Barnwell at ESPN defends Pack draft BUT says we take a step back

garyhogeboomsghost

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
35
Reaction score
1
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...es-draft-quarterbacks-jordan-love-jalen-hurts

^^Barnwell defends the Love selection against all of the critics who have been lambasting us. Full article above. He does, however, say that we are one of the prime candidates to take a significant step back from our record last season. He predicts no better than 9-7 or 10-6 for the Pack this year. Here is a fair use snippet of what he had to say:

Green Bay is not one receiver away from winning a Super Bowl.

I know it's tempting for Packers fans to look at what happened in 2019 and think they're a break or two away from a title. The Packers went 13-3 in coach Matt LaFleur's first season with the team and made it to the NFC Championship Game. They have every right to expect to be in the mix again this season, given that they'll return just about every key player from last year's team. We all know that Rodgers is capable of just about anything if the Packers get into the playoffs.

All of those facts about 2019 are true, but upon closer inspection, it's tough to expect Green Bay to win with the same formula in 2020. I write about this every year over the summer when I look at the teams that are most likely to improve or decline, and I'll get to that as we get closer to the NFL season, but this team is arguably the league's most likely to decline next season.

Start with that 13-3 record. The Packers outscored their opponents by a total of 63 points. We can use their Pythagorean expectation to estimate that a team with that sort of point differential typically wins about 9.7 games, and we can use history to find that the vast majority of teams with that sort of difference between their actual win total and expected win total almost always decline. By that measure alone, we would expect the Packers to drop off to about 9-7 or 10-6 in 2020.

They outperformed their point differential and DVOA because they went 6-1 in games decided by seven points or fewer and had two additional wins by eight points. History tells us that teams which win that % of one score games in one season always regress toward the mean in one score games the next season. In other words, it is irrational to believe that the Packers will once again win just about every single close football game they play in 2020, as they did in 2019.
 

Pintsizedbox9

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
410
Reaction score
14
I think that’s obviously fair. Pretty much everybody and their brother knew our win/loss wasn’t truly indicative of the team. But you can’t fault a team for winning close games.

If the 2nd/3rd year guys take that leap maybe they’ll look great and win 12 games. If they don’t, maybe we’re looking at a .500ish squad. 10 wins seem like the safe bet
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
167
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...es-draft-quarterbacks-jordan-love-jalen-hurts

^^Barnwell defends the Love selection against all of the critics who have been lambasting us. Full article above. He does, however, say that we are one of the prime candidates to take a significant step back from our record last season. He predicts no better than 9-7 or 10-6 for the Pack this year. Here is a fair use snippet of what he had to say:

Green Bay is not one receiver away from winning a Super Bowl.

I know it's tempting for Packers fans to look at what happened in 2019 and think they're a break or two away from a title. The Packers went 13-3 in coach Matt LaFleur's first season with the team and made it to the NFC Championship Game. They have every right to expect to be in the mix again this season, given that they'll return just about every key player from last year's team. We all know that Rodgers is capable of just about anything if the Packers get into the playoffs.

All of those facts about 2019 are true, but upon closer inspection, it's tough to expect Green Bay to win with the same formula in 2020. I write about this every year over the summer when I look at the teams that are most likely to improve or decline, and I'll get to that as we get closer to the NFL season, but this team is arguably the league's most likely to decline next season.

Start with that 13-3 record. The Packers outscored their opponents by a total of 63 points. We can use their Pythagorean expectation to estimate that a team with that sort of point differential typically wins about 9.7 games, and we can use history to find that the vast majority of teams with that sort of difference between their actual win total and expected win total almost always decline. By that measure alone, we would expect the Packers to drop off to about 9-7 or 10-6 in 2020.

They outperformed their point differential and DVOA because they went 6-1 in games decided by seven points or fewer and had two additional wins by eight points. History tells us that teams which win that % of one score games in one season always regress toward the mean in one score games the next season. In other words, it is irrational to believe that the Packers will once again win just about every single close football game they play in 2020, as they did in 2019.
Well, it’s hard to argue with this. GB didn’t add any impact players in the offseason (FA and the draft), and took a step backward certainly at RT and maybe at ILB, and ILB wasn’t very good to begin with (or rather, “average”).

I get why Gluten didn’t do much in FA. Looking to 2021, he’ll need to retain Clark and Bak and both will be expensive. The draft just has me scratching my head. Maybe it’s an overstatement to say they were one game away from the SB, but it’s the truth. Personally, I wish Gluten had waited a year or two to address QB. That’s a pure trade-off decision that he has the right to make.

I wanted him to take Queen at ILB and add depth on the DL. He did neither of those things so he and MLF seem to be thinking they can address problems with the run game and WR with the talent they have. They get paid well to make these decisions, and we’ll all hold them accountable for the results.

I hope Gluten and MLF are right and the rest of us (well, most of us) are wrong. I’d love for Adams and Lazard (or any other WR) to each have 1,000 yard plus years, and for a TE to emerge as a real threat on offense. It seems to be a leap of faith though, rather than an exercise in logic.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top