Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,017
    vCash
    500

    Packers defensive DVOA ranking VS Types of WR's

    I found this really interesting. Haven't checked out FO in quite awhile but ran across this earlier. I think it does give an indication of how certain CB's on the roster did last year. Williams was more often than not covering the teams #1 WR's, LB's on RB's etc.







  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    17,669
    vCash
    6430
    lol i just saw this when i was looking up our defensive rankings last year. It was pretty interesting. I know Tramon was on the teams #1 Wr a lot and hopefully he can play at full speed this year and not be a p***y when it comes to tackling.




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bratislava
    Posts
    79,543
    vCash
    1500
    So we were terrible against #1s but good against the rest? Is that how that reads? And not good against backs.
    When I asked how a Manziel fan could bash Bridgewater's size.


    Quote Originally Posted by flgatorsandjags View Post
    Manziel is shorter than Teddy but he has size 15 feet
    Yeah...it's that bad.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,017
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by NormSizedMidget View Post
    So we were terrible against #1s but good against the rest? Is that how that reads? And not good against backs.

    Correct.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,241
    vCash
    1500
    I guess I'm reading that quite a bit differently than you guys I guess. If you look at rankings, we were top 10 in a given week against #1s more than any other grouping. Obviously we gave up more yards to the top target, but I'm assuming that's pretty universal league wide. I see us being bad against rb and te in comparison to the rest of the league is how I'm reading it. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you are seeing it a different way, let me know how.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,017
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    I guess I'm reading that quite a bit differently than you guys I guess. If you look at rankings, we were top 10 in a given week against #1s more than any other grouping. Obviously we gave up more yards to the top target, but I'm assuming that's pretty universal league wide. I see us being bad against rb and te in comparison to the rest of the league is how I'm reading it. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you are seeing it a different way, let me know how.

    I'm not sure what you mean. Where are you seeing it broke down per week? All the graph I posted is showing is the season. Over the whole season GB was the 24th best team again #1 WR's, 2nd against #2 WR's, and 2nd against other WR's.

    The only thing I'm thinking is if you got confused and thought the 1-16 on the left was each week. That isn't the case. The packers stats are exclusively #7 line. All that is, is the top 16 teams in the NFL in coverage according to DVOA.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Janesville, WI
    Posts
    5,948
    vCash
    1500
    Interesting statistics. Thanks for sharing.

    ~ * ~ MINISTER OF DEFENSE ~*~

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,241
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevolu View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean. Where are you seeing it broke down per week? All the graph I posted is showing is the season. Over the whole season GB was the 24th best team again #1 WR's, 2nd against #2 WR's, and 2nd against other WR's.

    The only thing I'm thinking is if you got confused and thought the 1-16 on the left was each week. That isn't the case. The packers stats are exclusively #7 line. All that is, is the top 16 teams in the NFL in coverage according to DVOA.
    Yes,thanks for clearing that up I saw 16 and assumed it was our 16 games. I'm actually surprised our number against te is that good.

    I guess I will say in our defense of #1 coverage, we did play a lot of teams last season that were #1 wr heavy. The lions, bears, texans, colts, 49ers and cardinals are all teams that feature a very good number 1, and mediocre number 2. That accounts for half your games where teams will look to the number 1 more often regardless of coverage. I understand the bears play a similar schedule, but even against them you have a guy like Marshall who they will force the ball to, instead of a team like us that will throw it to the number 3 all day if that's what is open. Still not an excuse for having poor numbers, but it certainly should skew the numbers slightly when you're playing teams that aren't super balanced in their passing attack.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,241
    vCash
    1500
    Wanted to bump this at see what you guys thought. It still doesn't appear we've fixed this problem that plagued us last year. After two weeks that's two pretty good performances by the opponents number 1.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    17,669
    vCash
    6430
    Wait till next week lol




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,017
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    Wanted to bump this at see what you guys thought. It still doesn't appear we've fixed this problem that plagued us last year. After two weeks that's two pretty good performances by the opponents number 1.
    The difference is a majority of the time last year Williams was on the teams number 1. This year there has been a LOT of rotation on the teams #1 with Shields seeing the most time. It's only the 2nd week and GB is missing 2 of their 4 best players in the secondary and 1 being the leader. I don't think we can really get a good guess on how they will fair this year considering the circumstances.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,768
    vCash
    500
    I can't wait to come across statistics for wearing eye-black for intimidation purposes, green vs. gold shoelaces in correlation to speed, and performance when drinking Gatorade...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,017
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by iMac View Post
    I can't wait to come across statistics for wearing eye-black for intimidation purposes, green vs. gold shoelaces in correlation to speed, and performance when drinking Gatorade...
    This is a correlation to what now?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bratislava
    Posts
    79,543
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by iMac View Post
    I can't wait to come across statistics for wearing eye-black for intimidation purposes, green vs. gold shoelaces in correlation to speed, and performance when drinking Gatorade...
    DVOA isn't anything that far out there...

    If you don't like advanced stats, that's fine, many don't. But let's not act like it's akin to tarot cards and wearing your lucky underwear on game day.

    NFL certainly doesn't have the perfect system like the MLB does and even NBA to a degree, but even there it took them a while to accept some of that Sabermetic stuff that they really believe in now. Guy just won the triple crown and it was a debate if he was AL MVP because of "WAR."

    I don't think we EVER get there but I think we'll see more things like this. I love some of this type stuff for looking at offenses or defense as a whole over a season. Since it adjusts for who you played rather than pure raw stats. Things that are easily skewed if for example you played in a division with two bottom defense, etc.
    Last edited by Norm; 09-17-2013 at 07:17 PM.
    When I asked how a Manziel fan could bash Bridgewater's size.


    Quote Originally Posted by flgatorsandjags View Post
    Manziel is shorter than Teddy but he has size 15 feet
    Yeah...it's that bad.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3,017
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by NormSizedMidget View Post
    DVOA isn't anything that far out there...

    If you don't like advanced stats, that's fine, many don't. But let's not act like it's akin to tarot cards and wearing your lucky underwear on game day.

    NFL certainly doesn't have the perfect system like the MLB does and even NBA to a degree, but even there it took them a while to accept some of that Sabermetic stuff that they really believe in now. Guy just won the triple crown and it was a debate if he was AL MVP because of "WAR."

    I don't think we EVER get there but I think we'll see more things like this. I love some of this type stuff for looking at offenses or defense as a whole over a season. Since it adjusts for who you played rather than pure raw stats. Things that are easily skewed if for example you played in a division with two bottom defense, etc.
    It also takes into account if teams are scoring in garbage time or if they get a 20 yard gain on 3rd and 21. It has a lot of weighted stats that can tell the story better than say yards.. I've just always thought raw stats don't tell close to the whole story. I'm a fan of advanced stats which is probably because I always enjoyed math(to a degree). FO is pretty interesting because of how advanced some of their stats actually get. Some of the stuff is even over my head.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •