The latest installment of Packers Therapy is live and available for your listening pleasure.

This week Chris & Dave review the third pre-season game against the Titans leading up to the 2008 season.

Actually they reviewed the Titans game, but we know what you meant LMG! Nice job again, guys. Congrats on the new sponsor. Did I hear that address correctly - stadiumsportsandantiques.com? So I pick up a Jamal Reynolds jersey AND an old musty hutch from the 1920s, huh? I'll check them out and tell them Packers Therapy sent me!

My prediction for this season = 10-6. Gotta be more positive than Chris and Dave!

P.S. Jets = 7-9

Good stuff as usual fellas. Although I don't agree with Dave about his criticism of Thompson's handling of the long snapper position. I don't know what else you think he could do about the injury there; if he's going to find another guy to do the job, of course the guy isn't going to be playing for anyone, so he'll be "off the street". And it would not be smart to be carrying around an extra long snapper the whole time.

Chris and Dave. I enjoyed pod 95 (as always). Thanks as usual for the time and effort that you both take to entertain us all. After listening, I found plenty of things to ponder.

First up is (Chris's ?) dislike of Nick Collins. The guy never seems to get a turnover, and has a habit of over-running plays, and I really can see why you don't like him. But, here is one statistic that outweighs almost everything. Collins success rate on plays toward him is 65%. Bigby's is 37%. You can swoon over Bigby's 5 interceptions last year, and get dizzy over his big hits, but he is a very undisciplined player, who goes for the big play more often than he should. The Packers will swap him before they swap Collins. With such a big a difference between them in defending the pass, the coaches will always go for the more assignment-sure guy. Rouse may be a starter one day, but stats suggest he will be in for Bigby, unless he comes in to cover injury. If only Bigby could get up towards Collin's success rate, without sacrificing his aggressive style, then he would really be something.

Second, is the projected wins this year. I think you are both too pessimistic. We may have the youngest team again this year, but most of our guys are back again, all the better for another year of seasoning. We lose Favre, who made many small positive differences to the offense, in a variety of areas, but Rodgers is younger, and has been in a brilliant situation, able to sit three years and digest all the subleties of the playbook, and watch how Brett goes about things.

We can now run plays we haven't used for years (see the QB sneak, for example). Rodgers is light years from the rookie of 2005. Football Outsiders, who supply most of my stats, calculate 11 wins (11.4 to be exact). I would toss away one more win, because I think our early schedule is tough on a young QB, making my prediction 10-6. There is quite a difference between 10-6 and 9-7, because it is probably the difference between making the playoffs and not. If Rodgers goes down for any length of time, we should be toast for 2008, but I am less worried about injury to him than many others. I do not share the opinion that Rodgers is particularly 'brittle'.

There are players we can look to, to raise our overall performance, but it will not be rookies that make an impact. Second year players like MLB Bishop, WR Jones, FB Hall, S Rouse and (later in the year) Harrell, are the ones to watch.

Third, I disagreed with your description of Jason Hunter as 'too light' for DT, but only because you never worried about Cullen Jenkins who I thought was the same weight. Hunter was 6'4" and only 250lb when he was signed, but has gained 10lb per year to get himself up to 270lbs now. I had him down as being similar in size to Cullen Jenkins. At least, that was what I thought until I looked at the recent roster. Jenkins is now listed as a chunky 6'2" and 305lbs, noticeably bigger than the bunch of DEs at 6'4", 265-270 (Thompson, Montgomery, Kampman). So, I'll admit I was wrong here.

Here are some of my concerns about our offense this year (I'll do something in defense later).

1) Better screen passing. Grant was not good at this, last year. He has no problem catching the ball, but does not show the same vision that he does on a run play. If he cannot improve, get Jackson in there for screens. He managed almost twice as much yardage per pass play, compared to Grant (8.1 yds compared to 4.8yds). Rodgers will need to succeed on this and other plays, that slow the pash rush by punishing it.

2) Better run consistency, and especially, better short yardage (power runs). Much better to go 4yds on each of 5 runs (20 yds total), than get stuffed on four runs and make 20 yards on the 5th.
We rank 30th in the power runs category, enough said. Perhaps we simply cannot run the ball up the gut. The average team runs the ball up the middle (between the two guards) on half of their runs. We do it only a quarter of the time. That is a HUGE difference. We are also among the worst in the league in average yards gained when running the ball outside the right tackle (27th). All other run directions are in the 17th-22nd range.

3) More variety in where the passes go. Last year (in terms of total passes) the Packers threw the ball to the middle of the field more than any other team, and to the left of the field less than any other team. That stat is even more significant considering the official scorer at Lambeau lists passes as being left or right, that many others would call as 'middle'. That may be an anomaly of the McCarthy gameplan, and it may be something to do with how Brett played the game. Whatever the reason, if you do this too often, other teams will gameplan for it.

4) Red zone efficiency. This is more of a "keep the standard high" thing. We did very poorly in this category in 2006, and very well in 2007. In the red zone (inside the 20), teams are, on average, 7.2% less successful than out of it. Therefore, anyone who is less than 7.2% worse is performing above average. It would be tough to expect Rodgers to perform to Brett's 2007 standard (4th best completion % outside the red zone, and 0.93% above expectation within it, ranking 2nd), but Rodgers needs to be better than we were in 2006.

First off, awesome post, 1265. Really enjoyed your insights and the way you presented your thoughts. My comments in italics.


[quote name='OneTwoSixFive' date='Sep 7 2008, 08:19 AM' post='193369']


First up is (Chris's ?) dislike of Nick Collins. The guy never seems to get a turnover, and has a habit of over-running plays, and I really can see why you don't like him. But, here is one statistic that outweighs almost everything. Collins success rate on plays toward him is 65%. Bigby's is 37%.


This is an excellent stat, one that I was not aware of. However, in my estimation, safety is a playmaking position, and to this point in his career, Nick Collins has not made many plays. I wonder what the optimal balance is between being "assignment sure" and making an impact on the game with a turnover? Would Collins help the team win more if he were less of the former and more of the latter? I suspect he would be, and that is why I am anxious to see Rouse and Bigby back there.



Second, is the projected wins this year. I think you are both too pessimistic. We may have the youngest team again this year, but most of our guys are back again, all the better for another year of seasoning. We lose Favre, who made many small positive differences to the offense, in a variety of areas, but Rodgers is younger, and has been in a brilliant situation, able to sit three years and digest all the subleties of the playbook, and watch how Brett goes about things.



I agree that sitting and watching for three years will likely benefit Rodgers. However, there is no substitute for actually playing, and he has done almost none of that. It is asking a lot from anyone to observe for so long and then execute right out of the box. I expect a learning curve, one that will least most of this season and into the next. My hope is that fans will be patient enough to ride this out.





We can now run plays we haven't used for years (see the QB sneak, for example). Rodgers is light years from the rookie of 2005. Football Outsiders, who supply most of my stats, calculate 11 wins (11.4 to be exact). I would toss away one more win, because I think our early schedule is tough on a young QB, making my prediction 10-6. There is quite a difference between 10-6 and 9-7, because it is probably the difference between making the playoffs and not. If Rodgers goes down for any length of time, we should be toast for 2008, but I am less worried about injury to him than many others. I do not share the opinion that Rodgers is particularly 'brittle'.



I don't think the guy will start 16 games, but not because he is "brittle". I feel that way because seemingly most NFL QBs miss time during the season. Brady and Manning seem to be the exception (in addition to that guy who QBs NYJ). That likelihood combined with AR's learned curve make me more pessimistic than you are.




There are players we can look to, to raise our overall performance, but it will not be rookies that make an impact. Second year players like MLB Bishop, WR Jones, FB Hall, S Rouse and (later in the year) Harrell, are the ones to watch.



I don't see Bishop getting on the field enough to make a difference; Hall does not play an impact position (at least in the contemporary NFL); and I think Harrell is going to spend the season working himself back into playing shape rather than being a difference maker. Jones, on the other hand, could make a splash -- if he can stay healthy, something that was an issue with him in the preseason.





Here are some of my concerns about our offense this year (I'll do something in defense later).

1) Better screen passing. Grant was not good at this, last year. He has no problem catching the ball, but does not show the same vision that he does on a run play. If he cannot improve, get Jackson in there for screens. He managed almost twice as much yardage per pass play, compared to Grant (8.1 yds compared to 4.8yds). Rodgers will need to succeed on this and other plays, that slow the pash rush by punishing it.



I agree -- that absolutely have to get better at this. However, I think Grant can execute in this role, but I don't expect him to because of all the time he missed in the preseason. But I am less concerned with the RBs in this regard than with the blockers -- the OLs need to get themselves into position on screens and execute their blocks. I didn't see much of that last year.





2) Better run consistency, and especially, better short yardage (power runs). Much better to go 4yds on each of 5 runs (20 yds total), than get stuffed on four runs and make 20 yards on the 5th.



Great point. The team seems willing to sacrifice half of its running plays in the belief that one will pop. Last year, that seemed to work. The coaches pointed out that there were fewer negative plays with this scheme than with a power attack (I wonder what your FO stats would show on that...?), but it also seemed there were fewer consistent significant gains.





3) More variety in where the passes go. Last year (in terms of total passes) the Packers threw the ball to the middle of the field more than any other team, and to the left of the field less than any other team. That stat is even more significant considering the official scorer at Lambeau lists passes as being left or right, that many others would call as 'middle'. That may be an anomaly of the McCarthy gameplan, and it may be something to do with how Brett played the game. Whatever the reason, if you do this too often, other teams will gameplan for it.




I noted this, too. My guess is that the direction the passes went were less a function of play calling as they were of matchups and Brett's preferences. Favre, clearly, liked to find Driver when he could. Moreover, throughout his career, it seemed to feel more comfortable going right. This might be because when they rolled out, bootlegged or when he had to scramble, he might have gone right more often out of comfort, maybe because he is righthanded. Lots of speculation there, but I am not convinced that the reasons for this are tied to scheme as much as more subtle factors.


Thanks again for your excellent comments. Question: Are the stats your provided free on FO's site or are they available only via subscription? They are quite provocative and very interesting.

Whoops....thanks for the correction.

It's been a long week with everything going on here.

Thanks.

Many thanks crichar3 for your prompt reply.

The football ousiders stats I get from their huge 2008 football prospectus book, but some of it is available free at their online site. Another good site if you want some food for thought is here Advanced NFL stats

Regarding the safety position, I am also a believer in having playmakers there. Maybe we can draft someone in 2009 who has the best parts of Bigby and Collins (and does not overpursue either). Even before the start of the season I can predict a Offensive Tackle, a Corner and a Safety somewhere in the first four rounds in 2009.

The second year players I mentioned, was more to underline that they are more important than rookies, when you have a good team. On that subject, I never did mention our kicker Crosby, because he has already made a splash. There is Barbre too, but he does not seem ready yet.

Good point about being more worried about the O line's part in run blocking, than the RB himself. We just haven't got this zone blocking stuff to work well at all. I know it takes time to get it working but the O line has had plenty of time. I wonder if we kind of slide back into a more conventional blocking side, using zone blocking more as a change of pace or against certain teams, much like the way we sometimes slide into the 3-4 defense (or even a two man front !) instead of the 4-3.

Great show guys.

I do find some spurious logic in Dave's discussion of the free agent situation. I don't think there are a ton of guys walking around on the street who could play defensive back that the Packers have simply passed on. There are 31 other teams who ALL have injuries and are trying to fill their rosters with quality players.

It is a bit of crap shoot...you have 53 players. You can't keep two long snappers, 15 defensive linemen, and 9 defensive backs because you don't want to be exposed through injury.

I also think you might be a little to dismissive of the Ryan Grant pick up of last year. I think it is a little unfair to categorize successful moves as lucky and things that don't work out as bad planning.

I've known Dave for a long time now and I can assure you that he specializes in this sort of reasoning.

I thought that would be obviously to all long time listeners by now...

Nonetheless, we will be recording a new podcast after the game tonight.

Here's my reasoning:

Ted Thompson

Good move = luck
Bad move = he's an idiot

Chris on the other hand

Good move = steely eyed assassin
Bad move = see Good Move