the jenkins factor· Page 2

Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)

get_louder_at_lambeau
Registered

13 years ago

You need to compare against peers. For example, DE in a 4-3 is going to get a hell of a lot more stats than DE in a 3-4. For a DE in a 3-4, his stats stand out. He's elite because he's in the top of his peers.

Elite means top echelon of your peers. For example, Ahman Green was elite in 2003.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

Having Clay Matthews and B.J. Raji rushing the passer with him doesn't hurt either. It allows Jenkins a great chance at success, and it will allow whoever lines up with them this year a great chance too.

http://packersnews.net

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#12

Originally Posted by: get_louder_at_lambeau

Charles Woodson, Tramon Williams (previously Al Harris) and Nick Collins probably didn't hurt either.

gbguy20
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#13

There's a series of buttons above the text of the post. Quote ..etc ... the last one is Thank. If you click Thank, you'll see your name below the body of the post.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Oh there it is. thanks.

BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.

beast
Select Member

13 years ago

#14

Charles Woodson, Tramon Williams (previously Al Harris) and Nick Collins probably didn't hurt either.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

And having a pass rushing big DE didn't hurt those guys ether... it's a two way street... depends on weather or not the QB holds onto the ball. I remember an articles praising (drooling over) the Manning brothers this year for taking the least about of sacks per pressure or something like that... about how good they were. Problem was the article didn't point out they also lead the NFL with INTs because they rather throw a bad pass then get sacked. So it's a two way street the depends on what the QB does...

I find it interesting the team played better with out Jenkins but I also wonder if there is something else to it. Like maybe none of the teams the Packers played with Jenkins have good OL? ... the Pats do have a good OL but they put up 31 points and won the game.

But the Packers had 47 sacks this last year. In the 5 games with out Jenkins they got 12 sacks or 2.4 sacks per game. In the 11 games with Jenkins they got 35 sacks or 3.1818 sacks per game. BUT I think you have to take out two games, because Kolb sucked it up in week 1 (6 sacks with Jenkins) and the Bears OL sucked it up week 17 (6 sacks with out Jenkins)(also I think Walden got away with two false starts for sacks in week 17) So it's 6 sacks and 1 game from each...

Taking out those two games which were even with 6 sacks, in the 4 games with out Jenkins they got 6 sacks or 1.5 sacks per game. In the 10 games with Jenkins they got 29 sacks or 2.9 per game (almost double than with out Jenkins)

In 8 games Jenkins didn't start Matthews got 3.5 sacks (only 1 sack in the 5 games Jenkins didn't play in). In the 8 games when Jenkins started Matthews got 10 sacks. So Matthews has done a lot better with sacks with Jenkins as well...

Yes the Packers can win with out Jenkins... but Jenkins in games sure has helped get more sacks.

gbguy20
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#15

I liked your post but I absolutely hate it when people take out "outliers" in statistics. Like how last season people would take out Brandon Jackson's 71 yard run to try to find his "true" average.

BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#16

I read a lot of if you do this, if this, if that, do this ... in that post and lost all interest. And the teams played against weren't even mentioned and that does factor in too.

I do agree, the blitzing helped the secondary and the secondary helped the blitzing. That's why the Packers defense is so solid. They can get ya from several angles. Pick your poison, bitches!

adroge
Registered Topic Starter

13 years ago

#17

The point of the post is not what Jenkins does for the packers defense. The point is what the packers defense can do without Jenkins. Sacks are not a stat that directly indicate overall quality of defense. While the packers defense provided more sacks with Jenkins, there overall defense was very good with out him. I would love to have Jenkins back, but is it a need? The packers performance without him would indicate no. Also, you have to remember the packers will have Neal back and improved experience in guys like Wilson and Wynn. In all the articles I have read regarding Jenkins, I have not heard one writer mention how well they played without him last year. All I hear from writers is can Neal replace Jenkins? Why didn't the writers bring up the fact that both Neal and Jenkins were out when the packers were holding teams to less than 14 points a game. I felt I needed to bring up a side of the argument that nobody cared to mention. I believed it was a major oversite on the part of many bloggers and sports writers.

beast
Select Member

13 years ago

#18

I liked your post but I absolutely hate it when people take out "outliers" in statistics. Like how last season people would take out Brandon Jackson's 71 yard run to try to find his "true" average.

Originally Posted by: gbguy20

Well it's a method of finding the more normal average, but I know some people dislike it, so I also posted it with out taking anything out.

the Packers had 47 sacks this last year. In the 5 games with out Jenkins they got 12 sacks or 2.4 sacks per game. In the 11 games with Jenkins they got 35 sacks or 3.1818 sacks per game.

Originally Posted by: beast

In 8 games Jenkins didn't start Matthews got 3.5 sacks (only 1 sack in the 5 games Jenkins didn't play in). In the 8 games when Jenkins started Matthews got 10 sacks.

Originally Posted by: beast

I read a lot of if you do this, if this, if that, do this ... in that post and lost all interest. And the teams played against weren't even mentioned and that does factor in too.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Well there were things with no ifs in it as well. Don't you remember the teams the Packers played this last season? ... and I thought the teams the Packers faced with out Jenkins were said before.

Anyways for those that don't remember the Packers played the Vikings, Lions, Patriots, Giants and Bears with out Jenkins. Cutler lead the NFL in sacks, Eli lead in the NFL in most INT (because he wouldn't take the sack). The Vikings QBs combined to throw one more INT than Eli. The Lions... well the stats look like their OL did a good job against pass rush.

beast
Select Member

13 years ago

#19

Originally Posted by: adroge

I know and I think you brought up a GREAT point. Just seems strange to me that they did better with him out.... so I'm trying to figure out why.

When other starters like Barnett, Burnett and Jones went out and the team got better it made since to me because

~ Bishop is willing to attack and shed block, where Barnett will try to run around them which is worse IMO...

~ Peprah was willing to always attack the ball carrier quick and fast where Burnett didn't always go full speed to the ball carrier and took extra wide angle to make it easy for the ball carrier to cut back (though Burnett was much better in coverage.

~ Zombo was physical, was able to bull rush and control his gaps where Jones would lose the physical battles but tried to use his quickness to beat the OT.

I can't figure out how they were better with Jenkins... like I said one guess of mine was the OL were worse in the games we played with out Jenkins? ... which seems true with the Giants and Bears but but the Lions stats seem to be show they're much better than I thought... and the Patriots and Vikings put up big number of points those games...

dfosterf
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#20

I worry about letting Cullen go. I don't like the concept. Just so you know, I liked Neal just fine.

I bet (somehow) we keep him, and I think we should.

I'd rather skimp elsewhere. You know how tight I am with GB's money 🤫

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Mucky Tundra (12h) : Greg Gumbel passed away today after bout with cancer.

buckeyepackfan (17h) : 1 NFC South @ NFC West @ AFC West other 3 games,

buckeyepackfan (17h) : Packers play NFC East and AFC North in 2025, plus 2 other games

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Geeze Zero get it right!😋

Zero2Cool (19h) : I guess 3 games. Whatever

Zero2Cool (20h) : Bleh, that only impacts two games.

Zero2Cool (20h) : Packers are gonna get 3rd place division schedule next year.

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Kanata, seek help! lol

beast (23h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status

Zero2Cool (23h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha

TheKanataThrilla (23h) : That was terrible.

TheKanataThrilla (23h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.

beast (27-Dec) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent

beast (27-Dec) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime

beast (27-Dec) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing

Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is

Zero2Cool (27-Dec) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true

beast (27-Dec) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management

wpr (27-Dec) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Mucky Tundra (27-Dec) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago

beast (27-Dec) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years

Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (26-Dec) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (26-Dec) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS