Appreciating the Packers' 2014 Offensive Greatness
It hasn't been talked about a lot, but the Packers were one of the most efficient offenses in NFL history last season.
By PackerAaron
Great post from Warren Sharp over on his site regarding the Packers' dominance on the offensive side of the ball in 2014.
I have to admit, I had been pretty negligent in exploring just how great last year's offensive performance was from the Green and Gold until Rotoworld's Evan Silva Tweeted this out Tuesday.
The efficiency of the 2014 #Packers: 24th in total offensive plays. 1st in points scored. 1st in yards per play. 1st in turnover margin.
— Evan Silva (@evansilva) June 24, 2015
Then Sharp dropped his post this morning, putting things in striking perspective.
Money quote:
The Packers led at halftime in so many games because they averaged over 19 points in the first half. No team averaged near that amount. Teams 2, 3 and 4 (Patriots, Eagles, Broncos) averaged between 15 and 16. And they way they scored so many points in the first half is because they scored TDs on 40% of their 1st half drives! Since 1998 (17 yrs, as far back as I tracked it) only the 2007 Patriots scored 1st half TDs more often.
Truly, not enough has been made about what Aaron Rodgers and this Green Bay Packers offense did in 2014, particularly in the first half, to grab the lead and then maintain it, despite their poor defensive performance in multiple advanced metrics.
The whole post is more than worth your time (and includes a few Vines from yours truly showcasing some of Rodgers' insane throws from 2014.)
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (20)
Thegreatreynoldo
June 26, 2015 at 12:35 pm
Nice link. You're right, it is well worth the time. I will have to take some time to consider what broader conclusions can be drawn. Not really surprised by the poor stats on 3rd and short (since I watched the games), but with Sitton, Linsley and Lang, one would expect better. I suppose it shows how interconnected the offensive line is, even on short yardage plays.
Since'61
June 26, 2015 at 02:07 pm
And yet, in spite of the above article and the facts presented, we have fans/bloggers who complain about MMs play calling. 1st in points, yards per play and turnover margin while 24th in number of offensive plays supports excellent execution by the offense regardless of who is calling the plays. Let's not forget the 12 regular season wins which is the most important. Healthy A. Rodgers equals SB win. Thanks, Since '61
Thegreatreynoldo
June 26, 2015 at 02:24 pm
Honestly, that's a stretch, Ted. GB had 2 top dozen or so WRs, a top 5 RB who is a complete back, maybe the top offensive line, certainly the best QB, and mediocre or worse TEs. That is why I am not concerned that Tom Clements will be doing the play calling this year. Any reasonably competent play caller should have GB scoring lots of points.
That said, I defended MM's play calling in general, while calling MM out (so to speak - that sounds like some hubris for me to call MM out) on a handful of individual calls.
PackerAaron
June 26, 2015 at 08:05 pm
"Any reasonably competent play caller should have GB scoring lots of points."
That's a dangerous line of thinking.
Thegreatreynoldo
June 26, 2015 at 08:52 pm
How so? It aligns nicely with a recent article, "Does play calling really matter" or close to that. I was trying to be optimistic. I don't know what Tom Clement's current competence level is right now, but I can't help but recall that Buffalo unceremoniously dumped Clements in October of 2005 from his play calling duties. No, I don't follow Buffalo closely enough to have an opinion on the merits of that decision.
I generally supported MM's play calling. If the danger is that the offensive production could decline due to the change in play callers, I'd agree with you. I suppose it could improve, too, or remain largely same, the outcome I find most likely.
PackerAaron
June 27, 2015 at 09:15 pm
It just seems the thinking inside 1265 is "Everyone's worked together for so long, we won't skip a beat." And maybe that's true.
But this idea that "any" competent playcaller could come in and produce at the level we're accustomed to seeing with McCarthy at the helm feels a little too comfortable.
I think Clements will do a fine job, mostly because of familiarity, but I highly doubt, say, Kevin Gilbride could come in and produce the same results.
Thegreatreynoldo
June 28, 2015 at 12:47 am
Fair enough. The metrics are so good that MM might find it difficult to duplicate his success.
TarynsEyes
June 26, 2015 at 04:32 pm
They averaged 19 points in the first half and the same offense managed only 11 points in the second half by simple subtraction of 30 minus 19=11.
This in all rights has MM having an inability to maintain a certain level of closer numbers half to half or his lacking to adjust his offensive play calling to offset what will be an assumed defensive adjustment by the opponent.
This can be used as or is represented in the last game of the 2014 season vs Seattle for the NFCC where offensive desire,execution and adjustment once again reared its ugly head and what many Packer fans and I believe writers have screamed and written about as to MM's faults. :)
PackerAaron
June 26, 2015 at 08:04 pm
They managed fewer points in the second half when Matt Flynn was in after first half blow outs? Breaking news there Taryn. Thanks for breaking it down.
TarynsEyes
June 27, 2015 at 12:23 am
According to Flynn's 2014 stats as a Packer,he played in 7 games,completed 8 of 16 passes for 50% and 66 yds. I doubt he played enough to be used as an excuse as you make it to be. Check his game logs and please verify the incredible time played in each as it seems short of even mop up duty.
2014 GB 7 8 16 50.0 66
Thegreatreynoldo
June 27, 2015 at 11:05 am
On the merits, I think you are right, Packeraaron. However, I don't see the need for the mocking and derisory tone in your reply to Taryn. As the founder of this site, you in large part set the example for commenters, as do the other authors, who, to the best of my recollection, are unfailingly polite.
On the merits, I counted 6 games last year where GB had blown out the other team (5 if you take into consideration Atlanta's strong comeback where they made it a game late). [Half Time Scores: Chicago: 21-7; Minn: 28-0; Carolina: 28-3; Chicago: 28-0; Philly: 30-6; Atlanta: 31-7.] Clearly this influenced the choice of plays and might explain the drop in the average of points scored in the 2nd half, even if GB did not substitute Flynn for Rodgers as early as I would have. I'm not sure if these games would account for all of the differential between the average of 19/pts scored in the 1st half versus the 11 point average in the 2nd half, but it seems to me that it accounts for quite a bit of it.
My own, somewhat nebulous, opinion is that GB was generally good with their initial game planning, and not as good at halftime adjustments, but I find the statistics I found in just a quick search are not sufficient to state that opinion with any degree of certitude. The Jets and Miami games argue against it. The NE game (21 1st half pts. and only 3 2nd half pts. in a close game), Buffalo (10 1st half and 3 2nd half pts. in a loss) is not a large enough sample for me to draw any solid conclusions.
PackerAaron
June 27, 2015 at 09:10 pm
"As the founder of this site, you in large part set the example for commenters, as do the other authors, who, to the best of my recollection, are unfailingly polite."
And as the founder of this site I have long, long histories dealing with commenters who have, for years, posted in a negative, derisive or otherwise condescending tone.
I am "unfailingly polite" with anyone who comes into my house and demonstrates good manners. People who repeatedly condescend or belittle other posters, I treat in kind.
Or, to quote Gregory Hines in Running Scared "When fired upon, return the fire."
This approach will never change. Enjoy.
jeremyjjbrown
June 28, 2015 at 11:39 am
I actually agree with Taryn over Aaron on something for once. I'll be damned...
PackerAaron
June 28, 2015 at 07:52 pm
Everyone's gotta be wrong at some point. :)
In all seriousness, what exactly IS the point? That they averaged fewer points in the second half? When they were often up big and hardly running their A stuff then running out the clock and getting the hell out of dodge?
This is my shocked face.
Mojo
June 26, 2015 at 05:55 pm
Nice - the offense got out to big leads.
Not so nice - how the defense was at best so-so last year even though they had the significant advantage of going against teams that were playing from behind. Despite all the draft capital the Packers have put into that unit they keep underperfoming.
Imagine how this team would do with a top ten defense.
croatpackfan
June 27, 2015 at 09:07 am
It is interesting article from Warren Sharp. It also shows significance of statistics when statistics are near to complete data from the game... Also, making conclusions about brilliance of offense by using data from first half and making conclusions about very bad defense using data from the whole games is not sound correct... In most of those brilliant 1st half performances made by offense, defense has some credits, I think. Second half performances were not so good for offense as for defense (preventive defense!). There is no doubt that D was last year worse than O, but not that much. All games Packers lost (all 4 of them) was lost by O, not by D. It would be interesting to see statistics for O from those 4 games Packers lost. I remember 1st game at Seattle, than 3rd game against Detroit, than Saints (maybe this is the game where our star CB Tramon Williams earned "ticket out" from Packers) where D had more to say than O, and again O collapse against Bills... So, while those conclusion about top offense last year is correct, it is not fair to the defense...
Thegreatreynoldo
June 27, 2015 at 11:31 am
Well, Croat, there is some data in there that suggests that the defense was much worse than the offense.
"The Packers defense allowed 27% of all drives which started from their opponents 30 to score TDs, literally tying the Saints for dead last in the NFL.)" GB's #1 offense scored on 31% of all drives starting from within the 30 yard line.
"...early down success and frequency of bypassing 3rd downs, [GB's] defense ranked dead last in this metric," (GB offense was 3rd).
"Green Bay led at halftime in 11 games and won all 11 of them. They only won 12 games, so there was just one game where they did not lead at halftime that they won." This stat has several permissible inferences, but one is that the defense could not clamp down on the opposing team to allow GB's offense to win the game. In the Miami, for example, GB led 10-3 at half, but the Defense allowed a whopping 21 points in the 2nd half. Rodgers had to direct two consecutive 4th quarter drives (68 yards for a field goal) and on the 2nd, credit the D with forcing a punt, which allowed Rodgers to then direct a 60-yard drive and throw a TD with 3 seconds left to win the game. I know I was glad that Miami didn't get the ball back with 3 or 4 minutes left. OTOH, the only game that GB won despite being down halftime (21-16) was the Jets game, wherein the defense held the Jets to 3 points in the 2nd half and GB roared back with 15 3rd quarter points (4th quarter was scoreless) to win 31-24.
We can take some solace in the fact that the defense got better after the bye and CM3's move to ILB, and the stats are for the whole season.
jeremyjjbrown
June 28, 2015 at 11:41 am
Um yeah, if by "but not that much" you mean by A LOT.
4thand1
June 27, 2015 at 11:44 pm
Still a good ol back and forth I see. Gonna be another fun year. Just moved into our new house out n the sticks, and finally got internet.
efox2011
June 30, 2015 at 10:42 am
If you want to illustrate the points of the linked article even further, footballoutsider's drive/pace stats are quite helpful. In the first half of games, the Packers were the 8th fastest offense in the NFL. In second halves, our boys were the 2nd SLOWEST offense in the NFL. Overall, or boys were top 2 in things like successful drives, touchdown percentage, punts, and interceptions
As for some of the comments about Coach giving up play-calling duties, I think it's wildly overblown. Tom Clements has been in GB for all of Coach's tenure, and I suspect they have similar feelings about how the offense is meant to run. Point being, a Clements-called offense is going to look pretty darn similar to a McCarthy-called offense.
I like that Coach is freeing himself to be more involved in all aspects of how the team is built. Frankly, I think it will help him see the game, and perhaps make better adjustments.