Should the Packers Throw the Ball More?

[Ogsponge]

I am posting this due to a post from HRE in the James Jones thread, which you can see the relevant, to this thread, part below.

Over the past 5 years, the Packers have ranked as follows in number of passing attempts:

2014 - 20th.
2013 - 18th.
2012 - 16th.
2011 - 14th.
2010 - 16th.

Even without Lacy, the numbers were average; with him the numbers went down.

I look at these numbers and can't help think to myself that maybe one of the problems with the Packers getting back to the big stage is they are simply not aggressive enough. The Packers have a perception as a pass happy offense but looking at these numbers, they are obviously not, they consistently rank in the middle to bottom half of the league in pass attempts. The reason why they are always perceived as a pass happy team is because they are so good at passing the ball that it appears they pass more than they do.

I guess my view is that if you have what most people outside of New England consider to be the greatest QB in the game on your roster, why not take advantage of what you do best and simply stomp a mud hole in every opponent they play. Now don't get me wrong, I am not advocating giving up on the run as we have great balance with Lacy and Starks but how good could this team be if they concentrate a little more on doing what they do best and passing the ball. With what the Packers have I would think if they ranked in the top 10 in this category every year, we would score more points and win more games, and let's face it, with our suspect (at best) defense and special teams, this team needs to score more points to win certain games.

Lastly before some of you lose your minds, I am not bashing the Packers at all, I am not saying they suck in anyway, I am simply wondering if the team could be any better if they open up the throttle a bit and concentrate a little more on doing what they do best.

 

[Carl]

A better stat would be pass to run ratio. They could have less attempts simply by completing more and scoring faster than poor offenses.

They also aren't behind frequently by multiple scores and have to play catch up.

 

[HardRightEdge]

A better stat would be pass to run ratio. They could have less attempts simply by completing more and scoring faster than poor offenses.

They also aren't behind frequently by multiple scores and have to play catch up.

My post was in the context of somebody saying something would happen because the Packers pass the ball so much.

I don't remember who it was or what it was about, but he was wrong. Run/pass ratio had nothing to do with it.

Carry on....

 

[Carl]

My post was in the context of somebody saying something would happen because the Packers pass the ball so much.

I don't remember who it was or what it was about, but he was wrong. Run/pass ratio had nothing to do with it.

Carry on....

I clearly was not replying to your context considering it's in a different thread. Your post was quoted above simply to use the stat.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I clearly was not replying to your context considering it's in a different thread. Your post was quoted above simply to use the stat.

I want to make it clear that I am not in agreement with the thread in which I was quoted.

Carry on....

 

[Ogsponge]

A better stat would be pass to run ratio. They could have less attempts simply by completing more and scoring faster than poor offenses.

They also aren't behind frequently by multiple scores and have to play catch up.

As I said, this was just more musings than anything. More like a what if scenario than anything.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I am posting this due to a post from HRE in the James Jones thread, which you can see the relevant, to this thread, part below.

I look at these numbers and can't help think to myself that maybe one of the problems with the Packers getting back to the big stage is they are simply not aggressive enough. The Packers have a perception as a pass happy offense but looking at these numbers, they are obviously not, they consistently rank in the middle to bottom half of the league in pass attempts. The reason why they are always perceived as a pass happy team is because they are so good at passing the ball that it appears they pass more than they do.

I guess my view is that if you have what most people outside of New England consider to be the greatest QB in the game on your roster, why not take advantage of what you do best and simply stomp a mud hole in every opponent they play. Now don't get me wrong, I am not advocating giving up on the run as we have great balance with Lacy and Starks but how good could this team be if they concentrate a little more on doing what they do best and passing the ball. With what the Packers have I would think if they ranked in the top 10 in this category every year, we would score more points and win more games, and let's face it, with our suspect (at best) defense and special teams, this team needs to score more points to win certain games.

Lastly before some of you lose your minds, I am not bashing the Packers at all, I am not saying they suck in anyway, I am simply wondering if the team could be any better if they open up the throttle a bit and concentrate a little more on doing what they do best.

The Packers threw the ball on 56.5% of the offensive plays last season which only ranked 22nd in the league. Teams tend to throw the ball significantly more often trailing by more than a score though and the Packers had the second fewest offensive plays in that situation last year, so you have to take that into consideration as well.

Overall, as long as the team leads the league in scoring there isn´t anything to complain about.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers threw the ball on 56.5% of the offensive plays last season which only ranked 22nd in the league. Teams tend to throw the ball significantly more often trailing by more than a score though and the Packers had the second fewest offensive plays in that situation last year, so you have to take that into consideration as well.

Overall, as long as the team leads the league in scoring there isn´t anything to complain about.

I would note that the Packer's median average scoring last season, including playoffs, was 26.7 vs. the mean average scoring of 29.7, with the mean padded by four 40+ games including two 50+ games. There were 4 regular season games where the offense scored 20 points or less.

The road record is striking. The mean average scoring including playoffs was 19.7 on the road, a full 10 fewer points than the season average, with a meaningfully higher spread vs. home scoring, which I'll not bother to calculate. The median road scoring was 22.5. This home vs. road scoring spread is particularly striking when considering odds makers typically grant 3 or 4 points to the home team in the opening line. All 4 of the 40+ games were at home; all 4 of the games with 20 or less were on the road.

The moral of the story is that the offensive "failure" against Seattle when measured against expectations projected from the regular season was no failure at all. 22 against Seattle's defense on the road was above reasonable projection.

You can win a championship without an elite defense provided the playoff match-ups fall your way, or a less than elite defense in the aggregate statistics may be enough if they play at an elite level in the 4th. quarter. In the case of the 2014 version of the Packers, that would have entailed a match-up against a weaker defense where the offense could front-run and/or securing home field advantage.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would note that the Packer's median average scoring last season, including playoffs, was 26.7 vs. the mean average scoring of 29.7, with the mean padded by four 40+ games including two 50+ games. There were 4 regular season games where the offense scored 20 points or less.

The road record is striking. The mean average scoring including playoffs was 19.7 on the road, a full 10 fewer points than the season average, with a meaningfully higher spread vs. home scoring, which I'll not bother to calculate. The median road scoring was 22.5. This home vs. road scoring spread is particularly striking when considering odds makers typically grant 3 or 4 points to the home team in the opening line. All 4 of the 40+ games were at home; all 4 of the games with 20 or less were on the road.

The Packers actually average 38.2 points per game at home compared to only 21.1 on the road. I didn´t realize that the margin between home and road games was that large. During the first six seasons with Rodgers starting the team averaged 30.0 points at home and 25.8 on the road. The huge difference most likely had a lot to do with playing three out the best four defenses (Seattle twice) on the road in 2014.

BTW I don´t think the median average provides any meaningful information in this case.

 

[TJV]

The road record is striking. The mean average scoring including playoffs was 19.7 on the road ... The moral of the story is that the offensive "failure" against Seattle when measured against expectations projected from the regular season was no failure at all. 22 against Seattle's defense on the road was above reasonable projection.

So because the offense routinely "failed" to score more than 19.7 points on the road, their scoring a full 2.3 points over their median average was a success? It looks to me like your dislike for Capers is coloring your opinion of that game. Why deny it was a failure on offense, defense and special teams except for a desire to pin it exclusively on Capers? But for any of the failures, the Packers would have won and that of course includes the offense and STs.

BTW, I wonder what the median scoring average for the Packers was in games the defense intercepted 4 passes?

 

[Robert Mason]

You need defenses to fear the run or passing will not be successful.

 

[El Guapo]

Before Lacy, the world bemoaned Mike McCarthy's pass/run ratio. He didn't run the ball enough, when he did it was with inferior backs that got nowhere, and when they failed he quickly went back to his hero at QB. I think that what we have now is an offense that has good run/pass balance from both a skill point of view and a play-calling point of view. We shouldn't be shut down like the Giants did in the 2011 playoffs because they can't sit back and only worry about shutting down our passing game.

The overall moral is that the offense is SB caliber. No question. The defense and special teams have the potential to be our Achilles heals or our heroes. It's why we are always in the conversation but never the runaway favorite to win it all. Bombing away at teams through the air to compensate for our defense may have diminishing returns when their defenses load up to stop it with dime, quarter, or dollar formations.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

BTW, I wonder what the median scoring average for the Packers was in games the defense intercepted 4 passes?

I really don't see any value in bringing up the median scoring average but since Rodgers became the starter the defense has intercepted four passes a total of seven times. In those games they have allowed an average of 15.4 points per game with the median average at 15.

 

[TJV]

I really don't see any value in bringing up the median scoring average but since Rodgers became the starter the defense has intercepted four passes a total of seven times. In those games they have allowed an average of 15.4 points per game with the median average at 15.

I think HRE's point was (to put it simply) because the Packers O surpassed their median scoring average on the road, the loss was the fault of the Packers D. So the "relevant" stat I was asking about is what is the Packers O median scoring average when the Packers D intercepts 4 passes.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So the "relevant" stat I was asking about is what is the Packers O median scoring average when the Packers D intercepts 4 passes.

Before the game at Seattle it was at 39.5 with Rodgers being the starter.

 

[HardRightEdge]

So because the offense routinely "failed" to score more than 19.7 points on the road, their scoring a full 2.3 points over their median average was a success? It looks to me like your dislike for Capers is coloring your opinion of that game. Why deny it was a failure on offense, defense and special teams except for a desire to pin it exclusively on Capers? But for any of the failures, the Packers would have won and that of course includes the offense and STs.

BTW, I wonder what the median scoring average for the Packers was in games the defense intercepted 4 passes?

My dislike of Capers as a DC is unbridled and unremediable. That's certainly no secret.

I cited those statistics to illustrate that the offensive performance against Seattle was representative of the season, not some kind of "failure" or underperformance relative to what preceded.

I bring this up because there seems to be the idea, held in many quarters, that the offense should simply outscore opponents. It also goes to the issue of needing a fast start discussed elsewhere. Sometimes, the defense has to win a game, or at least in the case of Seattle, not lose it, which they in fact did. Saying they couldn't close is a an overwhelming understatement.

So I'll ask you...what was the opponents median scoring average when the Packers intercept 4 balls?

 

[HardRightEdge]

The huge difference most likely had a lot to do with playing three out the best four defenses (Seattle twice) on the road in 2014.

BTW I don´t think the median average provides any meaningful information in this case.

Isn't that the point? Simply outscoring teams with tough defenses on the road should not be expected.

Median averages are always more meaningful that mean averages in small data sets, even if they are not readily available. A few high numbers or low numbers can skew the mean.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think HRE's point was (to put it simply) because the Packers O surpassed their median scoring average on the road, the loss was the fault of the Packers D.

Yes, but it goes to expectations based on past performance. The 2014 offense beat up on weak sisters and struggled to score against good defenses on the road...which would not be entirely unexpected for any good offense in any season.

Once the expectations are adjusted to the reality, perhaps my point will be better understood.

The victory was in the defense's grasp and they gave it away.

 

[TJV]

I cited those statistics to illustrate that the offensive performance against Seattle was representative of the season, not some kind of "failure" or underperformance relative to what preceded.

This looks like, and from the rest of your post, is an excuse for the underperformance of the offense in NFCCG.

I bring this up because there seems to be the idea, held in many quarters, that the offense should simply outscore opponents. It also goes to the issue of needing a fast start discussed elsewhere.

I don’t see many posters or Packers fans generally who think the performance of the defense is irrelevant – that they just have to outscore opponents.

Sometimes, the defense has to win a game, or at least in the case of Seattle, not lose it, which they in fact did. Saying they couldn't close is an overwhelming understatement.

No it’s not. What if the Packers offense hadn’t gone three-and-out twice in a row beginning with 6:53 left in regulation? One first down and they win the game. What if Bostic had done what he was coached to do and reminded to do right before the onside kick? The Packers win the game. What if the offense had scored a TD in the red zone instead of kicking one of the FGs they made? What if the punt return team hadn’t fallen asleep on the fake? What if the Packers offense had come close to their average with Rodgers being the starter in games the D intercepts 4 passes – 39.5 points (as captainWIMM posted)?

IMO your bringing up the median average in away games as an excuse for the offense is weak, particularly considering the fact they intercepted Wilson four times in that game. Or do you consider four INTs irrelevant to scoring expectations of the offense? Your putting the loss entirely on the defense is demonstrably false (since I just demonstrated it above). Don’t look now HRE, but your unbridled and unremediable (or is it “irremediable?) dislike for Capers is clouding your judgment.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I cited those statistics to illustrate that the offensive performance against Seattle was representative of the season, not some kind of "failure" or underperformance relative to what preceded.

While it's true that the offense struggled to score vs. good defenses on the road all season long they still deserve blame for it.

On the other side the defense allowed an median average of 21 points in road games during the regular season in 2014. So the defense allowing 22 points in regulation was a representative performance as well and not some kind of failure.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I really don't see any value in bringing up the median scoring average but since Rodgers became the starter the defense has intercepted four passes a total of seven times. In those games they have allowed an average of 15.4 points per game with the median average at 15.

There you go.

 

[Packerlover]

I'm not interested in pass attempts. I'm interested in a balanced offensive attack that takes advantage of each opponents weaknesses. That's the key to success - having the talent to run if you have to and throw it if you have to.. I think TT and MM have done a great job in this regard.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

I am posting this due to a post from HRE in the James Jones thread, which you can see the relevant, to this thread, part below.



I look at these numbers and can't help think to myself that maybe one of the problems with the Packers getting back to the big stage is they are simply not aggressive enough. The Packers have a perception as a pass happy offense but looking at these numbers, they are obviously not, they consistently rank in the middle to bottom half of the league in pass attempts. The reason why they are always perceived as a pass happy team is because they are so good at passing the ball that it appears they pass more than they do.

I guess my view is that if you have what most people outside of New England consider to be the greatest QB in the game on your roster, why not take advantage of what you do best and simply stomp a mud hole in every opponent they play. Now don't get me wrong, I am not advocating giving up on the run as we have great balance with Lacy and Starks but how good could this team be if they concentrate a little more on doing what they do best and passing the ball. With what the Packers have I would think if they ranked in the top 10 in this category every year, we would score more points and win more games, and let's face it, with our suspect (at best) defense and special teams, this team needs to score more points to win certain games.

Lastly before some of you lose your minds, I am not bashing the Packers at all, I am not saying they suck in anyway, I am simply wondering if the team could be any better if they open up the throttle a bit and concentrate a little more on doing what they do best.

I don't think there's much question that GB needs to do a better job of finishing games and not letting up once a decent lead is established. I don't think this represents a lack of aggression on the part of the playes as much as it represents conservative coaching. But I think it hurts a team's morale to not finish games and to take the foot off the gas. And with a suspect D (although I'm predicting it will finish in the top 10), and a STs that still has trouble getting the number of players on the field right, MM and Clements need to let the Offense play "stones out" for the entire 60 minutes. Yeah maybe bring in Tolzien for a drive or two at the end, but be relentless about scoring.

As we painfully saw in the NFCCG, and as Baltimore learned in their playoff game against NE last year, leads can disappear very quickly. So if the Packers lack aggressiveness, and to some extent I think that's been true for the coaches, then just keep playing all out. It demoralizes opponents, and keeps the offensive players happy. Real competitors should NEVER wan to sit down while the clock still has time on it and they still have gas in the tank. In every sport the great teams and players leave everything on the field. I hope we see this change this year and start pounding teams into the turf.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

My dislike of Capers as a DC is unbridled and unremediable. That's certainly no secret.

I cited those statistics to illustrate that the offensive performance against Seattle was representative of the season, not some kind of "failure" or underperformance relative to what preceded.

I bring this up because there seems to be the idea, held in many quarters, that the offense should simply outscore opponents. It also goes to the issue of needing a fast start discussed elsewhere. Sometimes, the defense has to win a game, or at least in the case of Seattle, not lose it, which they in fact did. Saying they couldn't close is a an overwhelming understatement.

So I'll ask you...what was the opponents median scoring average when the Packers intercept 4 balls?

For what it's worth, a strategy based predominantly on the O's ability to outscore even the best Ds is doomed to fail. The Packers' D has to contribute in a major way to win at least some games during the year, and for sure in the playoffs. I don't like Capers either but that's a done deal. But as DC, he has ultimate responsibility for how the D performs. Balanced teams win SBs. (Yes I favor teams with elite Ds over elite Os but the Packers just need a respectable performance from their D this year.) The Packers, unless the D steps up, will win another meaningless NFC North crown and be one and done in the playoffs. Capers can't dance around that. That said, I think this D will contribute enough to make a deep playoff run. They will not win the SB by planning to outscore elite Ds. Won't work. GB's D must contribute in a significant way.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There you go.

You continue to ignore the facts putting blame on the offense and special teams for the loss in the NFCCG. And while you seem to be fine with the offense's performance because they scored half a point more than their median average on the road in 2014 you don't apply the same method for the defense which gave up a single point more than their median road average in regulation. Doesn't make any sense to me.

In addition you criticize the defense for giving up 22 points in regulation compared to their median average of 15 in games in which they had four interceptions while overlooking the offense had a median average of 39.5 points in such games before the NFCCG.

Overall, it should be obvious to everyone that the offense and special teams (which actually were responsible for at least seven points) deserve a ton of blame for lising the NFCCG.