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

The problem of franchising Flynn.

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Raptorman, Jan 20, 2012.

  1. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    By most accounts we did indeed miss Jenkins. He became a big time player for us on defense. If one thinks that lightning is going to strike twice be my guest. I don't see the potential there in either Wynn or Wilson. I've already discussed Neal.

    No one says its an easy job being a GM. A lot of jobs in this world are difficult. But it is the job he selected and is getting paid to do. The Packers have shown success but to me to get to the next level and that's the Super Bowl they need an infusion of talent on the defense. Standing pat is not the answer.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    It's not difficult to defend at all. The only way you can call the Packers defense the worst is if you only look at yards. The single most important statistic for a defense is points allowed. Going into the final game against the Lions (where our best players all sat the pine) they were 11th in that category.
     
  3. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    No, they weren't. The Bucs were the worst. They allowed more than 490 points last year. 13 teams allowed more points than we did. Prior to the meaningless Lions game, 21 teams had allowed more points than the Packers. It's simply a myth that we had the worst defense.
     
  4. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,686
    Ratings:
    +2,977
    People only look at yards given up...They dont care about points
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Rocky11

    Rocky11 Superbowl bound Pack

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    231
    Ratings:
    +61
    I tend to look at 3rd down. You have to admit we sucked at it. A little throw across the middle, first down. They could not get off the field. I don't have the stats but I bet we did not compare well to other teams.
     
  6. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Whatever tickles your funny bone.:)
     
  7. Dan115

    Dan115 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,794
    Ratings:
    +484
    WOW I care about points.
     
  8. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +387
    Meh.

    Our D forced quite a few turnovers last year, which helped the points allowed mark. But you can't count on that again this year; it's a wildly inconsistent statistic that usually returns to the mean. e.g., Compare the turnover ratio between the 2009 Saints (Superbowl champs) and the 2010 Saints. The Packers aren't finishing +24 in turnover ratio again next year, not even close.

    Last year, the Packers weren't getting off the field on third down often enough. We can quibble about statistics but the defense didn't pass the eye test...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Rocky11

    Rocky11 Superbowl bound Pack

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    231
    Ratings:
    +61
    Scoring is of course very important but they can't score if their offense is sitting on the sideline. And what naturally follows is that our offense will be on the field longer and then scoring more points for the good guys.
     
  10. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,017
    Ratings:
    +3,105
    Almost all of us who keep insisting points are the most important defensive stat are not arguing the Packers defense is OK, just that there's no need to exaggerate how bad it was.
    Are turnovers the only stat that "usually returns to the mean"? IOW, should we expect the Packers points and (the less important) yards surrendered to also revert to the mean? But if it just TOs that are "wildly inconsistent" instead of comparing the Saints 2010 and 2009 defenses, let's look at the three years of the Capers-led Packers defense. That's certainly more relevant to the Packers, right? These are regular season stats from the NFL website:

    In 2009 the Packers' D was first in INTs with 30 and recovered 10 fumbles for a total of 40 TOs.
    In 2010 the Packers' D was second in INTs with 24 and recovered 8 fumbles for a total of 32 TOs.
    In 2011 the Packers' D was first in INTs with 31 and recovered 7 fumbles for a total of 38 TOs.

    So under Capers, the Packers' regular season mean with regard to TOs is 28.3 INTs and 8.3 recovered fumbles for an average of 36.6 TOs. Reverting to the Packers' D mean doesn't look so bad, does it? And these stats look pretty consistent, don't they? Also noteworthy IMO is the year they won it all was the worst of the three regarding these stats, owing mostly to the late season surge, no doubt.

    But you are right in saying the defense didn't pass the eye test. Not only that, but in McGinn's season ending grades he had the Packers 26th in third down defense and 20th in red-zone defense. While that's really bad, it's not the worst in the league. Small comfort I know, but it has the advantage of being true.
     
  11. Bagadeez04

    Bagadeez04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    381
    Ratings:
    +133
    That's what really scares me actually...imagine how much worse this defense could possibly be if they don't get all the fumbles and INT's.
     
  12. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    What is an exaggeration in the case of our defense? Does posting contrary numbers make it an ok defense? Is this some sort of a denial mechanism for what we saw? Jaybadger82 is correct, it didn't pass the eye test. No amount of putting a pretty face on numbers makes it one bit better to me. I know what I saw.
     
  13. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +387
    Good stats. I always thought the secondary was pretty good at ball-hawking but that's remarkably consistent. Seems like most stat geeks will tell you that this is unusual...

    Despite McGinn's ratings suggesting that we shade more toward the mediocre than the terrible, I really didn't like the way our defense allowed opponents to convert third downs.

    How does McGinn come up with his ratings? Any links/formulas? (Thanks)
     
  14. Dan115

    Dan115 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,794
    Ratings:
    +484
    Add a little pass rush and that ball hawking will only get better.
     
  15. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,017
    Ratings:
    +3,105
    It is an exaggeration to say the Packers defense was the worst in the league because the league keeps track of winners and losers by using points, not yards.

    Apparently you had trouble following the discussion. Jaybadger82 posted that we can’t count on the defense forcing 'quite a few' TOs because that’s an inconsistent stat. I posted the TO stats for Capers’ Packers D which resulted in Jaybadger82 posting “that’s remarkably consistent” which was the point of my post.

    How did I put a “pretty face” on those stats? Unlike some stats like missed tackles, interceptions and recovered fumbles are objective stats. In addition to citing stats, in that post I agreed that the defense didn’t pass the eye test. I also quoted McGinn’s stats and wrote, “While that's really bad, it's not the worst in the league…” Apparently you interpreted my agreeing the D didn’t pass the eye test and posting it was “really bad” to mean I was saying the Packers had an “ok defense”.

    BTW, here’s another objective fact: In addition to leading the league in INTs, the Packers’ 2011 D led the league in fewest penalties. In spite of those facts, the Packers defense was bad. But aspects of it, like forcing TOs and not committing penalties were very good. Even though these facts don’t fit neatly into the view of some that the Packers’ defense was the worst in the league, they remain facts.

    - - -
    Jaybadger82, the stats I quoted from McGinn appeared in his season-ending grades column. I assume the 26th ranking on third downs was the percentage of times they allowed a first down and the 20th red zone defense was the number of points surrendered per opponent’s entry into the red zone. McGinn also cites stats like pressures that I assume he gets from the team, but I’m not certain of that.

    The Packers were historically bad in giving up passing yards. Even so IMO the stats quoted and the fact the Packers were 19th in points surrendered mean the Packers were a bottom third defense, not the worst defense in the league. Because passing yards and total yards surrendered aren’t the only stats and in fact aren’t the most important stats. Like I said in my above post, that’s of little comfort to Packers fans – it has to get better next season.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    I wasn't referencing you in entirety. It isn't always about you. ;) If you read through the thread there are other posters making a case with numbers.

    Btw, the league also ranks defenses by yards allowed. We were last in that and that's no exaggeration. And I saw a lousy defense on the field. If those two things are an exaggeration so be it. That was the point I was trying to make.

    Also, I followed your dialogue with jaybadger82 quite well.
     
  17. Rocky11

    Rocky11 Superbowl bound Pack

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    231
    Ratings:
    +61
    I agree with you 13 Times Champs. That defense is ugly to look at. It's kind of like dating an ugly woman ( or man), you may enjoy spending time with them, you just don't want to be seen with them in public. I am sure we all hope that our defense improves no matter how you divide up the stats and I know that the Packers all know that and will improve.
     
  18. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,017
    Ratings:
    +3,105
    That’s absolutely right, it’s certainly not all about me. But IMO if you look at the posts on this thread beginning with yours at #226 it’s pretty obvious you were responding to my post as I was the one who mentioned exaggeration and I was the one that answered Jaybadger82’s post. Not that it’s a big deal one way or another.

    I’ve got three direct questions for you if you care to answer them:

    1. Which defensive stat is more important in a game or for an entire season: Points surrendered or yards surrendered?
    2. Do you dispute any of the stats I or GreenBlood posted from post #227 on in this thread?
    3. Why do you post as though you have a problem with the posting of facts about the Packers’ 2011 defense?
     
  19. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    I said I responded to others as well as you. The part about exaggeration was clearly directed at you. You can draw lines in a thread anywhere you want. :rolleyes: I'll draw mine at post # 219.

    Why do you constantly say the defense was bad yet post stats that don't support that. It leads me to believe you don't really believe the former.

    In answer to your question 1, I'm not making excuses for the Packers defensive play. I'm not blaming the offense for losing the playoff game. I'm not trying to engage in revisonist history regarding the defenses play in 2011. Perhaps it makes you feel better about our defense to post those numbers but not me.
     
  20. Raptorman

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    2,196
    Ratings:
    +837
    Taking just one stat to determine if a defense is doing well or not is foolish. While points alone may be an indicator, a combination of points per yards given up would be even better. A formula such as the QB rate would be interesting to come up with. Incorporating passing yards, rushing yards, FF, interceptions, TD's and don't forget the Field goals. Most try to make something of just he running defense or passing defense, I believe the two are intertwined. A team that has a good rushing d may have teams that throw more because of it and thus their passing yards may be higher than other teams.
     
  21. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Good post. I don't think there is an all inclusive category to measure a defense. That's why I go by what I see on the field.
     
  22. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Ratings:
    +387
    Thanks...

    Seems like we can all agree that there are plenty of metrics by which one can measure a defense.

    Though I think the Packer D saw aggressive game planning from opponents, I think it's safe to say that this unit was one of the worst in the NFL on the basis of last year's performance. Seems like an obvious priority compared to the offense...
     
  23. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,017
    Ratings:
    +3,105
    Believe whatever you like; I post what I believe. The reason I posted the TO stats was to point out under Capers they are remarkably consistent, something jaybadger82 has acknowledged. I have cited the points surrendered stat because I think it is more important than yards surrendered. (In fact I think that’s so obvious it shouldn’t have to be mentioned.) I posted the penalties stat to point out that while the Packers defense was bad, there were positive aspects to it. I posted all those stats because they are true. And the more objective truth one incorporates into their opinion, the more valuable the opinion.

    Feeling better has nothing to do with it. It has to do with recognizing and analyzing facts. You appear to be afraid to address facts that don’t fit your opinion or even able to acknowledge their veracity: And not being able or willing to answer simple and direct questions to you in this relatively anonymous venue also says a lot IMO.

    Of course there’s not one stat that tells the entire story of a defense. Posters who rank the Packers defense as the worst in the league based upon one stat should take that most to heart.
     
  24. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Jack

    We were last in yards allowed. I am comfortable with that stat as my baseline. It better reinforces what I saw on the field and is a better indicator of how poorly our defense played to me. That was wide open receivers, gains by opposing offenses of 20 yards or more in too many instances, wide open receivers, no pass rush, horrible tackling. That manifested itself in large yardage gains. I don't know if that will pass your fact check but that's how I saw things.
     
  25. Bagadeez04

    Bagadeez04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    381
    Ratings:
    +133
    This business of determining who the worst defense was last year is silly...is there anyone here that would say the Packers D wasn't one of the very worst in all of football last year?

    They were indeed...let's just leave it at that.
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page