WSJ - GB Packers Bandwagon May be headed for a Crash

[HKPackFan]

I never expected the WSJ to be so click baitish. But I found this title to be click bait and not enough substance. One random stat and that's their justification for the crash?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-green-bay-packers-bandwagon-may-be-headed-for-a-crash-1473635391

One week into the new NFL season, it appears that all is right again for the Green Bay Packers’ offense.

Green Bay’s high-flying passing game was unexpectedly grounded for most of the 2015 season after the Packers lost star receiver Jordy Nelson to a knee injury in the preseason. But on the opening weekend of 2016, the Packers finally looked a little more like their old selves. Nelson returned to the lineup and scored a touchdown. Aaron Rodgers threw for two scores and ran for another. Green Bay held on for a 27-23 win.

But as much as that Week 1 win offers some encouragement for the season ahead, the numbers paint a more worrisome picture. Specifically, the Packers finished the game with a yards per pass play of just 5.7 yards—almost exactly the same as their overall figure for last season, which was worst in the NFC.


Even before Sunday’s opening win, that 2015 statistic made for bleak reading. Teams that finish the year with the lowest yards per pass play numbers in their conference usually struggle the following season.



In fact, the 90 teams who trailed in their conference since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger averaged just a .375 win percentage the next season, according to Stats LLC. None made it to the Super Bowl.

That streak is particularly noteworthy given that oddsmakers have made Green Bay the NFC preseason Super Bowl favorites, according to VegasInsiders.com.

Ignoring the Packers’ passing woes last year made sense because Rodgers has a stellar career YPP of 7.0 and led the NFL in the stat in 2014. He’s also now reunited with Nelson, with whom he has formed one of the most efficient passing duos in NFL history. Since 2011, Rodgers averages 11.2 yards every time he throws a pass to Nelson with 39 touchdowns and just four picks on 375 attempts. But on Sunday, the Rodgers-to-Nelson tandem yielded a paltry 32 yards on nine passes (3.6 yards per attempt).

Sacks were a major factor last year as Rodgers was taken down 46 times, or about three per game. But while he was sacked only once on Sunday, he was still forced to throw short too often. Green Bay tallied just 199 yards on his 34 attempts. Just five passes gained over 10 yards.

The Packers actually finished with a worse YPP total than the Jaguars, who gained 7.1, yards on average on their pass plays, meaning Green Bay was fortunate to escape with a win. Since 1970, teams that have won this yards per pass play statistic have won 75% of games.

Fortune could keep smiling on Rodgers and co., however. Next up, they face a Vikings team that doesn’t even know who its starting quarterback will be.

While I'm not convinced all our offensive woes are gone based on 1 game, I'm also not convinced this team is crashing.

I do think it will take close to the bye for this offense to get back to 2014 levels, and I felt I saw some signs that this team could get back there.

It is funny the article fails to mention Jordy Nelson played in ZERO preseason games, so may be a bit rusty coming back from his ACL, and Rodgers threw all of 9 passes in 2 series of the entire preaseason. Jared Cook and the rest of the skill players caught passes from a D3 UDFA rookie QB the entire pre-season.

So to look at game 1 and try to claim there is a dangerous trend doesn't take into account this offense is not totally ready for the regular season.

6-7 weeks into the season if this is still an issue, then sure it's noteworthy, but so early in the season and knowing these 11 offensive starters didn't play 1 snap together in the preseason, seems too early to make any kind of judgement and the title too click baity for my taste.

[Marley2Hendrix]

We also had what, a 30 yard PI generated by Cook, and dropped bomb by Davante, and I want to say either a few holds or at least one more moderately deep PI? Passing offense looked quite a bit better, though I remain mildly concerned that we continue to go for exceptionally high degree of difficulty plays and still don't seem to scheme open wide-open guys like you seem to see around the league.

[Ron Swanson]

Weird time for this article to come out, and how arbitrary a statistic can they throw out there? The offense looked good, not great. But it's not like they went up against a powderpuff defense. The Jags are a team that pretty much everyone agrees are on the rise and they should be playoff contenders this year in that division.

Also, I'm pretty sure the "short passes and slants" were what armchair analysts and casual fans were barking about doing more all of last season. We were dinkin' and dunkin' it all game and surprise, surprise.....that doesn't always work when you don't take deep shots like we did to Cook and Adams. One resulted in a PI and the other where Adams just dropped it.

[humanrefutation]

None of those teams had a competent QB, let alone Aaron Rodgers.

That being said, our inability to stretch the field was a major downfall for our passing game last season. Here's hoping it gets better this season.

[FAH1223]

The problem with this offense is that even when we get big plays, it's due to Rodgers scrambling or a WR beating their matchup.

Guys are never open due to creative scheming.

Look at New England last night. Both their tackles out, Gronk out, Brady out, and they still moved the ball. That's cause Belli and McDaniels can scheme those little WRs open.

If Janis, Montgomery, or Abby were on that roster, they'd legit be stars.

[RRyder823]

The problem with this offense is that even when we get big plays, it's due to Rodgers scrambling or a WR beating their matchup.

Guys are never open due to creative scheming.

Look at New England last night. Both their tackles out, Gronk out, Brady out, and they still moved the ball. That's cause Belli and McDaniels can scheme those little WRs open.

If Janis, Montgomery, or Abby were on that roster, they'd legit be stars.

Yep. Cause if there's one thing that'll help a reciever that can't understand route running concepts be a star it's scheme..... Seriously? Montgomery and Abby have been hurt but have shown flashes here and there but your really blaming the scheme for Janis?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

[Ron Swanson]

I just knew that the "Look at what the Patz do! Urghhhh!" example would come up. Once again, here's your friendly reminder that the Patriots are one dumb opposing coach's decision (Carroll) away from having zero Super Bowls in the last 12 years...

[RRyder823]

I just knew that the "Look at what the Patz do! Urghhhh!" example would come up. Once again, here's your friendly reminder that the Patriots are one dumb opposing coach's decision (Carroll) away from having zero Super Bowls in the last 12 years...

Winner winner chicken dinner. +1

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

[emunney]

This is honestly dumb in a way the WSJ should find shameful.

The thesis of the article is that the Packers might get worse than they were last year, and the evidence they're providing is the record of teams following a season in which they were last in conference in YPA, as the Packers were last year. Yet they didn't include the *OBVIOUS OTHER KEY DATA* implied by the idea, which are the records of those previous year teams.

Well, I looked at it, and they **** all over the thesis. Here are the same teams listed in the article along with the win difference from the previous year:

2015 Buccanneers +4
2015 Jaguars +2
2014 Buccaneers -2
2014 Jaguars -1
2013 Cardinals +5
2013 Chiefs +9
2012 Rams +5
2012 Jaguars -3
2011 Panthers +4
2011 Bills +2

These 10 teams won an average of 2.5 games *MORE* the year after they were last in their conference in YPA. This is what they're offering as evidence that the Packers are due for a fall.

The fact that the Packers had a bad YPA *last year* should have made the Packers bad *last year*. They weren't, and they're likely to be better this year.

[rilamann]

Once again, here's your friendly reminder that the Patriots are one dumb opposing coach's decision (Carroll) away from having zero Super Bowls in the last 12 years...

By that logic you could also say that the Patriots are 2 incredibly fluky catches away from winning 3 in the last 9 years.One of which being an undefeated season.

[Ron Swanson]

Once again, here's your friendly reminder that the Patriots are one dumb opposing coach's decision (Carroll) away from having zero Super Bowls in the last 12 years...

By that logic you could also say that the Patriots are 2 incredibly fluky catches away from winning 3 in the last 9 years.One of which being an undefeated season.

Sure. By all this dumb logic, no team is good at anything because football is literally a game of inches, and sometimes teams (like the Patriots and everyone else) get really **** lucky. Or, it means that in reality, winning the Super Bowl in a one & done playoff sport is really, really, really difficult. And the Packers have been just as good or better at it over the last decade than every other NFL team besides the New York Giants.

[RRyder823]

Once again, here's your friendly reminder that the Patriots are one dumb opposing coach's decision (Carroll) away from having zero Super Bowls in the last 12 years...

By that logic you could also say that the Patriots are 2 incredibly fluky catches away from winning 3 in the last 9 years.One of which being an undefeated season.

Sure. By all this dumb logic, no team is good at anything because football is literally a game of inches, and sometimes teams (like the Patriots and everyone else) get really **** lucky. Or, it means that in reality, winning the Super Bowl in a one & done playoff sport is really, really, really difficult. And the Packers have been just as good or better at it over the last decade than every other NFL team besides the New York Giants.

You stop using that kind of logic. It has no place around these parts

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

[WiscoKing13]

So your saying the wall street journal's sports section did a skip bayless take on one of the most popular team in sports? Wonder how many page views the editor needed to save his job.

[thomchatt3rton]

This is honestly dumb in a way the WSJ should find shameful.

Spoiler:

The thesis of the article is that the Packers might get worse than they were last year, and the evidence they're providing is the record of teams following a season in which they were last in conference in YPA, as the Packers were last year. Yet they didn't include the *OBVIOUS OTHER KEY DATA* implied by the idea, which are the records of those previous year teams.

Well, I looked at it, and they **** all over the thesis. Here are the same teams listed in the article along with the win difference from the previous year:

2015 Buccanneers +4
2015 Jaguars +2
2014 Buccaneers -2
2014 Jaguars -1
2013 Cardinals +5
2013 Chiefs +9
2012 Rams +5
2012 Jaguars -3
2011 Panthers +4
2011 Bills +2

These 10 teams won an average of 2.5 games *MORE* the year after they were last in their conference in YPA. This is what they're offering as evidence that the Packers are due for a fall.

The fact that the Packers had a bad YPA *last year* should have made the Packers bad *last year*. They weren't, and they're likely to be better this year.

Thats pretty amazing actually. Even by the un-lofty standards of a newspapers online-version-only sports desk/online ad revenue department, they should be embarrassed about this.

I assume you blasted them righteously in the comments section?

[rilamann]

Once again, here's your friendly reminder that the Patriots are one dumb opposing coach's decision (Carroll) away from having zero Super Bowls in the last 12 years...

By that logic you could also say that the Patriots are 2 incredibly fluky catches away from winning 3 in the last 9 years.One of which being an undefeated season.

Sure. By all this dumb logic, no team is good at anything because football is literally a game of inches, and sometimes teams (like the Patriots and everyone else) get really **** lucky. Or, it means that in reality, winning the Super Bowl in a one & done playoff sport is really, really, really difficult. And the Packers have been just as good or better at it over the last decade than every other NFL team besides the New York Giants.

I was using your logic,your logic is that the Patriots wouldn't have won a Super Bowl in the past 12 years if Pete Carroll didn't make a dumb decision in SB 49.If I wanted I could literally use that exact same logic to say that the Patriots should have won 4 or 5 Super Bowls in that same time span.If it wasn't for the helmet catch in SB 42,if it wasn't for Eli making a crazy throw on a 3rd and long late in Super Bowl 46,if Gronk catches that 2pt conversion pass in last year's AFC Championship game ect...the Pats could could be 4/4 in Super Bowls in the past 12 years.

I don't use that logic,I indeed think that it's dumb.I was just pointing out the fallacy in you using it against the Patriots.

The 4 Super Bowls the Patriots won,they won because they were good enough to win them.The 2 they lost,they lost because they weren't good enough to win them.

I don't believe in luck in football when it comes to what happens on the field.I believe you put yourself in a position to take advantage of opportunities and you're either good enough to take advantage of them or you're not.

Sure Carroll's call was dumb,I wouldn't argue that,but the Patriots don't win the SB if they don''t put themselves in position to actually be in the SB.And Carroll's call wouldn't mater or even happens if Tom Brady doesn't lead the Patriots on 2 incredible scoring drives in the 2nd half.At the end of the day the Patriots did enough to win the game bottom line,no luck involved.

It's like NFC Championship game when the Packers played the Seahawks.Seahawks didn't get lucky by winning that game.The Packers were good enough to put themselves in position to play in the championship game and force 5 turnovers.They just weren't good enough to take advantage of that situation.The Seahawks were to good enough to be in the position that they were when Russell Wilson threw the game winning TD in OT.No luck involved.

[HKPackFan]

This is honestly dumb in a way the WSJ should find shameful.

The thesis of the article is that the Packers might get worse than they were last year, and the evidence they're providing is the record of teams following a season in which they were last in conference in YPA, as the Packers were last year. Yet they didn't include the *OBVIOUS OTHER KEY DATA* implied by the idea, which are the records of those previous year teams.

Well, I looked at it, and they **** all over the thesis. Here are the same teams listed in the article along with the win difference from the previous year:

2015 Buccanneers +4
2015 Jaguars +2
2014 Buccaneers -2
2014 Jaguars -1
2013 Cardinals +5
2013 Chiefs +9
2012 Rams +5
2012 Jaguars -3
2011 Panthers +4
2011 Bills +2

These 10 teams won an average of 2.5 games *MORE* the year after they were last in their conference in YPA. This is what they're offering as evidence that the Packers are due for a fall.

The fact that the Packers had a bad YPA *last year* should have made the Packers bad *last year*. They weren't, and they're likely to be better this year.

Thx for doing the research. I knew it was Terrible click bait, I would expect this nonsense from bleacher report or something not WSJ.

[El Duderino]

I don't believe in luck in football when it comes to what happens on the field.I believe you put yourself in a position to take advantage of opportunities and you're either good enough to take advantage of them or you're not.

Of course luck is a sizable factor sometimes in who advances in a playoff game or who wins a Super Bowl in a given season, but over an extended number of years those things tend to even out for teams.

Hell, for as great as the Packers were in the 2010 playoffs, they were very lucky that Jackson ran back the punt in week 17 vs the Giants.

The Patriots have had a wide array of good and back luck help or hurt them. Two of their rings and Super Bowl appearances never would have happened if not for that horrible tuck rule penalty vs the Raiders and if former Badger Lee Evans doesn't drop a TD pass right between his numbers with nobody near him very late in the game. On the flip side, that David Tyree catch against his helmet in the Super Bowl was lucky.

The Ravens are another prime example. Lee Evans was a Raven when he dropped that super easy TD pass, costing them a Super Bowl berth. On the flip side, in the year they won it all, they were nearly dead vs Denver in a playoff game until Flacco heaved up a prayer very late in the game and the Denver safety tripped on his own feet, then when falling knocked into his teammate, leading to a roughly 50 yard gain for Baltimore.

So for a team who rarely gets deep in the playoffs, an incident of bad luck can be devastating. The Patriots getting deep so often though, by simple odds are going to both benefit and suffer from incidents of luck. That's the key, getting there often enough to where good or bad breaks tend to even out.

[rilamann]

I don't believe in luck in football when it comes to what happens on the field.I believe you put yourself in a position to take advantage of opportunities and you're either good enough to take advantage of them or you're not.

Of course luck is a sizable factor sometimes in who advances in a playoff game or who wins a Super Bowl in a given season, but over an extended number of years those things tend to even out for teams.

Hell, for as great as the Packers were in the 2010 playoffs, they were very lucky that Jackson ran back the punt in week 17 vs the Giants.

The Patriots have had a wide array of good and back luck help or hurt them. Two of their rings and Super Bowl appearances never would have happened if not for that horrible tuck rule penalty vs the Raiders and if former Badger Lee Evans doesn't drop a TD pass right between his numbers with nobody near him very late in the game. On the flip side, that David Tyree catch against his helmet in the Super Bowl was lucky.

The Ravens are another prime example. Lee Evans was a Raven when he dropped that super easy TD pass, costing them a Super Bowl berth. On the flip side, in the year they won it all, they were nearly dead vs Denver in a playoff game until Flacco heaved up a prayer very late in the game and the Denver safety tripped on his own feet, then when falling knocked into his teammate, leading to a roughly 50 yard gain for Baltimore.

So for a team who rarely gets deep in the playoffs, an incident of bad luck can be devastating. The Patriots getting deep so often though, by simple odds are going to both benefit and suffer from incidents of luck. That's the key, getting there often enough to where good or bad breaks tend to even out.

I just don't don't buy into the whole luck thing.As I said in my previous post,you put yourself in a position to take advantage of opportunities and you either take advantage of those opportunities or you don't.

Desean Jackson could have ran back 50 punts in that game vs the Giants back in 2010,it wouldn't have mattered to the Packers if they didn't go on to beat the Giants and Bears in week 16 and 17.Jackson's punt return wasn't luck,he is a very good player and was at the top of his game in 2010.It simply presented the Packers an opportunity to take advantage of a situation and they did.And the Packers were in a position to take advantage of that opportunity because they put themselves in that position by winning enough games weeks 1 thru 15.

Wasn't luck,it was just the way things worked out.That's how I see it.

[El Duderino]

I just don't don't buy into the whole luck thing.

Well, we clearly aren't going to ever agree if you believe that there is no randomness and luck involved in sports.

[thomchatt3rton]

Wasn't luck,it was just the way things worked out.

Hmm...