Stopping the New Romo Myth

[percyhoward]

Rodgers would have done what he did to almost any defense out there.

Rodgers had a 125.4 rating in that game, and a 108.3 rating against all the other defenses he faced in 2014. So what happens if, defensively, we hold him to his average?

Here's what he did.
24 of 35 316 yd 3 td 0 int 125.4

If we stop one play, the 46-yard TD to Adams on 3rd down, it looks like this.
23 of 35 270 yd 2 td 0 int 108.0

Alternatively, we could have intercepted him once, possibly setting up a TD for us.
23 of 35 303 yd 3 td 1 int 109.6

Or caused him to throw 4 more incomplete passes, possibly taking them out of FG range a couple of times.
20 of 35 264 yd 3 td 0 int 109.7

We could have won under any of those scenarios if Rodgers had played the way he did against the other defenses he faced. The problem was that he played 17 points better.

 

[AdamJT13]

The 19th ranking was a mirage. Based on real time on the field and efficiency, they were near the bottom of the league.

Our defense was 19th in weighted DVOA and 16th in points allowed per possession. (We were also No. 1 in turnovers created per possession.)

 

[ufcrules1]

Rodgers had a 125.4 rating in that game, and a 108.3 rating against all the other defenses he faced in 2014. So what happens if, defensively, we hold him to his average?

Here's what he did.
24 of 35 316 yd 3 td 0 int 125.4

If we stop one play, the 46-yard TD to Adams on 3rd down, it looks like this.
23 of 35 270 yd 2 td 0 int 108.0

Alternatively, we could have intercepted him once, possibly setting up a TD for us.
23 of 35 303 yd 3 td 1 int 109.6

Or caused him to throw 4 more incomplete passes, possibly taking them out of FG range a couple of times.
20 of 35 264 yd 3 td 0 int 109.7

We could have won under any of those scenarios if Rodgers had played the way he did against the other defenses he faced. The problem was that he played 17 points better.

Shoulda woulda coulda.....Again, you are trying to use stats to tell the whole story and it doesn't work that way. So what that he played better than his average. It's not like we were the worst defense he has faced. I would assume it had more to do with them being at home and it being a big playoff game, that he stepped his game up. It's simple, we knew Rodgers was going to move the ball on us and they were going to hang some touchdowns on us. The Packers scored a total of 26 points and we only scored 21. Why didn't our offense put up more points? The game was a team loss period. Our offense could have done better and our defense could have done better. If you think only putting up 21 points is good enough against the Packers in GB in the playoffs,then I don't know what to tell you. With regards to the Packers 26 points, I'm surprised they didn't score more. They put up 30 against the Lions in the game before ours and the Lions had a far superior defense than we did. In my opinion, it was just a good ole fashioned team loss.

 

[ufcrules1]

Our defense was 19th in weighted DVOA and 16th in points allowed per possession. (We were also No. 1 in turnovers created per possession.)

That doesn't sound like a horrible defense to me. It sounds like a middle of the road defense.

 

[ufcrules1]

The 19th ranking was a mirage. Based on real time on the field and efficiency, they were near the bottom of the league. Rogers has certainly carved up many a defense, but it was more than obvious that we couldnt get to him with the pass rush. And let's not forget that he was limping around the field. A truly pathetic performance from a pass rush perspective. And certainly the fact that the D couldn't get off the field would affect the offense and their ability to get the ball back.

Now you can certainly give the defense a pass if you like, but from my perspective, I completely agree with the management that the problem with this team is the defense and the pass rush.

And I will also disagree that we are much worse in the running game. Randle will surprise a lot of people. And I also subscribe to the theory that you dont need a GREAT back behind this line. The run game will continue to be a strength. And AGAIN...........its clear that management agrees with me again based on their off seasons decision in regards to the same.

The 19th ranking was not a mirage. I'm actually a bit shocked how much fans are bagging our our defense. They played their hearts out last year and were not all that bad. Sure, we certainly needed more of a pass rush but I thought overall our defense was average. I have no faith in Randle from what I have seen of him and don't see him as an every down back at all. I guess we will just have to wait and see how the season goes. I genuinely hope I'm wrong about Randle and he tears it up. The team doesn't seem like they are very comfortable at RB right now IMO. They appear to be a little uncomfortable and I don't blame them. DMF has only had one full season since 2008 so you sure can't count on him. Williams has played 5 games since 2011, so you can't count on him, and Randle is a second year player that has had some off the field issues and has never been given the task of carrying the ball very much. I think this year we will get the answer of if it was our line, DM, or both that led to our success last year.

 

[AdamJT13]

The Packers scored a total of 26 points and we only scored 21. Why didn't our offense put up more points?
The game was a team loss period. Our offense could have done better and our defense could have done better. If you think only putting up 21 points is good enough against the Packers in GB in the playoffs,then I don't know what to tell you. With regards to the Packers 26 points, I'm surprised they didn't score more. They put up 30 against the Lions in the game before ours and the Lions had a far superior defense than we did. In my opinion, it was just a good ole fashioned team loss.

Look at how many times each team had the ball and where they got the ball. We scored "only" 21 points -- but we had only eight possessions and never got the ball in good field position. We started possessions at our own 23, 38, 36, 19, 20, 20, 25 and 18. Based on starting eight possessions at those yard lines, an average offense against an average defense would score only 12.6 points -- we scored 67 percent more points than would be expected on only eight possessions with that bad of field position. Our offense did just fine. The Packers had better field position -- thanks in part to Murray's fumble inside our territory -- but still would have been expected to score only 14.6 points on their eight possessions (not counting running out the clock at the end). We allowed them to score 26.

Also, the Packers' offense put up only 21 points against the Lions -- their defense scored two points (safety), and their special teams scored seven (punt return). They also had 10 possessions in that game, and two of them started inside the Lions' territory (one led to a TD).

 

[percyhoward]

It's not like we were the worst defense he has faced.

Our defense was much improved last year, and deserves some of the credit for helping us get that far. But that's irrelevant to my point that you're supposedly responding to -- that even an average defensive performance could have made a difference. If we hold Rodgers to his average passer rating we probably win the game, so I'd call that a significant difference.

Also, when you talk about the 26-21 score, you should account for the fact that it was a slowed-down game, with only 8 possessions for each team. Dallas averaged 10.6 possessions per game during the regular season, and the Packers averaged 10.2. Apply that to this game, and it's GB 33 Dal 28. That would put us 1 point below our per-game average, and the Packers 3 points above theirs. And that' point total for us assumes that the blocked FG would have been missed anyway, and we would have come away with zero points after a 1st-and-goal at the 1 if Dez's catch had correctly stood.

 

[Idgit]

Shoulda woulda coulda.....Again, you are trying to use stats to tell the whole story and it doesn't work that way. So what that he played better than his average. It's not like we were the worst defense he has faced. I would assume it had more to do with them being at home and it being a big playoff game, that he stepped his game up. It's simple, we knew Rodgers was going to move the ball on us and they were going to hang some touchdowns on us. The Packers scored a total of 26 points and we only scored 21. Why didn't our offense put up more points? The game was a team loss period. Our offense could have done better and our defense could have done better. If you think only putting up 21 points is good enough against the Packers in GB in the playoffs,then I don't know what to tell you. With regards to the Packers 26 points, I'm surprised they didn't score more. They put up 30 against the Lions in the game before ours and the Lions had a far superior defense than we did. In my opinion, it was just a good ole fashioned team loss.

In this case, the stats actually do measure the story accurately. They just don't tell the story you want to believe, but that's another issue altogether (Everybody say: "That's another issue").

There's no question that our defense has been the limiting factor for this team the last few years. The only way you get the impression it's anything else is from frequenting message boards where people talk about the QB so much because they see him with the football in his hands all the time.

 

[TheDude]

Rodgers had a 125.4 rating in that game, and a 108.3 rating against all the other defenses he faced in 2014. So what happens if, defensively, we hold him to his average?

Here's what he did.
24 of 35 316 yd 3 td 0 int 125.4

If we stop one play, the 46-yard TD to Adams on 3rd down, it looks like this.
23 of 35 270 yd 2 td 0 int 108.0

Alternatively, we could have intercepted him once, possibly setting up a TD for us.
23 of 35 303 yd 3 td 1 int 109.6

Or caused him to throw 4 more incomplete passes, possibly taking them out of FG range a couple of times.
20 of 35 264 yd 3 td 0 int 109.7

We could have won under any of those scenarios if Rodgers had played the way he did against the other defenses he faced. The problem was that he played 17 points better.

Maybe if both his calves worked like most of the season, he would have been worse.

Romo had a better average than Rogers (143 vs 125). You can make the same regression to average argument for him.

Stats for this hypothetical are completely worthless other than equational gymnastics. They lost the turnover at the worst time, that is always the first place to look

 

[big dog cowboy]

Our defense was 19th in weighted DVOA and 16th in points allowed per possession. (We were also No. 1 in turnovers created per possession.)

One year ago most thought we had one of if not the worst defense in the league. Man I remember those threads.

 

[TheDude]

Look at how many times each team had the ball and where they got the ball. We scored "only" 21 points -- but we had only eight possessions and never got the ball in good field position. We started possessions at our own 23, 38, 36, 19, 20, 20, 25 and 18. Based on starting eight possessions at those yard lines, an average offense against an average defense would score only 12.6 points -- we scored 67 percent more points than would be expected on only eight possessions with that bad of field position. Our offense did just fine. The Packers had better field position -- thanks in part to Murray's fumble inside our territory -- but still would have been expected to score only 14.6 points on their eight possessions (not counting running out the clock at the end). We allowed them to score 26.

Also, the Packers' offense put up only 21 points against the Lions -- their defense scored two points (safety), and their special teams scored seven (punt return). They also had 10 possessions in that game, and two of them started inside the Lions' territory (one led to a TD).

I must be loopy, because I am just not getting all these hypothetical stats. Rogers had one leg and missed the opening drive of the second half against the Lions. He came back after Detroit tied it at 14 in the 3rd.. At 9 Minutes left in the game, Rogers scored in on a sneak. He threw 1 pass the rest of the game. They had a 5 minutes drive that iced the game. the safety came on the following drive on grounding call. GB slowed the game on purpose for most of Detroit and then in Dallas.

 

[AdamJT13]

I must be loopy, because I am just not getting all these hypothetical stats. Rogers had one leg and missed the opening drive of the second half against the Lions. He came back after Detroit tied it at 14 in the 3rd.. At 9 Minutes left in the game, Rogers scored in on a sneak. He threw 1 pass the rest of the game. They had a 5 minutes drive that iced the game. the safety came on the following drive on grounding call. GB slowed the game on purpose for most of Detroit and then in Dallas.

Maybe you are loopy. I'm not even sure what you are arguing, or if you are arguing.

 

[TheDude]

Maybe you are loopy. I'm not even sure what you are arguing, or if you are arguing.

probably. You are stating the Packers offense "only put up 21" on the lions as if it was a subpar performance because of 10 drives. Seems like a raw data pull 7 months after a game to support a point. a game they won by 10, had an injured QB and milked the clock in the 4th. But the data is the data, carry on

 

[AdamJT13]

probably. You are stating the Packers offense "only put up 21" on the lions as if it was a subpar performance because of 10 drives. Seems like a raw data pull 7 months after a game to support a point. a game they won by 10, had an injured QB and milked the clock in the 4th. But the data is the data, carry on

I said "only 21" because the post to which I was replying said the Packers scored 30 points against the Lions' "far superior defense" and surprisingly didn't score more against us. Their offense actually scored 21 against the Lions -- the defense and special teams scored the rest.

 

[TheDude]

I said "only 21" because the post to which I was replying said the Packers scored 30 points against the Lions' "far superior defense" and surprisingly didn't score more against us. Their offense actually scored 21 against the Lions -- the defense and special teams scored the rest.

Shoulda woulda coulda.....Again, you are trying to use stats to tell the whole story and it doesn't work that way. So what that he played better than his average. It's not like we were the worst defense he has faced. I would assume it had more to do with them being at home and it being a big playoff game, that he stepped his game up. It's simple, we knew Rodgers was going to move the ball on us and they were going to hang some touchdowns on us. The Packers scored a total of 26 points and we only scored 21. Why didn't our offense put up more points? The game was a team loss period. Our offense could have done better and our defense could have done better. If you think only putting up 21 points is good enough against the Packers in GB in the playoffs,then I don't know what to tell you. With regards to the Packers 26 points, I'm surprised they didn't score more. They put up 30 against the Lions in the game before ours and the Lions had a far superior defense than we did. In my opinion, it was just a good ole fashioned team loss.

21 points, by hook, crook or whatever, generally wont get it done in the playoffs. Since 2006 there have been 99 playoff games. Only 16 games (16.2%) has the winning team scored less than 23 points and no team in the last 2 years has won scoring less than 23.

I dont see the relevance of # of possessions, you simply have to make each drive count. Surfing box scores doesnt really show the wasted drive Dallas had right before the half.

Drive started on the 20 with 5:37 before half...with :48 left Romo hits Witten at the GB 26 for an apparent 1st Down. Call is reversed and its 3rd and 1. Dallas goes Shotgun, bad snap, throws it OB deep to TWill. The previous 3rd and 1s in the game, all under center and Murray converted. Still had 2 TOs (and :48 seconds). Blocked FG, GB gets it at the 40, gets a 31yarder to Cobb and gets a FG. 6 point swing.

The odds of not scoring on that Drive for Dallas had nothing to do with where the drive started. The drive was dependent on converting the 3rd and 1 (or again why a routes are run a yard short running sideways - but another topic). Dallas was 100% (3-3) in the game. All Murray up the gut.

A 17-7 game will likely be game planned at halftime differently than a 14-10 game. I hate ifs, but as an illustration, the score when the Bryant call happened could have been 24-23 Dallas -thus perhaps a totally different call.

Good teams should be able to overcome negatives, but that end of half was 90% self inflicted. Bad call, Bad snap. GB made the play on the blocked FG and the Murray fumble and the most games in the NFL are just that close.

 

[jobberone]

21 points, by hook, crook or whatever, generally wont get it done in the playoffs. Since 2006 there have been 99 playoff games. Only 16 games (16.2%) has the winning team scored less than 23 points and no team in the last 2 years has won scoring less than 23.

I dont see the relevance of # of possessions, you simply have to make each drive count. Surfing box scores doesnt really show the wasted drive Dallas had right before the half.

Drive started on the 20 with 5:37 before half...with :48 left Romo hits Witten at the GB 26 for an apparent 1st Down. Call is reversed and its 3rd and 1. Dallas goes Shotgun, bad snap, throws it OB deep to TWill. The previous 3rd and 1s in the game, all under center and Murray converted. Still had 2 TOs (and :48 seconds). Blocked FG, GB gets it at the 40, gets a 31yarder to Cobb and gets a FG. 6 point swing.

The odds of not scoring on that Drive for Dallas had nothing to do with where the drive started. The drive was dependent on converting the 3rd and 1 (or again why a routes are run a yard short running sideways - but another topic). Dallas was 100% (3-3) in the game. All Murray up the gut.

A 17-7 game will likely be game planned at halftime differently than a 14-10 game. I hate ifs, but as an illustration, the score when the Bryant call happened could have been 24-23 Dallas -thus perhaps a totally different call.

Good teams should be able to overcome negatives, but that end of half was 90% self inflicted. Bad call, Bad snap. GB made the play on the blocked FG and the Murray fumble and the most games in the NFL are just that close.

I think the stats are very important esp things like TOs and FP. But you're right in that teams avoid big negative plays, make some positive big plays, overcome mistakes and capitalize when they can.

You're right about the end of the half. Might have made the difference in the game. Always a bunch of shoulda coulda's in there.

 

[percyhoward]

Romo had a better average than Rogers (143 vs 125). You can make the same regression to average argument for him.

Stats for this hypothetical are completely worthless other than equational gymnastics. They lost the turnover at the worst time, that is always the first place to look.

You misinterpreted my post. I was saying that the defensive performance against Rodgers was 17 points below the average defensive performance against him in 2014. It was a "defense played poorly" argument -- not a "regression to average" argument, an example of which would be my trying to convince people that the defense would have played better if they faced Rodgers 16 more times.

Also, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to insist that a turnover that occurred carries more potential weight than one that did not. So when you dismiss my points with "the lost turnover at the worst time is always the first place to look," you might also want to consider the value of the turnover that the Packers didn't lose. And that doesn't necessarily just mean Cobb's fumble on the kick return that we didn't get, but also any of Rodgers' 35 attempts in the game that could have been intercepted...but were not.

 

[ufcrules1]

Look at how many times each team had the ball and where they got the ball. We scored "only" 21 points -- but we had only eight possessions and never got the ball in good field position. We started possessions at our own 23, 38, 36, 19, 20, 20, 25 and 18. Based on starting eight possessions at those yard lines, an average offense against an average defense would score only 12.6 points -- we scored 67 percent more points than would be expected on only eight possessions with that bad of field position. Our offense did just fine. The Packers had better field position -- thanks in part to Murray's fumble inside our territory -- but still would have been expected to score only 14.6 points on their eight possessions (not counting running out the clock at the end). We allowed them to score 26.

None of that matters. All the matters is we only scored 21 points and at the end of the day that isn't good enough. Stats are just stats, you are trying to do averages and all kinds of stuff to explain why we didn't score more and that is nothing more than excuses. Past performance is not indicative of future results. So the past averages mean almost nothing. Our offense needed to do more and it didn't. Regardless of where we started each possession etc. Our defense needed to do more and it didn't either. You can't just point the finger at our defense and say they are the reason we lost and leave it at that. It's simply not true. It was simply a team loss.

Also, the Packers' offense put up only 21 points against the Lions -- their defense scored two points (safety), and their special teams scored seven (punt return). They also had 10 possessions in that game, and two of them started inside the Lions' territory (one led to a TD).

And Rodgers got hurt and missed at least one possession and was severely limping the rest of the game. Had he been fully healthy he would have tore them up even worse than us and the Lions were ranked what.... #2 defense in the league last year? It had very little to do with us having a bad defense and a lot to do with Aaron Rodgers being Aaron freaking Rodgers... the best QB in the league. It takes an outstanding defense or him having a really off day to slow him down. Especially at home in the playoffs.

 

[ufcrules1]

Drive started on the 20 with 5:37 before half...with :48 left Romo hits Witten at the GB 26 for an apparent 1st Down. Call is reversed and its 3rd and 1. Dallas goes Shotgun, bad snap, throws it OB deep to TWill. The previous 3rd and 1s in the game, all under center and Murray converted. Still had 2 TOs (and :48 seconds). Blocked FG, GB gets it at the 40, gets a 31yarder to Cobb and gets a FG. 6 point swing.

Yup, these are things that simply don't show up in the stats either, they are not quantified in any way. I haven't re-watched the game again but I'm sure there were some other things like this, perhaps holding onto the ball too long, taking unnecessary sacks, poor play calling, not taking chances when we should have etc are all there and will never show up in the stat books. That is why stats are just a small part of the whole story. Especially in football..[/quote]

 

[ufcrules1]

You misinterpreted my post. I was saying that the defensive performance against Rodgers was 17 points below the average defensive performance against him in 2014. It was a "defense played poorly" argument -- not a "regression to average" argument, an example of which would be my trying to convince people that the defense would have played better if they faced Rodgers 16 more times.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. You can say the defensive performance was 17 points below the average defensive performance against Rodgers in 2014 but does that mean it was due entirely because our defense sucked bad or maybe could it be that Rodgers turned it up against us because it was a playoff game at home and he is Aaron Rodgers after all? You have your opinion on that and I have mine. Stats don't prove either of us right or wrong.

Also, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to insist that a turnover that occurred carries more potential weight than one that did not. So when you dismiss my points with "the lost turnover at the worst time is always the first place to look," you might also want to consider the value of the turnover that the Packers didn't lose. And that doesn't necessarily just mean Cobb's fumble on the kick return that we didn't get, but also any of Rodgers' 35 attempts in the game that could have been intercepted...but were not.

With regards to us getting a turnover on one of Rodgers 35 attempts, I would say judging by the stats (I'm being funny here) that the odds of getting a turnover on one of his 35 pass attempts would be ridiculously low consider he only had 5 interceptions all year on 520 pass attempts.