Packers Huddle

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 11:20

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 11:11

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 09:47

Stats don't tell us pass rush failed us. It needed to be better, no doubt, but it wasn't the red headed step child of our team.

sure it was, go look up opponent QB ratings for a 3 count or less, under 2.5 they had less then 60 QBR, over 3 count and it went over 100.

First, those are completely made up numbers. Second, every teams QBR against goes up the longer the QB can hold the ball. That doesn't mean our pass rush failed.

heck you even brought the dang stats, our CB's did well when the QB was forced to out the ball under 2.5 and many of our sacks were coverage related and happened well after a 3 count.

Again these are completely made up. There is no stat that says our CBs did any better or worse compared to other CBs when the ball was out in 2.5 seconds or less. And of course most sacks are coverage related when the ball is held for 3 or more seconds, that is true for every team.

This is simply a confusion about stats and what they mean. The stats brought here aren't directly related to pass rush. Other factors play as big of or bigger roll in how long a QB holds the ball.

Here is a better indicator of pass rush especially when it corresponds with a very low blitz%:
image.png

cherry picked stats to make our pass rush look better than it was, our pass rush was terrible, PFR has each players pass rush failures pointed out very clearly, and our CB's did better than the stats show, we gave QB's all day to pick our coverage apart, go read any report, Cheesehead, any of them, and they will tell you the same thing Iam, our pass rush stunk

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 11:33

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 11:20

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 11:11

sure it was, go look up opponent QB ratings for a 3 count or less, under 2.5 they had less then 60 QBR, over 3 count and it went over 100.

First, those are completely made up numbers. Second, every teams QBR against goes up the longer the QB can hold the ball. That doesn't mean our pass rush failed.

heck you even brought the dang stats, our CB's did well when the QB was forced to out the ball under 2.5 and many of our sacks were coverage related and happened well after a 3 count.

Again these are completely made up. There is no stat that says our CBs did any better or worse compared to other CBs when the ball was out in 2.5 seconds or less. And of course most sacks are coverage related when the ball is held for 3 or more seconds, that is true for every team.

This is simply a confusion about stats and what they mean. The stats brought here aren't directly related to pass rush. Other factors play as big of or bigger roll in how long a QB holds the ball.

Here is a better indicator of pass rush especially when it corresponds with a very low blitz%:
image.png

cherry picked stats to make our pass rush look better than it was, our pass rush was terrible,

It is literally Pressure%... It's not cherry picked at all... It's about as drilled down as it gets for measuring pass rush effectiveness...

PFR has each players pass rush failures pointed out very clearly,

It does? Can you show us?

and our CB's did better than the stats show,

Oh, so we aren't talking about stats or even pass rush anymore. Putting up that Red Herring! This was about stats saying our pass rush was terrible. Stay on track!

we gave QB's all day to pick our coverage apart, go read any report, Cheesehead, any of them, and they will tell you the same thing Iam, our pass rush stunk

Go ahead and bring that evidence then if it is so readily available! You won't, but I wish you would.

Our pass rush was not terrible, it didn't stink, and it didn't fail us. It DEFINITELY could have been better, but wasn't a liability.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 11:41

PFR has each players pass rush failures pointed out very clearly,
It does? Can you show us?

already did that about 3 weeks ago, but here ya go, I really hate that you doubt me as you do, if I tell you something , you should just write it done, I'am not here to lie to you.

Clark= 11 (eleven) total pressures, 1 (one) stinking sack
Gary= 26 TP 7.5 sacks
Wyatt 23 TP 5 sacks
Brooks 24 TP 3.5 sacks
LVN 10 TP 3 sacks
Cox 8 TP 4 sacks
that's 102 total pressures from our 6 main pass rushers, 102, that's over a 100 below what it should be, I don't know why you think thats acceptable, or how that crap could possibly help our coverage ability, IMHO it is responsible for 4 of our losses last season

The Packers werent even a top 5 team in the NFC... as evidenced by the standings. The 6 teams above us were all better teams IMO. It cant even be argued the Lions, Vikings, and Eagles were significantly better when all 3 swept us.

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 11:57

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 11:41

PFR has each players pass rush failures pointed out very clearly,
It does? Can you show us?

already did that about 3 weeks ago, but here ya go, I really hate that you doubt me as you do, if I tell you something , you should just write it done, I'am not here to lie to you.

Simply put because you misremember things, make things up, and don't understand what you see and read then bring it here as evidence. This is the perfect example.

Clark= 11 (eleven) total pressures, 1 (one) stinking sack
Gary= 26 TP 7.5 sacks
Wyatt 23 TP 5 sacks
Brooks 24 TP 3.5 sacks
LVN 10 TP 3 sacks
Cox 8 TP 4 sacks
that's 102 total pressures from our 6 main pass rushers, 102, that's over a 100 below what it should be, I don't know why you think thats acceptable, or how that crap could possibly help our coverage ability, IMHO it is responsible for 4 of our losses last season

That doesn't show pass rush failure. That just shows pressure and sack totals. You have to compare it to other teams to show failure. This is also an example of you not understanding what you see or misremembering things. The TOTAL amount of pressures by any team in the NFL in 2024 was 195 by the Broncos. YET, you claim to not be failures Clark, Gary, Wyatt, Brooks, LVN, and Cox, those 6 players should have had 202 pressures. 7 more pressures than any team had in total. Even if you average out 202 pressure among those 6 players that is 33.34 pressures that would mean you believe we should have 6 pass rushers in the top 16 to not be considered failures.

Add to that you claimed when the QB was able to hold the ball for 3 or more seconds their QBR was over 100. QBR doesn't go past 100...

So you expect that we should just take you at your word?? No.

Pass rush could have been better in 2024, it was not a failure and not terrible. See the Panthers and Titans for terrible pass rush.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 12:07

The Packers werent even a top 5 team in the NFC... as evidenced by the standings. The 6 teams above us were all better teams IMO. It cant even be argued the Lions, Vikings, and Eagles were significantly better when all 3 swept us.

Going into the playoffs I was convinced that we were better than the Bucs, Rams, and Commanders, but after seeing how bad we were down the stretch, I'm convinced that we would have lost to all of those teams. So yeah, we were 7th best in the NFC.

Losing to Minnesota and Chicago at the end of the 17 game season was the reality check I (and many realists) feared. Too many roster gaps. Coaches kept getting out foxed too. If we go better than 9 and 8 in 2025 I'll be amazed.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 12:19

Simply put because you misremember things, make things up, and don't understand what you see and read then bring it here as evidence. This is the perfect example.

those are actual numbers, and if the average is 33 pressures, than we don't even have a average freaking pass rusher, here's a list of PRWR, top 20 edgers and DT's we don't have a player on either list, and as a team we rank 26th in the league for PRWR, geesh, I did PRWR for all our players and posted that a month ago too, but I guess I didn't save that, if I do find it I'll post it and you will see just how poorly our guys did in that, while Clark has aged, still Gary, LVN and Wyatt are younger and all are first round picks, two top 15, yet can't make a top 20 PRWR list, why anyone would defend our pass rush is beyond me, what the hell is your agenda, so obvious to me that when it comes to this defense, pass rush is the number one area that we need to improve

why would we be shopping for a Garrett or Max Crosby?


https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/410 ... s-rankings

I found this, if Cox would have had more game reps, he would made that PRWR top 20 list, there using PFF pass rush stats, which as we know are always higher than PFR, but it points out just how poor our players did individually.

Brenton Cox
2024 salary cap: $918,000. Position rank: 144th.

One reason why the Packers traded Preston Smith at the deadline was to get Brenton Cox on the field.

Cox, who barely played as an undrafted free agent in 2023 and was a healthy scratch for the first nine games of this season, wound up fourth on the team with four sacks – one more than Lukas Van Ness and one-half less than Kingsley Enagbare – even though he played in only seven games.

Cox didn’t get enough snaps to qualify for our pass-rush rankings. If he had, he would have ranked first in PFF’s pass-rushing productivity, which measures sacks, hits and hurries per pass-rushing snap. Yes, first, better than Myles Garrett, Micah Parsons and Trey Hendrickson, who led the list. He would have been 11th in pass-rush win rate, as well.

Cox played 150 fewer pass-rushing snaps than Van Ness but had only three fewer pressures. If that’s not incredible enough, he played 196 fewer pass-rushing snaps than Enagbare but had only eight fewer pressures.

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/packers- ... nsive-ends

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 18:39

Losing to Minnesota and Chicago at the end of the 17 game season was the reality check I (and many realists) feared. Too many roster gaps. Coaches kept getting out foxed too. If we go better than 9 and 8 in 2025 I'll be amazed.

offense can go from lousy to better, or world class over night, I expect at least the former

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2025 08:23

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

21 Feb 2025 18:39

Losing to Minnesota and Chicago at the end of the 17 game season was the reality check I (and many realists) feared. Too many roster gaps. Coaches kept getting out foxed too. If we go better than 9 and 8 in 2025 I'll be amazed.

offense can go from lousy to better, or world class over night, I expect at least the former

If the O doesn't get better, 9 and 8 might be a reach/stretch goal. World class will be more likely in 2026. The 2025 schedule is tough.
Jordan needs to get his doo doo together. Still hopeful.

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2025 08:21

those are actual numbers, and if the average is 33 pressures, than we don't even have a average freaking pass rusher, here's a list of PRWR, top 20 edgers and DT's we don't have a player on either list, and as a team we rank 26th in the league for PRWR, geesh, I did PRWR for all our players and posted that a month ago too, but I guess I didn't save that, if I do find it I'll post it and you will see just how poorly our guys did in that, while Clark has aged, still Gary, LVN and Wyatt are younger and all are first round picks, two top 15, yet can't make a top 20 PRWR list, why anyone would defend our pass rush is beyond me, what the hell is your agenda, so obvious to me that when it comes to this defense, pass rush is the number one area that we need to improve

why would we be shopping for a Garrett or Max Crosby?

Yet again you continue to make things up, the Packers were not 26th as team in PRWR. You did not do PRWR for all our players as you would have to have a subscription to view all players.

And again you don't understand what you see/read. 33 is not the average for pressures on the season... 33 would be the average had the pressures of the 6 players you named been 202.

Adding to it all you continue to fail at reading comprehension. I didn't say we don't need to improve on defensive line. I proved we weren't terrible as a team at rushing the passer.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2025 13:09

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2025 08:21

those are actual numbers, and if the average is 33 pressures, than we don't even have a average freaking pass rusher, here's a list of PRWR, top 20 edgers and DT's we don't have a player on either list, and as a team we rank 26th in the league for PRWR, geesh, I did PRWR for all our players and posted that a month ago too, but I guess I didn't save that, if I do find it I'll post it and you will see just how poorly our guys did in that, while Clark has aged, still Gary, LVN and Wyatt are younger and all are first round picks, two top 15, yet can't make a top 20 PRWR list, why anyone would defend our pass rush is beyond me, what the hell is your agenda, so obvious to me that when it comes to this defense, pass rush is the number one area that we need to improve

why would we be shopping for a Garrett or Max Crosby?

Yet again you continue to make things up, the Packers were not 26th as team in PRWR. You did not do PRWR for all our players as you would have to have a subscription to view all players.

And again you don't understand what you see/read. 33 is not the average for pressures on the season... 33 would be the average had the pressures of the 6 players you named been 202.

Adding to it all you continue to fail at reading comprehension. I didn't say we don't need to improve on defensive line. I proved we weren't terrible as a team at rushing the passer.

The Green Bay Packers' pass rush was arguably the most disappointing part of their 2024 defense. According to ESPN, the unit ranked 26th in pass rush win rate. Rashan Gary led the team with 47 pressures, but that was only good for 31st among all edge rushers.

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/green-bay ... rusher-602

Thanks for posting that! I stand corrected on that particular point.

FWIW, this team is what it is/was. We beat all the teams we were supposed to beat. And we lost twice to Detroit, Minnesota, and the Eagles respectively. I don't think that makes us a top five team at all.

Put the Ravens, Bills, and maybe even one or two teams above us who could manage a victory against a top 5 team. We didn't.

No need to apologize for all the wins we had. But this team couldn't rise about it's own youth this year. Too undisciplined when it counted.

They likely have the overall talent level of a top 5 team. No doubt. But in actual performance, where it matters the most, they weren't.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2025 15:04

Thanks for posting that! I stand corrected on that particular point.

your welcome , my goal here wasn't to slam our players, well maybe a little, but more so to point out that better pass rush will benefit players like Nixon or Valentine or any coverage scheme we use, so while we could use a stud CB, IMHO we could use a stud pass rusher even more.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2025 15:04

Thanks for posting that! I stand corrected on that particular point.

Perhaps an apology is also in order considering the less-than-flattering verbiage you chose to include in your previous post to him.

APB wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2025 10:56

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2025 15:04

Thanks for posting that! I stand corrected on that particular point.

Perhaps an apology is also in order considering the less-than-flattering verbiage you chose to include in your previous post to him.

1 number does not invalidate the larger point, however.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2025 11:25

APB wrote: ↑

23 Feb 2025 10:56

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2025 15:04

Thanks for posting that! I stand corrected on that particular point.

Perhaps an apology is also in order considering the less-than-flattering verbiage you chose to include in your previous post to him.

1 number does not invalidate the larger point, however.

right, that you go picking for internet fights, forum fights, and will act disingenuous and demand every word or estimate be perfect or will drag out conversations twisting what people say, quit attempting to correct others and it will elevate all the hassle, basically just quit acting like a AH, real simple

None of that is true. I truly believe that our pass rush wasn't terrible, but needs to improve, as I said at the outset. I don't demand anything, but I will point out when things are made up and used to prove a point. Ultimately, you asked why I don't usually trust the "evidence" you use. I gave you a blunt, but true answer with examples...

Not a top 5 team imo.

All of our analytics will be bolstered because our team was built to beat up on the bad teams. I've heard the argument that our defensive scheme is better against bad QBs, which led to us completely shutting down several teams this year while getting torched by good offenses. I'm not sure I believe that argument, but what isn't really debatable is that we tended to overperform against bad teams, while underperforming against good teams. Not what we want.

It was also predictable, which is good evidence of a trend. My friend at the gym told me he took the over of like 40 yards rushing for Kendre Miller in week 15 against us and I told him he should cancel that bet. He asked why, because shouldn't a starting RB be able to pick up 40 yards easily? I told him absolutely not because we have been holding the bad teams to 0 all year, and it's not that we've been merely destroying them, I meant that the Saints will get an actual 0 on us. I saw him the following week and he told me he was never going to doubt me when it comes to the Packers ever again