/Rollins I find to be an odd choice. In this context, these guys are the #6 and #7 DBs (or #7 and #8 relative to a 3-high alignment with Richardson), in light of Wilde's Hayward testimonial. Assuming Hayward gets the job done, these guys are not important at all in 2015 given the quality of the front 5 DBs. They will likely be very important in subsequent seasons.

The one sense in which they are important this year, being top picks, is that they show sufficient potential in what looks like will be limited play. In other words, it's important they do not look like busts.

To the extent that doubts persist with Hayward, it would seem to the entry should be:

Hayward/Randall/Rollins
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Randall/Rollins I find to be an odd choice. In this context, these guys are the #6 and #7 DBs (or #7 and #8 relative to a 3-high alignment with Richardson), in light of Wilde's Hayward testimonial. Assuming Hayward gets the job done, these guys are not important at all in 2015 given the quality of the front 5 DBs. They will likely be very important in subsequent seasons.

The one sense in which they are important this year, being top picks, is that they show sufficient potential in what looks like will be limited play. In other words, it's important they do not look like busts.

To the extent that doubts persist with Hayward, it would seem to the entry should be:

Hayward/Randall/Rollins

Both Randall and Rollins will compete for starting jobs (with the nickel corner being more or less a starter in the Packers scheme), so it's possible one of them could become important pretty soon. In addition I don't expect Shields, Hayward and Hyde to stay healthy for every single game, so at least one of the rookies will get meaningful playing time.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Both Randall and Rollins will compete for starting jobs (with the nickel corner being more or less a starter in the Packers scheme), so it's possible one of them could become important pretty soon. In addition I don't expect Shields, Hayward and Hyde to stay healthy for every single game, so at least one of the rookies will get meaningful playing time.
How competitive it will be remains to seen. If you prefer, Hayward/Randall and Hyde/Rollins might make more sense. As for the rookies' importance as backups, what's the chance Barclay makes this list as the backup at 4 spots?

In an case, how important can it be that a rookie slot corner beat out a proven, competent one already on the roster? It shouldn't be a top 20 consideration in my book.

He's got 4 slots and 5 DBs out of supposedly 23 players on the list already, and he's not gotten to Burnett or Shields yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
How competitive it will be remains to seen. If you prefer, Hayward/Randall and Hyde/Rollins might make more sense. As for the rookies' importance as backups, what's the chance Barclay makes this list as the backup at 4 spots?

In an case, how important can it be that a rookie slot corner beat out a proven, competent one already on the roster? It shouldn't be a top 20 consideration in my book.

He's got 4 slots and 5 DBs out of supposedly 23 players on the list already, and he's not gotten to Burnett or Shields yet.

To be honest, I don't care a lot about the accuracy of Wilde's list. I just thought it would be interesting to share some of his thoughts as there isn't a lot to talk about this time of the year.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Two (or three) more:
#20: Montgomery
#19: Randall & Rollins
#18: Adams
#17: Jones
#16: Hyde
#15: Perry & Neal
#14: Casey Hayward
#13: Ha Ha Clinton Dix
#12 Burnett
#11 Raji/Guion

In the Burnett write up Wilde quotes what McCarthy said about Burnett after the 2013 season. While it’s a bad sign for your HC to feel the need to say, “I don’t think we’re far. You know, I don’t think it’s, ‘Oh my god, he’s a bust.’ It’s nothing like that.” McCarthy said of the three components of Burnett’s 2013 (bad) season he had a good year as the QB of the D, he was productive with over 100 tackles, but wasn’t a playmaker. McCarthy: “Is he a product of what’s been going on back there? Cautious? [Unsure] whether to run through the ballcarrier/receiver, or make a break on the ball?” (Yes coach, he was a product of what went on back there.)

On Raji/Guion he reminds us how often Capers has emphasized how important the run D is to setting up his pressure D. Then Wilde writes, “If both of them play well, the Packers defense could be one of the better units against the run of Capers’ tenure”. That obviously would be great but I'd still really like to see Boyd, Thornton, or Pennel took a big step forward.
Link to #12: http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=40&post_id=53721
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Packers made a profit of $39.4 million in the last fiscal year. Total revenue reached a record $375.7 million, total expenses at an all-time high of $336.3 million.

In addition the Packers will renovate the luxury suites and club seats over the next two years.

http://www.packersnews.com/story/mo...ord-setting-financial-run-continues/30429525/
A notable item: Player costs were down 12.3% year-over-year in 2014. This is chiefly because the $55 mil in signing bonuses for Rodgers and Matthews were paid in 2013.

The decline in the reserve fund indicates negative free cash flow while earnings are positive, which suggests capital expenses that are not booked against operating earnings accounting for some meaningful portion of the difference. That would include things like real estate purchases and development.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vince

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
78
Reaction score
8
A notable item: Player costs were down 12.3% year-over-year in 2014. This is chiefly because the $55 mil in signing bonuses for Rodgers and Matthews were paid in 2013.

The decline in the reserve fund indicates negative free cash flow while earnings are positive, which suggests capital expenses that are not booked against operating earnings accounting for some meaningful portion of the difference. That would include things like real estate purchases and development.
What an amazing run of financial success, and they're just getting started taking it up yet another notch with Titletown.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,678
Reaction score
1,964
A notable item: Player costs were down 12.3% year-over-year in 2014. This is chiefly because the $55 mil in signing bonuses for Rodgers and Matthews were paid in 2013.

The decline in the reserve fund indicates negative free cash flow while earnings are positive, which suggests capital expenses that are not booked against operating earnings accounting for some meaningful portion of the difference. That would include things like real estate purchases and development.
Player costs: will likely be somewhat similar in 2015, maybe a little higher to reflect the increase in the salary cap. Mgmt does an amazing job of keeping signing bonuses relatively low in comparison to most teams. Our free agent signees and contract extensions tend to be in the 20-30% bonus range.

Reserve Fund: the physical footprint of the Packer Empire continues to grow. Maybe they're trying to turn this place into a vacation destination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

No members online now.
Top