Game 5: Pack at Dallas - 3:25 FOX

jazzfanWA · Post #681 » by **jazzfanWA** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 5:42 pm

So if people are questioning whether Dallas should have taken more time off the clock isn't that the same as saying GB should have let them scored in order to get the ball back with an adequate amount of time on the clock to go the length of the field?

sidney lanier · Post #682 » by **sidney lanier** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 5:50 pm

dools644 wrote:
I don't think you are wrong, I just don't think it's as open and shut as you make it seem. I'll admit I hadn't considered them going for 2 earlier, but I think there is a case for both.

There is a case for both, but the point of looking at these things probabilistically is to look at the two cases side by side and see which one is better supported by the evidence. Win probabilities probably aren't the strongest empirical evidence in the world, but they're the strongest that exist to adjudicate arguments like this, and they favor going for two, although it's so close that it really doesn't matter much.

The article this came from suggests that the way to think about it is to consider whether the second point you would accrue with a successful two-point conversion is more valuable than the first point. When up 4, I think it is. Going from 4 up to 5 up is nice, but going from 5 up to 6 up is nicer.

dietac · Post #683 » by **dietac** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 5:51 pm

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.

And I heard an interview of Randall this morning and I felt like I warped back to 1994 and was listening to T-Buck. I thought a lot of Randall's issues were injury related last year and he would bounce back... but that guy has an "interesting" view... and I'm not sure he can get better if he can't acknowledge his weaknesses.

WeekapaugGroove · Post #684 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:00 pm

sidney lanier wrote:
dools644 wrote:
I don't think you are wrong, I just don't think it's as open and shut as you make it seem. I'll admit I hadn't considered them going for 2 earlier, but I think there is a case for both.

There is a case for both, but the point of looking at these things probabilistically is to look at the two cases side by side and see which one is better supported by the evidence. Win probabilities probably aren't the strongest empirical evidence in the world, but they're the strongest that exist to adjudicate arguments like this, and they favor going for two, although it's so close that it really doesn't matter much.

The article this came from suggests that the way to think about it is to consider whether the second point you would accrue with a successful two-point conversion is more valuable than the first point. When up 4, I think it is. Going from 4 up to 5 up is nice, but going from 5 up to 6 up is nicer.

Thanks for posting. I agree with the chart that completely in a vacuum it's only slightly more advantageous to go for 2 but what really puts it over the top for me is the performance of both the O and D. I just have so much more confidence the O can score a 2 than the D could prevent it.

I find it interesting the chart gives a slight edge for kicking the extra point when up 7. To me I love going for 2 in that situation to try to go up 9 instead of 8. Getting that 2 score lead is such a huge deal compared to the downside of not making the other team get a 2pt conversion to tie.

chuckleslove · Post #685 » by **chuckleslove** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:02 pm

We are 4-1, tied for the best record in the NFC, second best record in the NFL. We have done this despite all of the injuries and in the one game we lost Rodgers looked human and gifted Atlanta 2 turnovers, otherwise that game is likely a lot closer than the scoreboard indicated, and that was while we were playing our what 3rd string tackles? We were also on the road where it is always difficult to win at the opening of a new stadium.

Do we have flaws as a team? Absolutely, but so does every single other team in the league. So if you want to act like we are pretenders or some garbage team you clearly don't watch any football besides the Packers because we have as good of a chance at winning the Super Bowl right now as anyone else and if we can get healthy we might be the odds on favorites.

Lot of nitpicking of our team while ignoring the situation of every other team in the league going on by a handful of posters who are normally only insufferable after big losses and disappear after these big wins.

chuckleslove · Post #686 » by **chuckleslove** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:04 pm

Also on the 2 point conversion they ran a great play. Rodgers just missed a wide open Jordy. 99 times out of 100 if they run and execute that play the same way Rodgers hits him for 2. Obviously everything after that is changed and we are probably holding on for dear life with a Crosby FG at the end instead of the greatness that is Rodgers but I wanted them to go for 2 as soon as they scored the TD. My internal math said the odds were better and that chart seems to confirm it.

FAH1223 · Post #687 » by **FAH1223** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:15 pm

Martinez is playing the run at near an All Pro level

dools644 · Post #688 » by **dools644** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:20 pm

dietac wrote: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.

And I heard an interview of Randall this morning and I felt like I warped back to 1994 and was listening to T-Buck. I thought a lot of Randall's issues were injury related last year and he would bounce back... but that guy has an "interesting" view... and I'm not sure he can get better if he can't acknowledge his weaknesses.

This is silly and dishonest. Yes obviously it's 0 if they don't score. But the chance they do is overwhelmingly on their side.

dools644 · Post #689 » by **dools644** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:22 pm

jazzfanWA wrote:So if people are questioning whether Dallas should have taken more time off the clock isn't that the same as saying GB should have let them scored in order to get the ball back with an adequate amount of time on the clock to go the length of the field?

Pretty much, which I also wanted them to do when it became apparent they were out of gas and getting trampled. I don't know how someone can be opposed to that when you have Rodgers.

WeekapaugGroove · Post #690 » by **WeekapaugGroove** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:24 pm

FAH1223 wrote:Martinez is playing the run at near an All Pro level

Oh yeah he's been impressive. He seems to be reading plays SO much faster this year and playing downhill.

Sent from my SM-G930V using RealGM mobile app

dools644 · Post #691 » by **dools644** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:29 pm

chuckleslove wrote:We are 4-1, tied for the best record in the NFC, second best record in the NFL. We have done this despite all of the injuries and in the one game we lost Rodgers looked human and gifted Atlanta 2 turnovers, otherwise that game is likely a lot closer than the scoreboard indicated, and that was while we were playing our what 3rd string tackles? We were also on the road where it is always difficult to win at the opening of a new stadium.

Do we have flaws as a team? Absolutely, but so does every single other team in the league. So if you want to act like we are pretenders or some garbage team you clearly don't watch any football besides the Packers because we have as good of a chance at winning the Super Bowl right now as anyone else and if we can get healthy we might be the odds on favorites.

Lot of nitpicking of our team while ignoring the situation of every other team in the league going on by a handful of posters who are normally only insufferable after big losses and disappear after these big wins.

It isn't "nitpicking," it is validly pointing out glaring holes. I could understand calling it "whining" if the Packers won a great game and Rodgers threw two interceptions or something, because that would be an aberration, but that's not the case at all.

The game was literally exhibit A of what detractors say about this team. The defense was bad and Rodgers bailed it out. They gave up a 9-minute game-losing drive. Aaron Jones looked good, but Dallas hasn't stopped anyone on the ground. Dallas was 10/15 on 3rd and 4th down. They have to score 35 or they lose, etc.

Using this game as your example of "the critics will never be happy" doesn't make any sense. We are a magical drive away from 80% of the board calling for Capers to be fired this morning.

Also, I haven't called them garbage nor have I seen anyone do that. It's like if you say one thing negative about the team, you're suddenly saying they're the worst team ever around here...

Ron Swanson · Post #692 » by **Ron Swanson** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:37 pm

Yeah, I was pretty pissed off that the defense gave up an 8+ minute drive to let them take the lead with a minute left. Completely inexcusable in that situation. But if that's your first thought after that thrilling game, then I don't know why on earth you're watching NFL football. It's not the sport for you.

This is the kind of crap that makes you a hypocrite when the inevitable "but the Patriots" arguments come into play, because this is exactly how they've won 4 of their 5 Super Bowls (last minute drives) and how they lost the other two against the Giants. Sometimes it just comes down to who has the ball last. This time it worked in our favor.

Wooderson · Post #693 » by **Wooderson** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:39 pm

RRyder823 wrote:The idea that Dallas egregiously mismanaged the clock is laughable. Never mind that they were less then a balls length away from being stopped on 4th down just a couple of plays earlier. You put it in the end zone when you get the chance. It really is as simple as that.

Take a knee at the one or a holding penalty or a goal line stand later, neither of which are impossibilitys, and it's one of the dumbest decisions in history.

Have people never watched a football game before?

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

What's more likely, Dallas failing to score 1st and goal on the 1 or the Packers scoring at least a FG with 1:15 and one TO left? To me it's not any more complicated than that. You don't give Rodgers or any elite offense that much time.

crkone · Post #694 » by **crkone** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:41 pm

Read on Twitter

dools644 · Post #695 » by **dools644** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:41 pm

Ron Swanson wrote:Yeah, I was pretty pissed off that the defense gave up an 8+ minute drive to let them take the lead with a minute left. Completely inexcusable in that situation. But if that's your first thought after that thrilling game, then I don't know why on earth you're watching NFL football. It's not the sport for you.

This is the kind of crap that makes you a hypocrite when the inevitable "but the Patriots" arguments come into play, because this is exactly how they've won 4 of their 5 Super Bowls (last minute drives) and how they lost the other two against the Giants. Sometimes it just comes down to who has the ball last. This time it worked in our favor.

This is just asinine. This game was a microcosm of the EXACT argument I put forward all week. How you arrive at this conclusion is some Simone Biles-level mental gymnastics. They needed Rodgers pulling off miracles to cover up horrific defense. The point you aren't getting at all when it comes to the Patriots is that they have a pedigree of pulling out those types of games in the playoffs that the Packers simply don't.

My whole argument was that the defense lets Rodgers down all the time, well the defense lost this game when given the chance to win it, and Rodgers had 73 seconds to bail it out. Like, that's exactly what I said has plagued them for years...and it happened again.

My first thought after that game was "Wow, Rodgers is incredible." It's been a day. I don't at all understand why it's such a big deal to say the defense was bad again. Take off the green and gold glasses. It was.

JimmyTheKid · Post #696 » by **JimmyTheKid** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:42 pm

dietac wrote: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?

JimmyTheKid · Post #697 » by **JimmyTheKid** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:44 pm

dools644 wrote:
dietac wrote: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.

And I heard an interview of Randall this morning and I felt like I warped back to 1994 and was listening to T-Buck. I thought a lot of Randall's issues were injury related last year and he would bounce back... but that guy has an "interesting" view... and I'm not sure he can get better if he can't acknowledge his weaknesses.

This is silly and dishonest. Yes obviously it's 0 if they don't score. But the chance they do is overwhelmingly on their side.

Or dead-on accurate. One of the two.

JimmyTheKid · Post #698 » by **JimmyTheKid** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:47 pm

So dools,

You in "Done Club?"

dools644 · Post #699 » by **dools644** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:48 pm

JimmyTheKid wrote:
dietac wrote: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.

dools644 · Post #700 » by **dools644** » Mon Oct 9, 2017 6:49 pm

JimmyTheKid wrote:
dools644 wrote:
dietac wrote: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.

And I heard an interview of Randall this morning and I felt like I warped back to 1994 and was listening to T-Buck. I thought a lot of Randall's issues were injury related last year and he would bounce back... but that guy has an "interesting" view... and I'm not sure he can get better if he can't acknowledge his weaknesses.

This is silly and dishonest. Yes obviously it's 0 if they don't score. But the chance they do is overwhelmingly on their side.

Or dead-on accurate. One of the two.

Or not. It's stupid. It's Yogi Berra level stuff. It doesn't mean anything, it just displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how odds work.