macbob
  • macbob
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
13 years ago
Since I can anticipate how this thread's going to go, I'll just post the emoticon's now...

#-o 😣 🤬 🐴 [wallme] [palm]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/kerry_byrne/07/05/prd/ 

With Aaron Rodgers at QB, the Packers have dominated PRD the past three seasons.

David Bergman/SI

The future is bright for Aaron Rodgers and the Packers.

Sure, Green Bay is the NFL's defending champion. The thrill of victory always feels good. But more importantly for its future, the team is statistically built to contend for years to come -- thanks to its dominance of the passing lanes on both sides of the ball.

Last week, we went into great detail about what we call Passer Rating Differential, a Cold, Hard Football Facts "Quality Stat" because it has a direct correlation to winning football games.

We called it "the most important stat in football" because it moves in lockstep with wins and losses. Teams that dominate Passer Rating Differential -- the difference between a team's offensive and defensive passer ratings -- dominate on the field.

The numbers are startling: 40 of 71 NFL champions since 1940 (56 percent) finished No. 1 or No. 2 in Passer Rating Differential.

The 2010 Packers simply provided further proof: they finished the season No. 1 in Defensive Passer Rating and No. 1 in Passer Rating Differential. As a result, they finished No. 1 on the field in Super Bowl XLV.

(At the other end of the spectrum, the Panthers finished 32nd in Passer Rating Differential last year. They finished 32nd in the standings, too, with a dismal 2-14 record.)

Green Bay's dominance of Passer Rating Differential during its 2010 championship season is not an isolated incident.

In fact, no franchise provides better evidence that Passer Rating Differential is indeed the most important stat in football: the Packers have finished No. 1 in Passer Rating Differential seven times since 1960. They won NFL championships in six of those seven seasons, and nearly won the seventh.


Green Bay No. 1 in Passer Rating Differential (since 1960) 
 
Year	PRD	Record	Result	   
				   
1961	+28.5	11-3	won NFL title	   
				   
1962	+41.5	13-1	won NFL title	   
				   
1965	+34.9	10-3-1	won NFL title	   
				   
1966	+56.0	12-2	won Super Bowl	   
				   
1996	+40.3	13-3	won Super Bowl	   
				   
1997	+32.9	13-3	lost Super Bowl	   
				   
2010	+31.7	10-6	won Super Bowl

The secret to Lombardi's success

Green Bay was the NFL's dynasty of the 1960s -- arguably the greatest decade of dominance in NFL history.

Vince Lombardi's Packers are widely remembered as a team that won the "old-fashioned" way by dominating on the ground. That reputation certainly makes for great imagery on NFL Films: Fuzzy Thurston and Jerry Kramer leading Jim Taylor or Paul Hornung around the end on yet another muddy scoring run before Lombardi is carried off the field in triumph.

But the reality was quite a bit different.

Lombardi's Packers did not win championships because they dominated on the ground. Lombardi's Packers won championships for the same reason that Mike McCarthy's Packers won a championship last season: because they dominated the passing lanes on both sides of the ball.

Green Bay finished No. 1 in Passer Rating Differential in 1961, 1962, 1965 and 1966. They won NFL titles all four years. (Despite their rep, the Packers often struggled to run the ball and to stop the run, at least in the latter half of the dynasty.)

The Packers added another NFL (and Super Bowl) championship in 1967. That team won it all despite finishing the year No. 3 in Passer Rating Differential (+22.2).

But even this 1967 example is the proverbial exception that proves the rule: the top two teams in Passer Rating Differential in 1967 were the Rams (+36.9) and Colts (+29.2).

Not coincidentally, the Rams and Colts were also the top two teams in football that year, with identical 11-1-2 records.

Here's where a couple quirks of history stepped in and paved the way for the Packers to win a third straight title -- despite the fact other teams were more dominant in 1967.

Through 1966, there was no playoff system in the NFL. The winner of each conference simply met in the NFL title game. The Packers, Colts and Rams were all rivals in the NFL's Western Conference through 1966.

But that all changed in 1967, when the NFL introduced four four-team divisions and a playoff tournament pitting the winners of each of the four divisions.

The Rams and Colts were moved to the brand-new Coastal Division. The two-time defending champion Packers were part of the Central Division with the Bears, Lions and Vikings (the old Black & Blue Division, today's NFC North).

The Rams and Colts formed the toughest tandem any division has produced since. As stated, both teams went 11-1-2. But the Rams won the division, thanks to their 34-10 win over the Colts in the final week of the season (they tied earlier in the year).

So Don Shula, Johnny Unitas & Co. didn't even make the playoffs despite the fact they lost just one game all year and went 11-0-1 against teams other than their division-rival Rams. The 1967 Colts remain the greatest team that never reached the playoffs.

Green Bay, meanwhile, struggled through a 9-4-1 season, which was good enough to beat out the Bears by two games in the Central Division.

It's quite reasonable to assume, had the NFL still utilized the 1966 alignment, that Green Bay might have missed the playoffs having finished no better than third behind the powerhouse Rams and Colts in the Western Conference.

Another quirk of fate intervened in the playoffs. The NFL did not award home-field advantage to the team with the best record back then. Home field was given on a rotating basis.

So the 9-4-1 Packers hosted the 11-1-2 Rams at Green Bay's second home at Milwaukee County Stadium, while the 11-1-2 Colts sat home and watched. Even worse? The Rams beat the Packers just two weeks earlier in Los Angeles. The Colts beat the Packers that year, too.

Green Bay, to its credit, rekindled the old magic and destroyed the Rams that day, 28-7. They beat the Cowboys in the Ice Bowl, and then dominated the Raiders in Super Bowl II.

But, had the situation been slightly different, had the NFL not realigned in 1967, had teams with better records earned homefield advantage, it's quite possible that the teams that dominated Passer Rating Differential -- the Rams and Colts -- would have won another championship for the indicator in 1967.

Regardless, history worked in Green Bay's favor and the team went on to dominate the passing lanes in the playoffs. Bart Starr easily outplayed Roman Gabriel, Don Meredith and Daryle Lamonica in the postseason, while capping the run with an MVP performance in Super Bowl II.

Green Bay's Passer Rating Differential was a brilliant +42.8 in those three games.

Green Bay's return to greatness

Lombardi left Green Bay after that 1967 season. The team's dominance on the field left with him. If you've been following along, you know that Green Bay's decline coincided with a decline in Passer Rating Differential.

Green Bay was largely mediocre for three decades and so, too, was its Passer Rating Differential. That all changed in 1996, when the Packers finished No. 1 in Passer Rating Differential for the first time since the Lombardi Era. The 1996 Packers captured the franchise's first championship since the Lombardi Era, too.

Green Bay topped the indicator again in 1997. That team reached the Super Bowl, only to lose out to John Elway's Broncos.

The Packers slipped out of the championship limelight for more than a decade after that Super Bowl loss to Denver. Naturally, its dominance of Passer Rating Differential slipped over that period, too.

The team started to remerge in 2008 -- they finished No. 2 in Passer Rating Differential in both 2008 and 2009. You could see the writing on the wall heading into 2010: this proficiency in Passer Rating Differential in 2008 and 2009 was the biggest reason we picked the Packers to win the Super Bowl at the start of the 2010 season.

Green Bay did not let us down, either on the stat sheet or on the field. The Packers finished No. 1 in Passer Rating Differential in 2010 -- and once again this dominance in the passing lanes produced a championship for Title Town.

SportsIllustrated wrote:

zombieslayer
13 years ago
I swear, I didn't write this article under a pseudonym. Really, I didn't write this. 😇
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
macbob
  • macbob
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
13 years ago

I swear, I didn't write this article under a pseudonym. Really, I didn't write this. 😇

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 




The stat has always been kinda of a 'duh' stat to me--those teams who pass well and stop the other team from passing well do well... well, duh...

Since the passer rating diffential is a combination offensive/defensive stat, it might be interesting to look at those years and see whether the differential was due to defense (e.g., article states Packers were #1 in defensive passer rating in 2010) or how much was due to offensive passer rating.

My gut feeling would be that defensive passer rating would be the more important of the two.
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

The stat has always been kinda of a 'duh' stat to me--those teams who pass well and stop the other team from passing well do well... well, duh...

Since the passer rating diffential is a combination offensive/defensive stat, it might be interesting to look at those years and see whether the differential was due to defense (e.g., article states Packers were #1 in defensive passer rating in 2010) or how much was due to offensive passer rating.

My gut feeling would be that defensive passer rating would be the more important of the two.

Originally Posted by: macbob 



You don't get to number 1 PRD without being well above average in both. It is still the combination of the two that has the most impact.


I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
zombieslayer
13 years ago

The stat has always been kinda of a 'duh' stat to me--those teams who pass well and stop the other team from passing well do well... well, duh...

Since the passer rating diffential is a combination offensive/defensive stat, it might be interesting to look at those years and see whether the differential was due to defense (e.g., article states Packers were #1 in defensive passer rating in 2010) or how much was due to offensive passer rating.

My gut feeling would be that defensive passer rating would be the more important of the two.

Originally Posted by: macbob 



Well yes. As much as I didn't want to believe this, D is more important than O. I wish it was the other way around. I'd much rather watch an O explosion than a Defensive struggle. But facts are facts.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
DakotaT
13 years ago
I can't seem to talk any of my Viking buddies into this theory, even though their two greatest years of the last 25, they dominated offensive passing stats. Oh well, live in the now and defend stupidity.

I agree with you on this topic Zombie - just like watching you defend yourself. Is that wrong?
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 years ago

I can't seem to talk any of my Viking buddies into this theory, even though their two greatest years of the last 25, they dominated offensive passing stats. Oh well, live in the now and defend stupidity.

I agree with you on this topic Zombie - just like watching you defend yourself. Is that wrong?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



So you and Macbob, huh? May you both get diarrhea tonight. 🤬
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
DakotaT
13 years ago

So you and Macbob, huh? May you both get diarrhea tonight. 🤬

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



Never you mind about my bowels. You should have been a man and accepted the resposibility of the racism hijacking yesterday, instead of blaming me. 😇
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 years ago

Never you mind about my bowels. You should have been a man and accepted the resposibility of the racism hijacking yesterday, instead of blaming me. 😇

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Vat? You kidding? I specifically stayed on topic with what I said. Read what Zero originally wrote then read what I said again. It was on topic.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
DakotaT
13 years ago

Vat? You kidding? I specifically stayed on topic with what I said. Read what Zero originally wrote then read what I said again. It was on topic.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



You're the one that brought up hatred and racism, knowing full well it would send me down that tangent. It was practically bait. =d>
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (3m) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (7m) : Packers will get in
beast (7m) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (13m) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (13m) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (1h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (3h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (3h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (3h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (3h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (12h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (13h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (13h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
buckeyepackfan (16h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks
Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak
beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other
beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)
Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.
beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs
packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.
beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating
Zero2Cool (20-Dec) : There is a rule that if your name starts with 'b' you lose 15 points. Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them!
wpr (20-Dec) : and then there is Beast. Running away with it all.
beast (20-Dec) : As of tonight, 3 way tie for 2nd in Pick'em, that battle is interesting!
beast (20-Dec) : Lions vs Vikings could be the main last game as it could determine division winners or #1 vs #2 seed
Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Or if KC needs to win for the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Right now it looks like the only prime worthy games are Det-Minny and KC-Denver (if Denver can clinch a wild card spot)
Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : The entirety of week 18 being listed as flex is weird
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Matt LaFleur today says unequivocally "Ted Thompson had nothing to do with the drafting of Jordan Love."
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Apparently, the editing is what pieces comments together. That Ted thing ... fake news.
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : LaFleur "opportunity that Ted Thompson thought was too good to pass up"
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Jordan Love pick was Ted Thompson's idea.
Mucky Tundra (19-Dec) : Kyle Shanahan on signing De'Vondre Campbell as a FA last offseason: “We obviously made a mistake.”
packerfanoutwest (19-Dec) : Alexander’s last season with GB
Martha Careful (18-Dec) : if I were a professional athlete, I would probably look to see who the agent is for Kirk Cousins and then use him
beast (18-Dec) : $100 million fully guaranteed Kirk Cousins gets benched for rookie
Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : a lower case b
Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : The real lie is how beast capitalized his name in his message while it's normally spelled with
packerfanoutwest (18-Dec) : haha that's a lie
beast (17-Dec) : Despite what lies other might tell, Beast didn't hate the Winter Warnings, it felt refreshing to Beast for some reason.
Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : whiteout uniforms in general are pretty lame and weak. NFL greed at it's worst
Martha Careful (17-Dec) : The Viking uniforms, the whiteout uniforms specifically absolutely suck
beast (17-Dec) : Thanks Zero2Cool, looks a lot better now
beast (17-Dec) : Seems like someone has a crush on me, can't stop talking about me
Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : Should be gooder now. The forum default theme went to goofy land.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.