Jump to content

GB’s Offense averaged 25.25 points over last 8 games last yr


Recommended Posts

I was somewhat surprised at how many points GB put up, after all we’ve read about some of Rodgers’ struggles.

These were not games that GB was coming back in against soft 4th quarter defenses.  Many were wins or back and forth games decided late.  The stat above excludes any defensive or special teams touchdowns.

The key turning point seemed to be Christian Watson’s development and growing chemistry with Rodgers.

Then you factor in the thumb starting to heal.

AR’s stats were ‘good enough’ but the bigger thing for me is how well he does leading the offense to points … regardless of his own individual stats.  That’s the mark of a winning QB and it’s great to finally have one in our uniform after years of watching our QBs figure out how to minimize points and lose games.

How many of us would be happy with 25 points per game?  That would equate to top 8 overall scoring offense using last year behind only KC, Buffalo, Philly, Dallas, Detroit, SF, Cincy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

I was somewhat surprised at how many points GB put up, after all we’ve read about some of Rodgers’ struggles.

These were not games that GB was coming back in against soft 4th quarter defenses.  Many were wins or back and forth games decided late.  The stat above excludes any defensive or special teams touchdowns.

The key turning point seemed to be Christian Watson’s development and growing chemistry with Rodgers.

Then you factor in the thumb starting to heal.

AR’s stats were ‘good enough’ but the bigger thing for me is how well he does leading the offense to points … regardless of his own individual stats.  That’s the mark of a winning QB and it’s great to finally have one in our uniform after years of watching our QBs figure out how to minimize points and lose games.

How many of us would be happy with 25 points per game?  That would equate to top 8 overall scoring offense using last year behind only KC, Buffalo, Philly, Dallas, Detroit, SF, Cincy.

We averaged 17.4 PPG last year and allowed 18.6 PPG while winning 7 games. I'm no math guru but it seems like we'd win a lot of football games if we average scoring 25 and allowing 18.6 PPG.

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barry McCockinner said:

We averaged 17.4 PPG last year and allowed 18.6 PPG while winning 7 games. I'm no math guru but it seems like we'd win a lot of football games if we average scoring 25 and allowing 18.6 PPG.

Yet, we will without a  doubt somehow some way  F it up, 

  • Upvote 2
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

We averaged 17.4 PPG last year and allowed 18.6 PPG while winning 7 games. I'm no math guru but it seems like we'd win a lot of football games if we average scoring 25 and allowing 18.6 PPG.

You know enough to know you can't look at it that way.

Teams played quite differently against the Jets knowing their offense was stagnate.  Moreover, the Jets got a lot of luck with the QB's they played.

Look, I love this defense it's absolutely loaded, but looking at last years stats as an expectation for this year I think you'll be disappointed.  The NFL is designed to score and the Jets face some real potent offenses this year.  The D can only do so much in this league.

The offense is likely going to have to put up 30+ to beat the likes KC and Cincy in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

We averaged 17.4 PPG last year and allowed 18.6 PPG while winning 7 games. I'm no math guru but it seems like we'd win a lot of football games if we average scoring 25 and allowing 18.6 PPG.

I believe you are correct

200.gif.d378ea750fa9e8dc0e2df2cdb88a7029.gif

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

You know enough to know you can't look at it that way.

Teams played quite differently against the Jets knowing their offense was stagnate.  Moreover, the Jets got a lot of luck with the QB's they played.

Look, I love this defense it's absolutely loaded, but looking at last years stats as an expectation for this year I think you'll be disappointed.  The NFL is designed to score and the Jets face some real potent offenses this year.  The D can only do so much in this league.

The offense is likely going to have to put up 30+ to beat the likes KC and Cincy in the playoffs.

Teams are going to have to try to score more points on us. The result of that is yet to be seen but it doesn't necessarily mean they will be successful. A lot of times when offenses press they make mistakes.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

You know enough to know you can't look at it that way.

Teams played quite differently against the Jets knowing their offense was stagnate.  Moreover, the Jets got a lot of luck with the QB's they played.

Look, I love this defense it's absolutely loaded, but looking at last years stats as an expectation for this year I think you'll be disappointed.  The NFL is designed to score and the Jets face some real potent offenses this year.  The D can only do so much in this league.

The offense is likely going to have to put up 30+ to beat the likes KC and Cincy in the playoffs.

The math is that GB was top 8 in points scored once they started to figure things out, which are more points than 24 other teams were scoring.  

The Jets clearly have one of the better defenses in the league.

Mathematically, if you take a top 8 scoring offense and a top 8 defense, you should win a lot of games.

While you are right that there are nuances, the math on this doesn’t need to be too difficult.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Teams are going to have to try to score more points on us. The result of that is yet to be seen but it doesn't necessarily mean they will be successful. A lot of times when offenses press they make mistakes.

Fair enough.  I think it will certainly result in more turnovers.  We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

The math is that GB was top 8 in points scored once they started to figure things out, which is more points than 24 other teams were scoring.  

The Jets clearly have one of the better defenses in the league.

Mathematically, if you take a top 8 scoring offense and a top 8 defense, you should win a lot of games.

While you are right that there are nuances, the math on this doesn’t need to be too difficult.

You're comparing apples to oranges. 

GB was not a "top 8 scoring" team last year, they were only that for half the year, while the teams you're comparing that against were higher for entire seasons of play.  

Also, GB's improvement also had very little to do with "figuring it out".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

The math is that GB was top 8 in points scored once they started to figure things out, which is more points than 24 other teams were scoring.  

The Jets clearly have one of the better defenses in the league.

Mathematically, if you take a top 8 scoring offense and a top 8 defense, you should win a lot of games.

While you are right that there are nuances, the math on this doesn’t need to be too difficult.

I don't disagree.  When Rodgers started to connect with McCafrey they got better.   

But I'm talking about winning a championship.  Everything I've talked about this off-season has been an eye to a Super Bowl.  

This team is as loaded as I can remember any Jet team - and we won't be able to keep it together very long (as we'll need to find a QB)

The question is - does this offense have enough fire power.....or is the defense THAT good that it can slow down a KC or Cincy in the playoffs.  Just saying it's going to be tough.

Look at what KC did to that vaunted Philly D last year in the Super Bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Teams are going to have to try to score more points on us. The result of that is yet to be seen but it doesn't necessarily mean they will be successful. A lot of times when offenses press they make mistakes.

The defense’s one issue last season was a lack of turnovers. Teams having to score rather than protect the football will probably effect turnovers as well as the average points per game. I like our defense against any QB/WR combo. It’s TEs that scare me. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Warfish said:

You're comparing apples to oranges. 

GB was not a "top 8 scoring" team last year, they were only that for half the year, while the teams you're comparing that against were higher for entire seasons of play.  

Also, GB's improvement also had very little to do with "figuring it out".

Of course it did.  Rodgers had 7 passing TDs to Watson in these games (0 in the first 9).  That was the big change, opened up the entire offense as many were explosive plays.  There was also a different offensive coordinator after Hackett left for Denver.  Plus there was the thumb.

So it took them time to figure things out and put points on the board.

This is also a cautionary flag for us and why we need to get this OLine figured out and accelerate the chemistry with certain players.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

I don't disagree.  When Rodgers started to connect with McCafrey they got better.   

But I'm talking about winning a championship.  Everything I've talked about this off-season has been an eye to a Super Bowl.  

This team is as loaded as I can remember any Jet team - and we won't be able to keep it together very long (as we'll need to find a QB)

The question is - does this offense have enough fire power.....or is the defense THAT good that it can slow down a KC or Cincy in the playoffs.  Just saying it's going to be tough.

Look at what KC did to that vaunted Philly D last year in the Super Bowl.

I’m not making any argument that it’s good enough for that.

But first things first, it should give us a real chance to make the playoffs, win the division.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

Of course it did.  Rodgers had like 6 passing TDs to Watson in these games.  That was the big change.  There was also a different offensive coordinator after Hackett left for Denver.  Plus there was the thumb.

So it took them time to figure things out and put points on the board.

This is also a cautionary flag for us and why we need to get this OLine figured out and accelerate the chemistry with certain players.  

If you look at the prior 2 years where he had Hackett and Adams they averaged more PPG. I think G. Wilson is somewhere between 2nd half of the 2022 season Watson and D. Adams.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

If you look at the prior 2 years where he had Hackett and Adams they averaged more PPG. I think G. Wilson is somewhere between 2nd half of the 2022 season Watson and D. Adams.

If I remember correctly, they were #1 scoring offense in 2020 with nearly 31 points per game.

Then top 5 in 2021 with over 26 points per game.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barry McCockinner said:

We averaged 17.4 PPG last year and allowed 18.6 PPG while winning 7 games. I'm no math guru but it seems like we'd win a lot of football games if we average scoring 25 and allowing 18.6 PPG.

With milfy’s much vaunted offense.  Sure Zach played poorly but, imo, milfy coached worse. They went from 18.6 (2021) down to 17.4 in spite of arguably better skill position players.  Blame it all on the oline? They were certainly a big part but milfy was the bigger part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Teams are going to have to try to score more points on us. The result of that is yet to be seen but it doesn't necessarily mean they will be successful. A lot of times when offenses press they make mistakes.

We held the Bills—who were absolutely trying to score on us—to 17 and 20 points last season. @FidelioJet isn’t wrong that we’re playing some great offenses this year, but the good news is that all of those offenses are clustered in the first six games of the year—Bills, Cowboys, Chiefs, and Eagles. After that, it’s Giants, Chargers at home, Raiders, Bills again, Dolphins twice, Falcons, Commanders, Browns, Texans, Pats. Even in the worst case scenario, we’re through the muck in mid-October and it’s hammer time from there on out. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

You're comparing apples to oranges. 

GB was not a "top 8 scoring" team last year, they were only that for half the year, while the teams you're comparing that against were higher for entire seasons of play.  

Also, GB's improvement also had very little to do with "figuring it out".

"If you eliminate the games when they weren't top 8, they were top 8!"

Removing data points from a data set to make it fit the conclusion you wish is both bad math and intellectually dishonest. At least if one were to compare only the final half of the year of all teams it would only be bad math.

  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jgb said:

"If you eliminate the games when they weren't top 8, they were top 8!"

Removing data points from a data set to make it fit the conclusion you wish is both bad math and intellectually dishonest. At least if one were to compare only the final half of the year of all teams it would only be bad math.

Who is trying to fit data into a narrative?  That’s an assumption you are making which is intellectually dishonest.

I’ve explained why I took the sample I did and what it might suggest for this year.  We need to start fast and not take 8 games to figure things out.

Quite frankly, that shouldn’t be that hard to get behind.  GB was a major work in progress the first half of last year.  Jets cannot afford to be this year.  

I also believe if I took apples to apples look at the last 8 games for all teams, the story wouldnt change that much.  GB would still be in the top 10.  Something I’ll look to do in the coming days..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

Who is trying to fit data into a narrative?  That’s an assumption you are making which is intellectually dishonest.

I can only try to make the picture from the puzzle pieces in the box, friend.

Just now, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

I’ve explained why I took the sample I did and what it might suggest for this year.  We need to start fast and not take 8 games to figure things out.

But it's nonsensical to compare 8 Packer games against 17 games for every other team. Please tell me you're not actually resisting that.

Just now, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

Quite frankly, that shouldn’t be that hard to get behind.  GB was a major work in progress the first half of last year.  Jets cannot afford to be this year.  

You should've just stuck to the changing production in the first and second half of the Packer's season without the comparison to other teams.

Just now, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

I also believe if I took apples to apples look at the last 8 games for all teams, the story wouldnt change that much.

Would help your point a ton if you're correct.

Just now, OtherwiseHappyinLife said:

GB would still be in the top 10.  Something I’ll look to do in the coming days..

That would be cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could ask clarifying questions rather than assume :).  So there is more you could have done.  lol

It’s not nonsensical, but it does need to be confirmed.  Not an easy pull of data.  Or it’s as non sensical as your assumption that I was trying to support my own narrative .. which would have been much easier to confirm than pulling data from all teams across 8 weeks.  At least without a data source that can provide such data cuts that I’m aware of.  

All said, I believe I know enough about statistics where I would bet you some good money that GB will still fall into the top 10.  Meaning I believe 8 games is statistically relevant.  That said, as always with a dose of wisdom over ego, I might be wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jgb said:

"If you eliminate the games when they weren't top 8, they were top 8!"

Removing data points from a data set to make it fit the conclusion you wish is both bad math and intellectually dishonest. At least if one were to compare only the final half of the year of all teams it would only be bad math.

@Warfish

 

Looked at only the last 8 games across all teams, GB was still #8th in total points, with the same teams above it.  It's not bad math if you have a statistically relevant/representative data set.

GB had the biggest swing in points from the 1st half of the season to the 2nd half, hence why they started to figure things out.  It's quite possible Rodgers needs a #1 WR, as most teams do.  The deep threat also gives him time to operate like the savvy vet he is.  That plus his thumb might have been heeling or he/the offense adapted and adjusted to it.

Lastly, if I was trying to support a narrative (as many do), I wouldn't have been as surprised with the upswing in points nor would I have stripped out the defensive and special teams TDs from Rodger's scorecard.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...