how "green" were the members on special teams this year?

[mraynrand]

But now compare that to Seattle and SF. Like I say, I'm too lazy to do all that research, but I just did't see the same turnover with other teams. Maybe they had several PS guys and street rookie FAs on their teams playing 3-4 games at the end of the season too.

the transaction wires don't tell you who is playing STs week to week

[Patler]

49ers and Seahawks transactions posted for anyone who cares to study them. It really doesn't interest me, because:

Every team loses players, some a few more, some a few less. The Packer injuries, while significant, are not necessarily extraordinary.
GB has been poor/inconsistent on coverage units for years.
GB's overall roster tends to be young, but their game day active roster has not been. Typically their "extra" young guys tend to be inactive.
This year, many of their IR designations didn't affect coverage teams (Wallace, Bulaga, Jolly, Hayward (he was out from the start anyway, months to compensate for him, if he even played coverage), etc. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list.
The fact that a reserve suddenly sees more playing time doesn't automatically mean he is taken off teams, even if he becomes a full-time starter.
Every ST coach deals with changing lineups, its just the nature of the job.

I think blaming injuries this year is an excuse more than a reason.

[Patler]

the transaction wires don't tell you who is playing STs week to week

No, but it tells you how much their roster changes at the key ST positions of LB, FB, TE, DB, etc. That's where the extra players are that typically man ST lineups. Blaming GB's injuries this year also does not tell us if it affected coverage and return teams that much either.

[mraynrand]

My view is the Packers are built for offense and teams like SF and Sea are built for defense. Having better LBs and DBs will make you better at STs. Having a defensive mentality as a team will also make you better at STs. When you mix in injuries to the unit that contributes, I believe, the most to STs (the LBs), it has a significant effect. When guys who exclusively payed STs play significantly more downs from scrimmage, it affects their freshness for STs as well. It would also help to have an explosive return guy, but injury (Cobb) and mismanagement (Ross) led to a dearth of talent there. Finally, there probably has been some effect on stats having to play the Bears over the years and their very good special teams. I think the Packers are using injuries as an excuse, but that injure are also a real reason for their ST struggles.

[mraynrand]

No, but it tells you how much their roster changes at the key ST positions of LB, FB, TE, DB, etc. That's where the extra players are that typically man ST lineups. Blaming GB's injuries this year also does not tell us if it affected coverage and return teams that much either.

It tells you nothing, unless you know whether the players in the transactions actually perform on STs. For all you know, all these guys are inactive on Sundays. In the case of Sea, tons of those are 'terminated from PS'

Blaming GB's injuries this year also does not tell us if it affected coverage and return teams that much either.

It's a POV. I'm guessing that throwing Ayelaawayawa and Stonedburned in there late in the season, as scrap heap guys, ain't helping. Having Mulumba and Bush playing defense and STs seems to have blunted their performance on teams, IMO.

[Patler]

My view is the Packers are built for offense and teams like SF and Sea are built for defense. Having better LBs and DBs will make you better at STs. Having a defensive mentality as a team will also make you better at STs. When you mix in injuries to the unit that contributes, I believe, the most to STs (the LBs), it has a significant effect. When guys who exclusively payed STs play significantly more downs from scrimmage, it affects their freshness for STs as well. It would also help to have an explosive return guy, but injury (Cobb) and mismanagement (Ross) led to a dearth of talent there. Finally, there probably has been some effect on stats having to play the Bears over the years and their very good special teams. I think the Packers are using injuries as an excuse, but that injure are also a real reason for their ST struggles.

The mentality aspect is one I have often wondered about. To me, a lot of ST play is attitude.

[Patler]

It tells you nothing, unless you know whether the players in the transactions actually perform on STs. For all you know, all these guys are inactive on Sundays. In the case of Sea, tons of those are 'terminated from PS'

It's a POV. I'm guessing that throwing Ayelaawayawa and Stonedburned in there late in the season, as scrap heap guys, ain't helping. Having Mulumba and Bush playing defense and STs seems to have blunted their performance on teams, IMO.

I think we all know that the PS additions/deletions mean little. I thought about deleting those, but since they are so obvious I didn't think it was worth my time to edit the lists.

The Packers injuries and roster changes are similarly meaningless unless you analyze the actual game day rosters.

I sure wish I knew why in the last few years pro football players are suddenly over taxed if they play 30 plays a game. We are being sold another excuse by both the Packers and some journalists. After all, every team suits the same number of players for every game, and usually all but reserve QBs and maybe an O-lineman or two end up playing.

[3irty1]

Most of this conversation is masterbatory IMO. Our ST rankings probably have as much to do with being in a division with Patterson, Hester, and Bush than what's going on with our own units. Also doesn't help to have an offense that rarely turns the ball over. The special teams can rank from great to awful on any given Sunday so we're talking about a relatively loose pattern with a relatively small sample size. The teams are good enough to compete. Fire Slocum anyways? Yes.

[red]

this year we ranked 29th in kickoff return yards allowed (26.0 yards), interestingly denver was dead last with 29.3. the very injury depleted bears with their horrible defense this season allowed the least yards per return (18.8)

and we also ranked 29th in punt return yardage given up (13.1 yards). seattle and st. louis both held their opponents under 4 yards per return. guess that was all luck. again the injury ravaged bears were one of the best (6th)

[Cheesehead Craig]

It's a simple reason: M.I.S.S.

Mike It's Slocum Stupid.

[ThunderDan]

Slocum needs to go. The ST have at least one break down per game.

I understand the rotating in players thing but we sure should be able to do that without a major bust per game.

[mraynrand]

this year we ranked 29th in kickoff return yards allowed (26.0 yards), interestingly denver was dead last with 29.3. the very injury depleted bears with their horrible defense this season allowed the least yards per return (18.8)

and we also ranked 29th in punt return yardage given up (13.1 yards). seattle and st. louis both held their opponents under 4 yards per return. guess that was all luck. again the injury ravaged bears were one of the best (6th)

Well, shit, that's what I've been arguing all along. It's all luck. Packer success and failure is of course all attributable to luck. But then so is it for everyone else. So much for all the discussion.

[red]

a lot of people have mentioned how good our special teams were in 2011, ranking 8th overall

however

the kickoff coverage unit ranked 15th and the punt coverage unit ranked 28th

in 2012 they did much better ranking 15th in kickoff coverage and 5th in punt coverage

going back to 2010, 13th for KO coverage, tied for 24 in punt coverage

i think the injury excuse is complete bullshit. the one year were we were relatively injury free and people point at as proof the injuries effect ST's (2011) we were still average at best to horrible in the coverage units

time to stop looking for excuses and start looking at the problem, its the coach, and his name is slocum. and his coverage units have been shit since he got the job

[mraynrand]

time to stop looking for excuses and start looking at the problem, its the coach, and his name is slocum. and his coverage units have been shit since he got the job

But you just said it was luck. And just when I thought I was starting to get a handle on things...

[3irty1]

The Bears were not ravaged by a high number of injuries but the few injuries they did have happened to be to some of their top 5 players on defense.