Defense being tired

[longtimefan]

I and some others have had discussions on defenses getting tired when the offense doesnt have long drives.

Watching Rodgers pc right now, he stated

They were gased-when they have a multiple play drive, then we went 3 and outs, WE didnt give them a whole lot of a break, it shifts into the offenses favor. They were gased.

I said this during the Frisco playoff loss in Frisco a few years ago.. I made comments that if the offense doest have long drives it wears on the defense. Others IIRC thought the def still should be up to the task even if they are tired. I will look for the thread in question

We now have Rodgers stating exactly my point..

Def does need time to recover specially when the heat is bad.

 

[Firethorn1001]

No defense is immune to that. Jax D was gassed after our long drive, but unfortunately our D didn't get them off the field to take advantage of that.

 

[PackerDNA]

I figured on the heat/humidity being a big factor against our guys, but overall they held up well.

 

[Half Empty]

I and some others have had discussions on defenses getting tired when the offense doesnt have long drives.

Watching Rodgers pc right now, he stated

They were gased-when they have a multiple play drive, then we went 3 and outs, WE didnt give them a whole lot of a break, it shifts into the offenses favor. They were gased.

I said this during the Frisco playoff loss in Frisco a few years ago.. I made comments that if the offense doest have long drives it wears on the defense. Others IIRC thought the def still should be up to the task even if they are tired. I will look for the thread in question

We now have Rodgers stating exactly my point..

Def does need time to recover specially when the heat is bad.

Please do. It just flies in the face of logic to contend that a defense that plays more than the other guys isn't going to be less physical and efficient.

 

[Mondio]

It's what I've said about this team for years now. We have a great offense, but it's not a nice one to play defense for at times. This defense is built to play with the lead, when we have it, I think they have the capability to be smothering. BUT, a lot of times, not necessarily yesterday, but in the past, we had 5-7 play drives. They ended in a TD, but it's still only 5-7 plays. That's great, but when you have a couple 3 and outs tossed in, then a big play drive again that is less than 10 plays, the score looks nice, but it takes a toll on the defense.

specifically yesterday, we were pinned deep and needed to get at least 1 first down and couldn't gain anything and promptly punted. I saw some good things yesterday, I saw some things I didn't like and saw quite a bit that will get better as they play more games.

 

[Rodgers in the House]

It was over 100 on the field. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[longtimefan]

I

specifically yesterday, we were pinned deep and needed to get at least 1 first down and couldn't gain anything and promptly punted. I saw some good things yesterday, I saw some things I didn't like and saw quite a bit that will get better as they play more games.

Exactly!

The same can be said for the Seattle disaster as well..

 

[Mondio]

Exactly!

The same can be said for the Seattle disaster as well..

It's like that in most games we've played. I've been saying it for a while, boom or bust. When we score , we score quick, when we don't , we punt quick.

We have a good offense, and again this isn't specific to yesterday, just a general trend. I have more confidence in us having to convert a 3rd and 10 than us grinding out 1st downs with 3 good solid plus in a row.

At the end of the day our averages and points and everything look good, but man, lining up and knowing you can run 3 plays and get a first down for a series or two to get out of a tough position would be great. But when we do that, we take away our Opportunity to hit on those bigger plays we're pretty good at hitting too. So which is best? Whatever works

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers offense has mostly been among the league leaders in time of possession per drive as well as fewest three and outs over the last five seasons though.

 

[Mondio]

The Packers offense has mostly been among the league leaders in time of possession per drive as well as fewest three and outs over the last five seasons though.

Lots of ways to crunch numbers. We also were among the top on 10 or less plays per drive, among the best at converting 3 rd and long etc. not that that is a bad thing at all, but... I'd rather be converting 10 3rd and 3 or less per game rather than having 5 3rd and 7 +'s per game.

Lots of history with this team needing to grind out a first down or two but going 3 and out. Yesterday provided a couple examples.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Lots of ways to crunch numbers. We also were among the top on 10 or less plays per drive, among the best at converting 3 rd and long etc. not that that is a bad thing at all, but... I'd rather be converting 10 3rd and 3 or less per game rather than having 5 3rd and 7 +'s per game.

Lots of history with this team needing to grind out a first down or two but going 3 and out. Yesterday provided a couple examples.

Time of possession per drive indicates how long a defense is off the field though. With the Packers finishing 18th (2015), fifth ('14), ninth ('13), 15th ('12) and fourth ('11) doesn't explain the team's defense getting tired.

 

[Mondio]

Time of possession per drive indicates how long a defense is off the field though. With the Packers finishing 18th (2015), fifth ('14), ninth ('13), 15th ('12) and fourth ('11) doesn't explain the team's defense getting tired.

Sure, but it doesn't factor in all sorts of very important things. Like is it better to play defense starting inside an opponents 20 or going out to play defense near midfield? Are you going out to get a stop, and consistently getting off the field for a series or two, or are you going out, back to back to back 3 and outs before your offense goes on a meaningful drive?

Last year in particular, the numbers can say what they want, but for much of the year our offense didn't help our defense at all. Always in tough positions. They'd force a 3 and out only to have out offense quickly exit as well. Poor punting put them in lots of bad positions playing defense too. Just like yesterday. And without a penalty, our offense should be good for at least 10 yards of offense per drive, and it only seems to come in bunches for them. Which is nice, but if the timing isn't right, it makes it tougher on our defense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Last year in particular, the numbers can say what they want, but for much of the year our offense didn't help our defense at all.

There's absolutely no doubt the offense didn't help the defense last season. The numbers actually reflect that as well.

 

[PikeBadger]

No defense is immune to that. Jax D was gassed after our long drive, but unfortunately our D didn't get them off the field to take advantage of that.

We gave up a few third and longs yesterday that hurt us. I don't think Jax punted after early in the 2nd quarter. That's not good. We need the defense to get off the field quickly more often.

 

[Vrill]

Everyone was tired yesterday. That weather and heat was brutal. Even the fans were tired.

 

[JBlood]

I'd be interested in research that shows energy expense in defensive players vs offensive players. I doubt there is much of a difference, and players on both sides of the ball are more or less equally tired at the end of a series. In fact, defensive linemen get to kneel down between plays, while offensive linemen sit only on the sideline, which may give the defense an energy break. D backs run the same routes that receivers run, more or less. And if a receiver takes a play off (he is said to Moss the play) the D back does the same.

A guy looked at this at Football Outsiders in 2011, and here is what his analysis resulted in:

"Conventional wisdom holds that offenses affect the performance of their defense through their ability to extend drives, and allow the defense additional time to rest. This conventional wisdom does not seem to be supported by the data. As shown here, the number of plays an offense runs per drive has very little impact on the performance of the defense. One simple explanation for this result is that a team's defensive players aren't the only ones that rest while their offense drives down the field. The opposing offense gets to rest too. The net impact, as shown here, is negligible." (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2011/keeping-defense-field)

Seems to make sense to me.

 

[OldSchool101]

The best way for a Defense to recover is to get off the field quickly and that's is only in part because of an occasional sputtering Offense. Other factors such as a D getting an INT and spotting the O a short field puts them right back on the field as an example Yesterday.
This game was a reverse hot temperature anomoly for us.. Rather than sub zero wind chills at Lambeau it was 100+ heat factor in Florida and ad to that the teams are not fully conditioned even at normal temperatures at this juncture of the season, so we didn't get a full depiction of our capabilities.
Offensively, especially early in the game, I'd like to see us revert to using our RBs in the short dump passes more when their D is prone to set the tone getting after AR. We were very successful hitting Lacy and Starks for quick 5 yard dump passes in recent years but those high probability passes seem to have gone into retirement for the more risky sideline throws.
The jags used the screen pass very effectively early on to move the chains and gain Rythmn and it showed in their keeping the game tight, even with a negative turnover ratio. This should have been a 2 score win, not a repetitive 4th down debacle for our D playing not to lose again.
I'm not being a Debbie downer but we've got serious work to do before Our home opener. The Vikings shouldve been a 2 score W without Bridewater playing but I'm not convinced we will win big right now.

 

[Pack-12]

It's fine to point out when the offense isn't helping the defense but you can't just blame the offense for the defense getting tired when they are out there giving up 7-15 play drives consecutively. The defense has responsibility for getting themselves off the field too.

 

[OldSchool101]

It's fine to point out when the offense isn't helping the defense but you can't just blame the offense for the defense getting tired when they are out there giving up 7-15 play drives consecutively. The defense has responsibility for getting themselves off the field too.

Agreed. You made my point more clearly.
We can't make excuses this year, but rather focus on why we gave up so many big plays and correct it. We were clearly out of position on many plays and it showed.

 

[jrock645]

We were out of position, and seem to often be out of position, because it looks like we run a lot of soft zone coverage. Not sure why it looks that way, as I have no way of really knowing the play call. When it was Shields and Tramon a few years back, we ran a lot of man with cover 1 because Collins was a boss in the middle. I have no idea what we do anymore, but it results in defenders being nowhere near the ball. It can be a bit frustrating to watch.

 

[Mondio]

I'd be interested in research that shows energy expense in defensive players vs offensive players. I doubt there is much of a difference, and players on both sides of the ball are more or less equally tired at the end of a series. In fact, defensive linemen get to kneel down between plays, while offensive linemen sit only on the sideline, which may give the defense an energy break. D backs run the same routes that receivers run, more or less. And if a receiver takes a play off (he is said to Moss the play) the D back does the same.

A guy looked at this at Football Outsiders in 2011, and here is what his analysis resulted in:

"Conventional wisdom holds that offenses affect the performance of their defense through their ability to extend drives, and allow the defense additional time to rest. This conventional wisdom does not seem to be supported by the data. As shown here, the number of plays an offense runs per drive has very little impact on the performance of the defense. One simple explanation for this result is that a team's defensive players aren't the only ones that rest while their offense drives down the field. The opposing offense gets to rest too. The net impact, as shown here, is negligible." (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2011/keeping-defense-field)

Seems to make sense to me.

pick numbers to support a theory is about all this is. There are a thousand factors that go into every play. First you have the obvious overall perceived strength of each opposing offense and defense. Then you have the field position they put themselves in. The turnovers that occur. The penalties that happen. Down and distance situations. The score on the field, the injuries that take players out for a play or 2 or a game. The DB that just went down and the QB that throws right at his replacement for a first down despite not targeting that receiver for a half. It doesn't account when the plays are ran, ie, was the defense put on the field for 4 straight 3 and outs and one 15 play drive? or were did they get to follow their offense after great kick off returns much of the day and four 8 play drives that resulted in FG's or a TD or 2? Were they playing with a lead or from behind most of the day?

If you take numbers from all the good teams and all the bad teams and massage some criteria, you can make it say about anything you want.

I think the reason conventional wisdom says it has a greater affect on defense, is because from an energy standpoint, I can say without a doubt, playing defense for me, was always more physically demanding. Didn't matter if I was wrestling or playing football. Being on offense was easier. Much easier to block a guy 1 on 1 and especially with help, than it is to beat a blocker or 2 and make a tackle. Much easier to get off the mat, than defend against a turn. Much easier to attack on a takedown than defend a good shot.

I think most football players would agree with the statement that it takes more energy for defense than offense. half the time on offense you could just keep a guy moving the direction he was going, so not only was he fighting his own momentum, he had to fight you too, just to slow down his movement, let alone stop it and plug a hole to make a tackle.

 

[jrock645]

Yeah I don't care what any numbers say, defense requires more energy. It's one thing to execute an assignment, it's another one doing your job in reaction to someone else.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We gave up a few third and longs yesterday that hurt us. I don't think Jax punted after early in the 2nd quarter. That's not good. We need the defense to get off the field quickly more often.

The Packers defense was actually pretty good on third down allowing the Jaguars to only convert four out of 15 attempts (26.7%). Unfortunately they weren't as good on fourth down though.

 

[PikeBadger]

The Packers defense was actually pretty good on third down allowing the Jaguars to only convert four out of 15 attempts (26.7%). Unfortunately they weren't as good on fourth down though.

I'm pretty sure we went 3 and out more than they did. That's not good for keeping the defense rested.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm pretty sure we went 3 and out more than they did. That's not good for keeping the defense rested.

I'm quite sure the defense not getting a lot of three and outs doesn't help either.