Collapse of the red zone defense

[Patler]

Interesting article on the Packer web site;

http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2008/12/02/1/


After 10 games this season, the Packers had allowed opponents just 12 touchdowns in 29 red-zone possessions. On the other 17 drives, Green Bay had forced 12 field goals and captured five turnovers (four interceptions, one fumble).

But in the last two games, New Orleans and Carolina have combined to score nine TDs in 10 trips into the red zone, with one field goal. In two weeks, the Packers have dropped from fifth in the NFL in touchdown percentage allowed (41.4) all the way to 21st (53.8) in red-zone defense.
...
But perhaps the most startling fact is that in those 10 red-zone possessions in the last two games, the opposing offense has faced third down only once.

[Freak Out]

Interesting article on the Packer web site;

http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2008/12/02/1/


After 10 games this season, the Packers had allowed opponents just 12 touchdowns in 29 red-zone possessions. On the other 17 drives, Green Bay had forced 12 field goals and captured five turnovers (four interceptions, one fumble).

But in the last two games, New Orleans and Carolina have combined to score nine TDs in 10 trips into the red zone, with one field goal. In two weeks, the Packers have dropped from fifth in the NFL in touchdown percentage allowed (41.4) all the way to 21st (53.8) in red-zone defense.
...
But perhaps the most startling fact is that in those 10 red-zone possessions in the last two games, the opposing offense has faced third down only once.

Brutal.

[MJZiggy]

But why?

[retailguy]

But why?

My guess is Nick Barnett.

[gbgary]

not red-zone related but they've played a lot more zone coverage in the last two games for some reason also. i guess they figured the run/pass defense stats were getting too lopsided on the run side so they'd even things up by letting the opponents wide-outs run free. :roll:

[TennesseePackerBacker]

But why?

My guess is Nick Barnett.

QFT not to mention healthy starting safties, dont forget how banged up those guys have been.

[Noodle]

Well, there's red zone and there's red zone.

From the Carolina game, we know that at least a couple of those "red zone" appearances started inside the 5 due to long pass completions, as opposed to starting at the 20 yard line boundary of the red zone.

So yeah, if a team has first and goal from the 4 due to a 50 yard hook up, then it's going to be tough for the D to record a red zone stop. In contrast, a team that has a first down at the 19 is just a holding penalty and a sack away (sound familiar?) from being out of scoring range.

So the term "red zone" is too broad to be of any real signficance.

That's the problem with stats. I know it pains Patler to hear this, but sometimes they just don't tell you squanto.

[Patler]

Well, there's red zone and there's red zone.

From the Carolina game, we know that at least a couple of those "red zone" appearances started inside the 5 due to long pass completions, as opposed to starting at the 20 yard line boundary of the red zone.

So yeah, if a team has first and goal from the 4 due to a 50 yard hook up, then it's going to be tough for the D to record a red zone stop. In contrast, a team that has a first down at the 19 is just a holding penalty and a sack away (sound familiar?) from being out of scoring range.

So the term "red zone" is too broad to be of any real signficance.

That's the problem with stats. I know it pains Patler to hear this, but sometimes they just don't tell you squanto.

The article addressed that concern, did it not?

On a side note - I believe my link to the use of stats on this site has been totally corrupted, so I would like to make my position clear. I have never argued that stats are the be all and end all. To the contrary, it is normally my position that statistics be used as a point from which factual discussion or analysis can begin; a launching point. I always encourage going beyond the superficial stats to something causal. Stats can point the direction, but are seldom the answer. Stats can, however, point out clear and unequivocal fallacies, and for that purpose I use them regularly.

[3irty1]

I just think we played a red hot team in the Saints and a team that was consistently given great field position. Two games isn't nearly enough of a trend for me.

[Noodle]

Well, there's red zone and there's red zone.

From the Carolina game, we know that at least a couple of those "red zone" appearances started inside the 5 due to long pass completions, as opposed to starting at the 20 yard line boundary of the red zone.

So yeah, if a team has first and goal from the 4 due to a 50 yard hook up, then it's going to be tough for the D to record a red zone stop. In contrast, a team that has a first down at the 19 is just a holding penalty and a sack away (sound familiar?) from being out of scoring range.

So the term "red zone" is too broad to be of any real signficance.

That's the problem with stats. I know it pains Patler to hear this, but sometimes they just don't tell you squanto.

The article addressed that concern, did it not?

On a side note - I believe my link to the use of stats on this site has been totally corrupted, so I would like to make my position clear. I have never argued that stats are the be all and end all. To the contrary, it is normally my position that statistics be used as a point from which factual discussion or analysis can begin; a launching point. I always encourage going beyond the superficial stats to something causal. Stats can point the direction, but are seldom the answer. Stats can, however, point out clear and unequivocal fallacies, and for that purpose I use them regularly.

I just read the quote, which does not address my point, not the article. I'll take your word for it.

More importantly, Patler, I should have used an emotocon or something -- I was just funnin' you, not criticizing you. I've always found your use of stats very revealing and helpful. Some of the best posts on this board have been when you use stats to show that someone's overblown assessment (this guy is worse than that guy, this guy is have a much better year than last year) is full of hot air.
:glug:

[Partial]

I just think we played a red hot team in the Saints and a team that was consistently given great field position. Two games isn't nearly enough of a trend for me.

12 games in? That's 1/6 of the time. That's certainly the start of a trend. Imagine if you did something every day for 1/6 of your life. Would that be a trend?

[Patler]

The aspect that should not be overlooked:
-first 10 games the opponents had 29 red zone opportunities (2.9/game)
-last 2 games the opponents had 10 red zone opportunities (5.0/game)

Its not just the performance by the defense in the red zone, it's also their performance outside the red zone allowing the team into the red zone. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of red zone opportunities.

[3irty1]

The aspect that should not be overlooked:
-first 10 games the opponents had 29 red zone opportunities (2.9/game)
-last 2 games the opponents had 10 red zone opportunities (5.0/game)

Its not just the performance by the defense in the red zone, it's also their performance outside the red zone allowing the team into the red zone. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of red zone opportunities.

That's the real trend. Its not just the redzone defense its the offense, defense, and special teams. The last two games have been filled with terrible punting, terrible kick and punt coverage, and some bad turnovers. Anytime you give up that kind of field position consistently your defense has less field with which to make a stop and its going to translate into points. I thought I heard the stat earlier this week that the Panthers average starting field position was at the 45 last week.

[oregonpackfan]

Well, there's red zone and there's red zone.

From the Carolina game, we know that at least a couple of those "red zone" appearances started inside the 5 due to long pass completions, as opposed to starting at the 20 yard line boundary of the red zone.

So yeah, if a team has first and goal from the 4 due to a 50 yard hook up, then it's going to be tough for the D to record a red zone stop. In contrast, a team that has a first down at the 19 is just a holding penalty and a sack away (sound familiar?) from being out of scoring range.

So the term "red zone" is too broad to be of any real signficance.

That's the problem with stats. I know it pains Patler to hear this, but sometimes they just don't tell you squanto.

Very well stated, Patler.

The article addressed that concern, did it not?

On a side note - I believe my link to the use of stats on this site has been totally corrupted, so I would like to make my position clear. I have never argued that stats are the be all and end all. To the contrary, it is normally my position that statistics be used as a point from which factual discussion or analysis can begin; a launching point. I always encourage going beyond the superficial stats to something causal. Stats can point the direction, but are seldom the answer. Stats can, however, point out clear and unequivocal fallacies, and for that purpose I use them regularly.

[oregonpackfan]

But why?

My guess is Nick Barnett.

Losing Barnett was a huge loss. We have seen several instances since Barnett's absence where Hawk simply does not have the coverage skills in passing situations that Barnett has.

Another factor in the red zone difficulty has to be the loss of Cullen Jenkins. He was becoming very effective in the pass rush. Now with just Kampman providing a consistent pass rush, opposing quarterbacks can just stand in the pocket and pick apart the Packers' secondary.

Yes, I know teams have to play through injuries. Losing Barnett and Jenkins, however, have dramatically hurt the Packers' defense.