Keep Pettine if the D doesn't improve?

[HardRightEdge]

NFL:
57% pass
43% run

GB:
58% pass
42% run

according to https://fftoday.com/stats/19_run_pass_ratios.html

This not a criticism of you; nobody does these stats correctly.

Sacks are not included in those stats. Those are in fact pass plays. QB scrambles are pass plays but they get counted as runs if he crosses the line of scrimmage, otherwise sacks. Kneel downs count as runs when they should not be counted as anything at all.

In short, teams call quite a few more pass plays than what these numbers indicate. To illustrate:

The Packers threw the ball 573 times as shown in that chart. Add to that 36 sacks. How many of Rodgers' 46 runs were called runs? I think two, one sneak and one dive for a yard or two where it looked like he didn't care for any of his options. That would move 44 from the run to the pass column. That gets you to 573+36+44 = 653 pass plays. None of this counts plays where an offensive penalty was accepted and most of those occur on pass plays, but we'll leave that out.

As far as run calls, we start by taking those 44 scrambles out of the run column. How many kneel downs do you think? Boyle alone had 5 carries for -7 yards, most or all kneel downs. Let's say conservatively there were a dozen kneel downs total for the year when you consider both the first half and the end of game. That gets you to a run play count of 411-44-12 = 355

Now you have a more representative pass/run play breakdown of 65%/35%.

Where that might rank in the league I have little clue. Probabably not too far off the ranking in the conventional stats. But what this does show is how the conventional stats distort the picture of how often teams call passing plays, twice as often as runs.

 

[Heyjoe4]

This not a criticism of you; nobody does these stats correctly.

Sacks are not included in those stats. Those are in fact pass plays. QB scrambles are pass plays but they get counted as runs if he crosses the line of scrimmage, otherwise sacks. Kneel downs count as runs when they should not be counted as anything at all.

In short, teams call quite a few more pass plays than what these numbers indicate. To illustrate:

The Packers threw the ball 573 times as shown in that chart. Add to that 36 sacks. How many of Rodgers' 46 runs were called runs? I think two, one sneak and one dive for a yard or two where it looked like he didn't care for any of his options. That would move 44 from the run to the pass column. That gets you to 573+36+44 = 653 pass plays. None of this counts plays where an offensive penalty was accepted and most of those occur on pass plays, but we'll leave that out.

As far as run calls, we start by taking those 44 scrambles out of the run column. How many kneel downs do you think? Boyle alone had 5 carries for -7 yards, most or all kneel downs. Let's say conservatively there were a dozen kneel downs total for the year when you consider both the first half and the end of game. That gets you to a run play count of 411-44-12 = 355

Now you have a more representative pass/run play breakdown of 65%/35%.

Where that might rank in the league I have little clue. Probabably not too far off the ranking in the conventional stats. But what this does show is how the conventional stats distort the picture of how often teams call passing plays, twice as often as runs.

This not a criticism of you; nobody does these stats correctly.

Sacks are not included in those stats. Those are in fact pass plays. QB scrambles are pass plays but they get counted as runs if he crosses the line of scrimmage, otherwise sacks. Kneel downs count as runs when they should not be counted as anything at all.

In short, teams call quite a few more pass plays than what these numbers indicate. To illustrate:

The Packers threw the ball 573 times as shown in that chart. Add to that 36 sacks. How many of Rodgers' 46 runs were called runs? I think two, one sneak and one dive for a yard or two where it looked like he didn't care for any of his options. That would move 44 from the run to the pass column. That gets you to 573+36+44 = 653 pass plays. None of this counts plays where an offensive penalty was accepted and most of those occur on pass plays, but we'll leave that out.

As far as run calls, we start by taking those 44 scrambles out of the run column. How many kneel downs do you think? Boyle alone had 5 carries for -7 yards, most or all kneel downs. Let's say conservatively there were a dozen kneel downs total for the year when you consider both the first half and the end of game. That gets you to a run play count of 411-44-12 = 355

Now you have a more representative pass/run play breakdown of 65%/35%.

Where that might rank in the league I have little clue. Probabably not too far off the ranking in the conventional stats. But what this does show is how the conventional stats distort the picture of how often teams call passing plays, twice as often as runs.

Wow, great analysis as always HRE. Mark Twain said there were three kinds of lies - 1) lies, 2) damned lies, 3) statistics. The devil is always in the details and now you’ve got me thinking that this is a passing league, or at least more than we (I) thought. Much appreciated, and again, well done.

 

[Heyjoe4]

NFL:
57% pass
43% run

GB:
58% pass
42% run

according to https://fftoday.com/stats/19_run_pass_ratios.html

Thanks jon.

 

[OldSchool101]

It seems you're way too optimistic about the talent level at inside linebacker behind Kirksey on the depth chart. It might even not be justified to consider him an upgrade over Martinez in the first place.

Maybe, but I’m an optimistic guy.
You have to consider that in 2019 we lost our #2 and #3 option at LB by week 2 regular season. This season we have Oren and Raven back plus added a nice depth thumper LB in Kamal. So yes, I think we’re better than week 2 of 2019 at LB with the pair of Goodson/Martinez.

I know this much, I saw what we had in Martinez and I might wish we hadn’t broke up.. but right now I’ll take my chances dating Kirksey for $6.5 Mil annual X 2 years and $4 mil guaranteed.
VS
Courting Martinez at $10.25 mil annual and $19 mil guaranteed and locked for 3 years.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Maybe, but I’m an optimistic guy.
You have to consider that in 2019 we lost our #2 and #3 option at LB by week 2 regular season. This season we have Oren and Raven back plus added a nice depth thumper LB in Kamal. So yes, I think we’re better than week 2 of 2019 at LB with the pair of Goodson/Martinez.

I know this much, I saw what we had in Martinez and I might wish we hadn’t broke up.. but right now I’ll take my chances dating Kirksey for $6.5 Mil annual X 2 years and $4 mil guaranteed.
VS
Courting Martinez at $10.25 mil annual and $19 mil guaranteed and locked for 3 years.

Agreed. I never saw Martinez as more than “just a guy.” Yeah he had a lotta tackles, but few behind the LOS.

If Kirksey stays healthy, and I think he will, I think he’ll upgrade the position, and probably elevate the play of those around him, based on his experience. Gluten did about as well as he could replacing Martinez. That doesn’t mean the group doesn’t have problems. Even with Kirksey playing well, there is a serious lack of quality depth at ILB.

 

[OldSchool101]

Agreed. I never saw Martinez as more than “just a guy.” Yeah he had a lotta tackles, but few behind the LOS.

If Kirksey stays healthy, and I think he will, I think he’ll upgrade the position, and probably elevate the play of those around him, based on his experience. Gluten did about as well as he could replacing Martinez. That doesn’t mean the group doesn’t have problems. Even with Kirksey playing well, there is a serious lack of quality depth at ILB.

I’m not saying we’re a top 10 LB grouping or bragging them up, but there’s no question that we will see Pettine make some modifications in scheme after being humiliated on prime time, his job depends on it.

I’m not as eager to write Burks off just yet. This is Oren’s 3rd camp and in his 1st two seasons he started the season with significant set back injuries. If he can stay healthy for once, it’s his job to lose behind Kirksey. Don’t make the mistake like some of thinking Burks won’t fight for his job, he’s shown to be an aggressive on ST and wasn’t afraid to give Campbell etc.. a run for their money as a leading tackler not once, but twice consecutively. IDK about you but when fixing the Run, id prefer an athletic 6’3 233lb. ILB verses Raven Greene’s 5’11” 197lb Self.

Kirksey is a stud ILB in pass protection and one of the more versatile LB’s in the league and he doesn’t need Safety help covering TE’s etc.. It makes perfect sense to me why they drafted another versatile LB in Martin but leaning Run Thumper for depth.

Mike Pettine knows better than most what he’s got with Kirksey and he deems him as a great fit, he’s our DC so I trust he knows better than us what he’s trying to accomplish.

With that said, we may convict Pettine and toss him at the end of 2020, but it’s logical to trust him to Win games in the meantime. If they think they are that bad at LB behind Kirksey they’ll make an alternative move. If not, Mike is comfortable with what he sees in the current group.

 

[melvin dangerr]

Doesn’t matter, run or pass he is the “Defensive” coach, his job is to coach a defense whether it’s pass or run, he was hired to defend against both, if he can’t do the job goodbye to him....

 

[Fat Dogs]

Doesn’t matter, run or pass he is the “Defensive” coach, his job is to coach a defense whether it’s pass or run, he was hired to defend against both, if he can’t do the job goodbye to him....

Amen. It’s called game planning. Every team is different and there’s no one defensive scheme fits all handbook. Don’t focus on the run because “the pass is more important to stop in todays NFL” is silly.

 

[jon]

Where that might rank in the league I have little clue. Probabably not too far off the ranking in the conventional stats. But what this does show is how the conventional stats distort the picture of how often teams call passing plays, twice as often as runs

Thanks for the good depth.

Is this not bias, though? If sacks and kneel downs affect GB's numbers then they affect every team's numbers. So this is an error (or, at least, a push) that is present in every data record so ultimately not meaningful (or, at least, not enough to annul the finding). That is, we think the pack at 58/42 is normal next to the league's 57/43. If, correcting for bias, it is actually more like 65/35 for GB and ~64/36 for the NFL, then GB is still right in the middle. If we assume NFL playcallers know what they're doing, then MLF's run/pass play selection is fine.

And then there's standard deviation, a measure of how far off of average you can go and still be considered "about average". I'm not going to nerd wrestle these numbers, but in this data set, with a range of 42.5 to 65.4% in pass plays, I'd guess the standard deviation would describe a range most on this board would consider a very significant difference in play calling. So if MLF shifted to, say, 53/47 (uncorrected) most fans and commentators would talk about a huge shift that really isn't huge at all-- statistically. It would be huge, in my view, if by "pass" you mean Aaron Rodgers and you decide to do less of him and expect to win.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I’m not saying we’re a top 10 LB grouping or bragging them up, but there’s no question that we will see Pettine make some modifications in scheme after being humiliated on prime time, his job depends on it.

I’m not as eager to write Burks off just yet. This is Oren’s 3rd camp and in his 1st two seasons he started the season with significant set back injuries. If he can stay healthy for once, it’s his job to lose behind Kirksey. Don’t make the mistake like some of thinking Burks won’t fight for his job, he’s shown to be an aggressive on ST and wasn’t afraid to give Campbell etc.. a run for their money as a leading tackler not once, but twice consecutively. IDK about you but when fixing the Run, id prefer an athletic 6’3 233lb. ILB verses Raven Greene’s 5’11” 197lb Self.

Kirksey is a stud ILB in pass protection and one of the more versatile LB’s in the league and he doesn’t need Safety help covering TE’s etc.. It makes perfect sense to me why they drafted another versatile LB in Martin but leaning Run Thumper for depth.

Mike Pettine knows better than most what he’s got with Kirksey and he deems him as a great fit, he’s our DC so I trust he knows better than us what he’s trying to accomplish.

With that said, we may convict Pettine and toss him at the end of 2020, but it’s logical to trust him to Win games in the meantime. If they think they are that bad at LB behind Kirksey they’ll make an alternative move. If not, Mike is comfortable with what he sees in the current group.

Agreed. Kirksey’s injury history isn’t chronic, more situational like the broken clavicles Rodgers suffered. I expect he’ll be healthy.

And I haven’t written off Burks. Yet his injury history does look chronic. Still, he’ll get the benefit of the doubt from me and I hope he realizes his true potential this year.

And putting his comments aside about the NFL being a passing league, I’m certain Pettine will make adjustments in the run game after some of the embarrassments he suffered last year. I do think he’s a good DC, and certainly an upgrade over what Capers had become.

I’m anticipating good, maybe great things from the D this year. We all learn best from our mistakes after all.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Thanks for the good depth.

Is this not bias, though? If sacks and kneel downs affect GB's numbers then they affect every team's numbers. So this is an error (or, at least, a push) that is present in every data record so ultimately not meaningful (or, at least, not enough to annul the finding). That is, we think the pack at 58/42 is normal next to the league's 57/43. If, correcting for bias, it is actually more like 65/35 for GB and ~64/36 for the NFL, then GB is still right in the middle. If we assume NFL playcallers know what they're doing, then MLF's run/pass play selection is fine.

And then there's standard deviation, a measure of how far off of average you can go and still be you considered "about average". I'm not going to nerd wrestle these numbers, but in this data set, with a range of 42.5 to 65.4% in pass plays, I'd guess the standard deviation would describe a range most on this board would consider a very significant difference in play calling. So if MLF shifted to, say, 53/47 (uncorrected) most fans and commentators would talk about a huge shift that really isn't huge at all-- statistically. It would be huge, in my view, if by "pass" you mean Aaron Rodgers and you decide to do less of him and expect to win.

The point is simply that the adjusted numbers show how often a team like the Packers (and the league in general) will call (or adible to) passing plays vs. runs. It gives a clearer picture of the predominance of the passing game, Baltimore being a notable outlier.

Getting to the Packers numbers are easy because of the very few called runs by the QB. For the few QBs known to run on purpose a fair amount, Jackson again being the outlier, you can't look at the stat sheet and differntiate runs and scrambles.

Anyway, going from 58/42 to 53/47 (uncorrected) is about 3 plays moved from the pass column to the run column in a typical game. I don't see that as huge difference. It might move the Packers up 10 slots in the rankings of run percentage, but on an absolute basis it would not be all that noticeable. That might be one of those all too common ranking falacies where small differences are exaggerated.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The way I see it is that no matter the percentages, if a team is having success running the ball in a game; they will stick with it. So we better be able to stop it. Also, most teams want to have a balanced attack and it isn't like the ratio is 3 to 1 for the pass.

Once again, I definitely agree that the Packers need to improve defending the run. That doesn't change the fact that Pettine was right about the NFL mainly being a passing league.

You have to consider that in 2019 we lost our #2 and #3 option at LB by week 2 regular season. This season we have Oren and Raven back plus added a nice depth thumper LB in Kamal. So yes, I think we’re better than week 2 of 2019 at LB with the pair of Goodson/Martinez.

I know this much, I saw what we had in Martinez and I might wish we hadn’t broke up.. but right now I’ll take my chances dating Kirksey for $6.5 Mil annual X 2 years and $4 mil guaranteed.
VS
Courting Martinez at $10.25 mil annual and $19 mil guaranteed and locked for 3 years.

Unfortunately I don't feel comfortable about having either Greene or Burks play a significant amount of snaps at inside linebacker.

In addition Kirksey doesn't seem to be a huge upgrade over Martinez. With that being said it was definitely the right call to not pay Martinez the money the Giants did.

If Kirksey stays healthy, and I think he will, I think he’ll upgrade the position, and probably elevate the play of those around him, based on his experience. Gluten did about as well as he could replacing Martinez. That doesn’t mean the group doesn’t have problems. Even with Kirksey playing well, there is a serious lack of quality depth at ILB.

As mentioned above I don't consider Kirksey to be a significant upgrade over Martinez even if he stays healthy.

I’m not as eager to write Burks off just yet. This is Oren’s 3rd camp and in his 1st two seasons he started the season with significant set back injuries. If he can stay healthy for once, it’s his job to lose behind Kirksey. Don’t make the mistake like some of thinking Burks won’t fight for his job, he’s shown to be an aggressive on ST and wasn’t afraid to give Campbell etc.. a run for their money as a leading tackler not once, but twice consecutively.

I'm convinced Burks will fight to receive a significant amount of snaps on defense but after he hardly played while healthy with the team in dire need of an upgrade at the position doesn't seem to indicate the coaching staff is trusting him to get the job done.

Don’t focus on the run because “the pass is more important to stop in todays NFL” is silly.

Once again, Pettine definitely wants to stop the runas well.Fans are making way too much out of a single quote.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Once again, I definitely agree that the Packers need to improve defending the run. That doesn't change the fact that Pettine was right about the NFL mainly being a passing league.





Unfortunately I don't feel comfortable about having either Greene or Burks play a significant amount of snaps at inside linebacker.

In addition Kirksey doesn't seem to be a huge upgrade over Martinez. With that being said it was definitely the right call to not pay Martinez the money the Giants did.



As mentioned above I don't consider Kirksey to be a significant upgrade over Martinez even if he stays healthy.



I'm convinced Burks will fight to receive a significant amount of snaps on defense but after he hardly played while healthy with the team in dire need of an upgrade at the position doesn't seem to indicate the coaching staff is trusting him to get the job done.



Once again, Pettine definitely wants to stop the runas well.Fans are making way too much out of a single quote.

When it comes to Kirksey v. Martinez, my use of the word “significantly” was misplaced. I simply think Kirksey will prove to be more valuable to the D than Martinez. That’s still subjective, but it’s just an opinion. I expect Kirksey will have more positive plays for the D than Martinez had. It won’t be a huge difference.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The point is simply that the adjusted numbers show how often a team like the Packers (and the league in general) will call (or adible to) passing plays vs. runs. It gives of clearer picture of the predominance of the passing game, Baltimore being a notable outlier.

Getting to the Packers numbers are easy because of the very few called runs by the QB. For the few QBs known to run on purpose a fair amount, Jackson again being the outlier, you can't look at the stat sheet and differntiate runs and scrambles.

The point is simply that the adjusted numbers show how often a team like the Packers (and the league in general) will call (or adible to) passing plays vs. runs. It gives of clearer picture of the predominance of the passing game.

Anyway, going from 58/42 to 53/47 (uncorrected) is about 3 plays moved from the pass column to the run column in a typical game. I don't see that as huge difference. It might move the Packers up 10 slots in the rankings of run percentage, but on an absolute basis it would not be all that noticeable. That might be one of those all too common ranking falacies where small differences are exaggerated.

I appreciate the work both of you guys did. I don’t have stats to back it up. 65/35 feels about right though, for what that’s worth!

 

[Fat Dogs]

Once again, I definitely agree that the Packers need to improve defending the run. That doesn't change the fact that Pettine was right about the NFL mainly being a passing league.





Unfortunately I don't feel comfortable about having either Greene or Burks play a significant amount of snaps at inside linebacker.

In addition Kirksey doesn't seem to be a huge upgrade over Martinez. With that being said it was definitely the right call to not pay Martinez the money the Giants did.



As mentioned above I don't consider Kirksey to be a significant upgrade over Martinez even if he stays healthy.



I'm convinced Burks will fight to receive a significant amount of snaps on defense but after he hardly played while healthy with the team in dire need of an upgrade at the position doesn't seem to indicate the coaching staff is trusting him to get the job done.



Once again, Pettine definitely wants to stop the runas well.Fans are making way too much out of a single quote.

Ha ha that’s what you call a Mostert 220 yard 4 TD performance reaction. Your right. I didn’t see the statement so I don’t know the context. Maybe he was answering a direct question or maybe he was being baited. I don’t know. Obviously the NFL is dominated by passing offenses so playing nickel and dime gives you at a huge advantage when your smaller/faster players can cover without being a liability in run defense. The problem is that small ball doesn’t work when you play teams like the 49ers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When it comes to Kirksey v. Martinez, my use of the word “significantly” was misplaced. I simply think Kirksey will prove to be more valuable to the D than Martinez. It won’t be a huge difference.

Kirksey might prove to be an upgrade over Martinez but the problem being that the Packers need a significant improvement at the position. Unfortunately I don't believe he will be able to provide that though.

Ha ha that’s what you call a Mostert 220 yard 4 TD performance reaction. Obviously the NFL is dominated by passing offenses so playing nickel and dime gives you at a huge advantage when your smaller/faster players can cover without being a liability in run defense. The problem is that small ball doesn’t work when you play teams like the 49ers.

The Packers definitely matched up terrible against the Niners last season. They shouldn't overreact based on one opponent though.

 

[Fat Dogs]

Kirksey might prove to be an upgrade over Martinez but the problem being that the Packers need a significant improvement at the position. Unfortunately I don't believe he will be able to provide that though.



The Packers definitely matched up terrible against the Niners last season. They shouldn't overreact based on one opponent though.

We shouldn’t?? I’d love to agree but unfortunately hoping we don’t play them is bad strategy.

 

[OldSchool101]

Unfortunately I don't feel comfortable about having either Greene or Burks play a significant amount of snaps at inside linebacker.

I believe Greene is a situational answer at best.

We certainly need a jump start from the LB group. One thing I’d note is we’ve seen a pretty banged up position group overall last season. Last year just about every current LB missed significant time either in college or at the NFL level.
Kirksey, Burks, Martin, Bolton, Greene all missed significant time. If we can find a way to keep the bulk of players healthier we should be fine. Rolling with 3rd and 4th options didn’t help matters.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We shouldn’t?? I’d love to agree but unfortunately hoping we don’t play them is bad strategy.

My point being that it's not smart to completely change a team's scheme based on not matching up well with a single opponent. While that might improve the chances of beating the Niners it would also increase the chances of losing to other teams playing a different scheme.

We certainly need a jump start from the LB group. One thing I’d note is we’ve seen a pretty banged up position group overall last season. Last year just about every current LB missed significant time either in college or at the NFL level.
Kirksey, Burks, Martin, Bolton, Greene all missed significant time. If we can find a way to keep the bulk of players healthier we should be fine. Rolling with 3rd and 4th options didn’t help matters.

Unfortunately I don't believe the Packers have enough talent at inside linebacker even if all of them stay healthy. If Kirksey misses games once again the situation would look extremely bleak.

 

[gopkrs]

I want to see what Bolton does. He showed potential imho

 

[Fat Dogs]

My point being that it's not smart to completely change a team's scheme based on not matching up well with a single opponent. While that might improve the chances of beating the Niners it would also increase the chances of losing to other teams playing a different scheme.



Unfortunately I don't believe the Packers have enough talent at inside linebacker even if all of them stay healthy. If Kirksey misses games once again the situation would look extremely bleak.

No, but it can be modified when playing against run heavy teams. We don’t have a choice. IMO we didn’t add any significant players and they didn’t lose any so the road to the SB will once again go thru SF. Besides, do you not think our offensive draft was influenced by that loss? Of course it was. Dillon wasn’t drafted to take a simple handoff from the eye. Dillon and Degura were drafted to do what Kyle Shanahan did to us. The opposing D will be getting 20 different looks and the majority of them will end with somebody running the ball. It might be Jones, Dillon, Williams, or Ervin, with a lot of added misdirection. We’ll be running plenty of sweeps with our wide outs just like they did. Our inability to move the ball in the NFC championship these past 2 seasons forced us to make change and we will do the same on the defensive side of the ball if we plan on getting to another Super Bowl.

 

[gopkrs]

I think it is hard to say that the road to the SB goes through SF. Both Seattle and New Orleans almost beat them. Pretty much the same could be said about the NFC North. A lot of games come down to the end. We can do well but our O line has to do a good job against e.g., the 9rs defensive front. Some of those very good D lines don't give much time to the QB when the game is on the line. That is when our O line has to step up.

 

[Fat Dogs]

I think it is hard to say that the road to the SB goes through SF. Both Seattle and New Orleans almost beat them. Pretty much the same could be said about the NFC North. A lot of games come down to the end. We can do well but our O line has to do a good job against e.g., the 9rs defensive front. Some of those very good D lines don't give much time to the QB when the game is on the line. That is when our O line has to step up.

Your right. Anything can happen in the playoffs but we have to be able to stop the run. These are the most run heavy teams in the NFC in 2019.

1) 49ers
2) Vikings
3) Seahawks
4) Cowboys
5) Eagles

all playoff teams except for the Cowboys.

 

[jon]

FWIW, the top four passing teams in the league missed the playoffs and the top four rushing teams made the playoffs, if I recall correctly.
So if you want to go anywhere in the playoffs you either stop the run or score every time you touch the ball.

 

[mradtke66]

Your right. Anything can happen in the playoffs but we have to be able to stop the run. These are the most run heavy teams in the NFC in 2019.

1) 49ers
2) Vikings
3) Seahawks
4) Cowboys
5) Eagles

all playoff teams except for the Cowboys.

1: We got beat.
2: We won both times. Cook got one big run in the first game, but we otherwise controlled them. Almost a perfect 50/50 split.
3: I'm more worried about Wilson than their run game. Threw almost 52% of the time
4: Threw 57% of the time
5: Threw 57% of the time

The 49ers (51% run) and Ravens (57% run) are the oddballs the Vikings their own special kind of oddball. The rest of the league passes more than they throw.

Ratios from here: https://fftoday.com/stats/19_run_pass_ratios.html