1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Marshall Newhouse worries me

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by FrankRizzo, Aug 26, 2012.

  1. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,899
    Ratings:
    +1,433
    Even if you think Newhouse profiles better as a guard, I don't see any way that would be accomplished here.

    Sitton sure isn't going anywhere, and we've seen enough of Lang to know he's much more competent as a guard than a tackle. Both are signed long-term.
     
  2. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Lang to center possibly. Lang in my opinion hasn't distinguished himself at guard.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    He just doesn't have the mindset for Guard. I think our staff realized that and put him where he would actually put effort into excelling so he wouldn't underachieve. We drafted him to play tackle, because he was the best tackle left on the board, so he played tackle, and right now his body and mind is that of a tackle. I can pull up the same predraft reports for D'Brickashaw Ferguson, and he aint done too bad.
    This.
     
  4. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    But we're talking about Newhouse aren't we not Ferguson? How do you know what his mindset is? Facts are he hasn't been very good at tackle.
     
  5. Shawnsta3

    Shawnsta3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,037
    Ratings:
    +375
    Has not been bad either. Especially for a 5th rounder.

    You could make an argument that from what we've seen so far he might turn out better then the guy taken 137 picks ahead of him Derrick Sherrod.
     
  6. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    As a run blocker, Newhouse leaves a bit to be desired. But from what I have seen from Sherrod, same story.

    As a pass blocker, he did fine this year. Leaps and bounds better than last year. Presuming he makes a touch more improvement next year, I'd expect him to be solidly around the 12-14th best LT in the game. That's plenty.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  7. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    He was leaps and bounds ahead of last year??? In 2011 he gave up 11.5 sacks. In 2012 he gave up 10. Really?
     
  8. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    also, it's not just the sacks total that gets me pissed about newhouse, he gives up a lot of unneeded pressures which resulted in a scramble that lead to a pass out of bounds or an incompletion.....not always, but for the most part he was getting beat by just an above average pass rusher and was totally OWNED by big name pass rushers for the majority of the season.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Un4GivN

    Un4GivN Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    45
    Ratings:
    +30
    I hate how Rodger keeps getting let off the hook because he is our "Golden Boy".

    Let's look at this by the numbers. According to Football Outsiders since 2009 Rodgers has been afforded an over average amount of time to throw the ball 3.1 seconds. The exact same time that has been allotted to Tom Brady, and almost a half of a second more than Drew Brees gets.

    Yet Drew Brees has only 64 sacks to Rodgers 110, even though he has nearly a half a second less to throw the ball. And Tom Brady only had 61 sacks even though he has approximately the same amount of time to throw before he gets sacked.

    What makes this stat even more egregious is that is has much more athleticism then those two quarterbacks but obviously it is not helping.

    Rodgers doesn't get rid of the ball on time, or the play design has him looking too deep for his receivers. Either way I am just fine with the way the line has preformed and have a MUCH bigger problem with play design. Why don't we use more bubble screens, normal screens, mis direction, slants... Everything has to be 10-20 yards down the field. They have corrected this to a point during certain games, but never made it a constant in the offense.

    Point blank... If Rodgers wants to get sacked less STOP HANGING ONTO THE BALL. The O-line could use a partial improvement but according to the numbers Rodgers has more time over the last 3 years than most quarterbacks do and yet is still taking an absurd amount of sacks. That's on him and no one else.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    Certainly. 11.5 over 13 games is much worse than 10 over 16 games. .89 sacks per game vs .63 sacks per game.

    But total sacks given is not the only indicator of how well a lineman has pass blocked. We need to know the rate at which he gave up sacks. Compared to Sanchez, for example, Rodgers threw 100 more passes. It's not surprising Rodgers has more sacks.

    This is the kind of math PFF did at the end of November. Newhouse was the 19th most efficient pass blocker (I believe this is only tackles). From the article:

    "The formula is simple enough. You add all sacks with three quarters the worth of hits and hurries, divide by snaps in pass protection, take away from 100 and just like that you’ve got an efficiency formula."

    Joe Thomas, the best, got a grade of 97.8. Newhouse got 95.6. Total pressures: 12 vs 24.

    Best of the bottom 20, Byron Bell (#46), was graded out at 93.7. Worst was Michael Harris, graded at 87.4.

    He did slip a bit near the end of the year, but still a hell of a lot better. He'd be rated higher if his "regular mistake" was so bad. It's a lot like my golf game.

    My best shot is very close in quality to the best shot of my friend who is a single digit handicap. But my most likely mistake is a duck-hook that goes out of bounds and costs me two strokes and I'm staring at a bogey, where my friend's most-likely 'bad' shot is just going to get in the way of a birdie. Assuming I duck-hook on 6 holes, that's 12 wasted strokes per round. If I could improve those bad shots to the point that they just stay in bounds, I've knocked a minimum 6 strokes off my round. That's huge.

    Same thing for Newhouse. If he could replace his "beaten badly right at the snap of the ball" play with "beaten in 2 seconds," his average 'score' would improve significantly, even though getting beat in 2 seconds is still pretty bad.
     
  11. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    Taking the sack is just part of Rodgers' game. He'd rather take the sack that throw a ball likely to get picked, even a throwaway. He's also looking downfield and trying to run. Brady will just throw it away.

    I'd prefer if Rodgers didn't take those sacks, but the big-plays we get out of him taking those chances make it worth it, imho. Still a better risk/reward than we had with Favre.
     
  12. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    And none of that reinforces your argument that he was better by leaps and bounds. I think you are trying to obfuscate the reality regarding his performance. The guy gave up 10 sacks and by your own count he allowed 24 pressures. Getting beat at the snap has gone on since he started playing. It doesn't seem he will ever be able to handle speed rushers which is something I think I mentioned previously.

    Bleacher Report rated him a c+. That was generous in my opinion.
     
  13. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    Eh, I rate Bleacher Report an 'F', though C+ would be, by definition, Above Average. In a recent article by them considering what would it be like if the Packers switched to a 4-3. They projected Pickett listed as 3 technique tackle. You know, the playmaking, pass rushing position. Credibility Lost.

    That he gave up sacks by itself is meaningless without context. He is much better this year than last.

    Against SF in week one, he gave up no hits, no sacks, 1 hurry. Against Smith and Smith, one powerful rusher and one speed rusher, that's a winning grade. In playoffs, 0, 0, and 4. Again, that's pretty good.

    Who beat him? He gave up 2 to Chicago each time and 2 to Minnesota in the playoffs. 0 to Minnesota in the regular season. He didn't give up any sacks against New York, though he gave up 5 hurries.

    So yes, he's a lot better than last year. He played more games 18 instead of 15 last year and his stats improved.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  14. Un4GivN

    Un4GivN Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    45
    Ratings:
    +30
    I completely agree, turnovers play a major part in W/L... The biggest point I am trying to make is maybe no OL could hold up to Rodgers style of play.

    Though that is still no excuse for the run blocking that I have seen throughout the past couple years.
     
  15. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    You haven't made a case that he played a lot better i.e. by the leaps and bounds you characterized his improvment. I agree he improved very slightly not by the terms you have used.

    No a C+ is still average. A "B" is Above Average at least when I went to school

    and btw the measurements this year were based on 16 games not 18.
     
  16. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    PFF has 10 sacks across the regular and post-season. They've demonstrated more accuracy in their grades, to me, than any other such tracking site. I'm willing to trust them.

    As far as now leaps-and-bounds-betters, sure I can prove that. 0 sacks in 2 games against the 49ers. 2 sacks in 3 games against Minnesota. I don't know about you, but I consider Jared Allen, Justin Smith, and Aldon Smith elite rushers.

    Also PFF: Newhouses position: 74/76 tackles for passblocking in 2011 grade of -15.3. This year, 32/80, grade of 5.0 for pass blocking.

    Explain to me how that isn't a huge improvement?
     
  17. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    The sacks allowed were during the regular season. Prove otherwise.

    You point out what he did in in a few instances. He gave up 10 sacks and Rodgers was consistently under pressure. It's the season we're discussing.

    You are using position stats rather than stats of Newhouse individually. Without looking at the pool you don't know whether it was an advancement because others played poorly vs last year or guys got hurt or who they played or new players who entered the pool, left the pool from last year, etc. There are two many variables for that to be meaningful to me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    I'm not sure if a screenshot of PFF's advanced stats would violate the TOS or not, so I can just quote it here. If someone else in the forum can confirm what I've stated is correct, I would appreciate it.

    2 Against CHI, 1 against SEA, 1 against IND, 1 against SL, 1 against NYG, 2 against CHI = Regular Season.
    2 Against MINN = Playoffs.

    What I'm trying to say is the stats alone aren't telling you the whole story. Go back and look at the grade jump: -15 to +5.

    Guess who is immediately 1 spot in front of Newhouse with a Pass-Blocking grade of 5.1. Nate Soldier, LT of the Patriots. That's right, Newhouse 5.0, Nate Soldier 5.1.

    If we're going to talk run blocking, I'll jump on that bandwagon, Newhouse didn't do the job there. But pass blocking, he did fine. He was very, very not fine in 2011.
     
  19. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Once again you are using some numerical system out of a pool that isn't static.

    The below comes from JS online. If you continue to persist in the myth that Newhouse was leaps and bounds ahead of last year I just can't help you. I've bolded certin things for you.

    "MEASURING THE O-LINE


    The Packers' offensive line was charged with 35 of the team's 55 sacks in 18 games, or 63.6%. Last year, the unit allowed 24½ of 45, or 54.4%.

    Aaron Rodgers was responsible for the most sacks with 14. Since becoming a starter five years ago, he has been charged with 9½ sacks in 2008, 16½ in '09, 13½ in '10 and 6½ in '11.

    Marshall Newhouse allowed 11 sacks, one-half more than his team-high total of 10½ a year ago. It is the most given up by a Green Bay O-lineman since Tony Mandarich yielded 12½ in '90.

    Rodgers and Newhouse were followed by Bryan Bulaga (six), T.J. Lang (5½), Don Barclay (four), Josh Sitton (3½), Evan Dietrich-Smith (three) and Jeff Saturday (two).

    The running backs were charged with just 1½ sacks and the tight ends only one.

    There was no fault assigned to three sacks. Among players who didn't give up a sack were Jermichael Finley, D.J. Williams, DuJuan Harris, James Starks and Ryan Grant.

    In the regular season, the Packers ranked 28th in sack percentage. Since a third-place finish in 2007, they have ranked 18th in '08, 29th in '09, 20th in '10 and 22nd in '11.

    When the Packers won the Super Bowl in 1996, they ranked 18th in sack percentage. From 1997-2006, they never ranked worse than 10th ('98).

    Newhouse, with 42½, allowed the most pressures. That includes all sacks, knockdowns and hurries. Newhouse's total, one more than a year ago, is the highest since the Journal Sentinel began recording the statistic in 1999."
     
  20. Un4GivN

    Un4GivN Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    Messages:
    45
    Ratings:
    +30
    Just a thought....

    What criteria do they use to figure out if a sack is on Rodgers or the line? Do they go by flat time? Or just Newhouse got beat so it is his fault?

    Just wondering becasue in my mind that number would be impossible to calculate without knowing play-call and assignments. 3-step, 5-step, things like that.
     
  21. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    I don't know the answer to that but a good question.
     
  22. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    This is very valid. PFF is rather strict on grading plays. If it cannot be determined from video study who is responsible for a play, it is discarded.

    Of note, PFF graded Newhouse harsher than the Journal. I count a total of 54 pressures from PFF vs. the Journal's 42 1/2, yet they game him a rather high grade.

    You seem to dislike the grade. I prefer it. The provide a formula and explain how a grade is earned.

    It puts context around statistics. If we go purely off statistics, for example, Hawk is a great defender because he routinely leads the Packers in tackles.
     
  23. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,743
    Ratings:
    +2,983

    Need to put a link for a story..Dont want jsonline coming after us

    http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-season-by-the-numbers-2b8e0bo-187406961.html
     

Share This Page