Rodgers looking to leave greenbay?

[Andrei00]

The ESPN analytics you're quoting is saying, "GO for it." The ESPN analysts are saying, "Yes, we're going for it in this situation."

Constantly quoting them doesn't help your point at all. Saying, "BrAdY sCoReD bEfOrE tHe HaLf" is irrelevant lol.

They are saying go for it, by a 0.5% margin. I've mentioned that. Plenty. You wanted to bring other factors into it, I did too.

Yes, pass rush was a factor. They held GB to their worst pass-block win rate of the year, and on the biggest play of the season, on a short field, they would have likely been a big factor. Hell, they just were the very previous play.

Mentioning the TD before the half is not pointless, you brought up the difference between holding Brady to a 3-and-out and stopping him from getting into FG range, like we haven't seen him doing it already in much shorter time like an hour before that 4th down call.

Analytics also suggest that the most likely scenario had they gone for it is they would've failed. Which means needing a 3 and out, a TD and another 2-point try. To tie the game. Instead of simply a 3-and-out and a TD to win. It's really that simple. I don't understand what you can't seem to grasp.

[Vee-Rex]

They are saying go for it, by a 0.5% margin. I've mentioned that. Plenty. You wanted to bring other factors into it, I did too.

Yes, pass rush was a factor. They held GB to their worst pass-block win rate of the year, and on the biggest play of the season, on a short field, they would have likely been a big factor. Hell, they just were the very previous play.

No, they are saying that despite the surprisingly smaller margin than they expected, it's basically an easy decision for them because of the other factors I brought up. It's in the tweet. You're arguing for no reason here.

Mentioning the TD before the half is not pointless, you brought up the difference between holding Brady to a 3-and-out and stopping him from getting into FG range, like we haven't seen him doing it already in much shorter time like an hour before that 4th down call.

Yes it is pointless. Just because he got into FG range before the half doesn't mean he'll do it at the end of the game. You pretending like some earlier drive makes it automatic that Brady gets in FG range at the end of the game is pretty idiotic. The difference between having to stop him in a 3-and-out situation vs. stopping him from getting to FG range is major. Don't be dense, dude.

Analytics also suggest that the most likely scenario had they gone for it is they would've failed. Which means needing a 3 and out, a TD and another 2-point try. To tie the game. Instead of simply a 3-and-out and a TD to win. It's really that simple. I don't understand what you can't seem to grasp.

You don't make a decision just because it's a low chance to succeed. You make the decision based on whether or not it is a BETTER chance to succeed than the alternative option, which is what both the analytics and ESPN analysts say that they should have gone for it.

You're the one making this more difficult than it needs to be. I'm saying: I understand the logic and reasoning, but it was a bad decision to kick the FG and the analytics + analysts support that decision.

What the hell are you saying in response?

[crewfan13]

Based on what is Rodgers more likely to score a TD on 4th & 8? Based on the previous three failed attempts to do so?

Even if he beats the odds once and scores, GB has about a 22% 2-point conversion rate for the year, which means that the far more likely event to follow, even if the least probable scenario (FG try vs TD try) was to happen, required a 3-and-out still. So you're counting on two low-probability scenarios to happen one after the other, instead of one. Does that make more sense, really?

Win Probability, which I know you like to rely on, even has it virtually equal. I think we can both agree that in this particular case there probably isn't that much data for the model to fall back on, but it still agrees that at worst, it's virtually a flip-a-coin decision.

But it's not the difference in win probability that matters. It's the upside/downside scenarios you're have to factor in as well. The difference between a failed conversion and a made FG is not huge. The scenarios are really similar cuz you need a 3 and out md a TD either way. But where the difference lies is the massive upside of the made conversion.

You also need to consider the actual numbers coming out. You're boosting your win probability to the mid 20% range meaning you're still very likely to lose. But a successful conversion and 2pt attempt puts it closer to a coin flip. Tampa still gets the ball back, so it's probably 60/40 or so on win probability. But either way, it's much closer to a coin flip.

And that's the evolution of win probability. It's not just what's the delta between the two options, it's looking situationally and determining upside/downside. And to your point, if the change in win probability between kicking the fg and going for it is essentially a coin flip, then choosing the option with a much larger direct win probability upside change is the obvious choice.

[Andrei00]

No, they are saying that despite the surprisingly smaller margin than they expected, it's basically an easy decision for them because of the other factors I brought up. It's in the tweet. You're arguing for no reason here.



Yes it is pointless. Just because he got into FG range before the half doesn't mean he'll do it at the end of the game. You pretending like some earlier drive makes it automatic that Brady gets in FG range at the end of the game is pretty idiotic. The difference between having to stop him in a 3-and-out situation vs. stopping him from getting to FG range is major. Don't be dense, dude.



You don't make a decision just because it's a low chance to succeed. You make the decision based on whether or not it is a BETTER chance to succeed than the alternative option, which is what both the analytics and ESPN analysts say that they should have gone for it.

You're the one making this more difficult than it needs to be. I'm saying: I understand the logic and reasoning, but it was a bad decision to kick the FG and the analytics + analysts support that decision.

What the hell are you saying in response?

All that Seth is saying in his tweet is that one of the biggest factors in justifying going for it is the difference between the rate of converting on a similar down league-wise and the probability needed to justify the risk. Which in this case is 23% for the league average, and 21% for the needed probability. All of this is also already factored in their WP model, which rounds up to a 0.5% difference.

And no, the difference between holding to a 3-and-out and holding to a FG is not that major. And yes, past performance should help indicate that. Not sure why you think we should just ignore it. Not to mention that A) it would've been the least likely possible scenario anyway and B) it wouldn't have won them the game.

You could say you understand the logic, but after going round and round in circles, it's pretty clear you don't.

[Andrei00]

But it's not the difference in win probability that matters. It's the upside/downside scenarios you're have to factor in as well. The difference between a failed conversion and a made FG is not huge. The scenarios are really similar cuz you need a 3 and out md a TD either way. But where the difference lies is the massive upside of the made conversion.

You also need to consider the actual numbers coming out. You're boosting your win probability to the mid 20% range meaning you're still very likely to lose. But a successful conversion and 2pt attempt puts it closer to a coin flip. Tampa still gets the ball back, so it's probably 60/40 or so on win probability. But either way, it's much closer to a coin flip.

And that's the evolution of win probability. It's not just what's the delta between the two options, it's looking situationally and determining upside/downside. And to your point, if the change in win probability between kicking the fg and going for it is essentially a coin flip, then choosing the option with a much larger direct win probability upside change is the obvious choice.

If that's the case, a FG, a 3-and-out and a TD wins then the game, so I'd say that's the real best case scenario. I know it sounds like a low-probability event, which it is, but if we're weighing upside and downside, I'd go with the ball in my elite QB's hands, ~1:30 left to play, 1 TO and a chance to drive down the field and win it, instead of having the ball in the opponent's elite QB's hands, with 2 minutes left to play and all his timeouts, needed to drive them into FG range to win.

Upside to kicking the FG is you win the game. Upside to trying for the TD is you go to overtime.

[Vee-Rex]

All that Seth is saying in his tweet is that one of the biggest factors in justifying going for it is the difference between the rate of converting on a similar down league-wise and the probability needed to justify the risk. Which in this case is 23% for the league average, and 21% for the needed probability. All of this is also already factored in their WP model, which rounds up to a 0.5% difference.

You said that kicking the FG was the right call to make given all the "facts" (your very words). If all of this is already factored into their WP model, why would it still be a higher % chance to win if they actually went for it? I'm asking this specific question for a reason.

And no, the difference between holding to a 3-and-out and holding to a FG is not that major. And yes, past performance should help indicate that. Not sure why you think we should just ignore it. Not to mention that A) it would've been the least likely possible scenario anyway and B) it wouldn't have won them the game.

You could say you understand the logic, but after going round and round in circles, it's pretty clear you don't.

Not major? You're saying stopping a team from getting 10 yards is not a major difference compared to stopping them from getting 40+ yards?

This is the flaw of your argument (and likely what the ESPN WP model and ESPN analysts are seeing that you don't) - you're putting little to no weight in the difficulty of obtaining a 3-and-out vs. stopping them from getting a field goal. To you, a stop is a stop and it's simply not true. You're treating it as if it's a negligible difference and citing a single, anecdotal drive prior to the half as the backbone of your position.

Everyone here understands the logic, and I at least have stated such multiple times. If you simply disagree and think the FG was the right attempt then that's perfectly fine, but citing analytics that disagree with your position isn't the way to go about it.

[Andrei00]

You said that kicking the FG was the right call to make given all the "facts" (your very words). If all of this is already factored into their WP model, why would it still be a higher % chance to win if they actually went for it? I'm asking this specific question for a reason.



Not major? You're saying stopping a team from getting 10 yards is not a major difference compared to stopping them from getting 40+ yards?

This is the flaw of your argument (and likely what the ESPN WP model and ESPN analysts are seeing that you don't) - you're putting little to no weight in the difficulty of obtaining a 3-and-out vs. stopping them from getting a field goal. To you, a stop is a stop and it's simply not true. You're treating it as if it's a negligible difference and citing a single, anecdotal drive prior to the half as the backbone of your position.

Everyone here understands the logic, and I at least have stated such multiple times. If you simply disagree and think the FG was the right attempt then that's perfectly fine, but citing analytics that disagree with your position isn't the way to go about it.

None of the factors that I've previously mentioned are accounted for in the WP model, nor should they.

I've also never cited it as if it agrees with my belief. I've specifically mentioned that even if you want to go by what the analytics are saying, the difference is neglectable.

On the new set of downs that Tampa got after the encroachment penalty, they ran the ball two times. Do you think that happens if they have to get in FG range to win? Do you think the GB defense plays it the same? If not, there is no comparing between what getting 4 sets of downs instead of one would have looked like because both teams would have played it completely differently.

Judging by the quality of the opponent, no, it wouln't have been such an easy task, holding them out of FG range. And that's the type of factor that I've mentioned are not taken into the building of the WP model.

[Vee-Rex]

None of the factors that I've previously mentioned are accounted for in the WP model, nor should they.

And same with the factors I brought up.

So you can't say, "Well the WP% difference is negligible, but with my factors, that's why it's the right call." because you're completely discounting the other factors involved that go against your position.

That's why I brought up the question - you're sort of hurting your argument in the sense that you are putting weight in your own factors/scenarios but trying to dismiss the counterpoints.

On the new set of downs that Tampa got after the encroachment penalty, they ran the ball two times. Do you think that happens if they have to get in FG range to win? Do you think the GB defense plays it the same? If not, there is no comparing between what getting 4 sets of downs instead of one would have looked like because both teams would have played it completely differently.

If they have to get in FG range to win, then they pass the ball, to which I can easily say, "Well Brady threw multiple picks in the 2nd half already".

The variables and scenarios are endless but the fact that you're trying to pretend like a 3-and-out and a field goal is a negligible difference in terms of difficulty for a defense... I mean, you're reaching hard here. And that's the polite way to say it.

Judging by the quality of the opponent, no, it wouln't have been such an easy task, holding them out of FG range. And that's the type of factor that I've mentioned are not taken into the building of the WP model.

Did I say it would be an easy task?

Even if I said it would be a hard task - wouldn't that make stopping them from getting 10 yards a monumental task?

Let's say they DO get within field goal range. How close is close enough? Is a 50+ yard field goal a guarantee? 40+? Absolutely not. Stopping them from getting 10 yards is A LOT harder than stopping them from getting 40 yards (50+ yard attempt), 50 yards (40+ yard attempt). To essentially guarantee the made field goal the Bucs would have had to drive for 60-70+ yards, and somehow this is negligible to 10 yards?

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree but the angle you're trying to take here is really bad here.

[Andrei00]

And same with the factors I brought up.

So you can't say, "Well the WP% difference is negligible, but with my factors, that's why it's the right call." because you're completely discounting the other factors involved that go against your position.

That's why I brought up the question - you're sort of hurting your argument in the sense that you are putting weight in your own factors/scenarios but trying to dismiss the counterpoints.



If they have to get in FG range to win, then they pass the ball, to which I can easily say, "Well Brady threw multiple picks in the 2nd half already".

The variables and scenarios are endless but the fact that you're trying to pretend like a 3-and-out and a field goal is a negligible difference in terms of difficulty for a defense... I mean, you're reaching hard here. And that's the polite way to say it.



Did I say it would be an easy task?

Even if I said it would be a hard task - wouldn't that make stopping them from getting 10 yards a monumental task?

Let's say they DO get within field goal range. How close is close enough? Is a 50+ yard field goal a guarantee? 40+? Absolutely not. Stopping them from getting 10 yards is A LOT harder than stopping them from getting 40 yards (50+ yard attempt), 50 yards (40+ yard attempt). To essentially guarantee the made field goal the Bucs would have had to drive for 60-70+ yards, and somehow this is negligible to 10 yards?

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree but the angle you're trying to take here is really bad here.

What factors have I ignored? That it's easier to get 10 yards rather than 60? Well, sure, if we go by pure math, 10 < 60. But the two aren't comparable because the situational football played by both units would be different. So no, I've never said that the difference in dificulty is negligible, but that the two can't be compared.

Also, we seem to be ignoring how analytics say that even if they went for it, the scenario we're talking about (TB needing a FG to win) is also the, by far, least likely to happen.

[mgjohnson7851]

I'd hurl

at least with Favre, he was hard to dislike, even as a Cheeser.....but Rodgers is an ***, plain and simple, regardless of his uniform..........and this is from a Pac 12 guy who liked him coming out of college

I'm the opposite of you... I hated Favre but love Rodgers lol

[Vee-Rex]

What factors have I ignored? That it's easier to get 10 yards rather than 60? Well, sure, if we go by pure math, 10 < 60. But the two aren't comparable because the situational football played by both units would be different. So no, I've never said that the difference in dificulty is negligible, but that the two can't be compared.

This is terrible logic and it continues to get worse with each post. Using this logic you can't really compare anything when using predictive measures.

You're essentially saying, "We can't compare these two scenarios because the defense could play differently, so we don't know which is worse other than pure math". That's a cop-out to the point being made. Why would a team ever punt the ball at the end of a game and rely on their defense for field-position, based on this logic? If it's not comparable due to a defense playing differently?

Ask any coach at any level of football, or any fan if they'd rather be in a situation where they require a 3-and-out from their defense or require stopping the offense from gaining 60 yards. The overwhelming answer would be the latter. But according to you, it can't be compared cause a defense may play differently due to situation.

Also, we seem to be ignoring how analytics say that even if they went for it, the scenario we're talking about (TB needing a FG to win) is also the, by far, least likely to happen.

The WP model is accounting for that.

[Andrei00]

This is terrible logic and it continues to get worse with each post. Using this logic you can't really compare anything when using predictive measures.

You're essentially saying, "We can't compare these two scenarios because the defense could play differently, so we don't know which is worse other than pure math". That's a cop-out to the point being made. Why would a team ever punt the ball at the end of a game and rely on their defense for field-position, based on this logic? If it's not comparable due to a defense playing differently?

Ask any coach at any level of football, or any fan if they'd rather be in a situation where they require a 3-and-out from their defense or require stopping the offense from gaining 60 yards. The overwhelming answer would be the latter. But according to you, it can't be compared cause a defense may play differently due to situation.





The WP model is accounting for that.

There is no terrible logic, it's just common sense. The situational football would've called for different approaches for both teams. Ask any coach at any level of football if that's true. Hence not really comparable in terms of dificulty, regardless what the 'majority' of football coaches you think would say.

Also, claiming something that you believe could be true in order to justify something that you've already stated as fact, simply because you think it true, is not logic. Not sure what to call it, but not logic.

As for your last statement, wasn't talking about the WP model. Was talking about having an entire discussion around the difficulty of a scenario that analytics say we most likely would've never reached anyway.

[Vee-Rex]

There is no terrible logic, it's just common sense. The situational football would've called for different approaches for both teams. Ask any coach at any level of football if that's true. Hence not really comparable in terms of dificulty, regardless what the 'majority' of football coaches you think would say.

Also, claiming something that you believe could be true in order to justify something that you've already stated as fact, simply because you think it true, is not logic. Not sure what to call it, but not logic.

Even if I were to entertain the argument, we'd be going down the deep rabbit hole of whether or not the situational football is easier one way or another. That's the hopeless strand you're trying desperately to cling to - that 3-and-out could be situationally easier to defend against than stopping an offense from driving 60 yards.

Listen - if you'd rather chalk this up as disagreement then do so. Twist, deflect, shift gears, or whatever - but you're not going to convince anyone with half a brain that a 3-and-out or lose situation is anywhere near as desirable than forcing an offense to drive 60 yards.

Disappointing to see you choosing to die on that hill.

As for your last statement, wasn't talking about the WP model. Was talking about having an entire discussion around the difficulty of a scenario that analytics say we most likely would've never reached anyway.

A reason why that scenario is very unlikely (just as making the field goal > 3-and-out > TD drive scenario is very unlikely) is because it requires a 2pt conversion. However, NOT getting the 2pt conversion still presents a scenario that's better than ANY scenario with making the field goal attempt.

Also, your play on words here is noted. "Most likely never reached" scenario is negligible to field goal > 3-and-out > TD drive scenario. At which point, as crewfan argued, the REWARD is much more massive if you go for it and succeed.

Simple case of, "Do you bet 5 dollars to win 100 or do you bet 4 dollars to win 30". Easy answer here for most of us.

[Andrei00]

Even if I were to entertain the argument, we'd be going down the deep rabbit hole of whether or not the situational football is easier one way or another. That's the hopeless strand you're trying desperately to cling to - that 3-and-out could be situationally easier to defend against than stopping an offense from driving 60 yards.

Listen - if you'd rather chalk this up as disagreement then do so. Twist, deflect, shift gears, or whatever - but you're not going to convince anyone with half a brain that a 3-and-out or lose situation is anywhere near as desirable than forcing an offense to drive 60 yards.

Disappointing to see you choosing to die on that hill.



A reason why that scenario is very unlikely (just as making the field goal > 3-and-out > TD drive scenario is very unlikely) is because it requires a 2pt conversion. However, NOT getting the 2pt conversion still presents a scenario that's better than ANY scenario with making the field goal attempt.

Also, your play on words here is noted. "Most likely never reached" scenario is negligible to field goal > 3-and-out > TD drive scenario. At which point, as crewfan argued, the REWARD is much more massive if you go for it and succeed.

Simple case of, "Do you bet 5 dollars to win 100 or do you bet 4 dollars to win 30". Easy answer here for most of us.

No, I'm not arguing that one is easier than the other. I'm saying they are not comparable. Which they're not. For someone that has said repeatedly he understands the logic behind it, you really fail to grasp such a simple notion.

Also, no, it's not clinging on a 2-point conversion. It's entirely dependable on a TD scored on 4th down AND the 2-point conversion. Two unilkely events needed to happen consecutively in order for GB to not need a 3-and-out.

And finally, no, the reward is not higher, considering you're trying to win the game. If you make it, both the TD and the 2-point, you're perhaps looking at overtime. If you take the FG, you're looking at a chance to win the game if you get the ball back.

[Vee-Rex]

No, I'm not arguing that one is easier than the other. I'm saying they are not comparable. Which they're not. For someone that has said repeatedly he understands the logic behind it, you really fail to grasp such a simple notion.

The argument is based on preference. Would you prefer to have a 3-and-out or lose situation, or give your defense 60 yards? This preference has an influence in the decision-making. Either scenario can happen as a result of the 4th and goal situation, and thus, can ultimately lead to one path or the other - so it's very real and absolutely comparable. You're only trying to dismiss it as not comparable because it destroys your argument to make that very comparison.

This circus clown of a position you're taking is just really leading me to believe you're just being disingenuous at this point in an attempt to win an argument, because you're not making ANY sense at all in saying a real situation in which either event can happen is not comparable.

Also, no, it's not clinging on a 2-point conversion. It's entirely dependable on a TD scored on 4th down AND the 2-point conversion. Two unilkely events needed to happen consecutively in order for GB to not need a 3-and-out.

I didn't say they both didn't need to happen. I said if only the 1st thing happens (if the best case scenario of going for it on 4th doesn't happen), being down 29-31 and needing a 3-and-out or lose is BETTER than being down 26-31 and needing a 3-and out or lose. So converting the 4th and goal BY ITSELF presents a better scenario than ANY scenario involving kicking the field goal.

And finally, no, the reward is not higher, considering you're trying to win the game. If you make it, both the TD and the 2-point, you're perhaps looking at overtime. If you take the FG, you're looking at a chance to win the game if you get the ball back.

Yes, the reward is higher and you're not looking at the events parallel to one another. I'm a BA, and this is very similar to Use Cases for me.

>Make field goal = optimal path to win is a 3-and-out and TD
>Convert 4th and goal + 2pt = optimal path to win is a 3-and-out and field goal.

Scenario 2 does not have a 3-and-out or lose situation. Scenario 1 does.

The reward for scoring 8 points on the 4th and goal is MUCH higher than the reward for kicking a field goal. This is basic logic here.