4PackGirl
14 years ago
i will never understand the need to say 'if only we did this, if only we did that' after an especially sloppy piece of crap loss like this one. we didn't do much right & we did a helluva lot wrong, right? then if you're 'playing' the numbers of last nite's game, you'd have to agree with what mccarthy did, right? ya know, cuz we played like shit...the whole f'in game. but magically at the end, we'd poof pull somethin outta our asses & win?!?
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
Both Wade and Zero are deliberately missing the point for philosophical reasons. It's irritating.

So what if you "shouldn't" let the opposing team score? If it materially increases your chances of winning the game, that is the correct move. It's analogous to a strategic retreat in warfare -- or perhaps even closer to a "demasking procedure" following a gas attack, in which you force one of your soldiers to take off his mask to determine whether or not chemical agents are still in the area. It's very possible you will kill one of your own men to ensure the safety of the rest, but if your unit is thereby able to continue the mission, you consider it a justifiable loss.

Yes, letting the Bears score would have put the Packers down by 7 instead of by 3, but it would have dramatically increased their probability of tying the game. This is indisputable. I can't believe we're still arguing about this.
UserPostedImage
musccy
14 years ago


Yes, letting the Bears score would have put the Packers down by 7 instead of by 3, but it would have dramatically increased their probability of tying the game. This is indisputable. I can't believe we're still arguing about this.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



exactly...and to address the counter argument, as german said, this may have only increased the probability of success from 0.5% to 5%, but I can't phatom an argument where allowing them to score wouldn't increase the odds, however low they may be. I'm actually surprised the bears didn't take a knee for this reason.
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
Good point. I was expecting them to do just that. I don't know if trying to score was an attempt to rub the defeat in the Packers' face or an attempt to be gracious -- give the defense a chance to stop them, so to speak. It could have been either.
UserPostedImage
doddpower
14 years ago
It's just a simple debate between those that think our only hope of winning / tying was a messed up kick vs. those that think the ball in the hand of Rodger's was our best chance of winning. Neither is wrong. It's just that some of us didn't agree with the choice MM made, which proved to not work out, at least this time.

Personally, if I have Rodger's as my QB, I do everything in my power to give him a chance. All the horrible drives would mean little if he put together one great drive. Kind of reminds me of that Broncos / Chargers game a few years ago with the blown fumble call. The Broncos were down by 1 after scoring a TD and instead of kicking the extra point to tie, they went for 2, got it, and won the game. It didn't seem as if the Broncos should win, so they went gambled the house and won. Sure, it was an overall sloppy game, but at the end of the day they still had a win and the rest of the season to fix the mistakes made.

Some of the best "stars" to ever play the game rise to the occasion in the face of the toughest adversity. Aaron Rodger's did not get that chance. You all are right, we probably wouldn't have won anyway. I'm just not sold on the opinion that we were better off to not even try.
Zero2Cool
14 years ago
Normally, I'd side with those saying giving the ball back to Rodgers with a minute and a timeout to go to tie would be a definite thing. However, look at how we played the game. If you can't figure it out from that, I don't know what to tell ya.

I'm not gonna freak out on those who say we should have let them scored, like some of you are on the few who say it wouldn't have mattered.

Letting them score is a awfully close minded thinking process. You assume the ball carrier would run it in. That would be a helluva funny scene though, lol. Ball carrier runs it into the 5 yard line, stops, the Defense doesn't pursue... they just all stand there ... waiting ... GAME OVER! hah


I dunno, I think its funny. It's too bad some are so pigheaded and refuse to see things from another perspective other than their own. And when you start to show positives to their perspective, they just pounce on it as if there's no other perspective instead respecting both scenarios, or multiple scenarios.

Take, take, take, no give with some of ya. Amusing how predictable it is too, almost as predictable as some of our play calling.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
14 years ago

Some of the best "stars" to ever play the game rise to the occasion in the face of the toughest adversity. Aaron Rodger's did not get that chance. You all are right, we probably wouldn't have won anyway. I'm just not sold on the opinion that we were better off to not even try.

"doddpower" wrote:



I thought Rodgers played a fantastic game. I strongly feel if it wasn't for him, it'd have been a blow out in their favor.


I'll have to watch the last few minutes again, but I just don't see how letting them score was the best chance to win at that point in time. I still think if we had let them score, they'd have kneeled down to run the clock out. I seriously don't understand why everyone seems to be omitting that little tactic that's been used previously. Kind of goes back to the "my perception > *" again.

It would have taken quite a bit to line up for us to even have a chance, on a night where NOTHING lined up for us.

At least we walked out relatively ... "healthy".
UserPostedImage
doddpower
14 years ago

Normally, I'd side with those saying giving the ball back to Rodgers with a minute and a timeout to go to tie would be a definite thing. However, look at how we played the game. If you can't figure it out from that, I don't know what to tell ya.

I'm not gonna freak out on those who say we should have let them scored, like some of you are on the few who say it wouldn't have mattered.

Letting them score is a awfully close minded thinking process. You assume the ball carrier would run it in. That would be a helluva funny scene though, lol. Ball carrier runs it into the 5 yard line, stops, the Defense doesn't pursue... they just all stand there ... waiting ... GAME OVER! hah


I dunno, I think its funny. It's too bad some are so pigheaded and refuse to see things from another perspective other than their own. And when you start to show positives to their perspective, they just pounce on it as if there's no other perspective instead respecting both scenarios, or multiple scenarios.

Take, take, take, no give with some of ya. Amusing how predictable it is too, almost as predictable as some of our play calling.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



I will have to go back and watch those last few plays again, but from what I remember, it would have been VERY easy to let the RB score. He had his head forward and was going for the end zone. Slightly less effort or even a simple push from the defense and he would have been in the end zone. Regardless of the decision to not let them score, I don't see how one could think it wouldn't have been incredibly easy to let him score. Perhaps I'm just remembering it wrong, but I saw no indication that he was going to stop, so I don't understand that argument.
Nonstopdrivel
14 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.
UserPostedImage
musccy
14 years ago

Normally, I'd side with those saying giving the ball back to Rodgers with a minute and a timeout to go to tie would be a definite thing. However, look at how we played the game. If you can't figure it out from that, I don't know what to tell ya.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



nobody is saying the offense definitely would have scored, we all agree it was an unlikely scenario, esp. with no TOs, our tackles playing like shit, etc.

Regardless, the packers were going to have to score at the end of the game to tie so it comes down to if you think the odds of scoring are more in your favor with 50 seconds left on the clock or 5 seconds.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (12h) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (14h) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (14h) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.