Rodgers looking to leave greenbay?

[NBA all the way]

/thread

https://mobile.twitter.com/PatMcAfee...46531272777739

[Andrei00]

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.



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.

No, two situations are not comparable in difficulty simply because they are both possible scenarios. And if it's about preference, then it's clear they are not at all comparable. Just because you prefer one over the other doesn't make it any more or less difficult.

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.

FG + 3-and-out + TD
TD + 2-point + 3-and-out + FG

I get that's what we're arguing now? We've literally spent about two pages of posts after you specifically brought up the not needing a 3-and-out to win as being the upside of going for it. But if we're both ready to embrace that the 3-and-out was inevitable in both cases, in order to win, then sure, the reward is equal. Both lead to a win.

The 3-and-outs cancel one another, which means that for A) to happen it takes a high-probability event (the FG) + a TD that we can agree is of lower probability than a FG. But for B) to happen it takes two very low-probability events to happen before we can talk about anything else. So if the reward is the same, then yes, it makes all the sense in the world to me to go with what's giving you the best chance of success. To quote you on this, it's basic logic.

[Vee-Rex]

No, two situations are not comparable in difficulty simply because they are both possible scenarios. And if it's about preference, then it's clear they are not at all comparable. Just because you prefer one over the other doesn't make it any more or less difficult.

Someone would prefer one over the other because it's clearly less difficult. You're the only one saying you can't compare them and claiming you're not saying one is easier and not giving your preference. And if you question what others think - I'd happily make a thread with a poll (including a "non-comparable" option) and we can settle it like that.

Instead, you'd rather be intentionally obtuse about it to try to hold onto a position that died 3 pages ago.

FG + 3-and-out + TD
TD + 2-point + 3-and-out + FG

I get that's what we're arguing now? We've literally spent about two pages of posts after you specifically brought up the not needing a 3-and-out to win as being the upside of going for it. But if we're both ready to embrace that the 3-and-out was inevitable in both cases, in order to win, then sure, the reward is equal. Both lead to a win.

Did you even read my post? I said the most OPTIMAL path for winning is a 3 and out for both scenarios, but that completing the 4th and 2pt conversion DOES NOT REQUIRE a 3 and out to win the game. We're not both ready to embrace a 3-and-out was inevitable in both cases because it's not required if you tie the damn game at 31 a piece. It's not a 3-and-out or lose scenario, but even a 2-year old could understand that a 3-and-out is still optimal. Here, let me quote it for you:

>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.

Can you understand that? And even IF SCENARIO 2 DID HAVE A 3-and-out or lose situation, the most optimal path still ONLY REQUIRES A FIELD GOAL FOR THE WIN, rather than a TD.

My goodness. I haven't had one of these on PSD in a very long time.

The 3-and-outs cancel one another, which means that for A) to happen it takes a high-probability event (the FG) + a TD that we can agree is of lower probability than a FG. But for B) to happen it takes two very low-probability events to happen before we can talk about anything else. So if the reward is the same, then yes, it makes all the sense in the world to me to go with what's giving you the best chance of success. To quote you on this, it's basic logic.

The best chance of success is going for it on 4th and goal. We've covered this already.

The reward is higher (in that you will have a better chance of winning the game) on successfully completing the 4th and goal + 2pt conversion, compared to making a field goal. This is what crewfan was telling you - you can't complain about the slightly lower probability without factoring in the much bigger reward (better chance of winning). You're all over the place.

[Andrei00]

Someone would prefer one over the other because it's clearly less difficult. You're the only one saying you can't compare them and claiming you're not saying one is easier and not giving your preference. And if you question what others think - I'd happily make a thread with a poll (including a "non-comparable" option) and we can settle it like that.

Instead, you'd rather be intentionally obtuse about it to try to hold onto a position that died 3 pages ago.

That's not how difficulty is assessed, by people's, or yours, preference. Sorry to burst that bubble to you. Simply say that you prefer, or choose to believe, that one is more difficult than the other. It's not a quantifiable measure, you, yourself, admitted as much when you brought up preference, or putting up a poll, into discussion. I feel like I'm going round and round in circles with a 10-year-old, but what the hell, we've come so far already.

Did you even read my post? I said the most OPTIMAL path for winning is a 3 and out for both scenarios, but that completing the 4th and 2pt conversion DOES NOT REQUIRE a 3 and out to win the game. We're not both ready to embrace a 3-and-out was inevitable in both cases because it's not required if you tie the damn game at 31 a piece. It's not a 3-and-out or lose scenario, but even a 2-year old could understand that a 3-and-out is still optimal. Here, let me quote it for you:



Can you understand that? And even IF SCENARIO 2 DID HAVE A 3-and-out or lose situation, the most optimal path still ONLY REQUIRES A FIELD GOAL FOR THE WIN, rather than a TD.

My goodness. I haven't had one of these on PSD in a very long time.

For starters, 'optimal' is a non-gradable adjective and a superlative by its own definition. Strange that I have to explain that to someone with a BA, but we can't all be perfect .

Also, yes, completing the 3-and-out and the following FG are required, or else it's overtime. Meaning we're back to reward for A > reward for B, which I thought we moved past. But it's back to circles, I guess.

And no, the m̶o̶s̶t̶ optimal path for case B is not just a FG, it's a TD (on the 4th & 8) and a FG. Same as for case A.

The best chance of success is going for it on 4th and goal. We've covered this already.

The reward is higher (in that you will have a better chance of winning the game) on successfully completing the 4th and goal + 2pt conversion, compared to making a field goal. This is what crewfan was telling you - you can't complain about the slightly lower probability without factoring in the much bigger reward (better chance of winning). You're all over the place.

No, it's not a higher reward, for both instances the best possible scenario is the win. Both require a TD, a 3-and-out and a FG. Just in a different order.

I'll give you the slightly better chance of success based on the WP model. Which I think I did from the very first post. The model states it as a +0.5% difference in favor of going for it, and I'll concede and give you that, since arguing for why that model is not perfect - not only for most likely not being enough data available for the model to be as close to accurate as possible in this case, but also for not accounting (and understandably so) for all the things I've tried to discuss already - hasn't gotten us anywhere and we could call it a day. Deal?

[mariner4life]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/football...efensible/amp/

[Mr.B]

I would also put NE in there. My list in order by teams I see going after him.

1) Dallas
2 Lions
3)Saints
4)WFT
5)Texans
6)Patriots

Rodgers is going to go to Dallas and he and Mike McCarthy will win another SB together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[manbearchef]

Rodgers is going to go to Dallas and he and Mike McCarthy will win another SB together.

If there's two coaches I could bet money on Aaron Rodgers not voluntarily playing for, it's BB and McCarthy. I don't understand Pats fans who are getting themselves invested in this idea that Rodgers could end up in NE, but it's not happening and it wouldn't be as great of a marriage as they think it would.

[Vee-Rex]

That's not how difficulty is assessed, by people's, or yours, preference. Sorry to burst that bubble to you. Simply say that you prefer, or choose to believe, that one is more difficult than the other. It's not a quantifiable measure, you, yourself, admitted as much when you brought up preference, or putting up a poll, into discussion. I feel like I'm going round and round in circles with a 10-year-old, but what the hell, we've come so far already.

You've gone from saying the difference is not major to saying you can't compare the two. You've, in effect, already made the comparison by saying it's not a major difference. You're tripping up all over the place.

As a result, we are talking about "difficulty" and "not comparable" and whatever else you want to drum up to sway the topic away from the fact that you have, and continue to maintain, an idiotic position.

Say the word and I create the poll - then we'll see who the real 10 year old is lol.

For starters, 'optimal' is a non-gradable adjective and a superlative by its own definition. Strange that I have to explain that to someone with a BA, but we can't all be perfect .

I think you have terrible reading comprehension since you continue to misunderstand the very line I had to re-quote for you. Read, my dude.

Also, yes, completing the 3-and-out and the following FG are required, or else it's overtime. Meaning we're back to reward for A > reward for B, which I thought we moved past. But it's back to circles, I guess.

Path A: the 3-and-out is required to have a chance to win or the game is lost. Over.
Path B: the 3-and-out is NOT required to have a chance to win. The Bucs could get 2 first downs, and throw a pick-6 and lose the game. Or an infinite number of other scenarios.

Maybe reading this out loud will help you?

And no, the m̶o̶s̶t̶ optimal path for case B is not just a FG, it's a TD (on the 4th & 8) and a FG. Same as for case A.

I suggest you look at where the '=' sign is in the paths that I put.

No, it's not a higher reward, for both instances the best possible scenario is the win. Both require a TD, a 3-and-out and a FG. Just in a different order.

Both do not require a TD, a 3-and-out, and a FG. Like... for the millionth time, dude. The Packers scoring 8 points DOES NOT REQUIRE A 3 AND OUT in order to have a chance at winning the game.

I want you to quote both your post and my post and acknowledge this. Do this for your own dignity?

I'll give you the slightly better chance of success based on the WP model. Which I think I did from the very first post. The model states it as a +0.5% difference in favor of going for it, and I'll concede and give you that, since arguing for why that model is not perfect - not only for most likely not being enough data available for the model to be as close to accurate as possible in this case, but also for not accounting (and understandably so) for all the things I've tried to discuss already - hasn't gotten us anywhere and we could call it a day. Deal?

Eh, whatever. That's not even the most egregious part of this discussion.

[Vee-Rex]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/football...efensible/amp/

I mean... the whole world knows it.

[Andrei00]

You've gone from saying the difference is not major to saying you can't compare the two. You've, in effect, already made the comparison by saying it's not a major difference. You're tripping up all over the place.

Not being comparable implies, by definition, that there is no major difference in difficulty between what we've discussed. Figured someone with a BA could grasp that. My bad!

As a result, we are talking about "difficulty" and "not comparable" and whatever else you want to drum up to sway the topic away from the fact that you have, and continue to maintain, an idiotic position.

Say the word and I create the poll - then we'll see who the real 10 year old is lol.

Seeing how we're back to arguing over the difficulty of something you can only measure by preference, we are already seeing who has the intellect of a 10-year-old. lol

I think you have terrible reading comprehension since you continue to misunderstand the very line I had to re-quote for you. Read, my dude.

If I misread you misusing the word 'optimal' by adding 'most' to what is already a superlative, you'll have to excuse me. I do not have a BA, but apparently a reading disability.

Path A: the 3-and-out is required to have a chance to win or the game is lost. Over.
Path B: the 3-and-out is NOT required to have a chance to win. The Bucs could get 2 first downs, and throw a pick-6 and lose the game. Or an infinite number of other scenarios.

Maybe reading this out loud will help you?



I suggest you look at where the '=' sign is in the paths that I put.

Sure, the Bucs could also fumble the kickoff return and have it run the other way for a TD. Or they could throw that pick on the first down of the drive. Or sure, any number of different scenarios. Which holds true for both cases. Either a three-and-out or a turnover is required for GB to have a chance to win in both cases.

Both do not require a TD, a 3-and-out, and a FG. Like... for the millionth time, dude. The Packers scoring 8 points DOES NOT REQUIRE A 3 AND OUT in order to have a chance at winning the game.

I want you to quote both your post and my post and acknowledge this. Do this for your own dignity?



Eh, whatever. That's not even the most egregious part of this discussion.

So how else were they going to win a game that would've been tied, had they scored and converted the 2-point? By going to overtime? Sure, but then that would mean accepting that the reward for going for it would be overtime, instead of win. Back in circles we go.

We were at the topic of most optimal paths for both scenarios, buddy. You chose it.

Case A: FG + 3-and-out + TD = WIN
Case B: TD + 2-point + 3-and-out + FG = WIN

Did I use the '=' signs correctly? Are these not the most optimal paths for both examples? Do they not involve, both of them, scoring a FG, a TD, and registering a 3-and-out (or, sure, a pick-6 or any of the other infinite scenarios you could make up)? Is it the order in which I have put those words, or what?

[mariner4life]

This is painful to read.

[Vee-Rex]

Not being comparable implies, by definition, that there is no major difference in difficulty between what we've discussed. Figured someone with a BA could grasp that. My bad!

Are you listening to yourself? 10 yards is no major difference in difficulty between 60 yards? Lol. I don't think anyone can grasp your kindergarten logic. My bad!

Seeing how we're back to arguing over the difficulty of something you can only measure by preference, we are already seeing who has the intellect of a 10-year-old. lol

I'll put it this way - only a moron believes that there is no major difference between 10 yards and 60.

Still waiting on you to give the word with the poll.

If I misread you misusing the word 'optimal' by adding 'most' to what is already a superlative, you'll have to excuse me. I do not have a BA, but apparently a reading disability.

Aww, did I strike a nerve by telling you I'm a BA? You seem awfully focused on it. Can't say I'm surprised given the nonsense you've been spewing in this thread.

Sure, the Bucs could also fumble the kickoff return and have it run the other way for a TD. Or they could throw that pick on the first down of the drive. Or sure, any number of different scenarios. Which holds true for both cases. Either a three-and-out or a turnover is required for GB to have a chance to win in both cases.

A three-and-out is not required for GB to win the game if they tied it at 31 by going for it on 4th and goal and converting the 2pt.

So how else were they going to win a game that would've been tied, had they scored and converted the 2-point? By going to overtime? Sure, but then that would mean accepting that the reward for going for it would be overtime, instead of win. Back in circles we go.

A three-and-out is not required for GB to win the game if they tied it at 31 by going for it on 4th and goal and converting the 2pt.

Say it with me.

We were at the topic of most optimal paths for both scenarios, buddy. You chose it.

Case A: FG + 3-and-out + TD = WIN
Case B: TD + 2-point + 3-and-out + FG = WIN

Did I use the '=' signs correctly? Are these not the most optimal paths for both examples? Do they not involve, both of them, scoring a FG, a TD, and registering a 3-and-out (or, sure, a pick-6 or any of the other infinite scenarios you could make up)? Is it the order in which I have put those words, or what?

Case B does not require a 3-and-out to win the game. Case A does.

[Vee-Rex]

This is painful to read.

I can't stooooop lol.

Either a three-and-out or a turnover is required for GB to have a chance to win in both cases.

I can't get over this. How does GB tying it at 31 mean they require a 3-and-out to have a chance to win? Like... I've seen stupid on PSD but this is like 500 shades of stupid. The worst part is he's doubling down on it.

Are the mods trolling me? Well done if so.

[Mr.B]

I still think Dez caught that ball in Green Bay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QB_Eagles]

But if we're both ready to embrace that the 3-and-out was inevitable in both cases, in order to win, then sure, the reward is equal. Both lead to a win.

No, it's not inevitable. TD+2P ties the game, and then you don't need a 3-and-out, because there's always overtime.

Also people act like FGs are automatic; they are not. So if you opt for the FG there's like a 4% chance you lose right there.