Random Packer News & Notes

[Leader]

Damn @Outpost31 dont go getting reasonable on me.

[TransientTexan]

4 hours ago, vegas492 said:

If you flip Turner out to RT, you are worse at RT.

If Turner is worse than Light, that’s looking like a terrible FA contract right now. Dude should be making like half that money, given his play quality at G. 

[gopackgo247]

30 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

MY EYES TELL ME IT'S A ****ING 8-3 TEAM BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MANY WINS WE HAVE FOR ****'S SAKE! 

It's a team that has shown glimpses of greatness on both offense and defense with the talent to dominate on either side.  Biggest issues are defensive game plans and Rodgers being Bad Rodgers. 

This team is not capable of beating three consecutive GOOD teams in the playoffs on the road.  It's no 2010 team.  It is, however, very capable of an Eagles 2017 run.  That Eagles team was a lot like ours in the regular season.  It had some truly dominant games on defense, but some real stinkers on defense, too.  Then they got a wildly favorable series of matchups in the postseason.  The Atlanta "Build the team around a WR" Falcons.  The pretender Vikings.  Then the Patriots.  They matched the Patriots with a great offensive game plan and then came up with key stops/turnovers (which our defense is very capable of). 

Once you get to the playoffs, it's more about the luck of the draw than it is how good you are.  Do you think the Rams belonged in the Super Bowl last year?  Do you think the Patriots get to the playoffs half the times they did if they didn't have that first cake walk team or their second cake walk team on the schedule?  The Patriots got the pretender Chiefs last year who decided the best way to slow them down was EDGE pressure and no tight coverage.  Lol.  Yeah, give Brady the quick passes and defend deep when he's 41 years old. 

I don't believe we will win the Super Bowl, but there are two teams in the AFC we couldn't beat in the Super Bowl.  The Patriots and the Ravens.  But then ask what happens if our special teams decides to have an average game, Rodgers plays quick and with tempo and our defense gets a big stop early. 

If those three things happen, there's not a team in this league that we couldn't beat. 

Not coincidentally, those three things are exactly what happened in the close games against good teams we've beaten this year.  To say we're not capable of doing that is just wrong. 

If the Patriots muffed a snap early in a game or Brady fumbled on the 2 yard line, how do you think they do against the Niners?  They certainly might make it more interesting, but... Now what if the Niners were playing in Green Bay in the playoffs and something like a tipped pass ended up in Alexander's hands with room to run? 

Super Bowl history is full of teams who aren't supposed to make it out of the first round who win it all and just as full as teams who are supposed to be unstoppable who miss a kick, fumble a ball, have the first play of the Super Bowl go over Peyton Manning's head ending in a safety...

Good teams overcome those fumbles and bounces and adversity and come away with 8 wins.  Bad teams lose those ones and sit at 6-5.  DVOA is a statistic that does not measure veterans named Smith coming up with timely snaps or veterans like Amos coming up with key interceptions or Tramon Williams catching a deflected pass in the end zone or Kevin King coming up with three HUGE interceptions on the year. 

We're a good team.  We're no powerhouse like we were in 2011, but in 2011 we were beat by a team very much like this 2019 team. 

which is the good team they have beat? cant find it on the schedule for the life of me.

[MacReady]

1 minute ago, gopackgo247 said:

which is the good team they have beat? cant find it on the schedule for the life of me.

Cowboys are a very good team and probably the most talented team in the NFL.  Lions were a good team until Stanford injury/Diggs trade.  Panthers are good team.  Vikings are good team.  

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, TransientTexan said:

If Turner is worse than Light, that’s looking like a terrible FA contract right now. Dude should be making like half that money, given his play quality at G. 

I don't know how Turner would look as a tackle.  But I do think Light is serviceable.  Thought he was solid in pre-season and if he gets practice reps, I think he will be just fine.  But, that is just me.  He's no Bulaga, but I think he can get you through a few games, as long as he isn't facing a Bosa, Mack or Hunter without help.

[vegas492]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

What do your eyes tell you? Is this an 8-3 caliber team or is it a 6-5 caliber team?

Well...GB has won 8 games.  Not 6.

And I liked that we were able to sustain some long drives, running the ball, at the end of games to seal the deal.  That's a good sign.  

So is making those key stops.  There are a couple of crucial plays in most every game.  Make them and you win.  We made them.

[MrBobGray]

21 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Well...GB has won 8 games.  Not 6.

And I liked that we were able to sustain some long drives, running the ball, at the end of games to seal the deal.  That's a good sign.  

So is making those key stops.  There are a couple of crucial plays in most every game.  Make them and you win.  We made them.

The issue with this point of view is that there's plenty of statistical evidence that winning close games does not translate from year to year.  Essentially, winning close games comes down to lucky bounces at the right time, which has shown up plenty this year.  If Cousins doesn't throw a pick in the end zone, that's a very different game.  If Detroit doesn't get those hands to the face, that's a very different game.  Hell, if Rodgers hands the ball off in the redzone against the Eagles they probably win.  

Here's an article that goes into it really well (For reference, the Packers are already at 4-1 in close games this season, which doesn't count the Eagles game as that was by 8):

http://www.optimumscouting.com/news/nfl-s-close-game-analytics-how-lucky-wins-or-losse

Quote

For the purpose of this exercise, we’ll say that close games are defined as games with a point differential of seven points or fewer. From 2006 to 2016, only 19 teams posted five or more close wins than close losses in a single season (ex: 5-0 record or 8-3 record.) Only about five percent of NFL teams over the last 11 years qualify for this group, a telling sign for how random the results of close games are.

If a team does qualify for this group, this is a red flag for things to come. Of those 19 “lucky” teams, 16 of them (84 percent) regressed in overall record the next year, with only the 2006 Indianapolis Colts, the 2008 Indianapolis Colts and the 2012 Indianapolis Colts being the exceptions. In this 19-team group, the average team won 11.8 games in their “lucky” year and regressed to 7.6 wins the season after. Excluding the clear outlier franchise (Colts), those numbers are slashed to 11.7 and 6.4.

Good teams are defined by their ability to win by more than one score in a game with the variance of NFL football.  An 8-3 team that's 4-1 in close games is, statistically speaking, unlikely to go 8-3 very often if you repeated this same run year over year.  What @AlexGreen#20 is saying is simply that; yes, they've won 8 games, but they haven't done it in a way that's likely to be consistently repeatable for them.  It's nice that they've gotten the job done, but their advanced stats and the statistics of close games mean that we should expect them to perform more on the level of a 9-7 to 10-6 team going forward, unless their level of performance changes significantly.

[Gopackgonerd]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

What do your eyes tell you? Is this an 8-3 caliber team or is it a 6-5 caliber team?

We are an 8-3 team that sucks playing in California

Edited November 27, 2019 by Gopackgonerd

[gopackgo247]

2 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

The issue with this point of view is that there's plenty of statistical evidence that winning close games does not translate from year to year.  Essentially, winning close games comes down to lucky bounces at the right time, which has shown up plenty this year.  If Cousins doesn't throw a pick in the end zone, that's a very different game.  If Detroit doesn't get those hands to the face, that's a very different game.  Hell, if Rodgers hands the ball off in the redzone against the Eagles they probably win.  

Here's an article that goes into it really well (For reference, the Packers are already at 4-1 in close games this season, which doesn't count the Eagles game as that was by 8):

http://www.optimumscouting.com/news/nfl-s-close-game-analytics-how-lucky-wins-or-losse

Good teams are defined by their ability to win by more than one score in a game with the variance of NFL football.  An 8-3 team that's 4-1 in close games is, statistically speaking, unlikely to go 8-3 very often if you repeated this same run year over year.  What @AlexGreen#20 is saying is simply that; yes, they've won 8 games, but they haven't done it in a way that's likely to be consistently repeatable for them.  It's nice that they've gotten the job done, but their advanced stats and the statistics of close games mean that we should expect them to perform more on the level of a 9-7 to 10-6 team going forward, unless their level of performance changes significantly.

[Hawkfan191]

 

[coachbuns]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

MY EYES TELL ME IT'S A ****ING 8-3 TEAM BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MANY WINS WE HAVE FOR ****'S SAKE! 

It's a team that has shown glimpses of greatness on both offense and defense with the talent to dominate on either side.  Biggest issues are defensive game plans and Rodgers being Bad Rodgers. 

This team is not capable of beating three consecutive GOOD teams in the playoffs on the road.  It's no 2010 team.  It is, however, very capable of an Eagles 2017 run.  That Eagles team was a lot like ours in the regular season.  It had some truly dominant games on defense, but some real stinkers on defense, too.  Then they got a wildly favorable series of matchups in the postseason.  The Atlanta "Build the team around a WR" Falcons.  The pretender Vikings.  Then the Patriots.  They matched the Patriots with a great offensive game plan and then came up with key stops/turnovers (which our defense is very capable of). 

Once you get to the playoffs, it's more about the luck of the draw than it is how good you are.  Do you think the Rams belonged in the Super Bowl last year?  Do you think the Patriots get to the playoffs half the times they did if they didn't have that first cake walk team or their second cake walk team on the schedule?  The Patriots got the pretender Chiefs last year who decided the best way to slow them down was EDGE pressure and no tight coverage.  Lol.  Yeah, give Brady the quick passes and defend deep when he's 41 years old. 

I don't believe we will win the Super Bowl, but there are two teams in the AFC we couldn't beat in the Super Bowl.  The Patriots and the Ravens.  But then ask what happens if our special teams decides to have an average game, Rodgers plays quick and with tempo and our defense gets a big stop early. 

If those three things happen, there's not a team in this league that we couldn't beat. 

Not coincidentally, those three things are exactly what happened in the close games against good teams we've beaten this year.  To say we're not capable of doing that is just wrong. 

If the Patriots muffed a snap early in a game or Brady fumbled on the 2 yard line, how do you think they do against the Niners?  They certainly might make it more interesting, but... Now what if the Niners were playing in Green Bay in the playoffs and something like a tipped pass ended up in Alexander's hands with room to run? 

Super Bowl history is full of teams who aren't supposed to make it out of the first round who win it all and just as full as teams who are supposed to be unstoppable who miss a kick, fumble a ball, have the first play of the Super Bowl go over Peyton Manning's head ending in a safety...

Good teams overcome those fumbles and bounces and adversity and come away with 8 wins.  Bad teams lose those ones and sit at 6-5.  DVOA is a statistic that does not measure veterans named Smith coming up with timely snaps or veterans like Amos coming up with key interceptions or Tramon Williams catching a deflected pass in the end zone or Kevin King coming up with three HUGE interceptions on the year. 

We're a good team.  We're no powerhouse like we were in 2011, but in 2011 we were beat by a team very much like this 2019 team. 

Outpost31 ... do you have a twin bother here making so much sense?!   Kidding of course.  Outstanding thought process ... well said ... bravo!

[Leader]

Ian Rapoport - The Packers claimed formerly retired Patriots OT Jared Veldheer. He’s back and some insurance for injured Bryan Bulaga.

• Matt Schneidman -  Most recently started 12 games for the Broncos in 2018. Entered the league in 2010.

Bill Huber -  This is big. OTs don’t grow on trees.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Leader

[MacReady]

Veldheer could actually be nice.  Very nice.  Most promising in-season move singe Breeland, whom we should have re-signed.

[coachbuns]

9 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

The issue with this point of view is that there's plenty of statistical evidence that winning close games does not translate from year to year.  Essentially, winning close games comes down to lucky bounces at the right time, which has shown up plenty this year.  If Cousins doesn't throw a pick in the end zone, that's a very different game.  If Detroit doesn't get those hands to the face, that's a very different game.  Hell, if Rodgers hands the ball off in the redzone against the Eagles they probably win.  

Here's an article that goes into it really well (For reference, the Packers are already at 4-1 in close games this season, which doesn't count the Eagles game as that was by 8):

http://www.optimumscouting.com/news/nfl-s-close-game-analytics-how-lucky-wins-or-losse

Good teams are defined by their ability to win by more than one score in a game with the variance of NFL football.  An 8-3 team that's 4-1 in close games is, statistically speaking, unlikely to go 8-3 very often if you repeated this same run year over year.  What @AlexGreen#20 is saying is simply that; yes, they've won 8 games, but they haven't done it in a way that's likely to be consistently repeatable for them.  It's nice that they've gotten the job done, but their advanced stats and the statistics of close games mean that we should expect them to perform more on the level of a 9-7 to 10-6 team going forward, unless their level of performance changes significantly.

That may well all be very true.  However, sh.. happens.  Advanced stats are nice and fantasy football fans love them but do teams really understand all these new analytics?  Goodness, a blind man can see the Packers being a 10-6 team if things don't improve ... duh.  If this and if that ... hindsight is great.  I totally understand stats and such are part of the new game.  It's been forever that a break here and a bad break there losses games.  So what's the point?  Packers play better than the last 3 games and they win.  Packers play like the last 3 games they lose.  Nothing totally earthshaking here for anybody to see.  

[MrBobGray]

4 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

That may well all be very true.  However, sh.. happens.  Advanced stats are nice and fantasy football fans love them but do teams really understand all these new analytics?  Goodness, a blind man can see the Packers being a 10-6 team if things don't improve ... duh.  If this and if that ... hindsight is great.  I totally understand stats and such are part of the new game.  It's been forever that a break here and a bad break there losses games.  So what's the point?  Packers play better than the last 3 games and they win.  Packers play like the last 3 games they lose.  Nothing totally earthshaking here for anybody to see.  

I mean, literally in this thread there are people disputing this.  The point being made is that this team has 8 wins, but they aren't playing nearly as well as other 8 win teams.  If you expect them to keep winning at the rate they were, you'll likely be disappointed unless something changes drastically in their play from how they've been the whole season.  This isn't just about the last three games; in fact it's specifically not about those games.  The point is that a surprising number of their wins are mostly due to them making clutch plays at the right time, which history shows is not a reliable method to win.  Clutching out a 4th down stop at the goal line is amazing, but it's not likely to happen every time no matter how good your defensive group is.  If the Packers keep ending up in games decided by one score, it's almost certain you'll see them begin to lose those games at a much higher rate than they have been.