PDA

View Full Version : Be Careful Statistics. Packers Best D in North?


Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-05-2008, 04:30 PM
Hmmm Interesting. I'm bored so lets debate.

The Packers D was strong last year because overall they were solid in every defensive category. However there are some interesting things I noticed.

Packers 14th in Run Defense last year. Not great, you could be run on, but not terrible 424 attempts. Teams weren't afraid to run on you but passed a little more on you,especially early in the year when Bigby finally settled down.

Vikings 1st in Run Defense. Nobody could run on them. They were dominant. 379 attempts. I see teams refusing to run against them because they were so dominant as opposed to teams passing on them because the pass defense was so weak. The run defense is that strong in Minni.

Packers 11th in Pass Defense last year. Struggled early but got better as the season went on. However, one injury to Woodson or Harris and I think this secondary as any secondary would be is in trouble. Packers have been incredibly healthy beyond belief on defense the last 2 years aside from a few knicks of Woodson and KGB.

Vikings 32nd. One could argue the running game is so dominant that teams only pass on the Vikes. 646 pass attempts on Minnesota. 534 pass attempts on Green Bay. 100 more passes and your secondary is bound to give up that many yards.

Its pretty much 53 yds/game more for Minnesota from 11th ranking to 32nd ranking. However, there were 6.25/pass attempts more per game on Minnesota because of the run dominance by the Vikings. If the QB only completes 3 out of 6.25 passes, which is about 50% the NFL average, then 3 completions would probably equate to that 50 yard difference. Conversely, there was a 28/ yard per game advantage for the Vikings. There were 45 more attempts rushing on GB last year than on Minnesota. At 4.0 yards per carry that is 180 yards more on the Packers. That would reduce the Packers ranking by only 11 yards/game not 28 yards/game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teampass&sort=att&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2007

Another interesting fact. Detroit(37 sacks), Chicago(41) and Minnesota(38) last year(bad pass rush?) had more sacks defensively than the Packers(36). Obviously this doesn't account for pressures(which Detroit didn't have many especially in the second half of the season) but its an interesting stat none the less because sacks are the biggest game changers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teammisc&pos=off&league=nfl&year=2007&season=2

Turnovers, Pack had 19 ints and 13 FF. 32 total. Vikes had 15 ints and 22 FF. 37 total. Detroit had 17 ints and 25 FF. 42 total. Chicago had 24 FF and 16 ints. 40 total. Again the Pack were last in the division in turnovers forced. Obviously, offensive turnovers were the biggest difference as the Packers didn't have as many last year with Favre.

So statistically aside from pass defense with 100 more pass attempts on the Vikings, the Vikings win out defensively in every category.

Points per game is where the Pack defense clinches it last year. Having a high power offense that can take off clock helps and not putting your D in bad situations also helps(which the Vikings O didn't do).

18.2 pts/game for Pack compared to 19.4 pts/g for the Vikings. Not too shaby considering the Vikings inept offense and turnovers by Jackson.

The Pack are good in every category but not dominant. We'll see on that top 5 defense for the Pack in 2008. Plus Harrell has to match this.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5704

neko4
05-05-2008, 04:34 PM
I feel guys like Aj Hawk, Cullen Jenkins and Nick Collins really underachieved. Hawk especially. If we had a good nickel CB and someone who could cover the TE's we'd have a great defense. I dont think we allowed more than 1 or 2 WR's to get over a 100 yards on us, but we allowed 3-5 TE's to get 100+.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-05-2008, 04:45 PM
And I think they have a very good shot at getting better with another year. Nobody thinks anyone will regress but sometimes they do. But the loss of Corey Williams would concern me with his 7 sacks. Sacks from DTs are a very nice thing to have. I know the Lions are going to miss Shaun Rogers 7 sacks even though he loafed it half the time. I'm not saying Harrell can't do it, he played well down the stretch as a role player but 7 sacks is asking a lot to at least match production. Either that or other guys like Jenkins will have to step up.

Collins did underachive but I think Bigby overachieved(an undrafted free agent played very well at the end of the season). Hawk was solid again but I don't think he will ever be a spectacular player. I could easily be wrong though. And nickel corner looks better with Lee but I'll be happy to see Furrey/McDonald matched up against a rookie.

PackerLegend
05-05-2008, 08:00 PM
Ya Hawk, Collins and Jenkins did dissapoint... I think Jenkins did the most. Anyways I would like to point out that the Packers were able to rush for over 100 yards on the Vikings in 1 game a task I dont think any other teams did :D

DaBear89
05-06-2008, 12:55 AM
Bears PA/G: 21.8
only a FG more and we still beat you in takeaways and sacks...

all w/o a starting CB, 3 DTs, our pro bowl DT on 1 leg, our MLB w/ arthritis in his back, and an offense that was led by rex grossman most of the year (that says enough)

i wont even count mr greatest player on IR mike brown =P

sweetness34
05-06-2008, 02:49 AM
Apart from Detroit the North Defenses are sick. If we're healthy we go right back up to the top of the league because we've still got some serious talent.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-06-2008, 08:47 AM
Apart from Detroit the North Defenses are sick. If we're healthy we go right back up to the top of the league because we've still got some serious talent.

I agree. I think all the defenses are solid except for Detroit. But basically looking at these stats, they don't strike the same fear in me as the Bears D of 2005/2006 teams did.

All 3 have solid defenses, but not dominant except for the Vikes in the run D and I can't see the Packers D carrying them if Rodgers struggles this year.

Gay Ork Wang
05-06-2008, 09:02 AM
well the bears had a backup secondary at one point...its just not great playing with all the injuries.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-06-2008, 09:15 AM
well the bears had a backup secondary at one point...its just not great playing with all the injuries.

Tillman only mised one game. Archuleta is just a terrilbe move by the FO and Ricky Manning didn't step up. Losing Vasher hurts though and sometimes injury like that happen. You pretty much have to count on Mike Brown getting injured. If you get 6 games out of him, it should be a success.

The big problem with the Bears IMO, was the loss of Tank Johnson. That run clogging Nose Tackle was sorely missed and Darwin Walker was clearly not the answer and everyone knew he couldn't stop the run and that Adams was a career underachiever(very good at PSU though). The injury to Tommie didn't help but Tommie needs to regain his dominance and somebody maybe the rookie Harrison needs to fill in for Tank.
The run D for Chicago was suprisingly atrocious last year which IMO was the biggest reason for the drop off.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teamrush&sort=ypg&pos=def&league=nfl&year=2007&season=2

Yatta!
05-06-2008, 10:36 AM
Ahhh but you left out the only stat that matters: Green Bay 18.2 points against/game, Minnesota 19.4, Chicago 21.8.

Seriously though, some of those stats are worrying for the Pack but I expect our D to further improve this year and a few more players will step up (hofefully one of the safeties and Jenkins/a DT).

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-06-2008, 10:43 AM
Interesting article on Grants successful day running in the 34-0 win. Fear of Brett Favre gave Grant a great start. Good execution on the 30 yard td run.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/11/14/ramblings/every-play-counts/5750/

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-06-2008, 10:45 AM
Ahhh but you left out the only stat that matters: Green Bay 18.2 points against/game, Minnesota 19.4, Chicago 21.8.

Seriously though, some of those stats are worrying for the Pack but I expect our D to further improve this year and a few more players will step up (hofefully one of the safeties and Jenkins/a DT).

I included that in my post. And a difference between 18.2 and 19.4 doesn't seem like much to me. The NFL is really a week to week, matchup to matchup basis. Catch a team on the right week or just execute and out play them.

Gay Ork Wang
05-06-2008, 11:13 AM
Tillman only mised one game. Archuleta is just a terrilbe move by the FO and Ricky Manning didn't step up. Losing Vasher hurts though and sometimes injury like that happen. You pretty much have to count on Mike Brown getting injured. If you get 6 games out of him, it should be a success.

The big problem with the Bears IMO, was the loss of Tank Johnson. That run clogging Nose Tackle was sorely missed and Darwin Walker was clearly not the answer and everyone knew he couldn't stop the run and that Adams was a career underachiever(very good at PSU though). The injury to Tommie didn't help but Tommie needs to regain his dominance and somebody maybe the rookie Harrison needs to fill in for Tank.
The run D for Chicago was suprisingly atrocious last year which IMO was the biggest reason for the drop off.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teamrush&sort=ypg&pos=def&league=nfl&year=2007&season=2
Did u see though how many yards and Points we let them put up in that game? ;) im just saying we had alot of injuries
We were pretty good against the Chargers too up until the point Dusty got injured

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-06-2008, 11:22 AM
Did u see though how many yards and Points we let them put up in that game? ;) im just saying we had alot of injuries
We were pretty good against the Chargers too up until the point Dusty got injured

I agree, that game for the Lions would have been different if Tillman was playing. Not saying we would have lost but it would have been more difficult. Just like the Lions were different when Roy missed time. Some players you just can't replace, even though you might have a good young player like McBride and Manning the safety played pretty well at corner for 3 quarters in that game. Luckily, we have the 16-7 win with Tillman playing too. I expect Vasher to be back and have a good for you to and I expect the Bears to be tougher on D again. Not dominant enough to carryy you tough like in 05/06 but solid, like the Pack.

I think you can put Dusty in the category of Mike Brown at this point. He very well could rebound and not get injured, heck Grossman has stayed fairly healthy for 2 years, but one or two quarters isn't enough for me to say the run D solution is solved in Chicago. Basically, either Dusty or Harrison need to step up.

johbur
06-03-2008, 11:22 PM
Plus Harrell has to match this.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=5704

Nice write up. I thought the Packers were the best last year in TIMELY defense. They set their feet and wouldn't move when they had to. Besides the at Chicago game. They were a bit raw in places and gave up some points and chunks of yardage, but often when they were ahead due to the offense. Or they'd give up a stack of yards rushing, then jump i and have three stops in a row and force an FG. The other thing about the Packers sacks are the vast majority of them came from their down linemen. They blitzed very little. I think that made it difficult for teams to get playmakers in isolation and score quickly, again contributing to the bend don't break thing that happened.

For GB to be a Top 5 defense, they'll need to be consistently dominant, rather than picking and choosing.

The Vikes had a consistently great run D with a passing defense that didn't impress me.