From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
It is all for naught if you keep the lack of a defensive stop the same.
Well, yeah, obviously.
I don't understand the point of that statement.
Further, I think we'd all agree that getting a stop and then only needing a FG is a heckuva better spot to be in rather than needing the TD for a win. Failing to score the TD leaves you essentially in the same spot as kicking the FG as far defense and scoring needs.
It just seems strange that MLF chose the one option that didn't give any significant gain in win potential but did take the ball out of his MVPs hands at a critical part of the game and give it to a player (Brady) who has historically been very, VERY effective in those end-of-game keep-away situations.
It is all for naught if you keep the lack of a defensive stop the same.
Well, yeah, obviously.
I don't understand the point of that statement.
The point was we needed a defensive stop, regardless of anything that happened.
Further, I think we'd all agree that getting a stop and then only needing a FG is a heckuva better spot to be in rather than needing the TD for a win.
Absolutely
Failing to score the TD leaves you essentially in the same spot as kicking the FG as far defense and scoring needs.
I very much disagree. Failing to score leaves you 8 points down instead of 5, if you kick the field goal.
In the former situation, the team needs a defensive stop, a TD, and a 2 pt conversion to TIE. In the latter situation, the team needs a defensive stop and a TD to WIN.
It just seems strange that MLF chose the one option that didn't give any significant gain in win potential but did take the ball out of his MVPs hands at a critical part of the game and give it to a player (Brady) who has historically been very, VERY effective in those end-of-game keep-away situations.
Yes, I do think it was very strange for LaFleur, but I can understand the thought process behind it.
I think the part that gets glossed over is that a defensive stop had to happen in some form to win or tie that game. LaFleur chose the FG. I wouldn't have, but I am also not bent out of shape over him choosing that route.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
I very much disagree. Failing to score leaves you 8 points down instead of 5, if you kick the field goal.
In the former situation, the team needs a defensive stop, a TD, and a 2 pt conversion to TIE. In the latter situation, the team needs a defensive stop and a TD to WIN.
This is a very succinct break down. It also dictates how Tampa would play a little bit in my mind. Ahead 8 or ahead 5, they are feeling pretty good and probably not as aggressive on offense (easier to stop) than if the game is tied or they are up 2. As I and others have already said, I fully understand the reasoning behind why LaFleur did what he did, but I, personally, do not agree with it.
we hadn't stopped the Bucs from bleeding clock the whole game, and we needed two scores to even tie, a TD and 2 pt conversion, Lafluer new thats was a tough row to hoe, so he took 3 hoping the defense could cause a 3 and out, to set up a miracle finish, damned if ya do, damned if ya don't, cripes we lost this game long before it got to this.
So a 33% chance of actually converting the 4th and goal from the 8. Then say a 50% chance of making the 2 point. So a 16.5% chance of making both. I think that really needs to come into play to, not just scoring. The model might be right on chance of scoring the TD, but without 2 point, it is all for naught.
All for naught? I disagree.
If they go for it, get the TD and fail the 2 pt conversion they are in the same boat in needing a defensive stop but they'll only need a FG for the win. That's a significant scenario change.
The FG, at that moment, was essentially a "tread water" decision. There wasn't much of anything to gain. They still needed a defensive stop and still needed a TD to win. Hell, had they gone for the TD and failed, they'd have needed the exact same thing (plus a 2 pt conversion, obviously).
What Ghost said:
Going for it leads to a tie, being down 2* and then needing a stop and FG, or the Bucs having the ball at the 8 yard line, needing a stop to get the ball back.
Absolutely nothing was gained by kicking the FG.
We are all assuming Rodgers would have scored a TD if he would have ran it in on 3rd down but that wasn't a sure thing. If we hadn't been screwing up all day long it doesn't come down to having to score a TD + 2 just to tie the game.
As I said in the game day thread, I totally get taking the FG. Thanks to those who posted the probabilities. Yoop is right that the game was essentially lost way before that though.
I just know, somewhere in an alternate universe, we scored a TD on 4th down and got the 2 pt, and then our special teams gave up a huge return for an easy Tampa FG to win.
“We didn’t lose the game; we just ran out of time.”
- Vince Lombardi
They essentially traded a 2 pt try for a short field goal and up to 17 yards of lost field position for the D (turnover on downs vs touchback). I assume without checking that the short field goal has a greater chance of success than the 2 pt. TB ended up sliding down on the return so the field position loss compared to a turnover on downs was only 9 yards. Field goal was an OK decision considering the crappy situation.
Note the offense had gotten 0 yards starting first and goal from the 8. I didn’t have a lot of faith in success on 4th or the 2 pt at that time. They were in run around and force feed Devante mode. The D had basically stopped TB for 3 straight drives except for 1 play the Gronk screen. The probability models don’t take into account any game-specific momentum. MLF will be regretting not having something better called or executed down there more so than the decision to kick.
As I said in the game day thread, I totally get taking the FG. Thanks to those who posted the probabilities. Yoop is right that the game was essentially lost way before that though.
I just know, somewhere in an alternate universe, we scored a TD on 4th down and got the 2 pt, and then our special teams gave up a huge return for an easy Tampa FG to win.
heck I think it's natural for fans to want Rodgers to scurry in for 6 and throw one of those so easy outs to Adams to tie the game on the two point conversion, except Rodgers at 38 doesn't run as well as he did when he was 28, and when ya watch the over head from that Herman video Lavante David had him in his cross hairs, he'd have easily caught Rodgers imo a yard or two shy, now ya got nothing, and it's doubtful you'd ever get the ball back the way Brady was having success with the short passing, which ended up happening anyway.
we had 3 or 4 poor plays in the last 15 minutes, anyone of them could have sent us to Tampa, this is another game where we can truthfully say that we beat ourselves, true the refs didn't do us any favors, tons of holding and PI that normally is called seemed sporadically called in this game, course I tend to be biased and it could have been a two way street, sure seemed to me like we got all the lousy calls.
I very much disagree. Failing to score leaves you 8 points down instead of 5, if you kick the field goal.
In the former situation, the team needs a defensive stop, a TD, and a 2 pt conversion to TIE. In the latter situation, the team needs a defensive stop and a TD to WIN.
I very much get that. My point is you still need the defensive stop and then ensuing drive for the TD in either situation if you settle for the FG. That's a very tall order considering the struggles the offense had in the 2nd half and it was Brady with the ball at the end of the game. I would have much rather taken the 33% probably of scoring a TD on 4th down (or whatever it was) over a FG and then getting the stop AND drive the field for a TD. If you fail to get the TD on 4th down try, you're essentially in the same hole had you settled for the FG only you'd have them backed up against their own goal line.
And yes, this decision isn't the reason the game was lost...but it is the topic of this thread. The reasons for losing have been discussed ad nauseum in other threads so coming to this thread to continue that conversation is kinda annoying.
My point is you still need the defensive stop and then ensuing drive for the TD in either situation if you settle for the FG.
One gives you a chance for the win with a TD. The other only gives you a chance to tie if you score a TD AND get the 2 Pt.
If you fail to get the TD on 4th down try, you're essentially in the same hole had you settled for the FG only you'd have them backed up against their own goal line.
It is not essentially the same hole, as explained before. It's the exact reason why LaFleur kicked the FG, because it is not the same situation as having not scored the TD. I can see the thought process there. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.
I would have much rather taken the 33% probably of scoring a TD on 4th down
13% probability about 1 in 8 tries of converting a 4th and 8. Not sure why the dude said 4th and 8 had a 33% chance of converting. 4th and 8 has been converted 121 times in 942 times since 1994. That's anywhere on the field, from the 8 it is 9 out of 61.
That's a very tall order considering the struggles the offense had in the 2nd half and it was Brady with the ball at the end of the game.
Pretty tall order any way we sliced it. I wish we would have gone for it.
Last edited by Pckfn23 on 27 Jan 2021 14:30, edited 1 time in total.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
Let's get back to this and go over what it means and maybe even if it is correct.
So, going for it gives us a 13% chance of winning. Kicking the field a 9% chance of winning.
33% is the likelihood of converting the 4th and 8 into a TD. I am not sure where they get this from as 4th and 8 is historically converted at a 12.8% clip. More analytics go into it, but 33% sounds WAY too high.
98% - Chance of making the FG.
4% - Chance of winning if go for it and fail
9% - Chance of winning if we kick the FG and get 3 points
31% - Chance of winning if we go for it and get the TD (not including the 2 pt.)
It would be interesting to see what the chance would be if we missed the 2 pt.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
The sin of the situation wasn’t on 4th and 8. It was during our last td when we chased points and went for 2.
Just kick the XP there and we are only down 7, and the 4th and 8 becomes a no brainer.
100% agree here. Don't chase points early.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
The biggest issue here is going for 2 earlier in the game. Even before the play I said out loud it was a bad decision. Chasing points outside of the 4th quarter is almost always stupid.
If AR runs, maybe he scores or maybe he is tackled at the 3 yard line or closer. In that case it is a no-brainer to go for it, especially if only down by 7 and not 8.
The sin of the situation wasn’t on 4th and 8. It was during our last td when we chased points and went for 2.
Just kick the XP there and we are only down 7, and the 4th and 8 becomes a no brainer.
I bet we kicked bc lafleur had no confidence we could eventually score AND get a 2 pt conversion.
Lafleur was pretty spooked Sunday.
agree that made no sense at all, it's not as though that 1 point lead would stand the test of time, ya only do that stuff in the last few minutes of the game, take the high % extra point and move on.
spooked? the whole teamed played like it too, so that could have been the lead up all week in practice and meetings, I thought about the same thing as soon as the offense got on the field, I didn't see this coming, Lafluer is a firey coach, obvious when you watch his demeaner on the sidelines, whatever the team seemed wound up tight.
The end of the first half was much more damaging then the end of the game. That is the inexcusable play.
yep, almost seems like a busted play though, I know it was said to be a called play, but it's so insane to man up King against Evans with no over the top support designated to back him up that it lacks rationality, but I guess it was, KIng played that so poorly too, we where also subbing on the play, I thought maybe Amos or Savage messed up, but I guess not, whatever that score was a killer.
The end of the first half was much more damaging then the end of the game. That is the inexcusable play.
yep, almost seems like a busted play though, I know it was said to be a called play, but it's so insane to man up King against Evans with no over the top support designated to back him up that it lacks rationality, but I guess it was, KIng played that so poorly too, we where also subbing on the play, I thought maybe Amos or Savage messed up, but I guess not, whatever that score was a killer.
It's also insane for our secondary to line up 10-15 yards deep on a X and short, but it happened all season long. Some things just defy logic, I guess.
The end of the first half was much more damaging then the end of the game. That is the inexcusable play.
yep, almost seems like a busted play though, I know it was said to be a called play, but it's so insane to man up King against Evans with no over the top support designated to back him up that it lacks rationality, but I guess it was, KIng played that so poorly too, we where also subbing on the play, I thought maybe Amos or Savage messed up, but I guess not, whatever that score was a killer.
It's also insane for our secondary to line up 10-15 yards deep on a X and short, but it happened all season long. Some things just defy logic, I guess.
true, it's the querky stuff like that and not using more 5 man pass rush when 4 isn't doing anything that makes me want to get rid of Pettine, in fact that bothers me more then the off coverage, look what happens when ya ask King to press or play tighter, if he'd only give up the first down it wouldn't be to bad, what I'am sure has Pettine worried is that it's a easy TD like Sunday, we need a better edge CB, or play zone.
