Game 13 : Packers @ Lions - Thursday, Dec 5th 7:15 PM

[homer]

it was one of those games where whoever had the  ball last would win.

[adambr2]

9 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Ok but kicking the FG was very, very likely to work as well and if it didn't, the game would go to overtime at worst. 

Going for that 4th not only jeopardized the attempt but also opened a small window for the Packers to actually win in regulation which was pretty much a 0%. 

They won the game - that doesn't mean it was the right call. Just like the stupid one from his own 30 wasn't right either. The other ones at least made logical sense. But he overdoes it and defies logic just to show off his nuts. And it is going to bite him. 

They're winning because they're good. 

 

 

I know it seems crazy to people because it goes against everything we’ve ever known about football. But the call from his own 30 was the analytically correct call. By like, a lot.

[Sixtolezcano]

23 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

The teams are very evenly matched.  Both games were very close.  Yes, the Lions are better, but most of that is in the experience and prep.

One thing I struggle to understand is that we seem to be very bad at predicting what teams are going to throw at us...and very predictable for what we are going to do.  We fall behind quickly and then eventually adjust, but we look terrible early on nearly every game (except Miami, but they just froze). 

Seriously? The Lions were playing without half of their defense and were playing with at least 6 street free agents. You need to take off your green colored glasses. It’s the Lions and maybe the Eagles above everyone else in the NFC. If te Lions didn’t give them a free 7 points it wouldn’t have been that close.

[adambr2]

I don’t complain about officiating much, but what an absolute piss poor job by the crew tonight. 

The worst part was the consistency. Watson gets called for a pick play that costs us 7 points. On the very next drive, the officials decide to swallow their whistles when the Lions run a pick of their own. Then St Brown gets away with an absolutely blatant push-off which essentially sealed the game. 

Shame to have a game like this decided by an incompetent officiating crew.

[adambr2]

I would also like to add that, whatever love affair that America has with the Lions while they are still fresh and new, count me out of it. 

I think they are a dirty, arrogant team that is coached to be dirty and arrogant and has no respect for their opponents despite no historical accomplishments of their own. I think it’s been easy for them to look good with little adversity. I think if they face real adversity — a 2 TD deficit in a playoff game, for instance, the panic and finger pointing will set in.

Either way, if we don’t beat them in January, I won’t be among those rooting for them to end the drought. I’ll hope they get their hearts ripped out of their chests again.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 hours ago, adambr2 said:

I know it seems crazy to people because it goes against everything we’ve ever known about football. But the call from his own 30 was the analytically correct call. By like, a lot.

No it was not. I'm sorry but that is insane. "By a lot"? Come on, give me a break. You're up by 3 points in the second half, at your own 29, you punt the ball. He gave us a 30 yard field and we scored in 2 plays. If that's analytically correct, analytics are broken. You would rightfully lose your mind on MLF if he did something that stupid and it didn't work. Yes I'm sure your odds of converting 4th and 1 are greater than 50%, but you can't just say it's the correct call and ignore all the situational variables. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

5 hours ago, adambr2 said:

I would also like to add that, whatever love affair that America has with the Lions while they are still fresh and new, count me out of it. 

I think they are a dirty, arrogant team that is coached to be dirty and arrogant and has no respect for their opponents despite no historical accomplishments of their own. I think it’s been easy for them to look good with little adversity. I think if they face real adversity — a 2 TD deficit in a playoff game, for instance, the panic and finger pointing will set in.

Either way, if we don’t beat them in January, I won’t be among those rooting for them to end the drought. I’ll hope they get their hearts ripped out of their chests again.

Yeah I'm with you. I am assuming we aren't going to the Super Bowl so Buffalo is my adopted team.

The love affair with the Loser Lions is, in my opinion, also leading to everyone really overstating how much better they are than everyone else. They're good, probably the best team on paper, but they are also definitely vulnerable..

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 hours ago, Sixtolezcano said:

Seriously? The Lions were playing without half of their defense and were playing with at least 6 street free agents. You need to take off your green colored glasses. It’s the Lions and maybe the Eagles above everyone else in the NFC. If te Lions didn’t give them a free 7 points it wouldn’t have been that close.

That's a pretty drastic exaggeration. I am not sure the starters on the DL would have pressured Love any better than the group they had out there. They didn't really struggle to do that. And they didn't give the Packers 7 points. They had to make a stop and they did, once anyway. 

I think it's you and a couple others that need to take off the post-loss pouty glasses. The Packers played a very good team very tight on the road and came up a bit short. I think they will have a difficult time beating them if they have to, but they have enough of a chance that it's reasonable to see it happen.  Detroit has clobbered a lot of teams this year and the Packers have shown twice that it at least shouldn't be a laugher when they play, and the first game was probably the worst the Packers have played all year. I hope there is a third game. I think it would be very fun to watch. 

[yourout]

Curious where everyone would rank MLF in the coaching pecking order? 

I would put him somewhere between 8 and 10. He's a decent coach but he's not in the top tier.

[adambr2]

22 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

No it was not. I'm sorry but that is insane. "By a lot"? Come on, give me a break. You're up by 3 points in the second half, at your own 29, you punt the ball. He gave us a 30 yard field and we scored in 2 plays. If that's analytically correct, analytics are broken. You would rightfully lose your mind on MLF if he did something that stupid and it didn't work. Yes I'm sure your odds of converting 4th and 1 are greater than 50%, but you can't just say it's the correct call and ignore all the situational variables. 

Yes, yes it was. Okay, “a lot” is subjective, but increasing your win odds by 2% in one play is certainly not nothing. 

Again, just because it’s been pounded into everyone’s head for decades that “this is what you do here”,  does not necessarily mean it increases your odds of winning. 

I’m not going to say I would have loved it if MLF had made the same decision (although I certainly would if he made it), but I’m also not all that crazy confident in our short yardage conversion chances as the Lions rightfully are in theirs. I’m not just going to totally disregard the analytics of that particular call, though.

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 minutes ago, yourout said:

Curious where everyone would rank MLF in the coaching pecking order? 

I would put him somewhere between 8 and 10. He's a decent coach but he's not in the top tier.

Without going down the list of names I would say he is a top 5 coach. They do not have the defensive personnel to be an elite team. Their star defensive player has turned into David Bhaktiari and they just do not pressure without a blitz. 

They transitioned QBs in a rebuild year and nearly made the NFCCG. Then lost their starting QB 3x and won all 3 games with a guy they picked up in August. I like his offense most of the time, if I had an issue with it, I think he gets away from the run too much. When we got the ball with 8 minutes left, I was really hoping we would try to grind them out and eat most of the time, instead we just went for big chunk plays. I get it, you have to score first, but I was hoping for some possession. 

You can count on him to waste a timeout at least once a half too. That seems to be the norm. 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

2 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Yes, yes it was. Okay, “a lot” is subjective, but increasing your win odds by 2% in one play is certainly not nothing. 

Again, just because it’s been pounded into everyone’s head for decades that “this is what you do here”,  does not necessarily mean it increases your odds of winning. 

I’m not going to say I would have loved it if MLF had made the same decision (although I certainly would if he made it), but I’m also not all that crazy confident in our short yardage conversion chances as the Lions rightfully are in theirs. I’m not just going to totally disregard the analytics of that particular call, though.

 

And what was the win probability once they didn't covert it and the Packers immediately scored? Did it go down by more than 2%? Or the probability if the Packers start their next possession at their own 31? That is the problem with this crap.

You are not going to convince me that was the correct call. It's not "because I'm used to it." It's just plain stupid and not necessary. 

 

[adambr2]

7 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

And what was the win probability once they didn't covert it and the Packers immediately scored? Did it go down by more than 2%? Or the probability if the Packers start their next possession at their own 31? That is the problem with this crap.

You are not going to convince me that was the correct call. It's not "because I'm used to it." It's just plain stupid and not necessary. 

 

It obviously dropped, significantly. I mean, don’t you think that possible outcome was figured into the original computation? It wasn’t a mathematical certainty that we were going to score 7 points in 2 plays even after they failed. That’s just what happened in this instance.

I mean, yeah, if you’re going to argue with mathematical and data-based principals, there’s no purpose in trying to convince you otherwise.

[adambr2]

14 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Without going down the list of names I would say he is a top 5 coach. They do not have the defensive personnel to be an elite team. Their star defensive player has turned into David Bhaktiari and they just do not pressure without a blitz. 

They transitioned QBs in a rebuild year and nearly made the NFCCG. Then lost their starting QB 3x and won all 3 games with a guy they picked up in August. I like his offense most of the time, if I had an issue with it, I think he gets away from the run too much. When we got the ball with 8 minutes left, I was really hoping we would try to grind them out and eat most of the time, instead we just went for big chunk plays. I get it, you have to score first, but I was hoping for some possession. 

You can count on him to waste a timeout at least once a half too. That seems to be the norm. 

 

I’d have a hard time putting him top 5 until he can start winning some big games. I think you could put Reid, McDermott, maybe both Harbaugh’s in front of him. Then depending on who you talk to between Shanahan, McVay, Tomlin, maybe O’Connell and Sirriani. It’s all very subjective after the first couple.

[adambr2]

If they don’t have enough talent on defense to win now, than the elephant in the room is that Gutenkust has done a really bad job building that part of the roster, because it hasn’t been for lack of effort or investment. Numerous high picks and 1st rounders that have yielded pretty meh results. When all you have to show for it is one decent, not elite pass rusher plus one part time corner, that’s not good enough. 

If they can’t generate enough pressure with their front, which I think we know by now they can’t, it’s on Hafley to dial up some different blitz packages. Sure makes it tough to do that when your top corner is constantly absent. 

I’ll give credit to Gute at least for signing McKinney. I shudder to think where the D would be if he hadn’t.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

12 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

 I mean, don’t you think that possible outcome was figured into the original computation? 

 

I don't know. It doesn't sound like you do either. The fact that the 4th down play probably had like a 37% chance of failure or something is enough reason to punt when you are at the 30 and have a lead. The bad side of the failed conversion is a lot worse than a decent punt. 

And I am not arguing with "mathematical principles." This is actually of the things that drives me INSANE about the analytics movement. You can argue a call based on the situational variables and rationalize going against the percentages. 

Fact: NFL coaches have been punting and kicking stupid FGs for way too long. But also Fact: All sports take this crap too far and ignore the situational aspect of it at times, that was one of those times. As was the last one, but that one is much more justifiable than this one was. The Lions actually had a lot more on the line last night than GB did so I can get why he was going so hard.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

5 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

If they don’t have enough talent on defense to win now, than the elephant in the room is that Gutenkust has done a really bad job building that part of the roster, because it hasn’t been for lack of effort or investment. Numerous high picks and 1st rounders that have yielded pretty meh results. When all you have to show for it is one decent, not elite pass rusher plus one part time corner, that’s not good enough. 

If they can’t generate enough pressure with their front, which I think we know by now they can’t, it’s on Hafley to dial up some different blitz packages. Sure makes it tough to do that when your top corner is constantly absent. 

I’ll give credit to Gute at least for signing McKinney. I shudder to think where the D would be if he hadn’t.

They came in with the youngest team in the league again this year and are sitting 9-4. This is a brutal crowd. They have the talent "to win." I just don't think they are quite literally one of the best 4 teams in the NFL. It's not like they are 3-10 here. Not gonna deny some of the 1st round whifs though. They should probably just stop drafting out of Georgia completely.

[homer]

1 hour ago, yourout said:

Curious where everyone would rank MLF in the coaching pecking order? 

I would put him somewhere between 8 and 10. He's a decent coach but he's not in the top tier.

watch Malik Willis tape from last year. He might be the best coach in the league. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

40 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I’d have a hard time putting him top 5 until he can start winning some big games. I think you could put Reid, McDermott, maybe both Harbaugh’s in front of him. Then depending on who you talk to between Shanahan, McVay, Tomlin, maybe O’Connell and Sirriani. It’s all very subjective after the first couple.

Idk. He is 4-0 against McVay including a thumping the year they won the SB and a playoff game. I don't think that's at all the be-all, end-all, but I thought that was the weakest champion in years and they got lucky they didn't have to play GB again.

McDermott? He would fail the same "big game" test. Reid is the best in the business. Tomlin's history speaks for itself but even he transitioned from Ben with Russell Wilson. The Harbaughs have lost a LOT of big games and have 1 title between them. Great coaches, not saying they are worse. But I get the sense that most fans are a lot more generous with other team's coaches than their own.

MLF got the Packers back into contention when they clearly looked cooked with Rodgers at the helm. They didn't get back to the SB which sucked, but it was still an achievement. Then seamlessly transitioned with a young QB that most people wanted run out of town. I agree that the pool of guys you listed are pretty subjective, but would still think MLF is top 5 based on the impressiveness of the good he has done.

[Fear The Chorizo]

It's fun and exciting for a coach to constantly go for it in curious situations...then when it backfires in a pressure situation it's how you lose a huge 2nd half lead in a conference championship game, too.  I still don't trust Goff in a big moment against a defense with a pass rush - so much of Detroit's offense is based on the quick hitter/screen game that their athletic Oline gets RBs and receivers out in space - if a defense can hold that in check and make Goff consistently throw to receivers downfield, he's going to make some decisions with the football that give a secondary interception opportunities.

I don't really care what analytics say - with a 3 point lead in the 2nd half of a home game (in a building you've been dominating most opponents in), you punt the ball from your own 29 on 4th and short and make your opponent that had been struggling to sustain extended possessions drive the length of the field to tie or regain the lead instead of allowing the chance of a failed conversion totally flip the flow of the game.  

Also - that Lions defense is going to cost them in the playoffs, whether they play home or away...Packers struggled in the 1st half against constant blitzing, but they eventually figured out what they were doing and started carving them up.  A balanced team like Philly with weapons outside and Barkley/Hurts dictating what the Lions could or couldn't do at the line of scrimmage is going to gash them.

All that said, the Packers played the Lions tight, and made enough unnecessary mistakes to leave me optimistic about their playoff chances against anyone based on the talent on their roster.  A healthy Dobbs last night would have made a difference - so would have a healthier secondary (not just Jaire, but Bullard and Williams both going down in the game left the middle of the field wide open for easy completions).

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

14 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

It's fun and exciting for a coach to constantly go for it in curious situations...then when it backfires in a pressure situation it's how you lose a huge 2nd half lead in a conference championship game, too.  I still don't trust Goff in a big moment against a defense with a pass rush - so much of Detroit's offense is based on the quick hitter/screen game that their athletic Oline gets RBs and receivers out in space - if a defense can hold that in check and make Goff consistently throw to receivers downfield, he's going to make some decisions with the football that give a secondary interception opportunities.

I don't really care what analytics say - with a 3 point lead in the 2nd half of a home game (in a building you've been dominating most opponents in), you punt the ball from your own 29 on 4th and short and make your opponent that had been struggling to sustain extended possessions drive the length of the field to tie or regain the lead instead of allowing the chance of a failed conversion totally flip the flow of the game.  

Also - that Lions defense is going to cost them in the playoffs, whether they play home or away...Packers struggled in the 1st half against constant blitzing, but they eventually figured out what they were doing and started carving them up.  A balanced team like Philly with weapons outside and Barkley/Hurts dictating what the Lions could or couldn't do at the line of scrimmage is going to gash them.

All that said, the Packers played the Lions tight, and made enough unnecessary mistakes to leave me optimistic about their playoff chances against anyone based on the talent on their roster.  A healthy Dobbs last night would have made a difference - so would have a healthier secondary (not just Jaire, but Bullard and Williams both going down in the game left the middle of the field wide open for easy completions).

 

Pretty much where I'm at. The Packers are not beyond having a dogfight with Tampa/Seattle/Atlanta in the Wild Card. But they are close enough to Detroit that who knows, some goofy bounces and they can steal one. The Lions were missing guys, but so were the Packers. One of their "backup DL" was Za'Darius Smith. It's being played up a bit much.

My money is on a 2nd round loss. I think they are playing as well as we can hope right now though to end the season. Love looks better. Need a few guys healthy and hoping they can scheme a way to get better pressure. I am optimistic. They have not gone with a heavy-run offensive scheme yet against Detroit, and I am hoping they kept some defensive looks in their back pocket.

[Sixtolezcano]

32 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Pretty much where I'm at. The Packers are not beyond having a dogfight with Tampa/Seattle/Atlanta in the Wild Card. But they are close enough to Detroit that who knows, some goofy bounces and they can steal one. The Lions were missing guys, but so were the Packers. One of their "backup DL" was Za'Darius Smith. It's being played up a bit much.

My money is on a 2nd round loss. I think they are playing as well as we can hope right now though to end the season. Love looks better. Need a few guys healthy and hoping they can scheme a way to get better pressure. I am optimistic. They have not gone with a heavy-run offensive scheme yet against Detroit, and I am hoping they kept some defensive looks in their back pocket.

Exactly, the Packers are on their way up and are near the top of the heap of NFL teams, however, the Lions, followed by the Eagles, Bills and Chiefs are superior to the next cluster of teams.  The Packers are in a group of teams along with the Vikings, Steelers, Ravens, Commanders, Texans and maybe the Chargers. That is not to say that upset occur fairly regularly in the NFL and “on any given Sunday”. The games are so close that the odds of the Packers beating the top group are probably 40-45%. Most game are within 7-10 points. Turnovers, penalties, coaching, injuries and quarterbacks are the most factors that play the difference in determining the winner in any individual game.

[HarveysWBs]

3 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

But I get the sense that most fans are a lot more generous with other team's coaches than their own.

To this point, I spent Thanksgiving with my brother in law who is a huge Vikings fan. He said point blank and without a bit of sarcasm that he wants Kevin O’Connell fired, and I was stunned. What O’Connell got out of an aging Cousins and now Sam Darnold, and made an absolutely inspired D coordinator selection to lead a terrific overhaul on that side of the ball looks super-impressive to me as an outsider. Whereas my brother in law thinks the offense for the Vikes is basically a scripted show that falls apart in the second half because it’s all smoke and mirrors. The grass (or artificial turf I suppose) can look awfully green on somebody else’s field.

As an addendum, I have a hard time imagining other people in the division being jealous of the Packers having Mike McCarthy. That’s partially my Packers fan-ness, but also the fact that, much like LaFleur, that guy rarely seemed to get the respect he deserved, in or out of Packers world. Of course, his Dallas tenure has done nothing to help that.

[homer]

One could make a pretty good argument that the reason the Lions won is because Campbell was more willing to go for it on 4th down all game. Yeah it didn't work once and gave GB a short field but GB had quite a few midfield punts that could have been conversion attempts.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

9 minutes ago, homer said:

One could make a pretty good argument that the reason the Lions won is because Campbell was more willing to go for it on 4th down all game. Yeah it didn't work once and gave GB a short field but GB had quite a few midfield punts that could have been conversion attempts.

One could. One could also make the argument the Packers had a chance because of the one they failed to get. The game was most likely still won without them converting the last one and just kicking. 

The one to end the first half was a gutsy one that I love, that was probably the biggest one of the game, that I think most coaches would not attempt. The other one at the goal line was pretty obvious to try.

Packers punted 3x. From the 35, 37 and 4th and 5 from the DET 47. The 47 is the one you'd consider chancing, but I thought it was the right move to play the field position game at that point of the game. It was very early. 

The distance is relevant too. Packers were in 4th and long. I don't recall exactly but the Lions were in a very short distance every time I believe.