Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

heh, you got us there. I pretty much missed that as well. But to be honest, 12 4th down stops doesn't reassure me much. I mean, I guess it's better than five stops, but it still doesn't mean much to me. Neither does the 26th ranked 3rd down percentage that the Packer's defense had (not to mention all the other bad stats). They were third in 4th down percentage though, if that comforts anyone.

Re: which MLB to start: I don't think there's any question Bishop is the #1 MLB right now. I'm pretty sure the coaching staff agrees with that sentiment, although admittedly I can't be certain of that yet. Bishop is a much better run defender and, according to some, often has tougher responsibilities in coverage. As I said, I'm pretty sure Rasaam (sp?) stated such, and I'm sure he knows more than me. It seemed that way to me, as well, but the qualitative assessment doesn't mean much.

Does anyone remember how some of the passing statistics often used here stacked up between Hawk and Bishop in 2010? I can't remember off the top of my head.

I'm all for Hawk. I hope he has the strongest season of his career and plays way better than Bishop could dream of. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Overall, both Hawk and Bishop are average LB's, in my opinion. The Packer's can win with them, but it'd be nice to have an improvement.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



Bishop allowed something like a 122 rating when his guy was targeted. Hawk allowed something like an 85.

That was through 11 games. Bishop missed the next 3 games and Hawk missed the next 2. I didn't see an update after that.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
DoddPower
13 years ago

Well, my point is that they eye test is going to be much more likely to be misinterpreted than stats are. Because if someone doesn't like Hawk, they are going to look at his plays in a negative light. Where they will be more forgiving (or forgetting) of Bishop getting burned repeatedly, seeing Hawk anywhere near a busted play will lead to blaming him.

I wouldn't say stats tell people all they need to know, just that stats won't have the same glaring and huge gaps that the eye test will have. They can be misinterpreted, but they can't be missed due to a bias like the eye test.

You can't even have two guys compare their eye tests. There is no scale, no bench marks, no average and no way to be consistent.

In the NO game, the D had a couple huge 4th down stops (counting the un-timed down at the end of the game). They held the Saints to 1 of 4 in the red zone and 1 of 2 in goal to go opportunities.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 




Yeah, I can agree there's no consistent standard to an "eye test." But there are consistent attributes that make players good or great, and ultimately make them good football players in the NFL. Some people that have played football and watched it all their lives may eventually develop an eye for these attributes and they will often be standard across many different people. It's not perfect, but it's the basis of scouting, etc. It's pretty easy for experienced "football people" to notice (much more so than myself) what consistent great tackling looks like, elite offensive/defensive line techniques, throwing motions . . . the list goes on. That's more what I was referring to.

You do bring up a good point that if one wants and/or expects to see negative things, they likely will. Perception is reality. Certainly some are capable of being relatively objective, though.
DoddPower
13 years ago

Bishop allowed something like a 122 rating when his guy was targeted. Hawk allowed something like an 85.

That was through 11 games. Bishop missed the next 3 games and Hawk missed the next 2. I didn't see an update after that.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



Yeah, I know the ratings for last season, but I was curious about 2010.

Zero2Cool
13 years ago

You kind of got that backwards. The other team had to go for it on 4th down because we stopped them on 3rd.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



I'm thinking that the other team felt they got enough yards on three downs to merit an attempt on fourth. Suppose it all matters when the 4th down was too, but I noticed you didn't state that either because if they were down by 20 with 5 minutes to go ... they have nothing to lose. The stat just doesn't mean anything without the details.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

I'm thinking that the other team felt they got enough yards on three downs to merit an attempt on fourth. Suppose it all matters when the 4th down was too, but I noticed you didn't state that either because if they were down by 20 with 5 minutes to go ... they have nothing to lose. The stat just doesn't mean anything without the details.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



It is also kind of an incomplete stat.

More importantly, they opponents were only 25% successful on 4th down tries.

But the same things can be said about 3rd down success. If the 3rd downs were in prevent with a 3 score lead, giving up yards, first downs and even a few points in exchange for running the opponent out of clock is a safe bet.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
DoddPower
13 years ago

But the same things can be said about 3rd down success. If the 3rd downs were in prevent with a 3 score lead, giving up yards, first downs and even a few points in exchange for running the opponent out of clock is a safe bet.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



Except for the fact that the Packer's defense was the worst in allowing explosive plays of 20+ yards. It's not like teams routinely had to methodically drive the field to score points. They were often scored pretty quickly, especially at times (the Charger's game immediately comes to mind), often unnecessarily putting the pressure back on the offense to either attempt to run the clock or more often score more.

Also, I'd gladly trade that 25% 4th down conversion rate for the Packer's defense (a measly 12 total attempts) for an improved 3rd down percentage (26th). Forth down attempts will happen some, but 3rd down is obviously much more common and usually be more important. After all, 12 plays is just 12 plays. How many third down plays occur in a season?


EDIT: Or better yet, keep the 25% 4th down percentage, and just improve the 3rd down percentage (43%). I don't mean to make it sound like the two should be mutually exclusive. Hopefully the point came across. It's more of a priority thing.
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
Screw that, get them off the field on first down with a turnover!
UserPostedImage
DoddPower
13 years ago

Screw that, get them off the field on first down with a turnover!

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



How? With a lead leading 31 interceptions, maybe? Eight more than the #2 team? heh heh.
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

Except for the fact that the Packer's defense was the worst in allowing explosive plays of 20+ yards. It's not like teams routinely had to methodically drive the field to score points. They were often scored pretty quickly, especially at times (the Charger's game immediately comes to mind), often unnecessarily putting the pressure back on the offense to either attempt to run the clock or more often score more.

Also, I'd gladly trade that 25% 4th down conversion rate for the Packer's defense (a measly 12 total attempts) for an improved 3rd down percentage (26th). Forth down attempts will happen some, but 3rd down is obviously much more common and usually be more important. After all, 12 plays is just 12 plays. How many third down plays occur in a season?


EDIT: Or better yet, keep the 25% 4th down percentage, and just improve the 3rd down percentage (43%). I don't mean to make it sound like the two should be mutually exclusive. Hopefully the point came across. It's more of a priority thing.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



One of the reason I quote stats is, although people rarely play their average, people also rarely are represented by their worst game or worst performance.

Tomorrow I will have to look up the 3rd downs in the 4th quarters compared to 3rd downs the rest of the the quarters. Like I said, some 3rd downs matter more than others. Giving up a bunch before a pick, doesn't matter. Giving up a bunch with an 18 point lead doesn't matter. Giving up a bunch before a 4th down stop doesn't matter. Giving up a bunch before they clock runs out before they score, doesn't matter.

If you take out the 3rd down conversions that didn't matter, you might find the Packers were above average in giving up 3rd downs that actually mattered. Just like they were better than average giving up net points in quarters 1-3. In fact they were one of the best in the league.

Sure there were some stinkers, but if you look at any body else in the league, even the one who got 2 MVP votes, he had some fairly massive failures against some pretty crappy teams. Brees threw picks and cost his team games against horrible teams, and he was in the argument for MVP. The vaunted 49er D gave up 38 points to the Cowboys. Who only had a 100.1 season passer rating. (Their toughest opponent)

So the Packers D had a couple bad ones. So they were not as good in the 4th quarters. OVERALL they were not nearly as bad a I see written, posted or commented on.

A great deal of which is because people are angry and disappointed. Which is why they so vehemently defend bashing the D in spite of the numbers that contradict it.

Now I wouldn't say they didn't need improvement. But I also believe the dropped passes were even more instrumental in causing the Packers to struggle as much as a 15-1 team can be said to struggle.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Stevetarded
13 years ago

I would still start Hawk over Bishop.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



Bishop is a better linebacker and football player.
blank
Fan Shout
beast (11h) : But the Return from IR designations had to be applied by the 53 man cutdown.
beast (11h) : It's a new rule, so it's not clear, but my understanding was that they could be IR'd at any time
Mucky Tundra (15h) : *had to be IRed at 53
Mucky Tundra (15h) : beast, I thought the designate return from IR players had to be IR at cutdowns to 53, not before
beast (16h) : It's a brand new rule, either last season or this season, prior, all pre-season IRs were done for the season
beast (16h) : But the Packers would have to use one for their return from IR spots on him, when they cut down to 53.
beast (16h) : I think the NFL recently changed the IR rules, so maybe the season might not be over for OL Glover.
Zero2Cool (17h) : Packers star Howton, first NFLPA prez, dies at 95 😔
dfosterf (20h) : Apparently it is too complicated for several to follow your simple instructions, but I digress
dfosterf (20h) : Zero- Did you see what I posted about Voice of Reason and his wife? She posted over at fleaflicker that they are both "In"
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Well, not crazy, it makes sense. Crazy I didn't notice/find it earlier
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : it's crazy how one stored procedure to get data bogged everything down for speed here
dfosterf (7-Aug) : to herd cats or goldfish without a bowl. They reminded me of the annual assembly of our fantasy league
dfosterf (7-Aug) : out on a field trip, outfitting them with little yellow smocks. Most of the little folk were well behaved, but several were like trying
dfosterf (7-Aug) : Yesterday my wife and I spent the afternoon on the waterfront here in Alexandria, Va. A daycare company took about 15 three/four year olds
wpr (7-Aug) : seems faster. yay
dfosterf (7-Aug) : Wife of reason posted on the in/out thread on fleaflicker that both she and vor are in
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : This page was generated in 0.135 seconds.
Mucky Tundra (7-Aug) : Tbh, I can never tell the difference in speed unless it's completely shitting the bed
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Sure does feel like site is more snappy
Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : I thought that was the Lions OL
Mucky Tundra (6-Aug) : Travis Glover placed on IR; seasons over for him
Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : found bad sql in database, maybe site faster now?
dfosterf (5-Aug) : I'm going to call that a good move.
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Packers sign CB Corey Ballentine
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : I'm not sure how to kill the draft order just yet so it's not so confusing.
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : *to be able
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : and because it's not a dynasty league (which makes a lot more sense to be ability to trade picks)
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Oh I know; I was just exploring and it blew my mind that you could trade picks because of the whole reordering thing
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Zero, I think I preferred my offer: your 1st for my 15th rounder
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Keep in mind, we do a draft reorder once all members locked in
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : You can have my 12th Rd for your 2nd round
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Hey i didn't know we could trade picks in fantasy
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Update: Rock has tried a cheese curd, promises it's not his last
Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : watch it!! lol
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : you're right, we never did leave, the site just went down :P
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Rock claims to have never eaten a cheese curd
Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : We did not leave.
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Family Night! WE ARE SO BACK!
Mucky Tundra (2-Aug) : To this day, I'm still miffed about his 4 TD game against Dallas on Thanksgiving going to waste
Martha Careful (2-Aug) : Congratulations Sterling Sharpe. He was terrific and I loved watching him play.
beast (2-Aug) : I believe it's technically against the CBA rules, but Jerry just calls it a simple unofficial chat... and somehow gets away with it.
beast (2-Aug) : Jerry Jones is infamous for ̶n̶e̶g̶o̶t̶i̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ chatting with players one on one... and going around the agent.
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Oo just saw a blurb saying that Dallas negotiated directly with Parsons and not through his agent
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I assumed that both guys will get paid, just a matter of when or how we get there
Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : McLaurin nor Micah going anywhere. They will get money
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : the Synder years or do they take care of one of their own?
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Do the Commanders risk losing a top WR with an emerging QB just because he's turning 30 and potentially risk damaging the rebuild from
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Turns 30 this September, plays at a high level and Washington has some cap space I believe
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : More interesting is Washington with Terry McLaurin
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
42m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20h / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

21h / Fantasy Sports Talk / packerfanoutwest

8-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

4-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

28-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.