Why God..WHY DID YOU NOT LET THEM SCORE?· Page 8

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

OK, here's my argument.

I'm making up numbers here, but for the sake of argument, you'll see what I'm getting at.

Bears Kicker % chance to make easy FG - 95%. Result - clock ends. We lose by 3 points.

Aaron Rodgers chance of game tying TD drive - 40%. Result - we go into OT.

By letting them score, we play the odds. Someone earlier in the thread said we haven't blocked a FG since 2005.

I play the odds.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

musccy
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#72

On a loosely related note, the never ending kick return was pure awesome (save the 2 forward laterals). Can't remember ever seeing one of those last so long.

"hosemeoff" wrote:

I couldn't figure how to get the video in here, but check the link. Off topic but fun to watch - trinity v millsaps a few years ago...over a minute long!

doddpower
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#73

Sorry fellas' I just don't see it, that's all. I think the fact that they could have kneeled down is something most of you fail to comprehend at all and that's bothersome. Open your eyes, think abroad, out side of what you WANT and what COULD be.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I didn't ignore the fact at all, in fact, I addressed it in my last post. That last run by the RB was an effort to score. That was very obvious. It took significant effort from our D to stop him from getting into the end zone. If anything, a small push forward would have given him the extra 2 feet he needed to break the plain.

You had no faith in our offense of POSSIBLY getting a TD in under a minute. Fine. You're not wrong, but neither is anyone else. It's a matter of opinion. I thought the offense looked pretty good last night at times and would be completely willing to gamble that they could have mounted a successful drive without penalties (or at least without penalties that negated a TD). If I, as a coach, ended up being wrong, then so be it. At least I gave a borderline elite QB with tons of play makers an opportunity to win the game. It wouldn't have been about giving the Bears anything necessarily, more about taking whatever we could POSSIBLY get out of the situation we put ourselves into, which was one last chance late in the game. Could have been some A-Rod magic.

Oh well.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

14 years ago

#74

OK.....after sleeping on it, i came up with MAYBE a reason why he didn't let them score.
We have to admit, either way, our chance of pulling out a "W" was slim, at best.
So HOPE for a FG block, and if you lose, you lose by 3. If you let them score a TD and you still lose, you lose by 7. The last game of the season is against the Bears at lambeau. If we need to beat them to tie for the division win, the head to head points would play into it. If we beat them by more then 3, we get the division. If we had let them score a TD last night and lose, we then have to beat them by more then 7 on the last day of the season.
Don't know if that was what MM was thinking, but maybe it played into it.

Wade
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#75

So what you and Kevin are advocating is literal surrender, simply because we "should" have beat that team earlier in the game. I cannot accept that mentality under any circumstances. It's not the point of the game to look honorable in defeat -- it's to win by any means allowed within the rules. Given the undeniable FACT that the odds overwhelmingly favored putting the ball back into the hands of the offense versus hoping for a miracle block, and the decision becomes simply indefensible.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Who said anything about being honorable in defeat. Who said anything about surrender.

I'm saying that football is about beating the guy at the line of scrimmage. Not about playing matador.

Suppose you're down by three touchdowns. Eight minutes left. Do you let the other team score so you can get the ball back quicker?

Suppose you're down by two touchdowns. Four minutes left. Do you let the other team score so you can get the ball quicker?

Suppose you're down by a touchdown. Three minutes left. Do you let the other team score so you can get the ball quicker?

Fuck honor. The game of football should never be about "letting the other team score."

If you want to finesse wins that you don't deserve, play politics. If you want to win a football game, do it by beating the crap out of the other guy for 60 minutes more than they beat the crap out of you.

If you don't want to leave it to a miracle finish, dont get where you got.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

GermanGilbert
Member

14 years ago

#76

So HOPE for a FG block, and if you lose, you lose by 3. If you let them score a TD and you still lose, you lose by 7. The last game of the season is against the Bears at lambeau. If we need to beat them to tie for the division win, the head to head points would play into it. If we beat them by more then 3, we get the division. If we had let them score a TD last night and lose, we then have to beat them by more then 7 on the last day of the season..

"Cheesey" wrote:

point difference doesn't matter for the tie breaker. you can lose by 50 and win by 1, it's still a tie.

blank

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

14 years ago

#77

So what you and Kevin are advocating is literal surrender, simply because we "should" have beat that team earlier in the game.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

:onfloor: holy fucking politician!!!

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

14 years ago

#78

"doddpower" wrote:

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

You missed my point too, congratulations!

I'm really surprised so many think we could have ran down the field and scored a touchdown to even it up, then either held their offense to no points in over time and then got into FG range or scored a TD in overtime. Kind of blows my mind away.

That'd be TWO successful drives consecutively. ... yeah we showed we were capable of that didn't we? lol ...

I know, I know, where's my faith in the Packers doing something they didn't show one iota of ability to do ... and doing it when it matter most, right?

If we weren't tripping over our own feet, I'd be on board with ya all, but fact is, we didn't show anything out there except that we can look great, then be great at screwing ourselves over.

We were NOT meant to win this game, I'm convinced of that and was the moment Jones fumbled and the ball stayed in bounds. We for some reason were just not meant to win this game. No fantasy of overtime can convince me otherwise. I watched the game, wish you all would have too.

GermanGilbert
Member

14 years ago

#79

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

sorry, kevin, the only guy missing the point is you. nobody here said the packers would have won it for sure, if they let them score. but it was the only possibility to win it at all.

if you have to choose between following 2 games:

in game a your odd to win is 10%
in game b your odd to win is 0.1%

which game would you choose to play? huh?

blank

musccy
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#80

Zero...What happens in OT or the packers' recent offensive competence is all irrelevant. The bottom line is to give them ANY chance (albeit small as german pointed out) they HAD to TIE the game. Here were the 2 choices:

1) Score 7 points with ~ 50 seconds on the clock
2) Score 3 points with ~ 5 seconds on the clock

These are the 2 choices the team had. Which is a more likely scenario?

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

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

Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers

Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR

Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025

Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jaire played in just 34 of a possible 68 games since the start of the 2021 season

Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : reported, but not expected to practice

Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jenkins has REPORTED for mandatory camp

Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : I really thought he'd play for Packers.

buckeyepackfan (9-Jun) : Packers releasing Jaire Alexander.

Mucky Tundra (8-Jun) : (Context: he wants his defense to create turnovers)

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