The Value of Run Defense

[HardRightEdge]

Funny you say that. Someone in 2010 went round n round with your exact same logic, only difference is it was actually a Falcons fan that year, discounting the GBP who were going into the playoffs at 10-6 and a 6th seed. But who also had one of the most difficult Strength of Opponent schedules ratio at seasons end. The result? 4-0 on the Road and 1 neutral win for a Lombardi. It’s only one of many measuring sticks but it’s actually logical and it’s partly how they rank college teams, so no big surprise here.

Yeah, well, you can always find an anecdote to support anything. You might as well cite KC's 6th. toughest schedule last year as a contributor to that outcome.

Of course New England's was 22nd. the year before, a team that has been padding their record and playoff seeds beating up on weak division rivals seemingly forever, a few Jets and Buffalo defenses not withstanding. I can't remember the last QB in that Division who was at least decent who was not named Brady. Once you get to the playoffs, strength of opposition goes out the window. It hasn't seemed to matter much one way or the other with New England.

Here's a better way to look at without resorting to anecdotes.

The toughest schedule last year was the Raiders, with their opponents' finishing with a 0.539 record. That equates to an 8.6 - 7.4 opponent record.

The weakest schedule was Houston's at 0.453. That equates to a 7.2 - 8.8 opponent record.

Here are three things to think about with regard to that 1.4 win difference:

1) How much difference is there between an 8.6 vs. 7.2 win team? Not much. It could come down to a small handful of plays. The Packers were a single two yard play at the gun from going 14-2 with home field throughout. Who knows how that might have turned out, but I digress.There are certain 1st. vs. 32nd. rankings that don't mean a whole lot. With some it's hard to tell what they mean if anything at all as far as winning goes.

2) The Raider's opposition played against the Raiders whereas Houston's opposition played against Houston. If one were to believe that Houston was the better team, a reasonable supposition, then an adjustment needs to be made to narrow that 1.4 win differential.

3) Given that the 1.4 win differential in not great even without that adjustment, the next question you have to ask according to your premise is what was the level of competition of the Raiders' opponents vs. those that faced Houston? By your logic, those 7.2 win teams might be stronger opponents than the 8.6 win teams when adjusting for who they played. This is where the circularity of the argument, or call it a regress, comes in. Be sure it is not you going round and round.

Given the choice between looking at strength of schedule, or following the old cliche of just looking at the scoreboard when the gun goes off, I think I'll take the latter.

 

[PackAttack12]

But it's incredibly irrational to think that the Packers' offense could have been great with a rookie WR, but will be terrible now. That's a tantrum.

I guess I missed where anyone made that assertion. Not saying it hasn't happened, just that I missed it. Couldn't be more than a small handful either way.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'll go with Woodson who went a little balistic over Capers not making any adjustments.

Look, I never claimed that Capers excelled during that game, but what adjustments should he have made? His dline was getting handled and Matthews was a wacky-waving-inflatable-tube-man; providing more help to his coverage guys would have just let Kap run even more wild on that defense. Now, I do think in that game he should have changed something, even though I don't think it would have mattered, at least it would have looked more like he was doing something as DC rather than just being confused; which I think he understandably was since many of his supposed defensive stalwarts were playing like practice squad guys.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It's not. Virtually everyone did.

But it's incredibly irrational to think that the Packers' offense could have been great with a rookie WR, but will be terrible now. That's a tantrum.

The last statement is almost certainly false, and insupportable.

I think most people are pointing to the lack of a WR being added as something of a straw that broke the camel's back; any expectation that the offense will improve is based on believing that Wagner can replace one of the better RTs in the league, that young players who didn't show much last year will take enormous leaps this year, and that the second year in MLF's offense will be a positive. There's also the, understandable, belief that this team's offense has not improved enough to actually make the team competitive with the 49ers.

Of those, I do think the second year under MLF will be a positive, but I remain skeptical that Wagner will be as good in pass protection, or that guys who didn't show much last year will make big jumps this year. From a purely personnel standpoint, the offense is worse this year than last. Fans were hopeful that a 13-3 team would make a jump to becoming Super Bowl contender and that hasn't appeared to be the case.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Look, I never claimed that Capers excelled during that game, but what adjustments should he have made? His dline was getting handled and Matthews was a wacky-waving-inflatable-tube-man; providing more help to his coverage guys would have just let Kap run even more wild on that defense. Now, I do think in that game he should have changed something, even though I don't think it would have mattered, at least it would have looked more like he was doing something as DC rather than just being confused; which I think he understandably was since many of his supposed defensive stalwarts were playing like practice squad guys.

Sometimes guys just have a great game. And against elite players, it's bound to happen more often. But when the defense allows career games from non-elite players or had their butts whipped in the fashion that GB has over the past decade, then something is up.

Right after the 12 SF game, GB allowed Kaepernick ANOTHER career day during their opening game the following season, this time in terms of passing yardage. Similarly to how GB allowed career days to both Jimmy G and the running game of SF last year. Capers and Pettine are from bygone eras, and that's why Capers coaching days are over and why Pettine's would have been if it wasn't for Mark Murphy. NE has been scheming top 10 championship caliber defenses despite relatively average talent for years, because they accentuate the strengths of their players. Those two clowns expose their players to the point of embarrassment.

 

[OldSchool101]

Given the choice between looking at strength of schedule, or following the old cliche of just looking at the scoreboard when the gun goes off, I think I'll take the latter.

Well, with all due respect. “Anecdotal” stories don’t use factual example that support the desired end result of a “SuperBowl” Win. Correct me if now according to HRE.. SuperBowl victories are now just whimsical story lines. What planet are you on,. youre in a ProFootball Talk Site.. what’s more compelling than winning a SB?

Ahhhh. It’s an “anecdote” if it doesn’t support your “opinion” So your opinion trumps facts that are consistent with winning a SB. Gotcha! But That doesn’t give me lots of confidence in your argument.

But what’s even more interesting? is you then you turn around and use the New England Patriots and KC as an example? when they both factually support my point of using SOS.
Another Fact: NE started with a relatively WEAK schedule (well under sub .500) and their D was breaking historic records!! then,.. the Strength of opponent gets gradually tougher as the season progresses .. what happened next? What was the SOS for Tennessee exactly? #9 toughest overall.
49ers? #11 toughest overall.
KC?? Tied for #5th toughest
GB? #14 and NE #27 and both get found out in playoffs! Clear as day
Merely coincidental “anecdotes”.

NE is immediately knocked out of the playoffs.. immediately. Their (NE) SOS was **** poor (the evidence works both ways) throughout the whole season.
KC you said ranked #6 (actually it’s tied at #5 at 0.52) Tough opponents=tough team. Why else would they have that metric HRE? It’s used as one of many measures to predict strength of opponent. SOS has been largely accurate more often than not, including 2019 where it aligns nicely.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Perhaps the better question to ask is whether it is possible to create a universal league-wide stat the provides real meaning. Or is it just convenient?

No, DVOA is pretty helpful when you understand that's it's a broad measure and that, like anything else in a small sample size like an NFL season, only explains some of what it's trying to measure.

 

[Dantés]

I think most people are pointing to the lack of a WR being added as something of a straw that broke the camel's back; any expectation that the offense will improve is based on believing that Wagner can replace one of the better RTs in the league, that young players who didn't show much last year will take enormous leaps this year, and that the second year in MLF's offense will be a positive. There's also the, understandable, belief that this team's offense has not improved enough to actually make the team competitive with the 49ers.

Of those, I do think the second year under MLF will be a positive, but I remain skeptical that Wagner will be as good in pass protection, or that guys who didn't show much last year will make big jumps this year. From a purely personnel standpoint, the offense is worse this year than last. Fans were hopeful that a 13-3 team would make a jump to becoming Super Bowl contender and that hasn't appeared to be the case.

And I think that's all a reasonable take.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well, with all due respect. “Anecdotal” stories don’t use factual example that support the desired end result of a “SuperBowl” Win. Correct me if now according to HRE.

You missed my point. I gave you back anecdotal examples to show that you can claim to prove just about anything with them.

So, if get the point now, you might see that I don't care about New England's or Kansas City's strength of schedule or anybody else's for that matter.

That's illustrated by the 3 numbered points in the rest of my post and my concluding statement. Maybe you didn't get that far.

 

[HardRightEdge]

No, DVOA is pretty helpful when you understand that's it's a broad measure and that, like anything else in a small sample size like an NFL season, only explains some of what it's trying to measure.

I understand precisely what DVOA is trying to do.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Look, I never claimed that Capers excelled during that game, but what adjustments should he have made?

I already suggested a couple.

You can pick on this player or that, but there is no reason to believe the talent level on that defense was the worst in NFL history in stopping a QB for from running. The same can be said about Mostert doing what he did. Was that best playoff performance in history by an undrafed running back? I donno but it must be close.

Whatever roster defeciencies may have or do exist, these DCs were wildly outcoached.

In Pettine's case, if you don't believe me just ask Gutekunst. He did next to nothing to upgrade the defense, swapping out a durable but overpriced ILB for an injury plagued one who was has been a decent but not exactly Pro Bowl caliber player. Oh, right, Wilson, a player I actually like at that spot, but certainly no game changer should be expected.

The Packer brain trust evidently believes the Mostert debacle was a one-off. It certainly should be upgrades or not. What the odds of being historically bad two years in a row if it comes down to that. But when you get beat down like that in today's game with the QB throwing the ball only 8 times, you better believe coaching has a lot to do with it.

 

[rmontro]

But when you get beat down like that in today's game with the QB throwing the ball only 8 times, you better believe coaching has a lot to do with it.

I still say Garoppolo could have thrown no passes in that game and we still would have lost.
My guess is the front office is ******* its hopes on someone else knocking San Francisco out of the playoffs.

 

[OldSchool101]

So, if get the point now, you might see that I don't care about New England's or Kansas City's strength of schedule or anybody else's for that matter.

Good with me because I’m not here to “sell” you anything. If you have a pencil and I introduce you to an eraser and you would rather say that’s frivolous then that’s your issue, just don’t say I didn’t try to help when you get - on your final paper for sloppiness! Lol.

At no point did I say it was perfect, I just said it was the best that I knew of. DVOA tries to account for strength of opponent; PPG or yards per play don't do that.

This is so true! What is the goal? Winning and nothing but nothing trumps undefeated when the season is over. The rest is rhetoric.

Strength of schedule is a notriously poor way of projecting or measuring things. I would account for that as it being circular. So, you compare to an opponent making a judgement about them. But what about their competition? And their competition's competition? If you keep going and end up to a large degree right back where you started.

I apologize. Your comment here is what I should’ve posted in my earlier response. Coming from a pretty smart guy it sure Doesn’t make a lick of sense! and it’s like an infinite loop that locks a computer program but none of the verbose language was even necessary
That’s like saying “evaluating college football teams and thus using win and loss records as one tool in the evaluation of teams is completely fruitless when doing rankings-Because it’s circular!”
Maybe I’d present the same question said from another angle just for thought. If we didn’t use Wins and Losses to evaluate teams.. what exactly would you propose we use?
I’m sorry I’m still reeling from that.. I believe you’ve finally done it. You’ve reached the lowest critical mass!

 

[hasamikun]

I think most people are pointing to the lack of a WR being added as something of a straw that broke the camel's back; any expectation that the offense will improve is based on believing that Wagner can replace one of the better RTs in the league, that young players who didn't show much last year will take enormous leaps this year, and that the second year in MLF's offense will be a positive. There's also the, understandable, belief that this team's offense has not improved enough to actually make the team competitive with the 49ers.

Of those, I do think the second year under MLF will be a positive, but I remain skeptical that Wagner will be as good in pass protection, or that guys who didn't show much last year will make big jumps this year. From a purely personnel standpoint, the offense is worse this year than last. Fans were hopeful that a 13-3 team would make a jump to becoming Super Bowl contender and that hasn't appeared to be the case.

Most people believe that having another random WR in this offense would have made a difference. I am curious why they think so? The offense had a really good start in the 49ers game and completely killed the momentum with stupid individual mistakes like botching the snap with only 5 yards max. to go. Its not like the offense had no chance throughout the game.

The hope for improvement is based on LaFleur getting the guys he needs to fully implement his new offense. It partly worked last season with personnel not suited for the scheme. The talent is there.
Every NFL team depends on the young guys to play good, no matter when they were drafted. This is nothing only GB does. GB also wasnt really able to do any big moves in FA due to the tight cap.
Also just noting that even a big FA move like OBj is no guarateed improvement.

 

[Mondio]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Which, again, is ironic. This offense's entire success and failure is not and was not dependent on one rookie WR.

I haven't seen anybody posting the offense's success is dependent on a rookie wide receiver. But an early rounder at the position would have definitely improved their chances of upgrading the unit more than spending the team's first four picks on backups.

But it's incredibly irrational to think that the Packers' offense could have been great with a rookie WR, but will be terrible now. That's a tantrum.

Once again, nobody mentioned anything like that.

The same can be said about Mostert doing what he did. Was that best playoff performance in history by an undrafed running back? I donno but it must be close.

Raheem Mostert's 220 rushing yards vs. the Packers rank second all-time in playoff history for all running backs. Only Eric ****erson (248) had more in a 1985 playoff win over the Cowboys.

Most people believe that having another random WR in this offense would have made a difference.

It should be pretty obvious that with the Packers receiving corps lacking talent adding another pass catcher could have definitely improved the offense.

 

[Dantés]

I haven't seen anybody posting the offense's success is dependent on a rookie wide receiver. But an early rounder at the position would have definitely improved their chances of upgrading the unit more than spending the team's first four picks on backups.

Once again, nobody mentioned anything like that.

No, no you're right. Everyone handled the draft selections in stride and had really measured takes. No one freaked out and decided that the offense was doomed.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Raheem Mostert's 220 rushing yards vs. the Packers rank second all-time in playoff history for all running backs. Only Eric ****erson (248) had more in a 1985 playoff win over the Cowboys.

I guess I could have looked that up. I've taken a much closer look now and have come up with an all-time list of "Shocking Running Back Performances", regular season or playoffs, at least among runners with 220 ground yards or more in a single game. First the preliminaries:

Mostert's 220 yards ranks tied for 49th. all-time in any NFL game, regular season or playoffs. The record book includes AFL and AAFC games that that have been rolled into NFL records (see Cookie Gilchrist and Spec Sanders in the following list).

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rush_yds_single_game.htm

Here are some fun facts about those 54 players who have rushed for 220 yards or more in a game as we work our way to the "shocking" list:

• 30 of the 54 games were by players who were 1st. round picks. The list is chock-o-block with All-Pros and HOFers.

• 4 of the 54 games were by players who were drafted below the 3rd. round (Dillon, Anderson, Mitchell, Jackson and Turner). Dillon was an established star when he did it. Anderson was well on his way to a 1,400 yard season when he did it. Mitchell was a college star and a world record holder in hurdles who's draft status was diminished by segregation in 1958. Bo Jackson requires no explanation. Turner makes the "most shocking" list.

• 6 of the 54 games were by players who had gone undrafted (Gilchrist, Foster, Holmes, Parker, Wilson, Mostert). Gilchrist had already been an AFL All-Pro. Holmes was on his way to a 1,000 yard season. Parker ran for 1,200 yards in the previous season. Foster, Wilson and Mostert make the shocking list.

So, we're down to four finalists for Most Shocking 220+ Yard Rushing Performance of All-Time.

4. Turner, a 5th. round pick, moved on to Atlanta after 4 years backing up Tomlinson in San Diego. He went off for 220 yds in week 1 of 2008 in his first game with the Falcons. He's only 4th. on this list because he had run for for 1,257 yards on 228 carries for a 5.5 average in San Diego, stuck behind Tomlinson in his prime.

3. Foster was an undrafted rookie who went off in week 1 of his his second season after starting his rookie year on the practice squad. He finished his rookie year with 257 yards. However, he took over the starting role in the last two games of his rookie season with a combined stat line that looks like this: 39 carries, 216 yards, 5.6 YPC, 3 TDs. That was an early indication of a possible diamond in the rough.

2. Mostert was undrafted in 2015 after an undistinguished college career. He landed with SF in 2016 after camps and PS stints with 6 other teams. Going into 2019, he had run the ball 36 times. At least he had a decent 2019 going into the fateful game. In 2018 he had a warm-up against Pettine, rushing for 86 yards on 12 carries in week 6. Since this was a conference championship game, Mostert earns a solid #2 on the list. Note Turner and Foster had their games in week 1's where play is typically shabby.

1. And the winner is Tommy Wilson, 223 yards for the LA Rams vs. the Green Bay Packers on December 16th, 1956. That was the NFL single game record at the time. Wilson did not play college football and was a 24 year old undrafted rookie when he performed the feat. He had played football on an Air Force team where he earned the name "Touchdown Tommy". Interestingly, Pete Rozelle had scouted him as an executive with the Rams. As a side note, he was a black player in the largely segregted NFL at that time. Whether segregation in college ball was a factor in his going into the Air Force instead I could not say.

He'd done little prior to that rookie breakout game. Here are his game logs for that season:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsTo00/gamelog/1956/

So, if there's any cold comfort it may be that Mostert's performance was not the most shocking rushing performance in NFL history, or even the most shocking against the Green Bay Packers, at least among those with at least 220 yds. Whether Kaepernick's romp-a-thon or some other sub-220 yard game should be on the list I'll leave that for others to research or judge. Well, not quite. Kaepernick's was just a shocking.

 

[HardRightEdge]

No, no you're right. Everyone handled the draft selections in stride and had really measured takes. No one freaked out and decided that the offense was doomed.

Well, name anything and you'll find somebody freaking out about it on the internets.

As for me, I really dislike the top 3 picks in this draft from a value standpoint while having no problem with having drafted a QB, RB or H-back. I could envision a draft with no WRs in the first three rounds that would have been OK by me. I just don't see these players at these spots representing good value. Love or Dillion, or anybody one might consider Love-like or Dillon-like the 3rd. round would have been OK by me. A glorified rookie fullback getting situational snaps is fine by me as well, but 3rd. round?

Clearly Gutekunst disagrees. That goes without saying. But the point is that it is possible to dislike those first 3 picks, WR or not, without freaking out or believing the offense is doomed.

 

[Dantés]

Well, name anything and you'll find somebody freaking out about it on the internets.

As for me, I really dislike the top 3 picks in this draft from a value standpoint while having no problem with having drafted a QB, RB or H-back. I could envision a draft with no WRs in the first three rounds that would have been OK by me. I just don't see these players at these spots representing good value. Love or Dillion, or anybody one might consider Love-like or Dillon-like the 3rd. round would have been OK by me. A glorified rookie fullback getting situational snaps is fine by me as well, but 3rd. round?

Clearly Gutekunst disagrees. That goes without saying. But the point is that it is possible to dislike those first 3 picks, WR or not, without freaking out or believing the offense is doomed.

I think anyone who recalls carefully what this board or Packers Twitter was like in the two weeks following the draft would have to agree that this wasn't just the odd person here or there freaking out.

As to your last comment, yes absolutely that's possible.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

No, no you're right. Everyone handled the draft selections in stride and had really measured takes. No one freaked out and decided that the offense was doomed.

There's a huge difference between not liking the Packers 2020 draft and believing the offense is doomed because of it.

 

[Dantés]

There's a huge difference between not liking the Packers 2020 draft and believing the offense is doomed because of it.

There's a huge difference between having a measured perspective and going out of your way to misquote people left and right just to create more excuses to **** and moan.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think anyone who recalls carefully what this board or Packers Twitter was like in the two weeks following the draft would have to agree that this wasn't just the odd person here or there freaking out.

As to your last comment, yes absolutely that's possible.

Well, I go back to my first comment, people will freak out about anything on the internets particularly when the echo chamber gets 'em riled up. There's a whole cottage industry now devoted to when the Packers will ship Rodgers out and put Love in even if it is entirely uncertain whether Love will even ever qualify as a below average starting QB.

As a thought experiment, what might have been the reaction if Burrow inexplicably fell to #26 and Gutekunst grabbed him? I would have been very pleased with that, punditry grades on this draft would have zoomed up, and there would have been a lot less internet hair-on-fire even if a WR was not taken in the 2nd. round. That cottage industry would be justified even if a 2021 transition would still be a little overbaked.

It's both typical and hard to account for much of what people freak out over, whether it is inconsequential British royals transitioning to professional "influencer" or the reaction to what some Kardashian with an empty resume might have to say or sell, at least in this case I can say it is as much about the player as it is about the position he plays. At least among the more thoughtful among us.

 

[hasamikun]

It should be pretty obvious that with the Packers receiving corps lacking talent adding another pass catcher could have definitely improved the offense.

Thats true but wouldnt have changed the outcome. The failure in the 9ers game wasnt based on the lack of WR, it was a lack of run defense and big individual mistakes on offense. A WR doesnt fix that. That was my point if you read my post. I never doubted that a quality WR wouldnt have improved the offense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Thats true but wouldnt have changed the outcome. The failure in the 9ers game wasnt based on the lack of WR, it was a lack of run defense and big individual mistakes on offense. A WR doesnt fix that. That was my point if you read my post. I never doubted that a quality WR wouldnt have improved the offense.

The Packers shouldn't have changed their philosophy based on a single loss. It would have been smarter to improve the chances to win a Super Bowl with Rodgers this season.