improved defence

[HardRightEdge]

<<<<<<<<<< the button is over there

Which button? Do you mean "disagree"?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Even if you're right, he's obviously better than Hawk and the discussion of how good or bad he is vs. the run regards what aspect of the D? I can see that vein starting to pop. Packers fans. That's a ridiculous point: If no one should bother talking about Hawk (not a point made by HRE BTW) than why talk about any former Packer and their impact on the team? No serious Packers fan would argue the D isn’t better without Hawk - he was horrible last year. That’s not the issue being discussed. But I like that you think HRE needs encouragement!

I humbly apologize for saying you were "lawyering". It's becoming clear you simply don't get it.

 

[TJV]

I humbly apologize for saying you were "lawyering". It's becoming clear you simply don't get it.

C'mon HRE, it's OK to admit the obvious: McGinn's focus in the article, while being too narrow, was clearly focused on the running game as clearly indicated in the title - and the rest of the piece.

 

[HardRightEdge]

C'mon HRE, it's OK to admit the obvious: McGinn's focus in the article, while being too narrow, was clearly focused on the running game as clearly indicated in the title - and the rest of the piece.

I'm glad you admit the obvious: that McGinn's focus was too narrow. So narrow, in fact, he missed the forest for the trees.

 

[Poppa San]

<<<<<<<<<< the button is over there

There is no button there if my phone is in portrait view but there is in landscape where the layout is closer to a computer screen.

 

[TJV]

I'm glad you admit the obvious: that McGinn's focus was too narrow.

Posted yesterday morning:

...McGinn's focus is too narrow in the article but that's no reason to mischaracterize it.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

There is no button there if my phone is in portrait view but there is in landscape where the layout is closer to a computer screen.

thanks for that .

 

[HardRightEdge]

Posted yesterday morning: "...McGinn's focus is too narrow in the article but that's no reason to mischaracterize it."

The narrowness you saw yesterday, and evidently still today, is not the narrowness I've been addressing. Hawk's departure, while helpful, is secondary, whether you want to confine the matter to the defense as a whole or a "narrow" view of the run game.

 

[PikeBadger]

It feels awesome having a great defense. I was watching nfl network and the consensus had us as the best defense in the conference. Matthews should be in consideration for dpoy

Those that want to nitpick on individual players I guess can pick away. Everyone around the country thinks we have a great team and sees our defensive unit as a whole as being among the best in the league. Some of these are growing into their roles and will continue to improve as the season progresses. Some here thought it a pipedream that guys like Palmer, Thomas, Pennel & Elliot could be expected to be valued contributors to such an excellent unit and that it was very bad news to play Matthews inside.
Young players need time & experience to develop and great players can be great in different roles and different positions like Woodson, Matthews and Peppers have shown us. The coaches know best how to utilize the talent management gives them.

 

[Sky King]

Why not go to the source for the answer on what McGinn really means:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/333089681.html

 

[HardRightEdge]

Why not go to the source for the answer on what McGinn really means:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/333089681.html

I assume he meant what he wrote. That assumption was confirmed in this podcast so it really wasn't necessary to listen to it as regards that issue.

I did find his rant about access somewhat interesting. He observed that NFL teams increasingly limit interviews to control their messaging.

 

[JBlood]

By DVOA the Packers currently are 3rd in the league. No. 1 against the pass and no. 31 against the run. The overall ranking shows the dominance of passing in the game today--which is what Capers bases his defenses. On closer inspection, however, the team's performance ranks 31st in both variance (2nd least consistent) and schedule (2nd easiest to date). I'll take the 5 wins any day, but feel the jury is still out on this defense.

 

[PikeBadger]

By DVOA the Packers currently are 3rd in the league. No. 1 against the pass and no. 31 against the run. The overall ranking shows the dominance of passing in the game today--which is what Capers bases his defenses. On closer inspection, however, the team's performance ranks 31st in both variance (2nd least consistent) and schedule (2nd easiest to date). I'll take the 5 wins any day, but feel the jury is still out on this defense.

I tend to agree but I'm not sure that the San Diego OC and offensive line would agree.

 

[PFanCan]

HRE and TJV: I learn a lot from both of you. Is there any way that you two could type the b1tching back-and-forth comments in smaller font of a lighter color (e.g. grey)? That way, I can easily skip over it and get to the good analysis, point and counter point that is both useful and educational for folks like myself.

Just a thought. Sorry to interrupt your conversation on kettles, lawyers and the concept of boiling over. Oh, and don't use the icon too much. I think Robdog pays a royalty for each one used.



EDIT: Don't use the ignore button, BTW. Your debates are actually good to read. Minus the small font greyed out parts.

 

[HardRightEdge]

By DVOA the Packers currently are 3rd in the league. No. 1 against the pass and no. 31 against the run. The overall ranking shows the dominance of passing in the game today--which is what Capers bases his defenses. On closer inspection, however, the team's performance ranks 31st in both variance (2nd least consistent) and schedule (2nd easiest to date). I'll take the 5 wins any day, but feel the jury is still out on this defense.

That run defense DVOA is consistent with the 5.0 yards per carry rudimentary stat, which ranks 30th. Last year it was 4.3 YPC in the tale of two seasons at the ILB position.

This season, the Packers have allowed 33 rushing first downs on 131 attempts, a 25% rate. Last season it was 116 rushing first downs on 449 attempts for a nearly indistinguishable 26%.

So, why does the consensus eye test (including mine) say the run defense is markedly improved, even if not as dramatically as some would have it?

First, lets consider QB runs, the preponderance of which have been QB scrambles. Opponent QBs have run 31 times for 201 yards, a fairly high 6.5 average for QBs. That shouldn't be too surprising given the QBs in question and the fact they haven't had opportunities in the "victory formation" where those -1 yd. carries put small dents in the average.

If we reduce the QB average to a normalized 4.0 per carry (Rodgers, a top scrambler with perhaps a few more than average offsetting victory formations, has a career average of 4.9) on the same number of attempts, that lops 77 yards off the opponents' gross rushing yards. With that adjustment, the average comes down to 4.4, about in line with last season.

In another consideration of the overall eye test, it would be easy to overlook Gurley's 55 yarder since it resulted in no points, or to discard as an outlier since the longest previous run was Forte's 23 yarder in week 1.

So just for yucks, if we throw out the highlight reel as an aberration, Gurley gained 3.6 YPC on his other 29 runs.

On a season basis, normalizing the QB numbers and tossing Gurley's long gainer, the gross yardage drops by 132 and the YPC drops to 4.0. That would tie for 18th. in league, without giving any other team the benefit of any applicable deductions similar to the one's I've applied here.

So why does this run defense look better than that? I think it comes down to the base defense which has looked outstanding to the stat-free eye. PFF has given Daniels and Raji very high grades in run defense, if one wants to respect that eye test.

Here's a further statistical indication of the strength of the base run D. According to ESPN, Matthews is credited with 19 total tackles (solo + assist). Considering at least 5 of those came on full or partial sacks, he's had at most 14 tackles in the run game, maybe less. That's 3 per game, an exceptionally low number for anybody playing ILB. We know he's not missing many tackles and we know he runs to the ball on every play. So what gives? I think it comes down to the fact that the preponderance of his plays at the second level are in base; the eye test says runners are not getting to him very often in the base D.

The question that comes to my mind is how good is this run defense in nickel? That constitutes around 65% of the plays, give or take, year in and year out, many of which are tweener run-pass downs.

I'd be curious to see the base vs. nickel run stat breakdowns, if anybody has access to that. First down % on nickel runs would be particularly interesting. (Cue the Captain ).

 

[JBlood]

Capt Wimm has pointed out to me that I made a mistake on DVOA. The Packers are currently ranked 4th overall (not 3rd), 1st against the pass, 31st against the run. They are 27th in consistency; 30th in ease of schedule. I mistakenly took the Cardinals' numbers regarding variance and schedule, and mixed up the Cards' no. 3 rank with us. It's part of my developing dylexia.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Capt Wimm has pointed out to me that I made a mistake on DVOA. The Packers are currently ranked 4th overall (not 3rd), 1st against the pass, 31st against the run. They are 27th in consistency; 30th in ease of schedule. I mistakenly took the Cardinals' numbers regarding variance and schedule, and mixed up the Cards' no. 3 rank with us. It's part of my developing dylexia.

While "sake of accuracy" has it's place, this correction is so inconsequential as to require no apology.

 

[JBlood]

While "sake of accuracy" has it's place, this correction is so inconsequential as to require no apology.

Well, inconsequential can be applied to pretty much everything surrounding Sports, but it bothers me that I can't report something as simple as this accurately.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The question that comes to my mind is how good is this run defense in nickel? That constitutes around 65% of the plays, give or take, year in and year out, many of which are tweener run-pass downs.

I'd be curious to see the base vs. nickel run stat breakdowns, if anybody has access to that. First down % on nickel runs would be particularly interesting. (Cue the Captain ).

Unfortunately there's no website offering information like that. I would have to watch replay of all games to figure that one out. Maybe I'll have time to do it next week.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Unfortunately there's no website offering information like that. I would have to watch replay of all games to figure that one out. Maybe I'll have time to do it next week.

Thanks for considering the question. It would be a crazy amount of work to breakdown 300-some plays by eye.

In my mind, at least we have a question going forward.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Thanks for considering the question. It would be a crazy amount of work to breakdown 300-some plays by eye.

In my mind, at least we have a question going forward.

Well, I'm interested in the results as well and have done a ton of things more stupid in my leisure time, so let's see.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well, I'm interested in the results as well and have done a ton of things more stupid in my leisure time, so let's see.

It would be interesting to see those results. If you choose to take this on, you might want to track first downs as you go along.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

i can speculate the answer will be that the base is awesome against the run... 3 dlinemen. and guion has been missing 60% of the season to date. it will get better with daniels, raji and guion all on the field at once... bring da beef capers!!!!

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well, I'm interested in the results as well and have done a ton of things more stupid in my leisure time, so let's see.

I just now went back and looked at the coaches tape on Gurley's 30 runs.

The Packers ran a fair amount of base/nickel hybrid, a set with 3 down linemen, 2 OLBs on the edge, 5 DBs and Palmer the lone ILB. There were two base plays where Matthews came up to the middle of the line on what looked like run blitzes leaving Palmer to his own devices.

The distinguishing factor I found in this game, whether base, nickel or nickel hybrid, were the plays where Palmer was the lone ILB at the second level. Here are a couple of those plays:

On the Gurley 6 yard run from the 12 where Hyde made that terrific saving tackle, Palmer was knocked down in the hole. Shields helped with that, running into him on crossing coverage. Regardless, the guard had him sealed as...what's the term that was used for Hawk?...his feet were nailed in the ground.

On Gurley's 55 yard run, again Palmer was by himself in the middle. He was unblocked but slow reacting to the cutback and didn't get anywhere close to getting a hand on Gurley. A side note: from the coaches tape you can see Randall coming across like he was shot out of a cannon; his tackle on that play was not just a function of having the angle...the dude was flying. 4.46 at the Combine? The fields speed looks better than that.

There was a 3 yard gainer where Dix came up in the box. While Dix was making the play, Palmer was getting pushed downfield.

Palmer was credited with 2 1/2 tackles on Gurley's 30 runs according to the ESPN play-by-play but I saw only one that I would consider a good one-on-one play on a 4 yd. gain.

I'd be curious to know the run grade PFF gave Palmer for this game. It should have been poor.

The other thing I noticed is that Gurley looks like the real deal if anybody was questioning whether he'd be just a 2-game flash. He started slow with 3 or fewer yards on his first 8 runs then picked up steam. He had the 55 yarder on his 26th. carry; an 11 yarder on his 29th. carry. The best backs finish strong.

 

[PikeBadger]

I just now went back and looked at the coaches tape on Gurley's 30 runs.

The Packers ran a fair amount of base/nickel hybrid, a set with 3 down linemen, 2 OLBs on the edge, 5 DBs and Palmer the lone ILB. There were two base plays where Matthews came up to the middle of the line on what looked like run blitzes leaving Palmer to his own devices.

The distinguishing factor I found in this game, whether base, nickel or nickel hybrid, were the plays where Palmer was the lone ILB at the second level. Here are a couple of those plays:

On the Gurley 6 yard run from the 12 where Hyde made that terrific saving tackle, Palmer was knocked down in the hole. Shields helped with that, running into him on crossing coverage. Regardless, the guard had him sealed as...what's the term that was used for Hawk?...his feet were nailed in the ground.

On Gurley's 55 yard run, again Palmer was by himself in the middle. He was unblocked but slow reacting to the cutback and didn't get anywhere close to getting a hand on Gurley. A side note: from the coaches tape you can see Randall coming across like he was shot out of a cannon; his tackle on that play was not just a function of having the angle...the dude was flying. 4.46 at the Combine? The fields speed looks better than that.

There was a 3 yard gainer where Dix came up in the box. While Dix was making the play, Palmer was getting pushed downfield.

Palmer was credited with 2 1/2 tackles on Gurley's 30 runs according to the ESPN play-by-play but I saw only one that I would consider a good on-on-one play on 4 yd. gain.

I'd be curious to know the run grade PFF gave Palmer for this game. It should have been poor.

The other thing I noticed is that Gurley looks like the real deal if anybody was questioning whether he'd be just a 2-game flash. He started slow with 3 or fewer yards on his first 8 runs then picked up steam. He had the 55 yarder on his 26th. carry; an 11 yarder on his 29th. carry. The best backs finish strong.

I think the run defense has been very strong early in games when it has mattered most. We've been getting plenty of first half three and outs, got our lead while having good field position and put our opponents in come-back mode. I expect more of the same today.