Packers Regression

[AlexGreen#20]

56 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

The Chiefs don't run Mike Pettine's defense, so I'm not sure how they pertain. Gute said they wanted athleticism there. His words, not mine.

Are there any positions that as a GM, you wouldn't want athleticism?

[Packerraymond]

10 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Are there any positions that as a GM, you wouldn't want athleticism?

Has Gute spoken in a press conference and not gone out and acted on his words? Follow the trend. What he says happens. Blake won't be back because they want more athletic ability there.

[Redt]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

The Chiefs don't run Mike Pettine's defense, so I'm not sure how they pertain. Gute said they wanted athleticism there. His words, not mine.

What the hell does Gute know, AG 20 disagrees and that is all that matters.

[Redt]

For the record Gute likes fast athletic guys and I don't hate Martinez, he is just limited athletically on the field. First two picks last year Gary and Savage, unfortunately Gary won the underwear Olympics, but isn't a very good football player.

[skibrett15]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

It is much harder to win the super bowl as a wildcard than a 1st/2nd seed.    It can happen, but winning 3 games on the road vs playoff teams and the 2nd of those games when a team has had a bye the week prior is a tough ask.  

for sure.

 

And it's super unlikely this team is gonna be nearly as healthy next year as they are this year.  And they will play a 1st place schedule. 

So it's a real uphill climb just to get back to the bye position they were in this year.  As much as the team is trending toward next year and the year after being the ideal window... the health and fortune window was this year.  Can lightning strike twice?

[AlexGreen#20]

21 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Has Gute spoken in a press conference and not gone out and acted on his words? Follow the trend. What he says happens. Blake won't be back because they want more athletic ability there.

Blake won't be back because we're not going to pay serious money to an ILB. The lack of athleticism comment makes WAY more sense in terms of simply not having to play a genuine scrub like Goodson.

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Blake won't be back because we're not going to pay serious money to an ILB. The lack of athleticism comment makes WAY more sense in terms of simply not having to play a genuine scrub like Goodson.

It makes plenty of sense with Blake too. Dude moves on the field like a 1990s LB. 

[craig]

Regression expected on multiple levels.  1.  Point differential and winning all the close ones.  2.  Fluky few injuries.  3.  Fluky huge turnover advantage.  4. Fluky differential between points allowed versus yards allowed.  

Regression also expected with aged offensive players (Rogers, Bulaga, Bakhti, Graham, Lewis).  Rogers is aging and declining.  

With Rodgers and RT likely to further decline, so too the offense is likely to further decline.  After the defensive disaster in San Fran, draft resources may yet again lean defense and the offense, which has received so little investment, will probably continue to be under-resourced and under-talented.  

That pessimism said, in some ways some flaws are so obvious that focusing attention may be relatively uncomplicated.  DL, WR, TE, some kind of obvious areas to invest.  Unfortunately there is no realistic avenue to upgrade the QB play.  

I hope the team is somewhat better next year, but don't expect they'll win as many games or get to the final 4 again next year.  

 

[coachbuns]

1 hour ago, craig said:

Regression expected on multiple levels.  1.  Point differential and winning all the close ones.  2.  Fluky few injuries.  3.  Fluky huge turnover advantage.  4. Fluky differential between points allowed versus yards allowed.  

Regression also expected with aged offensive players (Rogers, Bulaga, Bakhti, Graham, Lewis).  Rogers is aging and declining.  

With Rodgers and RT likely to further decline, so too the offense is likely to further decline.  After the defensive disaster in San Fran, draft resources may yet again lean defense and the offense, which has received so little investment, will probably continue to be under-resourced and under-talented.  

That pessimism said, in some ways some flaws are so obvious that focusing attention may be relatively uncomplicated.  DL, WR, TE, some kind of obvious areas to invest.  Unfortunately there is no realistic avenue to upgrade the QB play.  

I hope the team is somewhat better next year, but don't expect they'll win as many games or get to the final 4 again next year.  

 

Doesn't sound like you have anything to look forward to .... better fill your frig with beer and cabinet with booze to keep help you deal with the Pack. 

[pacman5252]

6 hours ago, craig said:

Regression expected on multiple levels.  1.  Point differential and winning all the close ones.  2.  Fluky few injuries.  3.  Fluky huge turnover advantage.  4. Fluky differential between points allowed versus yards allowed.  

Regression also expected with aged offensive players (Rogers, Bulaga, Bakhti, Graham, Lewis).  Rogers is aging and declining.  

With Rodgers and RT likely to further decline, so too the offense is likely to further decline.  After the defensive disaster in San Fran, draft resources may yet again lean defense and the offense, which has received so little investment, will probably continue to be under-resourced and under-talented.  

That pessimism said, in some ways some flaws are so obvious that focusing attention may be relatively uncomplicated.  DL, WR, TE, some kind of obvious areas to invest.  Unfortunately there is no realistic avenue to upgrade the QB play.  

I hope the team is somewhat better next year, but don't expect they'll win as many games or get to the final 4 again next year.  

 

 

1.  The close game argument is legit but misleading. GB was in games they controlled. 538 did an analysis of coin flip games (50% shot of winning under 5 minutes). GB was in 3 and went 2-1. There were a lot of misleading box scores (team needing to drive whole field to tie, late tds to bring within a score).
 

2- I definitely agree with 2.

 

3- GB naturally has a plus TO margin. (The Vegas guys are partially wrong on TOs, fumbles are luck, ints are not). The formula is easy;

AR + average defense  = positive TO margin.

AR is Uber conservative (hasn’t thrown over 8 ints in a decade). Throw in the defense has legit pass rushers which leads to TOs. If you look at TO margin by year, the only years GB had a negative margin TO margin under AR, were years he missed 2+ games (13, 17). 18 the team was + 0 with a bottom 4 defense and had a few Kizer gaffs -3.  They finished t4th at +11, but that wasn’t super outside the standard deviation for a winning team (ne was +25, no 15). Maybe +11 comes down to + 6.

 

4. This kind of relates to 1. Also though, year 2 in an O with likely an offensive talent infusion and a maturing young D will help their YPP.

 

I do agree with some of the age analysis on O m, Should be countered a bit by the defense though.

Edited February 6, 2020 by pacman5252

[Joe]

13 hours ago, coachbuns said:

Doesn't sound like you have anything to look forward to .... better fill your frig with beer and cabinet with booze to keep help you deal with the Pack. 

I know right? It's been said before and bears repeating: we are a WR2 and a run defense away from being a solid contender.

[Sasquatch]

36 minutes ago, Joe said:

I know right? It's been said before and bears repeating: we are a WR2 and a run defense away from being a solid contender.

I would add the word "again" at the end of your statement above.

[Keg Man]

Best defense is a good offense.

It's all on Rodgers.  We need him to play smart, play quick, take what the defense gives him, hit the - abominable in his mind - open receiver on the short route instead of hoping the deep route opens.

Honestly, I think we need him to play more like he did when Adams was out.

It's probably our last shot, and his last shot.

[packfanfb]

Not worried about regression at all outside of injuries. This team should be better in Year 2 under LaFleur with the right moves this off-season.  

Offense from top to bottom will improve with another legitimate weapon or two (FA and rook maybe) on the outside, plus year 2 of the system. Losing Graham will be irrelevant whether Sternberger takes off or is merely average, but he should be your day 1 starter, don't waste $$ there. Not having guys like GMo and MVS on the field all the time will be a huge plus. Our RBs are back. All Gute has to do is not mess up the RT position. Just resign Bulaga and be done with it. 

Defensively, this team literally needs 2 players to go from a liability against good teams to a legitimate group against good teams: a legitimate interior player so we see less of Dean Lowry and zero of guys like Adams and Lancaster, and one legit ILB, whether you find him in FA or draft, who is not a major liability in the middle of the field. The other ILB spot you can plug in a rookie or whatever you have left and it should be sufficient. 

 

[mikemike778]

23 hours ago, craig said:

Regression expected on multiple levels.  1.  Point differential and winning all the close ones.  2.  Fluky few injuries.  3.  Fluky huge turnover advantage.  4. Fluky differential between points allowed versus yards allowed.  

Regression also expected with aged offensive players (Rogers, Bulaga, Bakhti, Graham, Lewis).  Rogers is aging and declining.  

With Rodgers and RT likely to further decline, so too the offense is likely to further decline.  After the defensive disaster in San Fran, draft resources may yet again lean defense and the offense, which has received so little investment, will probably continue to be under-resourced and under-talented.  

That pessimism said, in some ways some flaws are so obvious that focusing attention may be relatively uncomplicated.  DL, WR, TE, some kind of obvious areas to invest.  Unfortunately there is no realistic avenue to upgrade the QB play.  

I hope the team is somewhat better next year, but don't expect they'll win as many games or get to the final 4 again next year.  

 

 

Of course areas of the team will regress, that applies to all teams. Every team has older players who could decline next year.  Every team will have injuries next year that could if they are in key areas derail the team

Like other teams, we have a lot of young players who could get better next year making the team better. We will probably have free agents coming in and a new draft class. If the stuff making the team better outweighs the stuff that makes us regress then we get better ......  at this point we don't know.

As for "Unfortunately there is no realistic avenue to upgrade the QB play". A lot of the passing game is based on timing, you would expect that to be a lot better in the second year of a new system. The receiving group is the worst Rodgers has ever played with in his professional career. We don't know who will be drafted or signed but you would like to think the group will be significantly improved.  Rodgers skills may continue to regress but its extremely realistic to hope for much better results from the passing game and much better results from Rodgers next year. No guarantees of course. 

Forget the 13-3.  That is irrelevant. Its a new season, lets hope we have a good team - we have a very good base to work from.

I  think the whole get a WR2 and fix the run defence and we are sorted thing is overblown though. There is a good chance these get addressed but we will have holes next year. We don't know what they are yet but we will have them and have to hope we can overcome them.