The red zone efficiency [RZE] thing is all about NOTHING! But, Mike McCarthy is on top of this one and to the extent it was deficient it will improve in 2015.

What makes a good/bad RZE team is not the %; but the % of TDs RELATIVE to the league. In 2014, as Z2C pointed out, GB was 11th in the league [63-36, 57%]. Oakland was #1 at 71%, which is an insignificant outlier stat, as they had by far the fewest RZ attempts and probably got a few down by 50 points. GB and NE led the league 2010-2012 at just under 65% and #2 in 2014 was Dallas at 64.91% [33 of 51]. So 65% signifies RZE “stellarness.” If we had the same # of RZ trips as Dallas the difference between 57 and 65% is 4 TDs of which Crosby kicks at least 3 field goals; ergo the difference in GB’s and stellar RZE is 19 points or 1.2 points per game.

Note: excluded from these RZ stats is a Cobb’s 22 yard TD at Chic.; Addams’ 21 yrd TD v. Car.

At Cheesehead TV a nice article by Reuter on August 20, points out*:
The difference between 57 and 64% becomes even more trivial when adjusting for GB taking a knee to end a game in the RZ twice*, boosting their RZE to 59%. Now only 3 TDs or 15 points [If 2 FGs are made] separate GB from being RZ stellar.

And GB had two drives start outside the 20 and stalled inside the 20*, if discounting those drives, our RZE is 61%.

And Reuter points out in 2014 how in the first 7 weeks GB had a 78% RZE and 53% thereafter; which correlated to increase in RZ runs by Lacy. I believe the said correlation is a causal one, which I described in the sky is [not] falling thread last week w/ the solution partly being Rodgers:


“Counter- intuitively, our RZ difficulties have arisen with the emergence of Lacy!

On 1st and 10 at the 8, prior to Lacy Mike McCarthy knew we had to throw to score a TD and took 3 chances throwing to get the TD.

Now with Lacy, our tendency on 1st down, Mike McCarthy calls Lacy's #. And the Ds learned this tendency and expected us to run. If Lacey gets zip, we now have reduced our chances to score by 33%. If Lacy gets 5, we run on second, then run on 3rd and 1 w/ a "power formation" and kick a FG.

The problem is our O-line. As good as they are; they are not road graders. Lacy's yards come from the OL using trap blocks; creating cut back lanes, by pushing DLman in the direction they're already heading; walling off or reach blocking to prevent a DLman from getting to hole; OL , TEs and WR blocking exceptionally on 2nd and 3rd levels; etc. But ask them to move 4 DL back one yard on 3rd and 1 or 2; they simply stink. And last yr our best road grader's toe [Sitton] de-road graded him.

Success in the RZ will return in 2015, because Mike McCarthy has self-scouted the said tendencies and weaknesses. All of us, if rooting for the team GB was playing, and opposing DCs love it when the ball is taken from AR's hands. Also helping is the drafting of a beast-like, TE-like WR [Monty] and the emergence of wide-butt max catch-radiused Rodgers.”

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

Relative to the rest of the league... shouldn't matter. The reason they show a percentage is to show you what you are vs. 100% or perfection. You should be looking at perfection as your goal not some other team's lack of it.

We can and should do better. Not even sure why we debate such things.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

This perfection opinion jag is patently vacuous.

Each QB's goal is 100% completion %...DUH! But the QB who strives for pass completion perfection, will never try to attempt a throw through a tight window; he'll take sacks instead of throwing the ball away or risking an INC. He'll always throw to the receiver with the best drop rate or best hands.

Each coach's goal is for 100% RZE...DUH! But the coach who strives for 100% RZE will never kick a FG on 4th and 19; but go for the TD every time.

Any evaluation in the NFL of what is stellar or good or bad is performed by grading on the curve. If NFL grades are handed out a straight grading scale then Don Hutson, who had only one season catching over 866 yards, must be yanked from the Packers and NFL HOFs, immediately!!!!!

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

Both players have pros/cons. Gun to my head and ignoring everything I know about Bryant? Probably Nelson, but only by the slightest of margins.



Yeah that sounds like a good point, but its 16 vs 15. Not a significant difference. A better argument would be Bryant's TD average per season.



All true, though Jordy dealt with an injury situation in 2012 that skewed his stats for that year. Not an excuse, but worth noting.



It's safe to say that it took Jordy longer to develop than Dez, or that Jordy had better players in front of him. Probably a bit of both but I wouldn't argue with either sentiment.



While I of course agree that Rodgers is a better QB than Romo, Romo isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination, his career passer rating is 97.6. Romo's worst attribute is his propensity for boneheaded plays at the worse moment, which hurts his team but doesn't affect his WR's performance in a significant way.

Anyway while I think this is a solid point, I don't consider it a huge factor, especially if you look at 2013 where Nelson put up very good numbers catching balls from Flynn and Tolzien.



Same answer as above, but only by the slightest of margins.



Dez Bryant has had arguably the best RB in the league the last few years. The Packers run a system that typically spreads the ball around to more players, while the Cowboys lean more heavily on Dez Bryant, despite this, Dez has never put up Calvin Johnson type numbers, only about on par or slightly better than Jordy Nelson, who typically has more competition for targets (2014 being an exception when Nelson was targeted more than Bryant).

I looked at their stats on a 3 year average, taking each players best three years, which should present a better picture of what each player is capable and ignores outside factors like entrenched veterans playing ahead of them.

Nelson:
83 REC, 1365 YARDS, 15.4 AVG, 9.33 TD

Bryant
91 REC, 1312 YARDS, 14.4 AVG, 13.66 TD

Nelson typically does more with less in terms of yards, but Bryant scores significantly more TDs.

Anyway, it's fun to discuss something quantifiable rather than rhetoric for a change. I stand by my original position that Jordy Nelson is a legit #1 WR, probably top 5 in the league. Bryant may be slightly better than Nelson, but that doesn't negate my point.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 

One major difference between Jordy and Dez is that, Dez is "the guy," whereas Jordy is splitting receptions with other very good players.

Nelson and Cobb combined make a comparable salary to Dez and they also get more production between the two. This is from a previous thread. So for those of you who want someone who's "great," there you have it.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

If your mindset IS to score EVERY time and failure isn't an option, you're much likelier to hit higher heights.

uffda wrote:

Aside from Julius Peppers telling dbs to take knees in the NFCCG what evidence is there that the Packers don't aspire to score TDS when they have the ball?

Originally Posted by: musccy