Demovsky: Channelling Mark Twain

Anyone that knows my writings on the Packers and sports in general knows that one of my biggest pet peeves is the misuse of statistics. We see it far too much nowadays, often with the caveat that statistics are facts, and if you doubt the statistics, you must be doubting facts.

Mark Twain said it best..."There are three kinds of lies: lies, d*mn lies, and statistics." It's not that statistics are a bad thing. Personally, I love stats...crunching them, researching them, presenting them. But, in the wrong hands they have the capacity to be completely misleading, particularly when a set of statistics are used in isolation and other factors (or stats) are ignored.

Rob Demovsky of the Green Bay Press-Gazette is normally an adequate writer, but over the years, I've repeatedly observed Rob wanting to prove his points so badly that he'll take some stats and hammer them out as if it were the judge, jury, and executioner in the case. In his latest online chat, he made a such a point:

[Comment From Aaron - Green Bay] Why have the tight ends been so under uitlized? Is it because they are needed to block for a shakey O-line or is Rodgers not comfortable hooking up with his TE?

Rob Demovsky: Aaron: I looked at that during the bye week, and here's what I found: Last season, Favre completed 57.4 percent of his passes to receivers, 22.2 percent to running backs, 17.8 percent to tight ends and 2.6 percent to fullbacks. This season, Rodgers has completed a higher percentage to his receivers (62.6 percent) and a lower percentage to running backs (17.7 percent) than Favre did. His tight end (16.3) and fullback (3.4) percentages are similar.

The use of percentage of passes in this case is just one statistic that can be used to respond to this question, but it is grossly inadequate in giving a proper response. The question asked why the tight ends weren't being used more. "Well, the percentages are the same."

So? It's all "okay", then? We shouldn't complain about how the tight ends are being used because the percentage of passes completed is the same is last year (note: when BRETT FAVRE was quarterback!)?

Did you know that of all African-American men who have served as the Presidential nominees of the two major political parties, 100% have won the Presidency? In comparison, only 50% of all white men have ended up winning the presidency in the same time span.

What conclusions would you draw given just that information? Do you think, perhaps, there are more statistics or information that might help flesh out this picture just a tad?

Aaron's question didn't get completely answered by Demovsky, and with the information given, you'd imagine that there's no problem with the tight ends. However, let's take a look at some other stats.

For one, the production from tight ends have been significantly diminished from last year. At this point last year, Donald Lee had 29 receptions for 382 yards and a touchdown, a 13.2 average. This year, Lee has 22 receptions, but for only 163 yards and 7.4 ypc (he does have two touchdowns, however).

Clearly, Lee is not producing like he did last season, and isn't stretching the field like he used to.

Furthermore, departed Bubba Franks had 14 receptions for 90 yards by this point, a 6.4 average and 2 touchdowns. Putting together the statistics of both Tory Humphrey and Jermichael Finley, they have combined for 6 receptions for 80 yards...and 0 touchdowns. The 16 yards-per-catch average is inflated by Humphrey's long of 37 yards, incidentally.

So, why are Demovsky's percentages the same? Because at this point last year, Favre had 205 completions out of 308 attempts. Rodgers is 167 for 262 as of this point, a pretty significant difference. Favre had 47 more completions and 46 more attempts.

I'm not trying to make any point that we would have been better off with Favre this year, or that Rodgers is lacking (in fact, I suspect that part of Demovsky's intent was to divert blame from Rodgers).

However, it is clear, percentages or not, that tight end production has taken a major hit this year. The loss of Bubba Franks, who had drastically fallen off in his receiving production from the Sherman years, hasn't been even been made up by all the backups combined. Perhaps more importantly, Franks was a major asset with his run blocking.

I was, and still am, disappointed in the Jermichael Finley selection in this year's draft. He may grow into something someday, but to subtract a player like Franks and add a long-term project player in a season with high expectations seems a bit foolish.

There is no doubt that with the addition of Jordy Nelson, the strength of this offense is now in the hands of its receiving corps.

However, this is also because of the incredible drop-off of both the running game and the tight ends. Both of those struggling facets of the offense that would be helped with a solid all-around tight end, that could both catch and run block. Tony Gonzalez, anyone?

At this point, I would be happy with Bubba Franks back.

Can You Run the ZBS Some of the Time?

Brian Hook at Football Outsiders has a nice little explanation about what zone blocking actually is. It was a good little review I found, as I was stewing about the FOX announcer claiming that the overtime run by the Titans came off a zone blocking play.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Denver offensive line scheme, they use a technique known as "zone blocking". In a "man" or "drive" blocking scheme the lineman is responsible for an individual, and the play is designed for a running back to hit a particular gap. The zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, has a lineman blocking an area instead of a designated defensive player. If multiple linemen are blocking an area than one can break off and block into the second level.

I find that interesting, because I don't see that much of a difference between the concept of zone blocking and that of a simple "smash left" or "smash right" when it comes to the basic idea of the linemen all heading one direction and trying to take out the guy in front of them. About the only big difference is the proud claim that the lineman not actively blocking anyone is allowed to cut block (which I still believe should be banned from the league and perpetrators punished with having to act as Jermichael Finley's mentor).

So, when Daryl Johnston (I think) commented on the zone blocking opening up that hole, it kind of got me thinking. Is zone blocking really something you do once in a while, or is it something that you do all (or, at least, most of) the time? We keep having talks about teams, like Packers, which do "zone blocking" some of the time, and yet, none of them seem to have success like the Broncos did for so long.

Chris Johnson has been described as a "good fit" for the zone blocking scheme, mainly because he is strong and very, very fast (4.2 speed). But, you also see him have success when the Titans don't run a "zone block". Furthermore, LenDale White, a behemoth, is far from an ideal ZBS back.

From Hook:

One reason it has not been widely adopted is time: it takes time to teach, time to master, and time to get the smaller, more agile offensive linemen that the system requires. If you take zone blocking and try to implement it with 340 pound behemoths, you will probably fail, and for better or for worse, 340 pound behemoths are what you'll find on a typical offensive line in the NFL.

Which is why I don't like it when an announcer throws a comment out like "they did zone blocking on that play". To me, saying a team that runs a smash left or right and makes a play doesn't make it zone blocking. Even Hook states that it is a scheme that is built in and tends to be used the majority of the time, with players brought in to fit it.

It's kind of like saying that whenever the Packers line up with four- or five-wide, they must be running a "Run and Shoot Offense". We know that isn't the case...we just run some plays that resemble it. For the Packers to have a true Run and Shoot like the Oilers and Lions used to run in the 80's and 90's, we'd likely have short, fast receivers and a running back that would be able to run out of a single-back setting (like Barry Sanders). Our receivers would be assigned Choice Routes and Switch Routes, not curls and slants.

But the Packers don't have that. So, we don't call it a "Run and Shoot" when we run something that looks like it on a play or two a game.

I feel like the ZBS is much the same way, and it is clear that whatever the Titans are doing with their running game, it is far more successful that what the Packers are doing. But, I wouldn't classify them as a zone blocking team.

As Hook states, the Titans would have invested heavily in the smaller, quicker offensive linemen. Atlanta did this not too long ago, and after finding little success with their version of the ZBS, they abandoned it They had to reload much of their entire offensive line, which was limited in a traditional run scheme.

The Packers have invested heavily in those types of players, too. And, even though Ryan Grant has had more success in the past few weeks, his best runs do come off the zone blocking plays where he makes one cut and is able to run downhill. The designed pulls and stretches (not a part of a true ZBS) that the Packers try to run don't usually end well.

The point? Running what looks to be a zone blocking play doesn't make it a zone blocking scheme, any more than running what looks to be a run and shoot play makes it a Run and Shoot Offense. Just my humble opinion.

The Titans can attrubute their success in the running game to having the venerable "Thunder and Lightning" running back tandem...a fast Chris Johnson who can find seams and go upfield, partnered with a titanic landmass like LenDale White who can crash the power game.

If I were building a team and a choice between investing in a scheme or investing in talent, I think I'd choose talent.

Mediocrity Never Felt So...Mediocre

Following yesterday's overtime loss to the unbeaten Tennessee Titans, the Green Bay Packers find themselves looking in the mirror and facing the reflection of a 4-4 record at the midpoint of the season.

Oh, certainly, there's bright spots along the way...Aaron Rodgers, Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, Charles Woodson, and Tramon Williams have all been great stories this year. And the Thompson rah-rah's are out there painting a smile on every angle they can. I certainly have no problem with that. Being a .500 team means that you have as many positives as you do negatives.

But looking at yesterday's loss and trying to believe there is a moral victory to be found is grasping at straws. A loss is a loss, especially when the win was easily within reach. The Packers had opportunity after opportunity to take that game over, but a dropped pass here, a foolish penalty there, and turnover here, a dropped interception, and a sack there all led to one thing: the Titans did nothing to take the game away from us, but we didn't take it when it was there for the offing.

The fact that this is a team coming off a 13-3 record last season, returning nearly every starter this year is cause for concern, beyond just the let-down of expectations. While we're seeing some young players step up, we're also seeing other players take concerning steps back.

At risk of simplifying it, the team is 4-4. Our four losses have been against teams with worse or equal records to the Packers:

Minnesota: 4-4
Detroit: 0-8
Seattle: 2-6
Indianapolis: 4-4

And, every team we've lost to has a winning record:

Dallas: 5-4
Tampa Bay: 6-3
Atlanta: 5-3
Tennessee: 8-0

The Packers have fallen behind the Bears in the NFC North standings, a division so weak that it was presumed we had it wrapped up before the season even began. Given the strength of the NFC East and Atlanta, unless something turns upside-down there will not be a wild-card team from our division.

So, the Packers have gone from "favorites" to "contenders", and are in serious danger of becoming "also-rans". All this from a promising season in 2007 and reassurances over the summer that this team was built on its defense and would be a winner.

Hard to be a winner if you can't beat a winner.

The most difficult question is where is help going to come from? We've returned nearly all our injured players and have a starting lineup of veterans hand-picked by GM Ted Thompson that this team would be built around. Unfortunately, many of these players aren't playing up to the level they were last year...Many are, in fact, going backwards.

The problem then becomes, how does this team improve?

Quarterback: As many folks have pointed out, Aaron Rodgers is keeping pace with much of Brett Favre's overall stats last year, and will point out several statistics in isolation (such as third-down percentage) to assert he's a vast improvement.

I will stand at the front of the line and declare that Aaron Rodgers is not the one losing these games for us. He's been consistent and efficient. However, he also hasn't been the reason we've been able to come back and win close games, either. Only in the Detroit game has Rodgers led a semblence of a fourth-quarter comeback, and in the fourth quarter of all four losses he's been at best servicable, and at worst, ineffective.

With two rookies behind Rodgers, the only improvement we'll get at this position is from Rodgers himself. Even with 2007, but only just.

Running back: Ryan Grant has still been far from the back who averaged 5.1 yards per carry the latter half of the season. Even his recent surge the past two weeks has produced a per-carry average still under four yards. While his hamstring injury takes some of the blame, an ill-advised holdout from training camp almost assured such an injury would occur.

With only Brandon Jackson behind Grant, who is more of a third-down receiving back, it is unlikely that we're going to upgrade our present starter at this point in time. Step back from 2007

Offensive line: The Packers continue to shuffle this line around and around, trying to find a combination that will work. Daryn Colledge's move to replace an injured Chad Clifton proved to be a far better use for him, but the struggles of the interior line are still glaring, as they have been for years.

Josh Sitton is, for all practical purposes, the best hope we have for upgrading the performance of the line. But after sitting out much of the first half of the season with injury, it is unlikely we'll see an impact from a rookie this season. Slight step back from 2007.

Receivers: The high point of this team, Greg Jennings and Donald Driver are as good as any starting tandem in the league, and the backups make this perhaps the deepest receiving corps in the NFL. If DD does end up retiring soon, there's no doubt there will be someone to step in. Step forward from 2007.

Tight ends: Donald Lee was a favorite of Brett Favre last season, but his production in 2008 appears to be halved in nearly every category. His yards per catch has fallen from 12 to 7.4, and is on pace for only 320 yards this season after nearly 600 in 2007. The departure of reliable vet Bubba Franks left a void behind Lee that is being filled by Tory Humphrey and rookie Jermichael Finley, with neither equalling Franks' prodcution.

Finley, in particular, appears to be very raw and, given his comments yesterday, quite immature. The tight end position has been perhaps the biggest disappointment this season. Big step back from 2007.

Defensive Line: After getting 36 sacks last year, the Packers have only 14 so far this year. More importantly, though, the Packers are allowing 146 yards rushing per game (only allowed 99 per game last year), and even worse, are allowing nearly five yards per rush.

Aaron Kampman, though still playing relatively well, is nowhere near the animal he was last year. Ryan Pickett has been inconsistent, and the loss of Cullen Jenkins has placed the line further behind the eight ball than they were before.

The Packers have turned to two young unproven players, Justin Harrell and Jeremy Thompson, to try and turn the tide, but alas, the Titans rushed for 178 yards and took control of the game on the ground in overtime. Step back from 2007

Linebackers: Perhaps our most suprising unit on the field, we've seen what we once thought was the heart and strength of our defense come apart. Nick Barnett, who did have a solid season last year, has been out of position and less effective every week this year. AJ Hawk, who we hoped was going to blossom from a solid starter to a star this year, has seen himself become a role player at best, losing downs to third-tier free agent Brandon Chillar. Brady Poppinga, once thought to be the one supplanted by Chillar, is continuing to play his brand of linebacker, a solid run stopper but a liability in coverage.

After these four players, the Packers literally have no one on the shelf to make this unit better, having dismissed Abdul Hodge. Big step back from 2007.

Secondary: Like the recievers on offense, our secondary actually hasn't played that badly. It is rare that we get beat by the long ball, and they have returned five interceptions for touchdowns this year. Charles Woodson is playing like a man possessed, and Nick Collins has drastically shown improvement. When injuries struck Atari Bigby and Al Harris, the shelf wasn't bare. Tramon Williams, Aaron Rouse, and Charlie Peprah all performed well under duress. Step forward from 2007.

This many steps back has to be a concern for a team that was a field goal away from the Super Bowl last season. The next place that has to be looked at is coaching, and HC Mike McCarthy is certainly learning that with higher expectations comes a much larger microscope on him.

McCarthy has to take accountability for this team's struggles, especially with so many players and units seemingly regressing from last year. Has he focused so hard on trying to make Rodgers' successful that he's allowed other parts of the team to slide? Has his playcalling become predictable and sometimes questionable? Has he lost that edge he had when he still had that chip on his shoulder, trying to prove himself?

The talent of this team is nearly the same as what is was in 2007, but it isn't succeeding the way that team did. Next week, we visit a Viking team in Minnesota that is going to be keyed up to put the Packers down to third in the division, an all-important game when it comes to divisonal and conference tie-breakers. The next week, we host the division-leading Bears.

The next two weeks will make or break this Packer season. The Packers need to at least split those games.

Which of course, will put them at 5-5...still mediocre.