Jump to content
disaacs

Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, NorthCountryEvo said:

What you are saying is a fairly obvious statement though, and one that can be said about any argument or set of statistics that have been used in this conversation. That would be like Vikings fans saying if Bradford never got hurt, and he matched roughly his same stats from week 1 in every game, the Vikings would have won X amount of games, and putnuo X stats. All we have to use are the stats that actually occurred, and the trends that were shown based off of larger samples. 

 

If we play the what if game, you really get no where, but if we use the stats and trends available, then some reasonable discourse can happen.

I'm not trying to predict what " could have been", only highlighting that the outcome would have been different and that the Packers could have won more games. The wins/losses, turnovers, and PPG indicate it would have likely been more wins with Rodgers. I think assuming the defensive/special teams performance staying the same isn't taking into account the impact Rodgers would have had too. i Know that's a rather large assumption but Huntley's play led to more time on field for the defense, turnovers, worse field position, ect and Krauser's point didn't take that into account.

 

Did you watch Huntley vs the Raven's? The guy was throwing INTs in the redzone and gimme picks to Harrison Smith. No way a Rodgers led offense gets shut out vs MN or the Ravens at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ArthurPensky said:

You’re assuming the Packers would have lost The 2 games to the vikes with Rodgers. Which may well be the case but still an assumption. 

I gave the Packers a split against the Vikings. That puts Minnesota at 12-4, and Green Bay at 5-2 with Rodgers healthy (excluding the Panthers game). Do you think the Packers would have been able to go 7-2 on the balance of their schedule to at least tie for the division lead? Anything less than 12-4 wouldn't have done the trick, and that's a better record than they were able to muster in 2015 or 2016, with Rodgers healthy and before the secondary fell apart. 

Quote

With the points total you’re assuming the Packers offensive play wouldn’t have impacted the game other than the score. Less time on the field for the Packers defense, game situation, etc. the offense Huntley led didn’t do any favors to the packers defense when they got shut out twice and contastly having stalled drives, ect. It’s not apples to apples there if Rodgers were healthy.

The Packers run defense was solid, but their pass defense was terrible -- 27th against the pass by DVOA, ahead of only SF, MIA, OAK, TB and IND (none of which won more than 6 games last year). Despite that weakness, the Packers faced the 3rd lowest percentage of opponent pass attempts at 54.5% (the Vikings were 2nd most, at 62.3%, stats here: http://www.footballperspective.com/2017-game-scripts-results-from-all-534-games/#more-38534). So if GB was in more close games, or even leading more often, they would've had more teams attacking their secondary in the later in games instead of settling for killing clock by running the ball. That means they might well have given up more points and yards, not less. 

The Packers defense was 20th by DVOA after week 5, before Rodgers' injury: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2017/week-5-dvoa-ratings . Their DVOA on defense was +3.7% (on a scale where 0 is average and positive numbers are worse for the defense). They'd allowed 22.4 points per game. 

By the end of the year, with all the effects of Rodgers injury, their defensive DVOA had slipped from 20th all the way to... 20th: https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef with a DVOA of +4.9% (a little worse) and points per game allowed of 24.0 (a little worse). 

So any effect there was marginal. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ArthurPensky said:

I'm not trying to predict what " could have been", only highlighting that the outcome would have been different and that the Packers could have won more games. The wins/losses, turnovers, and PPG indicate it would have likely been more wins with Rodgers. I think assuming the defensive/special teams performance staying the same isn't taking into account the impact Rodgers would have had too. i Know that's a rather large assumption but Huntley's play led to more time on field for the defense, turnovers, worse field position, ect and Krauser's point didn't take that into account.

 

Did you watch Huntley vs the Raven's? The guy was throwing INTs in the redzone and gimme picks to Harrison Smith. No way a Rodgers led offense gets shut out vs MN or the Ravens at home.

If you are going to use this argument for the Packers, then you should use it for every team.

If player X on team Y was healthy all season, it likely could have led to more wins...

What you are saying may sound nice, but there are too many variables at play to actually believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

If you are going to use this argument for the Packers, then you should use it for every team.

If player X on team Y was healthy all season, it likely could have led to more wins...

What you are saying may sound nice, but there are too many variables at play to actually believe it.

No other Team Y has Aaron Rodgers as player X. So that's a bad comparison.

I realize its conjecture and speculation, and quite frankly pointless at this time but I just think @Krauser is underestimating Rodger's impact on the team. Heck, before Rodgers was hurt last season the Packers were 12-2 in their previous 14 games with both losses vs the Falcons. They had a horrible pass defense for all of those 14 games too.

Edited by ArthurPensky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Packer fan, I have to agree with Krauser's evaluation of the Packers going into this year, as hard as it is to agree with a Vikings fan.

I will point out to him though, Bulaga's ACL is not a repeat in the same knee, it is the other knee, and by all reports he is ahead of schedule.  That being said, I think it most likely that he will not play until later in the season.  The injury is not as grim as stated though.

This will likely be a bit of a developmental year for the Packers, with a bunch of questions at several positions to start the year, so I expect them to start a bit slow.  

I wouldn't put them in with the "favorites" group, but I still think they end up a playoff team, and could be a tough out once they get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I will point out to him though, Bulaga's ACL is not a repeat in the same knee, it is the other knee, and by all reports he is ahead of schedule.  That being said, I think it most likely that he will not play until later in the season.  The injury is not as grim as stated though.

This will likely be a bit of a developmental year for the Packers, with a bunch of questions at several positions to start the year, so I expect them to start a bit slow.  

I wouldn't put them in with the "favorites" group, but I still think they end up a playoff team, and could be a tough out once they get there.

All fair points, thanks for the correction on Bulaga's injury. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, ArthurPensky said:

No other Team Y has Aaron Rodgers as player X. So that's a bad comparison.

I realize its conjecture and speculation, and quite frankly pointless at this time but I just think @Krauser is underestimating Rodger's impact on the team. Heck, before Rodgers was hurt last season the Packers were 12-2 in their previous 14 games with both losses vs the Falcons. They had a horrible pass defense for all of those 14 games too.

sigh...Other teams lose good players too. If you're going to make a point about the Packers success had only Rodgers been healthy all season, then you should use the same comparison for every team (Giants and Odell Beckham Jr, Cardinals and David Johnson, Chiefs and Eric Berry, etc). 

It's not a bad comparison, you're just making a lazy statement to prop up your team. By using your logic, I could go ahead and say that if the Vikings never lost, then they'd win every single game!

Edited by SteelKing728

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, SteelKing728 said:

sigh...Other teams lose good players too. If you're going to make a point about the Packers success had only Rodgers been healthy all season, then you should use the same comparison for every team (Giants and Odell Beckham Jr, Cardinals and David Johnson, Chiefs and Eric Berry, etc). 

It's not a bad comparison, you're just making a lazy statement to prop up your team. By using your logic, I could go ahead and say that if the Vikings never lost, then they'd win every single game!

Sign... You're putting OBJ(WR), David Johnson (RB), and Eric Berry(S) on par as impactful as Rodgers (QB).  Also, how did the Cards and Giants seasons go? Worse than the Packers.

Edited by ArthurPensky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, ArthurPensky said:

Sign... You're putting OBJ(WR), David Johnson (RB), and Eric Berry(S) on par as impactful as Rodgers (QB).  Also, how did the Cards and Giants seasons go? Worse than the Packers.

Don’t try to play the victim here. No one’s underrating Rodgers.

His point is that Packers fans want to imagine the season with 16 healthy games from their QB1, but don’t want to allow for injuries affecting other teams. The Vikings had 1 healthy game from their QB1 and 3 from their RB1, still went 13-3.

Still wondering what your answer is to my question: if Rodgers stays healthy and the Packers win 4 of their first 5, and split with the Vikings, they need to go 7-2 over the balance of their schedule to tie for the division, 8-1 or better to win it. Do you think they would’ve gone 12-4 or better last year?

 

Edited by Krauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ArthurPensky said:

Heck, before Rodgers was hurt last season the Packers were 12-2 in their previous 14 games with both losses vs the Falcons.

Where are you getting 12-2? 

2016: Weeks 8-16 the Packers went 6-4, Falcons loss came week 8 and was the first of a 4-game losing streak.

2017: Weeks 1-5 the Packers went 4-1.

That's 10-5, am I missing something? 

*I realize that is a 15-game stretch and you said 14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VikeManDan said:

Where are you getting 12-2? 

2016: Weeks 8-16 the Packers went 6-4, Falcons loss came week 8 and was the first of a 4-game losing streak.

2017: Weeks 1-5 the Packers went 4-1.

That's 10-5, am I missing something? 

*I realize that is a 15-game stretch and you said 14.

Was counting Playoff wins when Packers lost to ATL in NFC Championship. Should have noted that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Don’t try to play the victim here. No one’s underrating Rodgers.

His point is that Packers fans want to imagine the season with 16 healthy games from their QB1, but don’t want to allow for injuries affecting other Vikings had 1 healthy game from their QB1 and 3 from their RB1, still went 13-3.

Still wondering what your answer is to my question: if Rodgers stays healthy and the Packers win 4 of their first 5, and split with the Vikings, they need to go 7-2 over the balance of their schedule to tie for the division, 8-1 or better to win it. Do you think they would’ve gone 12-4 or better last year?

 

Yeah and the Vikings backup QB played about as well as their QB1. That obviously didn't happen in GB. GB's QB2 was bad and nowhere near QB12's play.

His point was other teams had big injuries to key players. My counter point was the Packers "poor roster" performed better than those he mentioned. And it wasn't to their QB.

12-4 was possible for GB with #12 playing at the MVP level he was. But not necessarily likely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said:

Yeah and the Vikings backup QB played about as well as their QB1.

Bradford's line from the Saints game: 27/32 for 346, 3 TD, 0 INT, PR 143.0

Keenum wasn't that good. 

Quote

12-4 was possible for GB with #12 playing at the MVP level he was. But not necessarily likely.

Anything is possible, I guess. 

Why do you think they would've won 7 or more of the 9 other games on their schedule (including the Steelers, Ravens, Saints, and Lions twice), when they needed OT to get past Cincinnati at home, and were losing by 24 points entering the 4th quarter in Atlanta? 

Do you think the 2017 Packers team was that much better than 2015 or 2016?

Edited by Krauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said:

Was counting Playoff wins when Packers lost to ATL in NFC Championship. Should have noted that.

Gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Krauser said:

Bradford's line from the Saints game: 27/32 for 346, 3 TD, 0 INT, PR 143.0

Keenum wasn't that good. 

Anything is possible, I guess. 

Why do you think they would've won 7 or more of the 9 other games on their schedule (including the Steelers, Ravens, Saints, and Lions twice), when they needed OT to get past Cincinnati at home, and were losing by 24 points entering the 4th quarter in Atlanta? 

Do you think the 2017 Packers team was that much better than 2015 or 2016?

Oh come on. Keenum was definitely not even close to comparable to how Huntley played. Keenum's play was good and nearly on par with Cousin's career level of play.

Did you watch those Steelers, Ravens, and Saints games in particular? A  offense led by QB12 would surely have made those winnable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×