NFC Championship Post-Game

CousinOfDeath · Post #461 » by **CousinOfDeath** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:50 pm

I'm counting this as a SB victory. **** it. **** it all.

Newz · Post #462 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:52 pm

trwi7 wrote:Did the strategy work because of McCarthy's game calling or did it "work" because the Seahawks uncharacteristically turned it over 5 times including twice deep in their territory. What was our longest drive against them, like 56 yards?

It worked because it worked. We were in an insanely good position to win the game. With four minutes left we were estimated to have a 95%-99% chance to win and we pissed it away.

Aaron Rodgers threw two interceptions he wouldn't normally throw either. There are a ton of variables that go into the game.

I get what you guys are saying, I get the basic theory behind it. I don't think going for it on 4th and goal is worth 4.3 points where as a field goal is worth 3 points in that situation, not against the Seahawks.

We honestly wouldn't even be having this converastion if we weren't playing against an all-time great defense. If it was in the Super Bowl and it was against the Patriots or Colts I'd agree 100% with you. But it isn't as straight forward as "Yeah, this one time on a website I heard that going for it on 4th and goal is worth 4.3 points on average, so that means you go for it... especially early in the game.". If it is 4.3 points on average... wouldn't it be less than 4.3 points when you are facing the best defense in the last 20-25 years?

Or are we not allowed to use critical thinking when it comes to this subject?

It's like saying "The average NBA three pointer attempted goes in about 32% of the time... so that means every player who ever shoots a three pointer should make it 32% of the time".

JimmyTheKid · Post #463 » by **JimmyTheKid** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:02 pm

CousinOfDeath wrote:I'm counting this as a SB victory. **** it. **** it all.

I love this post.

JimmyTheKid · Post #464 » by **JimmyTheKid** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:07 pm

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the 4th and 1's. Again, for me, it has nothing to do with some statistic circulating on a website and everything to do with McCarthy going away from his normally aggressive play calling in those very same situations. Worst case, Seattle has to go 99.5 yards the other way. Best case, 7 points. If you believe you're the better team, which I assume most Packers players and coaches legitimately believed, then make Seattle beat you at your game. Don't get caught up in the hype train that is their defense and 12th man.

Newz · Post #465 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:49 pm

Seattle's defense carried them to a Super Bowl last year and they just did something that no defense has done since the mid 80's this year (back to back years leading the league in lowest scoring/yardage).

I'm not getting caught up in 'the hype train'. Their defense is insanely good.

Siefer · Post #466 » by **Siefer** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:59 pm

Newz wrote:
trwi7 wrote:Did the strategy work because of McCarthy's game calling or did it "work" because the Seahawks uncharacteristically turned it over 5 times including twice deep in their territory. What was our longest drive against them, like 56 yards?

It worked because it worked. We were in an insanely good position to win the game. With four minutes left we were estimated to have a 95%-99% chance to win and we pissed it away.

Aaron Rodgers threw two interceptions he wouldn't normally throw either. There are a ton of variables that go into the game.

I get what you guys are saying, I get the basic theory behind it. I don't think going for it on 4th and goal is worth 4.3 points where as a field goal is worth 3 points in that situation, not against the Seahawks.

We honestly wouldn't even be having this converastion if we weren't playing against an all-time great defense. If it was in the Super Bowl and it was against the Patriots or Colts I'd agree 100% with you. But it isn't as straight forward as "Yeah, this one time on a website I heard that going for it on 4th and goal is worth 4.3 points on average, so that means you go for it... especially early in the game.". If it is 4.3 points on average... wouldn't it be less than 4.3 points when you are facing the best defense in the last 20-25 years?

Or are we not allowed to use critical thinking when it comes to this subject?

It's like saying "The average NBA three pointer attempted goes in about 32% of the time... so that means every player who ever shoots a three pointer should make it 32% of the time".

Luke, I really think you need to take a step back here. It's definitely true that even the best advanced stats aren't perfect - they don't cover every possible variable - but you've got to do a lot of work to cover the gap between 4.3 and 3. That's actually a huge statistical difference, even against a great defense. We walked away from 43% more points on one play. Your stance regarding this isn't just stubborn, but blatantly anti-math.

Taken charitably, your argument is that the Seahawks defense was worth 1.3+ points over our offense on a 4th and short. I might give you that if we were Arizona, but that's insanity considering our offense.

Post #467 » by **ReasonablySober** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:08 pm

Newz wrote:
HurricaneKid wrote:Coaches NEED to understand basic game theory. Going for it on 4th and 1 is worth 4.3 points. A FG is worth 3 points.

Is it really worth 4.3 points against Seattle? What are you basing that off of?

I saw us go 0/6 inside of the 10. I saw them stop us continuously in their own territory. I'm wondering what makes you think we'd score often enough to honestly make it worth that much more. Is it just based off of data from all other games played without taking any variables into account? Because then I agree that it is 'basic' game theory. Very basic.

Seattle faced 1 yard or less situations 45 times before Sunday. They gave up conversions on 60% of them.

Between the statistical data that suggests OF COURSE you go for it in that situation, the data against the Seahawks suggest that too. What kind of bump should the situation get because we have an excellent offensive line, the NFL's MVP at quarterback and a good short yardage runningback?

Newz · Post #468 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:28 pm

Siefer wrote:Luke, I really think you need to take a step back here. It's definitely true that even the best advanced stats aren't perfect - they don't cover every possible variable - but you've got to do a lot of work to cover the gap between 4.3 and 3. That's actually a huge statistical difference, even against a great defense. We walked away from 43% more points on one play. Your stance regarding this isn't just stubborn, but blatantly anti-math.

Taken charitably, your argument is that the Seahawks defense was worth 1.3+ points over our offense on a 4th and short. I might give you that if we were Arizona, but that's insanity considering our offense.

If it is insanity to suggest it then why did we get to fourth down situations two times? If we are going to convert 60% of the time like DB suggests... then why did we convert 0% of the time as opposed to 60% of the time?

Ron Swanson · Post #469 » by **Ron Swanson** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:42 pm

A lot of us are still struggling for answers, I know that I sure as hell am. I just can't get caught up in the hindsight of the 4th & 1 discussion though.

Would I have preferred we went for it at the 1/2 yard line? Absolutely, but I can't point to any series of events in the first half and say that it definitively cost us the game.

We had a 12 point lead with less than 4:00 left to play in the 4th quarter. Nothing before that point in time matters. If you were to tell me that we'd have a two score lead with that much time left, at any level of football whether it be high school, college, or professional, the expectation is that you win that football game. It doesn't matter what mistakes or bad play calls preceded that point.

Your team is defined by what you do in those moments and how you close out games. We failed to execute in those final four minutes and it was a team-wide collapse. If Brandon Bostick catches that onside, the game's over. If Haha bats down that pass to Wilson for the 2-pt conversion, the game's over. McCarthy's the easy scapegoat but it was just a total and utter failure of execution in the most important time of the last 4 years. It sucks...

Siefer · Post #470 » by **Siefer** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:56 pm

Newz wrote:
Siefer wrote:Luke, I really think you need to take a step back here. It's definitely true that even the best advanced stats aren't perfect - they don't cover every possible variable - but you've got to do a lot of work to cover the gap between 4.3 and 3. That's actually a huge statistical difference, even against a great defense. We walked away from 43% more points on one play. Your stance regarding this isn't just stubborn, but blatantly anti-math.

Taken charitably, your argument is that the Seahawks defense was worth 1.3+ points over our offense on a 4th and short. I might give you that if we were Arizona, but that's insanity considering our offense.

If it is insanity to suggest it then why did we get to fourth down situations two times? If we are going to convert 60% of the time like DB suggests... then why did we convert 0% of the time as opposed to 60% of the time?

How do we get any 4th down situations? Clearly because the team didn't succeed on the first three. You're being really intellectually dishonest here.

Newz · Post #471 » by **Newz** » Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:56 pm

Ron Swanson wrote:A lot of us are still struggling for answers, I know that I sure as hell am. I just can't get caught up in the hindsight of the 4th & 1 discussion though.

Would I have preferred we went for it at the 1/2 yard line? Absolutely, but I can't point to any series of events in the first half and say that it definitively cost us the game.

We had a 12 point lead with less than 4:00 left to play in the 4th quarter. Nothing before that point in time matters. If you were to tell me that we'd have a two score lead with that much time left, at any level of football whether it be high school, college, or professional, the expectation is that you win that football game. It doesn't matter what mistakes or bad play calls preceded that point.

Your team is defined by what you do in those moments and how you close out games. We failed to execute in those final four minutes and it was a team-wide collapse. If Brandon Bostick catches that onside, the game's over. If Haha bats down that pass to Wilson for the 2-pt conversion, the game's over. McCarthy's the easy scapegoat but it was just a total and utter failure of execution in the most important time of the last 4 years. It sucks...

Yup.

th87 · Post #472 » by **th87** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:13 am

Ron Swanson wrote:A lot of us are still struggling for answers, I know that I sure as hell am. I just can't get caught up in the hindsight of the 4th & 1 discussion though.

Would I have preferred we went for it at the 1/2 yard line? Absolutely, but I can't point to any series of events in the first half and say that it definitively cost us the game.

We had a 12 point lead with less than 4:00 left to play in the 4th quarter. Nothing before that point in time matters. If you were to tell me that we'd have a two score lead with that much time left, at any level of football whether it be high school, college, or professional, the expectation is that you win that football game. It doesn't matter what mistakes or bad play calls preceded that point.

Your team is defined by what you do in those moments and how you close out games. We failed to execute in those final four minutes and it was a team-wide collapse. If Brandon Bostick catches that onside, the game's over. If Haha bats down that pass to Wilson for the 2-pt conversion, the game's over. McCarthy's the easy scapegoat but it was just a total and utter failure of execution in the most important time of the last 4 years. It sucks...

12 points in 4 minutes is PLENTY of time in today's NFL, especially against a defense we can't fully trust (despite them playing the game of their lives up to that point). Force a punt (which was expected, given our run, run, run) offense, score, and then either force another punt, or grab the onside. This is not so out of the realm of possibility that the team should dismiss it altogether.

I don't know what I would've done, but given all those defenders in the box + a one-armed Sherman, I'd maybe see if Rodgers can get an easy one, and if not, he could've just gone down.

If Bostick catches that onside, the Packers would've run three more times and given the ball back to Seattle with 1:20 remaining. Based on what we saw, are you confident they stop them from scoring the go-ahead TD?

Newz · Post #473 » by **Newz** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:18 am

Siefer wrote:
Newz wrote:
Siefer wrote:Luke, I really think you need to take a step back here. It's definitely true that even the best advanced stats aren't perfect - they don't cover every possible variable - but you've got to do a lot of work to cover the gap between 4.3 and 3. That's actually a huge statistical difference, even against a great defense. We walked away from 43% more points on one play. Your stance regarding this isn't just stubborn, but blatantly anti-math.

Taken charitably, your argument is that the Seahawks defense was worth 1.3+ points over our offense on a 4th and short. I might give you that if we were Arizona, but that's insanity considering our offense.

If it is insanity to suggest it then why did we get to fourth down situations two times? If we are going to convert 60% of the time like DB suggests... then why did we convert 0% of the time as opposed to 60% of the time?

How do we get any 4th down situations? Clearly because the team didn't succeed on the first three. You're being really intellectually dishonest here.

I guess I'll go over it again since apparently when I say logical things it is 'intellectually dishonest'.

1. RS/DB said that the Seahawks had one yard or less situations 45 times before Sunday. Reviewing that I am going to assume that those are 1 yard or less situations anywhere on the field (I'm willing to be corrected here if teams have really had 45 attempts at the 1 yard line against them, but that seems like quite a few attempts during the year). If we want to talk about being intellectually dishonest... then how can you compare 1 yard situations all over the field to a 1 yard situation at the goal line? Are you guys at least willing to admit that it is significantly harder to convert on a short field than it is say at the 20, 30, 40 yard line or midfield?

I personally don't think you can use that data when comparing it to the goal line or most of the red zone in general. The situations just aren't similar. If you asked any football person they'd admit that they aren't similar. It's much harder to move the ball when there is that much less space. It gets even harder when you have safeties like Kam and Thomas who are then able to be up right near the line of scrimmage.

2. I think you are being dishonest with yourself here. We failed seven times inside of the ten on the two drives that you mentioned. We failed three times right at the goal line. You quoted the it is "insanity" for me to think that it isn't worth 1.3 extra points. Using your theory, considering our offense is so good and you want to just ignore how great the Seahawks defense is, isn't it insanity that we couldn't put the ball into the end zone on seven attempts that excluded the fourth down plays?

Isn't it insanity that we had the ball in their territory as many times as we did and our offense couldn't get into the end zone more than one time?

Instead of calling it insanity you could just admit that the Seahawks defense is just incredibly good and that Aaron Rodgers did not play very well, which in all honesty has something to do with their defense being as good as it is... the Seahawks defense made a guy who put up a historic season (Manning) last year look like an absolute scrub in the Super Bowl after he ran over the league to the tune of 55 TDs, 10 INTs, a QB Rating of 115.1 and an MVP award.

The Seahawks defense is really good. Their defense is better than our offense. Their defense is setting records. Their defense is the best defense in 20-25 years.

3. When you just look at it match-up wise it is incredibly difficult for us to score, just like it is difficult for any team to score against them. I will agree some of that has to do with McCarthy going with very conservative play calling around the goal line.

Sherman basically completely takes away one receiver, Maxwell is good on the other side, their insanely good safeties get to move up toward the line of scrimmage, they were the second best team against the run and they allowed a league low in points/yardage.

So not only is it extremely difficult to create mismatches on them with our receiving threats, but they are also incredibly good at stopping the run.

4. Because of this I don't think it's insane to think that the Seahawks make a huge statistical swing in the +1.3 points category. You guys don't really provide any argument, you don't really debate anything I'm saying. You just say "Hey, 1.3 points, you are crazy for saying anything different". Then when I bring up other statistics like "Using McCarthy's approach we had a 95%-99% chance to win the game"... the argument shifts to "Yeah?! Well if we would have went for it we would have converted and the lead would have been twice as big" or saying absurd things like "Just run play action and Quarless would be wide open in the end zone".

You act like it's easy to get into the end zone against them even though we were 0-7 on those drives inside of the 10, we had the ball several times in their territory and we still couldn't get into the end zone... we still couldn't muster a ton of points... we still couldn't move the ball against them. Because they are really **** good on defense. You act like it's easy to score against them even though they are setting records... you act like it is crazy to think that they provide a major statistical swing even though they are literally grading out as one of the best defenses ever.

Jacob, I guess I don't see how any of that is intellectually dishonest. If you think it is, I'm not sure what to tell you. Everything that I laid out seems perfectly logical to me. If you want to point out what is dishonest and where I'm wrong... go ahead. But if you just want to keep repeating things like "It's crazy to think that their defense doesn't move the needle on the +1.3 number that much"... then I guess that's your opinion. I just disagree with you... and I don't think it's intellectually dishonest at all.

DavidDunn21 · Post #474 » by **DavidDunn21** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:34 am

Newz wrote:
trwi7 wrote:Did the strategy work because of McCarthy's game calling or did it "work" because the Seahawks uncharacteristically turned it over 5 times including twice deep in their territory. What was our longest drive against them, like 56 yards?

We honestly wouldn't even be having this converastion if we weren't playing against an all-time great defense. If it was in the Super Bowl and it was against the Patriots or Colts I'd agree 100% with you. But it isn't as straight forward as "Yeah, this one time on a website I heard that going for it on 4th and goal is worth 4.3 points on average, so that means you go for it... especially early in the game.". If it is 4.3 points on average... wouldn't it be less than 4.3 points when you are facing the best defense in the last 20-25 years?

Or are we not allowed to use critical thinking when it comes to this subject?

It's like saying "The average NBA three pointer attempted goes in about 32% of the time... so that means every player who ever shoots a three pointer should make it 32% of the time".

Thank you. I've been trying to make this point for years.

For years and years we had basic statistics that were some times misapplied or oversimplified, and then we got advanced stats which are misapplied or oversimplified much more. ¡Viva la Revolución!

RiotPunch · Post #475 » by **RiotPunch** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:47 am

Mike Heller pulled out 15 plays in that game where if literally any one of them go our way, we are headed to Glendale. Just a total team effort meltdown. Plenty of criticism to go around. I have been critical of McCarthy for a long time, but hanging the loss on him for kicking field goals against the best defense in the league is not totally fair. He deserves criticism, but so does Bostick. So does Burnett. So does Slocum. So does Capers. So does Daniels. Etc, etc.

Losing that game was such a spectacularly disastrous accomplishment that no one man can take full credit for it.

Post #476 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:53 am

Newz wrote:
Siefer wrote:
Newz wrote:
If it is insanity to suggest it then why did we get to fourth down situations two times? If we are going to convert 60% of the time like DB suggests... then why did we convert 0% of the time as opposed to 60% of the time?

How do we get any 4th down situations? Clearly because the team didn't succeed on the first three. You're being really intellectually dishonest here.

I guess I'll go over it again since apparently when I say logical things it is 'intellectually dishonest'.

1. RS/DB said that the Seahawks had one yard or less situations 45 times before Sunday. Reviewing that I am going to assume that those are 1 yard or less situations anywhere on the field (I'm willing to be corrected here if teams have really had 45 attempts at the 1 yard line against them, but that seems like quite a few attempts during the year). If we want to talk about being intellectually dishonest... then how can you compare 1 yard situations all over the field to a 1 yard situation at the goal line? Are you guys at least willing to admit that it is significantly harder to convert on a short field than it is say at the 20, 30, 40 yard line or midfield?

I personally don't think you can use that data when comparing it to the goal line or most of the red zone in general. The situations just aren't similar. If you asked any football person they'd admit that they aren't similar. It's much harder to move the ball when there is that much less space. It gets even harder when you have safeties like Kam and Thomas who are then able to be up right near the line of scrimmage.

2. I think you are being dishonest with yourself here. We failed seven times inside of the ten on the two drives that you mentioned. We failed three times right at the goal line. You quoted the it is "insanity" for me to think that it isn't worth 1.3 extra points. Using your theory, considering our offense is so good and you want to just ignore how great the Seahawks defense is, isn't it insanity that we couldn't put the ball into the end zone on seven attempts that excluded the fourth down plays?

Isn't it insanity that we had the ball in their territory as many times as we did and our offense couldn't get into the end zone more than one time?

Instead of calling it insanity you could just admit that the Seahawks defense is just incredibly good and that Aaron Rodgers did not play very well, which in all honesty has something to do with their defense being as good as it is... the Seahawks defense made a guy who put up a historic season (Manning) last year look like an absolute scrub in the Super Bowl after he ran over the league to the tune of 55 TDs, 10 INTs, a QB Rating of 115.1 and an MVP award.

The Seahawks defense is really good. Their defense is better than our offense. Their defense is setting records. Their defense is the best defense in 20-25 years.

3. When you just look at it match-up wise it is incredibly difficult for us to score, just like it is difficult for any team to score against them. I will agree some of that has to do with McCarthy going with very conservative play calling around the goal line.

Sherman basically completely takes away one receiver, Maxwell is good on the other side, their insanely good safeties get to move up toward the line of scrimmage, they were the second best team against the run and they allowed a league low in points/yardage.

So not only is it extremely difficult to create mismatches on them with our receiving threats, but they are also incredibly good at stopping the run.

4. Because of this I don't think it's insane to think that the Seahawks make a huge statistical swing in the +1.3 points category. You guys don't really provide any argument, you don't really debate anything I'm saying. You just say "Hey, 1.3 points, you are crazy for saying anything different". Then when I bring up other statistics like "Using McCarthy's approach we had a 95%-99% chance to win the game"... the argument shifts to "Yeah?! Well if we would have went for it we would have converted and the lead would have been twice as big" or saying absurd things like "Just run play action and Quarless would be wide open in the end zone".

You act like it's easy to get into the end zone against them even though we were 0-7 on those drives inside of the 10, we had the ball several times in their territory and we still couldn't get into the end zone... we still couldn't muster a ton of points... we still couldn't move the ball against them. Because they are really **** good on defense. You act like it's easy to score against them even though they are setting records... you act like it is crazy to think that they provide a major statistical swing even though they are literally grading out as one of the best defenses ever.

Jacob, I guess I don't see how any of that is intellectually dishonest. If you think it is, I'm not sure what to tell you. Everything that I laid out seems perfectly logical to me. If you want to point out what is dishonest and where I'm wrong... go ahead. But if you just want to keep repeating things like "It's crazy to think that their defense doesn't move the needle on the +1.3 number that much"... then I guess that's your opinion. I just disagree with you... and I don't think it's intellectually dishonest at all.

If you want to count only short yardage situations going into the end-zone, the numbers are 10/18 so 55.5%. 18 downs, 10 touchdowns.

Post #477 » by **paulpressey25** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:58 am

Let's talk about Clay guys.

I saw him standing on the sideline preening the hair in one of those shots late and the fourth and said to my buddy---WTF is Clay doing out? Must be some special package Capers has in for that play that doesn't involve him.

Then I was so wound up about the collapse I didn't bother to see whether he was back in or not. How many plays was he out for that last 4 minutes and into OT?

Wilde relayed some comment that Clay said he was physically and emotionally spent and had to pull himself but no one has come forward and explained what happened. If that is true, that is your story of this game. But again, I didn't pay attention to any of it because I was so wound up with the other stuff going on.

Post #478 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:59 am

He missed the last couple drives in regulation but was apparently back out there in OT.

Also the play was to go for the TD on 4th and short.

Newz · Post #479 » by **Newz** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:02 am

ReasonablySober wrote:If you want to count only short yardage situations going into the end-zone, the numbers are 10/18 so 55.5%. 18 downs, 10 touchdowns.

Are you counting the three times they stuffed us during our game before the attempt?

In addition it seems like perhaps we just got unlucky going 0/3 in that situation. Maybe the next two they would have just stopped dominating our offense and we would have scored. I'm still going to guess not and I still think our inability to move the ball in the game against them in those situations and in general shows my point.

I also think that it's odd that you guys think it remains at an additional 1.3 points, as if there is no variance. Do you honestly think it's as easy to score on the Seahawks in the red zone as someone like the Browns? Do you think there is only very little difference?

Newz · Post #480 » by **Newz** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:03 am

paulpressey25 wrote:Let's talk about Clay guys.

I saw him standing on the sideline preening the hair in one of those shots late and the fourth and said to my buddy---WTF is Clay doing out? Must be some special package Capers has in for that play that doesn't involve him.

Then I was so wound up about the collapse I didn't bother to see whether he was back in or not. How many plays was he out for that last 4 minutes and into OT?

Wilde relayed some comment that Clay said he was physically and emotionally spent and had to pull himself but no one has come forward and explained what happened. If that is true, that is your story of this game. But again, I didn't pay attention to any of it because I was so wound up with the other stuff going on.

I was bewildered by this as well while it was happening. I am curious if he was hurt or if we just thought we had the game wrapped up and we were resting him.