Packers notes

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

Well, there aren't a lot of impact players available once the draft is done.

 

[Half Empty]

And, percentage-wise, there aren't a whole lot of impact players (for this season) available during the draft.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And, percentage-wise, there aren't a whole lot of impact players (for this season) available during the draft.

Well, the Packers selected three impact players in last year's draft. Unfortunately that doesn't happen every single season.

 

[HardRightEdge]

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.

The season began March 10...in a real and tangible way.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well, the Packers selected three impact players in last year's draft. Unfortunately that doesn't happen every single season.

And a low injury count is needed even if 3 average starters are acquired. The bench is awfully thin.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well, the Packers selected three impact players in last year's draft. Unfortunately that doesn't happen every single season.

Dix, Adams, Lindsley...collectively, they're in the "average NFL starter" range. Dix average, Adams below average among starters, Lindsley above average.

But I get your point. Getting 3 average NFL defensive starters out of this draft would be a triumph, and prohibitively hard to do.

The bad draft in 2011 and the weak draft in 2012 are cautionary tales besides leaving their marks in the weak bench.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And a low injury count is needed even if 3 average starters are acquired. The bench is awfully thin.

Well, the defense needs a starter at ILB and in case of Thompson not re-signing Raji another one at NT.

In addition the Packers have to add depth at ILB, CB and probably the defensive line, although that could possibly be addressed on day 3 of the draft.

 

[Ace]

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4903/letroy-guion

Guion Back, 1 year deal

 

[longtimefan]

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4903/letroy-guion

Guion Back, 1 year deal

yup

A sticky is made

 

[Sunshinepacker]

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



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.

At this point we're just making excuses...there's ALWAYS going to be some reason to say "well the data doesn't apply here because the situation isn't EXACTLY the same". It's simple. Historical evidence of the entire NFL, not just the Packers, shows that you should go for it in those two instances. Otherwise you're basically saying that you don't believe that years of history of these situations aren't relevant; that this one instance is unique in recent history. It's not, that's why people go to the trouble of documenting and analyzing things like this, so that we can learn from them. NFL coaches are anti-change, they don't do new things until they're hit over the head with them. Just look at NFL practice schedules during the season. Until Chip Kelly made it popular the NFL was the only sport that asked their athletes to not really do much physical exercise for two days before a game; can you imagine a sprinter not running for two days for an event? McCarthy isn't the only coach guilty of this, because kicking the FG is the SAFE thing to do, not for winning but for defending a loss. If you go for the TD and don't convert you get criticized. If you kick the FG, well "you got points on the board", the outcome doesn't matter.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

At this point we're just making excuses...there's ALWAYS going to be some reason to say "well the data doesn't apply here because the situation isn't EXACTLY the same". It's simple. Historical evidence of the entire NFL, not just the Packers, shows that you should go for it in those two instances. Otherwise you're basically saying that you don't believe that years of history of these situations aren't relevant; that this one instance is unique in recent history. It's not, that's why people go to the trouble of documenting and analyzing things like this, so that we can learn from them. NFL coaches are anti-change, they don't do new things until they're hit over the head with them. Just look at NFL practice schedules during the season. Until Chip Kelly made it popular the NFL was the only sport that asked their athletes to not really do much physical exercise for two days before a game; can you imagine a sprinter not running for two days for an event? McCarthy isn't the only coach guilty of this, because kicking the FG is the SAFE thing to do, not for winning but for defending a loss. If you go for the TD and don't convert you get criticized. If you kick the FG, well "you got points on the board", the outcome doesn't matter.

Since 1998 teams have scored a TD on 50.4% of the plays on fourth down inside an opponents two yard line. This means that the defense has a 24.6% chance on average to stop the offense on two occasions in a game.

It doesn't make any sense to ignore the Packers success during the 2014 in similar situations though. Their pedestrian 33.3% TD rate in those situations results in a 44.4% chance of not scoring any points by going for it both times. In addition their chances are pretty slim (11.1%) to score 14 points.

The Packers were in a great position to win this game with five minutes left by getting six points out of those two drives and lost because of a historic collapse, which was way more unrealistic to happen than not scoring by going for a TD on both fourth downs would have been.

 

[TJV]

At this point we're just making excuses...there's ALWAYS going to be some reason to say "well the data doesn't apply here because the situation isn't EXACTLY the same".

Again, here's the "historical" data McCarthy was dealing with:
2nd and 1 at SEA 1: J.Tretter and L.Taylor reported in as eligible. J.Kuhn up the middle to SEA 1 for no gain (K.Williams; B.Wagner).
3rd and 1 at SEA 1: J.Tretter and L.Taylor reported in as eligible. E.Lacy left guard to SEA 1 for no gain (M.Smith; B.Irvin).

Also, after making those decisions McCarthy had his team in a position to win the game: With four minutes left in the game the Packers punted from their 39 yard line with a 12 point lead. So 2 quarters and about 15 minutes of game time after the second FG was kicked, the Packers had a 12 point lead and their defense had surrendered zero points. There are a lot of screw ups to point to which led to the loss. IMO all except one of them (the fake punt) occurred after that late fourth quarter punt. In fact, IMO the situation the Packers found themselves in late in the fourth quarter justifies McCarthy's taking the points in the first quarter.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Since 1998 teams have scored a TD on 50.4% of the plays on fourth down inside an opponents two yard line. This means that the defense has a 24.6% chance on average to stop the offense on two occasions in a game.

It doesn't make any sense to ignore the Packers success during the 2014 in similar situations though. Their pedestrian 33.3% TD rate in those situations results in a 44.4% chance of not scoring any points by going for it both times. In addition their chances are pretty slim (11.1%) to score 14 points.

The Packers were in a great position to win this game with five minutes left by getting six points out of those two drives and lost because of a historic collapse, which was way more unrealistic to happen than not scoring by going for a TD on both fourth downs would have been.

Your first paragraph is what makes the case for going for it. The payoffs are different. A 96% chance of scoring three or a 50% chance of scoring seven ...the 3.5>3. I'm not discussing the rest of the game. The rest of the game played out and there were plenty of other issues. When it comes to this one decision set though, history is very clear on what coaches should do, go for it.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Again, here's the "historical" data McCarthy was dealing with:
2nd and 1 at SEA 1: J.Tretter and L.Taylor reported in as eligible. J.Kuhn up the middle to SEA 1 for no gain (K.Williams; B.Wagner).
3rd and 1 at SEA 1: J.Tretter and L.Taylor reported in as eligible. E.Lacy left guard to SEA 1 for no gain (M.Smith; B.Irvin).

Also, after making those decisions McCarthy had his team in a position to win the game: With four minutes left in the game the Packers punted from their 39 yard line with a 12 point lead. So 2 quarters and about 15 minutes of game time after the second FG was kicked, the Packers had a 12 point lead and their defense had surrendered zero points. There are a lot of screw ups to point to which led to the loss. IMO all except one of them (the fake punt) occurred after that late fourth quarter punt. In fact, IMO the situation the Packers found themselves in late in the fourth quarter justifies McCarthy's taking the points in the first quarter.

A sample of two plays is not greater than a sample of decades. The after-the-fact justification of "we were winning with four minutes left" doesn't excuse bad decisions. When Rodgers throws a bad interception, do the coaches just say, "it wasn't a mistake because we won the game!". Just because the defense (and Wilson) were covering for a poor choice doesn't make the choice any less poor.

Why does the Packers position with four minutes to go justify the decision? Why are we magically cutting off the time left in the game to when it fits the narrative? Wouldn't the entire game come into play if we're going to look back? If the Packers had scored touchdowns then the Packers would have "been leading for the entire game until the game ended and they won".

 

[Shawnsta3]

Dix, Adams, Lindsley...collectively, they're in the "average NFL starter" range. Dix average, Adams below average among starters, Lindsley above average.

But I get your point. Getting 3 average NFL defensive starters out of this draft would be a triumph, and prohibitively hard to do.

The bad draft in 2011 and the weak draft in 2012 are cautionary tales besides leaving their marks in the weak bench.

First off his name is Corey LinsleySecondly, you are correct these guys are right around the average mark for starters in their first year. I think this class has the chance to be not only be one of the best for Thompson's career, but the best that year for the entire NFL. All three of these guys looked like future pro bowlers(whatever that means these days)

As far as the two draft classes for Thompson before them, they're for the most part still on the roster and young so there's time for them to switch things around, but you won't catch an argument from me. It's a shame Ted had to settle for Worthy in 2012 when he traded up for Chandler Jones.

 

[TJV]

A sample of two plays is not greater than a sample of decades. The after-the-fact justification of "we were winning with four minutes left" doesn't excuse bad decisions.

It wasn’t a bad decision and I haven’t seen you address the consequences of going for it and not scoring. Do you deny that could dramatically change the momentum of the game?

Why does the Packers position with four minutes to go justify the decision? Why are we magically cutting off the time left in the game to when it fits the narrative?

Are those serious questions? The position with four minutes left justifies his earlier decision because at the time they were up by more than a TD + 2 point conversion + FG. No stupid mistakes and they win. That may not have been the case if they would have gone for it twice and not scored. The obvious mistakes which led to the loss have been detailed here several times, if you think kicking the FGs in the first quarter were mistakes, they have to be way down the list in order of importance.

BTW, since you think stats are the end-all be-all try looking up the percentage of times an NFL team wins a game when it leads by 12 points with four minutes to play.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Your first paragraph is what makes the case for going for it. The payoffs are different. A 96% chance of scoring three or a 50% chance of scoring seven ...the 3.5>3. I'm not discussing the rest of the game. The rest of the game played out and there were plenty of other issues. When it comes to this one decision set though, history is very clear on what coaches should do, go for it.

You continue to ignore the Packers lack of success in these situations which is far more relevant than the league average over the last 17 seasons.

Last year the Packers scored on 33.3% of fourth downs inside the opponents two yard line (1-of-3) as well as third and fourth diwns combined (3-of-9).

That's not a great sample size so let's take a look at the Packers success rate since Rodgers became the starter:

4th down: 2-of-6 (33.3%)
3rd and 4th combined: 13-of-33 (39.4%)

IMO the last one indicates the Packers are worse in this category than the league averaging, so going twice in that situations result in 5.52 expected points for them, worse than the six points they got out of kicking two FGs.

 

[HardRightEdge]

At this point we're just making excuses...there's ALWAYS going to be some reason to say "well the data doesn't apply here because the situation isn't EXACTLY the same". It's simple. Historical evidence of the entire NFL, not just the Packers, shows that you should go for it in those two instances. Otherwise you're basically saying that you don't believe that years of history of these situations aren't relevant; that this one instance is unique in recent history. It's not, that's why people go to the trouble of documenting and analyzing things like this, so that we can learn from them. NFL coaches are anti-change, they don't do new things until they're hit over the head with them. Just look at NFL practice schedules during the season. Until Chip Kelly made it popular the NFL was the only sport that asked their athletes to not really do much physical exercise for two days before a game; can you imagine a sprinter not running for two days for an event? McCarthy isn't the only coach guilty of this, because kicking the FG is the SAFE thing to do, not for winning but for defending a loss. If you go for the TD and don't convert you get criticized. If you kick the FG, well "you got points on the board", the outcome doesn't matter.

What are the historical numbers for a 3rd. try after being stopped twice before by one of the top defenses?

 

[RRyder]

What are the historical numbers for a 3rd. try after being stopped twice before by one of the top defenses?

Ding Ding Ding.... And we have a winner here folks

 

[PackerDNA]

I wonder what the statistical probabilities of success were for going for it on 4th down from the one instead of kicking the tying field goal in the 1967 NFL title game.
Good thing Vince Lombardi didn't give a s**t.

 

[TJV]

I wonder what the statistical probabilities of success were for going for it on 4th down from the one instead of kicking the tying field goal in the 1967 NFL title game.
Good thing Vince Lombardi didn't give a s**t.

Lombardi blamed himself for losing the only championship game the Packers lost with him as HC. The Packers lost that game 17-13, in spite of out gaining the Eagles by more than 100 yards and having a 22-13 advantage in first downs. According to David Maraniss’s book “When Pride Still Mattered,” Lombardi later regretted not attempting two additional easy field goals, saying: “When you get down there, come out with something. I lost the game, not my players.” (quoted from this NYTimes story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/sports/football/07eagles.html?_r=0). The end of the Ice Bowl was a completely different circumstance.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It wasn’t a bad decision and I haven’t seen you address the consequences of going for it and not scoring. Do you deny that could dramatically change the momentum of the game? Are those serious questions? The position with four minutes left justifies his earlier decision because at the time they were up by more than a TD + 2 point conversion + FG. No stupid mistakes and they win. That may not have been the case if they would have gone for it twice and not scored. The obvious mistakes which led to the loss have been detailed here several times, if you think kicking the FGs in the first quarter were mistakes, they have to be way down the list in order of importance.

BTW, since you think stats are the end-all be-all try looking up the percentage of times an NFL team wins a game when it leads by 12 points with four minutes to play.

I have actually gone over the consequences quite a bit. To summarize: green bay fails, Seattle (who's offense has sucked) gets the ball at the one or two yard line, most realistic scenario they get a couple first downs and punt, green bay drives the ball back into field goal range and still gets two field goals...

Why do people keep bringing up the end of the game? The end of the game didn't matter when the decision to kick the field goals was made. That's like saying you can only be mad at a fumble when you know your team is going to lose before the team has lost.

But fine. Every statistical analysis says to go for it but "this time was different!", no matter the packers lost, the decision to say, "our offense isn't good enough to get two yards" was the right one.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

What are the historical numbers for a 3rd. try after being stopped twice before by one of the top defenses?

Oh, so it's a top defense? It's a shame green bay doesn't have a great offense, probably was best to just admit the team couldn't move the ball five feet.

Why do the last two stops matter? I'd an NFL team gets stuffed on first and second down, should they just punt on third down? The only thing those first two downs show is that people on offense screwed up and the likelihood of that happening three consecutive plays is miniscule. The coach should trust his offense.

Also, how many times did Seattle's defense stop a top five offense on three consecutive plays from the goal line? Why is Seattle's defense the only variable that matters?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You continue to ignore the Packers lack of success in these situations which is far more relevant than the league average over the last 17 seasons.

Last year the Packers scored on 33.3% of fourth downs inside the opponents two yard line (1-of-3) as well as third and fourth diwns combined (3-of-9).

That's not a great sample size so let's take a look at the Packers success rate since Rodgers became the starter:

4th down: 2-of-6 (33.3%)
3rd and 4th combined: 13-of-33 (39.4%)

IMO the last one indicates the Packers are worse in this category than the league averaging, so going twice in that situations result in 5.52 expected points for them, worse than the six points they got out of kicking two FGs.

Not 100% sure where you got your numbers but when I use pro football reference's play finder for packers plays within the opponent's three yard line, I get a touchdown rate of 33 of 60 from 2013-2014 (Eddie lacy on team) and it could be argued that's probably low since Rodgers missed a good chunk of last season.

You can't just look at fourth down because part of the stat is, when you score you never GET to fourth down. If your team can convert on second and third down, then why should that performance not matter on fourth down? Should the Packers not trust Adams to catch a fourth down pass because he's only ever proven he can catch balls on downs one through three?

You're also completely ignoring what happens if the Packers don't convert. People seem to just assume that if the Packers don't convert that the defense will automatically let Seattle drive the ball sixty yards. Chances are the Packers get the ball back in good field position.

 

[PikeBadger]

The season began March 10...in a real and tangible way.

The roster isn't set until Labor Day. There are 5 months of transactions until we play our 1st regular season game. The season as you say may have begun on March 10, it dang sure didn't end on March 20th like you'd have thought by reading some of the posts from the nervous Nellies and chicken littles. Same stuff every year at this time of year. Some people just refuse to learn.