Defense under Barry

[tynimiller]

Z isn't a re-sign situation as he is under contract presently.

 

[thequick12]

I intially wanted to extend Zadarius and release Preston but now I think ive kinda come to the realization that a lot of you guys already had...

Be better to extend Preston at a more reasonable rate as he is the safer choice...that 15 m cap savings from releasing Z is hard to pass up.

Although I wouldnt be against it if they somehow extended both provided they are confident his back is 100%

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I like what you are saying even though I have a couple of big differences. I'm hoping we trade ARod. Nothing personal. Just think it's the right time. I don't want to re-sign Campbell. I just don't think he will live up to the contract we would have to do. And I don't want to re-sign Zadarius. He is too much of a hit or miss scenario. He gets banged up a lot. And though he usually comes back in the game; I think it is too much of a risk for the money.

It seems you don't want the Packers to be successful next season.

 

[gopkrs]

It seems you don't want the Packers to be successful next season.

Just want them to be smart about it.

 

[thequick12]

Just want them to be smart about it.

Extending Rodgers would be a smart move for the Packers if they wanna win a superbowl

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Just want them to be smart about it.

In my opinion the only way for the Packers to be successful next season is to hang on to Rodgers and go all-in. Otherwise the 2022 season will definitely be a rebuilding year.

 

[gopkrs]

In my opinion the only way for the Packers to be successful next season is to hang on to Rodgers and go all-in. Otherwise the 2022 season will definitely be a rebuilding year.

I understand that it comes down to winning a super bowl now or getting what we can in order to have a good ball club for the foreseeable future. Each has a drawback. 1. There is no guarantee we win a superbowl and 2. there is no guarantee we will have a very good QB. For me, we will be looking for a QB very soon anyway. (I am just taking Love out of the equation). I would prefer to have a solid core of players going forward.

 

[OldSchool101]

It seems you don't want the Packers to be successful next season.

$50mil a season is too much. He’s toying with the future of our team now.
If those reports are substantiated then Aaron Rodgers no longer has the team interests in mind. It’s one more notch in his attempt to control the Packers and promote himself. This is his form of payback and it’s annoying

Get the draft picks and massive savings. Do the math over 4 seasons I prefer to go bottom dweller before putting our entire franchise at jeopardy fir 4-6 years. We are severely underestimating what MLF can do with an average QB and a stout Defense and ST units.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I understand that it comes down to winning a super bowl now or getting what we can in order to have a good ball club for the foreseeable future. Each has a drawback. 1. There is no guarantee we win a superbowl and 2. there is no guarantee we will have a very good QB. For me, we will be looking for a QB very soon anyway. (I am just taking Love out of the equation). I would prefer to have a solid core of players going forward.

My point is that the Packers can hold on to their core players even with Rodgers returning.

$50mil a season is too much. He’s toying with the future of our team now.
If those reports are substantiated then Aaron Rodgers no longer has the team interests in mind. It’s one more notch in his attempt to control the Packers and promote himself. This is his form of payback and it’s annoying

Get the draft picks and massive savings. Do the math over 4 seasons I prefer to go bottom dweller before putting our entire franchise at jeopardy fir 4-6 years. We are severely underestimating what MLF can do with an average QB and a stout Defense and ST units.

If Rodgers is truly looking to be paid $50 million a season it's time to move on from him. Unfortunately I don't think another team would be interested in giving up a ton of draft capital to acquire and pay him that kind of money either though.

 

[pacmaniac]

$50mil a season is too much. He’s toying with the future of our team now.
If those reports are substantiated then Aaron Rodgers no longer has the team interests in mind. It’s one more notch in his attempt to control the Packers and promote himself. This is his form of payback and it’s annoying

Get the draft picks and massive savings. Do the math over 4 seasons I prefer to go bottom dweller before putting our entire franchise at jeopardy fir 4-6 years. We are severely underestimating what MLF can do with an average QB and a stout Defense and ST units.

Agree, if MLF and Gute are as good as people think, we could win a SB with a great defense and a slightly-above average QB.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Agree, if MLF and Gute are as good as people think, we could win a SB with a great defense and a slightly-above average QB.

The question should rather be if Gutekunst and MLF are good enough to field a great defense and an above average quarterback.

If they can there's no doubt they are going to win a lot of games.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Agree, if MLF and Gute are as good as people think, we could win a SB with a great defense and a slightly-above average QB.

That's not really true. I know people remember outliers more than averages but since 2011, only 1 Super Bowl team has had a below-average offense (the 2015 Broncos). Of the 22 Super Bowl team since 2011, 18 have had top-10 ranked offenses. Having a great defense is wonderful but an elite offense is still more important. Having elite defense and offense is obviously preferred but a slightly-above average QB isn't the best avenue for reaching the Super Bowl. There's a reason elite QB's are the most valuable players in football.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I just don't get the people who are positive no team will give Rodgers $50 million a year. He's been the best QB in the NFL for two straight seasons and Brady has REALLY impacted the whole "recency bias" thing and there are plenty of people who will happily believe Rodgers can stay a top-5 QB in the league for 2-3 more seasons. With cap numbers projected to go up by almost 15% a year over the next couple of seasons $50 million won't be the impact in 2-3 seasons that many fear.

 

[thequick12]

I just don't get the people who are positive no team will give Rodgers $50 million a year. He's been the best QB in the NFL for two straight seasons and Brady has REALLY impacted the whole "recency bias" thing and there are plenty of people who will happily believe Rodgers can stay a top-5 QB in the league for 2-3 more seasons. With cap numbers projected to go up by almost 15% a year over the next couple of seasons $50 million won't be the impact in 2-3 seasons that many fear.

Exactly what ive been trying to say...

 

[Dantés]

My point is that the Packers can hold on to their core players even with Rodgers returning.



If Rodgers is truly looking to be paid $50 million a season it's time to move on from him. Unfortunately I don't think another team would be interested in giving up a ton of draft capital to acquire and pay him that kind of money either though.

I don't know how many teams will want to pay Rodgers 50M/season, but the way that QB salaries are outpacing the cap is pretty nuts to me.

When Rodgers signed his deal in 2013 (5/110), he was being paid 22M/season starting in a year when the cap ceiling was 123M. So in that first year, his average was 18% of the total cap.

50M/season would mean he would account for 25% of the total cap in this season (~208M).

So it's not just the numbers that are getting bigger, it's the percentages. If the annual salary rose just commensurate with the cap, it would be at 37M.

At a certain point, these QB salaries are going to get too big and they'll be due for correction.

 

[Mondio]

It might not be that impactful in 2-3 seasons, but it will be for those 2-3 seasons and for us it puts us in a pretty tenuous position against the cap.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It might not be that impactful in 2-3 seasons, but it will be for those 2-3 seasons and for us it puts us in a pretty tenuous position against the cap.

I'm not arguing the Packers can easily handle it, I'm saying that a team like the Broncos or Colts (or even the Steelers) could handle it. 25% of the cap is a lot but an elite QB is more valuable to a team than two JJ Watts or two Jalen Ramseys. Put Jalen Ramsey and JJ Watt on the Jags with Trevor Lawrence at QB and they win fewer games than the Jags with Rodgers at QB is all I'm saying. I'm not arguing it's the best method of winning the Super Bowl but fans seem to imagine that GMs are only interested in winning Super Bowls when they're MORE interested in keeping their jobs. Winning 10-12 games a year with an expensive QB is better job security than letting that elite QB go and getting 5-6 wins a few seasons in a row. Teams generally aren't super patient with losing seasons.

 

[OldSchool101]

I just don't get the people who are positive no team will give Rodgers $50 million a year. He's been the best QB in the NFL for two straight seasons and Brady has REALLY impacted the whole "recency bias" thing and there are plenty of people who will happily believe Rodgers can stay a top-5 QB in the league for 2-3 more seasons. With cap numbers projected to go up by almost 15% a year over the next couple of seasons $50 million won't be the impact in 2-3 seasons that many fear.

I think any prudent GM understands that Aaron Rodgers is not getting any younger. If #12 was turning 34 years old this season instead of 39 years old his value could easily top $50mil. There’s a reason both Brees and Brady were not setting league high $$ recently. It wasn’t because they were bad QB’s. Rodgers is approaching the threshold of when teams start deducting for age/health. He might play MVP until he’s 50yrs but there’s still perception and increased risk as he leans into 40-something

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's not really true. I know people remember outliers more than averages but since 2011, only 1 Super Bowl team has had a below-average offense (the 2015 Broncos). Of the 22 Super Bowl team since 2011, 18 have had top-10 ranked offenses. Having a great defense is wonderful but an elite offense is still more important. Having elite defense and offense is obviously preferred but a slightly-above average QB isn't the best avenue for reaching the Super Bowl. There's a reason elite QB's are the most valuable players in football.

I was actually surprised when I took a look at the numbers that teams that made the Super Bowl over the past 11 seasons had a better scoring offense (ranked 5.5th) than defense (10.3) on average. Actually the 2015 Broncos were the only team ranked worse than 11th in points scored while there have seven Super Bowl teams which featured a defense ranked worse in points allowed.

 

[OldSchool101]

I was actually surprised when I took a look at the numbers that teams that made the Super Bowl over the past 11 seasons had a better scoring offense (ranked 5.5th) than defense (10.3) on average. Actually the 2015 Broncos were the only team ranked worse than 11th in points scored while there have seven Super Bowl teams which featured a defense ranked worse in points allowed.

That’s very interesting. I recall doing some research on that about 5 years ago to disprove the concept being tossed around that “Defenses Win Championships”.
I took the basic, time saving approach of taking the cumulative O + D scoring rankings across roughly 50 SuperBowl Champions. I don’t have that exact finding but my memory tells me that the D ranked ~6.9 scoring while the O were like ~8.1 scoring. Obviously that’s a huge sample and the difference was rounded to a whole number 1 in favor of the D being the most successful effect. The Defense clearly Won that argument because it was actually over 1+ in its favor.

I’m not sure that 6-7 seasons would change that result much but my best guess would be just over 1 to just under 1 difference, still in favor of the D. Yet I think it’s still safe to use my coined finding back then
“Well Rounded teams win Championships”. I’m so sorry to steal all the fun guys

PS.
I Did not take into account ST units rankings in relation to those teams. It’s quite possible that unit could swing the tide of the battle of that argument some because of its effect on the outcome (after all, I picked the SB Winners and ST should be recognized)

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That’s very interesting. I recall doing some research on that about 5 years ago to disprove the concept being tossed around that “Defenses Win Championships”.
I took the basic, time saving approach of taking the cumulative O + D scoring rankings across roughly 50 SuperBowl Champions. I don’t have that exact finding but my memory tells me that the D ranked ~6.9 scoring while the O were like ~8.1 scoring. Obviously that’s a huge sample and the difference was rounded to a whole number 1 in favor of the D being the most successful effect. The Defense clearly Won that argument because it was actually over 1+ in its favor.

I’m not sure that 6-7 seasons would change that result much but my best guess would be just over 1 to just under 1 difference, still in favor of the D. Yet I think it’s still safe to use my coined finding back then
“Well Rounded teams win Championships”. I’m so sorry to steal all the fun guys

PS.
I Did not take into account ST units rankings in relation to those teams. It’s quite possible that unit could swing the tide of the battle of that argument some because of its effect on the outcome (after all, I picked the SB Winners and ST should be recognized)

If we solely take a look at teams that have won the Super Bowl over the last 11 years the average ranking of the scoring offense (6.9) is still better compared to their defense (8.4). With the team having changed dramatically over the Super Bowl era I don't think it makes a lot of sense to include teams that were successful more than 50 years ago.

I agree that a well rounded team is the one to thrive for though.

 

[Voyageur]

Excellent information here. The reality seems to be that as long as you're in the top (roughly) 25% on both offense and defense, you're in the hunt. It should give teams an excellent target that they should shoot for, on both sides of the ball.

But, there's another factor, and we've talked about it. Special teams. As good as the numbers may look on both sides of the ball, special teams need to be in that same ball park, because if they aren't, you're going to have melt downs like the Packers had this year in the playoffs.

 

[OldSchool101]

If we solely take a look at teams that have won the Super Bowl over the last 11 years the average ranking of the scoring offense (6.9) is still better compared to their defense (8.4). With the team having changed dramatically over the Super Bowl era I don't think it makes a lot of sense to include teams that were successful more than 50 years ago.

I agree that a well rounded team is the one to thrive for though.

Interesting. Those ratings since 2011 are nearly the identical inverse of SB winners up until that time frame.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But, there's another factor, and we've talked about it. Special teams. As good as the numbers may look on both sides of the ball, special teams need to be in that same ball park, because if they aren't, you're going to have melt downs like the Packers had this year in the playoffs.

While I understand it's not a perfect metric, according to Football Outsiders' DVOA the special teams of the past 11 Super Bowl champions had an average ranking of 10.2 with the 2020 Bucs being the only team ranked in the bottom half of it.

 

[Voyageur]

While I understand it's not a perfect metric, according to Football Outsiders' DVOA the special teams of the past 11 Super Bowl champions had an average ranking of 10.2 with the 2020 Bucs being the only team ranked in the bottom half of it.

Thanks for doing this research. It sheds more light on the issue. Your points in the original post are spot on, and when you add the ST ranking to the discussion, it shows that too is important enough to directly effect the outcome of a game.

I go back to the Super Bowl when Desmond Howard was the MVP. That was a game that was close on the field, and decided by special teams play in the end. It seems like that history alone would be something to remind all Packers coaches as to how you can't ignore that phase of the game. There has to be someone around the Packers offices that reminds them of that fact.