More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[pbmax]

He's been successful in the 4th q at a higher rate than 23 of the other 31 teams. I see no justification for characterizing that position relative to his peers as "ineffectual" at all. Top 10 is a pretty strong tier to be in on about any NFL measure I'd say. I'd call that position, with the added context of the other rankings together as highly successful.

My suspicion is that the Patriots and a couple other perennial contenders are both higher in Top 10 for the 4th Quarter.

If you want to finish the job and win the Super Bowl, Top 10 might not be enough.

[hoosier]

They ran more the entire half. But I agree, he mixed in more pass than usual before 6:40. My fear is that 6:40 is still too early with a two score lead, but I would settle for it if it meant he kept passing until that point.

And by passing, I do not mean run-run-pass.

So we're looking at the drive that started with 6:40 or whatever left in the 4th (actually 6:35) and the final, clock-killing drive. On the second to last drive they held the ball for 1:30. That drive started with an incomplete pass (the Davis drop), then a bad run play by Starks, then the dump off to Starks where he got tackled short of the first down. That drive doesn't fit the 4-minute model; if there is a primary cause for its failure it was the drop.

After Detroit's next TD, Packers got the ball back with 3:34. After two runs by Lacy netted two yards, Rodgers picked up the first with his feet. Then he hit Adams on the slant for nine, and Lacy converted on second down. Then victory formation.

I'm just trying to understand the criticism: what part of this reflects going into a four-minute shell too early?

[Pugger]

So we're looking at the drive that started with 6:40 or whatever left in the 4th (actually 6:35) and the final, clock-killing drive. On the second to last drive they held the ball for 1:30. That drive started with an incomplete pass (the Davis drop), then a bad run play by Starks, then the dump off to Starks where he got tackled short of the first down. That drive doesn't fit the 4-minute model; if there is a primary cause for its failure it was the drop.

After Detroit's next TD, Packers got the ball back with 3:34. After two runs by Lacy netted two yards, Rodgers picked up the first with his feet. Then he hit Adams on the slant for nine, and Lacy converted on second down. Then victory formation.

I'm just trying to understand the criticism: what part of this reflects going into a four-minute shell too early?

I'm wondering too...

[vince]

My suspicion is that the Patriots and a couple other perennial contenders are both higher in Top 10 for the 4th Quarter.

If you want to finish the job and win the Super Bowl, Top 10 might not be enough.

Highly unlikely. Perhaps you're not interpreting this properly. This is not a metric of the odds of beating the pats. It's a measure of winning games with the lead at half or 4th q. The fact that the top 1 team wins 3.7% more often when they lead in the 4th has nothing whatever to say about which team might conceivably have the lead in a hypothetical match-up. The reality is that both have proven to close out 9 of 10 games if able to get in that position.

[pbmax]

First half: 18 passes (9.4 aypa), 7 runs (~5.9 ypc), 11 first downs
TOP: 18:27 for Packers D, 11:33 Packers O
Points: 31

Second half: 6 passes (~5.17 apya), 17 rushes (~4.8), that includes 5 Rodgers rushes for 22 which were passes in most cases. 6 first downs
TOP: 16:40 PackD, 13:20 PackO
Points: 3

* aypa = adjusted yards per attempt (adjusted here means minus sacks and would include penalty for ints)

Changes to second half game plan garnered 1:47 of help to the D and 3 whole points. I contend that he could have helped the D by more by scoring more and putting the game out of reach.

[pbmax]

Highly unlikely. Perhaps you're not interpreting this properly. This is not a metric of the odds of beating the pats. It's a measure of winning games with the lead at half or 4th q. The fact that the top 1 team wins 3.7% more often when they lead in the 4th has nothing whatever to say about which team might conceivably have the lead in a hypothetical match-up. The reality is that both have proven to close out 9 of 10 games if able to get in that position.

I am saying there is clearly a loss of effectiveness in the 4th quarter as illustrated by the results and ranks. And that can be improved. I suspect several other playoff contenders are ahead of them, not that they necessarily would beat them.

[vince]

I am saying there is clearly a loss of effectiveness in the 4th quarter as illustrated by the results and ranks. And that can be improved. I suspect several other playoff contenders are ahead of them, not that they necessarily would beat them.

No there is not. The Packers are more likely to close a game with a lead in the 4th than at half. The range of 3.7% among the teams in the top 10 is very small difference - all of which close 9 of 10 games with 4th q lead. If your intent is to hang on to preconceived notions in the face of overwhelmingly controverting facts by insisting that anything less than perfection is substandard or suggest that the practical difference in any game occurrence between 91% likelihood and 87% than there's really nothing else to say about that. It's less than 4 games in 100. It would likely take 3 seasons for the difference to be 1 game between ranks 1 and 9.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think that is a fair restatement for the D. However, the Packers don't necessarily retreat into zone to keep everything in front of them. They tend to use zone to mix up coverages, but prefer man to man under most circumstances.

If they keep giving up big plays or consistently can't cover man to man and give up big chunks of yards (see Stefon Diggs, and Marvin Jones the last two weeks), should they go more zone, assuming they can still stop the run and bring an adequate pass rush?

I'm sure it's frustrating for those on defense who do their job well in run stopping and pass rush, only to have the secondary be leaky. Does it seem to you that the front seven has performed well enough with run stopping and pressure to expect that the DB's can cover long enough to be effective?

[pbmax]

No there is not. The Packers are more likely to close a game with a lead in the 4th than at half. The range of 3.7% among the teams in the top 10 is very small difference - all of which close 9 of 10 games with 4th q lead. If your intent is to hang on to preconceived notions in the face of overwhelmingly controverting facts by insisting that anything less than perfection is substandard or suggest that the practical difference in any game occurrence between 91% likelihood and 87% than there's really nothing else to say about that. It's less than 4 games in 100. It would likely take 3 seasons for the difference to be 1 game between ranks 1 and 9.

Can you post the Top 10 for the 4th quarter lead?

[pbmax]

If they keep giving up big plays or consistently can't cover man to man and give up big chunks of yards (see Stefon Diggs, and Marvin Jones the last two weeks), should they go more zone, assuming they can still stop the run and bring an adequate pass rush?

I'm sure it's frustrating for those on defense who do their job well in run stopping and pass rush, only to have the secondary be leaky. Does it seem to you that the front seven has performed well enough with run stopping and pressure to expect that the DB's can cover long enough to be effective?

They did need more pass rush versus Detroit, but big plays have been a problem in each game. Burnett getting healthy will help. Matthews and Jones coming back in will too.

[vince]

Can you post the Top 10 for the 4th quarter lead?

yeah but it will be tonight. Ill post full list but i havent figured out the whole tables thing. The top 10 is generally a list of good teams but there are a few surprises. NE and gb lead most often by a decent margin.

[hoosier]

First half: 18 passes (9.4 aypa), 7 runs (~5.9 ypc), 11 first downs
TOP: 18:27 for Packers D, 11:33 Packers O
Points: 31

Second half: 6 passes (~5.17 apya), 17 rushes (~4.8), that includes 5 Rodgers rushes for 22 which were passes in most cases. 6 first downs
TOP: 16:40 PackD, 13:20 PackO
Points: 3

* aypa = adjusted yards per attempt (adjusted here means minus sacks and would include penalty for ints)

Changes to second half game plan garnered 1:47 of help to the D and 3 whole points. I contend that he could have helped the D by more by scoring more and putting the game out of reach.

Sure, scoring more would have definitively put the game out of reach, no question. But what I don't see yet is why you think the play calling stopped emphasizing scoring, and what would have been different about the play calling if scoring had been the priority. GB had four drives in the second half. The first, which ended in a field goal, petered out after one bad run, an incomplete pass (Rodgers was pressured and threw it away), then a long QB run wiped out by the holding penalty. On the second drive, they picked up one first down (two good runs) and then it fizzled out with a 2 yard run, a sack and an incomplete pass. The third and fourth drives, we know what happened. What I see in the first three drives of the second half is not a pronounced shift in play calling strategy from points to clock killing but increased inefficiency, and primarily in the passing attack. Rodgers was 3-6 for 31 yards in the second half, and failed to convert a single third down through the air (team converted 1 of 4 tries in second half, and Rodgers was 0 for 2 passing). That to me is the biggest difference between first half and second half, and it almost singlehandedly explains why GB stopped scoring points: the offense couldn't convert third downs in the second half while the defense couldn't get off the field. Everything else is secondary, so to speak.

[vince]

Right. Scoring more is a result too often confused with intent. And the result that counts more than scoring is winning. Style points appease us fans and we clearly over emphasize them but they're only part of the equation to winning a game.

[hoosier]

What isn't getting addressed in this debate is why the bad Rodgers (or bad pass offense) reared its head again in the second half. We all figured the first half had put that thing to bed.

[vince]

What isn't getting addressed in this debate is why the bad Rodgers (or bad pass offense) reared its head again in the second half. We all figured the first half had put that thing to bed.

I think Rodgers has a tendency to get more conservative in his decision making along with coach. He held ball more, iwas more willing to run or take sack, slow down tempo, etc. Defense played more soft zone to keep guys in front but that intent had some holes in execution. There were a couple drives by Detroit that drained a lot of clock.