Possible to score too soon?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Packers had 4 downs to score from 1 1/2 yard line. About a minute and a half left. Dallas using timeouts.

I say you waste a down or two with QB sneaks to run down clock, make Dallas use final timeout.

As vindication of my thinking, the talking heads on radio are saying that Dallas obviously let GB score on first down.

[channtheman]

I understand the logic in all of it completely. But I say no, you can't score too soon. I want the lead first and foremost, disregard the clock and everything else.

[CaptainKickass]

I felt that the Pack sort of milked as much clock as they could on the end of that drive. If it were a game of Madden, I would have taken a couple knees before running on 3rd down, but that type of Madden strategy rarely applies to actual NFL play.

Plus, this particular D needed/needs to prove they can seal the deal. I felt they did that.

[red]

i didn't like the throw to jones on second and 1 from the 3 or 4. i thought a run there might have gotten the first down and kept the clock running

i didn't like all the time we left on the clock after the TD, but i don't like the idea of taking a knee and wasting a down when you need a TD yet to win. we've been stuffed before on the goal line, there was no guarantee that we score from the 2 or 1 or 2 plays

[pbmax]

You cannot risk not getting the TD in that scenario. You need all downs and can't waste them eating clock. Agree that the pass play might make more sense on 3rd or esp. 4th down.

[bobblehead]

Packers had 4 downs to score from 1 1/2 yard line. About a minute and a half left. Dallas using timeouts.

I say you waste a down or two with QB sneaks to run down clock, make Dallas use final timeout.

As vindication of my thinking, the talking heads on radio are saying that Dallas obviously let GB score on first down.

Just like going for it on almost every 4th down is a nice theory, taking a knee or sneak to make dallas burn the last timeout is a nice theory....until they stop you 3 times and you needed that extra shot.

[woodbuck27]

Maybe MM didn't expect Eddie Lacy to get that TD so easily?

To show us all that he's the next coming of Super Man.

Eddie...he can fly.

That was impressive. It'll make the highlight reel this week.

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Packers_RB_Eddie_Lacy_1yard_TD_run/8c97071c-289e-442e-a280-943b222123a3

[smuggler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1vjdEfxjX8

[Little Whiskey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1vjdEfxjX8
What the hell was that?!

[woodbuck27]

i didn't like the throw to jones on second and 1 from the 3 or 4. i thought a run there might have gotten the first down and kept the clock running

i didn't like all the time we left on the clock after the TD, but i don't like the idea of taking a knee and wasting a down when you need a TD yet to win. we've been stuffed before on the goal line, there was no guarantee that we score from the 2 or 1 or 2 plays

The thing is red the Dallas 'D' doesn't contain the run well at all.

I felt it was prudent to take at least one knee. What would that do take about 42 seconds off the clock.

Then we have plenty left to score.... them not so much.

The thing is we must SCORE.There's a tremendous built up excitement and you make the run call and get errrr done.

Your 'D' has played very well in that second half.

You think total team win.

That's what we got in that second half and no Packer fan in the World (LOL...in his right mind) would have even imagined that huge comeback taking place. I'm sure happy I stayed for the ride.

Now it's Pittsburg and I hope it's Aaron Rodgers.

I'm thinking this AM it had better be. I'm sure that Aaron is stompin' at the bit like a wild stallion. MM doesn't have the parts to hold him out.

MM has it covered.

Ohh .....I forgot >>> Dr. Patrick McKenzie...He runs that show.

PACKERS !

[Cheesehead Craig]

You score when you can when you are losing. Let your defense man up for change and stop the opposing team.

[Harlan Huckleby]

i don't like the idea of taking a knee and wasting a down when you need a TD yet to win.

I didn't say take a knee. Do a QB sneak to move ball closer to goal line. I'd at least do that for one play to kill some time, and if QB sneak scores, OK.

[channtheman]

I didn't say take a knee. Do a QB sneak to move ball closer to goal line. I'd at least do that for one play to kill some time, and if QB sneak scores, OK.

The way I see it, that's basically what we did. Instead of risking injury to noodle arm Flynn though, we just ran Lacy. Lacy just happened to score.

I could see an argument about the 2nd and 1 pass though.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just like going for it on almost every 4th down is a nice theory, taking a knee or sneak to make dallas burn the last timeout is a nice theory....until they stop you 3 times and you needed that extra shot.

There is no perfect decision.

Let me turn it around: do you agree with Dallas's apparent decision to let the Packers to score on first down and preserve some clock?

I like that decision, that's their best odds, IMO. To be consistent, you have to say it was dumb.

[channtheman]

There is no perfect decision.

Let me turn it around: do you agree with Dallas's apparent decision to let the Packers to score on first down and preserve some clock?

I like that decision, that's their best odds, IMO. To be consistent, you have to say it was dumb.


I don't think so. Our best chance to win was to score. Dallas best chance to win at that point was to let us score.

edit: Lact going airborne didn't necessarily look like big D let us score though. They could have, it just wasn't obvious to me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Our best chance to win was to score. Dallas best chance to win at that point was to let us score.

:lol:

You might want to think that one through.

[channtheman]

:lol:

You might want to think that one through.

LOL, you're right. With their defense, they have to be thinking "we won't stop them on 4 straight plays."

But that implies we try on 4 straight plays.

I'm still recovering from the comeback win and the emotional ride from season over to still hope! Cut me some slack!

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer on this one.

I say the Packer defense was highly suspect, better take some more time off the clock.

[hoosier]

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer on this one.

I say the Packer defense was highly suspect, better take some more time off the clock.

I think there is clearly a right answer. It begins with the fact that the Packers have been putrid in the red zone this year, and have had problems on short yardage for years. I have a sense of dread every time I see them line up on 3rd and short, and the addition of Lacy and his hard charging ways hasn't eased those fears very much. I was hoping they would slow it down a little in the red zone, but flopping on the ball to kill the clock would have risked a very demoralizing end. Better to score any way you can and give your defense a chance to hold, and they get a boost of confidence out of it as well. If they give up a quick score to Dallas at the end, well, that probably means this team wasn't going to go very far in any case.

[channtheman]

Was just thinking about a game all Badger fans will be familiar with. Early this year against ASU, Wisconsin had a chance with around 17 seconds left to kick a field goal. They took a knee, the refs horribly mismanaged the end of the game, and the Badgers didn't even get a chance to score. The Badgers did everything "right" and got screwed by unforeseen circumstances. In football, anything can happen, and most of the time when the clock ticks to 0 no one cares and the result doesn't change.

[MadScientist]

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer on this one.

I say the Packer defense was highly suspect, better take some more time off the clock.
Ideally they would leave Dallas with less time, but in a situation where it is a touchdown or a loss, you have to try. Trying in a way that would keep the clock running if they didn't score was absolutely the right call. You can't risk a goal line failure no matter how crappy the Dallas defense was playing. If this were a case of a field goal wins, or even a FG ties, TD wins then yes milk the clock.

It didn't look like Dallas let the Packers score, but that would have been a reasonable strategy for them, given their defense did not really seem to be up to the task of a goal line stand.

Of course since the Packers won, it was obviously the right call.

[woodbuck27]

LOL, you're right. With their defense, they have to be thinking "we won't stop them on 4 straight plays."

But that implies we try on 4 straight plays.

I'm still recovering from the comeback win and the emotional ride from season over to still hope! Cut me some slack!

This is the classic circle jerk question in terms of the correct response.

As far as I saw it then I was concerned that we scored too soon; torn because we needed to score.

When you introduce the factor of the stress and excitement we all felt at the time you cut the HC a break on that call.

If any Packer fan felt that game was in the bag after Eddie Lacy's flying TD to put us over them at 37-36. That fan has a lot more faith that this fan. Sadly I cannot purchase faith at the Sunday morning flea market.

My faith is an acquired experience based in probability. Probability based in experience and sound logic.

[MadScientist]

If any Packer fan felt that game was in the bag after Eddie Lacy's flying TD to put us over them at 37-36. That fan has a lot more faith that this fan. Sadly I cannot purchase faith at the Sunday morning flea market.

My faith is an acquired experience based in probability. Probability based in experience and sound logic.
Yes, but then shouldn't you have had enough faith in Romo (especially in December) to fuck up in the end to give you some hope?

[pbmax]

Were the Boys letting them score? The guy Raji blocked didn't look interested in taking on Lacy but it was a near certain, if not completed TD by the time he had his shot.

The D line looked like they were trying to stop it.

[woodbuck27]

Yes, but then shouldn't you have had enough faith in Romo (especially in December) to fuck up in the end to give you some hope?

I'm a Pro Pickem player and have been for the last eight years.

I don't count my CP's until I see the word 'FINAL' over the scoreboard.

[woodbuck27]

Were the Boys letting them score? The guy Raji blocked didn't look interested in taking on Lacy but it was a near certain, if not completed TD by the time he had his shot.

The D line looked like they were trying to stop it.

These fellas have at least some pride. In that situation I'd be shocked if that entire defensive front wasn't dug in to stop any rush for six.

Yea right... " let's just let the Packers score and get the lead so we can get the ball back and win this one late."

No way Hose.

[denverYooper]

Were the Boys letting them score? The guy Raji blocked didn't look interested in taking on Lacy but it was a near certain, if not completed TD by the time he had his shot.

The D line looked like they were trying to stop it.

Quarless got trashed on the play.

[ThunderDan]

I wanted the Pack to score the TD with 0:00 on the clock. If they then failed on the last play it was a horrible call and they should have scored right away.

But trailing by 5 you don't waste time on purpose by trying not to score. Sure I wished there was less time on the clock but if you don't have the lead you can't win. I would have felt even better had we gotten the 2 pointer after the TD.

[QBME]

These fellas have at least some pride. In that situation I'd be shocked if that entire defensive front wasn't dug in to stop any rush for six.

Yea right... " let's just let the Packers score and get the lead so we can get the ball back and win this one late."

No way Hose.

That's exactly what Mike Holmgren did in the 1998 Superbowl. Purposely let the Bronco's score the go ahead touchdown to give the Packers offense as much time as possible to come back and score. IIRC, he screwed up a little and wasted some time, but he did let them score.

[ThunderDan]

These fellas have at least some pride. In that situation I'd be shocked if that entire defensive front wasn't dug in to stop any rush for six.

Yea right... " let's just let the Packers score and get the lead so we can get the ball back and win this one late."

No way Hose.

Mad, I think you need to help Woody out here with the Spanish!

[ThunderDan]

That's exactly what Mike Holmgren did in the 1998 Superbowl. Purposely let the Bronco's score the go ahead touchdown to give the Packers offense as much time as possible to come back and score. IIRC, he screwed up a little and wasted some time, but he did let them score.

Just going to post the same thing.

[woodbuck27]

That's exactly what Mike Holmgren did in the 1998 Superbowl. Purposely let the Bronco's score the go ahead touchdown to give the Packers offense as much time as possible to come back and score. IIRC, he screwed up a little and wasted some time, but he did let them score.

I wouldn't have known that not being a member of any forum. I do recall that the Packers were heavy favourites.

Mostly what I remember was Super Bowl Game MVP Terrell Davis running all over our defense doing his best impression of a human wrecking ball. What a game and season Terrell Davis had.

[pbmax]

McGinn today: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/bizarre-cowboys-play-calling-spurs-historic-packers-comeback-b99164140z1-235969701.html


By this time, the overmatched Dallas defenders were fatigued and offering no resistance. It got so bad that Garrett gave the order to let Eddie Lacy score from the 1 on first down to preserve time for the offense.

[woodbuck27]

McGinn today: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/bizarre-cowboys-play-calling-spurs-historic-packers-comeback-b99164140z1-235969701.html

WOW !

[hoosier]

That's exactly what Mike Holmgren did in the 1998 Superbowl. Purposely let the Bronco's score the go ahead touchdown to give the Packers offense as much time as possible to come back and score. IIRC, he screwed up a little and wasted some time, but he did let them score.

Actually Holmie screwed up (arguably) by getting the down wrong! With 1:45 left he thought it was first and goal but it was really second down when he ordered the D to let Davis score.

[RashanGary]

4 down goal-line stands happen every year. 1 down goal-line stops happen all of the time. If you try to milk clock, you'd be getting very arrogant with your ability to score, at will, on one or two downs.

In a perfect world, you just go out there like a cat playing with an injured mouse. You bat that little fucker around, watch it squirm for it's life, then when you're ready, or when you tire of the game, you bite it's head off and have a good meal.

Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, and the Packers had to score that TD to win the game. I would have done three running plays in a row, followed by a pass. I would have tried on every one.

If we needed just a field goal to win, I would have milked the clock. I like the odds of Crosby from 19 better than the odds of a defensive stop with 1:30. I don't like the odds of getting a TD on 4th and goal from the 1 nearly as much as the field goal, hence it's completely different.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If we needed just a field goal to win, I would have milked the clock.

no kidding?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It didn't look like Dallas let the Packers score, but that would have been a reasonable strategy for them, given their defense did not really seem to be up to the task of a goal line stand.

If it is a reasonable strategy for Dallas to let pack score, then it is an equally reasonable strategy that the Packers should delay scoring.

You have to separate the emotions from the odds. Ya, it's very stressful to give up a down with a half-hearted QB sneak. The coach looks extra foolish, the team and fans are extra demoralized if the strategy fails. This is where testicles come into play. It is an uncomfortable decision to delay scoring, but it is probably the best chance of winning. Especially because Dallas only needed to get into field goal position to win, and the Packer D was not so herculean.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That's exactly what Mike Holmgren did in the 1998 Superbowl. Purposely let the Bronco's score the go ahead touchdown to give the Packers offense as much time as possible to come back and score. IIRC, he screwed up a little and wasted some time, but he did let them score.

That was the right call, and I don't remember the fans questioning it.

[woodbuck27]

Mad, I think you need to help Woody out here with the Spanish!

OK Spelling Nazi... how's this:

No way Jose.

Never slip up for a moment while your stalking woodbuck27. . . . Eh... ThunderDan.

A suggestion for you:

Maybe? try being busy with something decent/constructive... I might have suggested that...

sinon juste peut-être? .... vous pouvez faire chier ou plus claire ... Va te faire foutre.

I'm wiser than that and realistic. :wink:

Back to you and stalking. It's generally considered bad forum behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Traquer dans le forum est considéré comme mauvais Etiquette

[Harlan Huckleby]

I wouldn't trust Mad's spanish. He went to night school and got a B.

[QBME]

That was the right call, and I don't remember the fans questioning it.

Yep. I was just responding to another poster who didn't seem to fathom that a team might let another team score on purpose.

[QBME]

I wouldn't trust Mad's spanish. He went to night school and got a B.

Nice Cheeh & Chong reference...

[ThunderDan]

OK Spelling Nazi... how's this:

No way Jose.

Never slip up for a moment while your stalking woodbuck27. . . . Eh... ThunderDan.

A suggestion for you:

Maybe? try being busy with something decent/constructive... I might have suggested that...

sinon juste peut-être? .... vous pouvez faire chier ou plus claire ... Va te faire foutre.

I'm wiser than that and realistic. :wink:

Back to you and stalking. It's generally considered bad forum behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Traquer dans le forum est considéré comme mauvais Etiquette


Double damage!


Are you talking about your avatar? :clap:

It's called humor you old codger.

I do it to anyone. And by the way you spelled Hose correctly.

As friend of mine says "Hose A and Hose B" instead of Jose and friend.

Why don't you just chill out and stop jumping to all these conclusions.

[pbmax]

That was the right call, and I don't remember the fans questioning it.

They did question it. Those slower on the uptake thought it was a travesty of justice. Those who thought it was a good idea thought he should have done it a play earlier.

[MadtownPacker]

I wouldn't trust Mad's spanish. He went to night school and got a B.
Been a while since I busted this one out. No mejor tiempo que en presento.

http://youtu.be/LLqqZmNFa_A

[pbmax]

If it is a reasonable strategy for Dallas to let pack score, then it is an equally reasonable strategy that the Packers should delay scoring.

Nope the options are unequal. For every down the Packers waste, the Cowboys have more incentive NOT to let them score. The more time you waste, the more difficult you will find it to score based on opposition.

But mainly they are unequal because a FG would not do it, they HAD to have a TD and that is no sure thing even with four downs. A FG on fourth down is a reasonable risk. A TD attempt on fourth down is too large a risk.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nope the options are unequal. For every down the Packers waste, the Cowboys have more incentive NOT to let them score. The more time you waste, the more difficult you will find it to score based on opposition.

But mainly they are unequal because a FG would not do it, they HAD to have a TD and that is no sure thing even with four downs. A FG on fourth down is a reasonable risk. A TD attempt on fourth down is too large a risk.

I think you are over-thinking this. We have a zero sum game. One team's increased chance of winning is matched exactly by the other team's decreased chances of winning.

If it's true that an action by Dallas on a particular down increases their chances of winning, by definition GB should prevent that action from happening. Further analysis just muddies the water.

[pbmax]

I think you are over-thinking this. We have a zero sum game. One team's increased chance of winning is matched exactly by the other team's decreased chances of winning.

If it's true that an action by Dallas on a particular down increases their chances of winning, by definition GB should prevent that action from happening. Further analysis just muddies the water.

I don't know where you come by your analytical skills, but why does zero sum allow you to think one-dimensionally?

There are several more plays to be run, the clock is a factor as is scoring. And you cannot predict the outcome (scoring) by the choice (play call). The priority of the three variables (four if you count possession) has to be to score.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There are several more plays to be run, the clock is a factor as is scoring. And you cannot predict the outcome (scoring) by the choice (play call). The priority of the three variables (four if you count possession) has to be to score.

There are many factors to consider, including game flow, how the defenses are playing. The correct decision here is debatable. The priority is to score, but that doesn't mean you ignore the clock, and the odds of Dallas coming back with a field goal. Leaving yourself with 3 downs to score is a good trade-off for burning Dallas's last timeout, IMO. It's a judgement call.

You are suggesting that there is a right answer, and Dallas was foolish to allow GB to score. You can't have it both ways. It can not both be smart for GB to try to score and smart for Dallas to allow a score.

[pbmax]

There are many factors to consider, including game flow, how the defenses are playing. The correct decision here is debatable. The priority is to score, but that doesn't mean you ignore the clock, and the odds of Dallas coming back with a field goal. Leaving yourself with 3 downs to score is a good trade-off for burning Dallas's last timeout, IMO. It's a judgement call.

You are suggesting that there is a right answer, and Dallas was foolish to allow GB to score. You can't have it both ways. It can not both be smart for GB to try to score and smart for Dallas to allow a score.

They are probabilities, not right answers. If I insists that one choice is superior, its not because its foolproof, but because I believe all other options are poorer than my choice.

Dallas was not foolish to allow GB to score. GB had to score to take the lead, so ANY time left benefitted Dallas, including the remote though real chance that GB doesn't score. GB was not foolish to score immediately. The status quo does not win you the game. You must have a TD and the lead for the clock to become an important consideration. Without scoring the clock is irrelevant because there is so little time left another possession does not benefit them.

The opportunity to score a TD was paramount, the time it took to do so was important, but not as important as the lead.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Dallas was not foolish to allow GB to score.
Then GB was foolish to score. This is not an opinion, it is the logic any zero-sum-game.

You are confusing the situation by arguing that any given outcome is part of a chain of desired outcomes in a strategy. I would go one step further, and say that because it is a zero-sum-game, you also have to analyse how the outcome affects the strategy for the other team.

You can do all the analysis that you want and justify why any particular decision is foolish. But you can't escape the fact that a desirable outcome for one team must be an undesirable outcome for the other. Or put another way, if two teams in a zero-sum-game are seeking the same outcome, one MUST be making a foolish choice.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Or put another way, if two teams in a zero-sum-game are seeking the same outcome, one MUST be making a foolish choice.

The Cowboys were foolish in playing games in December, when they have proven they stink.

[hoosier]

Then GB was foolish to score. This is not an opinion, it is the logic any zero-sum-game.

You are confusing the situation by arguing that any given outcome is part of a chain of desired outcomes in a strategy. I would go one step further, and say that because it is a zero-sum-game, you also have to analyse how the outcome affects the strategy for the other team.

You can do all the analysis that you want and justify why any particular decision is foolish. But you can't escape the fact that a desirable outcome for one team must be an undesirable outcome for the other. Or put another way, if two teams in a zero-sum-game are seeking the same outcome, one MUST be making a foolish choice.

What if Dallas "let" the Packers score in order to lure them into refusing that offer and running a play designed to come up short of the goal line. Then, starting on second down, Dallas's plan would be to sell out and try to stop GB at all costs. The benefit for Dallas is that Green Bay has voluntarily given up one of its four tries at the end zone.

[pbmax]

When you are behind by more than a FG, it cannot be foolish to score a TD. You cannot optimize defense of a lead with a lead.

You are constructing an argument for a game situation we did not experience Sunday.

[red]

What if Dallas "let" the Packers score in order to lure them into refusing that offer and running a play designed to come up short of the goal line. Then, starting on second down, Dallas's plan would be to sell out and try to stop GB at all costs. The benefit for Dallas is that Green Bay has voluntarily given up one of its four tries at the end zone.

heres an idea

you take a knee let the clock run down. the cowboys are then gonna try and stop you when they know you're really going to try. on the next play, you line up like your going to kneel it, lull them to sleep, and run a qb sneak

honestly, i agree with hoosier. if you take a knee on the play where they are trying to let you score they are gonna change their mentality. all you've done is waste an opportunity to score. instead of 4 tries for a TD, you now only have 3

[ThunderDan]

heres an idea

you take a knee let the clock run down. the cowboys are then gonna try and stop you when they know you're really going to try. on the next play, you line up like your going to kneel it, lull them to sleep, and run a qb sneak

honestly, i agree with hoosier. if you take a knee on the play where they are trying to let you score they are gonna change their mentality. all you've done is waste an opportunity to score. instead of 4 tries for a TD, you now only have 3

I believe that Dallas had two time outs remaining. The simply would have called the TOs if the Packers downed it and would have only had to stop the Pack on 3rd and 4th down for the win.

Two shots from the 1 this year I would probably feel OK with. Last year I would have puked a little in mouth thinking they need the 1 yard to win.

[red]

I believe that Dallas had two time outs remaining. The simply would have called the TOs if the Packers downed it and would have only had to stop the Pack on 3rd and 4th down for the win.

Two shots from the 1 this year I would probably feel OK with. Last year I would have puked a little in mouth thinking they need the 1 yard to win.

oh, i didn't know they had two timouts left

then there's no way you take knees to burn off the clock. you wouldn't be able to burn clock until third down. that leaves you with one chance, or 4th down, from the 3 or 4

no fucking way

[hoosier]

Dallas only had one timeout left after Lacy took it to the Dall 1. 1st and goal from the one with 1:34 remaining. You would have to flop on it twice to run the clock down significantly, and that leaves 3rd and goal which is cutting it too close for my taste.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2013121512/2013/REG15/packers@cowboys#menu=drivechart&tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

[Cleft Crusty]

Or put another way, if two teams in a zero-sum-game are seeking the same outcome, one MUST be making a foolish choice.

That is a very foolish comment.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Dallas only had one timeout left after Lacy took it to the Dall 1.

Do it once to get Dallas to burn their final timeout.


I really am alarmed at the number of people who think that the Packers scoring quickly can be a good thing for both the Packers and the Cowboys. Only one team gets to win, anything that increases the odds of one team winning decreases the odds of the other team winning.

[woodbuck27]

Do it once to get Dallas to burn their final timeout.


I really am alarmed at the number of people who think that the Packers scoring quickly can be a good thing for both the Packers and the Cowboys. Only one team gets to win, anything that increases the odds of one team winning decreases the odds of the other team winning.

You know what's really strange and some:

Some see it and simply forget to examine it for a better way.

For going on two decades I worked in the Canadian nuclear Power Industry ending with over a decade spent as a trouble shooter in a power plant.

We studied ways to work. We discovered improved ways to get the job done right which means more than 'just getting the job done'.

That way often translates to less error in the future and as an added bonus ... less repeated error.

[woodbuck27]

That is a very foolish comment.

Wasn't his post at least thought provoking?

[red]

i'll bring up something that no one else has

a QB kneeling down also results in a loss of a yard or two

if we had knelt one time, to get them to burn a timeout then its second and goal from the 3 or so

if we take a knee again to run some time off the clock we lose another yard or so

3rd and goal from the 4, against a defense that is no trying to stop you

now keep in mind, OUR REDZONE OFFENSE FUCKING SUCKS THIS YEAR. an example is our failed 2 point attempt 1 play after the score

no thank you. take the points when you can. it was the right thing for the cowboys d to let us score, and it was the right thing for our offense to take that gift

imo

[MJZiggy]

heres an idea

you take a knee let the clock run down. the cowboys are then gonna try and stop you when they know you're really going to try. on the next play, you line up like your going to kneel it, lull them to sleep, and run a qb sneak

honestly, i agree with hoosier. if you take a knee on the play where they are trying to let you score they are gonna change their mentality. all you've done is waste an opportunity to score. instead of 4 tries for a TD, you now only have 3
No, because the part you're forgetting is that in a game of inches, when you take a knee, you lose a yard on the exchange. You've now put yourself in a situation of having to move a yard further with one less attempt. You're making a huge assumption that you can move the ball any distance you choose. If on that second play, Dallas comes back and blows you up in the backfield, you've cost yourself the goal line and possibly the game.

[red]

well i just got done saying that now didn't i?

look above you^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

typical of a woman not paying attention to her surroundings

[pbmax]

Do it once to get Dallas to burn their final timeout.


I really am alarmed at the number of people who think that the Packers scoring quickly can be a good thing for both the Packers and the Cowboys. Only one team gets to win, anything that increases the odds of one team winning decreases the odds of the other team winning.

You are simply confusing yourself by not comparing apples to apples. The Packers need to score. Dallas wants more clock. You simply forget to factor in the null case, where nothing happens or changes. The Packers lose no matter how much time the burn not scoring.

You imagine the Packers chances of winning improve with less time left, which is true but is a much smaller factor than the fact that they currently DO NOT HAVE THE LEAD!

[Joemailman]

Do it once to get Dallas to burn their final timeout.


I really am alarmed at the number of people who think that the Packers scoring quickly can be a good thing for both the Packers and the Cowboys. Only one team gets to win, anything that increases the odds of one team winning decreases the odds of the other team winning.

The problem with your argument is that the 2 teams are not on equal footing before the play is run. The Packers are behind. They need to score a touchdown. Period. That need is a bigger consideration than anything else. So it makes sense for them to take the touchdown whenever the opportunity presents itself. The Cowboys can play probabilities though. With the Packers having 1st and goal at the 1, the odds are strongly against them stopping the Packers from scoring. But the sooner the Packers score, the more time they have to move into field goal range.

Edit: PB beat me to the argument.

[bobblehead]

Then GB was foolish to score. This is not an opinion, it is the logic any zero-sum-game.

You are confusing the situation by arguing that any given outcome is part of a chain of desired outcomes in a strategy. I would go one step further, and say that because it is a zero-sum-game, you also have to analyse how the outcome affects the strategy for the other team.

You can do all the analysis that you want and justify why any particular decision is foolish. But you can't escape the fact that a desirable outcome for one team must be an undesirable outcome for the other. Or put another way, if two teams in a zero-sum-game are seeking the same outcome, one MUST be making a foolish choice.

This actually is a math problem. %chance to stop a score in 4 chances vs. %chance to take the kickoff and score a field goal. That is Dallas choice and somewhere some mathematician will figure it out for you (with assumptions that are hard to quantify).

GB must figure %chance to score in 1 try, 2 try, 3 try (each one weighed by dallas chance to score FG based on time left on the clock). GB could run it to 1 second and then try to score in 1 try right? But is it wise. Well, depends on your chances of doing that vs. Dallas chances of scoring by getting the ball back.

In the end the actual math based on league averages could be calculated to give you the "right" answer, but as I said in the 4th down bot, league averages aren't right in every situation, they are averages and thus not a good basis for calculation in THIS instance. That is why coaches make decisions in a game and might make different decisions from one game to the next. What they believe to be their chance to march for a FG right now might be very different than what they think their chances are next week. same goes for actually stopping us in 4 tries.

[bobblehead]

i take the points when you can. it was the right thing for the cowboys d to let us score, and it was the right thing for our offense to take that gift

imo

Your "opinion" is factually incorrect as HH stated. It can NOT be possible for it to be best for us AND them. They are known as mutually exclusive possibilities (events) and therefore can't be (mathematically speaking). If it was best for us to score it simply could NOT be best for Dallas IF we score. Does that make sense?

[bobblehead]

The problem with your argument is that the 2 teams are not on equal footing before the play is run. The Packers are behind. They need to score a touchdown. Period. That need is a bigger consideration than anything else. So it makes sense for them to take the touchdown whenever the opportunity presents itself. The Cowboys can play probabilities though. With the Packers having 1st and goal at the 1, the odds are strongly against them stopping the Packers from scoring. But the sooner the Packers score, the more time they have to move into field goal range.

Edit: PB beat me to the argument.

You should have let him, then only one person would be wrong.

[Joemailman]

Your "opinion" is factually incorrect as HH stated. It can NOT be possible for it to be best for us AND them. They are known as mutually exclusive possibilities (events) and therefore can't be (mathematically speaking). If it was best for us to score it simply could NOT be best for Dallas IF we score. Does that make sense?

I don't think I said the best thing for Dallas was for the Packers to score. But given the unlikelihood that the Packers could be stopped from scoring with 1st and goal from the 1, it made sense for Dallas to allow the Packers to score so that Dallas could get the ball back. It also made sense for the Packers to try to score, because they absolutely must have a touchdown.

[hoosier]

Do it once to get Dallas to burn their final timeout.


I really am alarmed at the number of people who think that the Packers scoring quickly can be a good thing for both the Packers and the Cowboys. Only one team gets to win, anything that increases the odds of one team winning decreases the odds of the other team winning.

What if Dallas is making a mistake by trying to let Lacy score? What if they are willing to concede the TD on 1st and goal from the 1 but would change their strategy on 2nd and goal? Is 2nd and goal still a gimme TD for the Packers in that situation? If so then it's clearly right to make Dallas burn their last TO. If it is no longer a gimme then I think you have to use all four of your shots at the TD.

[pbmax]

The proposition of Dallas allowing the Packers to score and the Packers attempting to score are not two sides of the same discrete decision. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

One contemplates a scenario in which they Packers WILL score a TD.

The other contemplates the possibility that a TD is no sure thing.

And each is a fair representation of the situation for decision-making purposes. Dallas has reason to expect the Packers to try to score as they are behind. The Packers cannot know if the Cowboys will actively resist on 1st down. Each subsequent down, it becomes more attractive to resist the TD attempt if the previous play resulted in no score.

[hoosier]

For going on two decades I worked in the Canadian nuclear Power Industry ending with over a decade spent as a trouble shooter in a power plant.

We studied ways to work. We discovered improved ways to get the job done

That is truly a frightening thought.

[Guiness]

I can't believe this thread is still going on...

[hoosier]

I can't believe this thread is still going on...

It is a tribute to Harlan's struggles with premature ejaculation. We need to keep it going as a way of showing solidarity.

[Harlan Huckleby]

a QB kneeling down also results in a loss of a yard or two

right, the suggestion is to do a QB sneak and advance the ball. It likely won't score, will make subsequent attempts more likely to succeed.


it was the right thing for the cowboys d to let us score, and it was the right thing for our offense to take that gift


http://blog.hostbaby.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/police-siren-animated.gif

STOP RIGHT THERE. I am alarmed. Shocked even. The same result can not help both teams win.

The rampant stupidity in the forum has depressed and frustrated me. My Christmas is ruined.

[Harlan Huckleby]

That is truly a frightening thought.

http://www.weloveflixfix.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Homer-Simpson.jpg

[bobblehead]

I don't think I said the best thing for Dallas was for the Packers to score. But given the unlikelihood that the Packers could be stopped from scoring with 1st and goal from the 1, it made sense for Dallas to allow the Packers to score so that Dallas could get the ball back. It also made sense for the Packers to try to score, because they absolutely must have a touchdown.

If your point is that they both THOUGHT what they were doing was right, then yes. Both sides could make the logical argument...yes. But obviously only one side was right.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The proposition of Dallas allowing the Packers to score and the Packers attempting to score are not two sides of the same discrete decision. They are NOT mutually exclusive.....And each is a fair representation of the situation for decision-making purposes.

Both sides may have defensible reasons for their decision. But since it is a zero sum game, you have to account for the possible success of both strategies. After taking all factors into consideration, only one side can be making a smart decision.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Packers were right because they won.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If your point is that they both THOUGHT what they were doing was right, then yes. Both sides could make the logical argument...yes. But obviously only one side was right.

Thank you, brother. Maybe there is hope for mankind.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Packers were right because they won.

Maybe they were right. Romo also could have advanced the ball another 30 yards. It is a close call.

[bobblehead]

The proposition of Dallas allowing the Packers to score and the Packers attempting to score are not two sides of the same discrete decision. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

.

They are mutually exclusive. We were in control of the decision to run a sneak for no gain. Again, to make that decision mathematically would mean calculating (and having the odds available) the odds of scoring still vs. the odds of Dallas scoring. You calculate the odds of each scenario, and the one that gives the best likelihood of a win is the course of action. Scenario A, take the gimme. The odds of winning are EXACTLY the odds of stopping dallas. Scenario 2. Burn the down and timeout, then odds of scoring on 2nd,3rd,4th weighted against the odds of stopping dallas. This is a much longer formula, but it will give you an exact chance of winning by taking a knee and you weigh that against the chance of winning by taking the gimme. You get an absolute answer.

NOW...if the scenario of taking the TD was the best likelihood of winning, then Dallas decision should be to try and stop us. THUS the 2 decisions are tied together and can not both be correct. If the scenario of taking the knee gave us the best chance to win, then Dallas decision would be to let us score. Again, they can't both be correct.

HH...good luck with the premature ejaculation problem, hope this is helping.

[Cleft Crusty]

But since it is a zero sum game, you have to account for the possible success of both strategies. After taking all factors into consideration, only one side can be making a smart decision.

This is absurd and self-contradictory. Since it is a zero sum game, and only one team can win, it often happens that the losing team makes a lot of smart decisions and still loses, just as the winning team can make terrible decisions and still come out on top. The question is whether a particular decision is reasonable and defensible. Packers kneeling down an extra down to force a Dallas time out/run the clock is reasonable. Dallas letting them score is reasonable. So is trying to stop them. Either one could work out. A decision is not rendered smart or stupid only based on the outcome of the game. You can't even entirely assess better or worse, because you only get to see the result for the choice you made. The speculation is of course entertaining, but absolutist claims that only one team can make a smart decision in a zero sum situation is patently false.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the losing team makes a lot of smart decisions and still loses .... only one team can make a smart decision in a zero sum situation is patently false.

When you're talking about a single decision, where both sides try and get the same outcome, one side has to be wrong. BECAUSE THAT DECISION MUST MAKE IT MORE LIKELY FOR ONE TEAM OR THE OTHER TO WIN, AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPACT ON BOTH STRATEGIES. This is true even though the decision is part of a more complicated strategy for each side.

We're going to just have to agree to be disagreeable

[MadtownPacker]

C'mon now, Harlan is the expert on trying to score too fast. Probably has even got arrested for trying.

[hoosier]

When you're talking about a single decision, where both sides try and get the same outcome, one side has to be wrong. BECAUSE THAT DECISION MUST MAKE IT MORE LIKELY FOR ONE TEAM OR THE OTHER TO WIN. This is true even though the decision is part of a more complicated strategy for each side.

We're going to just have to agree to be disagreeable

For argument's sake let's assume that you're right, at least logically speaking: both cannot be right, and thus if it's good for Dallas then it must be bad for Green Bay. Even if that is true, how does one know that Dallas has calculated correctly and made the statistically right decision? And again, what if it turns out that 1st and goal from the 1 is a gimme (so Dallas should let GB score if they want to) whereas 2nd or 3rd and goal from four feet out is no longer a gimme? For what it is worth, I am as certain as can be that McCarthy's calculations were intuitive: he preferred to take the almost-sure TD and give his defense a chance to hold, rather than screw around and take the risk of botching an end of game red zone opportunity.

[pbmax]

When you're talking about a single decision, where both sides try and get the same outcome, one side has to be wrong. BECAUSE THAT DECISION MUST MAKE IT MORE LIKELY FOR ONE TEAM OR THE OTHER TO WIN, AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPACT ON BOTH STRATEGIES. This is true even though the decision is part of a more complicated strategy for each side.

We're going to just have to agree to be disagreeable

You can only conclude they are wrong after multiple subsequent events. That is not zero sum. This is one element, with certain probably outcomes that will affect decisions on other events and their probable outcomes.

But you are still missing the key point. You are not comparing the same decision for each team. One of your propositions foresees an inevitable score. That is possible, even probably, but not inevitable.

The other side must consider eliminating the chance that it might not score a TD.

Its not the same predicament and therefore not mutually exclusive. Only the result will be.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am as certain as can be that McCarthy's calculations were intuitive: he preferred to take the almost-sure TD and give his defense a chance to hold, rather than screw around and take the risk of botching an end of game red zone opportunity.

I agree that the decision is made intuitively, there are far too many factors to calculate odds for. The old beaner is subconciously taking into account hundreds of little factors.

I would have done a QB sneak on first down, but I'm not strongly confident it is the right call.

[pbmax]

When you're talking about a single decision, where both sides try and get the same outcome, one side has to be wrong. BECAUSE THAT DECISION MUST MAKE IT MORE LIKELY FOR ONE TEAM OR THE OTHER TO WIN, AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPACT ON BOTH STRATEGIES. This is true even though the decision is part of a more complicated strategy for each side.

We're going to just have to agree to be disagreeable

If you reduce this argument down to the bolded statement, then our argument is pointless. The point of the game is not to win this decision, even if it temporarily increased the odds of winning.

The point is to win the game. And that might involve making a decision that no one in a zero sum game makes in order to preclude being eliminated from further chances of winning (not scoring) or to preserve a reasonable chance of winning later (getting ball back trailing with time left).

[hoosier]

I agree that the decision is made intuitively, there are far too many factors to calculate odds for. The old beaner is subconciously taking into account hundreds of little factors.

I would have done a QB sneak on first down, but I'm not strongly confident it is the right call.

Only on first down? So you would have given up the down (and taken the slight risk of a fumble or botched snap) just to make Dallas burn their final timeout? With over a minute left and Dallas about to need a field goal to win or tie, I'm not sure the timeout is really worth that much. It probably gets them one, maybe two more plays, but with over 60 seconds left Dallas is probably either going to get into field goal position or throw an interception trying.

[Cleft Crusty]

After taking all factors into consideration, only one side can be making a smart decision.


When you're talking about a single decision, where both sides try and get the same outcome, one side has to be wrong.

Clefty notices that in many of you arguments, you constantly change the conditions of the argument on the fly - Sort of like moving the goalposts, as it were. It may be a smart way to try and win an argument, but it's still wrong.

[pbmax]

Think about it this way: if the Packers kneel, they absolutely reduce their chance of taking the lead. But they also reduce the chance the cowboys can comeback if the Packers take the lead.

One of those outcomes, down 6, is far more important to the Packers. The other is more important to the Cowboys.

[woodbuck27]

I agree that the decision is made intuitively, there are far too many factors to calculate odds for. The old beaner is subconciously taking into account hundreds of little factors.

I would have done a QB sneak on first down, but I'm not strongly confident it is the right call.

After considering it all... I like that too.

If it doesn't go over you at least take their time out. You have three more cracks (from more likely than not) ' now inside ' the one yard line .

I've watched the Eddie Lacy go ahead TD over and over and again....over again. I'm NOT yet sold on the Dallas Cowboys simply allowing Eddie Lacy's rushing TD. Jason Garrett doesn't demonstrate to me that he's that brilliant a strategist, and certainly not on that day.

Whatever..... Eddie Lacy's TD was a thing of beauty. Every Packer fan watching that jumped with joy ! That whole come back was spectacular. I have it recorded twice. The 'LIVE' game courtesy of FOX and NFL Access's presentation last night @ 9 PM EST. That was good.

The funniest thing I saw on the Packers 'Jumbo Package' ... Eddie Lacy go ahead rushing TD call was BJ Raji's wussy attempt at a block on NO. 57 LB DeVonte Holloman 6' - 2 " 242 lbs who is hardly jarred by BJ's 'body' @ 6' - 2 " and 337 lbs.

Hey on that play BJ did keep his feet and 'just almost' fell over. That guy ... is he part GIRL.

If Ted Thompson shells out anything close to $8 Million$ / year to that 'once Boy Wonder' I'll be sick. I don't know who's worse...BJ or Brad Jones. It's a certain head shaker to watch these two.

GO BJ Raji...GO Brad Jones....go somewhere else.

PACKERS !

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clefty notices that in many of you arguments, you constantly change the conditions of the argument on the fly

No, I just speak louder, slower and in simpler terms out of courtesy for you.

[Cleft Crusty]

No, I just speak louder, slower and in simpler terms out of courtesy for you.

and in so posting, prove my point.

[bobblehead]

Clefty notices that in many of you arguments, you constantly change the conditions of the argument on the fly - Sort of like moving the goalposts, as it were. It may be a smart way to try and win an argument, but it's still wrong.

Nah, he has been consistent. He never said his or theirs were right, he simply said that they couldn't both be right (in response to someone saying they were both right).

[MadtownPacker]

HH still wins cuz he makes you honkies care. Truly the master!

[Cleft Crusty]

Nah, he has been consistent. He never said his or theirs were right, he simply said that they couldn't both be right (in response to someone saying they were both right).

You are missing the point. He changed the criteria from 'smart' to 'right'

[Cleft Crusty]

HH still wins cuz he makes you honkies care. Truly the master!

you are incorrect. We do not care. In my case, it is only that arguing the point is more distracting than fixating on clearing sputum from my breathing tube.

[bobblehead]

You are missing the point. He changed the criteria from 'smart' to 'right'

Soooo....sometimes wrong is smart??

[bobblehead]

Ok, I finally started laughing out loud about the absurdity of this entire debate.

[Cleft Crusty]

Soooo....sometimes wrong is smart??

I would argue that sometimes smart is wrong (such as throwing to receiver in single coverage as opposed to running into a nine man front).

But you are missing the point: the point is that it is disingenuous to change the argument on the fly from one about smart and stupid into one about 'right' and 'wrong' calls, especially in the context of the so-called 'zero sum' framework.

The obvious general conclusion is that with only one outcome possible, someone will be right and someone will be wrong, regardless of whether any specific call was smart or stupid (or strongly supported by stats and history or not).

[MadtownPacker]

you are incorrect. We do not care. In my case, it is only that arguing the point is more distracting than fixating on clearing sputum from my breathing tube.Does incorrect equal wrong? We will have to have Harlan tell us what is right.

[MadtownPacker]

Ok, I finally started laughing out loud about the absurdity of this entire debate.
See, now YOU are winning!

[Harlan Huckleby]

If loving you is right, I wanna be wrong

[KYPack]

Man, this thread blows like a hurricane.

HH, a sneak with Flynn?

[MadtownPacker]

If loving you is right, I wanna be wrong
You are finally right. Or maybe just smart.

[MadtownPacker]

Man, this thread blows like a hurricane.

HH, a sneak with Flynn?
Maybe a sneak peek in the shower but otherwise Bluedog has no real interest in the topic.

[channtheman]

Let this die please, at least until the next time something like this comes up.

[woodbuck27]

Let this die please, at least until the next time something like this comes up.

Has this thread been steered 'off topic'? :roll:

[MJZiggy]

well i just got done saying that now didn't i?

look above you^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

typical of a woman not paying attention to her surroundingsTry to support an asshole's position. FINE! (and as a man you should know that when you hear the word "fine," it is never fine...)

[woodbuck27]

right, the suggestion is to do a QB sneak and advance the ball. It likely won't score, will make subsequent attempts more likely to succeed.



http://blog.hostbaby.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/police-siren-animated.gif

STOP RIGHT THERE. I am alarmed. Shocked even. The same result can not help both teams win.

The rampant stupidity in the forum has depressed and frustrated me. My Christmas is ruined.

One half of HUCK and buck.

:bclap::bclap::bclap: :bclap: A FOUR STAR CLAP !!!!

[woodbuck27]

Does incorrect equal wrong? We will have to have Harlan tell us what is right.

I'll volunteer a stab at this:

Incorrect is equally wrong and isn't right.

[woodbuck27]

Man, this thread blows like a hurricane.

HH, a sneak with Flynn?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_aKeM0uT9v784JZ3cIb4OcTWiPNhoZ qXnmByvTv5cjgvaSJZSGg

Hello...My name is Matt Flynn.

http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff473/texaslady1960/150px-Wile_E_Coyote.gif

Good Day ! My name is Matt Flynn.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0v1kTgKgPXyLwZQBUJLYIIGPw5m4dE rL4KDATfzhl-xR5ZFho5Q

Yea...My name is Matt Damon errrr Flynn.

[George Cumby]

I'll volunteer a stab at this:

Incorrect is equally wrong and isn't right.

The 60's were really good to you, weren't they?

[woodbuck27]

The 60's were really good to you, weren't they?

I've been so fortunate and overall by far lived a marvelous life George.

I grew up with super parents in a home that was always stimulating in terms of conversation and much humor.

Here's my quote for you today:

" When we're judged it's often by someone who doesn't have their own shit together !" woodbuck27

It's nearly 2 AM so I must get off the forum...the gremlins might be lurking here soon.

[bobblehead]

Ok, Pittsburg blew it by scoring too soon. Damn near cost them the game. They had an extra point...didn't need a TD. Take 2 knees, call a timeout with 3 seconds left and kick your extra point range field goal. They score, give up a 70 yard return and damn near end up in OT. Also, MM wtf with trying to stop them from scoring in that position. Clearly you let them score and get the ball back if they are willing to go in.

[red]

and we should have let them score on the previous play

i think we would have saved a timeout that we really could have used at the end

edit : sorry bobble, i didn't read your whole post before i posted. same argument

[pbmax]

Hawk said the fix was in on second down but they did not get the call for it on previous play.

[red]

Hawk said the fix was in on second down but they did not get the call for it on previous play.

and then he said he didn't know why they didn't get the call on first, and said "good question"

Fatty McFatt had another of his patented brain farts

[bobblehead]

BUMP!!!!

Was anyone besides me screaming for Cobb to slide at the 1??

[TravisWilliams23]

BUMP!!!!

Was anyone besides me screaming for Cobb to slide at the 1??

Not here. Get the sure score and go up by 5 with a shot at 2 to go up by 7. Too much of a chance for a fumble, penalty or blocked field goal if that's what you're going to settle for. The clock was down to 38? seconds and your D "should" be able to keep them from scoring a TD. I understand the ineptitude of the special teams and defense all year but I think scoring there put your team in a very favorable position.

[Rodgers12]

Not here. Get the sure score and go up by 5 with a shot at 2 to go up by 7. Too much of a chance for a fumble, penalty or blocked field goal if that's what you're going to settle for. The clock was down to 38? seconds and your D "should" be able to keep them from scoring a TD. I understand the ineptitude of the special teams and defense all year but I think scoring there put your team in a very favorable position.

+1

[bobblehead]

Not here. Get the sure score and go up by 5 with a shot at 2 to go up by 7. Too much of a chance for a fumble, penalty or blocked field goal if that's what you're going to settle for. The clock was down to 38? seconds and your D "should" be able to keep them from scoring a TD. I understand the ineptitude of the special teams and defense all year but I think scoring there put your team in a very favorable position.

I was envisioning Hester with a 63 yard return, then MM giving up the middle to put the ball on the 10 with 2 plays to go. I guess I just don't trust the D and ST as much as I trust Mason to make a chip shot.

[pbmax]

I think this was more appropriate than last week. FG from inside the 5 is a PAT and its a 99% probability. Much more likely than TD.

One kneel down (or two if Bears had two TOs) takes all the time off the clock and gives you a chance to screw up the snap, fall on it and go again.

The team is behind, so personally I prefer the score, but would not have held it against him to fall down.

[pbmax]

I was envisioning Hester with a 63 yard return, then MM giving up the middle to put the ball on the 10 with 2 plays to go. I guess I just don't trust the D and ST as much as I trust Mason to make a chip shot.

Which brings up another point. Should just KO OOB.

[The Shadow]

Get the touchdown. Time a factor. Depending on a field goal no gimme.

[woodbuck27]

Which brings up another point. Should just KO OOB.

Imaginative thinking.

MM!?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Which brings up another point. Should just KO OOB.

And give them the ball at the 40? Not a fan of that. I'd rather a squib kick or a pooch kick that comes down around the 20-25.

[pbmax]

And give them the ball at the 40? Not a fan of that. I'd rather a squib kick or a pooch kick that comes down around the 20-25.

They tried that and it was pitched to Hester who got to the 38. Not worth the risk for 2 yards.

[Fritz]

I think this was more appropriate than last week. FG from inside the 5 is a PAT and its a 99% probability. Much more likely than TD.

One kneel down (or two if Bears had two TOs) takes all the time off the clock and gives you a chance to screw up the snap, fall on it and go again.

The team is behind, so personally I prefer the score, but would not have held it against him to fall down.

At the time, I was screaming for Cobb to fall down at the one or two. Bears had two timeouts, and you could've forced them to use both after first and second downs. Then you can run the clock down and kick the winning field goal, which would be more or less like a PAT.

But you also take the chance that you screw something up and don't get the points. Things do happen.

I guess if you absolutely don't trust your defense, you do that. And I don't trust that D. But they did do the job, so it was right for Cobb to go on in.

[pbmax]

At the time, I was screaming for Cobb to fall down at the one or two. Bears had two timeouts, and you could've forced them to use both after first and second downs. Then you can run the clock down and kick the winning field goal, which would be more or less like a PAT.

But you also take the chance that you screw something up and don't get the points. Things do happen.

I guess if you absolutely don't trust your defense, you do that. And I don't trust that D. But they did do the job, so it was right for Cobb to go on in.

Yeah, I think its possible to make the game too complicated. If they had the lead I would have been screaming for him to get down (because of course that helps through the TV). But you need the points in this case.

[Pugger]

BUMP!!!!

Was anyone besides me screaming for Cobb to slide at the 1??

Not me. I'd rather be up by 5 and force them to get a TD rather than a FG and a tie with half a minute to go in the game.

[woodbuck27]

BUMP!!!!

Was anyone besides me screaming for Cobb to slide at the 1??

http://www.smellypoop.com/

bobblehead you must be a member.

Either that or 100% credit for maximizing sarcasm. :lol:

[Cheesehead Craig]

They tried that and it was pitched to Hester who got to the 38. Not worth the risk for 2 yards.

Hey you never know, maybe Slocum's unit could have stopped Hest... sorry I can't even finish typing that without laughing.

[woodbuck27]

Hey you never know, maybe Slocum's unit could have stopped Hest... sorry I can't even finish typing that without laughing.

On Devon Hester's last return I was on my knees thanking the Packer Gods that somehow made him turn the run back inside rather than try for the edge.

That edge was there all day.

[bobblehead]

Get the touchdown. Time a factor. Depending on a field goal no gimme.

It would have been an extra point type FG. As close to a gimme as you get in sports.

[bobblehead]

Not me. I'd rather be up by 5 and force them to get a TD rather than a FG and a tie with half a minute to go in the game.

They would have been forced to do that with ZERO on the clock and no kickoff...neat trick.

[mraynrand]

If they had to rely on a last second point blanck FG to win, ghosts of '99 at Lambeau would have been clouding my mind - not to mention Pepper's special ability to block FGs. Dude looks like Darth Vader out there.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Was anyone besides me screaming for Cobb to slide at the 1??

I was way too stunned to think. Something about Cobb making the catch, back from a season-long injury, seemed surreal, too incredible of a story to be true. That play ranks up there with the Majik Man touchdown, which was so glorious and stunning I will never forget it, except I seemed to have forgotten what happened.

[mraynrand]

I was way too stunned to think. Something about Cobb making the catch, back from a season-long injury, seemed surreal, too incredible of a story to be true. That play ranks up there with the Majik Man touchdown, which was so glorious and stunning I will never forget it, except I seemed to have forgotten what happened.

Absolutely. One of the greatest plays in Packer History. Maybe even top 5-10.

BTW, I think the Majik play had something to do with the line of scrimmage and instant replay, but don't trust me, I can't even recall Mason Crosby FGs from this year.

[woodbuck27]

I was way too stunned to think. Something about Cobb making the catch, back from a season-long injury, seemed surreal, too incredible of a story to be true. That play ranks up there with the Majik Man touchdown, which was so glorious and stunning I will never forget it, except I seemed to have forgotten what happened.

This exact moment this NFCN winning Championship pass and catch for six was as good as most here will ever see and enjoy as we did as Packer fans.

Heck if as an NFL fan I saw any other team convert thus it would excite me but that one That TD for this Packer fan was:

Delisciously, incredibly, amazingly, totally, awesomely, terrifically, immensely, hugely, monstrously, very very largely GREAT !!!

It was good. :clap:

[mraynrand]

I wonder if Aaron Rodgers 'scored' too soon, eh Patler?

[TravisWilliams23]

Visions of this keep running through my mind:


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video+of+bears+blocking+packers+game+winn ing+field+goal&qpvt=video+of+bears+blocking+packers+game+winning+ field+goal&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=7B1CC023B243E70F51F67B1CC023B243E70F51F6

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, I think the Majik play had something to do with the line of scrimmage

Ok, ya, that's right. I don't remember the play so well, but I remember the T-shirts:


http://www.doublecoveragesisters.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/chif.gif

I think that also was a game with playoff implications, or maybe it was the playoffs. Or not.

[ThunderDan]

Great that the TT drafted QB threw the ball to the TT drafted WR.
Great thing the TT acquired FB was able to pick up Peppers to allow the TT drafted QB, when we already had a HOF QB on our roster even though fans were pissed that TT had "wasted" that pick to draft him, to get outside the rush and make the throw.

[mraynrand]

Great that the TT drafted QB threw the ball to the TT drafted WR.
Great thing the TT acquired FB was able to pick up Peppers to allow the TT drafted QB, when we already had a HOF QB on our roster even though fans were pissed that TT had "wasted" that pick to draft him, to get outside the rush and make the throw.


Turn that knife and keep turning it!

[woodbuck27]

I wonder if Aaron Rodgers 'scored' too soon, eh Patler?

Aaron Rodgers didn't score in the last game Vs the Bears ( Sun. 29 Dec. 2013)

Some other game?

[ThunderDan]

Turn that knife and keep turning it!

I was going to do some MM sentences also but thought the TT jabs were enough to make the point.

[woodbuck27]

Visions of this keep running through my mind:


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video+of+bears+blocking+packers+game+winn ing+field+goal&qpvt=video+of+bears+blocking+packers+game+winning+ field+goal&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=7B1CC023B243E70F51F67B1CC023B243E70F51F6

and this:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video+of+bears+blocking+packers+game+winn ing+field+goal&qpvt=video+of+bears+blocking+packers+game+winning+ field+goal&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=BCE49B687932CBB6D082BCE49B687932CBB6D082

[mraynrand]

and this:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video+of+bears+blocking+packers+game+winn ing+field+goal&qpvt=video+of+bears+blocking+packers+game+winning+ field+goal&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=BCE49B687932CBB6D082BCE49B687932CBB6D082

I was at the "Walter Payton" game. Had some Bear fan moron in front of me claiming to be Brian Piccolo's son.

Drunk Bear Fan: "Go easy on me, I'm Brian Piccolo's son"
MrAynRand: "Brian Piccolo had three daughters. Did you have a sex change operation?"
Drunk Bear Fan's friend: "Don't pay any attention to him (piccolo's 'son'), he's drunk"

[Harlan Huckleby]

Great that the TT drafted QB threw the ball to the TT drafted WR.
Great thing the TT acquired FB was able to pick up Peppers to allow the TT drafted QB, when we already had a HOF QB on our roster even though fans were pissed that TT had "wasted" that pick to draft him, to get outside the rush and make the throw.

TT got his New Years Eve hummer a little early this year.