Vic Ketchmab calls a spade a spade with fans who live in fantasy

[vince]

I would not be happy about the D surrendering a TD, but I could understand the loss if the Packers did everything to drain clock and score points.

But getting to the edge of FG range and running wide with a front that telegraphs run is not my idea of efficient play calling. If it was the old U71 then it has a history of success and positive yards. The current Packers run wide at their own risk these days.

I actually think this was a ballsy call, because while I have not looked at the play again since the game, I bet if Spriggs had deflected that DE, the edge of the field was wide open except for a CB being blocked by a WR. With one more block, it might spring. But the downside was potentially huge.

I actually like the call much better from the 25, where a loss of a few yards probably doesn't affect the kick.

I guess my prescription then is run normal offense with passes even late when tied and on edge of FG range.

I won't speculate on the reason for your continued blind spot here PB, but the downside was mitigated by the play call despite the "downward" outcome of the individual play. The larger downside of attempting a pass play it in that situation can only be mitigated by refusing to acknowledge its existence.

Also, it can't be any more clear given the actual results that the loss of a few yards in that situation didn't "affect the kick" as your revisionism suggests.

[hoosier]

Results are real, yes, but because decisions do not have predetermined outcomes I think one needs to consider percentages when evaluating a given decision.

[pbmax]

I won't speculate on the reason for your continued blind spot here PB, but the downside was mitigated by the play call despite the "downward" outcome of the individual play. The larger downside of attempting a pass play it in that situation can only be mitigated by refusing to acknowledge its existence.

Also, it can't be any more clear given the actual results that the loss of a few yards in that situation didn't "affect the kick" as your revisionism suggests.

This is why I prefer to look at this with numbers. With a 50-55% chance of a FG, I would love to know the relative risk of the choices between a 51 yard FD (kneeling), a 56 yard FG (run wide left) or a play action pass.

I think you have done a very good job of explicating the risk of a pass here. I think its easy to figure out a FG here is no sure thing and a 5 yard longer FG is a worse option. But this is only the risk side of the equation. We don't know the upside of a completion, the likelihood of it being made multiplied by its effect on the game situation.

[vince]

This is why I prefer to look at this with numbers. With a 50-55% chance of a FG, I would love to know the relative risk of the choices between a 51 yard FD (kneeling), a 56 yard FG (run wide left) or a play action pass.

I think you have done a very good job of explicating the risk of a pass here. I think its easy to figure out a FG here is no sure thing and a 5 yard longer FG is a worse option. But this is only the risk side of the equation. We don't know the upside of a completion, the likelihood of it being made multiplied by its effect on the game situation.

Just as a 5-yard (or more) longer field goal would be in the event of a blind-side sack on a pass play, the downside possibility of which you ignore in your hypothetical guaranteed-to-succeed alternative.