Packers listed as 'most likely to decline' in 2020

[dplank]

Barnwell is a tool, that should be noted...

If the Packers decline in 2020, the postmortems will likely revolve around the organization's failure to add another weapon on offense for future Hall of Fame quarterback Aaron Rodgers. While I wouldn't have faulted them for adding another wide receiver in the 2020 draft or via free agency, their chances of declining this season were already extremely high before draft weekend. The Packers have enough talent to be competitive, but it's difficult to imagine their formula for winning 13 games in 2019 holding up again.

Most 13-3 teams blow out their competition. Green Bay didn't have many of those blowouts. Forty-eight teams have gone 13-3 since 1989, and they outscored their competition by an average of more than 150 points, or 9.4 points per game. Matt LaFleur's team outscored its opponents by 63 points, or less than 4 points per contest. It's the worst point differential for a team with this record over the past 31 seasons and the fourth-largest gap between a team's win-loss record and expected win-loss record over that time frame.

While the Packers did blow out the Raiders and gave the Vikings fits in a home-and-home sweep, this wasn't often a dominant team. They were forced to either come up with a goal-line stop or an interception to win games against the Bears and Panthers. They let the Broncos, Giants and Lions stick around into the fourth quarter, even with the latter having nothing to play for and David Blough at quarterback in Week 17. A nominally impressive win against the Super Bowl champion Chiefs is tempered by the fact that Kansas City was missing Patrick Mahomes, Eric Fisher, Frank Clark and Chris Jones.

The Packers were 6-1 in games decided by seven points or fewer and added a pair of wins by exactly 8 points. As tempting as it is to ascribe that to Rodgers' brilliance, he was just 34-34-1 as a starter in those same games before 2019. Is it possible that the difference between LaFleur and oft-criticized game manager Mike McCarthy was enough to turn this team into a late-game juggernaut? Theoretically, yes, although there's never been a coach in league history who won anything close to 85% of his close games over any significant length of time. The overwhelming evidence suggests that they won't win as many of these close ones in 2020.

What will slow down the Packers? To start, they're not likely to be as healthy. While star wideout Davante Adams missed time, Rodgers started all 16 games. Guard Lane Taylor missed the entire season after suffering a preseason injury, but their five other linemen made it through all 16 games without any further missed time. Likewise, while linebacker Oren Burks went down with a torn pectoral muscle before the season, the 11 projected starters on defense missed a total of four games throughout the regular season. Those preseason injuries count, of course, but Green Bay's depth wasn't really tested.

While the defense certainly improved by adding Preston Smith and Defensive Player of the Year candidate Za'Darius Smith in free agency, their highlights were more impressive than their snap-to-snap performance. The Packers improved from 29th in defensive DVOA to 15th, in part because they were able to come up with 17 interceptions. Expressed on a per-play basis, they picked off 3.1% of opposing passes last season, which was third in the league behind the Patriots (an amazing 4.7%) and Steelers (3.9%).

Relying on a steady dose of interceptions to fuel your defense, especially with big stops at the right time, can be tough. Take the division rival Bears. In 2018, I wrote that the Bears were likely to improve thanks to posting the league's fourth-lowest interception rate the prior year. They promptly improved their interception rate from 1.5% to a league-best 4.4%. Before last season, I warned that Chicago's interception rate was likely to decline; the Bears posted an interception rate of 1.8% in 2019, falling all the way to 26th in the league. (Ignore the part about a Sony Michel breakout.)

The Packers' interception rate should fall in 2020. Their fumble recovery rate should improve, as they ranked 30th in the league at just 41.2%, but they are also counting on Rodgers to continue producing virtually unprecedented interception rates. He posted the lowest interception rate in league history in 2018 and then followed it with the sixth-lowest interception rate in league history last season. Rodgers' interception rate had never been an issue, but it had also not been astronomically low before 2018. I would expect it to climb at least a tiny bit this season, and for Green Bay to struggle to keep up the plus-12 turnover differential it posted a year ago.

It's also difficult to imagine the Packers being quite as dominant on both sides of the football in the red zone, given how inconsistent red zone performance is from year to year. Assigning 6.95 points for a touchdown (given the estimated chances of an extra point) and three for a field goal, last season they scored 5.17 points per red zone trip on offense and allowed 4.41 points each time the opposing offense entered into the red zone. Both marks ranked in the top 10 in the league.

If you take the difference between those two performances, you could say that the Packers had a red zone differential of 0.76 points per trip. That was the third-best mark in football a year ago, trailing only the Ravens and Vikings. Go back through 2001, and there are 91 teams that posted a red zone differential greater than 0.60 points per possession. The following season, those teams' average red zone differential was 0.13 points per trip, falling almost all the way to average. They also declined by an average of nearly two full wins over the prior season.

One other place I'd be worried about the Packers keeping up their 2019 formula is within the NFC North. Rodgers & Co. went 6-0 in the North last season despite only outscoring the Bears, Lions and Vikings by a little more than six points per game. Since the NFL went to its current format in 2002, 21 other teams have swept their divisions in a given season. Just one repeated the feat the following year, with those 21 teams averaging 3.3 divisional wins the following campaign. Green Bay's schedule outside the division isn't particularly onerous, but the North should be tougher for them this season.

In all, it's fair to expect a step backwards from this team in 2020. FPI gives Green Bay just a 47.8% chance of returning to the postseason. After adjusting for the vig, the Caesars sportsbook comes in at 55.3%. Your typical 13-3 team doesn't usually have something around a 50/50 shot to make it back to the postseason, and that's only after the league added a seventh team to the playoffs this offseason. The Packers could find a better formula and win 13 games that way, but it's tough to see them winning as frequently as they did in 2020 without one.

[RichH55]

Why is Barnwell a tool exactly?

Using numbers like a nerd?

[dplank]

Why is Barnwell a tool exactly?

Using numbers like a nerd?

I thought this article was well written, I just find him to be a tool generally and have dismissed some of his prior anti-Bears stuff because of his general "toolishness". I like to be fair, honest, and consistent, I wasn't going to promote an article of his where I like the outcome (Packers suck) after dismissing another article by him because I didn't like the outcome (Bears suck, from a few weeks ago).

I generally agree with him here though, hopefully it's not just wishful thinking.

[RichH55]

Why is Barnwell a tool exactly?

Using numbers like a nerd?

I thought this article was well written, I just find him to be a tool generally and have dismissed some of his prior anti-Bears stuff because of his general "toolishness". I like to be fair, honest, and consistent, I wasn't going to promote an article of his where I like the outcome (Packers suck) after dismissing another article by him because I didn't like the outcome (Bears suck, from a few weeks ago).

I generally agree with him here though, hopefully it's not just wishful thinking.

I'm still curious on that ....the Bears would regress in terms of turnovers - Spot on (only homers didnt see it)

But questioning some of the Bears moves isn't really beyond the pale IMHO

I tend to find Barnwell pretty darn compelling - So I was wondering if there was something specific that had stood out to you over the years on him

[Yogi da Bear]

I think the Packers' demise will be because teams have figured out how to beat their nickel, which they play a whole lot. Pettine did a good job with it last year, particularly that first game against us, where they held us to 245 yards. But we came back in that second game and put up 415. Unfortunately, three turnovers did us in. I think their defense is really weak up the middle if we can advantage of it.

[Richie]

Of course, their QB has been steadily trending downward for the past few seasons. They were a 9-10 win team last year that fluked to 13 wins in a way that has probably never previously been duplicated. Their defense is okay, but nothing special. They should be an average to a slightly above average team. Just like last year... except without the absurd luck.

[docc]

..all I can say with absolute certainty...

Fuck the ass pack Puke..

Thank you

[RichH55]

I think the Packers' demise will be because teams have figured out how to beat their nickel, which they play a whole lot. Pettine did a good job with it last year, particularly that first game against us, where they held us to 245 yards. But we came back in that second game and put up 415. Unfortunately, three turnovers did us in. I think their defense is really weak up the middle if we can advantage of it.

They just signed their nose tackle to a 70 million deal

[dplank]

Big overpay IMO, he’s good but that’s too much. 49ers showed everyone how to beat them, run the ball down their throat. They did it twice, but we lack the OL to follow suit IMO

[Yogi da Bear]

I think the Packers' demise will be because teams have figured out how to beat their nickel, which they play a whole lot. Pettine did a good job with it last year, particularly that first game against us, where they held us to 245 yards. But we came back in that second game and put up 415. Unfortunately, three turnovers did us in. I think their defense is really weak up the middle if we can advantage of it.

They just signed their nose tackle to a 70 million deal

Yes they did. He had an insane amount of tackles for a NT (63), but that's because he's all they got in the middle. He is a force though.

Did you watch the NFL Championship Game? 285 Rushing Yards by the Niners and four TDs, all from nine yards out or more! And that wasn't the only game. Throughout the season, they gave up 198, 176, 171, 159, 155, 146, even the Redskins put up 121.

You have to scheme around Clark, but you get by him, you can go a long way, as Mostert proved.

[bulldogsjc]

https://www.bulldogsjerseycap.com/index ... t_id=16212

[Arkansasbear]

The Pukers shouldn't scare anyone and they shouldn't win as much as they do.

Yes, the have Erin and Adams, but outside of that they have very little on that side of the ball. As pointed out their defense is nothing special either. Seems like in so many games, they get the one play (or call) that flips the script. No one on our defense picks up a ball laying on the field and the scope and score; no one on our defense thinks it's a good idea to cover their best WR in the 4th quarter and they get a huge play to win; vs. Dallas Erin runs around and a TE comes open because their defense doesn't think they need to cover him anymore.

I think they finish third behind us and the Dikes and don't go to the playoffs.

The icing on the cake would be the power struggle between the coaches and Erin reaches a boiling point such that once they are out of the playoff picture, the put in Love during games. Extra icing would be he shows flashes which leads them to trade Erin (he's the only reason they do anything) and we Love take the field, those flashes he showed were merely fool's gold and next season they go 4-12 and get stuck in QB hell for the next 40 years.

[RichH55]

Ark - Rodgers goes on the outs with Packers

Mitch struggles (but we are 9-7, 10-6) - What would you trade to get him

[WagonForce]

Counter vision (nightmare?):

Rodgers comes in even more focused than he normally is, determined to show the Packers organization and the league just how foolish it is to be planning for his departure rather than loading up on talent to try and succeed with him.

I'm not betting on a Packer decline until I see it with my own eyes.

[Arkansasbear]

As far as the Pukers go all I have for them is

It’s real nice ... I got it at Target... it was on sale.