r-e-l-a-x (?)

[thisisnate]

UGH. That name. Nightmares. Cold sweats. Juliooooooo. Can you imagine Gunter trying to cover that man? Hope it doesn't come to that.

Julio with 107 yard in the first half so far this week. Make the madness stop. Not looking forward to watching our guys cover him again. *shudder*

 

[swhitset]

Is it any more of a terrible idea than a team that has 4th and 1 and all they do is just sit there for the QB to try and draw the defense offsides with a hard count and when they don't budge then the QB has to waste a timeout?
I dunno about you, but I tune in to watch football. To watch these guys play. Not that boring wimpy stuff.

I find it odd at how you asked me to back up my claims with sources and I do and then you just blow it off instead of engaging in any kind of open minded discussion about it.
We may have to agree to disagree but the numbers don't lie.
Stats show that when a team goes for it on 4th and 1, the odds are in their favor with a 75% chance at getting the first down.
Knowing this, it really does make them all look like wimps and idiots when they give the ball back by punting.
They get 4 chances. Why not use all four instead of just 3?

I already addressed why your stats are meaningless. Again.... just because you have a bunch of attempts where the majority of the results are positive... says absolutely nothing about the chances of making it on every fourth and short. This is not over thinking it is simple logic. Since we know nothing about what the results would have been when the coaches decided not to go for it, we cannot extrapolate from half the data set. I'm assuming you didn't understand my point above, and I'm not sure how else to express it, but basically it only makes sense that a large percentage of 4th and shorts have been successful BECAUSE in those situations the coach decided that conditions were favorable for a successful result.

 

[ARPackFan]

I watched the video but it is not the first time I have seen it.

I live in the tornado-magnet community of Vilonia, Arkansas that is in the same classification level, 5A, as Pulaski Academy in Little Rock about 30 miles south. One item that the piece did not disclose is that Pulaski Academy is a private school and as such not limited to players in the public school district boundaries in an area with a population in excess of 700,000. They effectively can recruit players whereas a public school can only get players in their district.

My point is this for works Pulaski Academy because ever Friday they line up with better players. As others have said, statistics can be misleading. A team last in rushing needing 1 yard against the best rushing defense in the league is not going to be successful 75% of the time on fourth & 1. I do think there is a place for not punting or not going for a FG on fourth down but each situation is different and needs to be treated accordingly.

 

[Forget Favre]

I already addressed why your stats are meaningless. Again.... just because you have a bunch of attempts where the majority of the results are positive... says absolutely nothing about the chances of making it on every fourth and short. This is not over thinking it is simple logic. Since we know nothing about what the results would have been when the coaches decided not to go for it, we cannot extrapolate from half the data set. I'm assuming you didn't understand my point above, and I'm not sure how else to express it, but basically it only makes sense that a large percentage of 4th and shorts have been successful BECAUSE in those situations the coach decided that conditions were favorable for a successful result.

And what about all those times when a team was fourth and short and they give the ball back, the team that gets the punt scores (FG or TD) and that drive was the winning one for them?
If the team that punted the ball away had gone for it on 4th down instead, gets the first and then the score, they wouldn't have lost the game.

Football would be a lot more exciting if it had more risks. Faked field goals and punts and more teams going for it on fourth down which the odds show are favorable to them.
Way too many coaches or pretty much all of them play it way too safe which ends up losing the game for them.
If they took more chances, I bet they would win more games such as the championship HS football winning coach does in the video I linked to in a previous post.

We are all brainwashed into thinking that giving the ball back on 4th down is the way to play the game whereas I am thinking outside that box.

 

[swhitset]

And what about all those times when a team was fourth and short and they give the ball back, the team that gets the punt scores (FG or TD) and that drive was the winning one for them?
If the team that punted the ball away had gone for it on 4th down instead, gets the first and then the score, they wouldn't have lost the game.

Football would be a lot more exciting if it had more risks. Faked field goals and punts and more teams going for it on fourth down which the odds show are favorable to them.
Way too many coaches or pretty much all of them play it way too safe which ends up losing the game for them.
If they took more chances, I bet they would win more games such as the championship HS football winning coach does in the video I linked to in a previous post.

We are all brainwashed into thinking that giving the ball back on 4th down is the way to play the game whereas I am thinking outside that box.

I'm not saying a team should never go for it. I'm only disputing your use of faulty statistics to support your desire to see 'a more exciting game' lol. I do think there are times when going for it is the right choice. Going back a few years to the "4th and 26" game against the Eagles for instance... In MY opinion that play should have never happened. In that game the Packers had been running the ball right down the Eagle's throat for most of the game when they were faced with a 4th and short somewhere around midfield ( going from memory here) with very little time left in the game. Instead of running it one more time to seal the victory the Packers punted the ball into the end zone gaining between 20-30 yards. After the "4th and 26" play the Packers ended up losing the game. There were valid arguments for and against going for it on 4th down in that game, but in that instance, I would have rather the Packers had gone for it. Every situation is different, and in the last game against the Bears.... attempting the FG to go up by 3 scores was the right choice.

 

[Forget Favre]

I watched the video but it is not the first time I have seen it.

I live in the tornado-magnet community of Vilonia, Arkansas that is in the same classification level, 5A, as Pulaski Academy in Little Rock about 30 miles south. One item that the piece did not disclose is that Pulaski Academy is a private school and as such not limited to players in the public school district boundaries in an area with a population in excess of 700,000. They effectively can recruit players whereas a public school can only get players in their district.

My point is this for works Pulaski Academy because ever Friday they line up with better players. As others have said, statistics can be misleading. A team last in rushing needing 1 yard against the best rushing defense in the league is not going to be successful 75% of the time on fourth & 1. I do think there is a place for not punting or not going for a FG on fourth down but each situation is different and needs to be treated accordingly.

OK then the coach of the team with the last in rushing calls for a play that includes a short screen pass.
True that there are better teams and teams with better players. But even the Browns beat the Steelers sometimes or as to how we are now seeing the Vikings and Lions beating the Packers.
What sells me on this is the teams having a pretty good chance at getting the first down by going for it. The numbers don't lie and I would think the expert in the video has looked at all the variables.

 

[Forget Favre]

I'm not saying a team should never go for it. I'm only disputing your use of faulty statistics to support your desire to see 'a more exciting game' lol. I do think there are times when going for it is the right choice. Going back a few years to the "4th and 26" game against the Eagles for instance... In MY opinion that play should have never happened. In that game the Packers had been running the ball right down the Eagle's throat for most of the game when they were faced with a 4th and short somewhere around midfield ( going from memory here) with very little time left in the game. Instead of running it one more time to seal the victory the Packers punted the ball into the end zone gaining between 20-30 yards. After the "4th and 26" play the Packers ended up losing the game. There were valid arguments for and against going for it on 4th down in that game, but in that instance, I would have rather the Packers had gone for it. Every situation is different, and in the last game against the Bears.... attempting the FG to go up by 3 scores was the right choice.

Fair enough.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And what about all those times when a team was fourth and short and they give the ball back, the team that gets the punt scores (FG or TD) and that drive was the winning one for them?
If the team that punted the ball away had gone for it on 4th down instead, gets the first and then the score, they wouldn't have lost the game.

You completely ignore what happens when an offense gets stopped on fourth down though. Since the start of last season NFL teams have converted only 48.7% of fourth down plays though.

 

[Pucky]

This Was the Bears..this is nothing to get to high over. The Bears are just as beat up as we are. This staff cannot..and I repeat!!! CANNOT think that the same predictable offense Scheme is going to work against a good team. I said in another post Rodgers would need to throw himself into rythem..but they have to get creative with there play calling good lord. Same 4 pass plays and formations.

I totally agree!!

 

[Pucky]

E

They ran Ty Montgomery instead of Aaron Ripkowski on that play. Why?

exactly!

 

[Pucky]

It seems the coaching staff presents more questions than answers regarding the offense.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

And ... to add a little more good to r-e-l-a-x, the Seachickens also did not win yesterday, although unfortunately they didn't lose either.

 

[swhitset]

And ... to add a little more good to r-e-l-a-x, the Seachickens also did not win yesterday, although unfortunately they didn't lose either.

I'll take it.... This way, the Cardinals did not win either lol.

 

[HardRightEdge]

McMuffins fault even though it's easy to think it is with the way he has almost blown and blown games by playing not to loose instead of to win.

Consider Atlanta going for it on 4th. and 1 on their own 45 in OT yesterday.

Punting would have been "playing not to lose".

It was one of the more boneheaded coaching decisions in my recent memory.

Then again, Atlanta has a pretty sh*tty defense. Similar to recent iterations of the Packers, they rely on simply outscoring opponents, so there's that mitigating factor.

Nonetheless, if you don't have confidence in your defense preventing the opponent from moving the ball 50 yards into long distance FG range at the end of a game, you've lost your season anyway.

You put the pressure on your defense to perform when it counts most. It's the only way to build the habit of winning.

 

[Forget Favre]

Consider Atlanta going for it on 4th. and 1 on their own 45 in OT yesterday.

Punting would have been "playing not to lose".

It was one of the more boneheaded coaching decisions in my recent memory.

Then again, Atlanta has a pretty sh*tty defense. Similar to recent iterations of the Packers, they rely on simply outscoring opponents, so there's that mitigating factor.

Nonetheless, if you don't have confidence in your defense preventing the opponent from moving the ball 50 yards into long distance FG range at the end of a game, you've lost your season anyway.

You put the pressure on your defense to perform when it counts most. It's the only way to build the habit of winning.

On the other hand we have the snoozefest of the Birds game that ended in a 6-6 OT tie where they played it safe and didn't even go for the TDs and 4th down FG attempts.
They got what they deserved by playing to not lose instead of playing to win.

Football is starting to become sorta boring to me and it looks like to a lot of others as well.
No wonder why viewership is way down.

I never once almost nodded off during a Packers game and it happened recently.

 

[HardRightEdge]

On the other hand we have the snoozefest of the Birds game that ended in a 6-6 OT tie where they played it safe and didn't even go for the TDs and 4th down FG attempts.

Quite an oddity seeing each team missing a chip shot FG. Kicking those FGs were the right move. The odds of missing from that range is less than the odds of turning the ball over. Kicking in those situations has been standard operating procedure for nearly forever; this approach to winning cannot account for falling ratings.

If you found the game boring for lack of scoring, that should have happened long before overtime. And if you like scoring, don't watch these two teams play each other, or Seattle at any time.

Here's are some possibilities as to why the NFL ratings are down:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/...rop-colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-protests

If the "lost interest" group accounting for a 1/4 of those polled stopped watching because of lack of scoring, good riddance. As for the national anthem issue, I have one message to those folks: get over yourself.

It's not clear whether the following polling option was presented: "To busy tracking fantasy points to actually watch games."

 

[Mondio]

here's my theory on why ratings are down, they grew so much attracting easily distracted people that don't really care about the game of football, they just care about all the meaningless fluff surrounding football.

They're easy viewers to gain and also easily lost. Couple that with the league turning off true football fans they their incessant need to create fluff and controversy and excitement, you lose a few from both ends.

I love the game, I hope I'm able to say that in another 10 years, but then I've often said the NFL doesn't care about me.

And that game last night was anything but a snooze fest. It had big plays and big gaffs, plenty of excitement for those that like football. Not a lot I guess for those that understand nothing more than touchdown good

 

[Sky King]

...As for the national anthem issue, I have one message to those folks: get over yourself....

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[HardRightEdge]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

It's the national anthem, not the armed forces anthem. Big, big difference. If a nation defines itself by it's armed forces it is in big, big trouble.

 

[Sky King]

It's the national anthem, not the armed forces anthem. Big, big difference. If a nation defines itself by it's armed forces it is in big, big trouble.

It is the soldier,
not the President who gives US Democracy.

It is the soldier,
not the Congress who takes Care of US.

It is the soldier,
not the Reporter who has given us Freedom of Press.

It is the soldier,
not the Poet who has given us Freedom of Speech.

It is the soldier,
not the campus [community] Organizer who
has given us the Freedom to Demonstrate.

It is the soldier,
who salutes the flag;
who serves beneath the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
that allows the protester to burn the flag.

~ Father Dennis O’Brien, US Marine Corp. Chaplain

 

[HardRightEdge]

It is the soldier,
not the President who gives US Democracy.

It is the soldier,
not the Congress who takes Care of US.

It is the soldier,
not the Reporter who has given us Freedom of Press.

It is the soldier,
not the Poet who has given us Freedom of Speech.

It is the soldier,
not the campus [community] Organizer who
has given us the Freedom to Demonstrate.

It is the soldier,
who salutes the flag;
who serves beneath the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
that allows the protester to burn the flag.

~ Father Dennis O’Brien, US Marine Corp. Chaplain

That's the description of a military dictatorship.

Note to BuggyBill: That's my last comment on the matter.

 

[Poppa San]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/10/21/13362022/odell-beckham-fined-unsportsmanlike-conduct

Because of stupid policies like this is why I'm getting frustrated with the NFL. MLB does not fine a pitcher for a fist pump after striking out his nemesis nor do they penalize a team for waiting at home base to shake the hand of a home-run hitter. MLS players run around like headless chickens (chickens do for a few seconds) after a score. Allow positive emotion back into the game.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/10/21/13362022/odell-beckham-fined-unsportsmanlike-conduct

Because of stupid policies like this is why I'm getting frustrated with the NFL. MLB does not fine a pitcher for a fist pump after striking out his nemesis nor do they penalize a team for waiting at home base to shake the hand of a home-run hitter. MLS players run around like headless chickens (chickens do for a few seconds) after a score. Allow positive emotion back into the game.

Yeah, if the day ever comes that the Lambeau leap is illegal, that's it. That will be enough for this fan.

I mean, yeah I get it that Cam Newton probably did too much celebrating for every first down he got last year, but that's why you let teams do what they've been doing this year by decking him hard when he tries that, and dishing the hits out on him. A stupid commissioner like Goodell and his stupid minions interfering with this is only making it a l0se-lose situation for everyone.

 

[Mondio]

The NFL doesn't find anybody for fist pump either but they did make the helmet real because too many of these emotionally inapt adults playing professional sports cant keep their helmet on when they had a disagreement on the field.

It was getting to be that after every play someone was ripping their helmet off to jaw at somebody else so they made a rule. I don't mind it I played in high school and college I never had to take my helmet off to celebrate. And if the whole helmet thing never involved any further than the celebrations like Favre running down the field with the smile on his face, it probably never would have become a rule either.

I'm all for letting emotion be in the game but it seems like a lot of people aren't so concerned about the emotion as they are about making everything about themselves every routine football play is reason to celebrate one's self these days. If it wasn't for so many ridiculous antics there wouldn't be these ridiculous rules. Though i prefer letting players take care of it

MLS is for communists

 

[Sky King]

That's the description of a military dictatorship.

Note to BuggyBill: That's my last comment on the matter.

If straw a man can be created then so can a straw country. My last comment, too, Buggy Bill.