Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 179
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Memphis,TN
    Posts
    12,564
    I would love to have Aaron Rodgers in Minnesota.


    V4LB-DIMGIM-VCU-CUBBY JOE AND GOINGFOR28

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Golden 1 Center
    Posts
    82,816
    I'd easily trade a 1st/2nd for the next 3 seasons.


  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    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
    How about how that historically good RZ offense and that elite-level playing Rodgers didn't make any difference, 0, the previous 3 plays? How about the fact that their OL, according to the same ESPN analytics, was playing their worst game of the year against a solid pass rush that clearly could get to Rodgers. Or the fact that GB was 11th in 4th down conversion and 23rd in 2-point conversion?

    Or how about everything we went through before, how the two most likely scenarios out of three would have also involved holding Brady to a three and out, or how the task of driving down the field for a FG given the 2 minutes left to play and the TOs wasn't a Herculean task at all for Brady, when we've seen him pull a 50+ TD drive in about 20 seconds at the end of the first half?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,171
    Quote Originally Posted by sacgiants1213 View Post
    I'd easily trade a 1st/2nd for the next 3 seasons.
    Are you saying 3 1sts and 3 2nds?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Golden 1 Center
    Posts
    82,816
    Quote Originally Posted by manbearchef View Post
    Are you saying 3 1sts and 3 2nds?
    Yeah. Seem like a fair deal?


  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,055
    Quote Originally Posted by vikings4lifebro View Post
    I would love to have Aaron Rodgers in Minnesota.
    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
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Vee-Rex View Post
    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 get the TD and fail on the 2, they're behind 2....think the Bucs O does much different than they did up 2 vs up 5? Packers still didn't get the ball back.

    People say kicking the FG was too conservative....when it could be viewed as aggressive- as in taking 3, getting the stop (or a successful onside kick) meaning a TD wins it instead of a 4th and goal conversion and successful 2 point conversion tying it....then giving the ball to Brady, who'd just need to get into FG position to win it.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    9,797
    Just don’t go to Washington.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    20,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrei00 View Post
    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.
    TD+2P: Tie.
    TD only: You need a stop and FG. (win)
    TO on downs: You need a stop, TD+2P. (tie)

    vs.

    FG made: You need a stop and TD. (win)
    FG miss: You need a stop, TD+2P. (tie)

    I could post actual numbers but with stochastic knowledge it should be easy to tell what is more likely. A tie would count as about half the likelihood of a win. If you factor in that Rodgers scoring a TD on 4th and goal from the 8 is probably more likely than the Packers defense getting a three and out, the decision becomes even easier.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    12,913
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    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
    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


    Vince to Gronk

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,519
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    TD+2P: Tie.
    TD only: You need a stop and FG. (win)
    TO on downs: You need a stop, TD+2P. (tie)

    vs.

    FG made: You need a stop and TD. (win)
    FG miss: You need a stop, TD+2P. (tie)

    I could post actual numbers but with stochastic knowledge it should be easy to tell what is more likely. A tie would count as about half the likelihood of a win. If you factor in that Rodgers scoring a TD on 4th and goal from the 8 is probably more likely than the Packers defense getting a three and out, the decision becomes even easier.
    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.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    63,450
    Discussions like this remind me as to why some of this analytics stuff is ruining the game.

    It’s more than percentages that get it done. Along with the point factor is GB doesn’t score, went for it on 4th down, TB has the ball on the 8, so a stop by GB is more significant due to the impending field position.

    They score (which they did) you now have to kick off where your best case scenario is to give them the ball at the 20, most likely the 25, and worse a return takes it to the 40. Now we know that they took it to the 17, so they avoided to terrible outcome.

    If Rodgers ran it on 3rd down (meaning everyone was on the same page of it being 4 down territory) then he maybe gets to the 3-4 yard line. Let’s say they don’t get the 1st but get 5ish yards. Punter averaging 40 yards a punt, GB gets the ball at the 50, meaning they could have a play or three without having to call a TO or get OB.

    Bet taking the 3, they still need a TD. Returned to the 17, Tampa gets 5ish yards without a 1st, that’s at the 22. 40ish yard punt and the Packers are starting on their own 35, so now on the drive that they HAVE to score and CANNOT go down in the field of play.

    So yes the analytics may “tell” you that taking a FG is more “worth it” but it doesn’t factor in everything after that point. It doesn’t factor in the field position, how returns were going that day, the current flow of the game. Using one end of the spectrum or the other is a full on mistake and this was a failure of relying fully on the analytics regardless of not getting it done in the first three downs.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #73
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    20,257
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Discussions like this remind me as to why some of this analytics stuff is ruining the game.

    It’s more than percentages that get it done. Along with the point factor is GB doesn’t score, went for it on 4th down, TB has the ball on the 8, so a stop by GB is more significant due to the impending field position.

    They score (which they did) you now have to kick off where your best case scenario is to give them the ball at the 20, most likely the 25, and worse a return takes it to the 40. Now we know that they took it to the 17, so they avoided to terrible outcome.

    If Rodgers ran it on 3rd down (meaning everyone was on the same page of it being 4 down territory) then he maybe gets to the 3-4 yard line. Let’s say they don’t get the 1st but get 5ish yards. Punter averaging 40 yards a punt, GB gets the ball at the 50, meaning they could have a play or three without having to call a TO or get OB.

    Bet taking the 3, they still need a TD. Returned to the 17, Tampa gets 5ish yards without a 1st, that’s at the 22. 40ish yard punt and the Packers are starting on their own 35, so now on the drive that they HAVE to score and CANNOT go down in the field of play.

    So yes the analytics may “tell” you that taking a FG is more “worth it” but it doesn’t factor in everything after that point. It doesn’t factor in the field position, how returns were going that day, the current flow of the game. Using one end of the spectrum or the other is a full on mistake and this was a failure of relying fully on the analytics regardless of not getting it done in the first three downs.
    Going for it would have been the decision in line with analytics.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    63,450
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Going for it would have been the decision in line with analytics.
    I was more referring to the part the pervious poster was using.

    And this is one of the few instances where I agree with the analytics then. IMO it should be used in the way of the gut instinct telling you one thing and the analytics backing up or refuting. Which is my issue of using analytics to make decisions BTW; that the argument being the decision was made because of it not because the they backed the decision.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrei00 View Post
    How about how that historically good RZ offense and that elite-level playing Rodgers didn't make any difference, 0, the previous 3 plays? How about the fact that their OL, according to the same ESPN analytics, was playing their worst game of the year against a solid pass rush that clearly could get to Rodgers. Or the fact that GB was 11th in 4th down conversion and 23rd in 2-point conversion?

    Or how about everything we went through before, how the two most likely scenarios out of three would have also involved holding Brady to a three and out, or how the task of driving down the field for a FG given the 2 minutes left to play and the TOs wasn't a Herculean task at all for Brady, when we've seen him pull a 50+ TD drive in about 20 seconds at the end of the first half?
    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.
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •