Joe Barry'd again

[CWood21]

Just now, vegas492 said:

Yesterday we were 8th and I was told that I make ridiculous statements when I say there is no way we are the 8th ranked offense in the NFL, because I have not watching every game from all other 31 teams.

We must have played a Wednesday night game that I missed.

Depends on what metric you're using, I guess.  We're 22nd in PPG, but 12th in ANY/A.

[packfanfb]

9 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I get that the Giants were a joke of a franchise for the last few years, but they're currently averaging more PPG than the Packers are right now (by 1.2 PPG fwiw).  Let that sink in.

We're paying Aaron Rodgers $50M/year, and we're currently the 22nd best offense in the NFL.  You want to point to all the FRPs we've invested in our defense, yet you're completely ignoring the fact that we have one of the highest paid players in NFL history under contract and he's playing at a non-MVP level.  I don't know about you, but I don't call that good value.

And for the record, I'm not saying the Packers' defense played great.  I thought they played okay.

We are paying Rodgers $50m/year and is he worth that? Probably not even close. However, what is the alternative? Jordan Love? Rodgers was always the best option to win this year and he costs what he costs but we can't keep saying he needs to play like its 2011. He's not that player anymore. He can't create like he used to, or move like he used to. Part of his problem is that he still tries to do those things and gets himself in trouble instead of taking the easier throws, etc. The bottom-line is that Rodgers, regardless of what he's paid, isn't going to be the savior in many games this year. We have to be a team like SF, Dallas and even TB right now, none of which have prolific offenses (even TB is struggling due to injuries, etc.) but their defenses aren't just being "okay" they are actually winning games for the team. Dallas just whooped on the Rams in LA and Rush threw for 100 freaking yards. The Dallas offense is converting 3rd downs at like 31%, which I believe is the worst mark in the NFL. But they are 4-1 because their defense is dominating. We just don't have that in GB and it's frustrating as **** given the resources we've put into the unit and the pre-season BS hype year after year. 

Edited October 13, 2022 by packfanfb

[Mazrimiv]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Depends on what metric you're using, I guess.  We're 22nd in PPG, but 12th in ANY/A.

What is ANY/A?

ANY stat I want to use to justify my agenda?

[incognito_man]

25 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

85-15 defense

oh come on lol

 

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

We are paying Rodgers $50m/year and is he worth that? Probably not even close. However, what is the alternative? Jordan Love? Rodgers was always the best option to win this year and he costs what he costs but we can't keep saying he needs to play like its 2011. He's not that player anymore. He can't create like he used to, or move like he used to. Part of his problem is that he still tries to do those things and gets himself in trouble instead of taking the easier throws, etc. The bottom-line is that Rodgers, regardless of what he's paid, isn't going to be the savior in many games this year. We have to be a team like SF, Dallas and even TB right now, none of which have prolific offenses (even TB is struggling due to injuries, etc.) but their defenses aren't just being "okay" they are actually winning games for the team. Dallas just whooped on the Rams in LA and Rush threw of 100 freaking yards. The Dallas offense is converting 3rd downs at like 31%, which I believe is the worst mark in the NFL. But they are 4-1 because their defense is dominating. We just don't have that in GB and it's frustrating as **** given the resources we've put into the unit and the pre-season BS hype year after year. 

Rodgers playing within the constructs the offense would be a good start.  We know that Rodgers has the ability to make every throw in the NFL.  But he's risk-adversed, and he's consistently looking for the big play.  How many times this season have we been in 3rd and short, and he heaves the ball down the field?  That second drive in the second half, two of his 3 throws were deep passes to Lazard (not on target btw).  The drive before had two missed deep targets.

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

What is ANY/A?

ANY stat I want to use to justify my agenda?

Weighted stat that I like to value QBs.  Weighs QBs who throw more TDs and take less sacks and throw less interceptions.  Not saying it's the end-all, be-all but it's a good stat IMO.

[packfanfb]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Rodgers playing within the constructs the offense would be a good start.  We know that Rodgers has the ability to make every throw in the NFL.  But he's risk-adversed, and he's consistently looking for the big play.  How many times this season have we been in 3rd and short, and he heaves the ball down the field?  That second drive in the second half, two of his 3 throws were deep passes to Lazard (not on target btw).  The drive before had two missed deep targets.

I'm not saying Rodgers is playing great. Do I think he played well enough to beat the Giants on Sunday? Yes. The first half was probably the best half of football our offense has played all year, including Rodgers. In the 2nd half, Rodgers got 3 chances sandwiched in between 7-8 minute (game clock) drives by NY. The first drive, he and offense were on the march, but the drive was ruined because they got into 3rd and long and Newman got ran over by Lawrence in a key moment (vintage Royce Newman). The last drive 12 and co. drove 69 yards and ran two poor plays on the 5 yard line and they were forced to go for it given the game situation instead of taking the 3 points. In between there, we had the one 3 and out where we threw 3 times against a heavy box (the first play btw was a massive illegal contact on Lazard that wrecked the entire play - no call).  

[squire12]

16 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

What is ANY/A?

ANY stat I want to use to justify my agenda?

that is how you internet!!!!

[Norm]

54 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

85-15 defense. 

Why even though the offense was blanked in the 2nd half? Easy, because football is about momentum and rhythm. When your offense is sitting on the sidelines for 15-20 minutes (real time, not game clock time) at a time after long, 10+ play drives by the opposing team over and over again, that matters, more than probably most fans realize. It takes you out of a rhythm both collectively and individually. While giving up "17 points" in the 2nd half, in a vacuum doesn't sound extremely terrible, that was probably one of the worst defensive performances from the Packers I have seen in a long time due to the circumstances, namely (1) the quality (or lack thereof) of the offense we were playing, and (2) the manner in which we let them control the ball and dictate the entire 2nd half. It literally would have been better overall if we would have given up those points in 3-5 big plays, versus the 32 plays we allowed (that doesn't even include the last drive of the first half where the Giants scored on another 11-play drive). 

Oh JFC no way lol

I get the logic of, don't let them kill you slowly but nobody is going to be patting them on the back of they give up big plays and the same points like "wow I'm glad we gave up all those huge plays instead of little ones for the same result."

That's all about outcomes. We played that way and the outcome was we lost so OBVIOUSLY the opposite would have been better, which isn't the truism it seems to be.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Norm

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, Norm said:

I get the logic of, don't let them kill you slowly but nobody is going to be patting them on the back of they give up big plays and the same points like *wow I'm glad we have up all those huge plays instead of little ones."

Well sure, because if it had happened the other way, people would say, "man if only we had made them use 12 plays instead of 3, maybe they would have made a mistake along the way." That is literally the foundation of Barry's defensive scheme. What I'm saying more figuratively is that if you could see both scenarios play out or knew that the offense was going to score either way, it would actually be better to have them score in fewer plays and give our offense more opportunity to be on the field versus the sidelines. Frankly that's one of the reasons why I'm a bigger fan of a Belichick/Flores or even Martindale defense versus what we run anyways. I mean Martindale literally had PS CBs on the field after Jackson got hurt and played single-high/Cover 0 looks in the 2nd half and just didn't give a ****. He put those guys on a island and said "try to beat us but we're stacking the box and bringing the house." And....it worked. 

Unless the situation obviously calls for otherwise, I'm all for playing aggressive, heavy boxes, putting my CBs (especially our CBs) on islands and forcing the opposing QB to be accurate on deep shots. I'll take that all day long versus the 1000 cuts crap. Give me Cover 0 over Cover 6 lol. 

[squire12]

44 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Well sure, because if it had happened the other way, people would say, "man if only we had made them use 12 plays instead of 3, maybe they would have made a mistake along the way." That is literally the foundation of Barry's defensive scheme. What I'm saying more figuratively is that if you could see both scenarios play out or knew that the offense was going to score either way, it would actually be better to have them score in fewer plays and give our offense more opportunity to be on the field versus the sidelines. Frankly that's one of the reasons why I'm a bigger fan of a Belichick/Flores or even Martindale defense versus what we run anyways. I mean Martindale literally had PS CBs on the field after Jackson got hurt and played single-high/Cover 0 looks in the 2nd half and just didn't give a ****. He put those guys on a island and said "try to beat us but we're stacking the box and bringing the house." And....it worked. 

Unless the situation obviously calls for otherwise, I'm all for playing aggressive, heavy boxes, putting my CBs (especially our CBs) on islands and forcing the opposing QB to be accurate on deep shots. I'll take that all day long versus the 1000 cuts crap. Give me Cover 0 over Cover 6 lol. 

it is an interesting dynamic.  Are other teams more willing to play that aggressive style defense because the GB offense lacks top tier WR talent coupled with a QB that is immensely averse to risking an INT?

[packfanfb]

3 minutes ago, squire12 said:

it is an interesting dynamic.  Are other teams more willing to play that aggressive style defense because the GB offense lacks top tier WR talent coupled with a QB that is immensely averse to risking an INT?

They should be. I mean, by now, the word has to be out to other teams that GB wants to be a run-first offense, mixing in the short passing game. Not sure why any team would play with a soft box and allow us to do that. I would be forcing Rodgers to make plays downfield to a WR group sans-Adams. 

[squire12]

10 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

They should be. I mean, by now, the word has to be out to other teams that GB wants to be a run-first offense, mixing in the short passing game. Not sure why any team would play with a soft box and allow us to do that. I would be forcing Rodgers to make plays downfield to a WR group sans-Adams. 

I think that is what gets reflected in the advanced passing offense numbers for GB.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2022/passing_advanced.htm

24th in intended air yards per pass attempt (IAY/PA)

31st in completed air yards per pass attempt (CAY/PA)

[Smidgeon]

33 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I think that is what gets reflected in the advanced passing offense numbers for GB.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2022/passing_advanced.htm

24th in intended air yards per pass attempt (IAY/PA)

31st in completed air yards per pass attempt (CAY/PA)

Does anyone have Rodgers accuracy on deep balls while adjusting for WR drops vs the league? 

Because if GB is in the bottom third of IAY/PA *AND* Rodgers is in the bottom half of accuracy on long balls, then Rodgers isn't the QB he was even last year--not by a long shot. 

[Old Guy]

I think the stats say exactly what our record says. We're not very good right now. Let's see what happens Sunday against the Jets.  IF we lay another egg, long season. If we sneak another one out, potentially long season. If we blow them out, maybe the ship is starting to get turned in the right direction.