Let's Talk About Regression (and expectations)

[YoHoChecko]

Ok, so there's been a lot of talk about the Packers regressing this year--mostly the analytical crowd. Recently, there's been a spatte of articles about it. So let's look at some evidence:

From Bill Barnwell's Teams Most Likely to Decline in 2020:

• Point Differential

Most 13-3 teams blow out their competition. Green Bay didn't have many of those blowouts. Forty-eight teams have gone 13-3 since 1989, and they outscored their competition by an average of more than 150 points, or 9.4 points per game. Matt LaFleur's team outscored its opponents by 63 points -- less than 4 points per contest. It's the worst point differential for a team with this record over the past 31 seasons and the fourth-largest gap between a team's win-loss record and expected win-loss record over that time frame.

• Close Games

The Packers were 6-1 in games decided by seven points or fewer (and that's not including two eight-point wins). As tempting as it is to ascribe that to Rodgers' brilliance, he was just 34-34-1 as a starter in those same games before 2019. Is it possible that the difference between LaFleur and oft-criticized game manager Mike McCarthy was enough to turn this team into a late-game juggernaut? Theoretically, yes, although there has never been a coach in league history who won anything close to 85% of his close games over any significant length of time. The overwhelming evidence suggests that they won't win as many of these close ones in 2020.

• Health

What will slow down the Packers? To start, they're not likely to be as healthy. While star wideout Davante Adams missed time, Rodgers started all 16 games. Guard Lane Taylor missed the entire season after suffering a preseason injury, but their five other linemen made it through all 16 games without any missed time. Likewise, while linebacker Oren Burks went down with a torn pectoral muscle before the season, the 11 projected starters on defense missed a total of four games throughout the regular season. Those preseason injuries count, of course, but Green Bay's depth wasn't really tested.

• Interception/Turnover Variation

The Packers improved from 29th in defensive DVOA to 15th, in part because they were able to come up with 17 interceptions. Expressed on a per-play basis, they picked off 3.1% of opposing passes last season, which was third in the league behind the Patriots (an amazing 4.7%) and Steelers (3.9%).

Relying on a steady dose of interceptions to fuel your defense, especially with big stops at the right time, can be tough. The Packers' interception rate should fall in 2020. Their fumble recovery rate should improve, as they ranked 30th in the league at just 41.2%, but they are also counting on Rodgers to continue producing virtually unprecedented interception rates. He posted the lowest interception rate in league history in 2018 and then followed it with the sixth-lowest interception rate in league history last season. Rodgers' interception rate had never been an issue, but it had also not been astronomically low before 2018. I would expect it to climb at least a tiny bit this season, and for Green Bay to struggle to keep up the plus-12 turnover differential it posted a year ago.

• Red Zone acumen

It's also difficult to imagine the Packers being quite as dominant on both sides of the football in the red zone, given how inconsistent red zone performance is from year to year. Assigning 6.95 points for a touchdown (given the estimated chances of an extra point) and three for a field goal, last season they scored 5.17 points per red zone trip on offense and allowed 4.41 points each time the opposing offense entered the red zone. Both marks ranked in the top 10 in the league.

If you take the difference between those two performances, you could say that the Packers had a red zone differential of 0.76 points per trip. That was the third-best mark in football a year ago, trailing only the Ravens and Vikings. Go back through 2001, and there are 91 teams that posted a red zone differential greater than 0.6 points per possession. The following season, those teams' average red zone differential was 0.13 points per trip, falling almost all the way to average. They also declined by an average of nearly two full wins over the prior season.

• Division Dominance

One other place I'd be worried about the Packers keeping up their 2019 formula is within the NFC North. Rodgers & Co. went 6-0 in the North last season despite outscoring the Bears, Lions and Vikings by a little more than six points per game. Since the NFL went to its current format in 2002, 21 other teams have swept their divisions in a given season. Just one repeated the feat the following year, with those 21 teams averaging 3.3 divisional wins the following campaign. Green Bay's schedule outside the division isn't particularly onerous, but the North should be tougher for them this season.

From Aaron Schatz's Ranking the Most Likely First to Worst Teams for 2020

• DVOA

The Packers were a good team last year, but they were a good team masquerading as a great team. The Packers had the second-lowest DVOA since 1985 for any team that finished 13-3, and finished 10th in the league.

• Point Differential

They had only 9.8 Pythagorean projected wins, based solely on points scored and allowed.

• Close Games

Green Bay finished the regular season 8-1 in one-score games.

From Football Outsiders' Scramble for the Ball: NFC North Over/Unders

• Actual Talent

If Green Bay's brain trust wasn't in love with the receivers, fine -- but why not a defensive tackle, after the Packers' line got run over early and often, most notably against the 49ers in the NFC Championship Game? Why not an inside linebacker -- they were so undermanned there in 2019 they had to basically stick in dime on nearly every snap, and that was before losing Blake Martinez? Why not an offensive lineman to patch up the other guard spot, or to replace the departed Bryan Bulaga? Ricky Wagner and Christian Kirksey do not move the needle for me in any way, shape, or form, so the Packers are really just trying to run back a lesser version of their squad from last season and hope that that's good enough. Davante Adams is basically the entire receiving corps -- Allen Lazard was promising in a small sample size, but that's not something I would be confident about going forward, while offseason pickup Devin Funchess A) is not good, and B) will be sitting the season out anyway. And that's all before we get to the fact that, well, Aaron Rodgers isn't AARON RODGERS anymore. Don't get me wrong, he's still good, and can still make plays that no one else in the league can, but he has lost the every-down consistency that made him one of, if not the, best passer in the league in the early part of last decade.

I feel they've gotten worse in the offseason.

• DVOA

the basic argument is: they weren't as good as their record was last year; their DVOA was more along the lines of a nine- or 10-win team

(worth noting that the other author in this piece made a counter-argument for why the team had improved in terms of talent and is more likely to hit 10 wins this year, but that didn't tie in with regression themes).

Conclusions

What we have here is a fairly comprehensive set of traits and achievements from last year that often lead to win-loss regression the following year. DVOA measures team efficiency. So our efficiency wasn't as good as most 13-3 teams, our close games and point differential both indicate that we were a bit lucky to get some of the wins we got and that isn't repeatable, the turnover numbers will be difficult to maintain, and the team was relatively healthy last year. All of these have been shown to have been difficult to maintain from season to season.

Personally, I have long accepted that the team that went 13-3 last year may go 10-6 or 11-5 the next year (or would have gone 10-6 or 11-5 in most years had we a multiverse to play out the season over and over again). That seems reasonable to me.

Of note, only ONE of these columns mentions actual changes in talent (they all do mention the draft but not in a substantive way).At leats one author thinks the team got a little worse last year. Most tend to stick with the general theme that the draft didn't make them tangibly better.

My take on this has been on display all offseason. First, I do not think the 2020 draft will make very many teams tangibly better for most of 2020 given the nature of the offseason. Second, I do believe that AJ Dillon makes us tangibly better late in the year.
Third, the non-draft part:
Personnel Changes:
- EQSB > Allison
- Kirksey > Martinez
- Wagner < Bulaga
- Sterngerger/Tonyan = Graham

Other Potential Improvements
- 2nd year jumps for Gary and Savage
- 2nd year int he MLF offense has historically yielded improved QB play
- Continuity (very few major changes to our personnel and coaching staffs)

In short, I expect the Packers to put a slightly better product on the field next year than last year. However, I totally buy that close game and health luck had a part in our record. I am expecting maybe a 3 game revision toward the mean (since most analytics say the Packers were closer to a 10-win team last year) impact with a 1-game improvement of the team impact netting out to an 11-5 team this year. Those are my expectations.

I'd be interested to see how people feel about the case for regression and the Packers' likelihood or not to weather those storms.

[go pak go]

I don't argue these assessments at all. I think we all saw the "luck" go in our favor last year and we won games that probably was above our standard deviation of a season last year. I think we were good last year. I think we were still likely a top 2 or 3 team but I agree we had a lot go our way.

I like your analysis of how our team actually likely did improve. I think it did too. I also think our WR group got better and I think simply better play from Rodgers is the largest wildcard here. When he is Rodgers October, we are an elite team. When he is Rodgers of December, we are not an elite. Yet what is so encouraging is even Roders was garbage, he was at his worst IMO during December, we were undefeated. Our team for the first time won last year despite poor quarterback play. I still can't believe we beat Minnesota at US Bank Stadium.

And yoop, this is not a post to talk about "how do you expect Rodgers to put up great numbers with these garbage receivers". I am talking about games like Detroit and Minnesota where our offense was so ineffective and yet our team still found a way to eke it out. And yes, Rodgers's accuracy was part of that offensive ineffectiveness.

I also think we have an unfair representation of games where they "appear close" by score, but the game in reality was never really in question. We were clearly the better team in the following games:

Detroit (both)
Minnesota
Carolina
Washington
Chicago

All games were decided by one score or less...but honestly we were in a pretty comfortable position in all of them for the exception of Detroit where it was close because we just play BAD. And I mean horrifically bad.

So really if we can just put together consistent football, I think this team definitely has the talent to be a top tier team again. Will it happen? Data would suggest no. But there is the potential for upside because the 2019 Packers were just so new and that could have led to some of our inconsistencies.

[BF004]

Well yeah, 13-3 is not a sustainable record short of Brady and hoodie, law of averages definitely will push for a record regression.

No reason we can't be a better team with some in house progression and comfort in the new system and coaching.

But I have mentioned this offseason more than once I do not think we got better this offseason.

Should be in competition for the division title, I think 10-6 is a fair estimate. Which I'm guessing more often than not will not be good enough to win the division, although I can't think of a team in our division that got better this offseason on paper.

[YoHoChecko]

I also think we have an unfair representation of games where they "appear close" by score, but the game in reality was never really in question. We were clearly the better team in the following games:

Detroit (both)
Minnesota
Carolina
Washington
Chicago

I find this point particularly salient because for a team like the Saints, listen:

Leaving the turnovers aside, it was impressive to see the Saints continue their mastery of one-score games. With Brees and Payton both around (leaving out the season in which Payton was suspended), the Saints were 40-37 in one-score games before 2018. They went 5-1 in games decided by seven points or fewer in 2018 and then 6-1 in those same games in 2019.

Have they established a formula for winning the close ones? I'm skeptical as always, but they weren't quite as lucky as their record indicated. Two of their six wins came in games in which the opposing team scored a touchdown in the final 20 seconds to make it a seven-point game, with the final score not representative of the actual contest itself. The Saints struggled a bit with the Cowboys and Jaguars, but New Orleans' defense held up in the fourth quarter to seal a pair of Bridgewater-led victories.

The only games you could really argue the Saints won by the skin of their teeth were their other two victories.

Here, the author looks at the actual conditions of the close games, rather than simply the numbers, and tries to will them away. It's something I've seen pretty consistently in recent years as talking heads fawn over the Saints. The Saints' close games are clutch, other teams' close games are unimpressive. The Saints' over-reliance on just one receiving weapon makes Michael Thomas the world's best WR; the Packers' over-reliance on Adams means the Packers aren't helping Rodgers. The Saints' early playoff losses are bad luck and missed penalties; other teams "choke." I can't really explain it. I'm not sure why it's true. But there's just been this mystique around rooting for the Saints since Katrina, I guess. The fact that the Rodgers Packers and the Brees Saints have had nearly identical longer-term outcomes would shock people, since the Saints have a "better coach" and "the best roster in football." I was dying to play the Saints in the playoffs last year.

[NCF]

I believe in every given Sunday, I really do, but I also believe more and more that the schedule plays a huge factor in how teams perform compared to expected wins. Looking at our schedule for this season, I think it sets up really, really favorably for us to repeat our 13-3 record.

We have a tough opening schedule, but one that I think allows us to get to the Bye Week at 3-1 (at the worst). Minnesota, an average team, in their house without fans, with all of their offseason losses, and that sets up as a common opponent in a slop-fest, first-game back from break that benefits us, big time. Gotta win our home games (even if they are more neutral than ever) and have to take care of business in the division. So, for argument sake, we beat Minnesota, Detroit, and Atlanta, but lose to New Orleans. 3-1 heading into the Bye.

Coming off the Bye is the pivotal point of the whole schedule. Road games against Tampa and Houston. Its our only back-to-back road trip on the whole schedule. It won't be easy, but let's say we get 'er done. From there, the schedule is not really that intimidating. Let's take another loss in SF and let's split the @ Indy game and against Philly and we're 13-3, again.

We have to stay healthy and take care of business. There will be tough games... Chicago twice, @ Detroit, maybe Tennessee, but honestly, if we stay healthy and make some improvements on offense within the system and on defense from continued growth of personnel, why do we think this team is not going to be as good? Cuz WR? ILB? Please. Momentum is a powerful thing and if we get through Tampa and Houston at 5-1, I think we can really start rolling down hill again, which is pretty much what we did last season.

[go pak go]

Yeah we have gone over essentially ad nausiam of how similar Sean Payton and Mike McCarthy are and yet it seems to be a verifiable fact in everyone's mind that Payton is clearly the better coach.

I will say though I think one advantage we have this year is I honestly believe our division is worse than last year. I think Minnesota is taking a huge step back. I actually believe Detroit might be our biggest competition.

We were undefeated in the division last year. I think we can again this year and being successful in the division is step 1 of having a great record.

I just really wished Seattle had beaten SF last year. 1, we would have hosted SF in the NFC Title game. 2, I would much rather play at Seattle than SF. Especially because the NFL were dirty bullies and are having us fly there for a Thursday Night game.

That is a load sh*t from the schedulers.

[YoHoChecko]

Coming off the Bye is the pivotal point of the whole schedule. Road games against Tampa and Houston. Its our only back-to-back road trip on the whole schedule. It won't be easy, but let's say we get 'er done. From there, the schedule is not really that intimidating.

I agree with the bulk of what you're saying, but I can also imagine a scenario in which we're 3-3 through the first 6 games and then finish 11-5. The schedule does set up nicely if we take care of business early; but it also sets us up to potentially hit some road blocks early.

[go pak go]

The big wildcard in all of this is the complete lack of offseason, physical practices and relying on players to stay in shape and study on their own.

There is just such a large variable in the 2020 preparation. Who is sick. Who is not sick. Who is able to practice. Who is better at watching film compared to needing to be physically taught....

It is why I have always said the 2020 season will have an asterisk on it.

[YoHoChecko]

I will say though I think one advantage we have this year is I honestly believe our division is worse than last year. I think Minnesota is taking a huge step back. I actually believe Detroit might be our biggest competition.

I think we're really overlooking a Chicago team that went 8-8 despite horrific QB play and should likely see some improvement at that spot this year, but same general point. I think the fight for second place will be fascinating, but I honestly think we're head and shoulders above the rest.

In 2021 and 2022 when the Vikings have identified the stars from their 12-person draft haul this year, look out. That's a potential infusion. But in 2020 I don't see them as a giant hurdle.

[NCF]

Coming off the Bye is the pivotal point of the whole schedule. Road games against Tampa and Houston. Its our only back-to-back road trip on the whole schedule. It won't be easy, but let's say we get 'er done. From there, the schedule is not really that intimidating.

I agree with the bulk of what you're saying, but I can also imagine a scenario in which we're 3-3 through the first 6 games and then finish 11-5. The schedule does set up nicely if we take care of business early; but it also sets us up to potentially hit some road blocks early.

I go back to 2015 where those losses in Denver and Carolina really opened the flood gates for us to struggle the rest of the year after a 6-0 start. Its another reason why the whole Run the Table stretch was so unique and fun... it rarely ever happens. We can have absolutely any combination of things happen, but I truly believe that if we stumble to 3-3 out of the gates, we are in line for a very similar, middling finish.

[NCF]

I think we're really overlooking a Chicago team that went 8-8 despite horrific QB play and should likely see some improvement at that spot this year, but same general point.

I agree. Chicago played us really tough last year and I expect that will continue.

[YoHoChecko]

I go back to 2015 where those losses in Denver and Carolina really opened the flood gates for us to struggle the rest of the year after a 6-0 start. Its another reason why the whole Run the Table stretch was so unique and fun... it rarely ever happens. We can have absolutely any combination of things happen, but I truly believe that if we stumble to 3-3 out of the gates, we are in line for a very similar, middling finish.

Just to clarify....

your original point was that the schedule sets up very nicely for us to go 8-2 over the final 10 games of the season. But IF we lose three of those tougher early games, you suddenly have no faith that the schedule sets up well for us to go 8-2 in the final 10?

[YoHoChecko]

By the way, the list of teams most likely to regress were, in order of most likely to less likely:
1. Packers
2. Seahwaks
3. Texans
4. Saints

The Most likely to go from first to worst were, in order from most likely to least likely,
1. Texans
2. 49ers!
3. Packers
4. Patriots
5. Eagles
6. Ravens
7. Chiefs
8. Saints

[BF004]

NFC West doesn't have a bad team in it. Probably the biggest factor there.

[Waldo]

I think we have to throw out a lot of the arguments, esp on the offensive side of the ball, due to the MLF factor. GB had a new coach and installed a new offense. Strategy changed relatively drastically last year. MLF's offense was not tailored very well to his players and had basically no lessons learned feedback.

I mean, obviously MLF spent the offseason burning last season's 3rd down playsheet and working on something new. He also spent the offseason drawing up pass plays for his star RB that turned out to be a WAY better receiver than anyone expected.

Last year at this time we were hoping he'd figure out what MM never seemed to, that Jones was a much better runner than Williams and there was no reason to split their carries evenly. And that he's a weapon that shouldn't be forgotten. MLF did figure that out thankfully.

MM's offense looked like garbage at first too; there were signs of improvement during that first year which led to optimism, but we really didn't see the real MM offense until year 2. I expect a pretty dramatic transformation. And it isn't a thing that you need a billion reps to solve, its #12 and MLF and the coaches sitting down and hashing out tactics and strategy given what they learned last year.

And to borrow a theme from another thread, one of the things that "made" GB last year is that they were on the verge of an elite unit, which fueled many of their wins. GB's pass rush was absolutely brutal at times, and many of those times were when it needed to be. Think about how many of those close games (or otherwise too close for comfort) were put away with our D on the field wreaking havoc behind the LOS. And they really didn't need to add to it to improve, improvement from within is relatively likely. Argue what you will about Gary, but he was quite effective when on the field and was just a rookie. Yes they ran into SF which was totally able to destroy GB's elite unit with their own; what good is a great pass rush if the opposing offense doesn't pass? But I don't think an elite unit mismatch clash like that is likely again; an elite pass rush is historically potent for making runs, it was basically all the Giant's had, and luck.

[YoHoChecko]

I agree with a lot of those points, Waldo, but I also don't think that means you "throw out" the other arguments. You just have to also include these. Like I said, I think that an improvement due primarily to what you are discussing of about 1 game makes perfect sense (I could see an argument for 2, even), but I net that with the factors that we don't have as much control over--like health and close game and turnover luck.

It's always tempting to look at an analytical analysis and explain why you're the exception--and maybe we are. But most of the time, we'll be the rule.

Maybe not every single one of these factors will regress, but there are SO many markers for common regression teams for us that it's difficult to ignore or throw out altogether.

[Waldo]

But DVOA and all these sorts of analysis necessarily combine both O and D.

I just think its almost comical to think GB's offense is going to be much like last year. Surely MLF now realizes he has a Marshall Faulk tier talent at RB and should use him accordingly. I have argued since draft day, pre-draft even, that adding a RB to "free up" Jones for more passing work was to me the most obvious avenue for our offense to see massive improvement. Our offensive performance was night and day different in effectiveness depending on the RB on the field. All the focus on the receivers really missed the point.

I think we are going to see a return to being a top tier offense this year. But it isn't going to look anything like an MM flood the field with receivers offense. Lets just say I think it'd be a good year to have Jones in fantasy.

[lupedafiasco]

I do expect the record to get worse but expectations should be Super Bowl after finishing 2nd in the NFC. Not sure if that happens after looking at offseason moves by both the Packers and 9ers. A first place schedule combined with a couple balls bouncing the wrong way could lead to a bit of a drop off in wins.

The offense should improve. The only loss they had was at RT. Its clearly a downgrade going from maybe the 2nd or 3rd best RT in the league to Wagner. ML saod that position is an open competition but theres no way Wagner doesnt win that spot. Still there should be a natural progression with another year in the system. The passing game cant get worse. Theyve added by subtracting Graham. Sternberger and Deguara offer more in the passing and blocking game than Graham who just clearly didnt have it anymore to get open or make in air adjustments. Adding Dillon is going to be an upgrade over Williams when Jones needs a break. Sometimes the offense really stalled when Williams got in. You have to think the WRs are going to be better. They didnt have any significant losses meanwhile getting ESB back from IR. Lazard and MVS should improve although I believe MVS just doesnt have the nuances to go along with his elite athleticism. At RG its hard to see us paying Turner so much not to play but thats probably the best move if this is a competition based on skill. Turner has to be one of the worst starting guards in the league. Hes improved every year in the league but from where he started its not saying much. Its like saying a haunch of &%$@ started to smell better over time. I could see one of the rookies taking over this position eventually or even Taylor taking over although the gap between Turner and Taylor is a small one.

On defense things can only improve. The only significant loss that is up in the air is losing Williams who was pretty consistent. Still I think what the team has in Sullivan and Hollman is enough to overcome the loss. I am pulling for Hollman winning that role and moving Alexander inside but playing Sullivan inside wouldnt be so bad. I feel Alexander could shine on the inside and keep him from where hes struggled taking on double moves on the outside. Hollman has the athleticism and press an skills to hang on the boundary with reps. Sullivan lacks the range but seems to excel in a zone scheme. Kirkseys range will be a plus over Martinez but if he goes down again for the year we are royally screwed. The other LB position will be interesting. Summers and Burks both have the range and athleticism but Summers tackling last preseason was atrocious. Burks has had durability issues that was really slowed his progression. He needs to take a step and I think gets first crack at the position. Greene probably takes over the dime LB role. He was good there before getting hurt but it was a small sample size. Hopefully he added some bulk to his frame to hold up better against the run. The defensive line is my main concern. I said it was the biggest need in the offseason. I really dont know what they do if Clark gets hurt. I think the talent here is worse than WR. They need something from Keke in year two. Lowry at this point is what he is. Hes tall and athletic but his reach causes him to get locked out in the run game and controlled. Lancaster can hold his ground but he doesnt make any plays either and definitely cant rush the passer. Maybe someone steps up as an unsung hero but I think this position group struggles again. The hope would be they can get Gary on the field either playing the edge and moving Z inside or just play Gary inside. Either way they need to find a way to get a 12th overall pick on the field but I think that also puts someone out of position. Finally the development of Savage is going to be one of the biggest needs on this entire team. His run support and tackling really needs to improve. Great defenses dont give up big plays. A few times he struggled with his open field tackling and pursuit angles. For all the speed he has he should be able to limit thoe big plays but at times he was a liability. Giving the defense a 2nd chance on broken plays would be huge moving forward. Sometimes I felt he was to passive to make a play. All of this will come in time but if we can extend offenses drives it gives more chances to hold or even get a turnover.

[Pckfn23]

12 teams in NFL history have followed up a 13+ win season with a 13+ win season. No team has ever done it 3 seasons in a row.

[Yoop]

this has to be one of the best football conversations this year, thanks everyone that contributed, I tend to agree, this season is very unpredictable, very little actual practice which is needed to coach up the installs, and for that reason I don't think MLF will be able to accomplish all of his plans, I tend to agree, a guy like Jones could be a quick study to spark the offense, I think the small sampling of his receiving ability was do mostly to limited designed plays for him, to me that would be a easy fix, and I expect more play action, and 22 scheme.

hopefully we enjoy the team health we did last year, I figured 11-5 or 12-4, and I still think thats realistic, how can you lose to predict the very best teams last year will regress, if 3 do you can brag that you where mostly right