More Banjo - Packers at Bears

[pbmax]

Well, the wind was apparently a factor in the passing game - except on Chicago's last three drives.

I think it was but I think Love was fitful early. He settled down after the first drive.

It drives me nuts that Mr. All Gas and No Brake goes for it early then turtles late. Now analytics isn't meant to be a 100% guide all the time, game situations and the clock matter, but the worst way to increase your scoring is to be fitfully aggressive.

I give LaFleur credit for reading the clock and the Bear O and Packer D better than I did. I did not think the Bears would need to onside kick with the time left after the last FG. He had that right. But then it all comes down to a play you have done maybe twice all season long. It doesn't seem robust.

[RandsRevenge]

Flower is a terrible gambler in general. I bet he buys high and sells low in the Market, too. He doesn't seem to have a knack for that part of the game. Those third and fourth and short should have been smash mouth match their physicality and win. The weak play calls send a message to his players, just like, going back to camp/preseason, making them run laps for tackling in practice.

[pbmax]

Flower is a terrible gambler in general. I bet he buys high and sells low in the Market, too. He doesn't seem to have a knack for that part of the game. Those third and fourth and short should have been smash mouth match their physicality and win. The weak play calls send a message to his players, just like, going back to camp/preseason, making them run laps for tackling in practice.

If Jacobs was healthy I might agree. But with him banged up and the O line being Schroedinger's cat (50% chance all thrive, 50% chance the RB/QB dies) its not the safest bet.

I still think a traditional one or two back offense with one TE gives you the best chance of success. You can throw routes all over the backend and run against a non-stacked D line with a full complement of blockers.

[George Cumby]

If Jacobs was healthy I might agree. But with him banged up and the O line being Schroedinger's cat (50% chance all thrive, 50% chance the RB/QB dies) its not the safest bet.

I still think a traditional one or two back offense with one TE gives you the best chance of success. You can throw routes all over the backend and run against a non-stacked D line with a full complement of blockers.

"Schroediger's O-Line".

*Slow Clap*

[sharpe1027]

If Jacobs was healthy I might agree. But with him banged up and the O line being Schroedinger's cat (50% chance all thrive, 50% chance the RB/QB dies) its not the safest bet.

I still think a traditional one or two back offense with one TE gives you the best chance of success. You can throw routes all over the backend and run against a non-stacked D line with a full complement of blockers.

Appreciate the work here. Not sure I follow the analogy, but it's been a looooong time since I took physics in school. I don't think the 50/50 assumption is accurate. The Schrodinger's hypothetical isn't about an even likelihood of either event being the case. It's about both being true at the same time until they cat is observed.

Are you saying that until someone turn in the TV, the QB is both dead and alive?

[ThunderDan]

Appreciate the work here. Not sure I follow the analogy, but it's been a looooong time since I took physics in school. I don't think the 50/50 assumption is accurate. The Schrodinger's hypothetical isn't about an even likelihood of either event being the case. It's about both being true at the same time until they cat is observed.

Are you saying that until someone turn in the TV, the QB is both dead and alive?

I think it is until the play is run the QB is both dead and alive.

[RandsRevenge]

Are you saying that until someone turn in the TV, the QB is both dead and alive?

Well this is unquestionably true with respect to Kaepernick

[sharpe1027]

I think it is until the play is run the QB is both dead and alive.

Eh. The analogy is still not working for me. It had some great potential, but I don't know how to make it work.

[sharpe1027]

Offensive line holding is the duality. The same exact play is both holding and not holding depending on whether your team is on offense or defense. Only when observed by an NFL referee is the status locked into one or the other.

[pbmax]

I think it is until the play is run the QB is both dead and alive.

While the O line still has opponents to block, the cyanide capsule in this case, the QB is still in a super position where both outcomes could be true under observation.

Only when the refs blow the whistle, signaling the play dead, can we fully observe the outcome, as the capsule is either whole or the QB/RB is on a cart.

[sharpe1027]

While the O line still has opponents to block, the cyanide capsule in this case, the QB is still in a super position where both outcomes could be true under observation.

Only when the refs blow the whistle, signaling the play dead, can we fully observe the outcome, as the capsule is either whole or the QB/RB is on a cart.

My issue is that describes every event ever. It's just how time happens for everything. You don't know future outcomes. The key is to have a situation where two mutually exclusive outcomes are true at the same time. This is because radiation has the properties of a wave and a particle. To me at least, that's different than you don't know the outcome of a future event until it occurs. That's why I tried to use offensive holding. The duality both holding and not holding based on the duality of the perspectives of opposing fans. That is, until an NFL referee observes the play.

[bobblehead]

Offensive line holding is the duality. The same exact play is both holding and not holding depending on whether your team is on offense or defense. Only when observed by an NFL referee is the status locked into one or the other.

You really have to factor in if a holding call helps or hurts the concept of keeping a game within reach so as to appease the TV networks that pay a ton of money for exciting finishes.

[pbmax]

My issue is that describes every event ever. It's just how time happens for everything. You don't know future outcomes. The key is to have a situation where two mutually exclusive outcomes are true at the same time. This is because radiation has the properties of a wave and a particle. To me at least, that's different than you don't know the outcome of a future event until it occurs. That's why I tried to use offensive holding. The duality both holding and not holding based on the duality of the perspectives of opposing fans. That is, until an NFL referee observes the play.

I thought the uncertainty comes from the unobservable nature of the outcome? I grant you the o line failing to block at some point doesn’t really qualify. But the lethal agent wasn’t the important parameter that I remember, except that it could have been enabled without intervention by the observer.

The superposition and wave form collapse come from opening the box and finally observing the cat’s condition.

[sharpe1027]

I thought the uncertainty comes from the unobservable nature of the outcome? I grant you the o line failing to block at some point doesn’t really qualify. But the lethal agent wasn’t the important parameter that I remember, except that it could have been enabled without intervention by the observer.

The superposition and wave form collapse come from opening the box and finally observing the cat’s condition.

You are correct, but the paradox is about the current state of the cat being both dead and alive when nobody observed. It's not about whether the cat would be dead or alive after a certain amount of time in the future. That uncertainty exists from the uncertainty of radioactive decay. No duality required.

[pbmax]

You are correct, but the paradox is about the current state of the cat being both dead and alive when nobody observed. It's not about whether the cat would be dead or alive after a certain amount of time in the future. That uncertainty exists from the uncertainty of radioactive decay. No duality required.

I think I could make the Packers O line problems look like radioactive decay if I thought about it a little.