The Eagles (3-2) are number two in the NFL :

http://footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/...-6-dvoa-ratings

In other news, they rank our Packers #8 in the NFL. Better than some of the PC posters would rank them.

For those who are still interested in the topic, Favre has outperformed Rodgers by a substantial margin (based on FO metrics):

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

Also, the OL is average, rather than Epically-God-Awful:

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

And so is Ryan Grant:

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

Driver is benefiting from Jennings being the top dog:

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr

And, Finley has (thus far) outperformed all of the TEs that most of the draftniks (myself included) thought that we should have drafted:

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/te

But the real shocker (or not?) is the fact that the defense is currently ranked 4th (or a mere 7th, depending on which numbers you're looking at):

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

Just a reminder that defensive adjustments are still only half-applied on these stats. The Packers have played only one top-ten offensive or defensive unit so far (Minnesota's 8th-ranked offense) so they are a little overrated by DVOA.

The defensive ranking is gratifying (if a little surprising). Curiously, the three offseason names bandied about for the Packer vacancy are now 2nd (Saints), 3rd (Broncos) and 4th (Pack) on defense. One caveat: the Packer defense has a high variance, which likely signifies there's a lot of fluke in them there numbers.

The most pleasant surprise is the special teams numbers. We have almost attained averageness! That's quite a feat for the 21st century Pack. If it weren't for the punt coverage unit, we would be above average. Damn you Jarrett Bush! Also of note is the "hidden" adjustment: the Packers have had worse luck than all but three teams on special teams plays that DVOA considers uncontrollable (opponents' punt and kickoff distance and FG%).

And how about that 52% chance of making the playoffs!!!

The other pleasant surprise has been in the secondary. Harris is not the disaster many predicted in shifting from man-press to zone coverage. The number of penalties on the secondary seems way down too (less pass interference and holds).

All those numbers should improve this week as Cleveland ranks on the bottom in both offense and defense!!

True but it does seem like he gives up more plays now. Maybe I am wrong.

Not really to bash this site, but it seems to me this is just something fun to look at.

Really, I could probably create a formula to crunch numbers and make some rankings as well.

I only say this because GB's line is no way, just average. That stuff's hard for me to take seriously when it says GB's line isn't that bad. I have trouble naming 5 teams that are in worse shape when it comes to O-line play.

The line stats are for rushing only. It's not hard to believe that the Packers' line is competent at run-blocking. Look closer. Packer running backs have been stuffed on just 16 of their 103 carries, fifth-best in the league. By contrast, they have just nine runs of 10 or more yards, fourth-worst.

That suggests the line is doing at least part of its job (steering Grant to and beyond the line of scrimmage). And the lack of big plays is not entirely its fault.

As for pass protection, well, the Packers rank 32nd by a long way even after adjusting for attempts. If there was a formula that measured run + pass together, then yeah, the Pack would likely be bottom five.

Okay, I see. There's 2 different rankings. I just saw the first ranking, I really didn't know what all that other stuff meant. 15th for run-blocking and 32nd on pass-blocking. Sounds about right.

It's a pain for me to watch our OL, it must be hell for KC and BUF fans!

At least as Packer fans we can block out the part of our TV screen where the linemen are standing and watch the QB or the WRs.

http://footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/...-7-dvoa-ratings

Top-5 in the NFL, with the number 1 defense!



I'm often critical of advanced analysis in football due to the complexity of the game, the inadequate statistics, and the relatively small sample sizes (games like basketball and baseball are FAR easier to analyze). With that said, footballoutsiders.com has proven to be at least as good as any other NFL-related site. And really, is any football site more than just something fun to look at?



That goes without saying. I think that it's interesting to look at the teams directly ahead of GB on that pass-blocking list: WAS, DET, BUF, KC, OAK, SF.

Those teams are ranked, by Passing Offense:

Washington: 23
Detroit: 30
Buffalo: 21
Kansas City: 24
Oakland: 30
San Fran: 32
Green Bay: 10

Green Bay is ranked 10th in passing offense, despite having the 32nd ranked pass-blocking OL! This is in spite of the fact that the QB is just above par for the league, and the receiver's have had better years as of late.

I suspect that we're looking at sample-size distortion or some other noise. If this is the case, then either the OL will move up in the rankings (it's not like they could move down); or the offense will almost surely regress. I'd be shocked if this anomaly holds for the entire season.

Just a note about small sample sizes. These rankings don't reflect just end-game stats. The creators considered this already, which is why they count every play from every game. After six games, that's 600+ snaps total. Still small, but enough to identify trends from.

PS That means the totality of our snaps throughout our six games has been the best defensive performance of the year, so far.

No need to think so hard. We have better production than those other teams because we have a better quarterback and better offensive weapons overall despite a poor pass-blocking line. Turnover margin is also a big factor.