2015 - Best offense in franchise history?

[Poppa San]

WAG but I'd say a lot of 5 or6 play drives for scores or punts.

 

[PikeBadger]

They scored TD's that year at a phenomenal rate. It was probably one of the 2-3 most prolific and efficient passing offenses in NFL history.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

No doubt this is a powerhouse offense. But it's a total team game. I don't think a team can win a SB with just the best offense. Witness 2011. 15-1 and one and done in a playoff loss at Lambeau. I'm not complaining. But to win the SB, both the D and STs will have to be top ten, maybe top 5. Just trying to keep this in perspective. And finally, this team must play to win, not play not to lose which cost them a SB trip last year. All the responsibility for making this happen is MM. He has to guide this team through the whole 60 minutes. 55 minutes will not cut it. Time for this team to start stepping on throats and not letting up. No room for Mr. Nice Guy.

 

[Carl]

No doubt this is a powerhouse offense. But it's a total team game. I don't think a team can win a SB with just the best offense. Witness 2011. 15-1 and one and done in a playoff loss at Lambeau. I'm not complaining. But to win the SB, both the D and STs will have to be top ten, maybe top 5. Just trying to keep this in perspective. And finally, this team must play to win, not play not to lose which cost them a SB trip last year. All the responsibility for making this happen is MM. He has to guide this team through the whole 60 minutes. 55 minutes will not cut it. Time for this team to start stepping on throats and not letting up. No room for Mr. Nice Guy.

In 2011, the 4 turnovers by the offense and just 20 points were hurt just as much as the defense if not more.

A Kuhn fumble gave away the ball in our own territory and a late fumble by Grant that was returned to the 4 yard line pretty much sealed the game for the Giants.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They scored TD's that year at a phenomenal rate. It was probably one of the 2-3 most prolific and efficient passing offenses in NFL history.

The 2011 offense scored a TD on 37.5% of their drives. The 2007 Patriots (42.4%) are the only team with a higher rate since 1997 and most likely NFL history.

No doubt this is a powerhouse offense. But it's a total team game. I don't think a team can win a SB with just the best offense. Witness 2011. 15-1 and one and done in a playoff loss at Lambeau. I'm not complaining. But to win the SB, both the D and STs will have to be top ten, maybe top 5. Just trying to keep this in perspective.

We've already discussed that several times on the forum. Teams don't need an elite defense to win the Super Bowl. Over the last 10 seasons three teams have won it all with defenses ranked 20th or worse in points allowed.

 

[Vrill]

Historic high scoring offenses usually all have one thing in common: A defense that creates lots of turnovers and gives the O a few extra possessions a game.

I don't care about how many yards our D gives up, what I care about, is points allowed and how many turnovers we are creating.

 

[TJV]

Where did the “extra” possessions go in the 2011 season? The Packers were +24 in TO ratio (only the 49ers were better at +28 and the Pats were 3rd at +17, then Lions +11). So they had a significant net gain of possessions vs. the league yet finished 30th in offensive drives. They were 12th in time of possessions at 30:29. The one caveat regarding the 38 TOs is those returned for TDs don’t count as possessions but there weren’t enough of those – I believe Woodson and Williams each had one and even a couple more wouldn’t explain about 20 extra possessions leading to their ranking in offensive drives.

Back to the topic, while looking around for stats on the 2011 Packers, I found an article on bleacherreport.com which asked “Where Does Peyton Manning's 2013 Season Rank Among Best Ever?” The author uses adjusted stats to compare 13 seasons from seven QBs, including Rodgers’ 2011 season. Here’s how he adjusted the stats: “Take each raw stat and divide it by the total number of drives that quarterback had during the season. Then multiply this number by the league average of offensive drives during the 2013 season, which is 186.” Rodgers had 148 drives in 2011 according to the author (remember Flynn started the last game against the Lions and the author agrees the Packers finished 30th in total drives that season). The author basically answers the question asked in the title no, and lists three remarkable QB seasons, including the 2004 season by Manning he thinks was better than his 2013 season. Most important for Packers fans, the author says he’s inclined to believe the greatest season is Rodgers’ 2011 season (the article was written in January 2014) and here’s the adjusted stats: 6,158 yards, 60 TDs and 8 turnovers.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ton-mannings-2013-season-rank-among-best-ever

As great as Rodgers is that’s an incredibly high bar, including his "unadjusted" passer rating of 122.5.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

The 2011 offense scored a TD on 37.5% of their drives. The 2007 Patriots (42.4%) are the only team with a higher rate since 1997 and most likely NFL history.



We've already discussed that several times on the forum. Teams don't need an elite defense to win the Super Bowl. Over the last 10 seasons three teams have won it all with defenses ranked 20th or worse in points allowed.

With all respect that's a 30% success rate for teams with weak Ds. If anything it proves my point.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

In 2011, the 4 turnovers by the offense and just 20 points were hurt just as much as the defense if not more.

A Kuhn fumble gave away the ball in our own territory and a late fumble by Grant that was returned to the 4 yard line pretty much sealed the game for the Giants.

That's a fair assessment of that game and thanks for pointing that out. Another poster disagreed with me stating that 3 of the last 10 SB winners had Ds ranked 20th or worse. So that's a 30% success rate for teams with Weak Ds which actually proves my point. Maybe the consensus opinion on the forum is that a great D isn't needed to win a SB. I just disagree is all.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Historic high scoring offenses usually all have one thing in common: A defense that creates lots of turnovers and gives the O a few extra possessions a game.

I don't care about how many yards our D gives up, what I care about, is points allowed and how many turnovers we are creating.

Three of the five highest scoring offenses ranked 28th or worse in total drives during the respective season.

With all respect that's a 30% success rate for teams with weak Ds. If anything it proves my point.

No, it doesn't prove your point that teams need to have a top defense. Having a great defense or offense increases the chances of winning a Super Bowl but teams don't need to have both to win it all.

Eight teams that played in a Super Bowl during the last 10 seasons had a defense ranked outside the top 10 in points allowed with Arizona being 28th in 2009 being the worst. Five of those teams won the title.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Three of the five highest scoring offenses ranked 28th or worse in total drives during the respective season.



No, it doesn't prove your point that teams need to have a top defense. Having a great defense or offense increases the chances of winning a Super Bowl but teams don't need to have both to win it all.

Eight teams that played in a Super Bowl during the last 10 seasons had a defense ranked outside the top 10 in points allowed with Arizona being 28th in 2009 being the worst. Five of those teams won the title.

I didn't say that a team has to have a highly ranked defense to win the SB. The odds greatly favor teams with a good D. This may just be a difference in what people think is necessary to win a title. I believe that the majority of the time, at the championship level, teams with a good to great D will beat teams with a good to great O. I'm sure the stats can be sliced and diced to support either position. And maybe in the modern NFL, with rule changes that tend to favor the O, that's going to turn around.

And STs almost always plays a role in chanpionships. Look at the Packers in 96-97. And STs played a big role in the Packers loss to Seattle in the last NFCC. The fake field goal would have been spotted by a great ST coach or player. And the onside kick would have failed if the ST coach had instilled a little more discipline. Or maybe Bostick is just an idiot. Either way, it doesn't matter. I guess my point is that while I love the O the Packers have this year, they will need dramatically improved play from the D and STs to get to SB 50, much less to win it. And there have been enough offseason changes to the D to support a "wait and see" attitude. STs I suppose has nowhere to go but up, and they'll have to for the Packers to bring back the Lombardi trophy.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I didn't say that a team has to have a highly ranked defense to win the SB. The odds greatly favor teams with a good D. This may just be a difference in what people think is necessary to win a title. I believe that the majority of the time, at the championship level, teams with a good to great D will beat teams with a good to great O. I'm sure the stats can be sliced and diced to support either position. And maybe in the modern NFL, with rule changes that tend to favor the O, that's going to turn around.

And STs almost always plays a role in chanpionships. Look at the Packers in 96-97. And STs played a big role in the Packers loss to Seattle in the last NFCC. The fake field goal would have been spotted by a great ST coach or player. And the onside kick would have failed if the ST coach had instilled a little more discipline. Or maybe Bostick is just an idiot. Either way, it doesn't matter. I guess my point is that while I love the O the Packers have this year, they will need dramatically improved play from the D and STs to get to SB 50, much less to win it. And there have been enough offseason changes to the D to support a "wait and see" attitude. STs I suppose has nowhere to go but up, and they'll have to for the Packers to bring back the Lombardi trophy.

Of course a team having a great offense, defense and special teams has a great chance to win the Super Bowl. In the salary cap era teams mostly don´t have three dominant units though and as I´ve pointed out several times it´s not necessary.

While some teams winning the Super Bowl had outstanding special teams it´s not a must either. Five of the last 10 Super Bowl champions had special teams ranked outside the top 10 in Football Outsiders´ weighted DVOA with three of them being ranked 24th or worse.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And of course FO has them leading the league in points per drive, but where did all those extra possessions go?

There's a matrix of factors to consider, but the leading consideration is that when the defense was not intercepting passes, they could not get off the field, thereby limiting offensive possessions:

- The Packers 412 yds. surrendered per game were 32nd. in the league, more than the offense's 405 yds. per game.

- The defense was 30th. in the league in first downs surrendered (22.4/game).

- The defense was tied for 26th. (rounded to whole numbers at nfl.com) in surrendering 3rd. downs (44%). Interestingly, opponents had the 4th. fewest third down attempts against. Considering this point together with the 30th. ranking in 1st. downs surrendered, we must conclude that the Packers surrendered a lot of first downs on 1st. and 2nd. downs...teams could move the ball without getting to third down.

- The defense was tied for 31st. worst in penalties (122) and 24th. worst in penalty yards surrendered (948)...that's a solid dose of short yardage opportunities and drive extenders, which goes some ways in explaining the high count of first downs on 1st. and 2nd. downs.

- The defense was 23rd. in most scrimmage plays against (1049).

- While the opponents' time of possession was only 29:31, this stat is misleading. Since opponents were playing from behind all season, they were throwing the ball...a lot...which chews less clock. Teams threw against the Packers 637 times, the most in the league, while running the ball 383 times, 28th. most in the league.

- Opponents had 3.6 red zone attempts per game, 28th worst in the league, further indication of opponents' ability to matriculate the ball down the field when they were not throwing interceptions. As an aside, opponents were TD-successful on 54.1% or those red zone possessions, 18th. best in the league, indicating an average bend-don't-break rating.

In short, ball hawking and route jumping giveth and taketh away when it comes to getting the ball in the offense's hands. Being average in the red zone at least limits the chance of getting into a shootout.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There's a matrix of factors to consider, but the leading consideration is that when the defense was not intercepting passes, they could not get off the field, thereby limiting offensive possessions:

- The Packers 412 yds. surrendered per game were 32nd. in the league, more than the offense's 405 yds. per game.

- The defense was 30th. in the league in first downs surrendered (22.4/game).

- The defense was tied for 26th. (rounded to whole numbers at nfl.com) in surrendering 3rd. downs (44%). Interestingly, opponents had the 4th. fewest third down attempts against. Considering this point together with the 30th. ranking in 1st. downs surrendered, we must conclude that the Packers surrendered a lot of first downs on 1st. and 2nd. downs...teams could move the ball without getting to third down.

- The defense was tied for 31st. worst in penalties (122) and 24th. worst in penalty yards surrendered (948)...that's a solid dose of short yardage opportunities and drive extenders, which goes some ways in explaining the high count of first downs on 1st. and 2nd. downs.

- The defense was 23rd. in most scrimmage plays against (1049).

- While the opponents' time of possession was only 29:31, this stat is misleading. Since opponents were playing from behind all season, they were throwing the ball...a lot...which chews less clock. Teams threw against the Packers 637 times, the most in the league, while running the ball 383 times, 28th. most in the league.

- Opponents had 3.6 red zone attempts per game, 28th worst in the league, further indication of opponents' ability to matriculate the ball down the field when they were not throwing interceptions. As an aside, opponents were TD-successful on 54.1% or those red zone possessions, 18th. best in the league, indicating an average bend-don't-break rating.

In short, ball hawking and route jumping giveth and taketh away when it comes to getting the ball in the offense's hands. Being average in the red zone at least limits the chance of getting into a shootout.

Another thing to consider is that highly productive offenses spent a lot of time per drive on the field resulting in less total drives. In 2011, for example, the three highest scoring offenses (Green Bay, New England and New Orleans) were ranked 30th, 29th and tied for 27th in total drives during that season.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Another thing to consider is that highly productive offenses spent a lot of time per drive on the field resulting in less total drives. In 2011, for example, the three highest scoring offenses (Green Bay, New England and New Orleans) were ranked 30th, 29th and tied for 27th in total drives during that season.

New England and New Orleans were the top 2 teams in the league in offensive plays executed so your point appears to apply to those 2 teams. Given the Packers low offensive snap count, other reasons are likely at play.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

New England and New Orleans were the top 2 teams in the league in offensive plays executed so your point appears to apply to those 2 teams. Given the Packers low offensive snap count, other reasons are likely at play.

The Packers ranked fourth in time of possession per drive in 2011. Maybe that´s a reason for them not having a ton of drives.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

First of all I´m convinced the Packers will once again have one of the highest scoring offenses in the NFL. It will be tough to exceed the production of the 2011 season though.



I think points allowed is a way better way to measure a defense´s performance than total yards allowed.



You´re taking it way too far with that assessment. While being tied for the league lead in turnovers (recovered fumbles are as important as interceptions) the defense was mostly terrible in 2011 and the offense had to score a ton of points several times to win a game.

Good point. I'm excited about this O as well. I do think that the D and STs will need to finish top 10, maaaaaaaaybe top 15 for this team to win SB 50. Even in the current "offense happy" NFL, a great D will beat a great O in the championship rounds. Just my opinion, and I know a lot of posters disagree with this. Two STs plays had a huge impact in the loss at Seattle. So you can win with ST play, and sometimes die from it. Just sayin.......

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Good point. I'm excited about this O as well. I do think that the D and STs will need to finish top 10, maaaaaaaaybe top 15 for this team to win SB 50. Even in the current "offense happy" NFL, a great D will beat a great O in the championship rounds.

During the Super Bowl era a team with a better scoring offense has won 62% of the playoff games compared to 57% of the teams with a better defense.

 

[TJV]

During the Super Bowl era a team with a better scoring offseason has won 62% of the playoff games compared to 57% of the teams with a better defense.

How many points have the Packers scored so far this offseason?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How many points have the Packers scored so far this offseason?

Great question, TJV. Unfortunately I can't find any information about it.

 

[TJV]

Seriously: Good reply above HRE. Some assumptions are difficult to dismiss. An old-timer like me would like to believe “defenses win championships” but if that were ever true, it’s not today as captainWIMM has pointed out. Before the recent discussion I assumed a team with a turnover ratio of +24 would have resulted in that team’s offense having more possessions than average for that season.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers ranked fourth in time of possession per drive in 2011. Maybe that´s a reason for them not having a ton of drives.

The factors in that equation certainly correlate given the relatively low drive count while having above average time of possession. I maintain, however, that the defense not being able to get off the field when not intercepting the ball is the primary factor.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Seriously: Good reply above HRE. Some assumptions are difficult to dismiss. An old-timer like me would like to believe “defenses win championships” but if that were ever true, it’s not today as captainWIMM has pointed out. Before the recent discussion I assumed a team with a turnover ratio of +24 would have resulted in that team’s offense having more possessions than average for that season.

I think it's fair to say defense alone does not win championships; offense alone can't win championships either.

A defense that nets a lot of interceptions but stinks in every other metric is not good enough, just as an offense with a lot of weapons, a great running game, and a top defense is not good enough without at least a decent QB.

 

[RRyder]

I think it's fair to say defense alone does not win championships; offense alone can't win championships either.

A defense that nets a lot of interceptions but stinks in every other metric is not good enough, just as an offense with a lot of weapons, a great running game, and a top defense is not good enough without at least a decent QB.

In discussions like these I always harkin back to a clip I saw of Warren Sapp I saw on NFL network. He was asked if he believed in the "Defense win Championships" mantra. He point blankly replied NO. He went on to say defense can put you in position and give you a chance. But in the end the offense has to go get it for ya.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

With the evolution of Lacy/Starks. Lacy becoming Steven Jackson-esque, And Starks looking much more like AP coming in fresh, with Lacy softening up the defense....Last season Lacy getting a lot of catches, and Starks at 6'2" 218 catching a couple streaks like a WR. (I love that plays potential!!!). RBs will be great again. With the receiving corps, and Rodgers protecting the ball. a top notch O-line.... I could see Rodgers hitting 50 TDs this year. and a 10/1, TD/Int ratio.