Packers Huddle

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 18:44

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 18:32

I mean I don't want to hash this all out but

Going for it on 4th and 8, you need:
1) a successful conversion for a TD on one play
2) a successful 2-point conversion to tie it
3) a defensive stop without giving up a FG to tie

OR if you fail at #1:
2) a (likely 3 & out; maybe 1 first down) defensive stop
3) a TD on a longer field after the punt
4) a successful 2-point conversion to tie

If you kick the field goal, you need:
1) a made FG
2) a (likely 3 & out; maybe 1 first down) defensive stop
3) a TD on a longer field after the punt to win.

Like I said, it's pretty much a coin flip. You needed a lot of things to go right either way.

A coin flip implies the decision is 50/50

The fg was the dumbest of all options by far

I told you, the analysis of the likely outcomes (including that the best-case scenarios of the go-for-it" option was a tie and overtime) was that the win% was around 45/55. So yeah, pretty close to 50/50.

Sorry if laying out the exact scenarios in detail somehow didn't resonate with you beyond the ability to just say "it dumb"

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 18:49

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 18:44

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 18:32

I mean I don't want to hash this all out but

Going for it on 4th and 8, you need:
1) a successful conversion for a TD on one play
2) a successful 2-point conversion to tie it
3) a defensive stop without giving up a FG to tie

OR if you fail at #1:
2) a (likely 3 & out; maybe 1 first down) defensive stop
3) a TD on a longer field after the punt
4) a successful 2-point conversion to tie

If you kick the field goal, you need:
1) a made FG
2) a (likely 3 & out; maybe 1 first down) defensive stop
3) a TD on a longer field after the punt to win.

Like I said, it's pretty much a coin flip. You needed a lot of things to go right either way.

A coin flip implies the decision is 50/50

The fg was the dumbest of all options by far

I told you, the analysis of the likely outcomes (including that the best-case scenarios of the go-for-it" option was a tie and overtime) was that the win% was around 45/55. So yeah, pretty close to 50/50.

Sorry if laying out the exact scenarios in detail somehow didn't resonate with you beyond the ability to just say "it dumb"

Lol I laughed at that response

However, the problem is that no amount of number crunching or analytics properly accounts for who the QB is on the other side when you weigh the option of “Give ball back to other side, must not let them get more than one first down”

Sure, numbers can tell you how often you’ve done that before and the percentage chance you can do it again.

None of those numbers factor in that it’s Tom Brady on the other side and he just needs two first downs to go to a super bowl.

Tom doesn’t give the ball back in that situation. Statistics may can’t tell you that. But we’ve all seen it for 20 years.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 19:25

None of those numbers factor in that it’s Tom Brady on the other side and he just needs two first downs to go to a super bowl.

Tom doesn’t give the ball back in that situation. Statistics may can’t tell you that. But we’ve all seen it for 20 years.

And yet that exact same fact applies to what happens if you go for it, too. You're, best case scenario, leaving Brady with 2:05 remaining in a tie game. That's assuming you convert 4th &8 and convert the 2-point conversion.

That's what I mean; you needed a stop either way. You needed a complete and quick stop if you make the FG, if you miss the FG, if you make the TD but not the 2-point, and if you miss the conversion attempt.

This notion that the FG was the only version of reality that required us to get the ball back from Brady is the absolute silliest. All options leave the ball in Tom Brady's hands with 2 minutes left and needing at least a stop, if not the ball back. And while you love bashing to odds of getting the ball back, you seem to ignore the long, long odds of converting a 4th and 8 for a TD and a 2-point conversion and getting a stop and winning in overtime.

You say you don’t want to rehash but then hash

Either way they need a TD. 2 point is regardless because without a TD either option won’t work.

One way they for sure get a chance to score a TD and then possibly get the ball back to score again. I’ll call that 1.5 chances

The other way they possibly get the ball back to score a TD. Let’s say 0.5 chances.

So it looks to me like at least a 75/25 which doesn’t include a host of other factors such as field position etc..

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 19:41

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 19:25

None of those numbers factor in that it’s Tom Brady on the other side and he just needs two first downs to go to a super bowl.

Tom doesn’t give the ball back in that situation. Statistics may can’t tell you that. But we’ve all seen it for 20 years.

And yet that exact same fact applies to what happens if you go for it, too. You're, best case scenario, leaving Brady with 2:05 remaining in a tie game. That's assuming you convert 4th &8 and convert the 2-point conversion.

That's what I mean; you needed a stop either way. You needed a complete and quick stop if you make the FG, if you miss the FG, if you make the TD but not the 2-point, and if you miss the conversion attempt.

This notion that the FG was the only version of reality that required us to get the ball back from Brady is the absolute silliest. All options leave the ball in Tom Brady's hands with 2 minutes left and needing at least a stop, if not the ball back. And while you love bashing to odds of getting the ball back, you seem to ignore the long, long odds of converting a 4th and 8 for a TD and a 2-point conversion and getting a stop and winning in overtime.

Huge difference in making Brady get into field goal range, and the bucs actually making the field goal...and Brady only needing two first downs and the game being over.

If you are on the 8, you recognize the situation as 4 down territory from the jump and you go for a score when you are only 8 yards away from one.

Then if you don’t get the 2, you just need a FG yourself instead of 6 if you can get the ball back.

And if you fail altogether, you still, like foosball said..need a quick stop and a score

You gotta take 4 downs and try to get the touchdown taken care of when only 8 yards away and it’s Brady on the other side of the ball.

Foosball wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 19:50

You say you don’t want to rehash but then hash

Either way they need a TD. 2 point is regardless because without a TD either option won’t work.

One way they for sure get a chance to score a TD and then possibly get the ball back to score again. I’ll call that 1.5 chances

The other way they possibly get the ball back to score a TD. Let’s say 0.5 chances.

So it looks to me like at least a 75/25 which doesn’t include a host of other factors such as field position etc..

Exactly it’s no way a coin toss

I mean Rodgers threw a touchdown ball on I believe 1st down on an RPO to Lazard. Only problem was Lazard, being the turd burglar that he is, ducked the ball.

It’s not rational to defend taking the ball out of an MVPs hands and giving it to the greatest of all time when the GOAT only needs two first downs. It’s just not something you do if you want to win.

Foosball wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 20:31

“ The analytics were against the move with EdjSports win probability model saying LaFleur’s decision reduced Green Bay’s chances of winning the game from 10.8% to 7.8%. LaFleur had been one of the best coaches when it comes to decision-making by EdjSports model, ranking third best this season.

The decision was extremely rare as no team had attempted a field goal in the final three minutes of a game when trailing by between four and eight points since the Falcons in 2015. LaFleur was an assistant on Dan Quinn’s staff in Atlanta for that game.”

Do you see how moving from a 10% chance to a 7% chance is a very small difference in outcome probabilities? A 3 percentage point difference in outcome. Do you guys really not see that? We're quibbling over whether he should have taken the a 1 in 10 chance versus a 1 in 12. That difference is not at all inconsistent with the 45/55 I proffered nor any of my previous statements.

It is my view that Packers fans are overestimating the odds that Rodgers would score on 4th and 8 and underestimating the odds that Brady would have led a winning FG drive with 2 minutes left in a tie game, at the very least. When you recognize that both outcomes were absolute longshots, the variation makes little difference.

Just did some quick math; the difference breaks down to a 42/58 chance. Apologies for my CcrRaAzZYy rhetoric that it was 45/55.

Don't let all this distract you from the fact the packers off was closer to its average score on the year than the 49ers. Why was it so hard for the 49ers off to score? They didn't even score a td.

The game was decided by special teams.

For the bucs game Rodgers played better than the opposing QB. He didn't have the opposing QBs wrs who saved some hail marys and he wasnt up against Kevin King. He still statistically played a better game.

Stupid decision not to go for it - may not have mattered but can still say bad decision.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 20:43

Foosball wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 20:31

“ The analytics were against the move with EdjSports win probability model saying LaFleur’s decision reduced Green Bay’s chances of winning the game from 10.8% to 7.8%. LaFleur had been one of the best coaches when it comes to decision-making by EdjSports model, ranking third best this season.

The decision was extremely rare as no team had attempted a field goal in the final three minutes of a game when trailing by between four and eight points since the Falcons in 2015. LaFleur was an assistant on Dan Quinn’s staff in Atlanta for that game.”

Do you see how moving from a 10% chance to a 7% chance is a very small difference in outcome probabilities? A 3 percentage point difference in outcome. Do you guys really not see that? We're quibbling over whether he should have taken the a 1 in 10 chance versus a 1 in 12. That difference is not at all inconsistent with the 45/55 I proffered nor any of my previous statements.

It is my view that Packers fans are overestimating the odds that Rodgers would score on 4th and 8 and underestimating the odds that Brady would have led a winning FG drive with 2 minutes left in a tie game, at the very least. When you recognize that both outcomes were absolute longshots, the variation makes little difference.

Just did some quick math; the difference breaks down to a 42/58 chance. Apologies for my CcrRaAzZYy rhetoric that it was 45/55.

Again, it’s crazy to rely on analytics for a decision like this when the computers cannot factor in that the QB on the other team is literally the GOAT and is not going to fail to get two first downs for a ticket to a super bowl. Not with all the weapons the GOAT had. Not with Mike Pettine at DC.

Throw the computers out the window at that point, when 8 yards away from the end zone and you need a touchdown you gotta try to take it.

JPPT1974 wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2022 00:05

Well you can only hope they can prove themselves not just in practice but on the field when the season hits there in the fall.

We welcome you!!

analytics, comes from the word analysis, which comes from the word anal, which defines a body part, along with defining excessive order and stingy etc, etc. ( my webster doesn't define the ectera's)

what was interesting is that Web has 12 words following and all start with those four letters describing our lower unit.

probably why I glossed over the word analytics in grade school Yoho I enjoy conversations with you a lot, even though I can't keep up

welcome 1974, strap yourself in, this is not a ordinary Packer forum,

Drj820 wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 21:03

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 20:43

Foosball wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2022 20:31

“ The analytics were against the move with EdjSports win probability model saying LaFleur’s decision reduced Green Bay’s chances of winning the game from 10.8% to 7.8%. LaFleur had been one of the best coaches when it comes to decision-making by EdjSports model, ranking third best this season.

The decision was extremely rare as no team had attempted a field goal in the final three minutes of a game when trailing by between four and eight points since the Falcons in 2015. LaFleur was an assistant on Dan Quinn’s staff in Atlanta for that game.”

Do you see how moving from a 10% chance to a 7% chance is a very small difference in outcome probabilities? A 3 percentage point difference in outcome. Do you guys really not see that? We're quibbling over whether he should have taken the a 1 in 10 chance versus a 1 in 12. That difference is not at all inconsistent with the 45/55 I proffered nor any of my previous statements.

It is my view that Packers fans are overestimating the odds that Rodgers would score on 4th and 8 and underestimating the odds that Brady would have led a winning FG drive with 2 minutes left in a tie game, at the very least. When you recognize that both outcomes were absolute longshots, the variation makes little difference.

Just did some quick math; the difference breaks down to a 42/58 chance. Apologies for my CcrRaAzZYy rhetoric that it was 45/55.

Again, it’s crazy to rely on analytics for a decision like this when the computers cannot factor in that the QB on the other team is literally the GOAT and is not going to fail to get two first downs for a ticket to a super bowl. Not with all the weapons the GOAT had. Not with Mike Pettine at DC.

Throw the computers out the window at that point, when 8 yards away from the end zone and you need a touchdown you gotta try to take it.

I don't know if [mention]YoHoChecko[/mention] is arguing for the decision to kick the FG or simply against the notion that it was a poor decision. I was livid at the moment, but looking back at it now, I really don't think it was that bad of a choice. Either way, we needed two scores and we needed to stop Tampa giving up 0 points. We were against the 8-ball either way.

The first way required scoring on two straight plays to tie and then some gamesmanship on how aggressive to be. I don't think GB wanted to go to OT against that Bucs team. That is my general feeling. The second way gave us a less precise path to those two scores, but the outcome of scoring the second time was likely victory having scored the 3 points earlier. The defense didn't get us the ball back and that was that, but I really don't think it was a terrible decision.

NCF wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2022 11:15

I don't know if @YoHoChecko is arguing for the decision to kick the FG or simply against the notion that it was a poor decision. I was livid at the moment, but looking back at it now, I really don't think it was that bad of a choice. Either way, we needed two scores and we needed to stop Tampa giving up 0 points. We were against the 8-ball either way.

The first way required scoring on two straight plays to tie and then some gamesmanship on how aggressive to be. I don't think GB wanted to go to OT against that Bucs team. That is my general feeling. The second way gave us a less precise path to those two scores, but the outcome of scoring the second time was likely victory having scored the 3 points earlier. The defense didn't get us the ball back and that was that, but I really don't think it was a terrible decision.

Yeah, all I'm saying is that it was a very longshot either way; the difference between the likely outcomes was very small; and of all the things to kvetch about, it is likely one of the least impactful, least consequential aspects of the outcome of that game. Both options were extreme longshots that required many things to go right. One option avoided OT and one option played for OT. Both required defensive stops of the GOAT. He chose to avoid OT. No biggie.

Remember that "bad information" I talked about in regards to OTA attendance and whether or not MLF was mad?

From today's presser with MLF:

Reporter: How much has Sammy Watkins done so far and what do you have planned for him these three days?

MLF: Uh, I mean he's done quite a bit in terms of just being out there and getting as many reps as we feel like he needs, so it'll be the same thing he's been doing.

LATER in the presser...

Reporter: I'm going to ask you about Sammy, so the two OTAs that were open to us, Sammy wasn't here. Did he take part in other OTAs that we weren't allowed to watch?

MLF: Yeah, he's been here quite a bit. I don't have the exact number in front of me.. I don't really keep score; we just coach who's here and I've got other people who handle the attendance.

Reporter: But he's taken part in a couple--

MLF: Yeah absolutely. I wanna say he was here for 2 practices last week and before that, as well.

----------------------------------------
Definitively, decisively, explicitly, last week's argument about MLF, OTA attendance, not having reliable information, and not knowing what we don't know has been settled. And y'all got pretty mad about nothing.

Great coach to play for. Protects his guys from media scorn and narratives. Players coach. Good job MLF.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

07 Jun 2022 12:20

Great coach to play for. Protects his guys from media scorn and narratives. Players coach. Good job MLF.

Except your scorn last week was based on the same coach giving a presser and your insistence that he was mad.

It's ok to say you were wrong. I said very clearly that coaches had pointed out that Watkins had been there before and that last week, there were travel delays that caused a one-day attendance snapshot to be incomplete--that a lot of players y'all were talking about had probably been there or were coming and there was no reason to be mad over incomplete information.

We now know for a fact that Watkins did attend later in the week last week, like I said he might; and that he HAD been there the previous week, as well; like I said he might. Just shut it and admit when you're wrong. You insisted that he wasn't there, should be there, and that MLF was mad about it. Nothing indicated that to be true. And now MLF has confirmed, factually (and tonally, if you want to watch the clip) that Sammy Watkins has been there for as many reps as the team thinks he needs, and there both weeks of OTAs

[mention]YoHoChecko[/mention] I think the implication is that MLF is lying