KFP7 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 11 minutes ago, Kenrik said: Packers opponents PPG without GB: 20.75 Packers opponents PPG: 22.4 PPG Packers allowing an average of 1.65 points over opponents average Vikings opponents PPG without MN: 21.48 PPG Vikings opponents: 18.6 PPG Vikings allowing an average of 2.88 points under opponents average scored. On average GB is allowing teams to score more than their average and MN is holding teams under their average. These numbers are pretty close though. Continuing this on the other side of the ball - Packer's opponent's average points allowed per game without GB: 20.18 with GB: 21.5 Packers scoring an average of 1.32 points over opponent's average. Or a net defense/offense of -0.33 points. Viking's opponents without MN: 20.22 with MN: 20.46 Viking's scoring an average of 0.24 points over opponent's average. Or a net of 1.56. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Green19 said: Minn's defense is giving up 6.21 yards on first downs. That's 5th worst in the nfl. Interesting stat I thought might be able to play keep away. But MN is one of the best on third down. Interesting how that works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 33 minutes ago, Kenrik said: Packers opponents PPG without GB: 20.75 Packers opponents PPG: 22.4 PPG Packers allowing an average of 1.65 points over opponents average Vikings opponents PPG without MN: 21.48 PPG Vikings opponents: 18.6 PPG Vikings allowing an average of 2.88 points under opponents average scored. On average GB is allowing teams to score more than their average and MN is holding teams under their average. These numbers are pretty close though. Are you removing defense scoring in all of these? Either way this is basically how DVOA works, so you didn't have to do the leg work we already know the two are about the same under this type of analysis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Green19 said: The idea behind GB's offense is Rodgers is the star player. Those WRs are the star players on their offense. They need to be because their QBs can't elevate others... so they need to beat double teams, etc. With Rodgers... or Brady or Peyton etc, an offense can have the "lesser talented WRs" because the star QB is going to help them reach their ceiling. So where Allison may only be a marginal WR with Eli, Andy, and even Ryan... he'd be an amazing 3rd/4th with Rodgers. Jordy might be a great WR on another team... he is borderline Hall of Fame with Rodgers. It's why I think jordy and Cobb took lesser deals to stick in GB... it's probably why Adams will too. New England has been doing this for years with Brady. And if you notice GB does the same thing as NE... they invest in the defense and bank on their QB to make due with "lesser talent". Boy. There is a lot there. "Rodgers is the star player". Absolutely. "Those Wr's are the star players on their offense". Matt Ryan, the reigning MVP, isn't a star? K. True for Green. OBJ? Eli is the face of that franchise. "Their QB's can't elevate others". I'm thinking that Sanu (with Atlanta and Cincy) and Victor Cruz show that isn't entirely accurate. Maybe even Freeman in Atlanta. Seems like Eli has made a few unknown guys Super Bowl stars. Heck, I'll give you anything Cincy related, but Matt Ryan spreads the ball nicely and even no name guys contribute, similar to our guys like Allison. "With Rodgers...or Brady or Peyton etc, an offense can have the "lesser talented WRs" because the star QB is going to help them reach their ceiling." 100% true. Great QB's get the most out of their WR's. Just like Sanu in Cincy and Atlanta. Cruz in New York. Except with Peyton. Harrison and Wayne were first round picks, he kind of bucks that trend. At least somewhat. "So where Allison may only be a marginal WR with Eli, Andy and even Ryan...he'd be an amazing 3rd/4'th with Rodgers". I believe you are talking about the future Allison. Because what we have now is a 4'th WR who makes a play here and again. Tough to say what he would do with Ryan (reigning MVP), Eli or anyone else. "Jordy might be a great WR on another team...he is borderline Hall of Fame with Rodgers." Depends on definition of borderline. Is Terrell Owens borderline? Where is the border? To me, much love and respect to Jordy, but he's not HOF material. And yes, he would be a great WR on another team, when in his prime. Size, speed, hands, intelligence, it was all there. I gotta think that Brady or either Manning would have loved to have played with a guy like him. "Jordy and Cobb took lesser deals to stick in GB...it's probably why Adams will too." I'm not sure how much of a discount each guy took, but I'll say, yes, there was some kind of hometown discount there and one would think it had a lot to do with #12. If that truly was the case, it wasn't the first time a WR decided to stay and play for a fraction less with a QB that they knew and it won't be the last. I think in recent memory, a guy named Moss did that...and maybe used GB along the way. Similar to how Cobb used Oakland. "New England has been doing this for years with Brady. And if you notice GB does the same thing as NE... they invest in the defense and bank on their QB to make due with "lesser talent"." Moss and Welker lesser talent? Gronk? Marty B? Cooks? I don't know about lesser talent. But I think NE has done a nice job of reclamation projects and finding guys who fit their system. Hogan is a great current example of this. Point taken, though, Brady certainly has taken less money to keep playing in New England with the hope that his teams "savings" goes elsewhere. Hopefully Aaron sees and understands this when his contract comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Packers going to be without Burnett, King, Thomas and Brooks on D. Good thing Diggs is out but our pass D still may end up being an adventure unless we just get pressure all day long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltarich87 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Yep. No King, Burnett, or Brooks on defense, and until otherwise, I'll say they probably won't have Bak at LT either. This team needs that BYE week badly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 minute ago, deltarich87 said: Yep. No King, Burnett, or Brooks on defense, and until otherwise, I'll say they probably won't have Bak at LT either. This team needs that BYE week badly Holy crap.... I read that as Bahk and LT (Lane Taylor). I was like what injury does he have now. Scanned the player list and did not see him, then read things a little closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 "When McCarthy took over in 2006 the Vikings led the border series, 45-44-1. Today, it stands 60-51-2 for Green Bay because McCarthy's Packers have gone 16-6-1 against Minnesota. " The one tie was the game QB'd by Tolzien and Flynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: "When McCarthy took over in 2006 the Vikings led the border series, 45-44-1. Today, it stands 60-51-2 for Green Bay because McCarthy's Packers have gone 16-6-1 against Minnesota. " The one tie was the game QB'd by Tolzien and Flynn Having Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers is nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green19 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 41 minutes ago, vegas492 said: "Those Wr's are the star players on their offense". Matt Ryan, the reigning MVP, isn't a star? K. True for Green. OBJ? Eli is the face of that franchise. "Their QB's can't elevate others". I'm thinking that Sanu (with Atlanta and Cincy) and Victor Cruz show that isn't entirely accurate. Maybe even Freeman in Atlanta. Seems like Eli has made a few unknown guys Super Bowl stars. Heck, I'll give you anything Cincy related, but Matt Ryan spreads the ball nicely and even no name guys contribute, similar to our guys like Allison. Let me clarify a few things. I'm talking about the QBs circa 2017 not over their careers. So no Eli isn't the franchise... Odell is, clearly. I agree both Eli and Ryan have helped elevate WRs, I'd say Eli has more than Ryan to this point. But since Eli has had Odell... he has been a shell of his former self in many regards. The greatness of Eli was his ability to go off in 2 playoff runs. Other then that he has been above average most of his career, when comparing him to Rodgers, Brady, Peyton etc. I like Ryan a lot, but last year he was like Alex Smith this year. He played out of his mind... how much is that Jones, that running game and Kyle scheming wide open targets? The rest of his years... again good to great but not elite. Heck Cam won an MVP... yet last night he was missing throws by a mile. MVP doesn't factor into my judgement of a player. Ryan is a good to great QB... he is never going to be the reason an offense is special. Jones is the special player there... the offense runs through him. It's the simple difference of when Jones goes down Ryan can't beat the Bills and when jordy isn't in Rodgers can drive the length of the field for the winning TD. i don't know if people understand how much Kyle made Kirk Cousins and Ryan look better then they are because he schemed wide open targets... using players like Jones to distract defenses. My point is teams build their franchise around their special players. So Green Bay has the luxury to not need a Jones type talent on the outside, cause they have it under center. So Ted and them aren't going to waste capital trading up for a Jones. Heck I would love to get Saquon Barkley for Aaron... but for a team that would rather throw and ignore running it most games, it's a waste. I feel wildly off topic now haha... GB vs Minn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeightTheVillain Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Green19 said: The idea behind GB's offense is Rodgers is the star player. Those WRs are the star players on their offense. They need to be because their QBs can't elevate others... so they need to beat double teams, etc. With Rodgers... or Brady or Peyton etc, an offense can have the "lesser talented WRs" because the star QB is going to help them reach their ceiling. So where Allison may only be a marginal WR with Eli, Andy, and even Ryan... he'd be an amazing 3rd/4th with Rodgers. Jordy might be a great WR on another team... he is borderline Hall of Fame with Rodgers. It's why I think jordy and Cobb took lesser deals to stick in GB... it's probably why Adams will too. New England has been doing this for years with Brady. And if you notice GB does the same thing as NE... they invest in the defense and bank on their QB to make due with "lesser talent". I completely agree. And I would like to echo plenty of people's sentiment around here that drafting a WR really high is a waste of a pick. If a WR is the best player on your team, that means you have a bad team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 25 minutes ago, packfanfb said: Having Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers is nice. So is having Mike McCarthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 14 minutes ago, incognito_man said: So is having Mike McCarthy. Mike Holmgren + Favre went 5-9 vs the vikes and Mike Sherman + Favre went 7-6 vs the vikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herbie_Hancock Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 No Bradford or Diggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 22 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said: I completely agree. And I would like to echo plenty of people's sentiment around here that drafting a WR really high is a waste of a pick. If a WR is the best player on your team, that means you have a bad team. Well, not if you're the Falcons I guess? Or the 9ers with Jerry Rice? It's definitely possible to have a good not great QB and an all-time WR and have a great offense. The Eagles with TO are a pretty good modern example of that also. Is it better to have an amazing QB, sure. QBs are more important. But you shouldn't pass on an amazing WR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.