If I'm Burke, they sure as hell are not sending his paychecks to the right address hahahahaha.
I might be Mouse Davis too - remember him, the greatly misnamed "run and shoot".
If I'm Burke, they sure as hell are not sending his paychecks to the right address hahahahaha.
I might be Mouse Davis too - remember him, the greatly misnamed "run and shoot".
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Originally Posted by pbmax
Neither "Success Rate" or "Expected Points Added" of run vs. pass under this analysis considers the score, time remaining, defensive/special teams impacts, or many other variables. This failure also undermines/nullifies the conclusion that coaches are only thinking one play at a time and not at the "game level."Implications
Coaches appear to be overly focused on play-level success (represented by SR) and not focused enough on drive-level (represented by EPA) and game-level success (represented by WPA). They’ll spend late nights in the film room dissecting every possible match-up for the slightest advantage on a single play, but they’ll ignore the numbers that suggest they pass more or go for it on 4th down. They’re looking down at the sport from a 10-foot ladder when they should also be looking at it from the 10,000-foot level.
It's clear that NFL coaches, contrary to the conclusion he draws, are very willing to risk "failing" on specific plays to set up greater successes later, protect a deficiency in anther area, and/or put themselves in position to win the game by expiring the time clock.
The suggested conclusion that teams should pass every time and go for it on 4th down until this over-simplified analytical perspective reaches equilibrium does not encompass other real-world complexities into its model.
Last edited by vince; 09-27-2016 at 06:27 AM.
And what a success that's proven to be.
The Packers oline isn't the leagues best but it's pretty close to top 10 at minimum.
The problems with the offense are/were due to lack of tempo and quick rhythm/timing in the passing game, not the oline or a run-first approach. That should be clear from the last game.
Which half?
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
The first half. In the second half the Packers defense/lions offense combined with being ahead by multiple scores, dictated a change in strategy. Other than the holding call in the 3rd, dropped pass by Davis on first down which stopped the clock in the 4th, and the miss by cobb/rodgers on third down it worked well.
It's seemingly surprising to some that playing "not to lose" when up multiple scores results in "not losing" almost all the time - unless you want to argue that teams play "to win" when they win but "not to lose" when they lose. One notable and highly unlikely exception notwithstanding.
Much of the work being done focuses on the first and third quarters. When game plan is likely to be a higher priority than game situation. Or at least, as high as it will be.
Expected Points are based on that situation, when the game is within 10 points. That removes time as a factor. EPA definitely takes into account field position.
I would argue that a focus on the clock in the 3rd Quarter is counter productive if you have the lead. If you are not having success (failure to secure first downs) or EPA (increasing chances of scoring), then you are at best thinking three plays ahead, either causing an opponent to call timeouts. At worst, you have chosen very early to engage in a low variability strategy when your opponent will be engaged in a high variability one. If you are trying to milk clock that early, you will give your opponent more opportunities from better field position, making the high variability approach more successful.
There are simply too many variables to think of clock mainly in the third quarter. You do better by your defense if you move the ball and score.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
That's inarguable but uncertain conclusion until after the fact. There are multiple facets to helping the defense when they're struggling.
Playing up tempo and risking clock mismanagement isn't generally considered the best - unless it works with the benefit of hindsight.
not moving the chains and staying on the field left the Packers d on the field a lot...11 more minutes than detroit's d to be exact.
Packers temp fate with this tactic too often and it got stupid for no reason on sunday.
I think this is a misrepresentation of the 2nd half. We had the ball for 5 minutes during the 1st 18 minutes of the 2nd half. That 5 minute drive was our longest of the game. Our longest drive in the 1st half was a little under 4 minutes. We went 47 yards and holding penalty stopped us from scoring a TD most likely. Instead we kicked a FG. Our D couldn't stop DET in the 2nd half but didn't let DET get any quick strike points until 4 minutes left in the game.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
