Game 5: Pack at Dallas - 3:25 FOX

[Ron Swanson]

Rodgers again hides a whole mess of warts.

False. This was your "first thought" immediately after the game. A predictable continuation of your whiny agenda that you flood every thread with. I can't for the life of me understand how miserable one has to be as a sports fan in order to reach that level of pessimistic contrarianism after one of the most impressive regular season wins in recent memory. But kudos, you've achieved it.

[dools644]

Rodgers again hides a whole mess of warts.

False. This was your "first thought" immediately after the game. A predictable continuation of your whiny agenda that you flood every thread with. I can't for the life of me understand how miserable one has to be as a sports fan in order to reach that level of pessimistic contrarianism after one of the most impressive regular season wins in recent memory. But kudos, you've achieved it.

Lol. So my first thought after the game is the one I wrote here? Or were you inside my head?

If you think I wasn't leaping for joy in my living room, you can get bent.

Just because I have very valid criticisms of the Packers doesn't mean I have to find a new hobby.

You are a kool-aid drinking homer. Get out of your sensibilities already and deal with it. You should really monetize your mind-control powers.

[Wooderson]

Would love to play poker with a lot of the guys here since I know pot odds wouldn't be used.

[Ron Swanson]

Cool story bro. Go ahead then and stop quoting me so that I don't have to subject my eyes to your "Bob the Packer fan calling from my car" casual fan drivel. You're on the ignore list for a reason.

[dools644]

Cool story bro. Go ahead then and stop quoting me so that I don't have to subject my eyes to your "Bob the Packer fan calling from my car" casual fan drivel. You're on the ignore list for a reason.

Ha ha. You're a complete joke. You're a dolt that offers nothing to back your arguments. You blast anybody that dares speak against the Packers. You live in some fairy tale where the Packers have this amazing defense every year. If someone doesn't agree with you, you go right to personal attacks.

You have no idea how math or odds work either but that's not surprising. You are the quintessential "casual fan" who doesn't know a lick about the game beyond "rah rah what a throw!"

[JimmyTheKid]

Probability? If they don't score a TD, the probability of winning is 0%. You score when you can, I'm guessing they thought they could catch the Packers off guard with a pass and obviously it didn't work.

Exactly. It was a 4 point game! Yes, theres an entirely different conversation to be had if its a 3 point game. But the reality of that particular situation was that they needed a TD by any means necessary. There is literally no time to get cute with the clock. Unless you're of the belief that you can score touchdowns whenever you dam please. If thats the case, why not just score one every offensive possession?

There is no point made here at all. The "probability" refers to the probability of them scoring. Saying the "probability of them winning is 0 if they don't score" is like John Madden saying the key to victory is scoring more points than the other team. It's state-the-obvious sports babble that doesn't play into the debate at all.

By taking your time you're saying, "There's a very remote chance we fumble on the next play but I'm eating some time before giving the MVP the ball with a minute and a timeout needing a FG to tie it."

By scoring immediately you're saying "There's a very remote chance we fumble on the next play so I'm going to eliminate a very remote thing and give the MVP with the ball with a minute and a timeout."

You guys are claiming probability but literally reducing the % chance that you win the game in regulation by doing that. If you accept that logic, so be it. But all you achieve by doing so is eliminating the very small chance of an immediate disaster so that GB has a chance to win.

I'll take the score-a-TD-by-any-means-necessary logic in that situation over just assuming I can waltz into the end zone with 10 seconds remaining on the clock. Again, if it were that easy to score touchdowns they would have done so on every drive.

[Ron Swanson]

What are you? A toddler? Go troll Packers reddit before you get banned/suspended.

[dools644]

Exactly. It was a 4 point game! Yes, theres an entirely different conversation to be had if its a 3 point game. But the reality of that particular situation was that they needed a TD by any means necessary. There is literally no time to get cute with the clock. Unless you're of the belief that you can score touchdowns whenever you dam please. If thats the case, why not just score one every offensive possession?

There is no point made here at all. The "probability" refers to the probability of them scoring. Saying the "probability of them winning is 0 if they don't score" is like John Madden saying the key to victory is scoring more points than the other team. It's state-the-obvious sports babble that doesn't play into the debate at all.

By taking your time you're saying, "There's a very remote chance we fumble on the next play but I'm eating some time before giving the MVP the ball with a minute and a timeout needing a FG to tie it."

By scoring immediately you're saying "There's a very remote chance we fumble on the next play so I'm going to eliminate a very remote thing and give the MVP with the ball with a minute and a timeout."

You guys are claiming probability but literally reducing the % chance that you win the game in regulation by doing that. If you accept that logic, so be it. But all you achieve by doing so is eliminating the very small chance of an immediate disaster so that GB has a chance to win.

I'll take the score-a-TD-by-any-means-necessary logic in that situation over just assuming I can waltz into the end zone with 10 seconds remaining on the clock. Again, if it was that easy to score touchdowns they would have done so on every drive.

They threw a pick-6 on a bobble and punted one time.

It basically was that easy, and none of them looked easier than the last one on a very tired defense. I can't hammer this home any more so I'll stop on this point.

You can go ahead and take that "logic," but it's not "logic," it's the math, and the math actually drastically favors taking some time off the clock. Before anybody points to the aforementioned pick 6 as what can go wrong, they never should have been throwing the ball like they did on 2nd down. IMO that throw was the most decisive play in the game besides Rodgers' game-winner.

[dools644]

What are you? A toddler? Go troll Packers reddit before you get banned/suspended.

You have literally nothing over me besides the fact that you post thousands of times. Don't pretend you have any maturity or composure leg to stand on, because you don't. You've been trying to get into fights with me for a week all because I think our defense stinks.

You can't handle a debate like an adult, so stop talking to me already. You're the only guy here taking potshots at me. Everybody else is having intelligent discussion.

[Wooderson]

Exactly. It was a 4 point game! Yes, theres an entirely different conversation to be had if its a 3 point game. But the reality of that particular situation was that they needed a TD by any means necessary. There is literally no time to get cute with the clock. Unless you're of the belief that you can score touchdowns whenever you dam please. If thats the case, why not just score one every offensive possession?

There is no point made here at all. The "probability" refers to the probability of them scoring. Saying the "probability of them winning is 0 if they don't score" is like John Madden saying the key to victory is scoring more points than the other team. It's state-the-obvious sports babble that doesn't play into the debate at all.

By taking your time you're saying, "There's a very remote chance we fumble on the next play but I'm eating some time before giving the MVP the ball with a minute and a timeout needing a FG to tie it."

By scoring immediately you're saying "There's a very remote chance we fumble on the next play so I'm going to eliminate a very remote thing and give the MVP with the ball with a minute and a timeout."

You guys are claiming probability but literally reducing the % chance that you win the game in regulation by doing that. If you accept that logic, so be it. But all you achieve by doing so is eliminating the very small chance of an immediate disaster so that GB has a chance to win.

I'll take the score-a-TD-by-any-means-necessary logic in that situation over just assuming I can waltz into the end zone with 10 seconds remaining on the clock. Again, if it were that easy to score touchdowns they would have done so on every drive.

Does every drive start inside the 10 yard line? What if the Packers were to get the ball at Dal 10 instead of a normal kickoff had Dal scored a TD? Would that change how they should manage the clock?


Sent from my iPad using RealGM mobile app

[Wooderson]

Exactly. It was a 4 point game! Yes, theres an entirely different conversation to be had if its a 3 point game. But the reality of that particular situation was that they needed a TD by any means necessary. There is literally no time to get cute with the clock. Unless you're of the belief that you can score touchdowns whenever you dam please. If thats the case, why not just score one every offensive possession?

There is no point made here at all. The "probability" refers to the probability of them scoring. Saying the "probability of them winning is 0 if they don't score" is like John Madden saying the key to victory is scoring more points than the other team. It's state-the-obvious sports babble that doesn't play into the debate at all.

By taking your time you're saying, "There's a very remote chance we fumble on the next play but I'm eating some time before giving the MVP the ball with a minute and a timeout needing a FG to tie it."

By scoring immediately you're saying "There's a very remote chance we fumble on the next play so I'm going to eliminate a very remote thing and give the MVP with the ball with a minute and a timeout."

You guys are claiming probability but literally reducing the % chance that you win the game in regulation by doing that. If you accept that logic, so be it. But all you achieve by doing so is eliminating the very small chance of an immediate disaster so that GB has a chance to win.

I'll take the score-a-TD-by-any-means-necessary logic in that situation over just assuming I can waltz into the end zone with 10 seconds remaining on the clock. Again, if it were that easy to score touchdowns they would have done so on every drive.

Does every drive start inside the opponents 10 yard line? What if the Packers were to get the ball at Dal 10 instead of a normal kickoff had Dal scored a TD? Would that change how they should manage the clock?

[humanrefutation]

Cool story bro. Go ahead then and stop quoting me so that I don't have to subject my eyes to your "Bob the Packer fan calling from my car" casual fan drivel. You're on the ignore list for a reason.

Ha ha. You're a complete joke. You're a dolt that offers nothing to back your arguments. You blast anybody that dares speak against the Packers. You live in some fairy tale where the Packers have this amazing defense every year. If someone doesn't agree with you, you go right to personal attacks.

You have no idea how math or odds work either but that's not surprising. You are the quintessential "casual fan" who doesn't know a lick about the game beyond "rah rah what a throw!"

What are you? A toddler? Go troll Packers reddit before you get banned/suspended.

Both of you need to knock it off with the personal attacks or I will start to hand out suspensions. Thanks.

[JimmyTheKid]

There is no point made here at all. The "probability" refers to the probability of them scoring. Saying the "probability of them winning is 0 if they don't score" is like John Madden saying the key to victory is scoring more points than the other team. It's state-the-obvious sports babble that doesn't play into the debate at all.

By taking your time you're saying, "There's a very remote chance we fumble on the next play but I'm eating some time before giving the MVP the ball with a minute and a timeout needing a FG to tie it."

By scoring immediately you're saying "There's a very remote chance we fumble on the next play so I'm going to eliminate a very remote thing and give the MVP with the ball with a minute and a timeout."

You guys are claiming probability but literally reducing the % chance that you win the game in regulation by doing that. If you accept that logic, so be it. But all you achieve by doing so is eliminating the very small chance of an immediate disaster so that GB has a chance to win.

I'll take the score-a-TD-by-any-means-necessary logic in that situation over just assuming I can waltz into the end zone with 10 seconds remaining on the clock. Again, if it was that easy to score touchdowns they would have done so on every drive.

They threw a pick-6 on a bobble and punted one time.

It basically was that easy, and none of them looked easier than the last one on a very tired defense. I can't hammer this home any more so I'll stop on this point.

You can go ahead and take that "logic," but it's not "logic," it's the math, and the math actually drastically favors taking some time off the clock. Before anybody points to the aforementioned pick 6 as what can go wrong, they never should have been throwing the ball like they did on 2nd down. IMO that throw was the most decisive play in the game besides Rodgers' game-winner.

They also had a number of 3rd down conversions where Dak Prescott turned into a mistake-free version of prime Brett Favre. He was magical. Maybe you think he's punched his ticket for the HOF already or maybe his magic for the night was about to run out. Skimming the last 10 pages or so in an attempt to see where the debate stemmed, I actually agree they should have run on 2nd and 1. Because down, distance, score, and clock. What I don't agree with is the notion that Dak should've intentionally stopped short of the end zone to down the ball because there was over a minute left. Hard to tell who's arguing what here.

But anyway, you said you'd be in the "Done Club" if the defense looked the way it had in previous big game situations. So... Done Club for you? Despite another huge variable with arguably our best CB in Kevin King going down early?

[dools644]

I'll take the score-a-TD-by-any-means-necessary logic in that situation over just assuming I can waltz into the end zone with 10 seconds remaining on the clock. Again, if it was that easy to score touchdowns they would have done so on every drive.

They threw a pick-6 on a bobble and punted one time.

It basically was that easy, and none of them looked easier than the last one on a very tired defense. I can't hammer this home any more so I'll stop on this point.

You can go ahead and take that "logic," but it's not "logic," it's the math, and the math actually drastically favors taking some time off the clock. Before anybody points to the aforementioned pick 6 as what can go wrong, they never should have been throwing the ball like they did on 2nd down. IMO that throw was the most decisive play in the game besides Rodgers' game-winner.

They also had a number of 3rd down conversions where Dak Prescott turned into a mistake-free version of prime Brett Favre. He was magical. Maybe you think he's punched his ticket for the HOF already or maybe his magic for the night was about to run out. Skimming the last 10 pages or so in an attempt to see where the debate stemmed, I actually agree they should have run on 2nd and 1. Because down, distance, score, and clock. What I don't agree with is the notion that Dak should've intentionally stopped short of the end zone to down the ball because there was over a minute left. Hard to tell who's arguing what here.

But anyway, you said you'd be in the "Done Club" if the defense looked the way it had in previous big game situations. So... Done Club for you? Despite another huge variable with arguably our best CB in Kevin King going down early?

Well, for starters, I said I didn't necessarily advocate him stopping at the 1, my real criticism was them throwing on 2nd down.

As for as being "done," my response to that before you said it was that If Kevin King is out for a long amount of time, yes, I do not see any way this team is in the Super Bowl.

I would watch all of the games regardless but yesterday was proof to me that him being healthy is as pivotal as anyone else on the defense. There are too many weird variables right now. I don't think Daniels is 100%. I saw multiple plays that Perry could have made if he had a hand, too. Are Daniels, King, Burnett and Perry healthy (enough) in January? If any one of them isn't I see deja vu in another 40-pt performance.

Dak made great plays and is a great player, yeah, but that's the type of QB they will face down the stretch. Newton, Wentz, Dak, Russell maybe? All good players who can make plays with their feet.

[JimmyTheKid]

They threw a pick-6 on a bobble and punted one time.

It basically was that easy, and none of them looked easier than the last one on a very tired defense. I can't hammer this home any more so I'll stop on this point.

You can go ahead and take that "logic," but it's not "logic," it's the math, and the math actually drastically favors taking some time off the clock. Before anybody points to the aforementioned pick 6 as what can go wrong, they never should have been throwing the ball like they did on 2nd down. IMO that throw was the most decisive play in the game besides Rodgers' game-winner.

They also had a number of 3rd down conversions where Dak Prescott turned into a mistake-free version of prime Brett Favre. He was magical. Maybe you think he's punched his ticket for the HOF already or maybe his magic for the night was about to run out. Skimming the last 10 pages or so in an attempt to see where the debate stemmed, I actually agree they should have run on 2nd and 1. Because down, distance, score, and clock. What I don't agree with is the notion that Dak should've intentionally stopped short of the end zone to down the ball because there was over a minute left. Hard to tell who's arguing what here.

But anyway, you said you'd be in the "Done Club" if the defense looked the way it had in previous big game situations. So... Done Club for you? Despite another huge variable with arguably our best CB in Kevin King going down early?

Well, for starters, I said I didn't necessarily advocate him stopping at the 1, my real criticism was them throwing on 2nd down.

As for as being "done," my response to that before you said it was that If Kevin King is out for a long amount of time, yes, I do not see any way this team is in the Super Bowl.

I would watch all of the games regardless but yesterday was proof to me that him being healthy is as pivotal as anyone else on the defense. There are too many weird variables right now. I don't think Daniels is 100%. I saw multiple plays that Perry could have made if he had a hand, too. Are Daniels, King, Burnett and Perry healthy (enough) in January? If any one of them isn't I see deja vu in another 40-pt performance.

And thats all I've been saying. And why I took exception to so many of your doom and gloom posts from last week. We still have yet to see this team anywhere near healthy and they're 4-1. And we still have the best player on the planet. Plenty to be optimistic about without being labeled a "homer" or having "rose-colored glasses." I'm also worried about wasting years of Rodgers' prime. I'm also firmly planted in the "Super Bowl or bust" camp. But right now, in week 5, I feel good about our chances.

[trwi7]

Oh I know you weren't serious. But I've read and heard "analysis" online that was serious about that.

The only time that makes any sense is when you only need a FG.

[dools644]

Oh I know you weren't serious. But I've read and heard "analysis" online that was serious about that.

The only time that makes any sense is when you only need a FG.

Yeah. Or yesterday, when it very, very likely would have Dallas 3-2 right now. I don't get at all how y'all can be so absolutist about it.

It is absolutely a debate.

[dools644]

What gets me is the inconsistency of you guys that think the Packers should have gone for 2 because you don’t trust the defense to stop Dallas on a 2-pt attempt.

BUT you guys think Dak Prescott should have run that TD in, because it’s extremely likely the Packers stop them from scoring 4x from the 1-inch line.

This is the case for more advanced metrics in football. So coaches stop doing stupid stuff like this, along with ill-advised punts.

[Lippo]

Yeah, GB should have red carpeted Dez a TD on that fade and laughed at him pointed to the clock and said, Oh Snap, you done and left us over a minute, don't you know who our QB is??? GG. See ya , wouldn't want to be ya....

[RRyder823]

On a brighter note I wanna bring up just how tough of a catch that was by Adams to win the game and just how easy he made it look.

Like damn that's a tough catch to make and keep your feet in and I haven't seen anyone mention it

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app