GermanGilbert
13 years ago

That's right, how could I forget the ballcarrier was NOT covering up the ball at all while aiming his head down into the pile?

I really DO need to watch the game again. Then I can ignore every thing I've said and pretend that only your thoughts matter!


Thanks for the discussion, really, thanks, I enjoy talking to brick walls. Maybe I'll get smart some day and I'll be able to converse with ya all.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



enjoy watching the game again, actually i didn't while doing this research. :wickedfart: i'm always open to change my mind as a result of discussions, but watching the game again i really can't. let alone the imagination of having another timeout, which mccarthy burned on the challenge.

have a nice day,

your sincerely stupid brick wall 😉
blank
Johnson
13 years ago

As for Mike McCarthy's decision to challenge that play . . . he deserves a one-game suspension for that stroke of brilliance alone.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



This, I think, is a serious problem. Three games in, and he seems to be calling very stupid challenges.

Slocum deserves credit for the improved ST performance in the first two games. But this game, we seemingly regressed beyond what our play was last year. I did not think that was possible.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



You know what? I don't like McCarthy either, but I see this stupidity all the time in the NFL. And do you know why? Because the refs are the really stupid asses here. Every once in a while they will defy reality and reverse an obvious call. That's what the coach's are banking on and the schneid is on the league to provide proper trainging to the officials.
blank
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
If we are playing the odds here, Johnson, "every once in a while" seems like a long-shot bet to me.
UserPostedImage
Johnson
13 years ago

I guess I'm missing something here.

Let's get this figured out.

Okay, say Coach doesn't do the challenge, we have an extra time out. We let the Bears walk in, providing of course they don't kneel down as we've seen players do in the past, (Westbrook). They make the extra point.

Score 17 - 24 with let's say 1:00 left and we have a time out or two.

We let the ball go out of the endzone for a touchback, putting us on the 20.

Down to :56


We drive all the way down the field, score, tie the game. No flags, everything somehow magically lined up for us.


OVERTIME.

We lose the toss ... ONO's we kick to a good returning team with an offense that seemed to play with us at the end.

Cutler throws a pick that's ran back for a touchdown. We win the game.



That's a pseudo best case scenario.



That is the best for the fans, but is that the best for the team? Sure, you guys can play down right awful and don't deserve to win, but win anyhow ... and when coach is barking bout penalties the team can say 'but coach we had 17 flags dropped and STILL won'. 18 flags if you want to say we'd still have done the lateral stuff at the end of the game.







Even if we tie the game, I don't see us winning it in overtime. We couldn't do anything but shoot ourselves in the foot the 2nd half, they gave no evidence they'd turn it around in over time.

"doddpower" wrote:




I just personally would prefer a tie game going into overtime then a loss at the end of regulation. Anything to give our team a chance to win. Despite the shitty game, I still had faith in our offense (mostly Rodger's, Finley, Jennings, and Driver). I cannot accept letting them burn the clock just because the chance of scoring is low. One still has to try. If it fails, we're in the same situation we're in anyway. If it succeeds, talk about a serious gain in confidence to win the game with under a minute left. When they were on the 2ish yard line, it was pretty obvious to me that they were trying to punch it in. Letting them score doesn't have to be completely obvious. I imagine we could have drove into the HB and essentially push him towards the end zone if that's what it took. Sounds silly I know, but perhaps we would have had a chance, at least one better than the lateral play.

Oh well, it's obviously over now and there's nothing I can do about. I just didn't agree with the call.

On to the Lions.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Whoa. I'm a newbie here and all, and I've figured out that Zero owns this board, but is he really that stupid?
blank
Johnson
13 years ago

If we are playing the odds here, Johnson, "every once in a while" seems like a long-shot bet to me.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Exactly my point.
blank
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
I know. I was agreeing with you.
UserPostedImage
ILikeThePackers39
13 years ago

I cannot conceive of any means by which a mathematical argument could be constructed that would assign a higher probability of winning to making a goal line stand than letting the opposing team score, because even if the best-case scenario were to occur and the Bears missed the kick, that would still leave no time on the clock in which to mount a counteroffensive. By contrast, letting the Bears score leaves sufficient time on the clock for a number of theoretical possibilities to occur: a) A runback for touchdown (admittedly not likely); b) a long runback setting the Packers up with good field position (higher probability); c) a well-executed offensive drive that results in a touchdown (still higher probability). A touchdown then affords the Packers the opportunity to either kick the extra point and take the game to overtime or go for two and win the game outright. Every one of those possibilities produces a better potential outcome for the Packers than making a futile goal-line stand.

But I could be wrong. My wife is a mathematics teacher. I'll ask her.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:




Does your math account for holding and/or false start penalties, or are we assuming those would not occur in this final drive? I'm not being snarky (or at least I'm not trying to be); what Zero is saying, and I agree with him, is that while in almost any other situation you would obviously let them score to give yourself a shot, in that specific situation and with the way that game had gone for the past 31+ minutes, you might as well try to get one or two more licks in before it's all done.

The argument is entirely situational - at least on my part. There was no indication that the Packers could 1) provide a quality, penalty-free return to put the offense in good field position, and then 2) Execute to the point where they could navigate 80+ yards to score a touchdown in under a minute. If they had been playing well - well, fuck - if they'd been playing well this conversation never happens, as they'd have won, handily. But they weren't playing well, and there was no indication for me that they'd suddenly do so.
blank
Stevetarded
13 years ago

I cannot conceive of any means by which a mathematical argument could be constructed that would assign a higher probability of winning to making a goal line stand than letting the opposing team score, because even if the best-case scenario were to occur and the Bears missed the kick, that would still leave no time on the clock in which to mount a counteroffensive. By contrast, letting the Bears score leaves sufficient time on the clock for a number of theoretical possibilities to occur: a) A runback for touchdown (admittedly not likely); b) a long runback setting the Packers up with good field position (higher probability); c) a well-executed offensive drive that results in a touchdown (still higher probability). A touchdown then affords the Packers the opportunity to either kick the extra point and take the game to overtime or go for two and win the game outright. Every one of those possibilities produces a better potential outcome for the Packers than making a futile goal-line stand.

But I could be wrong. My wife is a mathematics teacher. I'll ask her.

"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:




Does your math account for holding and/or false start penalties, or are we assuming those would not occur in this final drive? I'm not being snarky (or at least I'm not trying to be); what Zero is saying, and I agree with him, is that while in almost any other situation you would obviously let them score to give yourself a shot, in that specific situation and with the way that game had gone for the past 31+ minutes, you might as well try to get one or two more licks in before it's all done.

The argument is entirely situational - at least on my part. There was no indication that the Packers could 1) provide a quality, penalty-free return to put the offense in good field position, and then 2) Execute to the point where they could navigate 80+ yards to score a touchdown in under a minute. If they had been playing well - well, fuck - if they'd been playing well this conversation never happens, as they'd have won, handily. But they weren't playing well, and there was no indication for me that they'd suddenly do so.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



The risk of any penalties does not outweigh the miniscule chances that you stop the Bears from making an extra point. It doesn't even come remotely close.
blank
musccy
13 years ago
Ilikethe pack39 - even if the pack hadn't been playing great, how often does a late half/game drive suddenly work when a defense reverts to prevent? There's no guarantee the bears would have gone prevent, but point being that previous drives aren't always indictative of potential performance.

and the 2nd point I keep trying to make is it's calculated risks. Someone else pointed out that Gould was 99.5% from within the 30...so there is a 0.5% chance that he misses..0.5 %, yes 0.5%...let me repeat, 0.5% chance he misses....that's 1 out of 200.

I don't know what the odds of the packers going 80 yards in 50 or so seconds are...but I'd sure like to believe it's > 0.5 frickin' %!
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
ESPN did the math for that situation. Stopping them from scoring, teams win 4% of the time. Teams who let them score with more than a minute remaining, won 8% of the time. That's a HUGE improvement in chance.

Trent Dilfer says you never let a team score on you, it goes against everything you've been taught and can cause problems later.

Ray Lewis says there's no other option, you let them score and let Rodgers continue his dominating performance.


I thought those two would be flipped around. Former QB says stop them, current LB says let'em score and give it to the offense.


After watching the game again for the highlights, our offense was unstoppable, aside from ourselves. Bears defense though is bend don't break, so that's expected.



I was fine with either decision before, but after watching the game and the tempo ... I'm going to have to say I'd rather us have let the Bears scored on 1st down on the 9 or even 2nd on the 3. Our offense was very good those last two drives, but Peppers was out most of them, BUT so was Finley.


The 2nd to last run of the game was not a kneel down play by any stretch in my opinion. I seen Matt Forte (i think) lunge forward to the end zone. You can NOT kneel down in mid air. My original thinking was wrong on the runs.

I got caught up too much on the penalties and let that sway my thinking. Guess I'm just extremely disgusted that we have the same players, making the same mistakes, year in, year out.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
beast (17-May) : Not sure why a players views reflect on GB... instead of simply on the player
Martha Careful (17-May) : I bet some of us have had 6+ mRNA jabs, a UKR flag on our walls, and still think Fauci has a thread of integrity
Zero2Cool (16-May) : From what I've read, it's all Jets , not us.
CanPackFan (16-May) : Will there ever be a time when Rodgers' whacko views will not reflect on GB? He is the past, thank god.
Zero2Cool (16-May) : Jan 4th gonna be rough with that start time lol
Zero2Cool (16-May) : Packers schedule listed. Boom.
buckeyepackfan (15-May) : Let the leaks begin. Colts @ Packers week 2, Vikings @ Packers week 4
Zero2Cool (14-May) : WR Marquez Valdes-Scantling to Bills
Zero2Cool (14-May) : Jets and Aaron Rodgers open up on Monday Night Football,
Zero2Cool (13-May) : $170 guaranteed. This might impact Jordan Love
Zero2Cool (13-May) : Lions are signing QB Jared Goff to a four-year, $212 million extension
Zero2Cool (13-May) : I know we moved on. That tidbit just makes me a touch happier.
Zero2Cool (13-May) : Sources spoke of many, many times last summer where Hackett called a play, then Rodgers changed it completely at the line
Martha Careful (10-May) : 1. this is true of all our linemen. 2. His run block is fine. 3. If all OL played like he has, we would win SB.
beast (10-May) : Meyers pass blocking is really good, his run blocking is really not.
Zero2Cool (9-May) : Packers have claimed DE Spencer Waege off of waivers from the 49ers and waived DT Rodney Mathews.
Zero2Cool (9-May) : And the OL protections seem to be good.
Zero2Cool (9-May) : I really don't know lol. I don't see him getting blown up.
Zero2Cool (9-May) : -3 buwahhhahaaha
Mucky Tundra (9-May) : 4th
Zero2Cool (9-May) : because he's 1st
Mucky Tundra (9-May) : Myers isn't even the 3rd best C on the roster atm
Martha Careful (9-May) : I am not sure I understand the Myers hate. He was consistently our third best lineman. RG and LT were worse.
beast (9-May) : Just saying I don't think moving Myers would help Myers.
beast (9-May) : Center is usually considered the easiest position physically if you can handle the snap stuff.
Mucky Tundra (8-May) : Bust it is then
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Context. Sounds like Myers won't be cross-trained. C or bust.
Mucky Tundra (8-May) : @BookOfEli_NFL Packers pass game coordinator, Jason Vrable said that Jayden Reed and Dontayvion Wicks shared a placed in Florida while train
Mucky Tundra (8-May) : For now...
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers go about evaluating their "best five," OL coach Luke Butkus makes on thing clear: "Josh Myers is our center."
beast (8-May) : Though I'm a bit surprised letting go of CBs, I thought we needed more not less
beast (8-May) : It was confusing with two DB Anthony Johnson anyways
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers actually had Ray Lewis on the phone.
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers wanted to draft Ray Lewis. Ravens stole him.
Martha Careful (6-May) : Happy 93rd Birthday to the Greatest Baseball Player of All-Time...Willie Mays
Zero2Cool (6-May) : Walter Stanely's son
buckeyepackfan (6-May) : and released CB Anthony Johnson and DL Deandre Johnson and waived/injured WR Thyrick Pitts (thigh-rick).
buckeyepackfan (6-May) : The Green Bay Packers have signed WR Julian Hicks, OL Lecitus Smith (luh-SEET-us) and WR Dimitri Stanley
Zero2Cool (6-May) : Petty, but it's annoying me how the NFL is making the schedule release an event.
Mucky Tundra (4-May) : @mattschneidman Matt LaFleur on how he tore his pec: “Got in a fight with the bench press. I lost.”
Zero2Cool (3-May) : Jordan Love CAN sign an extension as of today. Might tak weeks/months though
TheKanataThrilla (3-May) : Packers decline 5th year option for Stokes
Mucky Tundra (3-May) : @ProFootballTalk Jaylen Warren: Steelers' special teams coach has discussed Justin Fields returning kicks.
Zero2Cool (2-May) : Season officially ending tonight for Bucks ... sad face
Zero2Cool (2-May) : Giannis Antetokounmpo is listed as out for tonight's game.
dfosterf (2-May) : Surprisingly low initially is my guess cap wise, but gonna pay the piper after that
dfosterf (2-May) : The number on Love is going to be brutal.
Zero2Cool (2-May) : May 3rd. Extension day for Jordan Love. (soonest)
Zero2Cool (1-May) : USFL MVP QB Alex McGough moved to WR. So that's why no WR drafted!
earthquake (1-May) : Packers draft starters at safety ever few years. Collins, Clinton-Dix, Savage
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

15-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

13-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

13-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

12-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

11-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

9-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

7-May / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

7-May / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

5-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.