people judge defenses by yards and not points now? Interesting
Entertain this for a second (Free Agency Related)
- Thread starter Southpaw
- Start date
people judge defenses by yards and not points now? Interesting
NelsonsLongCatch
Cheesehead
Wouldn't it be nice not to have to go into Shotgun on 3rd-and-1?
Alex
Cheesehead
Every time any of our running backs get the ball I cringe, Rodgers runs the ball better than all of them and it isn't even his job! However I think the defense is a bigger problem right now
You like to talk about stats. Well guess what our defense this season was ranked second worst all time. That's pretty bad.
And yes it would be nice to be able to convert 3rd and short on the ground for once.
Green Bay actually had the third highest 3rd down completion rate in the NFL this past year behind New Orleans and San Diego.
13 Times Champs
Cheesehead
Yes that is a testament to our ability to throw the ball.
My bad, I meant 3rd down "conversion" rate. (According to ESPN stats)
Here's a thought for the running game. Why not continue to work with Starks and develop young Alex Green and Saine behind him?
For the 2nd time....
Only if you judge teams defenses by yards instead of points.
But when they rank in the middle of the league for points given up through 15 games (week 17 shouldn't count as our best defensive players weren't playing, IMO) they arent the 2nd worst defense in history. Not even close. Not even going to bring in the turnovers into the discussion
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
Since Rodgers took over as QB here is how the Packers have finished each regular season in scoring offense and points per game:
2008: 5th; 26.2 ppg
2009: 3rd; 28.8 ppg
2010: 10th; 24.2 ppg
2011: 1st; 35.0 ppg
Average finish: 5th in the league in scoring at 28.6 ppg. I’m going to go way out on a limb and say I think the Packers problems are on the other side of the ball.
BTW, for all those who continue to post that yards gained and surrendered are more important than points scored and surrendered, could you please defend that position?
2008: 5th; 26.2 ppg
2009: 3rd; 28.8 ppg
2010: 10th; 24.2 ppg
2011: 1st; 35.0 ppg
Average finish: 5th in the league in scoring at 28.6 ppg. I’m going to go way out on a limb and say I think the Packers problems are on the other side of the ball.
BTW, for all those who continue to post that yards gained and surrendered are more important than points scored and surrendered, could you please defend that position?
Jules
The Colts Fan
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2011
- Messages
- 2,769
- Reaction score
- 614
And their run game picked up considerably in the playoffs.
Jules
The Colts Fan
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2011
- Messages
- 2,769
- Reaction score
- 614
There was actually a drive in the SB that proves yards can matter regardless of points. Was listening to it on the radio days ago and it was interesting.
That drive the Giants had 3rd and 7 in.....I think sometime in the early to middle of the 4th against the Pats. Eli calls timeout. Then a penalty by a Pats defensive player puts them in 3rd and short. Giants converted and ended up then taking minutes off the clock and yards. They did not score on that drive but it ended up taking off time/drive far enough down the field to help pin the Pats back after a Giants punt.
If the Pats stopped the Giants on third down they would have had favorable field position and a lot more time left in the game in the end.
Yards are not everything. But, it can play a huge part in field position and TOP, which the Giants dominated in the SB. The Giants by controlling the clock/field position at times put Brady in a hole.
On the first drive of the SB the Giants also did not score but by driving far enough down the field they were able to pin the Pats back which helped to create the safety.
your splitting yards into different types, which clouds the overall picture. Close yardage in a 4th quarter game that is within a score is different than the Panthers chucking up the ball at will in the 4th quarter when the game has already been decided.
Yes its tough when you cant get your team off the field, but what decides a game is points, not yards.
by considerably you mean it became average.
Jules
The Colts Fan
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2011
- Messages
- 2,769
- Reaction score
- 614
Whatever we want to call it, it improved from it's regular season average per game in the playoffs. A lot like the Colts last ranked rushing D in 2006 improved in the playoffs.
Sometimes average is enough if the rest of the team is good enough. An average D would be great for the Packers right now.
Jules
The Colts Fan
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2011
- Messages
- 2,769
- Reaction score
- 614
I agree if the game is decided then yards can be meaningless/misleading. But, sadly for GB this was not the case really. They just could not stop teams......
Wow, way to take a risk there big guy....
13 Times Champs
Cheesehead
Regarding the yards and points argument. I saw a lousy defense on the field. Couldn't tackle, blew assignments, couldn't rush the passer, couldn't cover receivers.
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
The Packers defense was bad last season and has to improve. So no one who is making the obvious point the Packers defense was not the worst in the league is refuting that. One would think making the point that in a sport in which the number of points decides the winner, points are the most important statistic would be met with a universal response of "Well duh!". But one would be wrong. Some apparently believe it's yards that appear on scoreboards around the league.
If you had to choose between two bad options, which would you choose?
1) 32nd in yards surrendered and 19th in points surrendered, or
2) 32nd in points surrendered and 19th in yards surrendered.
For those of you arguing that yards are more important than points, keep this in mind: If the Packers' D were described by 2) instead of 1) to be consistent when posters like ivo610, I and others would argue the Packers D was the worst, you would have to argue, 'No, no they were 19th!'.
As to what anyone saw on the field you did indeed see a bad defense. You saw a defense that had trouble stopping teams on third downs and you saw a defense that had trouble stopping teams in the red zone. But the Packers weren't the worst in the league in either category, they were 26th and 20th respectively. Again, bad but not the worst. You also saw a defense that led the league in interceptions with 31. That was 8 more than any other team. And you saw a defense that had the fewest penalties in the league. All that combined, mostly bad with a couple of positives, combined to put the Packers at 19th in the league in scoring defense. Bad, but not the worst.
The Football Outsiders website offers what they describe as "innovative" stats. I suggest their site to anyone who wants to delve deeply into NFL statistical analysis. They have developed DVOA which stands for "defense-adjusted value over average" and they use that stat to rate teams in defensive efficiency. LINK to ratings. For the 2011 regular season they grade the Packers defense as the 23rd vs. the pass and the 26th vs. the run for an overall rating of 24. (BTW, on the linked page is a link to learn more about DVOA, if you are interested.) Again, bad but not the worst.
I'd expect Vikings fans to advance the idea that the Packers' defense was the worst in the league; why Packers fans insist on that characterization is frankly beyond me.
If you had to choose between two bad options, which would you choose?
1) 32nd in yards surrendered and 19th in points surrendered, or
2) 32nd in points surrendered and 19th in yards surrendered.
For those of you arguing that yards are more important than points, keep this in mind: If the Packers' D were described by 2) instead of 1) to be consistent when posters like ivo610, I and others would argue the Packers D was the worst, you would have to argue, 'No, no they were 19th!'.
As to what anyone saw on the field you did indeed see a bad defense. You saw a defense that had trouble stopping teams on third downs and you saw a defense that had trouble stopping teams in the red zone. But the Packers weren't the worst in the league in either category, they were 26th and 20th respectively. Again, bad but not the worst. You also saw a defense that led the league in interceptions with 31. That was 8 more than any other team. And you saw a defense that had the fewest penalties in the league. All that combined, mostly bad with a couple of positives, combined to put the Packers at 19th in the league in scoring defense. Bad, but not the worst.
The Football Outsiders website offers what they describe as "innovative" stats. I suggest their site to anyone who wants to delve deeply into NFL statistical analysis. They have developed DVOA which stands for "defense-adjusted value over average" and they use that stat to rate teams in defensive efficiency. LINK to ratings. For the 2011 regular season they grade the Packers defense as the 23rd vs. the pass and the 26th vs. the run for an overall rating of 24. (BTW, on the linked page is a link to learn more about DVOA, if you are interested.) Again, bad but not the worst.
I'd expect Vikings fans to advance the idea that the Packers' defense was the worst in the league; why Packers fans insist on that characterization is frankly beyond me.
13 Times Champs
Cheesehead
You can tie a bow on a pig but at the end of the day it's still a pig.
Pretty much. People say yards given up are a bogus stat, but in most cases if you are giving up a ton of yards you're typically losing the time of possession battle as well.
Although our defense did give up a ton of huge plays. We were only not in running for most points given up because of turnovers. Which you can never count on every game and a good bit of the turnovers that got us out of jams and won us games were just terrible throws by opposing QB's
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
You can present logic and facts and they can still fly completely over the heads of some people.
I haven't seen a single poster post that yards surrendered is a "bogus" stat. "Refuting" a point that hasn't been made is known as raising a straw man. And that's usually done by those losing an argument.
I haven't seen a single poster post that yards surrendered is a "bogus" stat. "Refuting" a point that hasn't been made is known as raising a straw man. And that's usually done by those losing an argument.
neilfii
Hall of Fame Fan
I'm not sure this holds water, just a random thought I had based on an earlier post: yards given up does mean loss of time of possession. If we have the ball for a limited amount of T.O.P we do not score as many points so surrendering fewer points may not matter because the opposing team does not need to score as many to beat us. This is arguably what happened with both the Chiefs and the Giants when we did not score nearly as many points as was typical. (I'll hunker down and cover up now because I am not even sure I believe this, but I would love to see it at least discussed).
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Wait a second, are you saying the Packer defense was the best in the NFL last season? Your nuts!
This argument reminds me of the "Drew Brees is much better than Aaron Rodgers because he has more passing yards" argument that Saints fans tried to push. Although Brees' accomplishment is impressive, there are more ways to measure being a QB than just passing yards. TD's, INTs, etc. are all in the mix to determine how effective a QB is. An attempt was made to sort through all the parameters, and the QBR was born. Rodgers set a new record in that this past season for QBR rating. So, who was better Brees or Rodgers? Rodgers was voted nearly unanimously as the MVP - leads me to believe Rodgers was considered the best by most people (I know we are a bit biased here)
Giving up lots of yards is a negative for a defense it decreases your chance to win. Giving up points is also a negative. Getting turnovers is a positive it increases your chance to win. Why can't we look at all the pluses and minuses of our defense before we decide if they are the worst?
That is an interesting approach. Something else I was thinking of was this. What if your special teams really suck and the opposing team always gets the ball on the 50 to start their drive? Chances are the opposing team will have a lot more points, but your team won't have given up as any yards. Then the corollary would be, if their special teams suck and you always have the ball at the 40 or 50 then you would have more points and less yards (all things considered). Just trying to get my head around this like you.
Similar threads
