Packers "failures" since 2010

[rilamann]

This whole thing started because I said I wanted to see them play well against a good QB. They didn't, they were picked apart by him, and gave up a trademark, 9-minute drive that loses the game 9/10 times. They did exactly what I criticized them for doing.

The immediate excuse is that King was hurt, but at this point, they are missing key players due to injury every game. When does that excuse dry up?

That Dallas drive late was like a litmus test that our defense is still really really bad, like bottom 5 in the league kind of bad.

Any NFL defense that is even kinda sorta good wouldn't give up a 9 minute 17 play drive like that with the game on the line.

Yes, and it's getting to the point where you really have to wonder what the problem is. I really dislike pinning things on coaching. But it just seems like there is too much talent on the defense for it to be this bad. Or, do we as fans just drastically overrate our own guys?

Burnett, Daniels, Clark, King, Perry, then you have Martinez coming on, a veteran in House, aging Matthews that can still play sometimes, and an overrated but decent player who must be doing something right in Ha-Ha. It seems good enough to be average, at least.

Granted that guys like Hyde and Hayward wouldn't be as good here as they are in their new places, but it seems like they have guys who can play. So why are they still so bad?!

I agree that as bad as the Packer's defense is, you look at it on paper and you would think it would be at least decent,but it's not.

I think it comes down to the old cliche and it never rings more true than when you're talking about an NFL defense....''You're only strong as your weakest link.''

Even most of the guys we have who would be considered solid aren't really impact players or play makers.Then the rest of the guys we have are just plain trash which makes it even harder on the guys who already aren't anything special to then have to pick up the slack.

For example take a guy like Blake Martinez who I'll give credit to, he's been pretty solid so far this season, but a guy like him would look even better if he wasn't playing next to a scrub like Jake Ryan.You brought up Dean Lowery, that guy is **** useless, yet there he is out on the field every Sunday.

That's my theory,too many decent guys who are just guys ,then they get brought down by scrubs like Dean Lowery and not enough play makers who consistently can make plays.

Mike Daniels and Nick Perry are probably our only two defensive players that you can count on to consistently make big plays and Nick Perry is probably like the 5th best player on a top 10 NFL defense.Daniels could anchor a top 5 NFL defense but he's easily the only guy we have at that level.Then he gets somewhat nullified because teams can pass on us all day if they want to.

[thomchatt3rton]

That Dallas drive late was like a litmus test that our defense is still really really bad, like bottom 5 in the league kind of bad.

Any NFL defense that is even kinda sorta good wouldn't give up a 9 minute 17 play drive like that with the game on the line.

Yes, and it's getting to the point where you really have to wonder what the problem is. I really dislike pinning things on coaching. But it just seems like there is too much talent on the defense for it to be this bad. Or, do we as fans just drastically overrate our own guys?

Burnett, Daniels, Clark, King, Perry, then you have Martinez coming on, a veteran in House, aging Matthews that can still play sometimes, and an overrated but decent player who must be doing something right in Ha-Ha. It seems good enough to be average, at least.

Granted that guys like Hyde and Hayward wouldn't be as good here as they are in their new places, but it seems like they have guys who can play. So why are they still so bad?!

I agree that as bad as the Packer's defense is, you look at it on paper and you would think it would be at least decent,but it's not.

I think it comes down to the old cliche and it never rings more true than when you're talking about an NFL defense....''You're only strong as your weakest link.''

Even most of the guys we have who would be considered solid aren't really impact players or play makers.Then the rest of the guys we have are just plain trash which makes it even harder on the guys who already aren't anything special to then have to pick up the slack.

For example take a guy like Blake Martinez who I'll give credit to, he's been pretty solid so far this season, but a guy like him would look even better if he wasn't playing next to a scrub like Jake Ryan.You brought up Dean Lowery, that guy is **** useless, yet there he is out on the field every Sunday.

That's my theory,too many decent guys who are just guys ,then they get brought down by scrubs like Dean Lowery and not enough play makers who consistently can make plays.

Mike Daniels and Nick Perry are probably our only two defensive players that you can count on to consistently make big plays and Nick Perry is probably like the 5th best player on a top 10 NFL defense.Daniels could anchor a top 5 NFL defense but he's easily the only guy we have at that level.Then he gets somewhat nullified because teams can pass on us all day if they want to.

Totally agree with this take (though I disagree we look decent "on paper") and I think the bolded parts sum it up. Everybody's job is harder when the guys next to you aren't that good.

Talent-wise, this is overall an average unit at it's best. This means it's also thin. And that means any injury can just take down the whole unit like a house of cards.
Same rules apply on a play-by-play basis- one mistake by one member of the D can really throw off the effectiveness of everybody on the D.

Like you say, other defenses have more play-makers, so mistakes (on a play-to-play basis) and injuries (on a game-to-game basis) are easier to overcome and consistency is easier to maintain.

For GB, everything has to be perfect for this D to even be functional (even then its still only functional or average).

This might not be fair, but just think about how our O (which possesses the ultimate play-maker) can overcome injuries or mistakes much more easily by comparison. Lack of playmakers.

For as long as I can remember, this unit (which is already below-average talent wise to begin with) has been hurt, young, or both every season.
They've just never been able to put all the pieces available together at the same time for long enough to develop some cohesion and consistency and maybe learn to play better than the sum of our parts. If it's not one thing, it's another. Every year.

PS. One other constant the last 6 or so years is that we have had garbage at middle/inside linebacker forever- particularly in coverage. It's a glaring weakness and we've never been able to fix it. It's not something fans talk about as much as they used to (or as much as they should).

[th87]

Spoiler:

That Dallas drive late was like a litmus test that our defense is still really really bad, like bottom 5 in the league kind of bad.

Any NFL defense that is even kinda sorta good wouldn't give up a 9 minute 17 play drive like that with the game on the line.

Yes, and it's getting to the point where you really have to wonder what the problem is. I really dislike pinning things on coaching. But it just seems like there is too much talent on the defense for it to be this bad. Or, do we as fans just drastically overrate our own guys?

Burnett, Daniels, Clark, King, Perry, then you have Martinez coming on, a veteran in House, aging Matthews that can still play sometimes, and an overrated but decent player who must be doing something right in Ha-Ha. It seems good enough to be average, at least.

Granted that guys like Hyde and Hayward wouldn't be as good here as they are in their new places, but it seems like they have guys who can play. So why are they still so bad?!

I agree that as bad as the Packer's defense is, you look at it on paper and you would think it would be at least decent,but it's not.

I think it comes down to the old cliche and it never rings more true than when you're talking about an NFL defense....''You're only strong as your weakest link.''

Even most of the guys we have who would be considered solid aren't really impact players or play makers.Then the rest of the guys we have are just plain trash which makes it even harder on the guys who already aren't anything special to then have to pick up the slack.

For example take a guy like Blake Martinez who I'll give credit to, he's been pretty solid so far this season, but a guy like him would look even better if he wasn't playing next to a scrub like Jake Ryan.You brought up Dean Lowery, that guy is **** useless, yet there he is out on the field every Sunday.

That's my theory,too many decent guys who are just guys ,then they get brought down by scrubs like Dean Lowery and not enough play makers who consistently can make plays.

Mike Daniels and Nick Perry are probably our only two defensive players that you can count on to consistently make big plays and Nick Perry is probably like the 5th best player on a top 10 NFL defense.Daniels could anchor a top 5 NFL defense but he's easily the only guy we have at that level.Then he gets somewhat nullified because teams can pass on us all day if they want to.

You know how people say, well, we can't devote resources to the defense, because we're allocating our money to Rodgers' contract and weapons for him?

Well I checked whether that's actually true, and it isn't. The Packers actually spend around the top 5 for defense.

So the next question is whether they're getting value (i.e. a good defense). You would think that spending around the top 5, we'd be getting a top 5 defense in return, right? Well we know that's not true.

Below is a list of the Packers' weighted defensive DVOA rankings, along with defensive spending rankings (active roster cap) by year:

2016: 23; 6
2015: 14; 5
2014: 18; 4
2013: 29; 6

So for example, for 2016, the Packers spent the 6th most in the NFL on defense, and only achieved a 23 ranking defensively. Every year, we've gotten terrible, terrible value.

How have other teams done?

Here's a list of the top defensive spending teams (in rank order; active roster cap) by year, and their DVOA ranking:

2016:

Bengals; 16
Bucs; 4
Giants; 2
Broncos; 1
Seahawks; 9
Packers; 23
Jaguars; 13
Jets; 19
Titans; 27

2015:

Jets; 6
Colts; 10
Seahawks; 3
Texans; 4
Packers; 14
Bengals; 9
Browns; 23
Chiefs; 2
Cardinals; 7
Broncos; 1

2014:

Bengals; 17
Bucs; 15
Bills; 2
Packers; 18
Browns; 8
Lions; 7
Steelers; 27
Ravens; 12
Seahawks; 1
Dolphins; 25

2013:

Bengals; 6
Chiefs; 14
Vikings; 26
Ravens; 8
Bucs; 12
Packers; 29
Colts; 19
Browns; 27
Bills; 5
49ers; 11

My takeaways:

- The Packers have gotten poor value every year; this is true of no other team.
- The majority of teams getting poor value replaced their coach soon after (2013 Browns, 2013 Bucs, 2013 Vikings, 2014 Dolphins, 2014 Steelers; 2014 Bucs; 2015 Browns; none in 2016).
- The Packers are a complete outlier in this analysis, having gotten poor value every year and retaining their coaches despite this.
- Someone is asleep at the wheel - either TT is handing out bad contracts, and/or Capers is not getting expected value out of his players/defense.

[CWoodfan]

Very compelling the87.

Seems like there is a problem with the players. And the defensive coaches and defensive coordinater. And the GM.

Other than that, our D is great.

[KidA24]

Spoiler:

You know how people say, well, we can't devote resources to the defense, because we're allocating our money to Rodgers' contract and weapons for him?

Well I checked whether that's actually true, and it isn't. The Packers actually spend around the top 5 for defense.

So the next question is whether they're getting value (i.e. a good defense). You would think that spending around the top 5, we'd be getting a top 5 defense in return, right? Well we know that's not true.

Below is a list of the Packers' weighted defensive DVOA rankings, along with defensive spending rankings (active roster cap) by year:

2016: 23; 6
2015: 14; 5
2014: 18; 4
2013: 29; 6

So for example, for 2016, the Packers spent the 6th most in the NFL on defense, and only achieved a 23 ranking defensively. Every year, we've gotten terrible, terrible value.

How have other teams done?

Here's a list of the top defensive spending teams (in rank order; active roster cap) by year, and their DVOA ranking:

2016:

Bengals; 16
Bucs; 4
Giants; 2
Broncos; 1
Seahawks; 9
Packers; 23
Jaguars; 13
Jets; 19
Titans; 27

2015:

Jets; 6
Colts; 10
Seahawks; 3
Texans; 4
Packers; 14
Bengals; 9
Browns; 23
Chiefs; 2
Cardinals; 7
Broncos; 1

2014:

Bengals; 17
Bucs; 15
Bills; 2
Packers; 18
Browns; 8
Lions; 7
Steelers; 27
Ravens; 12
Seahawks; 1
Dolphins; 25

2013:

Bengals; 6
Chiefs; 14
Vikings; 26
Ravens; 8
Bucs; 12
Packers; 29
Colts; 19
Browns; 27
Bills; 5
49ers; 11

My takeaways:

- The Packers have gotten poor value every year; this is true of no other team.
- The majority of teams getting poor value replaced their coach soon after (2013 Browns, 2013 Bucs, 2013 Vikings, 2014 Dolphins, 2014 Steelers; 2014 Bucs; 2015 Browns; none in 2016).
- The Packers are a complete outlier in this analysis, having gotten poor value every year and retaining their coaches despite this.
- Someone is asleep at the wheel - either TT is handing out bad contracts, and/or Capers is not getting expected value out of his players/defense.

Great post, looking at the numbers, in 2016, the difference between being 5th in spending and 15th was 10M (64M to 54M).

2017, the Packers are 15th in Defensive spending against the cap.
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/defense/active-cap/

[Rockmaninoff]

Very compelling the87.

Seems like there is a problem with the players. And the defensive coaches and defensive coordinater. And the GM.

Other than that, our D is great.

As far as players go, since 2010 the Packers have drafted 5 Pro Bowl players. 2 are no longer on the team (Hayward and Lacy). 2 are offense (Bakhtiari and Cobb), 1 is defense (Clinton-Dix). All 5 have attended 1 Pro Bowl each.

So either Thompson has run into a streak of bad luck, or he's drafting Kyler Fackrell in the 3rd round.

[paulpressey25]

As far as players go, since 2010 the Packers have drafted 5 Pro Bowl players. 2 are no longer on the team (Hayward and Lacy). 2 are offense (Bakhtiari and Cobb), 1 is defense (Clinton-Dix). All 5 have attended 1 Pro Bowl each.

So either Thompson has run into a streak of bad luck, or he's drafting Kyler Fackrell in the 3rd round.

Schneider left in January 2010, presumably with his notes intact for TT to use that draft.

Since taking over as GM of the Seahawks, Seattle has gone 76-44-1 and 9-5 in the playoffs with 2 SB appearances, 1 SB win.

I could spend the time looking up how the Chiefs have done under Dorsey, then the Raiders with McKenzie.

Some combination of those three guys were the brains in the front office. You can't conclude otherwise anymore.