Official Week 3 Lions at Packers Game Day Thread

[Maxie the Taxi]

We need a nickname for Julius Peppers. I was thinking "Pepper."

[Fritz]

How about "old"?

[Harlan Huckleby]

We need a nickname for Julius Peppers. I was thinking "Pepper."

Dr. J?

[pbmax]

We need a nickname for Julius Peppers. I was thinking "Pepper."

Pops

[Maxie the Taxi]

Salty?

[Rutnstrut]

Did they take Peppers back to the home? Haven't heard his name since the 1st qtr.

He will sleep until the post season now,

[pittstang5]

Oh Christ....Fuck!!!!

[red]

not good guys

[Maxie the Taxi]

That was a bad throw, I think.

[pbmax]

Cobb with body catch attempt.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Pops

not bad. Festus?

[red]

Did they take Peppers back to the home? Haven't heard his name since the 1st qtr.

peppers is good for one big game every now and then

since he had a big game last week, we won't be hearing about him for awhile

[Harlan Huckleby]

not good guys

you nervous nellie. Pack has 2 touchdown lead, only 10 minutes left. And with our defense........ oh fuck, we're fucked.

[beveaux1]

Defense has to show up now.

[red]

Cobb with body catch attempt.

bad throw

if thats thrown out in front of him, like it should have been, its at least a nice gain

[pbmax]

peppers is good for one big game every now and then

since he had a big game last week, we won't be hearing about him for awhile

Think he had a sack today, no?

[pittstang5]

Can we get a stop here!!!!

[Maxie the Taxi]

bad throw

if thats thrown out in front of him, like it should have been, its at least a nice gainYup.

[pbmax]

Holy Fackrell!,

[pittstang5]

We need more sacks on 3rd down

[Maxie the Taxi]

Three dropped INT's today, at least.

[pbmax]

Yup.

Good enough to catch given pressure in Rodgers lap.

[Iron Mike]

C'mon, Defense!!!

[red]

Think he had a sack today, no?

no, he does have a whole tackle and an assist

[pittstang5]

too many missed INTs

[Harlan Huckleby]

Holy Fackrell!,

He is one good play away from a certain Fuckdoggle controversy.

[pittstang5]

too many flags

[red]

nice stop

i like how peppers tries to dive in to get a hand on him to get half a sack

cheap

[Joemailman]

Nick Perry is a stud this year.

[Iron Mike]

Nick Perry's earning a new contract...

[pbmax]

He is one good play away from a certain Fuckdoggle controversy.

Tex is Fuckdoggle today.

[red]

that didn't look like a block in the back to me

[Fritz]

Can they close the deal without any more damage?

[TravisWilliams23]

Hope the block in the back wasn't the block I saw to the right because that was a good block.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Tex is Fuckdoggle today.Tex is a Fuckdoggle everyday.

[red]

Nick Perry's earning a new contract...

give it to him

[Harlan Huckleby]

Can they close the deal without any more damage?

Lions defense is more horrible

[Fritz]

Gunter dropped an interception earlier, now Thomas.

[red]

Tex is a Fuckdoggle everyday.

no, you're thinking of a dumbfuck

[pbmax]

Hope the block in the back wasn't the block I saw to the right because that was a good block.

I agree. But holding was earlier. So either way...

[pittstang5]

OMG! CATCH THE BALL!!!!

[TravisWilliams23]

Nice hands rookie.

[red]

a-rod pissed at davis for dropping the first pass thrown to him

what a fucking douche

[pittstang5]

MOVE THE BALL!!! CMON OFFENSE

[pbmax]

Davis drop will now result in all running plays.

[Iron Mike]

WTF is Starks in there when Lacy has been unstoppable???

[Maxie the Taxi]

Arod ain't smiling no more.

[red]

stay in bounds

[TravisWilliams23]

Time for a nice big shank.

[Fritz]

OMG! CATCH THE BALL!!!!

Offense can't get it done.

Sloppy sloppy sloppy

[pittstang5]

WTF!!!! That was horrible!

[TravisWilliams23]

Looked like a block in the back there.

[red]

WTF is Starks in there when Lacy has been unstoppable???

this bull shit about guys taking turns at full series needs to stop. stay with the hot hand

[pbmax]

Wasn't there a hold on the gunner?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Looked like a block in the back there.

ya

[Maxie the Taxi]

schroom makes a great play.

[pittstang5]

NEED A TuRNOVER

[pbmax]

Offense can't get it done.

Sloppy sloppy sloppy

Until that drive they were milking clock ok.

[red]

"he elevated"

LOL

he was like 3 inches off the ground. a normal heighted punter wouldn't even have to jump for that

[Fritz]

Shit. I don't like this.

[red]

so is it safe to say we took our foot off the gas at halftime

WHY???????

[pittstang5]

GIVE ME A TURNOVER!!!

[pbmax]

so is it safe to say we took our foot off the gas at halftime

WHY???????

No idea.

[pittstang5]

Gimme a break!!! GOd you all suck DEFENSE.

[red]

mother fucker

if we lose this you fire fat mike right after the game

[pittstang5]

BENCH THAT FUCKER!!!

[pbmax]

Randall has two of those games now.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Damn game is going to hinge on another f***ng onsides kick.

[Iron Mike]

Damarius Randall shits the bed again.

[pbmax]

Randall was no good. Hyde was worse.

[pittstang5]

FUCK!!!!!

[Rutnstrut]

Until that drive they were milking clock ok.

Yup stubby goes conservative again.

[pbmax]

Don't sleep on Hyde losing his drawers on that play too.

[red]

at what point does someone in the organization realize that randall can't cover 1v1

[Rutnstrut]

so is it safe to say we took our foot off the gas at halftime

WHY???????

Because it's the stubby way.

[Guiness]

Randall has to fucking go! Guiness' girlfriend

[pittstang5]

3 points in the 2nd half. Good lord!!!

[yetisnowman]

Time to earn your keep aaron. Need a couple first downs.

[red]

Don't sleep on Hyde losing his drawers on that play too.

how close was he? he was just jogging in that one replay

[Maxie the Taxi]

We got to score.

[Harlan Huckleby]

31-3

[pbmax]

Yup stubby goes conservative again.

It's why time is not everything in 3rd Quarter

[TravisWilliams23]

Turtle it is!

[pittstang5]

FUCK!!!! What the hell are they doing?????

[Rutnstrut]

at what point does someone in the organization realize that randall can't cover 1v1

Probably at the same point they realize sitting on a lead almost never works for them.

[pbmax]

They give you a gift of not onside kicking it. You hand it back by running a toss.

[pittstang5]

I don't believe my eyes. WHY WHY WHY WHY HWY

[Harlan Huckleby]

We'll get um in OT

[yetisnowman]

Have to play for a first down. Don't play clock.

[red]

yup, here we go

[pbmax]

Seattle all over again.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I see another controversey brewing here. Dang ole stubby!

[red]

he had adams if he wanted it

[pbmax]

relying on Rodgers to bail them out on third down won't keep working.

[red]

there, thats a better play call imo

[pbmax]

Now that was a play worth the effort

[Rutnstrut]

he had adams if he wanted it

Would you trust Adams on an important play like that?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Remarkable how one first down lets you breathe easier.

[pittstang5]

WTF!!!!! Stupid TO

Run the ball like we know you will

[TravisWilliams23]

Call the play, line the fuck up and run the damn thing!

[Maxie the Taxi]

Tex lost his Fuckdoggle in the 2nd half.

[red]

get the fucking play in

how fucking hard is that?

proof that fat mike is stupid as shit

you know that play sheet only has like 5 plays on it

[pbmax]

And he stayed in bounds and kept it off tackle not wide. So they can learn.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Looks like Vikes are gonna win.

[pbmax]

Remarkable how one first down lets you breathe easier.

They are kinda important.

[pbmax]

Tex lost his Fuckdoggle in the 2nd half.

Didn't second half prove him right?

[Maxie the Taxi]

They are kinda important.Could you send a copy of that to Stubby?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Didn't second half prove him right?Tex has never been right, much less proved right. hahahaha

[red]

awwww

thats nice, they let janis go in there for the last kneel down

how thoughtful

[pittstang5]

So i figured out the Packers of 2016. Score as many points as you can in the first half. Then, let the other team try to catch up in the 2nd half...and hope you still win.

[red]

game didn't exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy

we dominated the first half, then held on to barely beat a banged up bad lions team

[pbmax]

So i figured out the Packers of 2016. Score as many points as you can in the first half. Then, let the other team try to catch up in the 2nd half...and hope you still win.

Its been going on longer than that.

[Joemailman]

game didn't exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy

we dominated the first half, then held on to barely beat a banged up bad lions team

Packers were a little banged up too, I noticed. I'll take it. Should get a bunch of people back after the bye week.

[Rutnstrut]

So i figured out the Packers of 2016. Score as many points as you can in the first half. Then, let the other team try to catch up in the 2nd half...and hope you still win.

That's been stubby's mo for a few years now.

[beveaux1]

game didn't exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy

we dominated the first half, then held on to barely beat a banged up bad lions team

We were missing our top LB, top CB, the S that is the leader of the secondary, our NT, the top reserve OLB, and early in the game our top TE and our FB. I question taking the air out of the ball at the beginning of the 2nd half, but we won that game and it lets me know we can move it offensively.

[Fritz]

Well, they survived the second half. No Shields, Burnett, Matthews, Guion, Jones, no Jared Cook after part of the first quarter.

I liked the running game, and if it was the pass setting it up, so be it. But I also want MM and Rodgers to remember those first-half rhythm passes. And that slant to Adams at the end of the game.

Now a week off to rest, and two weeks to get the team healed up. They need to make hay in October.

[pbmax]

I take comfort in the play of the D without 3 starters, 1 major contributor.

I take no comfort in the game plan in the second half.

[Fritz]

Arclite makes some good points about at least the offensive game plan in the Banjo thread.

[Rastak]

Ras helped me. He was being a smart-ass pointing out that diggs aint no rook so I mimicked him.

Bte Ras, enjoy the afterglow of last week's Queens victory while it lasts. Your team beat us by 3 pts while our qb played like Brooks Bollinger. You lost the Switch Hitter. Your season is done. :)


:grin:

[texaspackerbacker]

The great first half and the miserable second half illustrate exactly what I've been saying: PASS FIRST, Pass on early downs, pass quick if it's open, escape and pass down field if necessary - which it usually is, pass, pass, pass ....... and then mix in a few runs for change of pace. They approached that, although still short of the optimum, in the first half.

In the second half, McCarthy stupidly reverted to run-first. He basically took the ball of the hand of his all world QB and did what he has been doing for more than 3 quarters of other games.

Do you suppose he learned anything from the two vastly different halves? Somehow I doubt it.

Regarding the D, I occasionally read disparaging remarks in here about Clay Matthews. Well, we survived without him, but I can't help thinking a lot of those near misses of sacks when the Lions were passing like crazy on us would have been sacks if Matthews had been playing. Our D all the way around was a lot shakier without him.

Regarding the O Line, they performed fairly decent if you take into consideration very low expectations. Rodgers was still rushed in about 1.5 seconds a lot of the time, and the running game still had way more unsuccessful plays than successful. Is Stafford as good or better a QB than Rodgers? I say a big hell no to that. However, he illustrated how a decent but lesser QB with an O Line giving him time to throw can have a helluva lot of success. Just imagine if Rodgers ever had pass protection like that.

[Patler]

The great first half and the miserable second half illustrate exactly what I've been saying: PASS FIRST, Pass on early downs, pass quick if it's open, escape and pass down field if necessary - which it usually is, pass, pass, pass ....... and then mix in a few runs for change of pace. They approached that, although still short of the optimum, in the first half.

Except that isn't really what they did in the first half. Here are their play selections, each first down is a new line:

1st Possession:
run, pass, pass
run, pass
pass (inc.), run, pass


2nd Possession:
Pass
Run, pass, pass, pass


3rd Possession:
Run, pass
Pass


4th Possession
Pass (inc.), pass (short), pass (inc.), filed goal


5th Possession:
Pass (inc) – penalty first down
Pass (short, to Lacy, inc.), run
Run, pass,
Pass, run (penalty), pass, pass.


They started the game strong while running on 1st downs quite often.

[Carolina_Packer]

I don't think MM cares whether he wins by 1 or 100 as long as he wins. He seems unconcerned about keeping his foot on the gas vs. counting possessions and figuring out how to bleed the clock, while possibly allowing the other team to make a game of it. Remember the Atlanta game in 2014 amidst a perfect home record? They were owning Atlanta, much like they were owning Detroit by halftime yesterday. Then, they went into a shell in the second half and held on to win in both games, which takes me back to my points. It's a calculated way to win, but can give the fans discomfort at times. They were certainly short-handed, and probably wanted to make sure they didn't sustain any further injury. Is it the best approach? I don't know. They won.

[Pugger]

Packers were a little banged up too, I noticed. I'll take it. Should get a bunch of people back after the bye week.

Defensive players not playing yesterday:

Letroy Guion
Datone Jones
Clay Matthews
Sam Shields
Morgan Burnett

Do you gentlemen think not having these defensive players yesterday contributed to Detroit staying in the game?

[Carolina_Packer]

Yes, that and I think there is an approach that says to the opposing team, if you want to spend a good chunk of a quarter trying to score, go ahead. We'll keep the lead in our sights, and make sure that you never really catch up, while trying to bleed the clock and keep our guys healthy as possible. I think being short-handed did contribute. They need to figure things out in the defensive backfield. Back in the day, they used to have Al Harris and Charles Woodson covering. Now they have a dinged up Shields and a bunch of youth trying to learn on the go. I wish we had looked to fill the depth with one more experienced vet vs. all the youth and inexperience. Sure they will learn, but hopefully not before it costs the Packers in a big game. When the front 7 gets healthy after the by, I think they could have a nice season. It's the DB's that need to step it up, and hold up their end of the bargain. If Randall can't cover one on one, get him some help.

[pbmax]

I don't mind running on first down as they often do. Helps set up a second down where pass or run is an option and keeps play action viable. Though they too often start the game with a run. I don't remember the last pass to open a game.

[pbmax]

Defensive players not playing yesterday:

Letroy Guion
Datone Jones
Clay Matthews
Sam Shields
Morgan Burnett

Do you gentlemen think not having these defensive players yesterday contributed to Detroit staying in the game?

Yep. So did Randall's illness.

[Maxie the Taxi]

To be fair, Detroit had three starters and several key backups out with injuries and a couple of walking wounded as well. They'll say that contributed to their defeat. Nobody can know what the outcome would have been if both teams were 100% healthy. It's worthless to speculate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Defensive players not playing yesterday:

Letroy Guion
Datone Jones
Clay Matthews
Sam Shields
Morgan Burnett

Do you gentlemen think not having these defensive players yesterday contributed to Detroit staying in the game?

We could even add Mike Pennel to the pity party.

But as was pointed out by Maximus, Lions were short handed too.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't think MM cares whether he wins by 1 or 100 as long as he wins. He seems unconcerned about keeping his foot on the gas vs. counting possessions and figuring out how to bleed the clock, while possibly allowing the other team to make a game of it. Remember the Atlanta game in 2014 amidst a perfect home record? They were owning Atlanta, much like they were owning Detroit by halftime yesterday. Then, they went into a shell in the second half and held on to win in both games, which takes me back to my points. It's a calculated way to win, but can give the fans discomfort at times. They were certainly short-handed, and probably wanted to make sure they didn't sustain any further injury. Is it the best approach? I don't know. They won.

You're probably right ....... and that's an OK thing right up until it isn't. Occasionally, something goes wrong with that "just getting by" approach, and you don't. In other words, rarely, Aaron Rodgers doesn't bail him out from his stupid tendency to be that way.

[Zool]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201609250gnb.htm#all_vis_drives

Draw your own conclusions from facts.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't mind running on first down as they often do. Helps set up a second down where pass or run is an option and keeps play action viable. Though they too often start the game with a run. I don't remember the last pass to open a game.

If you gain 7 or 8 yards, maybe, but how often does that happen with this O Line? Even then, likely as not, they will run on second, gain 1 or 2, then run and fail on 3rd and 1. Put the ball in the hands of the Franchise, and let him win it with Pass-First.

[ThunderDan]

If you gain 7 or 8 yards, maybe, but how often does that happen with this O Line? Even then, likely as not, they will run on second, gain 1 or 2, then run and fail on 3rd and 1. Put the ball in the hands of the Franchise, and let him win it with Pass-First.

In the 2nd half our 1st down runs went for 8,7,0,4,2,-1. So that is 50% success rate against a team down multiple scores knowing you are trying to run more and grind clock.

[Patler]

Results of Packers plays on 1st down.

Passes - 0-49-2-0-2-0-5-0-13-0-9
Runs - 3-5-3-(-1)-3-8-7-0-4-2-(-1)

[pbmax]

Results of Packers plays on 1st down.

Passes - 0-49-2-0-2-0-5-0-13-0-9
Runs - 3-5-3-(-1)-3-8-7-0-4-2-(-1)

I am not worried about the first down run. I AM worried about run-run-pass.

That said, the entire argument about passing is in that line. Passing netted 2 first downs and 1 huge change in field position.

Running guaranteed you needed another play to keep possession.

That is not to argue for passing all the time. We have seen what happens to this offense when it goes entirely to the pass and the defense has adjusted. You don't want to increase the number of times you go deep because you must.

But it does demonstrate that a failure to pass dampens offensive output.

Running, assuming moderate success, does help keep ALL your other running and passing options open.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I am not worried about the first down run. I AM worried about run-run-pass.

That said, the entire argument about passing is in that line. Passing netted 2 first downs and 1 huge change in field position.

Running guaranteed you needed another play to keep possession.

That is not to argue for passing all the time. We have seen what happens to this offense when it goes entirely to the pass and the defense has adjusted. You don't want to increase the number of times you go deep because you must.

But it does demonstrate that a failure to pass dampens offensive output.

Running, assuming moderate success, does help keep ALL your other running and passing options open.To all the football nerds and statisticians out there:

On any particular down, with less than 10 yards to go for a first down, what are the odds of successfully running for the first down vs the odds of successfully passing for the first down?

[pbmax]

(15:00) E.Lacy right end to GB 28 for 3 yards (K.Van Noy).
(13:28) (No Huddle, Shotgun) E.Lacy up the middle to 50 for 5 yards (T.Walker).
(12:12) (No Huddle, Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short middle to J.Cook.

(2:45) A.Rodgers pass deep middle to J.Nelson to DET 11 for 49 yards (T.Wilson).
(1:57) E.Lacy left tackle to DET 8 for 3 yards (W.Gilberry).

(:33) T.Montgomery right end to GB 32 for -1 yards (Q.Diggs).

2nd QTR

(14:51) A.Rodgers pass short right to R.Rodgers for 2 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

(11:40) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete deep middle to J.Cook. GB-J.Cook was injured during the play.

Penalty wiped out completion to Ripper
(4:37) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to E.Lacy.
(4:03) (No Huddle) E.Lacy right end to DET 34 for 3 yards (W.Gilberry; T.Whitehead).
(2:54) A.Rodgers pass short right to J.Nelson to DET 20 for 5 yards (D.Slay).

(:32) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete deep left to R.Rodgers.

Half

(8:23) E.Lacy left tackle to GB 33 for 8 yards (T.Whitehead, T.Walker).
(7:07) (No Huddle) E.Lacy right end to GB 46 for 7 yards (G.Quin).
(5:58) (No Huddle, Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short left to J.Perillo to DET 32 for 13 yards (G.Quin).
(5:23) (No Huddle) E.Lacy left end to DET 32 for no gain (Z.Gooden, N.Lawson).

4th QTR

(12:27) E.Lacy right tackle to GB 32 for 4 yards (A.Zettel; Z.Gooden).
(11:01) E.Lacy right end to GB 48 for 2 yards (K.Hyder).

(6:35) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short left to T.Davis. (loved this call after short series, best sign of 2nd half)

(3:34) E.Lacy up the middle to GB 24 for -1 yards (A.Robinson).
(2:30) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short left to D.Adams to GB 47 for 9 yards (N.Lawson). (second best call of half, especially after a drop by the DA)
(2:00) A.Rodgers kneels to DET 45 for -1 yards.

Ignoring the kneel down, I get 11 runs and 10 throws. Might have missed one.

[hoosier]

Results of Packers plays on 1st down.

Passes - 0-49-2-0-2-0-5-0-13-0-9
Runs - 3-5-3-(-1)-3-8-7-0-4-2-(-1)


That passing line is a little incredible: even on a day when Rodgers's performance said "We're back!" his first-down passing efficiency still leaves a lot to be desired. For argument's sake let's say that anything less than four yards on first down is a failure. Seven out of 11 first down passes were objective fails, one was a near fail, and only three were objective successes. The eleven first down run plays were just as bad or worse in terms of number of objective successes, but many of the nominal failures still kept the down-and-distance reasonable. The answer isn't pass more or get out of the tendency to run on first and second downs, it's that the Packers need to find a way to increase their overall first-down efficiency.

[hoosier]

To all the football nerds and statisticians out there:

On any particular down, with less than 10 yards to go for a first down, what are the odds of successfully running for the first down vs the odds of successfully passing for the first down?

In the absence of any more specific information the only possible answer is 50:50: either you make it or you don't.

[hoosier]

That passing line is a little incredible: even on a day when Rodgers's performance said "We're back!" his first-down passing efficiency still leaves a lot to be desired. For argument's sake let's say that anything less than four yards on first down is a failure. Seven out of 11 first down passes were objective fails, one was a near fail, and only three were objective successes. The eleven first down run plays were just as bad or worse in terms of number of objective successes, but many of the nominal failures still kept the down-and-distance reasonable. The answer isn't pass more or get out of the tendency to run on first and second downs, it's that the Packers need to find a way to increase their overall first-down efficiency.

Ok, so one of the short passes was an objective success (2 yard TD) and another fail (incomplete) was mitigated by circumstances (stuck deep in their own end with 32 seconds remaining in half). And it looks like our resident nerd erroneously duplicated the 2-0 line at the end of the first part of the series, leaving us with nine first-down passing attempts, of which four were objective fails and four objective wins and one (the five-yarder) an ok result. That is getting better but still doesn't rise much above average.

[pbmax]

Results of Packers plays on 1st down.

Passes - 0-49-2-0-2-0-5-0-13-0-9
Runs - 3-5-3-(-1)-3-8-7-0-4-2-(-1)

OK, you are counting the 2 yard pass to Ripper that was nullified by penalty. Now the numbers match.

[Maxie the Taxi]

In the absence of any more specific information the only possible answer is 50:50: either you make it or you don't.Ok, let's say it's 3rd down with 7 yds to go? According to the stats, do the odds favor a run or a pass?

My point is the statistics must say that from a certain down and distance either or run or a pass has the best chance to gain a first down. If they don't, then the whole discussion about throwing vs running on 1st down is moot. Or, the statistics and odds are so situation dependent that a discussion about them is absurd.

Thus, "gut feel" for the situation might have just as much validity as statistics.

It gets back to what you referred to before as "momentum."

[Maxie the Taxi]

More fuel for the fire...When a HC calls for a RB plunge into the line on lst down, is he doing it 1) in hopes of actually gaining significant yardage; or 2) in hopes of making successive pass plays more successful by "keeping the defense honest?"

[pbmax]

More fuel for the fire...When a HC calls for a RB plunge into the line on lst down, is he doing it 1) in hopes of actually gaining significant yardage; or 2) in hopes of making successive pass plays more successful by "keeping the defense honest?"

Both. Some threat of balance is always desired. However, the Derek Loville Effect should have taught offensive coaches that Defenses know when you don't have the goods.

Just as Defenses ignored Loville in the backfield for the 49ers, I am not sure the Packers have caused anyone to load up the box (other than end of game stalls) since Starks in 2010 (end of season).

Belichick is not the only D coach who ignores what a team doesn't do well.

[hoosier]

Ok, let's say it's 3rd down with 7 yds to go? According to the stats, do the odds favor a run or a pass?

My point is the statistics must say that from a certain down and distance either or run or a pass has the best chance to gain a first down. If they don't, then the whole discussion about throwing vs running on 1st down is moot. Or, the statistics and odds are so situation dependent that a discussion about them is absurd.

Thus, "gut feel" for the situation might have just as much validity as statistics.

It gets back to what you referred to before as "momentum."

Most downs are not zero sum downs, however. On third and seven the odds almost always favor passing, but first-and-ten is obviously a very different story: passing is far more likely to get you another first down, but running might be a better way to set up second and short. And so on.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Most downs are not zero sum downs, however. On third and seven the odds almost always favor passing, but first-and-ten is obviously a very different story: passing is far more likely to get you another first down, but running might be a better way to set up second and short. And so on.So, in other words whether or not we run or pass on first down doesn't mean a hill of beans in trying to sort out a "conservative" vs an "aggressive" strategery. Maybe we should be looking at 3rd and 2, or 2nd and 5, as more appropriate indicators.

Or maybe, like pornography, you know it when you see it. I saw aggressiveness in the 1st half. I saw Stubby dial it back in the 2nd half.

[Patler]

OK, you are counting the 2 yard pass to Ripper that was nullified by penalty. Now the numbers match.

I might have, but not intentionally. I just copied it quickly from the play by play list.

I was surprised by the number of incomplete passes on first down. It "felt" like they were more successful than that.

[pbmax]

So, in other words whether or not we run or pass on first down doesn't mean a hill of beans in trying to sort out a "conservative" vs an "aggressive" strategery. Maybe we should be looking at 3rd and 2, or 2nd and 5, as more appropriate indicators.

Or maybe, like pornography, you know it when you see it. I saw aggressiveness in the 1st half. I saw Stubby dial it back in the 2nd half.

I am not sure conservative versus aggressive would show up in the percentage of first downs on any given down by pass or run.

Where it does show up is in yardage gained and points scored. When you combine the yardage from the play and the rate of success, to get a likely yardage for a choice run v pass, passing comes out ahead. More so when you track the points gained.

There are downsides to choosing passing and not all game situations are alike. But in the first and third quarters, passing is more productive.

You can see some of this here: http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/10/how-coaches-think-run-success-rate.html

Burke is saying coaches think in a one step, success or no, proposition. Their success rate is whether or not the play achieved its goal. It correlates well with actual game choices and play calling. Generally, teams look to get halfway to the first down first and second down. Third down success is to convert. But those calculations ignore the unequal payoffs of passing versus running regarding keeping drives alive and scoring.

Basically, the coach cannot have a calculator or computer on the sideline telling them when they have maximized their payoffs. But they can, through institutional memory, training and observation (film review and live game setting) see what plays worked and what didn't.

They are literally counting (or stacking) success, not assessing probability.

[pbmax]

Money Quote from Burke:


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.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I am not sure conservative versus aggressive would show up in the percentage of first downs on any given down by pass or run.

Where it does show up is in yardage gained and points scored. When you combine the yardage from the play and the rate of success, to get a likely yardage for a choice run v pass, passing comes out ahead. More so when you track the points gained.

There are downsides to choosing passing and not all game situations are alike. But in the first and third quarters, passing is more productive.

You can see some of this here: http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/10/how-coaches-think-run-success-rate.html

Burke is saying coaches think in a one step, success or no, proposition. Their success rate is whether or not the play achieved its goal. It correlates well with actual game choices and play calling. Generally, teams look to get halfway to the first down first and second down. Third down success is to convert. But those calculations ignore the unequal payoffs of passing versus running regarding keeping drives alive and scoring.

Basically, the coach cannot have a calculator or computer on the sideline telling them when they have maximized their payoffs. But they can, through institutional memory, training and observation (film review and live game setting) see what plays worked and what didn't.

They are literally counting (or stacking) success, not assessing probability.I usually am not a fan of such articles, but this one made sense to me. I've often thought that a lot of coaches can't see the forest for the trees. They examine plays in isolation rather than in context. From the coach's point of view every well-designed play should go for that necessary 1st down or that winning TD if the players just "execute."

After a loss coaches AND players will often say that the players just didn't "execute." What's virtually never said is that the coach didn't put his players in a position to succeed often enough, regardless of execution. And this has to do with game planning and the things the article talks about.

In fact, I think sometimes fans and reporters are in a better position to judge than the coach, purely because most fans see the big picture of the game rather than getting caught up in the x's and o's of each play.

The article concludes:

The prescriptive analysis remains the same. Generally, teams should be passing more often on 1st and 2nd down, and running more often on 3rd down and in the red zone.

Question: Is "Burke" Tex? :-)

[pbmax]

I usually am not a fan of such articles, but this one made sense to me. I've often thought that a lot of coaches can't see the forest for the trees. They examine plays in isolation rather than in context. From the coach's point of view every well-designed play should go for that necessary 1st down or that winning TD if the players just "execute."

After a loss coaches AND players will often say that the players just didn't "execute." What's virtually never said is that the coach didn't put his players in a position to succeed often enough, regardless of execution. And this has to do with game planning and the things the article talks about.

In fact, I think sometimes fans and reporters are in a better position to judge than the coach, purely because most fans see the big picture of the game rather than getting caught up in the x's and o's of each play.

The article concludes:


Question: Is "Burke" Tex? :-)

He is ex-Air Force and working for ESPN now. He might be Tex :lol:

I think coaches go beyond the single factor success-or-not when they are designing an offense and game planning. If they thought solely about success rate, the run/pass ratios never would have changed.

But they don't ALL have to be thinking big picture. There is a lot of monkey see monkey do. I think McCarthy is in between, he reviews from 10,000 feet but I am not sure he thinks in terms of probabilities. I do give him credit for being willing to try things. He could be Jeff Fisher and do it by the book. You don't get second guessed as hard that way.

[texaspackerbacker]

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".

[vince]

Money Quote from Burke:

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.
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."

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.

[vince]

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".
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.

[Maxie the Taxi]

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?:-)

[vince]

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.

[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."

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.

[vince]

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.

[gbgary]

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.

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.

[ThunderDan]

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.


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.