RealGM

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.

HKPackFan wrote:

FAH1223 wrote: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.

Ron Swanson wrote: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...

Ron Swanson wrote: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...

rilamann wrote:

Ron Swanson wrote: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 wrote:

rilamann wrote:

Ron Swanson wrote: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.

emunney wrote: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.

Ron Swanson wrote:

rilamann wrote:

Ron Swanson wrote: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.

emunney wrote: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 wrote:
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.

El Duderino wrote:

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

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