Why not trade away from next year to get the help we need this year?· Page 10

play2win
Senior Member Topic Starter

11 years ago

Based on Scoring Defense, in the 2013 Super Bowl, the #12 team beat the #2 team. Based on yardage, the #17 team beat the #3. Clearly, points tell a much different story...

In that same year, the Seahawks were the #1 Scoring Defense. #2 was the 49ers. #3 was the Bears. Wait. What? But the Bears didn't even make the playoffs. Neither did the #6 or #7 Scoring D. How can that be when the most important thing is defense?

In 2012, 10 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses made the playoffs. The only 2 that didn't were the Saints and Giants. Those 2 teams had won 2 of the previous 3 Super Bowls. So essentially 100% of the top Scoring offenses in 2012 were relevant.

In 2013, 9 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses and Scoring Defenses were in the playoffs. Doesn't appear that Defense is the more important side.

I bet the Ravens wish they knew that you didn't think Flacco was a franchise QB before they gave him that huge contract. Bet they'll check with you next time.

Knowledgeable football people would consider Roethlisburger, Manning and Flacco to be franchise QB's. All they've done is win 5 of the last 9 Super Bowls. The fact that you don't isn't surprising.

The trend in the NFL for the last 20 years has been to encourage offense. To deny that is ridiculous. To state that Defense is more important than Offense is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan

So, you missed the last Super Bowl? 😆 😆 😆

QCHuskerFan, you made some good points. Rule changes have greatly favored the O side of the ball over the last 5 years. However, what SEA did last season cannot be denied. They literally went up and popped Peyton Manning in the face, and he had a prolific offense.

QCHuskerFan
Member

11 years ago

#92

There are 10 Frat brothers. The first 9 marry blondes. The 10th marries a brunette. Is the trend to marry brunettes?

I am not arguing that what Seattle did was not impressive. But I haven't seen enough to think that is the new look of the NFL. Cynic that I am, I don't think the NFL will allow Defense to become dominant. There are too many casual fans that want to see exciting games like 42-38.

Among the 24 highest rated TV games this year, 9 involved the high scoring Broncos. 1 involved the Seahawks. 20 of the 48 teams in the most watched regular season games were ranked in the top 5 Scoring offenses. Only 10 of the 48 appeared in the top 6 Scoring Defenses. You can argue about the 'Manning' effect or Denver tradition vs Seattle. Or whatever you want. You can't deny that the NFL looks at ratings. You can't deny that Manning and the Broncos bring more $ to the NFL.

Anything can happen on any given day. Remember Thanksgiving Day? Based on that Lions game, the Lions were Super Bowl contenders and the Packers wouldn't win another game all year. Packers went 3-1 and the Lions 0-4. The Super Bowl was one game. Don't instantly mistake it for a trend.

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

musccy
Veteran Member

11 years ago

#93

The bigger point attached to this is imagining if Ted had actually traded up into those prime spots to take those players, and how differently we may have fared. We could have been a much more balanced team, and could have been more of a true contender last season and the season before.

Originally Posted by: play2win

...and we don't know what it would have taken to trade up or if in the case of KC/CAR that they were willing trade partners.

Using your logic that higher is better, Carolina and KC should have traded up higher than 9 and 11 to get better players, they didn't, they sat, and they got pro bowlers.

The Patriots have had 4 top 20 picks since 2000 and have done just fine drafting later.

Don't you think Ted maybe should have known better? It is his job to know. How is this shotgun thing working, adding all those picks? Right now, I would say it is not working. I would rather we added (at least) one true impact player per year on D with a more aggressive approach. Yeah, take some chances, trade away a bit to move up and get the goods.

There are 31 other teams trying to pick the same players the Packers are. I'm 🐴 ...with what I've said before. Other teams have plenty of failed draft picks too. That doesn't prove that being "more aggressive" is successful, though.

play2win
Senior Member Topic Starter

11 years ago

#94

Hey, look, I'm a Ted Thompson fan. I really am grateful to have a guy like him as our GM. But, to ignore the method he has stuck to over the last however many years, since 2006, I'd have to say take a look at those last 3 drafts and tell me you wouldn't wish we had better talent, better results. He is the guy making the picks. You say there are 31 other teams trying to pick the same players the Packers are. Maybe not. Sure, there are all kinds of failed picks, and Ted is certainly entitled to his own. No GM is perfect, nor am I saying he should be. All I'm saying is I wish he would land some better players than he has recently. Maybe change up his approach to loading his team a bit.

Add to this, every GM tries to get 4 starters out of every draft. Ted has done alright there, but it also stops right there too with his rigid stance of FA. So, he actually had to hit on a higher percentage of drafted players with that philosophy, and his staff has to develop all of those players. I'm seeing some whiffs in both departments.

I know trades require trading partners and I would have assumed you knew that too. It was a very simple hypothetical. Of course we would have had to give something up, and who knows how much?

I think Ted needs to up his game. And, if John Schneider and John Dorsey were that good at their jobs, it calls into question how good Ted really is, and whether or not he needs more help in talent evaluation. We've had 10 pretty big duds drafted to our D over the last 3 years, maybe more, maybe a little less. But, we need him on top of his game if we are going to get better.

I'm hopeful some of these players like Worthy, Perry and House turn it around, and that Hayward and Barrington and Palmer can contribute. We need impact players. Game changers. I just want him to go and get them, by whatever means he has at his disposal. He has limited himself in this regard in the past, and that cannot be denied, and his team has suffered some for it. Time to change it up. Why not? We're going to get worse? He's been pretty good at being frugal with our cap, but maybe that could change here in this window of opportunity we have with Aaron Rodgers on top of his game.

I don't want us to win the cap award. I want us to win the Lombardi Trophy. It could take a lot for us to do that.

musccy
Veteran Member

11 years ago

#95

I feel you have unrealistic expectation. No team is going to sustain success every year and hit a homerun with every pick and draft. Are Ted's drafts disproportionately bad? As a whole he has drafted well since he has been here, 2011 being the exception and appears to be one of his worst draft classes. He's had success through all rounds, including Collins, Sitton, Lacy, Lang, Hayward, Shields, Boykin, Cobb, and Nelson in later rounds, so I don't see the need to make a bold trade up. He has shown the willingness to selectively move up and back, and has had success doing both. He has taken gambles on guys with injury histories (Justin Harrell, Eddy Lacy) and succeeded and failed with both approaches.

Since he and Mike M have been here the Packers have been one of the most consistently strong teams in the NFL, so I don't care what John Schneider or Dorsey did because as a whole Ted's conservative yet stable approach has proven successful as well, and quite frankly what Schneider does isn't dramatically different. Much of his success has been through good pick ups and depth from beyond the first round, in addition to some FA pickups this offseason facilitated by an incredibly cheap contract at the most crucial position on the team, a luxury the Packers don't have.

mi_keys
Senior Member

11 years ago

#96

Based on Scoring Defense, in the 2013 Super Bowl, the #12 team beat the #2 team. Based on yardage, the #17 team beat the #3. Clearly, points tell a much different story...

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan

Focusing on one team in one season misses the point. When you look at points versus yards over the long haul, points are far more indicative of the success of a team, for both offense and defense. How is that difficult to grasp?

In that same year, the Seahawks were the #1 Scoring Defense. #2 was the 49ers. #3 was the Bears. Wait. What? But the Bears didn't even make the playoffs. Neither did the #6 or #7 Scoring D. How can that be when the most important thing is defense?

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan

Where did I say it was the end all be all? Of course you can go through and find exceptions. For instance, this past season the 2nd and 5th scoring offenses missed the playoffs.

Also, the Bears were 10-6 that season. It wasn't like they were a shit football club (they still suck, though).

In 2012, 10 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses made the playoffs. The only 2 that didn't were the Saints and Giants. Those 2 teams had won 2 of the previous 3 Super Bowls. So essentially 100% of the top Scoring offenses in 2012 were relevant.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan

The Ravens were 3rd in scoring defense four consecutive years leading up to the year they won the Super Bowl from 2008 through 2011. Using your own logic, does that nullify your first point about the Ravens defense not being so highly ranked but still winning the Super Bowl XVLII?

In 2013, 9 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses and Scoring Defenses were in the playoffs. Doesn't appear that Defense is the more important side.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan

The defenses that missed were #7, #8 and #12 scoring defenses. #7 was Arizona who finished 10-6. The offenses were the #2, #5 and #13 (so 10 of 12 scoring offenses actually made it. Of course the Packers had the #8 scoring offense and made the playoffs at 8-7-1).

Then again, here we are talking about two years, which you yourself have criticized play2win doing with his point on this past Super Bowl. If the purpose is to point out that his one point (or any one person's for that matter) can easily be an exception, that is fair and I'd agree.

Also, I'm personally more interested in what the criteria are for winning the Super Bowl since that is the ultimate goal, not just making the playoffs.

I bet the Ravens wish they knew that you didn't think Flacco was a franchise QB before they gave him that huge contract. Bet they'll check with you next time.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan

😆 I bet they did too, what with his whopping 73.1 QB Rating (ranked 32nd in the NFL this past year) on the back of 19 TDs to 23 INTs this past season. He has a career rating of 83.7 and has broken 90 once. He clearly deserves to be paid basically the same amount as Rodgers.

Knowledgeable football people would consider Roethlisburger, Manning and Flacco to be franchise QB's. All they've done is win 5 of the last 9 Super Bowls. The fact that you don't isn't surprising.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan

See point above for comments on Flacco.

Manning had a 69.4 QB Rating this past season (good for 35th). He has a career 81.2 QB Rating.

Among active quarterbacks with enough attempts to qualify, Flacco is 16th in passer rating and Eli is 21st. They are average. No one would think otherwise if not for the rings (also, in Eli's case, his last name). The argument for quarterbacks being good based on the rings they've won should've died when that argument had to be reconciled with the following score line:

Trent Dilfer: 1
Dan Marino: 0

Roethlisberger is 7th on the active passer rating list. I'm harsh on Big Ben because I get so sick of of media overrating quarterbacks for the success of the team. As I said before, he is good but he is not in that elite tier of quarterbacks. He is in a tier where about a third of the league has a quarterback playing around his level or better.

The trend in the NFL for the last 20 years has been to encourage offense. To deny that is ridiculous. To state that Defense is more important than Offense is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan

I haven't denied the rules have been skewed towards the offense. But you are confusing the league forcing higher score lines with the importance of an offense or defense. The rule changes could make defenses obsolete or they could simply change the standard for what quantifies a good defense (and offense).

Today, holding a team to 14 to 15 points a game is completely and utterly dominant. 20 years ago it would have been only pretty good. Likewise, scoring 28 points a game today would be pretty good, whereas 20 years ago it would have typically lead the league.

I would even contend that the shift in rules could eventually heighten the importance of a defense. If something is relatively easy, lots of individuals or groups are going to look good. By skewing the rules so grossly in favor of the offense, you could end up in a situation whereby only a select few defenses can cope with the challenge; and those defenses could really set themselves apart from the rest.

All that said, and apologies to everyone for the long post, here are some of the breakdowns on historical defensive and offensive scoring ranks for the Super Bowl champions:

I pulled the historical data and all time there have been 14 #1 scoring defenses that went on to win a Super Bowl and 10 #1 scoring offenses. The median rank for a defensive scoring rank all time is 3 compared to 4.5 for offensive scoring rank.

Over the past 20 years (since you referenced 20 years) there have been 6 #1 defenses and 4 #1 offenses. The median defensive rank was 3 and the median offensive rank was 7.

Over the past 10 years there have been 2 #1 scoring defenses and 5 top 3 scoring defenses. In that time frame there has been 1 #1 scoring offense and 2 top 3 scoring offenses. The median rank has was 7.5 for defense and 9 for offense.

We've seen more parity of late with some really shitty (by regular season ranking standards) offenses and defenses going on to win Super Bowls. That said, historically the defense has been the higher rank and arguably the more important. That statistical view holds true for the most recent 20 and 10 year time periods. One day that could change but until I see the evidence that it has, I'm going to continue with the view that the defense is the more important side of the ball.

Sources:
pro-football-reference (for scoring ranks and active qb rating leaders)
nfl.com (for individual qb statistics)

Born and bred a cheesehead

nerdmann
Premier Member

11 years ago

#97

When your team is stocked with talent, it's much harder to find new starters and new guys who can make your team. So yeah, Ted hasn't gotten as many of late. But they're generally still in the league, just not good enough for OUR team.

Let's get healthy, and hopefully stay that way.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

mi_keys
Senior Member

11 years ago

#98

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan

And for what it's worth I'm applauding this because: (a) I appreciate the statistics on viewership, which I find interesting; and (b) everyone is guilty at some point or another of focusing on one data point and running with it as a trend (some grossly more so than others).

I don't necessarily agree with the premise that the rule shift towards more points will eliminate the importance of an elite defense per my last post; but the above is interesting nonetheless.

Born and bred a cheesehead

sschind
Senior Member

11 years ago

#99

People keep saying look at what the Redskins gave up to get RGIII or the Falcons to get Jones but I don't think that is what Play2win is talking about, moving up into the top 10.

lets say the Packers are sitting there at #23 and they are agonizing over 2 players (A and 😎 and its really a toss up who they want. Ted Thompson really thinks both guys can be a big help to the team but obviously they will only get 1 of them so they go with player A. Then at #29 or #30 player B is still there. What would Ted Thompson have to give up out of this years draft to move up? 3 picks (2nd, 3rd, 5th?) 4 picks? What? I don't know but what if he says I'll give you next years #1 and this years #3 and a #6. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all and I think that is more in line of what p2w is talking about. Yes we are giving up a #1 next year but we are getting that #1 this year so we are not giving up a first round pick. I mean we are but we are getting it back.

No player is a guarantee but no GM takes a player they think will be a bust either. If there are players that a GM thinks can make a big contribution (and that is really what the draft is all about, picking guys the GM thinks will help) what difference does it make if we draft that guy this year by using next years pick or waiting until next year to draft that same guy but its a different guy. Either way we are drafting a guy that the GM really thinks can help. That and getting him a year earlier can't hurt either.

Of course some people will say what if we trade away our #1 next year and it ends up being the #25 pick and at #25 the best LB prospect in 20 years is still available. We would miss out on him. Well, to that I say 2 things. First, tough shit, its the chance you take when you take chances and second, trade our 2015 #1 pick and something else and go the hell up and get him.

Keep in mind that those picks I suggested were simply for illustrative purposes. I know there is a pick value guide out there somewhere that says what each pick is worth on a point scale and to figure out what low round picks the #29 overall pick is worth you just add the numbers of the other picks. My suggestions might be way high or way low I don't know but you get the idea.

play2win
Senior Member Topic Starter

11 years ago

#100

Originally Posted by: sschind

Exactly! 😆 😆 😆

Thanks sschind! We don't really lose anything by bringing a player we like into the system a year early using next year's R1. As a matter of fact, if the player is really good, we gain by having him in system early, with a year of development already in hand by next season, and by having him on our team where that otherwise might not be without making the trade... It is the general idea of what I was trying to get across.

Of course, Ted would really have to hit, but he did it before with Matthews in a trade back into R1.

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

Zero2Cool (10h) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs

Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade

Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade

dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us

dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.

wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.

Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year

dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot

dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.

dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year

dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.

Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?

Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason

Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”

Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.

Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.

Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH

beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.

Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp

dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night

dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60

dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO

Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m

dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions

dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing

Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.

dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup

dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw

dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.

Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.

wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.

Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂

Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married

Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers

Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR

Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025

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