Let's Talk About Regression (and expectations)
Moderators: NCF, salmar80, BF004, APB, Packfntk
The biggest wildcard is going to be Corona. Who is the doing the testing? What tests? When? You can't trust certain teams. I'm sure Belichick will be giving his guys pregnancy tests. I wouldn't trust the league either. You could lose ten guys for two weeks or be playing strings of games against star depleted teams. This throws out any analysis based on last year.
Good call and I agree. Bill Barnwell and others are looking at historical data and then fitting the 2019 Packers into that data. But a deeper dive offers some additional insight. Even in the "close" games, things were not as they seemed if all you did was look at a boxscore.Waldo wrote: ↑12 Aug 2020 12:21I 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.
There were many games where GB offense started out strong, built a lead and then faltered down the stretch as they worked deeper into the game plan and off of the initial script. See below for an example of that:
1st and 3rd quarters, GB offense was 5th and 6th in scoring
2nd and 4th quarters, GB was much worse at 26th and 27th in scoring.
I don't put a lot of credence into the national media or the aggregate data in terms of assessing the 2019 Packers or in their ability to use history to predict the fate of the 2020 Packers. The overall theme seems to be "the Packers got lucky" and while they enjoyed some good fortune as all winning teams do, they earned a 6-0 record in the division, they earned the #2 seed and they earned a playoff win vs Seattle. Which coincidentally, was another fast start and then hang on kind of game.
All the MLF Packers offense need to do is be more consistent, but they've clearly shown that they can do it in spurts and that's quite encouraging for the first year in a new offense.
IT. IS. TIME
-
- Reactions:
- Posts: 9712
- Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34
That's fascinating! Thanks for that nugget, and welcome aboard! Great first postBSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:39
1st and 3rd quarters, GB offense was 5th and 6th in scoring
2nd and 4th quarters, GB was much worse at 26th and 27th in scoring.
I don't put a lot of credence into the national media or the aggregate data in terms of assessing the 2019 Packers or in their ability to use history to predict the fate of the 2020 Packers. The overall theme seems to be "the Packers got lucky" and while they enjoyed some good fortune as all winning teams do, they earned a 6-0 record in the division, they earned the #2 seed and they earned a playoff win vs Seattle. Which coincidentally, was another fast start and then hang on kind of game.
All the MLF Packers offense need to do is be more consistent, but they've clearly shown that they can do it in spurts and that's quite encouraging for the first year in a new offense.
Thanks for the warm welcome and for all the interesting stats/info you posted around this siteYoHoChecko wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:42
That's fascinating! Thanks for that nugget, and welcome aboard! Great first post
Learning a new offensive language and new scheme isn't easy but MLF and AR had their moments last year and built a solid foundation for 2020.
IT. IS. TIME
That is shocking. And thank you for bringing that point. We noted often on this board of how effective our offense was when it was one script. And it is something to be excited about when we look at what this offense could be when we got the "MLF" way.BSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:39Good call and I agree. Bill Barnwell and others are looking at historical data and then fitting the 2019 Packers into that data. But a deeper dive offers some additional insight. Even in the "close" games, things were not as they seemed if all you did was look at a boxscore.Waldo wrote: ↑12 Aug 2020 12:21I 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.
There were many games where GB offense started out strong, built a lead and then faltered down the stretch as they worked deeper into the game plan and off of the initial script. See below for an example of that:
1st and 3rd quarters, GB offense was 5th and 6th in scoring
2nd and 4th quarters, GB was much worse at 26th and 27th in scoring.
I don't put a lot of credence into the national media or the aggregate data in terms of assessing the 2019 Packers or in their ability to use history to predict the fate of the 2020 Packers. The overall theme seems to be "the Packers got lucky" and while they enjoyed some good fortune as all winning teams do, they earned a 6-0 record in the division, they earned the #2 seed and they earned a playoff win vs Seattle. Which coincidentally, was another fast start and then hang on kind of game.
All the MLF Packers offense need to do is be more consistent, but they've clearly shown that they can do it in spurts and that's quite encouraging for the first year in a new offense.
This offense is not good once we go off script. We go to the 2014 - 2018 backyard school ball of holding onto the ball too long, evading and hoping something opens up. This worked for quite a while because of Jordy Nelson and Rodger's mobility. Rodgers could evade rushers and he always had that safety valve of Jordy coming back to the ball or having an amazing back shoulder catch near the sideline that would move the chains.
But we don't have that anymore and getting off script as you pointed out shows this offense falters quickly.
Again. We knew it was obvious how good we were in the first 2/3 drives of a half...I just didn't think it was that polarizing.
Welcome aboard!
there are actually reasons for OFF SCRIPT, or at least as you are explaining it, the main one imho is that MLF (any OC or play designer) installs and practices all week to use play scheme he think will work, not all do though, typically they will use all of those plays in in the first 15 scripted plays, if successful with some obviously we'll run those plays, when they quite working, and if the defense permits then we'll do the next batch that he thinks will work against what the defense is showing, obviously a lot depends on that.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 10:12That is shocking. And thank you for bringing that point. We noted often on this board of how effective our offense was when it was one script. And it is something to be excited about when we look at what this offense could be when we got the "MLF" way.BSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:39Good call and I agree. Bill Barnwell and others are looking at historical data and then fitting the 2019 Packers into that data. But a deeper dive offers some additional insight. Even in the "close" games, things were not as they seemed if all you did was look at a boxscore.Waldo wrote: ↑12 Aug 2020 12:21I 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.
There were many games where GB offense started out strong, built a lead and then faltered down the stretch as they worked deeper into the game plan and off of the initial script. See below for an example of that:
1st and 3rd quarters, GB offense was 5th and 6th in scoring
2nd and 4th quarters, GB was much worse at 26th and 27th in scoring.
I don't put a lot of credence into the national media or the aggregate data in terms of assessing the 2019 Packers or in their ability to use history to predict the fate of the 2020 Packers. The overall theme seems to be "the Packers got lucky" and while they enjoyed some good fortune as all winning teams do, they earned a 6-0 record in the division, they earned the #2 seed and they earned a playoff win vs Seattle. Which coincidentally, was another fast start and then hang on kind of game.
All the MLF Packers offense need to do is be more consistent, but they've clearly shown that they can do it in spurts and that's quite encouraging for the first year in a new offense.
This offense is not good once we go off script. We go to the 2014 - 2018 backyard school ball of holding onto the ball too long, evading and hoping something opens up. This worked for quite a while because of Jordy Nelson and Rodger's mobility. Rodgers could evade rushers and he always had that safety valve of Jordy coming back to the ball or having an amazing back shoulder catch near the sideline that would move the chains.
But we don't have that anymore and getting off script as you pointed out shows this offense falters quickly.
Again. We knew it was obvious how good we were in the first 2/3 drives of a half...I just didn't think it was that polarizing.
Welcome aboard!
so we often see a series or two of off script because the defense out guessed us and where ready and Rodgers had to add lib, it's easy to blame Rodgers, but often the problem was simply the called play, not always obviously, but I expect it's more then we realize.
welcome to British Small Arms (BSA)
Welcome, [mention]BSA[/mention]!! How did you find us? Tell us a little about yourself if you have some time.BSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:51Thanks for the warm welcome and for all the interesting stats/info you posted around this siteYoHoChecko wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:42
That's fascinating! Thanks for that nugget, and welcome aboard! Great first post
Learning a new offensive language and new scheme isn't easy but MLF and AR had their moments last year and built a solid foundation for 2020.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=159
Read More. Post Less.
- Pckfn23
- Huddle Heavy Hitter
- Reactions:
- Posts: 14474
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020 22:13
- Location: Western Wisconsin
[mention]BSA[/mention] How did you find our small corner of the Packer-verse?! Nice first post BTW.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
You're gonna have a hard time convicing me your point (which I don't know what it was actually).Yoop wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 10:28there are actually reasons for OFF SCRIPT, or at least as you are explaining it, the main one imho is that MLF (any OC or play designer) installs and practices all week to use play scheme he think will work, not all do though, typically they will use all of those plays in in the first 15 scripted plays, if successful with some obviously we'll run those plays, when they quite working, and if the defense permits then we'll do the next batch that he thinks will work against what the defense is showing, obviously a lot depends on that.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 10:12That is shocking. And thank you for bringing that point. We noted often on this board of how effective our offense was when it was one script. And it is something to be excited about when we look at what this offense could be when we got the "MLF" way.BSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:39
Good call and I agree. Bill Barnwell and others are looking at historical data and then fitting the 2019 Packers into that data. But a deeper dive offers some additional insight. Even in the "close" games, things were not as they seemed if all you did was look at a boxscore.
There were many games where GB offense started out strong, built a lead and then faltered down the stretch as they worked deeper into the game plan and off of the initial script. See below for an example of that:
1st and 3rd quarters, GB offense was 5th and 6th in scoring
2nd and 4th quarters, GB was much worse at 26th and 27th in scoring.
I don't put a lot of credence into the national media or the aggregate data in terms of assessing the 2019 Packers or in their ability to use history to predict the fate of the 2020 Packers. The overall theme seems to be "the Packers got lucky" and while they enjoyed some good fortune as all winning teams do, they earned a 6-0 record in the division, they earned the #2 seed and they earned a playoff win vs Seattle. Which coincidentally, was another fast start and then hang on kind of game.
All the MLF Packers offense need to do is be more consistent, but they've clearly shown that they can do it in spurts and that's quite encouraging for the first year in a new offense.
This offense is not good once we go off script. We go to the 2014 - 2018 backyard school ball of holding onto the ball too long, evading and hoping something opens up. This worked for quite a while because of Jordy Nelson and Rodger's mobility. Rodgers could evade rushers and he always had that safety valve of Jordy coming back to the ball or having an amazing back shoulder catch near the sideline that would move the chains.
But we don't have that anymore and getting off script as you pointed out shows this offense falters quickly.
Again. We knew it was obvious how good we were in the first 2/3 drives of a half...I just didn't think it was that polarizing.
Welcome aboard!
so we often see a series or two of off script because the defense out guessed us and where ready and Rodgers had to add lib, it's easy to blame Rodgers, but often the problem was simply the called play, not always obviously, but I expect it's more then we realize.
I maintain that starting in 2014, our team got really good and I mean REEAAAALLLLYYYYY good at the long developing killer play. We were so good at it that we put up ridiculous numbers in the first half against teams like Chicago, Philly, Atlanta. (didn't we put up like 42 points over Chicago in the first half in 2014?)
And we could get away with it for a few reasons.
1. The chemistry with Rodgers and Nelson was insane. Nelson was the safety valve and whenever Rodgers was in trouble, Nelson could come back to the ball and get that last second throw before Rodgers gets hit. Boom...move the chains. Survive for another three downs.
2. When all else fails, Rodgers could hit Nelson on a back shoulder throw that was essentially un-defendable. This was a pass that hardly happened before Rodgers and Nelson did it. They literally invented an athletic play because they were the best ever to execute it. Boom....move the chains. Survive for another three downs.
3. Rodgers hard count making defenses jump. 2014 and September 2015 this was another staple. Once that flag flies, Rodgers had no risk to worry and let it fly and boy his accuracy and our WR talent crushed teams with it.
October 2015, these were taken away. Nelson was on IR. And teams started getting more disciplined on Rodgers's hard count.
Once those went away, our offense just never was able to recover for the exception of December/January (the Eagles game was actually late November) 2016 and October 2019 last year.
Even in 2018, we would talk about how good our offense looked that first drive but then falter after that. There is a problem. I don't have any solutions, but the data shows there is strong correlation and the three items above are my theories of why we started to be exposed.
I was addressing the reasons we do well, very well at times in 1 quarter as opposed to another, and this goes all the way back to 1919go pak go wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 12:55You're gonna have a hard time convicing me your point (which I don't know what it was actually).Yoop wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 10:28there are actually reasons for OFF SCRIPT, or at least as you are explaining it, the main one imho is that MLF (any OC or play designer) installs and practices all week to use play scheme he think will work, not all do though, typically they will use all of those plays in in the first 15 scripted plays, if successful with some obviously we'll run those plays, when they quite working, and if the defense permits then we'll do the next batch that he thinks will work against what the defense is showing, obviously a lot depends on that.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 10:12
That is shocking. And thank you for bringing that point. We noted often on this board of how effective our offense was when it was one script. And it is something to be excited about when we look at what this offense could be when we got the "MLF" way.
This offense is not good once we go off script. We go to the 2014 - 2018 backyard school ball of holding onto the ball too long, evading and hoping something opens up. This worked for quite a while because of Jordy Nelson and Rodger's mobility. Rodgers could evade rushers and he always had that safety valve of Jordy coming back to the ball or having an amazing back shoulder catch near the sideline that would move the chains.
But we don't have that anymore and getting off script as you pointed out shows this offense falters quickly.
Again. We knew it was obvious how good we were in the first 2/3 drives of a half...I just didn't think it was that polarizing.
Welcome aboard!
so we often see a series or two of off script because the defense out guessed us and where ready and Rodgers had to add lib, it's easy to blame Rodgers, but often the problem was simply the called play, not always obviously, but I expect it's more then we realize.
I maintain that starting in 2014, our team got really good and I mean REEAAAALLLLYYYYY good at the long developing killer play. We were so good at it that we put up ridiculous numbers in the first half against teams like Chicago, Philly, Atlanta. (didn't we put up like 42 points over Chicago in the first half in 2014?)
And we could get away with it for a few reasons.
1. The chemistry with Rodgers and Nelson was insane. Nelson was the safety valve and whenever Rodgers was in trouble, Nelson could come back to the ball and get that last second throw before Rodgers gets hit. Boom...move the chains. Survive for another three downs.
2. When all else fails, Rodgers could hit Nelson on a back shoulder throw that was essentially un-defendable. This was a pass that hardly happened before Rodgers and Nelson did it. They literally invented an athletic play because they were the best ever to execute it. Boom....move the chains. Survive for another three downs.
3. Rodgers hard count making defenses jump. 2014 and September 2015 this was another staple. Once that flag flies, Rodgers had no risk to worry and let it fly and boy his accuracy and our WR talent crushed teams with it.
October 2015, these were taken away. Nelson was on IR. And teams started getting more disciplined on Rodgers's hard count.
Once those went away, our offense just never was able to recover for the exception of December/January (the Eagles game was actually late November) 2016 and October 2019 last year.
Even in 2018, we would talk about how good our offense looked that first drive but then falter after that. There is a problem. I don't have any solutions, but the data shows there is strong correlation and the three items above are my theories of why we started to be exposed.
offenses set up defenses to gain mismatches, however depending on the defenses often the mismatches only last a few plays or a few series, then you have to use something else, it explains some of the lop sided scoring by quarters that BSA's post showed.
Rodgers and the receivers where just as dominate in 09, 010, and you couldn't get more dominate in 011, the rest of the team was struggling, yet only two teams where able to slow down our attack, sure I agree Rodgers and Nelson worked and had great chemistry for the back shoulder throw, but he's had the same chemistry with Jennings on the crosses and slants, same with Jones, and in 2014 it was as though Rodgers and Cobb whereon the same headset, Rodgers threw Cobb open on almost every play.
sure it went south and Rodgers was forced to add lib more once he lost those receivers, but to me, and I know you'll disagree, but I don't blame Rodgers for that, when the race car wont run it's just not a driver issue, as the great late Ken Mills would say, fix the freaking breaks
- TheGreenMan
- Reactions:
- Posts: 1709
- Joined: 23 Mar 2020 07:01
- Location: Iowa
Get out while you still can!BSA wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:51Thanks for the warm welcome and for all the interesting stats/info you posted around this siteYoHoChecko wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 09:42
That's fascinating! Thanks for that nugget, and welcome aboard! Great first post
Learning a new offensive language and new scheme isn't easy but MLF and AR had their moments last year and built a solid foundation for 2020.
Welcome BSA.
RIP JustJeff
Yeah but the hole in this argument is you are lumping all offenses in this bucket saying that offense has an advantage over the defense to start. Which I won't contend. But the stat that BSA brought up means that we are SIGNIFICANTLY better than the rest of the league in Q1 and Q2 and SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the rest of the league in Q2 and Q4.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 13:34
I was addressing the reasons we do well, very well at times in 1 quarter as opposed to another, and this goes all the way back to 1919
offenses set up defenses to gain mismatches, however depending on the defenses often the mismatches only last a few plays or a few series, then you have to use something else, it explains some of the lop sided scoring by quarters that BSA's post showed.
We are not comparing Packers scoring in Q1/Q3 vs Packers scoring Q2/Q4 as you are suggesting.
We are comparing Packers scoring in Q1/Q3 vs the league Q1/Q3 and Packers scoring Q2/Q4 vs the league.
Read More. Post Less.
-
- Reactions:
- Posts: 9712
- Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34
The Athletic has a feature on the most likely 2019 playoff teams to miss the 2020 playoffs.
This is the COVER PHOTO of the article: Anyway, despite that, we're ranked as the third most-likely, not the most likely.
Moving on....
Granted, this is written as a hypothetical for how things could unravel, not as the most likely scenario...
But still
This is the COVER PHOTO of the article: Anyway, despite that, we're ranked as the third most-likely, not the most likely.
Moving on....
3. Green Bay Packers
(Last season: 13-3, won NFC North, lost to 49ers in NFC championship)
Path to disappointment: Green Bay doesn’t get nearly as lucky as it did in 2019 when it went 8-1 in one-score games. Matt LaFleur reverts to being one of the most run-heavy play-callers in the NFL. A frustrated Aaron Rodgers tries to change plays at the line of scrimmage, which leads to complete chaos. LaFleur tells the offensive players not to listen to Rodgers. Rodgers tells them not to listen to LaFleur. The team is divided, and the offense is a disaster. Around Week 7, anonymous reports surface about how good Jordan Love has looked in practice. The writing is on the wall. The franchise is ready to move on, and the trade market for Rodgers becomes the dominant storyline of the 2021 offseason.
Granted, this is written as a hypothetical for how things could unravel, not as the most likely scenario...
But still
Very good stuff in this thread.
My gut feeling is that due to exceptional circumstances of this year, our possible overachieving of last year can be balanced by positives that come with the continuity factors.
This is not the year to start rookies, change schemes, have a big roster churn, nor to have rookie coaches. The Packers are essentially set at vast majority of premium positions, and there was no purge of coaches - both are great things to have when reps are very scarce. While continuity is more boring than last year's exciting off-season, it's likely a good thing this particular year.
Sure, a few rookie phenoms around the league will come in and look natural, but most rookie starters will likely struggle (and can be exploited) while learning on the fly. Heck, last year Savage was considered to have a fine rookie season, yet even he got burned BAD on several big plays due to experience-related misreads. Teams that try scheme changes are likely limited by how much of the new they can actually practice and perfect.
Those close-score wins of last year may turn to losses, health will be the major component in that (knock, knock), but no one seems to be considering they also could turn into multi-score wins.
My gut feeling is that due to exceptional circumstances of this year, our possible overachieving of last year can be balanced by positives that come with the continuity factors.
This is not the year to start rookies, change schemes, have a big roster churn, nor to have rookie coaches. The Packers are essentially set at vast majority of premium positions, and there was no purge of coaches - both are great things to have when reps are very scarce. While continuity is more boring than last year's exciting off-season, it's likely a good thing this particular year.
Sure, a few rookie phenoms around the league will come in and look natural, but most rookie starters will likely struggle (and can be exploited) while learning on the fly. Heck, last year Savage was considered to have a fine rookie season, yet even he got burned BAD on several big plays due to experience-related misreads. Teams that try scheme changes are likely limited by how much of the new they can actually practice and perfect.
Those close-score wins of last year may turn to losses, health will be the major component in that (knock, knock), but no one seems to be considering they also could turn into multi-score wins.
- RingoCStarrQB
- Reactions:
- Posts: 4174
- Joined: 24 Mar 2020 19:56
[/quote]
welcome to British Small Arms (BSA)
[/quote]
Maybe the BSA motorcycle...maybe not. Could the "A" be for ARTIST (another type on this forum).
welcome to British Small Arms (BSA)
[/quote]
Maybe the BSA motorcycle...maybe not. Could the "A" be for ARTIST (another type on this forum).
man, the National media are REALLY down on the 2020 Packers...which is awesome from a betting POV. I just saw Packers at 28: 1 for the Super Bowl and that's really enticing. I haven't seen a number that big in a very long time.
If you look at the Packers in terms of premium positions, GB is very well stocked
If you look at the Packers in terms of continuity on both sides of the ball, Packers are in better shape than many, coming in 2nd place in the article at The Athletic that measured coaching/player changes
"So how can we measure which teams have the most continuity and which have the least? Below are three key factors.
Coaching: Is the team bringing back the same head coach, offensive play-caller and defensive play-caller?
Quarterback: Does the team have the same starter as last season?
Expected returning snaps: Using The Athletic’s team-by-team 53-man roster projections, we can look at which players are expected back. We can then determine the percentage of expected returning snaps — both on offense and defense — from last season.
number 1 was KC, GB came in 2nd across entire NFL
2. Green Bay Packers (91.9)
Largely because of the first-round trade-up and selection of quarterback Jordan Love, it feels like a lot has happened with the Packers this offseason. But while there could be scheme changes related to Matt LaFleur running the ball at a higher rate, Green Bay is mostly bringing back the same team it had in 2019. The Packers have the same head coach, offensive play-caller (LaFleur), defensive play-caller (Mike Pettine) and quarterback (Aaron Rodgers). Offensively, the Packers return 79.1 percent of their snaps from last season (eighth), and defensively they are at 74.8 percent (sixth). The defense, specifically, could take a step forward with a lot of the same players operating in the same scheme.
.
If you look at the Packers in terms of premium positions, GB is very well stocked
If you look at the Packers in terms of continuity on both sides of the ball, Packers are in better shape than many, coming in 2nd place in the article at The Athletic that measured coaching/player changes
"So how can we measure which teams have the most continuity and which have the least? Below are three key factors.
Coaching: Is the team bringing back the same head coach, offensive play-caller and defensive play-caller?
Quarterback: Does the team have the same starter as last season?
Expected returning snaps: Using The Athletic’s team-by-team 53-man roster projections, we can look at which players are expected back. We can then determine the percentage of expected returning snaps — both on offense and defense — from last season.
number 1 was KC, GB came in 2nd across entire NFL
2. Green Bay Packers (91.9)
Largely because of the first-round trade-up and selection of quarterback Jordan Love, it feels like a lot has happened with the Packers this offseason. But while there could be scheme changes related to Matt LaFleur running the ball at a higher rate, Green Bay is mostly bringing back the same team it had in 2019. The Packers have the same head coach, offensive play-caller (LaFleur), defensive play-caller (Mike Pettine) and quarterback (Aaron Rodgers). Offensively, the Packers return 79.1 percent of their snaps from last season (eighth), and defensively they are at 74.8 percent (sixth). The defense, specifically, could take a step forward with a lot of the same players operating in the same scheme.
.
IT. IS. TIME
- Pckfn23
- Huddle Heavy Hitter
- Reactions:
- Posts: 14474
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020 22:13
- Location: Western Wisconsin
Trendy pick ONLY because we won so many games under 7 points. Zero analysis otherwise. Will we win 13 games again? Doubtful. Are we better as a team in 2020? Yes.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
-
- Reactions:
- Posts: 9712
- Joined: 26 Mar 2020 11:34
Yeah, honestly, the analytic-based regression stories don't bother me, because they talk about the luck factors and the feats that are statisticlly unlikely to happen again.
The mentions that not only were we "not as good as our record" last year, but that we've gotten worse are what grind my gears. It's a heavily draft-centric view. That's why many (admittedly, not all) claim the Vikings got better--because of their massive draft haul. But continuity matters much more (especially this year) than having a prime stable of rookies.
I think, like 23 said, we're a better team this year (based on the net of personnel changes and the strong likelihood for improvement in the schemes) with a good chance at a slightly worse record.
the only hole in my argument is the one your trying to dig just because we scheme solid mismatches in Q 1 and 3 versus Q 2 and 4 is directly involved with the way defenses adjust to our offense and eliminate the mis matches, and Offense normally does have a advantage over defenses to start a game, offense knows what it's going to do, and defense has to react to it, all things equal, of course offense has the advantage, only your most dominate defenses do, even then it's debatable.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 14:12Yeah but the hole in this argument is you are lumping all offenses in this bucket saying that offense has an advantage over the defense to start. Which I won't contend. But the stat that BSA brought up means that we are SIGNIFICANTLY better than the rest of the league in Q1 and Q2 and SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the rest of the league in Q2 and Q4.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Aug 2020 13:34
I was addressing the reasons we do well, very well at times in 1 quarter as opposed to another, and this goes all the way back to 1919
offenses set up defenses to gain mismatches, however depending on the defenses often the mismatches only last a few plays or a few series, then you have to use something else, it explains some of the lop sided scoring by quarters that BSA's post showed.
We are not comparing Packers scoring in Q1/Q3 vs Packers scoring Q2/Q4 as you are suggesting.
We are comparing Packers scoring in Q1/Q3 vs the league Q1/Q3 and Packers scoring Q2/Q4 vs the league.
last year being MLF's first reflects a smaller playbook, hense it's hard to create more mis matches, imo thats why you see lope sided scoring quarters, when you run out of plays to create them obviously defenses will adjust to stop them, which happened to us in the 2nd and 4th quarters, as I said the game has always been this way.
think of it like a battle field war, we assault, try to hold ground, regroup and plan for another assault, same thing