The Value of Run Defense

[Dantés]

I guess I just have a different view on the two offenses going forward, I think both are heading in different directions at the moment. And yes, the Bucs comment was a mistake, I meant the Eagles at 17.

I'm surprised at how many fans think the Packers' offense is heading in the wrong direction after one season in which LaFleur was pretty successful.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

As I questioned earlier, can you translate the difference between a 4th. ranked rush defense DVOA of -18.5 vs. a 23rd. ranked -0.8 ranked rush defense DVOA? How does that difference equate to yards, points or winning?

If rushing is not that important and neither is defending it compared to the passing game or even special teams, then the signifcance of the relative ranking is sharply diminished. Footballoutsiders does not attempt to take it to real world implications. When in comes to what goes into winning, these numbers are mere abstractions.

I don't really care about 0.8 points difference, the actual ranking difference between 2 teams that close isn't too important; however, I can certainly look at the difference between Green Bay's 11th ranked passing offense and use the numbers to discern that they were closer to the Eagles 17th ranked pass offense than 49ers 8th ranked passing offense.

At no point did I say it was perfect, I just said it was the best that I knew of. DVOA tries to account for strength of opponent; PPG or yards per play don't do that.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm surprised at how many fans think the Packers' offense is heading in the wrong direction after one season in which LaFleur was pretty successful.

On offense, the Packers replaced an elite RT with a guy the Lions didn't want and that's about the main difference on offense, other than hoping young guys improve. 49ers lost Emmanuel Sanders but added a guy in the draft that appears to be a perfect fit for MLF's offense and can probably expect Deebo to improve significantly in his second season. Yeah, I'd say that's different directions. I'm not saying Wagner won't be any good, but expecting there to be no drop-off from Bulaga is not exactly realistic. I'd also say that it wouldn't be unrealistic to see a bigger jump in performance from Garoppolo than you might expect from Rodgers (both will probably improve, but the 6th year QB might improve by a greater amount). I hold out some hope that the second year in MLF's offense will allow the players to perform better (especially the young guys), but that's really just hope; I haven't really seen anything from the young guys on offense that would lead me to expect a large jump.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't really care about 0.8 points difference, the actual ranking difference between 2 teams that close isn't too important; however, I can certainly look at the difference between Green Bay's 11th ranked passing offense and use the numbers to discern that they were closer to the Eagles 17th ranked pass offense than 49ers 8th ranked passing offense.

At no point did I say it was perfect, I just said it was the best that I knew of. DVOA tries to account for strength of opponent; PPG or yards per play don't do that.

The Packers record is best accounted for in Red Zone performance on both offense and defense along with turnover differential.

 

[Dantés]

On offense, the Packers replaced an elite RT with a guy the Lions didn't want and that's about the main difference on offense, other than hoping young guys improve. 49ers lost Emmanuel Sanders but added a guy in the draft that appears to be a perfect fit for MLF's offense and can probably expect Deebo to improve significantly in his second season. Yeah, I'd say that's different directions. I'm not saying Wagner won't be any good, but expecting there to be no drop-off from Bulaga is not exactly realistic. I'd also say that it wouldn't be unrealistic to see a bigger jump in performance from Garoppolo than you might expect from Rodgers (both will probably improve, but the 6th year QB might improve by a greater amount). I hold out some hope that the second year in MLF's offense will allow the players to perform better (especially the young guys), but that's really just hope; I haven't really seen anything from the young guys on offense that would lead me to expect a large jump.

I happen to think that having a year of experience in the offense will produce a jump, despite what I agree is a downgrade at RT. This offense has tended to take a 2nd year leap in most of the places it's been installed.

And just to be clear, that was my position going back months, and not something I pivoted to after the draft. I said that I hoped they'd be able to pick up a good role player in the draft, but that the main vehicle for improvement on offense would be the ability to efficiently execute the offense due o experience rather than personnel additions.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The data convey the meaning that having a great vs poor run defense isn't a high impact factor in a team's ability to make the playoffs, win games in the playoffs, get to the Super Bowl, or win the Super Bowl.

I can't believe that you honestly read the post and missed that point. The absence of a causal relationship means something.

I agree. To be more precise, a correlation without causation renders the correlation meaningless.

As for your hinting otherwise, I drew upon this point:

Without doing all of the work represented in this thread on the subject of rushing offense, it would appear that efficiency in that regard correlates much more strongly with playoff success than rushing defense efficiency.

And in particular this reply attempting to explain an obvious contradiction in the above:

I don't think so. It could be as simple as offense mattering more than defense for playoff success.

You start talking about something strongly correlating to success that's hinting at a causation and then that next post reinforced that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

[QUOTE="Sunshinepacker, post: 876449, member: 9033"DVOA tries to account for strength of opponent; PPG or yards per play don't do that.[/QUOTE]
Strength of schedule is a notriously poor way of projecting or measuring things. I would account for that as it being circular. So, you compare to an opponent making a judgement about them. But what about their competition? And their competition's competition? If you keep going and end up to a large degree right back where you started.

Do we know how far into the regress DVOA attempts to go? No, we do not. If it's one level, that's pretty weak. You can't say, for example, that running the ball for 4.7 yards per carry against a 4.2 yards per carry defense makes for an above average DVOA if that 4.2 defense had been playing against 4.0 running backs. And what about those 4.0 running backs? Were they playing against 3.8 or 4.5 defenses? And then who were those defenses playing against? Around the carousel you go.

The illusion of depth and complexity presented in an opaque black box wrapper is as likely to be the primrose path as it is the answer to anything.

 

[rmontro]

That is some surprising information in the OP, considering that it's always been a saying that the foundation of playing winning football is to run the ball, and stop the run. What's next? Defense doesn't win championships?

I'm surprised at how many fans think the Packers' offense is heading in the wrong direction after one season in which LaFleur was pretty successful.

I like the way LeFleur is dedicated to running the ball. I think people are expecting a combination of that and the type of elite pass happy style offense McCarthy had in his best years.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Packers record is best accounted for in Red Zone performance on both offense and defense along with turnover differential.

That does help; although, historically, teams that give up more yards per play on defense than they gain on offense don't win 13 games. There is no single stat, or couple of stats that can really be pointed to as the definitive way to win (except injuries, those are a stat that will definitively point out losing).

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Strength of schedule is a notriously poor way of projecting or measuring things. I would account for that as it being circular. So, you compare to an opponent making a judgement about them. But what about their competition? And their competition's competition? If you keep going and end up to a large degree right back where you started.

Do we know how far into the regress DVOA attempts to go? No, we do not. If it's one level, that's pretty weak. You can't say, for example, that running the ball for 4.7 yards per carry against a 4.2 yards per carry defense makes for an above average DVOA if that 4.2 defense had been playing against 4.0 running backs. And what about those 4.0 running backs? Were they playing against 3.8 or 4.5 defenses? And then who were those defenses playing against? Around the carousel you go.

The illusion of depth and complexity presented in an opaque black box wrapper is as likely to be the primrose path as it is the answer to anything.

It's not really that opaque, if you look at their site, they've written articles on how it works; and besides that, even if it was only one level deep, that's still better than no levels deep.

 

[rmontro]

There is no single stat, or couple of stats that can really be pointed to as the definitive way to win (except injuries, those are a stat that will definitively point out losing).

Next man up!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm surprised at how many fans think the Packers' offense is heading in the wrong direction after one season in which LaFleur was pretty successful.

The Packers ranked 15th in points scored last season and did little to improve the talent level on that side of the ball. I understand fans being pessimistic about the unit.

 

[Dantés]

The Packers ranked 15th in points scored last season and did little to improve the talent level on that side of the ball. I understand fans being pessimistic about the unit.

Ironically, one rookie WR would radically alter fan expectations.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's not really that opaque, if you look at their site, they've written articles on how it works; and besides that, even if it was only one level deep, that's still better than no levels deep.

Without examining how things are weighted for importance, without examining the algorithms that determine weightings of this or that, you take these DVOA rankings on blind faith. Of course no advanced analytics purveyors disclose their algorithms for two reasons: they don't want them copied and they don't want them questioned.

That does help; although, historically, teams that give up more yards per play on defense than they gain on offense don't win 13 games. There is no single stat, or couple of stats that can really be pointed to as the definitive way to win (except injuries, those are a stat that will definitively point out losing).

If you want to go by yards then injuries flow into thos stats. But yards are looking at it backwards and you are correct in saying no single stat tells you what goes into winning and that would include a DVOA. Can you tell me what a 10 point difference in a DVOA equates to in the real world? Is it one point, points? Who knows.

The object is to look at that 13-3 team and assess how they got there. Otherwise, if you look at yards, for example as in this case you're left saying it didn't actually happen. But it did. You fall into highlightitis and fantasy falacies. There are widely varying ways of winning. The object is to look at how this team accomplished it.

So, what might DVOA be missing? Since Red Zone performance is rarely discussed, I have to conclude it is generally underappreciated. Is that the case with DVOA? We don't know, which is the point. Yards in the Red Zone, getting and giving, are simply more valuable. Kicking field goals all day, or worse failing on 4th. down in the Red Zone on offense or defense, isn't going to win a football game very often. Right up with Red Zone performance is giveaway/takeaway. The 2019 Packers rated highly in these categories. They were highly in yardage and possessions, efficient enough to win close games. The question is whether that is repeatable. Plus on the turnovers with Rodgers at QB is probably in the bank in any case. This begs another question: are turnovers, giving and getting, undervalued in DVOA or any other black box?

Of course we cannot dispense with big play scoring. Those are points on the board which translates to wins. But highlight-itis exagerates how often they actually happen.

Including playoffs the Packers scored 12 TDs of 20 yards or longer; the defense allowed 12. All of the season's point differential is attributable to Red Zone performance.

However 4 of the 12 big play TDs were by the 49ers, two passing in the first game, which is rather telling in terms of the defensive game plan for the playoffs. Then it was two rushing in the second, the first of them important on the first score of the game and setting the tone, with the Packers in a pass defense/blitz with one down lineman on 3nd. and 8. Of course the Packers were trying to get back in the game down 17-0 with the ball on SF's 25. Fumble, with all the air going out. Turnovers.... The SF story is more about being upside down on defending the big play, uncharacteristic of the rest of the season, failing to adjust to run-run-run, and then the turnover.

The Packers had a formula for winning that simply didn't work against SF, not just getting beat but beat down. While we can point to some personnel upgrades that might be in order after that game, the main problem is the final analysis is Pettine got out-coached, whether that's something imbedded in the scheme or just being upside down on game planning. Given what transpired in the free agency and the draft, one would assume the inside thinking is it's game planning which is correctable while scheme is not.

We can draw a parallel to the Kaepernick romp-a-thon, where Capers persisted in man D without a spy and Kaepernick ran all over him with DBs backs to play. Woodson was pretty outspoken about the failure to make adjustments. We don't have anybody quite so voluable on this team.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

The SF game showed all that you need to know. It's an aggressive, outdated defensive scheme which can overwhelm lesser talent and rack up sacks, but will get embarrassed when posed with a real challenge. They allowed Jimmy G his most efficient game of his career in one matchup, and nearly 300 yards on the ground in the other. That's why these moral victory exercises are pointless.

 

[rmontro]

They allowed Jimmy G his most efficient game of his career in one matchup, and nearly 300 yards on the ground in the other. That's why these moral victory exercises are pointless.

There's something about our defenses that make for these career-type days for the opposition. Its quite annoying.

 

[Dantés]

The SF game showed all that you need to know. It's an aggressive, outdated defensive scheme which can overwhelm lesser talent and rack up sacks, but will get embarrassed when posed with a real challenge. They allowed Jimmy G his most efficient game of his career in one matchup, and nearly 300 yards on the ground in the other. That's why these moral victory exercises are pointless.

So I did the research, compiled the data, and analyzed the results to figure out a conclusion.

You shot off your previously formed opinion based on two games.

And you think I'm doing "moral victory exercises?"

Sorry you didn't like the outcome, but the data doesn't care about your bias.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ironically, one rookie WR would radically alter fan expectations.

While there wouldn't be any reason to consider the Packers offense an elite unit if they drafted a wide receiver early it would have rightfully made a lot of fans more comfortable about the passing game.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Including playoffs the Packers scored 12 TDs of 20 yards or longer; the defense allowed 12. All of the season's point differential is attributable to Red Zone performance.

However 4 of the 12 big play TDs were by the 49ers, two passing in the first game, which is rather telling in terms of the defensive game plan for the playoffs. Then it was two rushing in the second, the first of them important on the first score of the game and setting the tone, with the Packers in a pass defense/blitz with one down lineman on 3nd. and 8. Of course the Packers were trying to get back in the game down 17-0 with the ball on SF's 25. Fumble, with all the air going out. Turnovers.... The SF story is more about being upside down on defending the big play, uncharacteristic of the rest of the season, failing to adjust to run-run-run, and then the turnover.

The Packers had a formula for winning that simply didn't work against SF, not just getting beat but beat down. While we can point to some personnel upgrades that might be in order after that game, the main problem is the final analysis is Pettine got out-coached, whether that's something imbedded in the scheme or just being upside down on game planning. Given what transpired in the free agency and the draft, one would assume the inside thinking is it's game planning which is correctable while scheme is not.

We can draw a parallel to the Kaepernick romp-a-thon, where Capers persisted in man D without a spy and Kaepernick ran all over him with DBs backs to play. Woodson was pretty outspoken about the failure to make adjustments. We don't have anybody quite so voluable on this team.

I do still enjoy fans blaming Capers for the 49ers loss...oddly enough, Football Outsiders had a TREMENDOUS article that pointed out (with screenshots and gametime) that Capers was playing a defensive alignment that is most used against option QBs but the PLAYERS were TERRIBLE. BJ Raji, if I remember correctly, was compared in the article to a figure skater the way he was being shoved around by the oline and Clay Matthews was at some points, literally just spinning in circles like he was some glitching video game player. Luckily though, Capers was removed and the defense immediately improved.

All that said, you still haven't told me the better stat to look at. Again, DVOA isn't perfect, but if you want to get a universal, leaguewide stat, I don't know of any better,

 

[Dantés]

While there wouldn't be any reason to consider the Packers offense an elite unit if they drafted a wide receiver early it would have rightfully made a lot of fans more comfortable about the passing game.

Which, again, is ironic. This offense's entire success and failure is not and was not dependent on one rookie WR.

This is just tantrum throwing by people who can't accept that their expectations were not met in the draft.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Which, again, is ironic. This offense's entire success and failure is not and was not dependent on one rookie WR.

This is just tantrum throwing by people who can't accept that their expectations were not met in the draft.

Not sure how it's a tantrum to have preferred the Packers draft an additional weapon for Rodgers over drafting a guy that won't help Rodgers at all, but I guess you have a different definition.

The idea was never that a rookie WR was the "answer" to the offense this season, it was a hope that by the last third of the season/playoffs a rookie WR would be able to provide needed help for a subpar receiving group while also having the potential to make a major impact in Rodger's final seasons.

Not a tantrum to say that using the top three picks in the draft on guys that will probably not make any material impact this season doesn't appear to be an improvement on offense.

 

[Dantés]

Not sure how it's a tantrum to have preferred the Packers draft an additional weapon for Rodgers over drafting a guy that won't help Rodgers at all, but I guess you have a different definition.

The idea was never that a rookie WR was the "answer" to the offense this season, it was a hope that by the last third of the season/playoffs a rookie WR would be able to provide needed help for a subpar receiving group while also having the potential to make a major impact in Rodger's final seasons.

Not a tantrum to say that using the top three picks in the draft on guys that will probably not make any material impact this season doesn't appear to be an improvement on offense.

It's not. Virtually everyone did.

But it's incredibly irrational to think that the Packers' offense could have been great with a rookie WR, but will be terrible now. That's a tantrum.

The last statement is almost certainly false, and insupportable.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I do still enjoy fans blaming Capers for the 49ers loss...oddly enough, Football Outsiders had a TREMENDOUS article that pointed out (with screenshots and gametime) that Capers was playing a defensive alignment that is most used against option QBs but the PLAYERS were TERRIBLE. BJ Raji, if I remember correctly, was compared in the article to a figure skater the way he was being shoved around by the oline and Clay Matthews was at some points, literally just spinning in circles like he was some glitching video game player. Luckily though, Capers was removed and the defense immediately improved.

You know, most of Kaepernicks ground damage came on scrambles in that game. When you play a guy with this kind of speed he will escape the pocket. The question then becomes what you're going to do about it, and if you're in man coverage with your back to the play or in position to get blocked by a WR, that creates a problem.

I'm not sure which play (or game for that matter) Football Outsiders was looking at, but the one long run on a called read-option you could pin on Walden blowing his assignment if you have purportedly schemed for that eventuality. See #93 at 1:14 in this tape:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Of course if you look at the rest of that tape you'll see examples of Kaepernick throwing the ball particularly well that day as the game stats bear out. The best defense of Capers is that he ran into a buzz saw that day, one of the all-time great pass-plus-run QB playoff performances. Still, 190 yards? Not only an all-time playoff record for a QB, an all-time, all-time record. Who allows that? And he purportedly schemed for it?

A play here or there with Matthews or Raji getting pushed around would be expected regardless. It was not uncommon with Raji by the time, and Matthews never that good at the point of attack, more a back side run defender. At least a spy and some zone coverages might have kept the tally under 100.

I'll go with Woodson who went a little balistic over Capers not making any adjustments.

 

[OldSchool101]

Strength of schedule is a notriously poor way of projecting or measuring things. I would account for that as it being circular. So, you compare to an opponent making a judgement about them. But what about their competition? And their competition's competition? If you keep going and end up to a large degree right back where you started.

Funny you say that. Someone in 2010 went round n round with your exact same logic, only difference is it was actually a Falcons fan that year, discounting the GBP who were going into the playoffs at 10-6 and a 6th seed. But who also had one of the most difficult Strength of Opponent schedules ratio at seasons end. The result? 4-0 on the Road (including just murdering the Falcons in Atlanta!) this and 1 neutral win for a Lombardi.

That said, It’s only one of many measuring sticks but it’s actually logical and it’s been consistently successful every season I’ve tracked it (with few anomalies)

The key there I see people making mistakes with (including NFL experts) is using the previous year data or an early season data as a predictor. It’s common sense that you use current season and weight it more the closer you get to the playoffs and that’s far more logical because it uses real time data, which in turn accounts for the thousands of variables that change as the season progresses. Who cares who Chicago played last year when its December of this year etc..

 

[HardRightEdge]

All that said, you still haven't told me the better stat to look at. Again, DVOA isn't perfect, but if you want to get a universal, leaguewide stat, I don't know of any better.

Perhaps the better question to ask is whether it is possible to create a universal league-wide stat the provides real meaning. Or is it just convenient?