Yeah, they do. We are striving for perfection. We are following the legacy of Vince Lombardi. Negative plays are negative plays. Stop them, whatever the source. Read Lombardi's speech "Number One Speech". Winning is done always in every way.

Now, that should be the standard, but don't jump off the cliff while we strive to get there. But accepting is not acceptable.

Uh, I wouldn't put his lack of penalties as the reason the Browns are 1-5. It could be the only thing he is doing right. It is dangerous to put one factor out of the millions of variables as the cause of any success and/or failure. But we MUST strive for perfection. What else do we strive for.

Again, though, don't jump off the cliff while we are on the way.

Sorry, but another thing. We also have to prioritize the issues. I agree with McCarthy that right now penalties are not the main problem. Protection problems are. And, as he said, many of the penalties are subjective calls by refs. Really, not much you can do about that if you want to play aggressively.

of course you should strive to have less penalties. I just dont know what you do about it when they happen. And most people are acting like Mike is in the locker room right now laughing about it and telling Clifton to jump early and then punch the DEnd in the face after a play for fun. If Donald Driver flinches early and gets a false start are you really gonna bench him for the rest of the game to prove a point? Are you gonna let Rodgers get eaten alive and let Giacomini play RT because the best option you have out there got a false start.

I just agree with Bedard here and I like what he's saying about the real problem. The O-line sucks... AND is getting penalties. No team is penalty free, even though that should absolutely be the goal. Its a problem for every team, you just gotta over come it.

I had to read that twice. And I still don't know what his point is. His article reminds me of the old saying relating statistics and damned lies. Or an old joke that had a CEO asking his top managers what 2 plus 2 was. He got a variety of answers. For example his PR person said it is about 4, but before you can use it we have to do a study and determine if that answer offends anyone. The engineer says it's 4.000000000000 and on and on. The accountant finaly is asked what 2 plus 2 is. His answer, what do you want it to be?
_____
Look at offensive penalties:
Total Offense: 300 yards
Penalty Yards: 75 yards
_____
Net: 225

No big deal? No impact on downs usually just yards. However, everytime you have to go further for the 1st down it becomes less likely that the first down is made. An example, 5 red zone tries and only two TD's last week. That is an impact in my opinion. Not even the fact that many of the penalties are symptomatic of lack of discipline.
_____
Defensive penalties you just give the opponent more chances and less distance before a score.
_____
Yes, penalties do make a difference. Add sacks to that and a real problem is identified. So far, GB's relative lack of turnovers is keeping them in the game.

Penalties are a sign of bad coaching. This type of behavior is a direct reflection of the coaching staff inability to discipline the players. You need more discipline in the packer’s organization. Please release more players so the Vikings can teach them how to improve on their talent and potential.

Penalties are obviously a problem, but Bedard's point seems to be that a team can live with them if they can keep other problems under wraps, i.e. sacks. Plenty of teams over the years have managed to go pretty far in the season with certain sucky elements to their teams (a certain Mr. Grossman in the Super Bowl comes to mind), but those can be overcome if the team is talented enough in other areas. I am in no way endorsing the penalties, but sometimes a false start is less painful to watch than Rodgers getting buried beneath a 300 lb. defensive end.

I don't think it's Bedard's assertion that "penties done't matter." They do, and his numbers demonstrate that. I think his assertion is that penties don't matter nearly as much as sacks, and his numbers certainly support that.

Accepting his numbers as correct, a penalty on a drive reduces the offensive effectiveness (as measured by points per drive) by about 35%. This is certainly enough to matter. However, a sack on a drive reduces the offensive effectiveness by over 75%. That's huge.

When you think about it, it makes sense. Most offensive penalties, if accepted, result in a loss of distance, but a replay of the down. Meaning the offense has farther to go (than the play before) to continue the drive, but the same amount of plays. A sack, on the other hand, results in a loss of distance (sometimes minimal, but often substantial) AND a loss of a down, meaning the offense both has farther to go, and few downs to get there.

Bucky, very good point. Didn't realize that.

I would say only in two areas: red zone penalties matter, because if we were to run the numbers, I'm sure that the number of field goals to TDs go way up after a false start by an offensive lineman. The other area would be as a momentum killer. If a drive is really moving, the defense is praying for an easy out. First and 20 sucks. From a defensive perspective, look at the Bengals last drive versus the Steelers. Two big penalties, and suddenly they are in striking distance to win the game.

Yeah, Bucky, good point -- and one I wish I was smart enough to make (the WTMJ guys did also this morning).

It didn't help that I was going over numbers and playsheets for about 12 hours yesterday.

Wanna write my next story?

By the way, yes, I said penalties, by and large, don't matter.

In the footballoutsiders study over a five-year span, the 25 lowest-penalized teams were only 1.5 games better than the 25 most heavily-penalized teams.

That negligible when you're talking about side a wide disparity in penalty numbers.

Todd, do yourself a favor and fall off a cliff. Go troll boards in Minny. And don't worry, hewhoshallnotbenamed WILL FALL APART when he gets to the playoffs.
Remember the feeling you probably had in January of 1998 at the end of the Vikes/Falcons game? Start preparing now...

Hey Bearmeat, I think we should ignore trolls, or show them kindness. We don't have to stoop to their level. We know where the class of the NFL is, and whom everyone else is trying to catch up to. It all comes from envy.

The big issue are the unfavorable down-and-distance scenarios that are created and further exaggerated by poor pass protection. Everybody agrees that Aaron Rodgers makes the Packer engine go both now and in the future. Unfavorable down and distance with a subpar offensive line is playing Russion Roulette with your franchise (AR).

So yes, sometimes penalties are not bad IF you have good pass pro and a balanced offense. In the Packers case they are playing with fire.

Of COURSE a sack is worse. Its a loss of down plus loss of yards, while a penalty is usually just a loss of yards.
.
Its like saying giving up a field goal isn't as bad as giving up a touchdown.
.
Yes sacks are more damaging. That doesn't mean that penalties, "don't matter"

Don't tell me that the holding penalty on Tony Moll on 2nd and 7 against Houston last year that put us out of FG range when we were driving for the winning FG, didn't matter.
.
Don't tell me that the bone headed personal foul on Poppinga last year against the Titans that led to a FG didn't matter. (We lost by 3)
.
Don't tell me that the false start on the last play of the game against the Bengals this year didn't matter. I can go on and on and on...

Greg,
I stand corrected in my interpretation of what you meant. But I still think they matter; the numbers don't lie. A 35% drop in efficiency is certainly enough to matter, regardless of whether some teams in the past were able to overcome those penalties.
As for writing your next column- sounds fun, but my wife won't let me take the pay cut.

" It all comes from envy. "

Couldn't be said any better.

Penalties matter, and no little statistical breakdown can tell me otherwise.

Certain penalties kill drives, help drives, save games, and lose games.

Hackdard's story may have some truth to it, but the timing of the penalties DO MATTER.

You're telling me that those penalties at the end of the Chi/Atl game didn't help the outcome. Come on!

The longer the period of time you look at, the more regression toward the mean. I think Ron is right about statistics and lies. Also, it sounds fairly innocuous but as Bucky says, 35% is still a really big number. You also lose the importance of any particular example looking at it this way, as Ironman clearly points out. Bottom line, penalties most definitely do matter

If a team sacrifices aggressiveness to eliminate penalties, they will ultimately pay the price on non-penalized plays......At the same time, it's 3rd & 5, false start, now it's 3rd & 10.... AR still completes a pass for a first down.... the false start is negated immediately.
__________
Fans don't like penalties because it messes with the flow of the game..... Kick-offs in the NFL anymore are a waste of time - because of penalties.
__________
Aaron
Don't you always agree with Bedard ?

Aaron, this was one of the best pieces I've read in a while. It completely changed my approach to the subject. I've liked Bedard before, but this article brought him to another level IMHO.

I mean, he just trashes the common sense, and if you read it, you have to agree with him. It's awesome. Comparing him to the Dark Lord is an offense...

Just wanted to say congrats to all the commentators on keeping this on topic and not doing any politics talking. This title invites a heated debate, but cooler heads have prevailed.

Greg,

Your numbers don't identify the time and place where the offensive penalties occured. How many times this year have offensive penalties created a situation where the Packers had to change their offensive philosophy. Some (majority?) resulted in a loss of points. FG instead of TD's or missed FG's? Your analysis does nothing to distinguish the difference in magnitude of the penalty and as a result the base input reults in an average that makes no distinction to the timing or position on the field.
_____
Hence, statistics and damned lies!

Last thing I'll say here (got some work to do starting wars and trampling people's rights):

Understand certain penalties that you'll remember and say that cost us the game. But when you really think about the big picture, they don't. In McCarthy's words (which I despise), it's a convenient way of looking at things.

And the real truth is, every team has those kinds of penalties during a season. Every single one.

And PackersRS, I knew I always liked you. ;)

See ya guys. Have to go charge my pacemaker.

Greg,

Your numbers don't identify the time and place where the offensive penalties occured. How many times this year have offensive penalties created a situation where the Packers had to change their offensive philosophy? Some (majority?) resulted in a loss of points. FG instead of TD's, missed FG's, pass from their own end zone, and fumbles while being sacked because they were forced to pass? Your analysis does nothing to distinguish the difference in magnitude of the penalty or where it occurred and as a result the output is a simple average that makes no distinction to the timing or position on the field the offenses occurred.
_____
Hence, statistics and damned lies!

I still believe the packers need to release more players so other teams can make fine football players out of them. Remember one penalty can change a game and a good player needs good coaching.

Sorry about the screwed up edit. My computer got hung up.

Not all penalties are created equal. I score them. An interference penalty that stops a sure touchdown is actually a good thing. A plus 5.

A holding call on a good DE that saves a QB from a vicious hit is a +3 only if the play was not also responsible for the original bad block.

A meaningless hold away from the run is a -5.

A stupid personal foul is a -7.

The packers are bad with penalties. They are not getting fixed either. We are a young team but, J. Bush should not be the penalty machine he is.

If we were mid pack with penalties I would say we are over reacting but we are the worst.

Any reference to Cheney makes my skin crawl.

Todd - Your team's envy of ours resulted in the Vikes taking Chilly as a coach Robert Ferguson as a receiver. What is your obsession with Green Bay players? I've struggled to understand this mentality that the Vikings seem to have.

"We must have Green Bay castoffs." "We must stop Green Bay from getting the coach that we (wrongly) think they want." "MMMM. Green Bay so gooood."

So the penalties don't matter because the sacks are worse. Maybe they go together. We have had so many third and longs that sack totals will be high even with a good o-line. (and we don't have a good O-line)

Lol at Bedard. I've been pranked by someone using his name before, and that's cool. I thought you were outplayed by Pelissero during OTAs and minicamp, but that could have something to with GPPG and JSOnline... And I'm not one to kiss anybody's ass, what I've said is true, it was a great article, that changed my mind about penalties, based on your research.

And about penalties not mattering, it's that penalties won't make a good team bad. Not making penalties won't make a bad team good. They are a part of football, but a less important than the actual play. That's what I took from the article.

Bedar must have changed his tune, because I recall a blog entry of his back during all the preseason penalty cha cha cha, and he said something to the effect of "If the Packers don't fix this penalty thing, it's going to come back and bite this team. Just watch."

The penalties on the offensive line are bad. They are indicative of the poor offensive line play and as such are part and parcel of the same problem.
If you clean up the Oline play, not only will you have fewer sacks, but the number of penalties per game will go down to a normal amount.
Now, the penatlties that REALLY kill us are the phantom penalties. Remember the Superbowl between Seattle and Pittsburgh? To me, the integrity of the game has been officially in question since that game.
For instance, the phantom PI against Tramon Williams v Dallas. Remember that game? Aaron Rodgers comes in to relieve the INT machine and rallies the Pack, almost back to the point of victory? The game ends up being signed, sealed and delivered by a phantom PI call when Tramon has TO flat out covered downfield.
For the most part, it seems that the officials have an agenda to "keep games close" towards the end, which imo may be to increase ratings and viewership. However, in the case of that Superbowl, the Steelers have a significantly greater marketing potential as champs than do the Hawks. Not to mention the Jerome Bettis retirement story.
Cue the theme from the X Files.
Remember last year when the Broncos were handed two games in a row by ridiculously incorrect calls? Just makes you wonder, does it not?

</i>...he acknowledged just that on the show Tuesday night.</i>

---

I think he correctly modified his position then. Take a look at A-Rodge's average attempt per pass (which to me is the best barometer of how well a QB is moving the ball downfield)and it's an exceptionally good 8.88. Only Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger have superior numbers.)

---

A-Rodge, bless his soul, finds a way to pile up huge numbers despite the penalty fetish of his teammates and the protection woes. Provided his body can withstand all the abuse and this trend continues all year, the passing offense will have accumulated some incredible numbers.

Penalties are definitely a problem for the Pack. The Packers give up so many yards every game because of penalties, and I agree that the Packers should striver for perfection. I mean, why not.

Todd, why do you even comment on here. You're like the only Vikings fan here. Isn't their a Vikings blog somewhere?

Deficits didn't matter under Bush and they really don't matter under Obama. But it's not like there is any rational alternative in the other party. I reckon' this country will be hearing much more of this in the future:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XamI2ZKgE8g&amp;feature=related

Penalties can cost you the game. 'Nuff said.

There're two stats out there that I like. One I've heard from Brian Billick, and the other I can't recall if it was Jersey Al or Brian Cariveau, or someone else:
-
1)Addition between differential in turnovers and differential in explosive plays made and given.
-
2)Addition between rushing yards (+) and penalty yards (-)
-
The first determinates the outcome of a season; the top tier teams usually enter the playoffs. The later is a condition for winning a game. If the math is negative, it usually means the team will lose. Yeah, they aren't practical, there isn't a rank out there of both, if I'm not mistaken, but they're pretty accurate.

I'd like to contribute two points:
*
Point 1: Bedard is not Cheney. Cheney is evil. Bedard is just being academic. I think the core passage we need to look at in his piece is:
*
&gt; But the truth is, penalties don't
&gt; matter as long as you are solid in
&gt; other areas, namely protecting the
&gt; quarterback and taking care of the
&gt; ball.
*
Mr. Bedard has suggested that there are strategies in which high penalties correlate well with victory, so long as the high penalties correlate with low sacks and taking care of the ball. I might be willing to concede that this suggestion might be true. Following jrarick, however, I also believe that Lombardi wouldn't like it and since he wouldn't, I say it's a bad way of winning, even if it is technically possible.
*
That said, I'm desperate enough to accept this philosophy if it correlates with our beloved Green Bay Packers <I>actually winning</I> against a team tougher than the Lions. But the high penalties, low sacks, taking care of the ball combination suggests a <I>deliberate and disciplined strategy of coaching</I>. Whereas the high penalties, high sacks, "let the enemy defense have their wicked way with us" combination expresses a single, fundamental truth (point two): <I>The O-Line sucks because it is poorly coached</I>. The argument that "they might not suck with the penalties if only they didn't get the sacks and if they could just take care of the ball" <i>is entirely academic</I>. They would have to have been well-coached in a specific strategy to achieve this miracle. The problem is not that the present strategy just needs to be tweaked. The problem is that whatever the present strategy was supposed to have been, <B>the coach assigned to make it work sucks</B>.
*
The "well-coached" part is the critical causal factor. The rest is a census of angels on pinheads.
*
Plus, LOMBARDI WOULDN'T LIKE THE PENALTIES. So there!

The only time that Penalties don't matter are in those times when your team is good enough to overcome them.
.
Sounds obvious and over simplified, I know. However, that's really the bottom line.
.
No one is going to say penalties don't matter when you've given up downs and yards in a close loss. These great teams that had success despite committing large numbers of penalties were just that- GREAT teams that were so much stronger than the competition they could afford to spot the other team downs and field position.. IMO, of course. :)

Part of the problem here is that a lot of people don't understand how the underlying statistical analysis works. All the FO study shows is that over the life of their data, there is a low correlation between a team committing a greater than average numbers of penalties and losing a greater than average number of games.

This does not mean that individual penalties don't matter, or that points aren't lost as a result. What it does mean is that historically in the NFL, teams that commit large numbers of penalties have not typically been worse than average as a result.