improved defence

[TJV]

That wasn't the point, now was it.

You were in favor of keeping Hawk as a backup, weren't you?

 

[HardRightEdge]

You were in favor of keeping Hawk as a backup, weren't you?

Frankly, I don't recall exactly what I said. But I'm sure I said he was better in run defense than others would have it. If my statement was something to the effect of, "Sure, why not, if the price was right," I have not seen anything to change that opinion.

If that meant letting a guy like Palmer go, that would not have been any particular loss.

Following whatever my exact offseason opinions might have been, I told you in preseason I was cold on Palmer, what with falling down in the hole and other unpretty plays. I've seen nothing to assuage those concerns.

In fact, as a run defender, I'd take the Hawk I saw last season over the Palmer I see in this one. I was curious to see the Hawk PFF comparison since I had not seen him play this season. Palmer's PFF ratings are simply a comparable to what I already expressed, directly to you in fact.

Here's one flaw in McGinn's recent Hawk vs. Palmer assessment vis a vis the run game. While a player like Hawk will jump out at you on those occasions when his feet are "screwed to the ground" (or whatever similar phrase was used), or when he was pushed out of the play, or when a ball carrier dragged him for a few yard, with those gaffs exposed in space, he would also be where he should have been a good percentage of the time. While that may be slim compensation or damning with faint praise, it does have some value in that the runner might have to reroute, Hawk might get an arm on him and slow him down, or being dragged is better than not being in the play at all.

Another player who is not in the position where decent instincts should take him, who gets sealed off away from the play or is just plain late to the ball, might not get notice for what he didn't do...unless he falls down in the hole if anybody is paying attention.

The thorny issue is pass coverage. Hawk was decidedly slower than tolerable. But guess what...Palmer isn't much better. Thompson had to go out and get him a caddy to take his spot in dime after he got lit up in coverage against Chicago. In nickel, they keep his coverage responsibilities limited to close proximity to the line of scrimmage, and he still doesn't look very good. Matthews, et. al. get to chase guys like Gates instead.

I don't know if you listened to McGinn's podcast where he hit the lighlights of his run defense piece. He concluded by saying that Hawk is getting playing time in Cincy as an injury replacement, Cincy is 5-0 (now 6-0), "so what do I know". A pause followed. Then one last, "Oh, but Hawk was just so terrible," comment so as to not sound like he was retracting his piece which, as you well know, focused on the absence of Hawk as the root cause of the defensive improvement.

The long and short of it...Palmer is no upgrade over Hawk, as hard as you may find that to believe.

So whatever improvements you see in the defense over last season, Hawk's departure is very low on the totem pole of causes.

Now, if there were team dynamics and interpersonal issues involved, that would be another matter. Demoting somebody can be a locker room issue if the player is not completely right with it. Wanting to purge as many offending parties as practical from the NFCC debacle has some merit. We don't know if Hawk made it known that he preferred his release over some marginal role and a renegotiation. But I'm not in those places or privy to those conversations, and have not seen anybody report on them either, so I'll stick to what I see on the field.

 

[PikeBadger]

I've observed this previously; inside routes are the only times he's looked iffy. The same can be said of Shields for a couple of years running. I wouldn't be so sure the emphasis isn't protecting against the sideline deep ball.

Probably true HRE. Randall seems to be much better on the outside plays. I think that Dix is too slow coming up to help on the inside stuff. We'll have to be patient in these young guys development.

 

[TJV]

It would have made no sense to keep Hawk. I agree with McGinn, he was terrible and most posters here saw the same thing. That's why he lost snaps to Barrington. Hawk's only advantage was he knew where to be, once Palmer gets close to that point mentally, he'll be better physically - of course that's a low bar. As the season goes on I hope Ryan shows enough in practice to earn snaps at ILB.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Probably true HRE. Randall seems to be much better on the outside plays. I think that Dix is too slow coming up to help on the inside stuff. We'll have to be patient in these young guys development.

I don´t think Clinton-Dix is too slow to provide safety help over the top on inside routes but sometimes he gets fooled like on the long completion to Floyd.

Hawk's only advantage was he knew where to be, once Palmer gets close to that point mentally, he'll be better physically - of course that's a low bar.

I´m not totally convinced Palmer will ever get close to that point though.

 

[JBlood]

After 5 games, the Packers' rank 24th in defensive "power rank" by DVOA = allowed 75% success of opponents' short yardage runs for first downs or TDs with 2 yards or less needed. They rank 20th in "stuffs"= tackles at or behind the LOS. We rank 27th in run plays over our R tackle; 19th over the middle; and 31st over our L tackle. These failures are a result of both the defensive line, and the linebackers. It's a weakness of this team, and has been a weakness of Capers' defenses since 2011.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

After 5 games, the Packers' rank 24th in defensive "power rank" by DVOA = allowed 75% success of opponents' short yardage runs for first downs or TDs with 2 yards or less needed. They rank 20th in "stuffs"= tackles at or behind the LOS. We rank 27th in run plays over our R tackle; 19th over the middle; and 31st over our L tackle. These failures are a result of both the defensive line, and the linebackers. It's a weakness of this team, and has been a weakness of Capers' defenses since 2011.

The rushing defense wasn´t an issue against the Chargers though.

 

[JBlood]

The rushing defense wasn´t an issue against the Chargers though.

why run when you can pass at will? Should have the DVOA rankings after week 6 soon.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

why run when you can pass at will? Should have the DVOA rankings after week 6 soon.

The Chargers rushed 21 times for only 60 yards (2.9 average) and lost a fumble. Pretty good job defending the run.

Overall, there´s absolutely no doubt in my mind that the run defense improved over last season even if Football Outsiders DVOA suggests otherwise.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

After 5 games, the Packers' rank 24th in defensive "power rank" by DVOA = allowed 75% success of opponents' short yardage runs for first downs or TDs with 2 yards or less needed. They rank 20th in "stuffs"= tackles at or behind the LOS. We rank 27th in run plays over our R tackle; 19th over the middle; and 31st over our L tackle. These failures are a result of both the defensive line, and the linebackers. It's a weakness of this team, and has been a weakness of Capers' defenses since 2011.

When I look at Football Outsiders the Packer's defense is ranked 4th overall by DVOA. Yeah, there's some areas that are weak but not many defense are perfect. I'll take a couple of random situational areas being weak if it means the overall defense is top-5.

 

[Carl]

After 5 games, the Packers' rank 24th in defensive "power rank" by DVOA = allowed 75% success of opponents' short yardage runs for first downs or TDs with 2 yards or less needed. They rank 20th in "stuffs"= tackles at or behind the LOS. We rank 27th in run plays over our R tackle; 19th over the middle; and 31st over our L tackle. These failures are a result of both the defensive line, and the linebackers. It's a weakness of this team, and has been a weakness of Capers' defenses since 2011.

I don't care what that stat says. The run defense has been fine. That had rough half vs. Forte and gave up a long run to Gurley. Otherwise, they've shut everyone down, including Lynch, Charles, and Hyde.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't care what that stat says. The run defense has been fine. That had rough half vs. Forte and gave up a long run to Gurley. Otherwise, they've shut everyone down, including Lynch, Charles, and Hyde.

While I agree that the run defense has improved a lot of fans tend to forget that Charles had three TDs.

 

[TJV]

I´m not totally convinced Palmer will ever get close to that point though.

I'm not totally convinced of that either. But I am convinced Hawk should have been jettisoned.

BTW, the Packers are third in scoring D allowing an average of 16.8 ppg. They'll face better offenses but that's a good start. BTWII, the Vikings are second at 16.6 ppg and the Broncos fourth at 17.0.

 

[Croak]

We won the damn game for pity sake !!!

Ah, but did we win it "statistically"???

 

[JBlood]

DVOA isn't the final answer. But it's better than anything else statistic-wise available today. You can bet the Packers and our opponents are aware of such stats week after week, looking for weaknesses and trends. To ignore them would be foolish.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But I am convinced Hawk should have been jettisoned.

Absolutely agreed.

 

[TJV]

Here's a piece on HHCD from Rodney's Packers Notes. He thinks he's already one of the top 20 safeties in the league. He writes stats don't always tell the story but regarding his progression from year 1 to year 2: "After averaging 4.4 tackles and 0.9 missed tackles per game as a rookie, Clinton-Dix’s numbers are 6.7 and 0.6 so far this season." And he will turn 23 two months from today. http://packersnotes.com/2015/10/green-bays-next-great-safety/

 

[El Guapo]

HHCD mixes in a nice bit of nasty in his play.

 

[DaveRoller]

I chalk up Sunday's defensive results against the Chargers to a hot QB and a poor defensive game plan.

Even with that, giving up 20 points is much, much better than what we've seen in the past.

I look forward to continued development by the D all season long.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Maybe because I grew up originally watching a different sport, I don't fully understand the importance of statistics in sport. The other team can score as many points as they want, as long as as my team score one more than them I'm happy.

 

[Half Empty]

Maybe because I grew up originally watching a different sport, I don't fully understand the importance of statistics in sport. The other team can score as many points as they want, as long as as my team score one more than them I'm happy.

As are the rest of us. Then, after the game, we'll post the score and wait until next week to discuss opinions?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

As are the rest of us. Then, after the game, we'll post the score and wait until next week to discuss opinions?

Now now Mr Empty, I`m not critising, I`m merely saying.

 

[Half Empty]

Now now Mr Empty, I`m not critising, I`m merely saying.

Honestly doesn't know what you're merely saying. If you eliminate stats from the discussion here, there won't be much discussion.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Honestly doesn't know what you're merely saying. If you eliminate stats from the discussion here, there won't be much discussion.

I`m saying that I grew up watching sports where statistics were not a big part of things. I`m not critising ANYTHING, I`m merely expressing an opinion. My bad obviously.

 

[yooperpackfan]

Honestly doesn't know what you're merely saying. If you eliminate stats from the discussion here, there won't be much discussion.

I disagree.
Back in the good old days, before the world wide web, we didn't have all these useless stats at our disposal and there was never any lack of discussion about the Green Bay Packers or any other sports team.
I find the proliferation of stat conversations these days to be quite annoying.