Spartacus Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 4 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: ok, where was it a prevailing thought. here? can you show me the thread? or was it the media? can you link numerous articles? Most likely if I searched yea but I honestly don't want to waste my time on it since it doesn't really matter at this point anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 Just now, Spartacus said: Most likely if I searched yea but I honestly don't want to waste my time on it since it doesn't really matter at this point anyway. aaahhh, i see. the im too busy now. or maybe more appropiate, it doesnt matter but just take my word for it. i believe this is what the kids call fake news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: aaahhh, i see. the im too busy now. or maybe more appropiate, it doesnt matter but just take my word for it. i believe this is what the kids call fake news? @Spartacus since you didnt want to google it, i did it for you. Theres a DVOA stat that says GB was among the worst 13-3 teams that something called the journal standard posted, and a couple of obscure websites/forums that posed the question. Unless you got to gamepsot.com to get all your sporting news i dont see how any honest person can call it close to a popular opinion. So glad we can just put that to bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted October 3, 2020 Share Posted October 3, 2020 (edited) On 10/2/2020 at 9:13 AM, GSUeagles14 said: ok, where was it a prevailing thought. here? can you show me the thread? or was it the media? can you link numerous articles? Most any analytics on GB from last season show that they had the metrics of a 10-6/11-5 team ...so "worst 13-3 team ever" is a bit of hyperbole, even if it's technically true, as no one was saying GB is/was a bad team, just they played above their heads last year and had some luck. Which isn't a crime. As Bill Barnwell says here: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29634019/nfl-teams-most-likely-decline-2020-why-packers-seahawks-saints-lose-more-games (granted, it's from an obscure site called "ESPN") Quote If the Packers decline in 2020, the postmortems will likely revolve around the organization's failure to add another weapon on offense for future Hall of Fame quarterback Aaron Rodgers. While I wouldn't have faulted them for adding another wide receiver in the 2020 draft or via free agency, their chances of declining this season were already extremely high before draft weekend. The Packers have enough talent to be competitive, but it's difficult to imagine their formula for winning 13 games in 2019 holding up again. Most 13-3 teams blow out their competition. Green Bay didn't have many of those blowouts. Forty-eight teams have gone 13-3 since 1989, and they outscored their competition by an average of more than 150 points, or 9.4 points per game. Matt LaFleur's team outscored its opponents by 63 points -- less than 4 points per contest. It's the worst point differential for a team with this record over the past 31 seasons and the fourth-largest gap between a team's win-loss record and expected win-loss record over that time frame. While the Packers did blow out the Raiders and gave the Vikings fits in a home-and-home sweep, this wasn't often a dominant team. They were forced to either come up with a goal-line stop or an interception to win games against the Bears and Panthers. They let the Broncos, Giants and Lions stick around into the fourth quarter, even with the latter having nothing to play for and David Blough at quarterback in Week 17. A nominally impressive win against the Super Bowl champion Chiefs is tempered by the fact that Kansas City was missing Patrick Mahomes, Eric Fisher, Frank Clark and Chris Jones. The Packers were 6-1 in games decided by seven points or fewer (and that's not including two eight-point wins). As tempting as it is to ascribe that to Rodgers' brilliance, he was just 34-34-1 as a starter in those same games before 2019. Is it possible that the difference between LaFleur and oft-criticized game manager Mike McCarthy was enough to turn this team into a late-game juggernaut? Theoretically, yes, although there has never been a coach in league history who won anything close to 85% of his close games over any significant length of time. The overwhelming evidence suggests that they won't win as many of these close ones in 2020. It's also difficult to imagine the Packers being quite as dominant on both sides of the football in the red zone, given how inconsistent red zone performance is from year to year. Assigning 6.95 points for a touchdown (given the estimated chances of an extra point) and three for a field goal, last season they scored 5.17 points per red zone trip on offense and allowed 4.41 points each time the opposing offense entered the red zone. Both marks ranked in the top 10 in the league. If you take the difference between those two performances, you could say that the Packers had a red zone differential of 0.76 points per trip. That was the third-best mark in football a year ago, trailing only the Ravens and Vikings. Go back through 2001, and there are 91 teams that posted a red zone differential greater than 0.6 points per possession. The following season, those teams' average red zone differential was 0.13 points per trip, falling almost all the way to average. They also declined by an average of nearly two full wins over the prior season. One other place I'd be worried about the Packers keeping up their 2019 formula is within the NFC North. Rodgers & Co. went 6-0 in the North last season despite outscoring the Bears, Lions and Vikings by a little more than six points per game. Since the NFL went to its current format in 2002, 21 other teams have swept their divisions in a given season. Just one repeated the feat the following year, with those 21 teams averaging 3.3 divisional wins the following campaign. Green Bay's schedule outside the division isn't particularly onerous, but the North should be tougher for them this season. In all, it's fair to expect a step backward from this team in 2020. ESPN's Football Power Index gives Green Bay just a 47.8% chance of returning to the postseason. After adjusting for the vig, the Caesars sportsbook comes in at 55.3%. Your typical 13-3 team doesn't usually have something around a 50/50 shot to make it back to the postseason, and that's only after the league added a seventh team to the playoffs this offseason. The Packers could find a better formula and win 13 games that way, but it's tough to see them winning as frequently as they did in 2020 without one. Plus Rodgers numbers put him in the middle of the pack as far as QB play goes. And then you lump in the old "THEY DIDN'T GIVE HIM ANY WEAPONS" chestnut and you've got a delicious "fail prediction" gumbo. Edited October 3, 2020 by Mr Bad Example 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 17- 3 is a mighty nice start to an NFL coaching career Sean Payton started his HC career 10-10 over the first 20 games Andy Reid 7-13 in Philly, 13-7 in KC Mike Tomlin 13-7 Belichick 7-13 in CLE , 6-14 in NE Pete Carroll 10-10 in NE, 9-11 in SEA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 How is Bill Bellichick #2 to any current coach? He isn't even #2 to any historical coach as far as I'm concerned. He is the GOAT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrantikRam Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 Interesting thought: how much does longevity and past success play into ranking coaches? Despite having the worse QB in every game, McVay is 4-2 against Pete Carroll - and in those two losses, McVay called a play to get the game winning TD pass to Kupp (couldn't bring it in), and got the offense in range to kick a 40 yard game winning FG (missed). On the flip side he's blown the doors off of Carroll twice and averages about 30 ppg against him (McVay offensive coach, Carroll defensive coach). Carroll has won a Super Bowl, but at what point does head to head dominance make up for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 On 9/28/2020 at 5:55 PM, stl4life07 said: @Spartacus @Shanedorf How much of LaFleur success is on the fact that he has ARod as his QB? From my perspective when LaFleur left to be the OC for the Titans how did Mariota and that offense look? McVay gets respect because Cousins was literally untradeable in Washington and then McVay helped Cousins become the richest QB in the NFL over the past handful of years combined. Then McVay goes to LA to help turn Goff from being national known as an historic bust to now a top 10-12 QB that went to the Superbowl. Kyle Shannahan literally help Ryan win the MVP and got the Falcons to the Superbowl. It took a historic collapse for them not to win it. As soon as Shannahan left, the Falcons right now are the laughing stock of the league and Ryan is good but not MVP take the team to the Superbowl good. Shannahan goes to the Niners get Jimmy G and again help raise Jimmy G game to help bring the Niners to being up 10pts with 7 minutes to go from winning Superbowl. It took Mahomes being spectacular for the Niners not to win. Heck Shannahan is making Dan Mullens look great. Vrabel took Ryan Tannehill and literally made a run in the playoffs last season. This season has the Titans unbeaten and again Tannehill is looking really good. So again LaFleur I want to see if his success so far is a product of having ARod. Its really not going to show imo until we see Jordan Love. ARod is great no matter who is the HC. Now LaFleur offensive system and playcalling can make more a difference but ARod is still great. Whenever Love gets his shot and it might not be for awhile BUT whenever he gets his shot and if he looks great and the offense is still strong and the team is still having success under LaFleur then I will say LaFleur need to be getting more respect like McVay, Shannahan, Vrabel, etc... Right now my question is still, how much of LaFleur success is on the fact that he has ARod as his QB? Last season Rodgers was very pedestrian. Some were wondering if Rodgers best days were behind him. I am starting to think Lafleur might be a factor in ARod's improved play this season. Having a good running game and a good OL hasn't hurt either. But until MLF isn't outcoached in the playoffs I suppose he won't be considered a top HC. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 13 hours ago, FrantikRam said: Interesting thought: how much does longevity and past success play into ranking coaches? Despite having the worse QB in every game, McVay is 4-2 against Pete Carroll - and in those two losses, McVay called a play to get the game winning TD pass to Kupp (couldn't bring it in), and got the offense in range to kick a 40 yard game winning FG (missed). On the flip side he's blown the doors off of Carroll twice and averages about 30 ppg against him (McVay offensive coach, Carroll defensive coach). Carroll has won a Super Bowl, but at what point does head to head dominance make up for it? I can only speak for myself, but I don't even look at head-to-head - granted, if someone is regularly owned by another HC, that's one thing but otherwise it's usually a small sample size and each game is a distinct, high-variance event. I think you look at the aggregate, as far as "does this coach have a track record of success?" and "is his team currently doing well?" I think the second question is the most important, but if someone like, say, Reid has had success with different teams - not necessarily franchises, but continued to succeed as his roster turned over. Reid gets points for doing well with multiple QBs (McNabb, Smith, Mahomes) for example, and some ridiculous number of CCG appearances (is he up to 7? 8?), plus the Chiefs have been a strong SB contender for the past 3 yrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 So, Romeo Crennell now takes up 32? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, ET80 said: So, Romeo Crennell now takes up 32? He's no lower than 29. Dan Quinn, Joe Judge, Adam Gase. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 3 hours ago, ET80 said: So, Romeo Crennell now takes up 32? I think Adam Gase is clearly the worst HC. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I <3 Faulk Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 On 7/30/2020 at 5:04 PM, sdrawkcab321 said: Sean mcvay behind Lynn and fangio lmao And Shanahan at 5? Shanahan is what you have at home when your mom says she ain't getting you no McVay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdrawkcab321 Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 7 hours ago, Danger said: He's no lower than 29. Dan Quinn, Joe Judge, Adam Gase. Has judge been that bad? Can’t say I’m surprised. Seemed like a clown and didn’t really have a great HC resume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted October 8, 2020 Share Posted October 8, 2020 41 minutes ago, sdrawkcab321 said: Has judge been that bad? Can’t say I’m surprised. Seemed like a clown and didn’t really have a great HC resume. His background is Special Teams and Wide Receivers, so you'd think his team would put up more than 11.8 points per game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.