More Banjo: Week 3 Aftermath (Pack v Bengals)

[pbmax]

Sherman had two advantages that McCarthy does not - 1. Chad Clifton. 2. Mark Tauscher.

Yes. Bach might be more athletic than Clifton and I would guess that would make a cut block easier, but Clifton did it so well that perhaps bigger, in this case, is better.

[Patler]

Yes. Bach might be more athletic than Clifton and I would guess that would make a cut block easier, but Clifton did it so well that perhaps bigger, in this case, is better.

I read more than once that one of Clifton's strongest attributes in pass pro was his punch. Several players said he could stun with it, stop guys in their tracks. Probably also hard to get your arms up quickly after getting blasted in the chest.

[pbmax]

Rodgers' radio show: Throw to Finley was late, getting him closer to safety than ideal. No further info on INT thrown at Cobb.

[red]

Rodgers' radio show: Throw to Finley was late, getting him closer to safety than ideal. No further info on INT thrown at Cobb.

he either underthrew it, or it was hung up in the wind.

[Guiness]

he either underthrew it, or it was hung up in the wind.

I thought we covered that. It wasn't windy. KY said so

[denverYooper]

Yeah, that's the guy.

It's clear the Packer's are underperforming in close games, though the pick of 1-8 points is again suggestive of choosing the data that best fits your hypothesis (see previous and current claims about Rodgers in game 4 points or closer). So separating Rodgers from these results is as problematic as trying to determine how much credit should go to receivers versus the QB. And the defense factors in here.

Without diving deep there are a few mitigating factors:

1. 2008 season, his first starting season. He was 0-8 or something similar that year.
2. Passing game is maxed out. Elway used to make 4th Qtr comebacks routine because Reeves had to unshackle him from a mediocre running game and the scripted offense and let him throw and scramble most downs late. But it was nearly a different offense in the 4th quarter. Rodgers is running the 4th Qtr offense every quarter. If teams have figured them out, there is not a better backup offense.
3. Running game. Franklin's success was in part a testament to the respect the Bengals had for the Packer passing game. But that running game disappears in a lot of games under Rodgers. Sometimes its the production, sometimes its the playcaller.
4. Risk taking. The same thing that might get you a 20 point lead is not going to happen when you face a defense poised to stop the pass and ignore the run. This made no difference to Favre or Marino as they would still take a shot. Rodgers instead takes sacks. Those sacks avoid INTs but they also cost time. An incomplete, which most risky throws would produce, would stop the clock at no more cost of a down.
5. Mediocre teams, or teams with no defense tend to have the most comeback opportunities because the game is always close if the offense is at all functional. Packers have a high number of wins during his era, so those close losses are simply the natural result of a good team losing occasionally.
6. Pass Protection. Has been at its weakest as Rodgers has entered his prime. With marginal run game, he is more of a target late in games when behind.
7. McCarthy doesn't have a handle on closing a game out. he takes his foot off the brake. Phone booth offense is no way to run a game with 11:00 left. You saw both sides of this in the Redskins game.

Aaron Schatz writes a tremendous comment in reply to the Captain Comeback article: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/fo-...comment-938933

It sounds like they're going to start trying to bring more of their quality stats into the discussion. He mentions that he doesn't believe a QB's record in comeback situations/close games is usually predictive. Which makes sense, because the FO guys have always lampooned the QB wins stat.

With that in mind… Scott's analysis in the past has mainly revolved around fixing all the errors in people's conceptions of past Q4C. Going forward, however, we have all kinds of ideas for making this research even better. We want to look at go-ahead/tying drives where we can credit the QB even when his defense gave back the lead (as in Super Bowls XXXVIII and XLII). We want to look closer at coaches. We want to work on using DVOA or EPA to separate out the quarterback's performance from times when he has his defense or special teams to blame. And we want to do better statistical analysis to figure out at what point a coach or quarterback's record in Q4C becomes statistically significant. Unfortunately, we can't do that in the next 24 hours or even the next two weeks. We've got all kinds of in-season responsibilities. But we want to get to it.

He also makes mention of encouraging captain comeback to look at coaches and their W-L record in

I will also say going forward that while Scott's work on this subject has always revolved around quarterbacks, I'm personally much more interested in questions about head coaches. I do think there's something there, and I do think it is predictive. (You all know how I feel about Ron Rivera.) I've encouraged Scott to work more towards looking at what we can learn about certain coaches and their records in close games. Is there a lot of randomness that goes towards deciding close games? Absolutely. But that's all the more reason to criticize bad decision-making by head coaches. You never know where the luck is going go, so you better at least get the process right. Random chance isn't an excuse for coaches to make stupid-ass decisions.

[pbmax]

Thanks Yoop. I did see he commented about it and published a link to it on Twitter. Haven't read the full thing so thanks for the highlights.

Its is definitely an interesting piece of data and can't be dismissed as even McCarthy says they have looked into it. But its seems nonsense to single out the QB and as Schatz might be admitting here, kind of goes against the grain of the rest of the site. I am also uncomfortable about the 1-8 point deficit. Its an arbitrary choice to sort data, though Kacsmar did do a nice job debunking the Team PR numbers for QB comebacks.

[red]

McCarthy Monday Presser

- Players off for whole week

- Packer Report @PackerReport 14m
McCarthy will be here in a second. Finley (concussion), Starks (knee), Matthews (hammy), Franklin (foot) from Sunday.

- Ross not released to send message, was about making change to roster composition

- M3 would work with him again

- Jason Wilde @jasonjwilde 15m
McCarthy jokes about the Wisconsin diet being an issue on hamstring injuries. Then, more seriously: "Do I have an answer for you? No."

I trust Wilde on this but I was listening and I didn't think he reported the suggestion that diet was an issue was a joke. Great deadpan if it was.

- M3 has seen work that Packer stink in close games. Says they have done their own studies on it and answers are evident in 2010 team. Thinks its easy to draw wrong conclusions based on other team's experiences

- M3 always second guesses, Schottenheimer told him play callers come in two flavors, those who second guess and those that lie about second guessing. He puts the issue to rest by re-examining process that lead to the decision

- Like Backups effort, esp. Special Teams who had a lot of normal front liners starting but overall grades for team not as good as goal

yeah, give the team a whole week off, we have nothing we need to work on

[MJZiggy]

yeah, give the team a whole week off, we have nothing we need to work on

I'm sure that the three guys on the team who aren't currently injured could probably use the work, yes.

[Fritz]

Boy, in this media-thick age it the second guessing is relentless, and much of it is relentlessly stupid. Check out this little nugget from Tyler Dunne, who writes about the Packers' needing an OLB to step up opposite Matthews:

"The Packers certainly missed their defensive cornerstone Matthews when he was sidelined four games, but criticism of Walden has been mostly exaggerated. He was a productive player. In a gritty 24-20 win at Detroit, Walden had a pair of sacks. In his two seasons as the primary linebacker opposite Matthews, Walden totaled 53 pressures in all, per Journal Sentinel statistics.

For all the criticism Walden received in the playoff loss at San Francisco -- and Walden said last week he wasn't at fault on the play -- he was a violent, improving pass rusher who could rattle a quarterback.

Yes, $16 million over four years is a lot. But the point is, it's not easy finding 3-4 edge rushers."

Are you fucking kidding me? I will grant that the guy made some occasional plays, and had a couple of good games in his tenure. But how can Dunne go so far as to suggest that somehow Walden is a golden boy who the team really let get away? That is fucking insane.

Walden was wildly, wildly inconsistent. And he played the run very badly very often. And did anyone really think he was the second coming of Lawrence Taylor in terms of pass rushing?

The guy couldn't keep contain on a glass jar with a butterfly in it.

That's just incredible. Talk about rewriting history to suit your narrative. That's almost McGinnish in scope.

[Patler]

Walden was wildly, wildly inconsistent. And he played the run very badly very often. And did anyone really think he was the second coming of Lawrence Taylor in terms of pass rushing?

The guy couldn't keep contain on a glass jar with a butterfly in it.

That's just incredible. Talk about rewriting history to suit your narrative. That's almost McGinnish in scope.

Fritz; I have to say that I think Dunne's characterization of Walden's performance is more accurate than yours. Not that I think they should have kept him, I don't, especially at the cost to do so. They have to give Perry his opportunity. But, in my opinion, Walden wasn't the weak link many portray him to have been.

[Fritz]

Well, we don't agree, then. Walden was the inconsistency that is the death of a defense, in my opinion.

[Bretsky]

Well, we don't agree, then. Walden was the inconsistency that is the death of a defense, in my opinion.

I was not a Walden fan but by no means would I have ever called him the death of the defense
I would not have considered calling him, IMO, our worst defensive starter. His weaknesses were more evident due to the horrid DL play and when is the last time we really had two starting calibur safeties out there at the same time ? Should we have kept him ? No Way ! But he was just a small part of our problems Plenty of others were and still are too.

Pass Rush, Anybody besides Clay Matthews ??

[Patler]

Well, we don't agree, then. Walden was the inconsistency that is the death of a defense, in my opinion.

Ya, I expect to be lonely in my opinion on this!

[Patler]

I was not a Walden fan but by no means would I have ever called him the death of the defense
I would not have considered calling him, IMO, our worst defensive starter. His weaknesses were more evident due to the horrid DL play and when is the last time we really had two starting calibur safeties out there at the same time ? Should we have kept him ? No Way ! But he was just a small part of our problems Plenty of others were and still are too.

Pass Rush, Anybody besides Clay Matthews ??

Maybe I'm not as alone as I thought!