Is to much being made of our 7th ranked defense?

[Chester Marcol]

Does anyone else think some people are making to much of our 7th ranked deffense last season? Looking at the stats we were 1st in Pass Defense. Jets, Saints, and Browns are 2,3, and 4. All crappy teams who probably didn't have a lead long enough to force their opposing teams to pass against them and rack up a lot of yards.

Now look at running defense which we were 23rd. Look who's in the top 5: Chargers, Denver, Pittsburgh, Carolina, and Seatle. With the exception of Carolina, the others were ranked in the bottom half of Passing Defense most likely because they led most of the time and caused apponents to throw the ball more.

To me, it looks like higher ranking in running defense is more telling than a higher ranking in passing defense. So is our 7th overall ranked defense really a true sign of the defense or did our lack of offense cause the above numbers?

[jack's smirking revenge]

Re: Is to much being made of our 7th ranked defense?

Does anyone else think some people are making to much of our 7th ranked deffense last season? Looking at the stats we were 1st in Pass Defense. Jets, Saints, and Browns are 2,3, and 4. All crappy teams who probably didn't have a lead long enough to force their opposing teams to pass against them and rack up a lot of yards.

Now look at running defense which we were 23rd. Look who's in the top 5: Chargers, Denver, Pittsburgh, Carolina, and Seatle. With the exception of Carolina, the others were ranked in the bottom half of Passing Defense most likely because they led most of the time and caused apponents to throw the ball more.

To me, it looks like higher ranking in running defense is more telling than a higher ranking in passing defense. So is our 7th overall ranked defense really a true sign of the defense or did our lack of offense cause the above numbers?

No, I don't think the ranking is a true sign of the effectiveness of our defense. The 7 ranking is only based on yards allowed per game. Like you said, our running defense was porous. KGB is the only GB player in the top 30 for sacks. We have no player in the top 30 for interceptions. Nick Barnett is the 7th ranked tackler in the league, but he's the only one ranked. Basically, we have few standout players.

Yes, stats can work for or against an argument. In this case, I'm using stats against the #7 ranking, but if you consider the team was 4-12, then there's more to the discussion than meets the eye. The Bears have been able to use their defensive talent and turn possible L's into W's over the last few years. Our defense, even thought it was ranked 7th, wasn't able to compensate for offensive issues.

I question the importance of the high yds/game ranking in light of a 4-12 season. Either way, we were either not able to score enough points or not able to stop our opponent from scoring points. If you look at 2005, I think the case varies from game to game.

tyler

[Willard]

The Pack did not have the 7th best defense in the NFL last year despite what statistical cherry-picking may delude us into thinking. The Pack's Defense will need to improve a great deal to match the bears' defense. Consider these rankings from last season:

Statistical category GB rank CHI rank
yds/game #7 #2 (the stat that most refer to)
pts/game #19 #1
TDs allowed #16 #1
3rd down conversion #9 #2
4th down conversion #11 #3
Total take-aways #26 #6
Forced fumbles #17 #23
Interceptions #28 #2
Sacks #21 #8
Rushing TDs/game #10 #4
Rushing yds/game #23 #11
Rushing yds/attempt #16 #9
Passing yds/game #1 #5
Completion % #14 #7
****************************************
To me this defense is mediocre. I would say about #15 in the league. Our defense was put in a bad spot last year due do all of the give-aways by the Pack's offense. Unfortunately it did not have the playmakers to overcome the offensive woes. This year the Pack needs to stuff the run, force passing situations, put pressure on the QB (including sacks) during these passing situations, and then come up with the take-aways that make a defense truly great.

[Fosco33]

The Pack did not have the 7th best defense in the NFL last year despite what statistical cherry-picking may delude us into thinking. The Pack's Defense will need to improve a great deal to match the bears' defense. Consider these rankings from last season:

Statistical category GB rank CHI rank
yds/game #7 #2 (the stat that most refer to)
pts/game #19 #1
TDs allowed #16 #1
3rd down conversion #9 #2
4th down conversion #11 #3
Total take-aways #26 #6
Forced fumbles #17 #23
Interceptions #28 #2
Sacks #21 #8
Rushing TDs/game #10 #4
Rushing yds/game #23 #11
Rushing yds/attempt #16 #9
Passing yds/game #1 #5
Completion % #14 #7
****************************************
To me this defense is mediocre. I would say about #15 in the league. Our defense was put in a bad spot last year due do all of the give-aways by the Pack's offense. Unfortunately it did not have the playmakers to overcome the offensive woes. This year the Pack needs to stuff the run, force passing situations, put pressure on the QB (including sacks) during these passing situations, and then come up with the take-aways that make a defense truly great.

Great post, Willard! A little depressing but good analysis. You hit on a point which most would ignore - our D didn't cause TOs and were put in bad spots due to the O's woes.

We'll need the Offense to play much, much better. The WRs/RBs need to stay healthy and will be average. If this year's Defense is above average/good, we'll win some more close games and bounce back to a 'respectable' 9-7.

[Willard]

Great post, Willard! A little depressing but good analysis. You hit on a point which most would ignore - our D didn't cause TOs and were put in bad spots due to the O's woes.

We'll need the Offense to play much, much better. The WRs/RBs need to stay healthy and will be average. If this year's Defense is above average/good, we'll win some more close games and bounce back to a 'respectable' 9-7.[/quote]
############################

I REALLY believe turnover margin tells the story of the 2005 Pack. Our offense gave it away 24 more times than our defense took it away. A -1.5 turnover margin PER GAME is deadly. Only New Orleans was as generous. No other team in the NFL was even HALF as bad. That is remarkable!!

If the Pack is to compete for the NFC North it will be by taking care of the ball, and increasing the aggressiveness of our defense resulting in more sacks, fumbles, and interceptions. Look for our season to rise or fall with the turnover margin.

[packrulz]

Yes, turnovers was the problem, especially by Favre. I thought the Jim Bates led defense was much improved in one year. They did get some sacks, Kampman had his best year. Unfortunately, they had to play on their heels all the time & were on the field A LOT. At least 4 of those games they lost were by a field goal or less so I attribute the lack of turnovers for the D partly to playing "prevent" defense to not give up the big play. I don't blame Favre though, he took some mighty beatings and kept getting up & did the best he could with back up G's/WR'S/RB'S. If the offense can reduce turnovers & move the chains the defense will get better too.

[woodbuck27]

"To me this defense is mediocre. I would say about #15 in the league."

That is what I'm seeing too.We have to hurdle about a dozen teams to be nearly as highly regarded on "D" as the Bears.

The good news is we made a hugh step last season with incredible pressure on OUR defence. It was always backed up and poor punting being a factor. The defence will pick it's spots and attack the QB and ball carriers better as we have more experience and better personnel.

If we protect the ball better on offence in 2006, and win the battle of the clock more, we rest OUR 'D', which should be better too on paper than in 2005.

We'll see some smashmouth football again I'm hoping. We need to lay on the hits.

[wist43]

The key is pass rush - or lack thereof. The Packers had no pass rush last year and they'll likely have no pass rush this year.

KGB gets his sacks in bunchs against inferior tackles. Above average and elite Tackles usually don't have a problem shutting him down. Kampman will get the occasional sack on hustle and determination, but opposing offensive coordinators aren't going to lose any sleep over worrying about Kampman coming off the edge.

About the only real hope for any improvement in the pass rush will have to come from either Montgomery and/or Poppinga. If these two aren't able to step up and deliver the Packers will be facing another long year on the defensive side of the ball.

Packer fans are trying to hang their hat on something, anything... to try to see some rays of hope after an abysmal 4-12 season.

No, the Packers did not have the 7th best defense in the league last year - not even close. The Packers defense is in the bottom 1/3 of the league. If they can get up to average, that will be good progress.

[Willard]

The key is pass rush - or lack thereof. The Packers had no pass rush last year and they'll likely have no pass rush this year.

I agree that pressure in passing will/would make a huge difference. Pressure leads to forced passes which should lead to INTs. QB hits lead to sacks and fumbles (not to mention panicky QBs). The best way to get the turnover is to pressure the QB in passing situations.

I am disappointed we don't have any new weapons at DE. My hope is either Peterson or Montgomery "takes a big step up". I think KGB is OK, but may be more effective as a 3rd down specialist. Kampmann is a high effort guy, but could use a bit more help.

A great defense relies on more than just the DEs to disrupt the passing game though. The Pack will be much better if the new DT unit can disrupt the pocket from the inside. Even if the DTs don't get the sacks they can have a huge impact by collapsing the pocket resulting in the QB to run into the arms of the waiting DEs and LBs.

Perhaps Sanders can also find some blitz packages to take advantage of the speed of players like Hawk, Barnett, or Collins without exposing the D as much as SloWit did with his ill-fated blitz packages. Hawk had a lot of sacks at OSU. Perhaps he can do it in the NFL as well.

[MJZiggy]

Let's not give up on Kampman just yet...high effort and hard work have a funny tendency to pay off when you least expect it. I do wish Reggie were still around to teach some of his gift*, though.

*Please note that I said "some" of his gift. Pure talent cannot be taught, but some of his movements probably could have been.

[Willard]

Let's not give up on Kampman just yet...high effort and hard work have a funny tendency to pay off when you least expect it. I do wish Reggie were still around to teach some of his gift*, though.

*Please note that I said "some" of his gift. Pure talent cannot be taught, but some of his movements probably could have been.

You're right. Kampman gets better every year. If he keeps up that trend he will be the least of our worries. He had 4.5 sacks in 2004, and 6.5 in 2005. He also forced 3 fumbles last year. I would be very happy with 10 sacks and 5 forced fumbles from Aaron this year!

[SD GB fan]

it doesnt matter wat the pack or any team is ranked. the true stats for D is pts allowed. followed by turnovers and 3rd conversion %. stop O drives and dun let them score = win. (unless u are the bears and dun have an O urself )

[The Leaper]

Our pass rush will be better this year because the defense will be able to blitz more often because they've upgraded the back 7. With Harris and Woodson at CB and Collins having a year of experience under his belt, it is going to allow someone like Manuel to play up closer to the line of scrimmage...blitzing on occasion. I think you will also see more blitzing from the LB position. Hawk, Barnett and Taylor are a pretty speedy group. With the inexperience and lack of talent in the back 7 last year, blitzing was rarely utilized. I think you see more blitzes and more chances taken this year to make big plays happen.

If things go well, I think this defense has a chance to be a legit top 10 defense...barely. That will happen if Hawk makes the impact we expect...Harris stops pouting...and Woodson stays healthy.

[RashanGary]

Yeah, Our 7th or whatever the hell people here label it is way the f over rated. It was a crappy defense. The offense sucked and the defense sucked. The special teams even sucked. They all sucked.

That comparison next to Chicago's defense was sick. #1 to #7 shouldn't look that different. The Packers should be close to #7 this year if a few playres really step up. Hawk, Collins and Woodson would be the 3 I'm hoping to really have great years.

Montgomery is a pretty important piece too.

[4and12to12and4]

What I remember the most from last year is that in the first couple of games the defensive scheme was to Blitz, Blitz, Blitz, but we kept getting burnt because of the lack of coverage. So, hopefully due to the upgrades (if they pan out) at LB and DB, we will be able to employ it successfully this year. We don't have a a DL like the dreaded bears to get quick consistent pressure sending only 4 guys. If Woodson and company can stay on their guys and we can blitz successfully, we should generate many more turnovers. Hopefully.