Rodgers looking to leave greenbay?

[Mr.B]

He shouldn’t actively want out but he should tell them of a few teams he’d be ok playing for. And if I were him that list would be:
Miami
LAR
San Francisco
New Orleans
Dallas

San Francisco should be on the phone offering their 1, 2, and next years 1, 3 for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With MM in Dallas I highly doubt the Cowboys would be one of his choices. Although it would be hilarious if he did come to Dallas and won a SB with MM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr.B]

It's funny how Matt LaFleur went from practically coach of the year to just as bad as Mike McCarthy for a handful of people based on one play.

Hahaha! No kidding!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vee-Rex]

But what's more likely, that you make that FG or convert a 4th down into a TD, facing a very capable pass rush and not having your best OL day?

I kind of thought LaFleur really screwed it up, but the more I have thought about it, it made more sense.

A stop was needed regardless. I'd honestly try to stop them from running the clock with 3 timeouts and the 2-minute warning rather than try to stop Brady, with 3 timeouts and the 2-minute warning from getting into FG range.

1:35 and 1 TO to get a TD is trusting your QB to do it instead of putting it all up in hope of a miracle screw-up by the Bucs defense on 4th & 8 and trust that your same defense that allowed a 4th & 4 conversion and a 39-yard TD with 13 seconds to go before the half could stop Tom Brady from getting in range for a game-winning FG with roughly 2 minutes and 3 TOs to work with. I 100% think he made the right call.

This is the point of contention.

• If you miss the field goal, you need a 3 and out.
• If you fail the 4th and goal, you need a 3 and out.

So worst possible scenario is that you still need a 3 and out.

Whereas best possible scenario:

• If you make the field goal, you STILL NEED A 3 AND OUT.
• If you convert the 4th and goal and 2pt conversion, you don't need a 3 and out.

At the end of the day, the only way to avoid needing a 3 and out is to convert the 4th and goal + 2pt try. It's not like the Packers have an elite HOF defense either.

Calling it a terrible decision is not the same as calling it illogical. I get the reasoning - I just think that it is low risk low reward vs low risk high reward. Even if the Packers convert the 4th and goal and fail on the 2pt try, they're within a field goal to win the game if they get the 3-and-out. So even a 4th and goal conversion + failed 2pt is better than just a made field goal.

[DaBear]

I think you're a little blinded by having had 2 franchise QBs for the last 29 seasons. I wonder how many years in QB purgatory need to pass before you regret having let GODgers go too soon.

A few decades would be nice.

[Andrei00]

This is the point of contention.

• If you miss the field goal, you need a 3 and out.
• If you fail the 4th and goal, you need a 3 and out.

So worst possible scenario is that you still need a 3 and out.

Whereas best possible scenario:

• If you make the field goal, you STILL NEED A 3 AND OUT.
• If you convert the 4th and goal and 2pt conversion, you don't need a 3 and out.

At the end of the day, the only way to avoid needing a 3 and out is to convert the 4th and goal + 2pt try. It's not like the Packers have an elite HOF defense either.

Calling it a terrible decision is not the same as calling it illogical. I get the reasoning - I just think that it is low risk low reward vs low risk high reward. Even if the Packers convert the 4th and goal and fail on the 2pt try, they're within a field goal to win the game if they get the 3-and-out. So even a 4th and goal conversion + failed 2pt is better than just a made field goal.

If they scored on 4th and then the conversion, you still need to stop them or else they win with a FG.

A 4th down TD try and a 2-point conversio is NOT low risk NOR is a potential tie vs a potential game-winning TD a high reward.

Over his entire career Brady has 15 passing TD when trailing and <2 mins to go.

I wish I could find more accurate drive stats but PFR monetized their advanced search tools.

But maybe you could back up your claim that "Brady can do that".


That makes no sense.

BTW the Bucs started "running the clock" with a 9-yard pass.

They did, and Packers would've still got the ball back if not for the DPI.

So how exactly doesn't it make sense? You have all your timeouts and the 2-minute warning and you need to hold them to a 3-and-out, or you can bank on the defense that allowed a 4th & 4 conversion and a 39-yard TD before the half to stop Brady from getting into FG range. It makes all the sense in the world to me that you try to hold them to a 3 and out.

[Midnightbottle]

i mean if you have the legit goat and constantly lose in the playoffs when he himself outplays the other QB while having the much worse defense what is the point? at this point i think having a drafted QB who makes nothing with an elite *** defense is probably much better tbh

Tom Brady plays in Tampa not Green Bay


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LionsFan..LOL]

One could hope but I'll believe it when I see it.

[NYSPORTS3]

Jordan Love time?

[Vee-Rex]

If they scored on 4th and then the conversion, you still need to stop them or else they win with a FG.

A 4th down TD try and a 2-point conversio is NOT low risk NOR is a potential tie vs a potential game-winning TD a high reward.



They did, and Packers would've still got the ball back if not for the DPI.

So how exactly doesn't it make sense? You have all your timeouts and the 2-minute warning and you need to hold them to a 3-and-out, or you can bank on the defense that allowed a 4th & 4 conversion and a 39-yard TD before the half to stop Brady from getting into FG range. It makes all the sense in the world to me that you try to hold them to a 3 and out.

They wouldn't need to 3-and-out them. Stopping the Bucs offense from driving the length of the field is a helluva lot easier than being forced to 3-and-out them.

By choosing to kick a field goal - make or miss, you HAVE to 3-and-out them. There is no other way to win.

[Andrei00]

They wouldn't need to 3-and-out them. Stopping the Bucs offense from driving the length of the field is a helluva lot easier than being forced to 3-and-out them.

By choosing to kick a field goal - make or miss, you HAVE to 3-and-out them. There is no other way to win.

In the two most likely scenarios out of three possible had they gone for it, they were going to need a 3-and-out anyway.

The best case scenario in this version of events (a low, low probability one) would've let them at the hands of Brady's mercy, who would've had to drive them into FG range with around 2 minutes and all timeouts, after he drove them 50+ yards in around 20 seconds to score a TD right before the half.

So yeah, at worst you can simply admit that both options give them around the same chance of winning, which the ESPN model I believe agrees on (10% had they gone for it vs 9.5% with FG, I believe it was) or you can take all things into account and understand it was the right call to make given all facts.

[crewfan13]

They wouldn't need to 3-and-out them. Stopping the Bucs offense from driving the length of the field is a helluva lot easier than being forced to 3-and-out them.

By choosing to kick a field goal - make or miss, you HAVE to 3-and-out them. There is no other way to win.

Correct. It was a terrible call. I don't have the probabilities on me right now, but I read the win probability for the Packers shifted from like 25% to 27% with the made FG. So still highly unlikely to win. If you score, even before the 2pt, imagine your win probability is in the 30s. Make the conversion and it's probably in the mid 40s.

At the end of the day, the tiny benefit you get from kicking the fg is nowhere near what you give up by not kicking it. And you have no idea what happens on 4th down, cuz maybe it's a saxknor big negative play. But the bucs getting the ball back on the 8 vs the 15 is a bit of a difference too.

I know the Packers offense wasn't clicking on all cylinders, but it was legit the most efficient red zone offense of all time I believe this year. You have to go for that I'm that situation in today's offense driven nfl.

[Vee-Rex]

Correct. It was a terrible call. I don't have the probabilities on me right now, but I read the win probability for the Packers shifted from like 25% to 27% with the made FG. So still highly unlikely to win. If you score, even before the 2pt, imagine your win probability is in the 30s. Make the conversion and it's probably in the mid 40s.

At the end of the day, the tiny benefit you get from kicking the fg is nowhere near what you give up by not kicking it. And you have no idea what happens on 4th down, cuz maybe it's a saxknor big negative play. But the bucs getting the ball back on the 8 vs the 15 is a bit of a difference too.

I know the Packers offense wasn't clicking on all cylinders, but it was legit the most efficient red zone offense of all time I believe this year. You have to go for that I'm that situation in today's offense driven nfl.

This guy gets it.

[Andrei00]

This guy gets it.

No, he doesn't. WP difference between going for it and kicking the FG is 0.5%. At worst, like I said, it's way, way, way too small a difference either way.

[Vee-Rex]

No, he doesn't. WP difference between going for it and kicking the FG is 0.5%. At worst, like I said, it's way, way, way too small a difference either way.

Dude, it doesn't matter what ESPN model you cite. They should've went for it. You're stripping away all context - the fact that Aaron Rodgers is playing at an elite level coupled with the fact that the Packers have been historically good in the redzone this year. Not to mention that the decision to go for it could potentially cause a legendary QB to have to drive down the field rather than get a single first down.

Even ESPN analysts agreed that he should've gone for it and that simple WP stats don't include all context:

[Vee-Rex]

No, he doesn't. WP difference between going for it and kicking the FG is 0.5%. At worst, like I said, it's way, way, way too small a difference either way.

Dude, it doesn't matter what ESPN model you cite. They should've went for it. You're stripping away all context - the fact that Aaron Rodgers is playing at an elite level coupled with the fact that the Packers have been historically good in the redzone this year. Not to mention that the decision to go for it could potentially cause a legendary QB to have to drive down the field rather than get a single first down.

Even ESPN analysts agreed that he should've gone for it and that simple WP stats don't include all context:

https://twitter.com/SethWalder/statu...78598129233926