Packers notes

[HardRightEdge]

I think everyone pretty much believes you on that...

Not everybody, at least not with any amount of certainty.

It's not at all uncommon to see QBs play their best early on, even in their first season, and then regress.

As Blaine Nye said regarding one of Clint Longley's surprising rookie successes in relief of Staubach, it was ""the triumph of the uncluttered mind." There's no guarantee that more information and more study results in better performance.

Some guys don't get past a limited playbook and relying on instincts. When Job #1 becomes "don't throw interceptions" with Job #2 being "complete a lot of passes", with a fatter play book thrown into the bargain, the cognitive dissonance can cause the wheels to come off.

 

[longtimefan]

I think everyone pretty much believes you on that, it's just simply that Tolzien has yet to prove he can perform at a level needed to be Rodgers' backup, whereas Flynn has proven that, although certainly lacking, he is serviceable enough to give our team a chance to win.

They're gambling that Tolzien has progressed enough to be that guy for us now. They've been wrong about it before and it almost cost us the division in 2013. We'll see. I need to see a guy do it in a game before I can buy in. Coaches raved about Graham Harrell's practices. It doesn't mean anything until it translates to a regular season game.

I get what they're doing, but I wish they wouldn't. I prefer security over upside from our backup QB position.

The Pack are fully confident in Scott's ability now. Flynn helped in some games- but failed in others..

I would be surprised if Flynn is back as a Packers-- But I think if only there is that sudden need as there was in 2013..

 

[adambr2]

The Pack are fully confident in Scott's ability now. Flynn helped in some games- but failed in others..

I would be surprised if Flynn is back as a Packers-- But I think if only there is that sudden need as there was in 2013..

Of course he did...he was never expected to replace Rodgers. Just run the offense and give us a chance to win. In 6 starts his overall numbers starting for us were 3-3 with 16 TD's and 6 INT's. I would say in every start with the exception of at Detroit on Thanksgiving 2013, he played well enough to at least give us a chance to win. That's all we could have asked for. I don't know what gives he failed in other than the Detroit game unless folks had way too high of expectations.

I would guess they are banking on him to be an available "54th man" that they can call on a weeks' notice and drag him off his couch to bring him back. They have confidence in Scott, sure. Hopefully we'll not get the chance to find out whether or not it is misplaced confidence.

 

[longtimefan]

Not everybody, at least not with any amount of certainty.

It's not at all uncommon to see QBs play their best early on, even in their first season, and then regress.

As Blaine Nye said regarding one of Clint Longley's surprising rookie successes in relief of Staubach, it was ""the triumph of the uncluttered mind." There's no guarantee that more information and more study results in better performance.

Some guys don't get past a limited playbook and relying on instincts. When Job #1 becomes "don't throw interceptions" with Job #2 being "complete a lot of passes", with a fatter play book thrown into the bargain, the cognitive dissonance can cause the wheels to come off.

Flynn has the smarts for the playbook, he just doesnt have the arm anymore...I think he would be a great teacher, (dough peterson) but he cant play anymore..

I still point to Sennea Wallace---I know people think he sucked based on previous years..But my argument then and still remains is with proper coaching he would have been fine. That same year people here pointed to Josh Mccown and how he was doing well with the Bears..

I stated that he and Wallace had very similar stats, (and they did ) but Tressman knew how to get Josh to play the way they needed...Even Josh's brother stated his brother would love to play for Tressman and would do great..

Then Josh goes to Tampa and what happens? Sucked it up and got traded..Because he needs the right coach.

I truly trust MM could have had Wallace play better than Flynn, but never got the chance.

Coaching sometimes makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Carl]

Of course he did...he was never expected to replace Rodgers. Just run the offense and give us a chance to win. In 6 starts his overall numbers starting for us were 3-3 with 16 TD's and 6 INT's. I would say in every start with the exception of at Detroit on Thanksgiving 2013, he played well enough to at least give us a chance to win. That's all we could have asked for. I don't know what gives he failed in other than the Detroit game unless folks had way too high of expectations.

I would guess they are banking on him to be an available "54th man" that they can call on a weeks' notice and drag him off his couch to bring him back. They have confidence in Scott, sure. Hopefully we'll not get the chance to find out whether or not it is misplaced confidence.

The problem with being a "54th man" is without a contract and money coming in, I don't know how likely it is Flynn will stay in good enough shape and continue to be ready to play.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The problem with being a "54th man" is without a contract and money coming in, I don't know how likely it is Flynn will stay in good enough shape and continue to be ready to play.

Further, why would he wait for a phone call without getting paid if one of the other 31 teams found themselves in need first?

All it would take is one of the approximately 62 first and second stringers to sustain an injury sometime between now and the end of the season to find themselves in need of a cheap second string vet.

In any event, at the bottom of the following list, noted as TBD, are the remaining FA QBs:

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/quarterback/

Orton has already stated his intention to retire; maybe others, I couldn't say. It is an inauspicious group. Flynn's far from the only serial failure in competing for a starting job.

 

[adambr2]

Right, I'm not even suggesting that Flynn will necessarily be available for a 54th man or that it is even a good option to go down that road like we did in 2013, just saying I think that might be their thought process and they probably figure Tolzien has a lot better chance to be scooped up somewhere.

Given Flynn's track record compared to other journeyman career backup QB's, I can't believe that someone doesn't like him enough to at least latch on as a #3 somewhere. It's hard to believe with guys like Christian Ponder still employed and whatever garbage the Cardinals were throwing out late last year, that guys like Flynn can be out of work.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, since the game went to OT that extra point would have helped.

There's no guarantee the game would have gone the same way if the Packers had scored seven points during that two possessions.

We're not talking about a coach taking a stupid statistical gamble. Both FGs were about the distance of a PAT. Crosby was 96% on the year for PATs. That means you could expect 2.88 points by kicking the field goal. In 2014, the Packers gained two or more yards on third or fourth down with two yards or less to go 66.7% of the time. So, from the two yard line, the Packers could expect to score a TD 66.7% of the time (that's actually a low estimate since those third-and-2-or-less plays during the regular season wouldn't include the additional fourth-and-2 play if the offense gained zero yards). So the Packers could expect (based on their own offensive skill) to score 4.96 points by trying to go for it (66.7% chance of scoring 6 and then a 96% chance of getting the PAT). If you asked most people if they would prefer 2.88 points or 4.96 points, most would chose 4.96 points. McCarthy chose 2.88 points TWICE. This doesn't even factor in the high probability that even had the Packers failed on both conversions the Seahawks would have started with terrible field position and the Packers would likely have gotten the ball back with good field position and been able to move the ball into FG range anyway (so maybe it would have been a 42 yard FG instead of a PAT).

There's a huge difference between having a third or fourth down with two yards to go anywhere on the field and two yards away from the end zone though. The Packers scored a TD on only 33.3% on 3rd and 4th down inside the opponents two yards line in 2014. Based on their own talents they could expect 2.33 points going for it vs. the Seahawks compared to 2.89 when kicking the FG.

 

[adambr2]

While we're on the subject of TD/FG/XP/2 PT....it seems like this is going to be the year that the automatic after TD extra point as we know it. There's a lot of momentum there for rule change. If this happens, will this really change the value of the redzone pass catching TE as we know it?

 

[TJV]

Flynn "stealing" snaps from QBs not named Rodgers is a concern but if he would accept a deal with very little guaranteed money, IMO that concern is outweighed by the security of having two competent vet QBs from which to choose before the season starts. They know what Flynn can do, IMO his snaps could be minimized.

It is an inauspicious group. Flynn's far from the only serial failure in competing for a starting job.

Now that is damning with faint praise!

 

[HardRightEdge]

Now that is damning with faint praise!

Beggers can't be choosers.

 

[PackerDNA]

Guion visited with the Seahawks yesterday.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While we're on the subject of TD/FG/XP/2 PT....it seems like this is going to be the year that the automatic after TD extra point as we know it. There's a lot of momentum there for rule change. If this happens, will this really change the value of the redzone pass catching TE as we know it?

I wonder if moving the kick for the extra point back several yards will result in more teams going for two points. So far I really don't have a feel for it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Guion visited with the Seahawks yesterday.

I didn't mean "ha ha funny". More like, "here we go again" funny.

Comb the musing of the beat writers, the mock drafts, these boards. A select minority have not overlooked the risks at the NT position. We've noted the suspension risk with Guion. Perhaps we overlooked one of the other 31 teams weighting that risk less than Thompson.

The plot thickens.

 

[PackerDNA]

I think, bottom line, is that more importance is being attached to Guion than he's worth because of our situation at the position.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think, bottom line, is that more importance is being attached to Guion than he's worth because of our situation at the position.

He's what we might call in-the-average-range among one-gap NT/DE swing men. He's not even a true 2-gap NT. The only other NT on the roster is Pennel, who is not athletic and plays high (as in pad level, not smoking whatever ).

Yes, he does have more importance attached to him than his team-independent value. However, cost of replacement should be factored into the equation. As with any player, the cost and risk of replacement is low if there's comparable player on the bench; the cost of replacement rises when there isn't. In this case, the cost is a day 1/day 2 draft pick, assuming that guy actually pans out. Then there's the opportunity cost. A pick spent there is a pick not spent elsewhere.

How many holes are? What is the status of bench strength across the defense, safety excluded? How many day 1 / day 2 picks are there?

It will all work out, I'm sure.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I wonder if moving the kick for the extra point back several yards will result in more teams going for two points. So far I really don't have a feel for it.

It depends on what the change happens to be. For example, one proposal is to place the ball for a 32 yd. EP kick and place the ball at the 1 1/2 yard line for a 2 point conversion. I don't think that will change tactics except at the margins.

I would venture a guess that the league-wide make percent on FGs from 32 yards is 90+%, perhaps as high as 95%, using a multi-year meaningful sample. According to my eyeball run-through of the team stat listing at ESPN for last season, I come with 30 misses on 289 attempts from the 30-39 range last season, about 90% made.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It depends on what the change happens to be. For example, one proposal is to place the ball for a 32 yd. EP kick and place the ball at the 1 1/2 yard line for a 2 point conversion. I don't think that will change tactics except at the margins.

I would venture a guess that the league-wide make percent on FGs from 32 yards is 90+%, perhaps as high as 95%, using a multi-year meaningful sample. According to my eyeball run-through of the team stat listing at ESPN for last season, I come with 30 misses on 289 attempts from the 30-39 range last season, about 90% made.

Over the last 10 years kicker have made 92.4% of the FGs from 32 yards (a sample size of 316 tries).

 

[HardRightEdge]

Over the last 10 years kicker have made 92.4% of the FGs from 32 yards (a sample size of 316 tries).

That won't change anybody's baseline tactics. Where it might matter is when one of the 7.5% of the kicks are missed (vs. <1% currently), the 1 point differentials occurring otherwise would then be 2 point differentials with a EP miss. There might be a late game tactic change here or there as a result. It won't be particularly noticeable.

 

[HardRightEdge]

They should just give the coach a choice...automatic one point with no kick or run the guys out to go for two.

It would eliminate the silly perfunctory kick, while saving a couple of minutes of game time that will be taken up with more replay calls that will be coming in the future.

 

[Carl]

I would not be in favor of making the extra point more difficult. Yes, it's not an exciting play, but I don't want situations often when both teams score TDs and the game doesn't end up tied. I don't think game should be decided by extra point tries.

If I were an owner, I'd propose to just give teams 7 points without kicking the extra point. If a team decides to go for two and doesn't get it, then the team gets 6.

 

[Poppa San]

Spot the ball on one of the hashes instead of center of the field. Let the defense call which one. Then the offense can decide to go for 1 or 2 knowing they have a wide field to work with.

 

[mradtke66]

I don't like moving the extra point back because of "broken plays." What happens on high snaps? Now you're 30 yard away from the endzone with your holder scrambling around like a wounded chicken for 2 points. Gross.

Move the PAT up to the 1 or 0.5 yard line. Make those 2 points look a lot easier to coax more attempts at them.

 

[PikeBadger]

Yes, he does have more importance attached to him than his team-independent value. However, cost of replacement should be factored into the equation. As with any player, the cost and risk of replacement is low if there's comparable player on the bench; the cost of replacement rises when there isn't. In this case, the cost is a day 1/day 2 draft pick, assuming that guy actually pans out. Then there's the opportunity cost. A pick spent there is a pick not spent elsewhere.

How many holes are? What is the status of bench strength across the defense, safety excluded? How many day 1 / day 2 picks are there?

It will all work out, I'm sure.

I agree. In due time these things will work themselves out. Nine draft picks, free agency options, cap casualty cuts producing more free agents. Not concerned even a little bit. The season doesn't begin for 5 months.

 

[PackerDNA]

Think there's gonna be any better options with 'cap cuts' than there are now?
Personally, I highly doubt it.