The REAL state of the Pack!

[Patler]

The NFL video was not all bad, but it compared apples to oranges - points on offense to yards on defense.

Called the Packers the "worst defense in 30 years."

Because no team gave up more yards? (NE was better by only 1/2 yard per game.)
Yet,
8 teams gave up more plays on defense than the Packers.
13 teams gave up more points than the Packers.
22 teams were worse in time of possession.
30 teams were worse in takeaways.
31 teams were much worse in interceptions.

Was the Packers defense worse than Tampa Bay, who gave up 135 more points than the Packers?


Realistically, defensive performance is affected by the teams offense, and vice verse.
It is fair to look at the Packer offense. They were:

#1 in points
#3 in yards
#12 in Time of possession
#28 in plays run.

The Packers scored more points than anyone, running fewer plays than only a few teams, and used a mid range amount of game clock time to do it. In other words, they got big yardage on fewer plays, meaning they kept the game clock running Considering points/play and play/game clock time, leads to a conclusion that the Packers kept the game clock running between plays, but scored so quickly that little real time passed. The defense had little time to rest while the offense was scoring.

The offense scored so quickly and so often, that opposing offenses had to really open up to try to catch up or even hold on. That lead to more yards surrendered and more interceptions made by the defense.

Lack of an effective pass rush was a glowing shortcoming, but fix that with a lineman and a linebacker, and the rest might take care of itself.

[Scott Campbell]

Yup.

Yardage is slightly better than useless for measuring a D's effectiveness.

[Upnorth]

Your last statement is 100% accurate in my opinion. What stands out the most for me is #28 in plays run and #12 in TOP. Part of that comes from playing with a lead from the start of the 2nd quarter on very often, but I also wonder how much of that came from getting to the line and then waiting so the defence exposes its design.

[Upnorth]

Yup.

Yardage is slightly better than useless for measuring a D's effectiveness.

And yet the journalists have used it as a way of determining the best O'd and D's for decades.

[Scott Campbell]

And yet the journalists have used it as a way of determining the best O'd and D's for decades.

Well I can damn well guarantee you that the team with the actual worst D in the last 30 years did NOT go 15-1.

[Patler]

And yet the journalists have used it as a way of determining the best O'd and D's for decades.

But in analyzing a team, they tend to do just what the video did, look at points scored on offense and yardage surrendered on defense.

Calling the Packers the worst defense in 30 years based on yardage alone is ridiculous. A flawed defense, for sure; but not the worst in 30 years.

[Upnorth]

Well I can damn well guarantee you that the team with the actual worst D in the last 30 years did NOT go 15-1.

I was not disagreeing with you, but trying to point out the stupidity of the talking heads.

[Guiness]

Some metrics that would seem to make sense at first glance don't always work out that way. And there's the concept of the 'meta-game' that matters.

Years ago I saw it pointed out that teams had a better winning %age when they had a 100 yard rusher than when they had a 300 yard passer. The reason given for this was you ran when you were ahead and passed when you were behind. I suspect (but haven't seen any statistics to back it up) that has changed as the rules and success of the spread formations have changed the meta-game. Scoring often and quickly is the way to go now.

This has changed the way defense is played. The steel curtain, get the stop type of D is not necessarily what DCs are striving for. Bend don't break, prevent the big play and get the ball back in your offense's hands is.

Yards surrendered probably did make sense when you were striving to emulate Pitt's Iron Curtain D. Not so much when you're playing cover-2.

[Scott Campbell]

I was not disagreeing with you, but trying to point out the stupidity of the talking heads.

I understood, and joined you in piling on.

[Upnorth]

Some metrics that would seem to make sense at first glance don't always work out that way. And there's the concept of the 'meta-game' that matters.

Years ago I saw it pointed out that teams had a better winning %age when they had a 100 yard rusher than when they had a 300 yard passer. The reason given for this was you ran when you were ahead and passed when you were behind. I suspect (but haven't seen any statistics to back it up) that has changed as the rules and success of the spread formations have changed the meta-game. Scoring often and quickly is the way to go now.

This has changed the way defense is played. The steel curtain, get the stop type of D is not necessarily what DCs are striving for. Bend don't break, prevent the big play and get the ball back in your offense's hands is.

Yards surrendered probably did make sense when you were striving to emulate Pitt's Iron Curtain D. Not so much when you're playing cover-2.

Based of the logic in this post I assume you are all better from your concussion?

You make a good point and I would like to see changes to winning percentage for 100+yrd rushing teams over the last 5 years. I bet it has a lower correlation now than then.

[Upnorth]

I understood, and joined you in piling on.

So it was Patler who didn't understand again, typical (just kidding).

[LP]

Yup.

Yardage is slightly better than useless for measuring a D's effectiveness.

But it sure is awesome for stirring the pot!

[Lurker64]

The defense was bad last year, but the statistics the NFL trotted out there are misleading for the reasons you post.

The real reason the defense was so terrible last year (and the real reason for a lot of the defensive statistics) is that the Packers played some of the worst third down defense in the entire NFL last year. Winning on defense is ultimately about winning on third down, and at least some of the blame falls on Capers' feet here. He called a great third down D in 2010 and on the super bowl run, but nothing we tried on third down worked.

Most of the time when the Packers stopped another team on a third down last year it was due to a turnover or the other team making an error (such as a QB throwing an inaccurate pass).

Do something to fix the defense on third downs, and the rest will come.

[Fritz]

The NFL video was not all bad, but it compared apples to oranges - points on offense to yards on defense.

Called the Packers the "worst defense in 30 years."

Because no team gave up more yards? (NE was better by only 1/2 yard per game.)
Yet,
8 teams gave up more plays on defense than the Packers.
13 teams gave up more points than the Packers.
22 teams were worse in time of possession.
30 teams were worse in takeaways.
31 teams were much worse in interceptions.

Was the Packers defense worse than Tampa Bay, who gave up 135 more points than the Packers?


Realistically, defensive performance is affected by the teams offense, and vice verse.
It is fair to look at the Packer offense. They were:

#1 in points
#3 in yards
#12 in Time of possession
#28 in plays run.

The Packers scored more points than anyone, running fewer plays than only a few teams, and used a mid range amount of game clock time to do it. In other words, they got big yardage on fewer plays, meaning they kept the game clock running Considering points/play and play/game clock time, leads to a conclusion that the Packers kept the game clock running between plays, but scored so quickly that little real time passed. The defense had little time to rest while the offense was scoring.

The offense scored so quickly and so often, that opposing offenses had to really open up to try to catch up or even hold on. That lead to more yards surrendered and more interceptions made by the defense.

Lack of an effective pass rush was a glowing shortcoming, but fix that with a lineman and a linebacker, and the rest might take care of itself.

Another option would be to play Bo Schembecler football (In the middle of a huge University of Michigan shootout with Colorado years ago, Bo appeared as a halftime commentator, and despite Michigan having scored a bucketload of points in the first half Bo thought they needed to "Run the damn football. Run!")

[pbmax]

And yet the journalists have used it as a way of determining the best O'd and D's for decades.

But in analyzing a team, they tend to do just what the video did, look at points scored on offense and yardage surrendered on defense.

Calling the Packers the worst defense in 30 years based on yardage alone is ridiculous. A flawed defense, for sure; but not the worst in 30 years.

The NFL does not help in this regard. While the relatively recent explosion of stats has changed things, for years the NFL listed the Yards chart as the primary reference for ranking defense. Points against was its own column under W/L in the League's own Press Release. For strictly informational purposes, I once called the NFL Offices in New York when the local paper did not put League stat totals in the agate type section of Sports. Lot's of local games that week or something. They used to run every Wed or Thurs and didn't that week.

A very kind but worried PR guy said he would mail me a copy but that I should not expect it every week. He recommended the Sporting News. I received the entire NFL Stats press release two days later. My parents were mostly concerned about the long distance call.