Studs and duds browns

[sschind]

So the Packers deserved to win, the Browns did not. And in a year, no one will remember anyway.

while I do believe there are games where you can legitimately say the losing team deserved to win (or vice versa) this was not one of them. IMO throwing 4 interceptions does not put you in the deserved to win category. For the most part I think they played well enough to win in the end but 4 interceptions and like you said, the failure to ride Chubb makes them not deserving of the win.

The problem with what ifs is often only take 1 factor, often only 1 play, into consideration and they don't consider what might have happened had that 1 play gone differently. What if Douglas hadn't made that interception? Maybe Clark would have have gotten a strip sack TD on the next play and we would have won by even more. What if we wouldn't have gotten that first interception to atop that drive? Maybe Cleveland would have scored TD on that drive and MLF would have kept his foot on the gas all game and we would have ended up with 3 more TDs.

Yup, its fun to play what ifs but if you are going to play you have to play all the way.

 

[Heyjoe4]

while I do believe there are games where you can legitimately say the losing team deserved to win (or vice versa) this was not one of them. IMO throwing 4 interceptions does not put you in the deserved to win category. For the most part I think they played well enough to win in the end but 4 interceptions and like you said, the failure to ride Chubb makes them not deserving of the win.

The problem with what ifs is often only take 1 factor, often only 1 play, into consideration and they don't consider what might have happened had that 1 play gone differently. What if Douglas hadn't made that interception? Maybe Clark would have have gotten a strip sack TD on the next play and we would have won by even more. What if we wouldn't have gotten that first interception to atop that drive? Maybe Cleveland would have scored TD on that drive and MLF would have kept his foot on the gas all game and we would have ended up with 3 more TDs.

Yup, its fun to play what ifs but if you are going to play you have to play all the way.

Exactly. And if you're gonna play "what if" - well, it's a fool's errand.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That hasn't been what's happening most of the year though. I think the odds are better for us to start out eating the clock with a long drive to begin the game. The other way around is getting the D tired right from the start. And then the O comes out stale. And the D comes right back in. And it may seem like it's double dipping but really, it is the same number of getting the ball. How many points we have scored on that first drive is not as important as how much time we have lost and how well the opponents have done. I don't expect a change but would like to see one.

While the Packers offense has run only the 27th most plays only six defenses have been on the field for less plays in the first quarter this season.

I think it's been poor play calling. Especially recently. Over the last month I think both LaFleur and Barry have been getting worked by opposing coaches. The whole business, of most of this season, the Packers not coming out looking sharp falls on the entire coaching staff imo.

It seems to me that for some weird reason the scripted plays MLF and the coaching staff have drawn up don't work as well as the ones he's calling once he adjusts to the defense during a game.

 

[gopkrs]

While the Packers offense has run only the 27th most plays only six defenses have been on the field for less plays in the first quarter this season.

These two stats are hard for me to wrap my brain around. The Pack runs a lot fewer plays in the 1st quarter than the rest of the league and their D is on the field less than the rest of the league. Doesn't sound right. What I really don't like is when the other team takes the kickoff and runs a lot of time off the clock while marching down the field. Then our O comes on the field and their D is pumped and we look stale. Not a good way to start off the game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What I really don't like is when the other team takes the kickoff and runs a lot of time off the clock while marching down the field. Then our O comes on the field and their D is pumped and we look stale. Not a good way to start off the game.

Agreed. I was fine with deferring when our defense was playing well, but lately, I would prefer starting the game with the offense, hopefully marching down and scoring. Seems like teams like to go into the locker room at half time, make adjustments and then receive the second half kick off. The Packers are 8th in the NFL on average points scored (6.5) in the 3rd Q., so it is hard to argue with success and a 12-3 record.

 

[Heyjoe4]

These two stats are hard for me to wrap my brain around. The Pack runs a lot fewer plays in the 1st quarter than the rest of the league and their D is on the field less than the rest of the league. Doesn't sound right. What I really don't like is when the other team takes the kickoff and runs a lot of time off the clock while marching down the field. Then our O comes on the field and their D is pumped and we look stale. Not a good way to start off the game.

I can understand that the Packer offense isn't on the field much in Q1. But then I would expect their D would be on the field a lot in Q1. So yeah, it is confusing.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Agreed. I was fine with deferring when our defense was playing well, but lately, I would prefer starting the game with the offense, hopefully marching down and scoring. Seems like teams like to go into the locker room at half time, make adjustments and then receive the second half kick off. The Packers are 8th in the NFL on average points scored (6.5) in the 3rd Q., so it is hard to argue with success and a 12-3 record.

Yeah these days, with so many teams hurt by Covid, I'd rather defer, see what the other team has got, and adjust at halftime. As you say, 12-3 is hard to argue with.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

These two stats are hard for me to wrap my brain around. The Pack runs a lot fewer plays in the 1st quarter than the rest of the league and their D is on the field less than the rest of the league. Doesn't sound right. What I really don't like is when the other team takes the kickoff and runs a lot of time off the clock while marching down the field. Then our O comes on the field and their D is pumped and we look stale. Not a good way to start off the game.

I can understand that the Packer offense isn't on the field much in Q1. But then I would expect their D would be on the field a lot in Q1. So yeah, it is confusing.

The explanation is pretty simply as plays don't take the same amount of time. In addition there are teams that snap the ball faster than others.

Here's a link to pass and rush plays in the first quarter this season:

Loading…

stathead.com

 

[gopkrs]

The explanation is pretty simply as plays don't take the same amount of time. In addition there are teams that snap the ball faster than others.

Maybe a better stat would be the number of plays. Rodgers does tend to run the clock down before hiking. If the other side is playing faster; I guess that would tend to make our D just that much more tired. Kind of a misleading stat because you can just look at that side of the equation and think that The Packers have had the ball equally with the other team. Whereas those long drives to start the game make that pretty much impossible. Yes, w/o turnovers they both will have had close to the same number of opportunities. But it is not equal. I hope we mix in some quicker snaps come playoffs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Maybe a better stat would be the number of plays.

I was talking about the number of plays run in the first quarter.

 

[gopkrs]

I was talking about the number of plays run in the first quarter.

Did you get your two stats from two different sources? Because together they don't make sense.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Did you get your two stats from two different sources? Because together they don't make sense.

A low # of offensive plays in Q1 by the Packers makes sense. They just don't start fast. Then I would expect the D to be on the field a lot. And just the reverse for opponents. Lots of O, not much D. Fortunately, the Packers make it up in Q2 where I think they're #1 in pts scored. Ya gotta get to 13-3 somehow! I'll take it. Now, get some IR guys back and plow through the playoffs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Did you get your two stats from two different sources? Because together they don't make sense.

Click on the link I posted above and take a look at the numbers on your own.

As mentioned before, you need to realize that there aren't the same amount of plays run in the first quarter of each game.