If the Packers struggle without Rodgers, is it an indictment on Ted Thompson?

[Pugger]

3 hours ago, th87 said:

Then that by definition means he's not better than HS.

So if a player is injured does that means he isn't very good or just unfortunate? 

[th87]

18 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Top 10 or relatively close to there isn't anything outlandish IMO.  Obviously, when you're starting an UDFA as your #1 corner at the end of the year, I'm really not going to hold it against them.  In 2015, the Packers were ranked 12th in terms of opponents PPG.  In 2014, they were ranked 13th in terms of opponents PPG.  And in 2013, they were ranked 24th. So in the last three seasons, they were in the top half of defenses in the NFL twice out of three times.  And the one year they weren't, they were literally spread incredibly thin at one of the most important positions in the league outside of QB.  Would I prefer a top 10 defense?  Absolutely, but you're literally talking about a difference of 0.5 PPG in 2015 and 0.6 PPG in 2014.  That's not a lot.

And I'll make a challenge to you, go back since 2013 and tell me how many teams ranked top 10 in both opponents PPG and offensive PPG.

Weighted DVOA is a better measure. Here's a list of DVOA ranking; defensive spending ranking by year.

2016: 23; 6

2015: 14; 9

2014: 18; 2

2013: 29; 9

That is terrible, terrible value.

[th87]

15 hours ago, Pugger said:

So if a player is injured does that means he isn't very good or just unfortunate? 

Propensity for injury/reliability should factor into a player's overall value. 

[th87]

Hit enter too early; data still pending...

[th87]

19 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Top 10 or relatively close to there isn't anything outlandish IMO.  Obviously, when you're starting an UDFA as your #1 corner at the end of the year, I'm really not going to hold it against them.  In 2015, the Packers were ranked 12th in terms of opponents PPG.  In 2014, they were ranked 13th in terms of opponents PPG.  And in 2013, they were ranked 24th. So in the last three seasons, they were in the top half of defenses in the NFL twice out of three times.  And the one year they weren't, they were literally spread incredibly thin at one of the most important positions in the league outside of QB.  Would I prefer a top 10 defense?  Absolutely, but you're literally talking about a difference of 0.5 PPG in 2015 and 0.6 PPG in 2014.  That's not a lot.

And I'll make a challenge to you, go back since 2013 and tell me how many teams ranked top 10 in both opponents PPG and offensive PPG.

Here's a list of the top defensive spending teams (in rank order; active roster cap) by year, and their DVOA ranking:

2016:

Bengals; 16
Bucs; 4
Giants; 2
Broncos; 1
Seahawks; 9
Packers; 23
Jaguars; 13
Jets; 19
Titans; 27

2015:

Jets; 6
Colts; 10
Seahawks; 3
Texans; 4
Packers; 14
Bengals; 9
Browns; 23
Chiefs; 2
Cardinals; 7
Broncos; 1

2014:

Bengals; 17
Bucs; 15
Bills; 2
Packers; 18
Browns; 8
Lions; 7
Steelers; 27
Ravens; 12
Seahawks; 1
Dolphins; 25

2013:

Bengals; 6
Chiefs; 14
Vikings; 26
Ravens; 8
Bucs; 12
Packers; 29
Colts; 19
Browns; 27
Bills; 5
49ers; 11

My takeaways:

- The Packers have gotten poor value every year; this is true of no other team.
- The majority of teams getting poor value replaced their coach soon after (2013 Browns, 2013 Bucs, 2013 Vikings, 2014 Dolphins, 2014 Steelers; 2014 Bucs; 2015 Browns; none in 2016).
- The Packers are a complete outlier in this analysis, having gotten poor value every year and retaining their coaches despite this.

 

[Pugger]

1 hour ago, th87 said:

Propensity for injury/reliability should factor into a player's overall value. 

For me I can't say that.  It isn't the fault of the player he's injury prone.  IMO a lot of that is just plain dumb luck.  We all saw how well he played last year when he stayed relatively healthy.

[TheOnlyThing]

20 hours ago, CWood21 said:

And I'll make a challenge to you, go back since 2013 and tell me how many teams ranked top 10 in both opponents PPG and offensive PPG.

I went back to 2012 to find the teams that finished the season in the top 10 in both offensive and defensive points per game. The results are below:

2016 NE Defense (1) Offense (3).

2015 NE Defense (8) Offense (3), Cincy Defense (2) Offense (5), NY Jets Defense (5) Offense (10), and Carolina Defense (6) Offense (1)

2014 NE Defense (7) Offense (1), Seattle Defense (1) Offense (9), and Baltimore Defense (9) Offense (8)

2013 Seattle Defense (1) Offense (8), and Cincinnati Defense (4) Offense (7)

2012 Seattle Defense (1) Offense (9), San Francisco Defense (3) Offense (8), Denver Defense (6) Offense (2), Baltimore Defense (9) Offense (10), and Atlanta Defense (10) Offense (7).

The bolded teams above played in the Super Bowl that season. Hence, indisputable facts show that in each of the last 5 Super Bowls, at least one of the participants finished in the top 10 in both categories. Moreover, 7 of the last 10 Super Bowl participants have finished in the top 10.

Given this clear correlation between finishing in the top 10 in both offensive and defensive scoring and playing in the Super Bowl, why any Packer fan would be dismissive of the need for the Pack’s D to join the O as a top 10 unit is beyond me.

 

And here is another little nugget to ponder. The last time the Pack finished in the top 10 in D was 2010 (the same season the Pack last appeared in a Super Bowl). Since 2010, the following 26 teams have finished the season in the 10 defensively during at least one of those seasons (2011-2016):

Dallas, New York Giants, Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, Arizona, LA Rams, San Francisco, Seattle, Buffalo, Miami, New England, New York Jets, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Houston, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Denver, Kansas City, and LA/San Diego Chargers.

Thus, the Packers are 1 of just 6 teams (along with Philly, Washington, Tampa Bay, Indianapolis, and Oakland) that have NOT finished in the top 10 in scoring defense since 2010.

 

[skibrett15]

20 minutes ago, Pugger said:

For me I can't say that.  It isn't the fault of the player he's injury prone.  IMO a lot of that is just plain dumb luck.  We all saw how well he played last year when he stayed relatively healthy.

It's not his fault but it makes him a worse player because he isn't durable.  Consistent injury issues with arm/shoulder/hand being extremely prevalent among them makes this not a "freak" unlucky thing.  He is simply fragile.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, th87 said:

My takeaways:

- The Packers have gotten poor value every year; this is true of no other team.
- The majority of teams getting poor value replaced their coach soon after (2013 Browns, 2013 Bucs, 2013 Vikings, 2014 Dolphins, 2014 Steelers; 2014 Bucs; 2015 Browns; none in 2016).
- The Packers are a complete outlier in this analysis, having gotten poor value every year and retaining their coaches despite this.

I appreciate you taking the time to do some breakdown.  As I've already mentioned, I think it's unfair to hold 2016 against Capers.  His CBs consisted DBs who were largely hampered by injury AND when LaDarius Gunter is your #1 CB, things aren't going very well.  Would you say that's a fair or unfair opinion to hold? 

[CWood21]

46 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Given this clear correlation between finishing in the top 10 in both offensive and defensive scoring and playing in the Super Bowl, why any Packer fan would be dismissive of the need for the Pack’s D to join the O as a top 10 unit is beyond me.

Before you jump the gun, let me finish my exercise.  How many franchises had back-to-back years in the top 10?  You have two, Seattle and New England.  When you look at Seattle's success, it's tied back to their really strong drafts from 2010-2012.  Their draft history after that point?  Pretty poor, which is why it wasn't surprising that they didn't repeat as a top 10 defense and offense in 2015, when ironically they had to start paying their young players.  New England's path to success isn't as obvious as that one.  Either way, the point I'm trying to make is that expect a year in and year out top 10 defense isn't the most realistic of expectations.  Would I want it?  Absolutely.

56 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Thus, the Packers are 1 of just 6 teams (along with Philly, Washington, Tampa Bay, Indianapolis, and Oakland) that have NOT finished in the top 10 in scoring defense since 2010.

Look, I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me or just making an argument over nothing.  But nobody is saying that the defense hasn't underperformed.  It clearly has.  But an arbitrary cutoff at top 10 without any sort of context means nothing.  They finished 14th in 2015 and 18th in 2014 in DVOA.  Are those great?  Obviously not.  Are these awful?  Not really.  It's something you look to improve upon.

[TheOnlyThing]

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

nobody is saying that the defense hasn't underperformed.  It clearly has.  

Could not agree more that the defense has underperformed and has been mostly underperforming for going on 6.5 seasons now.

And the defense has underperformed despite:

(1) More money being spent on the D than the O over most of that time;

(2) Top 10 money in the league being expended on the D during the majority of that time;

(3)  The last 6 top picks in the draft going to the D;

(4) The same position coaches being in place at defensive line, inside linebackers, CB, and Safety during that time; and

(5) The Defense being led by the longest-serving defensive coordinator in the NFL (by several years). 

[TransientTexan]

6 hours ago, th87 said:

Weighted DVOA is a better measure

Not really. But not at all surprised to see you cherrypicking again to confirm your bias.

[th87]

46 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

Not really. But not at all surprised to see you cherrypicking again to confirm your bias.

Just grabbed a well-regarded statistic heavily used by people in here. Triggered much? 

[th87]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I appreciate you taking the time to do some breakdown.  As I've already mentioned, I think it's unfair to hold 2016 against Capers.  His CBs consisted DBs who were largely hampered by injury AND when LaDarius Gunter is your #1 CB, things aren't going very well.  Would you say that's a fair or unfair opinion to hold? 

Of course it'd be unfair to hold that season in a vacuum against Capers.  But when you see a similar thing occurring over many years now (as the analysis showed), it only seems to support the underlying trend.  Is that a fair statement?

[TransientTexan]

10 minutes ago, th87 said:

Just grabbed a well-regarded statistic heavily used by people in here. Triggered much? 

Nope. People use DVOA to determine season performance, not “weighted DVOA”. But naturally, you go to the DVOA page and pick a different column that has different rankings you think suits your top-10 argument better without understanding the meaning of said column. Then, like a deceptive snake, you try to substitute it in place of the metric the people here have been using. The confirmation bias is blatant.