GermanGilbert
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 years ago
I know. I was agreeing with you.
UserPostedImage
ILikeThePackers39
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.

"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
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.

"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
14 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
14 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
Zero2Cool (9h) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (10h) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (10h) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (10h) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (11h) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (12h) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (12h) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (12h) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (13h) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (13h) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (14h) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (16h) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (16h) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (16h) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
Zero2Cool (16h) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
dfosterf (16h) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
Zero2Cool (17h) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
Zero2Cool (17h) : Other times, it's turtle ass
Zero2Cool (17h) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
beast (18h) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
beast (18h) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
beast (18h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
beast (19h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
Zero2Cool (19h) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
wpr (19h) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
Zero2Cool (19h) : SSL might be settled now.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues
wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.
dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : I had to manually move three posts.
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : But when I go it, Martha's is the last reply
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Still a little screwy; it shows on the main forum that you were the last person to reply to the Jenkins trade thread
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Host issues, been crazy day
Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Connect 4?
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Connecting to new database
Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : What the hell
beast (22-Jul) : Packershome going to the Whiteout unis again
Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops
Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with
Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery
Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷
dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings
Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more
Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!
dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old
dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
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
1h / Around The NFL / beast

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

4h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

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