Defense being tired

[El Guapo]

Since this is one of the things that I track, I'll insert some stats for your argument. Under Aaron Rodgers we have ranked in the top 10 for 3rd down conversions every year except for 2015, in which we were ranked 27th at 35.2% which is the lowest rate going back to 1994.

2008 - 5th
2009 - 3rd
2010 - 8th
2011 - 3rd
2012 - 9th
2013 - 9th
2014 - 3rd
2015 - 27th

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Speaking of straw man...You equated complaining about the Packers giving up 6 points in the 2nd half with unrealistic expectations, when my post was addressing not stopping the Jaguars after our 9 minute drive.

My post was directed not only at you but also at others who were claiming that the Packer's defense was disappointing. Though i do believe that a sample size of one drive doesn't really give you much information on a defense.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

What's straw about my argument? Historically, our offense has relied on being one of the best at converting 3rd and longs, because we have to. It's good that we can, our averages all look great, we tend to score points. It's not straw man to say I'd rather have our big plays come on a play action pass in 3rd and 2 rather than needing to convert a 3rd and 15 so we don't have to punt.

I'm grateful that were good at converting longer 3rd downs, at least historically with Rodgers under center, but is rather we didn't need rely on it so much.

I said that the offense needed to have some explosive plays. You said you don't want an offense that has plays of 1 yards, -3 yards, 32 yards followed by other series that would end in punts (I don't recall the exact yardage numbers you mentioned). I never said that the Packers needed to LOSE consistently good plays at the expense of having explosive plays. I said the Packers needed to ADD explosive plays to the offense. Even here, you're saying that the only other option to a consistently good offense without explosive plays to have an offense that leaves the team in 3rd and 15. There is a place where the offense can consistently pick up positive yards and mix in the big play. So you were arguing against a style of offense that I never suggested, hence the straw man.

 

[Pack-12]

Went to take a look at our offense going back to the Superbowl season to see drive rankings on # of plays and 3and outs.
2015 - 16th plays/drive, 20th 3 and outs
2014 - 5th plays/drive, 2nd 3 and outs
2013 - 6th plays/drive, 8th 3 and outs
2012 - 10th plays/drive, 3rd 3and outs
2011 - 7th plays/drive, 4th 3 and outs
2010 - 13th plays/drive, 23rd 3 and outs

It looks like historically this has been an offense that can consistently and efficiently move the ball and hasn't just relied on big plays to get down the field quickly. There is just no reason to point to the offense to make excuses for times the defense has been bad. I would say for the most part our offense has been beneficial to our defense. I'm sure when the offense is struggling it has an effect on the defense but I think it's very overstated how much of an effect it is.

 

[Mondio]

I said that the offense needed to have some explosive plays. You said you don't want an offense that has plays of 1 yards, -3 yards, 32 yards followed by other series that would end in punts (I don't recall the exact yardage numbers you mentioned). I never said that the Packers needed to LOSE consistently good plays at the expense of having explosive plays. I said the Packers needed to ADD explosive plays to the offense. Even here, you're saying that the only other option to a consistently good offense without explosive plays to have an offense that leaves the team in 3rd and 15. There is a place where the offense can consistently pick up positive yards and mix in the big play. So you were arguing against a style of offense that I never suggested, hence the straw man.

My slight problem with this offense has stayed consistent for a few seasons now. I didn't change it for this discussion. My argument is based solely on what this offense has been, and not anything you've said. There's nothing straw about it

 

[Mondio]

Went to take a look at our offense going back to the Superbowl season to see drive rankings on # of plays and 3and outs.
2015 - 16th plays/drive, 20th 3 and outs
2014 - 5th plays/drive, 2nd 3 and outs
2013 - 6th plays/drive, 8th 3 and outs
2012 - 10th plays/drive, 3rd 3and outs
2011 - 7th plays/drive, 4th 3 and outs
2010 - 13th plays/drive, 23rd 3 and outs

It looks like historically this has been an offense that can consistently and efficiently move the ball and hasn't just relied on big plays to get down the field quickly. There is just no reason to point to the offense to make excuses for times the defense has been bad. I would say for the most part our offense has been beneficial to our defense. I'm sure when the offense is struggling it has an effect on the defense but I think it's very overstated how much of an effect it is.

Fun with numbers again. I bet we have been among the best at 3rd and long too. What would that tell you?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I assume you left the word "don't" out of that sentence? "not a single poster has suggested explosive plays _____ make it easier to score"

I think we saw AR try that a few times in the Jag game and while he did have a 32 yarder (Cobb) a 29 (Adams) and a 22 (R. Rodgers), some of those may have benefited from YAC, I can't recall.

Thanks for correcting me, of course I forgot to mention the word "don't" in the sentence above.

The 32 yard pass to Cobb would have most likely turned into a 63 yard touchdown catch if he would have caught it cleanly instead of having to make a circus catch after bobbling it.

I claimed that an offense can't be an elite offense without having explosive plays. Nowhere did I say the offense had to be built around explosive plays. Since when does having SOME explosive plays turn into building an offense around explosive plays?

None of us disagrees with an offense not being able to perform on an elite level without any explosive plays. That wasn't what started this conversion though but you complaining about it taking the Packers too many plays to march down the field on two drives. Sometimes it's great to move the ball slowly on drives lasting 15+ plays as well.

Though i do believe that a sample size of one drive doesn't really give you much information on a defense.

You don't mind coming to a conclusion about the offense with a sample size of two drives though.

 

[Half Empty]

Seeing how the numbers line up

Fun with numbers again. I bet we have been among the best at 3rd and long too. What would that tell you?

The poster opines that being ranked well in 3-and-out shows an offense that doesn't depend on big plays. Since 3rd-and-long is a subset of 3-and-out, I'm not sure what it would show (other than, perhaps that they're not so good at 3rd-and-short). If you want to use other numbers, please do. If you don't like stats ("fun" with numbers), please provide a method that we can use to evaluate.

 

[Mondio]

Seeing how the numbers line up


The poster opines that being ranked well in 3-and-out shows an offense that doesn't depend on big plays. Since 3rd-and-long is a subset of 3-and-out, I'm not sure what it would show (other than, perhaps that they're not so good at 3rd-and-short). If you want to use other numbers, please do. If you don't like stats ("fun" with numbers), please provide a method that we can use to evaluate.

I don't even know where to look for the numbers. But apparently everyone else knows where to look. Also look up how often were in 3rd and long compared to others, and not the teams and their other relative rankings.

And it is fun with numbers, because it's all just averages, which are are going to be good, because we hit on a lot of 7,8,9,15 yard + plays compared to everyone else. That's awesome, it would be nice to be hitting a 17 yard pass play when our offense was efficient enough to get 8-9 yards in the previous 2 plays rather than out of necessity because we're sitting at 3rd and 12.

or it could mean we have a lot of opportunity to hit on 3rd and long. I'd like to see what our average distance to gain for a 1st down is compared to other top offenses on 3rd down. It would also be neat to see just what other teams are that are just ahead and just behind these in the rankings for comparison sake.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Fun with numbers again. I bet we have been among the best at 3rd and long too. What would that tell you?

The Packers rank sixth in the league in conversion percentage on third down plays for 10 or more yards since Rodgers becsme the starter. Surprisingly only three teams have faced less such plays since 2008 though.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The poster opines that being ranked well in 3-and-out shows an offense that doesn't depend on big plays. Since 3rd-and-long is a subset of 3-and-out, I'm not sure what it would show (other than, perhaps that they're not so good at 3rd-and-short). If you want to use other numbers, please do. If you don't like stats ("fun" with numbers), please provide a method that we can use to evaluate.

I guess Pack-12 was actually referring to the offense being partly to blame for the defense getting tired and not the explosive play conversation.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

None of us disagrees with an offense not being able to perform on an elite level without any explosive plays. That wasn't what started this conversion though but you complaining about it taking the Packers too many plays to march down the field on two drives. Sometimes it's great to move the ball slowly on drives lasting 15+ plays as well.

Perhaps my point got lost in that post. I was pointing out that the Packers lacked explosive plays in the Jags game and were able to score on two drives when it took a lot of plays to do so. I was simply pointing out that scoring on long drives is inconsistent in the NFL. I was not complaining about the two drives, I was pointing out that there were only two such drives, which is to be expected when the team can't generate any big plays.

 

[Mavster]

GB was 28th in the league last year with 5.1 yards per play, only above Cleveland, SF, Indy, and Houston. Whether you want to blame injuries for that, or whatever other factors, that's still embarrassing for a team w/ a HOF qb under center. Then to start off this year against Jacksonville we averaged 4.9 yards per play. It's only been 1 game but we're seeing the same stuff as last year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

GB was 28th in the league last year with 5.1 yards per play, only above Cleveland, SF, Indy, and Houston. Whether you want to blame injuries for that, or whatever other factors, that's still embarrassing for a team w/ a HOF qb under center. Then to start off this year against Jacksonville we averaged 4.9 yards per play. It's only been 1 game but we're seeing the same stuff as last year.

I don't know where you've got the numbers from but according to Football Outsiders the Packers ranked 16th last season with 5.9 plays per drive. The team had 6.78 in week 1 at Jacksonville.

 

[Mavster]

I don't know where you've got the numbers from but according to Football Outsiders the Packers ranked 16th last season with 5.9 plays per drive. The team had 6.78 in week 1 at Jacksonville.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/yards-per-play?date=2016-09-18

Plus the Foxsports, ESPN, & NFL boxscores for the game all say the packers had 4.9 yards per play. I think you found yards per pass instead

 

[yooperpackfan]

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/yards-per-play?date=2016-09-18

Plus the Foxsports, ESPN, & NFL boxscores for the game all say the packers had 4.9 yards per play. I think you found yards per pass instead

I'm confused here!
One of you is talking about yards per play and the other one is talking about plays per drive.
They are 2 separate stats ( I think).

 

[Mavster]

I'm confused here!
One of you is talking about yards per play and the other one is talking about plays per drive.
They are 2 separate stats ( I think).

I wasn't sure what he was talking about. I guess I skimmed over his plays per drive line lol

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm confused here!
One of you is talking about yards per play and the other one is talking about plays per drive.
They are 2 separate stats ( I think).

True, thanks for pointing that out. My bad.