Projecting 2015 season

[ivo610]

per these #s it doesnt bode well for the 2015 Packers in comparison to 2014

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/t...ll-what-2014s-numbers-can-tell-us-about-2015/

 

[Deleted member 6794]

per these #s it doesnt bode well for the 2015 Packers in comparison to 2014

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/t...ll-what-2014s-numbers-can-tell-us-about-2015/

The article ignores the fact that only two of the Packers five wins in one score games were actually close ones. Another thing is that the author forgot to include the Bills loss which the Packers lost by eight points (last time I checked teams can go for two after a TD), which was decided after the two minute warning.

In addition the team leads the NFL in interceptions since Capers took over in 2009 while also having thrown the fewest over the last six seasons so I'm not worried about the turnover margin for next season either.

 

[Shawnsta3]

Not sure I buy the whole regression to the mean argument. It mentions Luck and Rodgers as both regressers and teams like the Jets and Bears with Geno Smith and Jay Cutler as the main candidates to improve because of their respective records in turnover and point differential compared to their actual records last year.

While these struggling teams maybe weren't quite as bad as their records indicate last year, the analytics are forgetting the main variable in the equation, quarterback play. And I trust Rodgers and Luck in that department over Smith and Cutler any day.

Also, I agree with Captainwimm. They say the Packers are less likely to have such a good turnover margin next year, but why so? Our defense has been terrific in that sense pretty much ever since Capers came here, as has our offense under Rodgers. It's an argument rooted in no real world sense at all.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

If you go by the contrarian nature of this article there's no need to play football. Just ship the Lombardi trophy to Jacksonville and we're done.

 

[SoonerPack]

Grantland needs to stick to what it does best. NBA hoops and weekly reviews of Game of Thrones. Just another "fun with numbers" article. Yaaawn. 11-5 or 12-4 is a pretty safe bet. We have ourselves a damn fine team that should in fact get better this upcoming season. I am not seeing anything to lead me to believe otherwise. G P G!

 

[SoonerPack]

I have been thinking for a while and for some reason I can't get one guy out of my mind. Micah Hyde. I feel in my gut this kid is going to have a huge impact on the D this season and make himself a household name. I know that he has proven to be a nice player thus far but I think this is the year he takes the next step. He is one of those guys that just has a nose for the ball and can be described in two simple words. Ball Player. I know we have some new guys coming in and while I wouldn't go so far as calling him a forgotten man I would say that he is being overlooked a tad. I anticipate a breakout season for 33 and think he ends the year with 5-6 picks and a handful of sacks to go along with many a game changing plays be it strips, TFL's etc. This is no Nostradamus-type pick by any means but I think highly enough of 33 I thought it worth the while to give him a little PF love. Damn I'm ready for some ball!!!

G P G!!

PS: I am in the camp that hopes he continues to return punts as well. He has more than proven his worth back there and I just feel uber comfortable with him in that role regardless of weather conditions.

 

[GoPGo]

I'm going with 14-2 if we stay healthy again.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Regression to the mean is a powerful concept, which is what this article is all about. I would not discount it entirely. However, there are a couple of questions to consider:

1. Which "'mean" is to be considered? In the case of turnover differential, should it be the "league mean" which is always "0"...for every giveaway by one team there is a takeway by another. Or should we look at the "Packer mean"? And how does Packer turnover differential correlate to winning and losing?

The following is a list of the Packer turnover differentials in the Rodgers era, the league rank, along with the team regular season record:

2008: +7 / #6 / 6-10
2009: +24 /#1 / 11-5
2010: +10 / #4 / 10-6
2011: +24 / #2 / 15-1
2012: +7 / #10 / 11-5
2013: -3 / #19 / 8-7-1
2014: +14 / #1 / 12-4

Since Packer performance begins and ends with Rodgers' availability, we might as well throw out 2013.

Taking the other 6 seasons, the mean average in giveaway/takeaway is +14, a far cry from the league average of "0". That equates to the 12-4 record in 2014. That seems reasonable. And there's nothing to regress to on this basis...2014 was spot on the Packer mean average.

The median average for the 6 years falls between +10 and +14, so lets call it +12. The +14 season, again, was 12-4, the +10 season was 10-6 with a ring...+12 gets us to 11-5 averaging the two seasons. Again, that seems reasonable to me. I think we're looking at an 11-5 or 12-4 playoff team.

2. Though it does not apply in this case, since the Packers are already coming off a "mean" season, the concept of regression to the mean is most powerful when the starting point is an extreme outlier...where there's nowhere to go but down, or up as the case might be. Otherwise, the point at which reversion will occur is highly unpredictable. Keynes famously said, "Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." That same principle can be applied to just about any highly multi-variable system, football team performance included. Reversion happens...you just don't know when with any precision.

The one area of Packer reversion to the mean where I have concerns is injury incidence. Prior to 2014 week 1, two purported starters were lost for all or part of the season: Raji and Tretter. Tretter proved to be no loss at all. Raji? The book is still open. But after opening day the low incidence of lost starts is an extreme outlier. Getting through 2015 similarly unscathed is possible but unlikely.

 

[XPack]

If seasons were decided by statistics, we'd have a mathematician for coach.

Analysis is ok. This kind of over analysis is plain stupid.

Just enjoy the game.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If seasons were decided by statistics, we'd have a mathematician for coach.

Analysis is ok. This kind of over analysis is plain stupid.

Just enjoy the game.

You should be aware that the Packers employ at least one guy dedicated to data analysis. The GM and coaches use that work, and quote it from time to time. "Moneyball" concepts are slowly but surely creeping into the NFL. Or maybe not so slowly.

 

[SoonerPack]

I agree with HRE on this one. The beneficial component of data is predictability and the trends that come from said predictability. I do believe you can get overwhelmed with too much data but if it opens your eyes to trends (good or bad) that keep repeating themselves year after year then it could be quite useful. At the end of the day the players decide everything on the field however there are many other variables going into the finished product and analytics is often at the forefront.

 

[XPack]

You should be aware that the Packers employ at least one guy dedicated to data analysis. The GM and coaches use that work, and quote it from time to time. "Moneyball" concepts are slowly but surely creeping into the NFL. Or maybe not so slowly.

You need data. Break a player down by key stats and it becomes easier to compare and analyse where we need to improve. But making predictions on how a team a team will perform while at the same time ignoring stats like, player forms, transfer in/out, injuries etc is pretty daft imo.

Maybe I missed the significance of one-score games, but is there a prediction we'll have the same number of one score games this season too? Without a common denominator, just making assumptions on one-score games prediction is meaningless too.

Last season, special teams sucked, Aaron was suffering from miggling injuries but had a fantastic season. This season we have newcomers na have lost people in secondary. How doe these factor into his calculations?

I think the article title holds true. Statistical crystal ball is not better than a real life crystal ball.

 

[JBlood]

The only good point of the article is the importance of luck (chance) due to the short season, and you can't predict luck. If you believe Football Outsiders, good passing beats good defense; and pass defense correlates with winning more than run defense. And those are the primary reasons we're in the playoffs year after year. But a weak run defense, like ours, allows other teams to run out the clock, which is a potential killer in the playoffs. If our run defense improves to above average, and Rogers stays healthy, I believe we have a very real chance at Championship #14.

 

[TJV]

Here's perhaps another element of the story: They have to write something and this is a slow time regarding NFL news. Not sure how big a part that plays but my guess is it played a part, and it looks like an annual slow-time column.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here's perhaps another element of the story: They have to write something and this is a slow time regarding NFL news. Not sure how big a part that plays but my guess is it played a part, and it looks like an annual slow-time column.

Ah, but the slow periods are an opportunity to step back for careful reflection!

Starting tomorrow, the reports will start rolling in about who's flashing in the OTA underwear drills.

And yes, that is an intended pun.

 

[TJV]

Starting tomorrow, the reports will start rolling in about who's flashing in the OTA underwear drills.

Yes, and I intend to anoint a couple newcomers as future HOF'ers so be on guard!

 

[El Guapo]

Much like the groundhog, I come out and see my shadow, and return to my burrow until training camp starts.

 

[rodell330]

Idk why ppl even read that stuff. "You play to win the game...hello."
Herm Edwards

 

[paulska]

HRE's post about whether the mean refers to the league or Packer mean is a great example of how reading numbers is both an art and difficult to master form of critical thinking.

PFF does stress a few stats as of greater significance, and I would have to say that over time their weighting of passer rating differential over other more traditional stats tends to prove a far more reliable predictor of team success. In our case, we tend to do pretty well along this line because our rating is going to be celestial with ARod, and we do enough things well within our defensive scheme to force other QBs to far lesser heights.

That said, our achilles has been the run game- whether that's Kaepernick scorching us or falling apart against Marshawn, there are critical times in the season where opponents can mitigate our top flight QB play by dominating other facets of the game.

My biggest concerns for this season are around run defense- if we can't do it at a top 15 level, we're in trouble again- and how we will fair on the passer rating differential while we integrate a new outside corner. There's talent there, but it's not proven, and that's one position where the learning process can mean a huge difference in the game if the process involves learning from costly mistakes fairly regularly on the way to competence.

There's a lot of versatility in the defensive backfield now, but Woodson was a monster in our secondary because there were stable performers on the outside, and generally one effective safety back there. We've got one solid safety (Burnett), one solid corner (Shields) and the rest of the secondary is a question mark, even though HHCD is an up and coming talent, and it's hopeful one of the newly minted hybrid Rollins/Randall can perform outside.

Predicting our season success to me is more about how the gaps and transitions we have on defense get coached and perform. I like Joe Whitt to get the secondary playing effectively. I don't know about our Dline and LB play. Because our division has had so much turmoil, I can see us winning it at 10-6 or 11-5, but whether we do anything with that? I don't have a feel for that, no matter what numbers or trends you toss out given the question marks for our roster...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There's a lot of versatility in the defensive backfield now, but Woodson was a monster in our secondary because there were stable performers on the outside, and generally one effective safety back there. We've got one solid safety (Burnett), one solid corner (Shields) and the rest of the secondary is a question mark, even though HHCD is an up and coming talent, and it's hopeful one of the newly minted hybrid Rollins/Randall can perform outside.

I agree with most of what you posted but I really think the starting corner opposite Shields is Hayward´s job to lose.

 

[paulska]

I agree with most of what you posted but I really think the starting corner opposite Shields is Hayward´s job to lose.

Roger that, and tend to agree in seeing him as the most qualified option on the basis of experience given his competition.

I hope he lights it up out there and pleasantly surprises us with a level of play that makes us all say "Gee, TT nailed it when he let other people pay Tramon and Davon that big money. He obviously knew what we had. Nice one Ted!" That said, one of my question marks about him is whether his physical tools make him an ideal fit outside.

There's no question he's got real value as the slot CB- there are a lot of teams who'd be happy to have him there. I just wonder whether or not he's got what it takes to deliver a similar level of value/productivity in a role we haven't seen him play much. But I guess that's why they play the games (insert Chris Berman / NFL primetime youtube clip here).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Roger that, and tend to agree in seeing him as the most qualified option on the basis of experience given his competition.

I hope he lights it up out there and pleasantly surprises us with a level of play that makes us all say "Gee, TT nailed it when he let other people pay Tramon and Davon that big money. He obviously knew what we had. Nice one Ted!" That said, one of my question marks about him is whether his physical tools make him an ideal fit outside.

There's no question he's got real value as the slot CB- there are a lot of teams who'd be happy to have him there. I just wonder whether or not he's got what it takes to deliver a similar level of value/productivity in a role we haven't seen him play much. But I guess that's why they play the games (insert Chris Berman / NFL primetime youtube clip here).

I'm not convinced either that Hayward will turn into a solid outside corner. He has played there on occasion and had four of his six interceptions during his rookie season on the outside.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm not convinced either that Hayward will turn into a solid outside corner. He has played there on occasion and had four of his six interceptions during his rookie season on the outside.

It strikes me that Hayward made his picks reading the QB, anticipating the passing lane and/or jumping a route. In other words: "zone corner". I'll be interested to see him out there regularly in preseason (in the first half anyway) in man coverage.

I'll go out a limb and say Hayward will not be the starting cover corner by mid-season, if not earlier. Consider the following:

1. He did not displace House as the #3 cover corner.

2. He did not displace Hyde by taking over as the primary nickel corner.

3. The Packers lost 2 cover corners and then drafted two DBs in the 1st. and 2nd. rounds with purported cover corner potential.

4. The Packers are relatively strong at the safety position going 3-deep with Hyde and 4-deep with Richardson when a box safety match up is preferred, and Hyde/Hayward is a pretty decent nickel combo. The obvious need was and is on the perimeter (see 3. above).

5. Hayward will be a free agent after this season, and somebody will offer him decent coin, though not likely as rich as the House contract, to take 600 or 700 snaps at nickel corner. Why suffer through growing pains if the guy is not going to provide a payoff in future years? Better to take early season lumps with a guy who will be around for 4 years. Investing two high picks is not to be thought of as simply depth and insurance behind the other proven players with a couple of years or more left on their contracts.

Hayward was a starting guard on his HS basketball team, so maybe I should rethink this.

Seriously, though, shouldn't it seem odd that Hayward managed only 460 snaps (37.8%) last season, with a chuck of those at dime? His second year was injury plagued, but being healthy last year there was an opportunity for the team to leverage his very high interception/snap count ratio from his rookie year. But they didn't. Again, he had a high ratio with 3 picks on those 460 snaps again last season. Isn't it odd that a defensive coordinator who puts such a high premium on opponent passer rating and turnovers wouldn't want this player on the field more regularly?

Joe Witt said late last season, "Casey has played better than most people realize, and he deserves more reps than he has played." So why didn't he get more reps last season? Because he couldn't beat out House or Hyde for them? Or perhaps Capers has a different opinion.

There's some kind of undisclosed question mark. It is my opinion that it boils down to his man coverage skills. Or perhaps he's generated some of those picks when being out of position or taking what is perceived to be undue risks? I'm faintly reminded of Robert Francois in this latter regard.

So, it it Hayward's job to lose? Yeah, probably. But his grasp on it is highly tenuous in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers lost 2 cover corners and then drafted two DBs in the 1st. and 2nd. rounds with purported cover corner potential.

I agree with nearly all of what you said about Hayward and I would prefer the Packers to play him in the slot as well. The problem is that both Randall and Rollins aren't best suited to play outside either but one of the group will have to start opposite Shields.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I agree with nearly all of what you said about Hayward and I would prefer the Packers to play him in the slot as well. The problem is that both Randall and Rollins aren't best suited to play outside either but one of the group will have to start opposite Shields.

I agree, thus my use of the term "purported". It's no secret I was not too happy with the value to the 2015 defense with those two picks. I hope I'm wrong about Randall, but if he can't take over the cover corner spot in relatively short order, I won't be able to see the point of that pick.

By the way, I don't see where Randall has signed yet going into OTAs. He's one of nine first rounders still haggling:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000489937/article/2015-nfl-draft-firstround-signing-tracker

That list of descending contract values and signing bonuses illustrates how tightly draft picks are slotted as a byproduct of the CBA. Randall might be haggling over some roster bonus vs. salary in the out years or the amount of guarantees beyond the signing bonus.

While being the first to acknowledge that business is business, haggling over some finer points in the contract in lieu of getting to work to win a starting job is a bit concerning, if not short-sighted from his own personal business standpoint. The term "availability" is frequently used in the McCarthy lexicon. Randall sat out the rookie OTA with a "minor ankle injury". Hmm...I might have done the same myself if I was not under contract.

He'll sign sooner rather than later, and sooner would be in his best interests. Where's he going otherwise? Canada, where they pay peanuts? Centerfield, or was it shortstop , riding busses in the deep minors?