General Packer News 2021

[YoHoChecko]

Ohhhh this playoff odds update is pretty

image.png (23.19 KiB) Viewed 646 times

We finally got over 13 projected wins (I've been waiting for that, oddly)

Our odds for the 1-seed nearly doubled from last week. Our odds of finishing below a 2-seed are small AF

Our weighted DVOA is now the highest it's been all season, indicating that we're playing better lately--i.e. peaking at the right time.

FootballOutsiders also dedicated most of their weekly Team DVOA column to discussing the reasons why the Packers' DVOA isn't as good as their record, and so there's plenty of interesting Packers nuggets in the article, while I'll post but doesn't make sense without some of the charts if you want to click.

Packers vs. Pythagoras (and DVOA)

Another very close game this week was Green Bay over Baltimore, where the Packers pulled out a win in part because the Ravens went for 2 and the win and failed. (2-point conversions, by the way, are not included in DVOA because they are so rare.) This game had 10.8% DVOA for Green Bay and 3.7% DVOA for Baltimore. That rating for Green Bay is very close to the Packers' rating for the entire season, which is currently 11.6%. The Packers went up a little bit in DVOA this week because of shifts in opponent adjustments but overall this win had no effect on their DVOA rating despite making the Packers the first team to clinch a playoff spot and giving them the inside track on the No. 1 seed in the NFC. Despite having a lower DVOA than their NFC rivals, Green Bay now wins the No. 1 seed in two-thirds of our playoff simulations.

There's been a lot of criticism of DVOA for having Green Bay too low this year, so let's talk about them some more. The Packers are an interesting team because they started with a horrible game against the Saints in Week 1 and have played well the rest of the way... but not too well. Here's the Green Bay week-to-week graph. You'll notice that the Packers have DVOA above average for every single game since Week 2, including their two other losses (Week 9 to Kansas City and Week 11 to Minnesota). In fact, if you removed the Week 1 game, the Packers would have a variance of 2.3%, which would not only be the lowest for any team this year but the lowest ever measured in Football Outsiders history.

[Packers week-by-week graph]

The best teams in DVOA tend to build their ratings with dominant victories. The Packers don't have many of those. Their 17-0 win over Seattle in Week 10 is certainly dominating on the scoreboard, although the DVOA for that game is surprisingly low (33.4%). A Week 3 win over San Francisco is Green Bay's only game over 50% DVOA. By comparison, the Bills and Rams each have five games that strong while four other teams have three of those games: Dallas, New England, San Francisco, and Tampa Bay.

It's not like the Packers' close games are "flukes." As noted above, they come out with a positive DVOA for every single one of their wins. They have a number of mid-level wins over mediocre teams, beating Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Washington by two scores apiece around midseason. They just don't have the big wins that are typical of a team that starts the season 11-3.

A good way to look at this is with something simpler than DVOA: points scored and allowed. If you read Football Outsiders regularly, you know we convert points scored and allowed into a win projection using what we call Pythagorean wins. Right now, the Packers are outperforming their Pythagorean projection by more than any other team in the league. It's not a historic amount that's going to come close to setting any records, but it's a lot. The Packers have outscored opponents by 57 points which projects to 8.5 wins, ninth in the league. That's a 2.5-win difference with their actual record, which is pretty big. And here's the thing: This is not just because they lost to New Orleans 38-3 on the opening Sunday. If you take that game out of the equation, the Packers still lead the league in Pythagorean overperformance, just by a smaller margin. These are the six teams that currently are outperforming Pythagorean projections by at least one win:

[charts]

Green Bay Packers fans at this point tend to have a few different responses as to why their team should be rated higher than 10th (DVOA) or ninth (weighted DVOA).

1) Yes, but we have the best quarterback. This does matter! We know that offense is more predictive than defense or special teams. It matters that Aaron Rodgers is so good, it makes sense to trust him to win in the playoffs a little more than you trust a team that has Mac Jones or Carson Wentz under center. Rodgers took a significant lead this week as the best quarterback so far this season by passing DVOA, and the Packers are second in offensive DVOA behind Tampa Bay. That's why advanced metrics that give extra weight to the quality of the quarterback, such as ESPN's FPI, will have Green Bay higher than Pythagorean wins or DVOA. However, even ESPN's FPI has the Packers sixth behind five teams with fewer wins.

2) Yes, but we're done all of this with some of our best players injured, and some of those players will be coming back from injury soon. This is also true! It's also not what DVOA is meant to measure. DVOA is not adjusted for every single injury that a team is dealing with. We're measuring how well teams played on the field with the players they had on the field. The Packers could potentially have Za'Darius Smith, Jaire Alexander, and David Bakhtiari back on the field by the time we get to the playoffs. But those men were not part of the team for most or all of this season, and it is the team that was on the field this season that ranks 10th in DVOA. As for our playoff odds simulation, for the most part we only adjust the ratings we use in that simulation for quarterback changes. We've found that changes at other positions just don't have the same easily measurable effect as a change at quarterback. The Packers rating used in the playoff odds simulation is already boosted, in that the offensive rating does not include the game started by backup Jordan Love.

3) Don't these advanced metrics underrate Green Bay every year? Clearly the Packers are doing something that is winning more games than these advanced metrics can pick up, right? This is an interesting argument. The Packers have outperformed their Pythagorean projection for three straight years now, ever since Matt LaFleur was hired as the head coach. The Packers went 13-3 each of the past two years but had only 9.8 Pythagorean wins in 2019 and 11.2 Pythagorean wins in 2020. They haven't outperformed DVOA to the same extent, but there's no doubt their 13-3 record in 2019 was a lot better than their No. 9 rank in DVOA. Last year, the Packers were third in DVOA, which is much more commensurate with a 13-3 record.

It's possible that there's something about Matt LaFleur's coaching which enables him to consistently win close games and outperform the Pythagorean projection. It's also possible that the Packers just happened to have flipped a coin heads three years in a row, which isn't really that stunning.

Or... it's also possible that there's something about Aaron Rodgers at quarterback that leads to the Packers winning close games and outperforming the Pythagorean projection. Most of Rodgers' teams have outperformed their Pythagorean Projection, although usually by less than one game. The same thing is true of most of Peyton Manning's teams and most of Tom Brady's teams, so there certainly may be something to the idea that having a top quarterback enables you to win more close games. However, Peyton Manning's teams were not routinely underrated by DVOA. (There are a couple of seasons such as 2009 where the Colts didn't end the year as high in DVOA as you would expect, but that's because of games where they sat Manning and backups dropped their rating.) Neither were Tom Brady's teams or Joe Montana's teams. So if there is something about the best quarterbacks that leads to them outperforming the Pythagorean projection, I think that DVOA is picking that up, and it's not the reason why the Packers are only 10th in DVOA this season.

One thing that DVOA is picking up is just how bad the Packers are on special teams. They are now dead last at -6.5%. Someone asked me this week if a team with special teams this bad had ever won the Super Bowl, and the answer is no. The 2006 Colts had the worst special teams DVOA of any Super Bowl champion at -3.6%. The 2009 Saints, 2020 Buccaneers, and 2010 Packers were also below -2%. But just because a team with special teams this bad has never won the Super Bowl doesn't mean it can't be done. As mentioned above, special teams is less predictive than offense, and offense is where the Packers shine. Special teams is a weakness, but not necessarily a fatal flaw.

[BF004]

[go pak go]

DVOA to me is not doing the 2021 Packers right. I will agree that the 2019 Packers can be viewed more in the light of "worst 13-3 team ever"...which is false. That will always be the 2001 Chicago Bears.

But the 2021 Packers have a lot of "close" wins that really weren't that close. The Packers in my mind were the clear superior team in those games that either got screwed by a weird STs gaff, bad ref call or not being able to close the game when it was expected we would.

1. Detroit - clearly dominated in the 2nd half.
2. San Fran - We were the better by a mile. Bad DPI calls and no grounding called before half made this game far closer than it should have been.
3. Bengals - Absolutely dominated until a communication gaff before half leads to a 75 yard TD before half. The Bengals had minus yards in the 2nd Qtr before that play. Oh and 5 Crosby misses?
4. Arizona - Not playing with full team. Had a chance to ice inside the 5 yardline and didn't. Defense holds on (could/should have been a double digit win)
5. LA Rams - this game was far closer than it actually was. Was over a 3 score ball game in the 4th quarter. Had a Pick 6 dropped to seal it.
6. Chicago - STs was directly attributable for at least 10 - 13 points. Had a Pick 6 dropped.
7. Baltimore - Had multiple score lead in 4th Qtr. Rodgers overthrew a gimme to end the game with double digit lead.

The only games we were down at halftime were divisional games (and the Chiefs). All the games we dominated in the 2nd half and MN would have been the same for the exception of dropped INTs.

[YoHoChecko]

DVOA to me is not doing the 2021 Packers right. I will agree that the 2019 Packers can be viewed more in the light of "worst 13-3 team ever"...which is false. That will always be the 2001 Chicago Bears.

But the 2021 Packers have a lot of "close" wins that really weren't that close. The Packers in my mind were the clear superior team in those games that either got screwed by a weird STs gaff, bad ref call or not being able to close the game when it was expected we would.

There's a commenter over on their site that is doing the work and making the points that I have been thinking about lately regarding how play counts and pacing and drive stats would interact with DVOA's per-play basis. The MLF and Rodgers combo have a clear pattern of slow-pacing and limiting drives/possessions and there is intrigue as to whether or not that reduces the variance and interacts with per-play success and failure rates, because three years is getting to stretch the limits of considering it luck or flukes.

It seems far too often after games, the DVOA results are too-parallel with just looking at which team has more yards per play, which doesn't necessarily feel very telling or predictive on its own. And so I'm interested in knowing if there's something to this, and if it is generalizable to other teams or if it's a niche combination our strengths and MLF's strategy. Like if you have a strong defense and weak offense you might not benefit from limiting possessions because you won't score enough.

[paco]

Big reason we don't have to rush Bakhtiari back.

[APB]

There's a commenter over on their site that is doing the work and making the points that I have been thinking about lately regarding how play counts and pacing and drive stats would interact with DVOA's per-play basis. The MLF and Rodgers combo have a clear pattern of slow-pacing and limiting drives/possessions and there is intrigue as to whether or not that reduces the variance and interacts with per-play success and failure rates, because three years is getting to stretch the limits of considering it luck or flukes.

It seems far too often after games, the DVOA results are too-parallel with just looking at which team has more yards per play, which doesn't necessarily feel very telling or predictive on its own. And so I'm interested in knowing if there's something to this, and if it is generalizable to other teams or if it's a niche combination our strengths and MLF's strategy. Like if you have a strong defense and weak offense you might not benefit from limiting possessions because you won't score enough.

I’ve heard you mention this strategy before and it is indeed interesting MLF and AR have adopted it. Any cogent analyst might intuitively assume MLF and Rodgers would prefer to speed things up to garner more possessions and take advantage of their offensive prowess - but they do just the opposite.

My guess is there are several analytic points the Packers staff have isolated that they are trying to maximize. A likely one that comes to my mind is turnovers.

The Packers offense, and Rodgers in particular, don’t commit many turnovers. They’re also above average in converting possessions to points. This puts pressure on the opposing offense to be equally efficient and match scores when they can. That pressure is greatly enhanced when the Packer defense creates a turnover.

The one thing an opposing team absolutely needs to make up for turnovers and those lost points is additional opportunities. They’re not getting those opportunities by way of Packer turnovers and now the Packers - through this MLF/AR slow motion strategy - are further limiting any make-up opportunities by simply decreasing total game possessions.

I don’t know off the top of my head the +/- turnover differential over the past 3 years but my memory tells me the Packers hold a consistent positive advantage. By further limiting those make-up opportunities by dragging their feet when they have possession, it puts the opposing offense at an even greater catch-up disadvantage.

That DVOA rankings do not reflect the Packers as a top tier team despite their win/loss record could be attributed to the Packers being content to simply ride those turnover advantages out in a slow-and-methodical but efficient offensive manner and win through possession attrition. They won’t see many blowouts but, really, who cares? A win is a win.

That’s my theory. I could be completely full of it, of course.

[packman114]

I think Rodgers prefers to use the entire play clock to get the defense to show their hand. Couple that with MLF's preference for changing up personnel on every play and you get a slow paced offense. The analytics that result from that is a plus but I don't think it's the primary motive at all.

[YoHoChecko]

I think Rodgers prefers to use the entire play clock to get the defense to show their hand. Couple that with MLF's preference for changing up personnel on every play and you get a slow paced offense. The analytics that result from that is a plus but I don't think it's the primary motive at all.

What's interesting is that the timing specifically slowed down under MLF, so the whole "getting the defense to show its hand" talk that Rodgers obviously does do, certainly, probably isn't the primary motivator. It's deliberate. It changed in 2019 and then changed more in 2020 and has stayed the same.

Again, I'm not saying that analytics like DVOA are wrong for not considering this, because it may not be generalizable to other teams. And DVOA is trying to predict how teams will do better than W/L record does, and so the fact that they underrate us and we keep blowing it in the NFCCG actually justifies their take, if you want to go that way.

But I do think it would be interesting to actually look at the data on pace and drives and see how it interacts with the per-play data.


Also, [mention]APB[/mention], I agree with everything you said.

[BF004]

DVOA to me is not doing the 2021 Packers right. I will agree that the 2019 Packers can be viewed more in the light of "worst 13-3 team ever"...which is false. That will always be the 2001 Chicago Bears.

But the 2021 Packers have a lot of "close" wins that really weren't that close. The Packers in my mind were the clear superior team in those games that either got screwed by a weird STs gaff, bad ref call or not being able to close the game when it was expected we would.

There's a commenter over on their site that is doing the work and making the points that I have been thinking about lately regarding how play counts and pacing and drive stats would interact with DVOA's per-play basis. The MLF and Rodgers combo have a clear pattern of slow-pacing and limiting drives/possessions and there is intrigue as to whether or not that reduces the variance and interacts with per-play success and failure rates, because three years is getting to stretch the limits of considering it luck or flukes.

It seems far too often after games, the DVOA results are too-parallel with just looking at which team has more yards per play, which doesn't necessarily feel very telling or predictive on its own. And so I'm interested in knowing if there's something to this, and if it is generalizable to other teams or if it's a niche combination our strengths and MLF's strategy. Like if you have a strong defense and weak offense you might not benefit from limiting possessions because you won't score enough.

That is definitely something that can be dug into. Work been busy, but I can add that to my list of data analysis. Still working on some kickoff analysis at the moment.

[Yoop]

That’s my theory. I could be completely full of it, of course.

this is spot on imo, not only does it limit turnovers, it burns clock, and a added benefit is that it allows time for Rodgers to intimidate the defense when he adjust plays.

often we've heard the team that makes the least mistakes is usually the team that wins, we marvel at how well Rodgers operates the hurry up two minute offense, he's the best in the league doing it, but others really struggle with it, hurry up = screw up often, game ending interceptions are common, making sure everyone is assignment sure prior to the snap eliminates mistakes.

fans complain because we run the clock down, but the benefits far out weigh the negatives with doing it imo.

[Pugger]

It is wild how our opponents behave when they play us. They are doing things they probably wouldn't do against other QBs - like not taking sure FGs and pushing their luck going for a TD on 4th down. I always see posts over on FF from fans of teams we about to face that their teams have to score like crazy just to keep up.

[BSA]

There's a commenter over on their site that is doing the work and making the points that I have been thinking about lately regarding how play counts and pacing and drive stats would interact with DVOA's per-play basis. The MLF and Rodgers combo have a clear pattern of slow-pacing and limiting drives/possessions and there is intrigue as to whether or not that reduces the variance and interacts with per-play success and failure rates, because three years is getting to stretch the limits of considering it luck or flukes.

Slow pacing is a smart strategy when you are a very successful offense for a variety of reasons. If you look at DSR- Drive Success Rate for 2021 vs 2011- you'll note they are nearly identical ( .770 vs . 771) That DSR puts GB at # 3 in the league for 2021- which means that the GB offense is mostly going to be superior to the opposing offense in terms of drive success. So from a strategic POV, it makes sense to limit the overall number of drives/possessions per game.

Lovie Smith perfected this strategy for the opposite reason - because his offense sucked, but he had a very stout defense and top notch STs. So he wanted to slow the game down and have as few offensive possessions as possible to give his squad a chance to win

In the case of MLF/AR- they want to limit opposing possessions in part because the GB offense is the best unit on the field- and so long as AR is possessing the ball, his lesser defense and STs are sitting on the sidelines. I mentioned the 2011 offense earlier and they scored massively, but did it quickly. Which meant you're giving the ball back to the opponent MANY times and forcing your ST's / defense to shut them down. The result was a historically bad defense, though there were several other factors involved

So now MLF comes in and says: We want to score at a high rate, but we also want to bleed the clock- keeping his lesser units off the field
GB is ranked # 3 in TOP in 2021, while in 2011 they came in at # 11 despite leading the league in scoring. Today's NFL is about possessing the ball AND scoring and the MLF Packers have done a remarkable job with both.

And yes, AR absolutely loves the added time at LOS as noted by others - I'm just noting the coaching strategy behind favoring these slow-pace games. And for some offenses - cooling your jets on the sidelines during 9 minute Packer drive is tough to overcome

One final note: As the league rolls into 17 and 18 reg season games, the slow pace of play means fewer plays per game - load management if you will- and there's certainly a value in that for a perennial playoff team. GB currently runs 6-7 fewer plays than the fast-pace teams and 6 x 17 = 102 fewer plays per season- that's a game and a half less wear & tear by January.

Lots of great info and comments Yoho, thx a million for posting it

[salmar80]

I'm bananas about LaFleur. And the more I read about what he's done and the more I think about it, the more I love the guy. Not only everything said above in some excellent posts, but also some little things.

Like, have you noticed how the Aaron Jones as a WR -thing has been missing? I'm absolutely sure LaFleur has analyzed it to the bone, knows the best plays at the best situations that come from that scheme, and he will unleash that again vs some unsuspecting playoff team. It's intentionally in the back burner, so teams don't prep for it as much.

Oh, and I can spare some love for Gutey, too. We're 11-3 in a horrible injury luck year. Can y'all envision the full picture of the depth and quality of this roster if fully healthy? I dunno if any GM in history has built an Oline that's two deep at four positions, and may be at the fifth. Usually teams just fold on the OL when the third guy goes down...

[BF004]

[APB]

Remember this when we read about yet another high QB pressure rate from the Packer defensive front after the Browns game.

[Pckfn23]

[Pckfn23]

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/rod ... -knockouts

4th Quarter Struggles

[YoHoChecko]

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/rod ... -knockouts

4th Quarter Struggles

I feel like Rodgers (and Bill Huber) are glossing over the fact that he had the chance to put the game away with aggressive calls and Adams dropped two. Adams owned it; he discussed being "the reason" the team was in that position. But it's not like we just totally went in a shell because re ran 3 straight times on one possession. We had another one. We let Rodgers to Adams be the deciding factor and they didn't deliver, either.

[BF004]

Hey, we moved up 2 spots in kickoff coverage yesterday!!

https://bf004.shinyapps.io/Kickoff2/

image.png (108.46 KiB) Viewed 401 times

[Pckfn23]

Braden, Galeai, and Am. Rodgers to COVID list.