Game 6: Packers @ Cardinals - Sunday, Oct 19 3:25 PM

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 minute ago, adambr2 said:

I’m going to totally disagree. As good as Havrisik has been for us, he was 4 for 9 from 40+ before getting here. They were talking on the broadcast like this kick was a chip shot. 47 yards, on the road, pressure situation, for a guy who was on the couch 2 weeks ago, is no sure thing.

Then even IF you make it, you still have to hold them out of FG range (which we didn’t do). Then even IF you do that you still have to win in OT.

Just too many things you need to go right if you trot the FG kicker out there. Going for it was the right call and also helped burn more clock off.

It was 100% the right call even had we lost the game. No faith in that defense to prevent them from gaining the 5 yards that would have put them in FG range after we let them return the kick to the 50.

The dumb call IMO was AZ going for it on 4th down QB sneak with a 3-pt lead. Dumb might be harsh as I think at least 1/3 of coaches do the same, but there are good teams who would take that chance to pin us deep and just not give up a TD.

[adambr2]

43 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

It was 100% the right call even had we lost the game. No faith in that defense to prevent them from gaining the 5 yards that would have put them in FG range after we let them return the kick to the 50.

The dumb call IMO was AZ going for it on 4th down QB sneak with a 3-pt lead. Dumb might be harsh as I think at least 1/3 of coaches do the same, but there are good teams who would take that chance to pin us deep and just not give up a TD.

One thing that needs to be considered when making these decisions is that getting into FG range used to be like a 45-50 yard task (touchback at the 20, drive to the 30 or 35).

Nowadays you’re starting with touchbacks at the 35 and most kickers have leg for 60 or beyond. So you’re talking maybe 20-25 yards to get in range. Case in point the 7 second drive before halftime. It took absolutely nothing but a touchback, an intermediate route against a soft zone, an immediate timeout and a kick.

I felt nearly certain that if we kicked we were losing either 23-20 or 26-23.

[homer]

I think any borderline call that works is a good call and any that fails is a bad call.

[Fear The Chorizo]

14 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

One thing that needs to be considered when making these decisions is that getting into FG range used to be like a 45-50 yard task (touchback at the 20, drive to the 30 or 35).

Nowadays you’re starting with touchbacks at the 35 and most kickers have leg for 60 or beyond. So you’re talking maybe 20-25 yards to get in range. Case in point the 7 second drive before halftime. It took absolutely nothing but a touchback, an intermediate route against a soft zone, an immediate timeout and a kick.

I felt nearly certain that if we kicked we were losing either 23-20 or 26-23.

With one timeout and the 2 minute warning left, opting to go for it down 3 in that spot gave the Packers 1 chance to win or tie the game, not 2....glad they made the play (even though I still think Kraft's catch could've been overturned with what I saw as a slight bobble as he was getting feet down).  Had they not converted, the Cards would've needed 1 first down to ice the game (not 25-35 yards to try and win it with a long FG), and even if they didn't get that 1st down, you'd get the ball back with less than a minute left still down 3 and no timeouts deep in your own territory.

Kick the FG to tie it there, then even if the 1st play the Cardinals make results in a 1st down, you can stop the clock twice more and wind up leaving yourself enough time for a last ditch drive to tie it up again assuming your defense doesn't force a 3 and out/gives up FG range.  Miss the FG and you can still force a 3 and out/get the ball back with enough time to get another FG shot.

I get the logic, but how the game was flowing I thought it was the wrong decision even though they converted.  Glad to be wrong in that instance.  I would've been more comfortable going for it if the Packers still had 3 timeouts - and would be really curious what they would've opted to do if the were in more of a 'gimme' FG range with similar time left on the clock.

[homer]

[adambr2]

3 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

With one timeout and the 2 minute warning left, opting to go for it down 3 in that spot gave the Packers 1 chance to win or tie the game, not 2....glad they made the play (even though I still think Kraft's catch could've been overturned with what I saw as a slight bobble as he was getting feet down).

Kick the FG to tie it there

Not necessarily true. There was still enough time to get the ball back if you fail on 4th. You need to hold them to 3 and out, but either way, you aren't winning the game if you can’t stop them from driving down the field, even if you make a FG.

”Kick the FG to tie it there” makes it sound automatic. If it was, I imagine the discussion is different. You have a street kicker with a special teams unit that has already allowed two blocked kicks this year. I imagine the difference in odds between a successful 47 yard FG and a successful 4th down conversion were marginal at best. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

9 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

Not necessarily true. There was still enough time to get the ball back if you fail on 4th. You need to hold them to 3 and out, but either way, you aren't winning the game if you can’t stop them from driving down the field, even if you make a FG.

”Kick the FG to tie it there” makes it sound automatic. If it was, I imagine the discussion is different. You have a street kicker with a special teams unit that has already allowed two blocked kicks this year. I imagine the difference in odds between a successful 47 yard FG and a successful 4th down conversion were marginal at best. 

The Cards only needing 10+ yards in a 3-4 down scenario to ice the game against a leaky defense after a failed 4th down and roughly 30 yards + a game winning FG in a tie game are also two very different sets of circumstances, too.

When your kicker just made one from 61 earlier in the game and the offense has had a propensity to dial up very strange playcalls on 4th and shorts...at the time I thought taking my chances kicking it for the points to tie made more sense than doing what they did.

I'd assume the probabilities were about a coinflip in that moment as to which option gave the team less of a chance to lose...probably going for it gave the Packers a slightly better chance to win...just glad the Packers came out on top and not going to get overly worked up about it.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I am assuming he would have nailed the FG and it still makes little sense to me to kick it. 

You are hoping for OT if he makes the kick, with an outlier chance you can win the game in regulation by getting the ball back with a 3 and out. You are essentially hoping for a likely < 50% at a win. You're putting everything on the defense, which has not played well, whether you make or miss the kick, too.

Why are we paying this guy $220 million if we don't trust him to convert 4th and 2 against the Cardinals? 

The touchdown putting them up 4 was a HUGE advantage. Forcing AZ to have to go the length of the field. The only mistake I thought of watching it was that they scored too fast.

 

[homer]

 

 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I don't play Madden anymore and haven't for over a decade, but I can't help but wonder what all the changes on 4th down have done to "Fair Play" that used to force you to punt.

[adambr2]

2 minutes ago, homer said:

 

 

 

That’s kind of what I figured. I know you can’t take analytics as gospel but I assumed a strong recommendation to go for the 4th.

[adambr2]

1 minute ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I don't play Madden anymore and haven't for over a decade, but I can't help but wonder what all the changes on 4th down have done to "Fair Play" that used to force you to punt.

I’ve played every version of Madden at least sparingly since probably 2003 but I don’t recall ever being forced to punt. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

I’ve played every version of Madden at least sparingly since probably 2003 but I don’t recall ever being forced to punt. 

Online play required "Fair Play" settings turned on which forced you to kick FGs or Punts based on their formula that nobody quite knew. It might let you go for it and 4th and 1 from the 40, but on 4th and 12 you were only allowed to choose 'punt'. It was in the game from around 2001ish to whenever I stopped playing. You were almost always required to punt from your own side of the field unless it was the 4th with little time left.

Edit: Debuted in '04, phased out by '10. So it isn't a thing anymore.

[CheezWizHed]

1 hour ago, homer said:

I think any borderline call that works is a good call and any that fails is a bad call.

You are destined for politics my friend! 😂

[CheezWizHed]

Positional play thoughts:

QB: Not Love's best game, but was good.  Seemed to handle the clutch opportunities better - especially late.  Was mediocre early.  Maybe he is like Favre and needs one good shot to wake him up?  That run where he took a full force Budda Baker seemed to get him in the game.  The timeout to prevent a delay of game was 13 seconds on MLF and 22 seconds on Love... seems more like Love's problem especially when he doesn't realize it is running out and he is still making adjustments down to the 1 second mark. 

RB: Jacobs is a beast.  This season would be VERY different without him.  Even 1/2 of Jacobs is good. They need to stop running Wilson like he is Jacobs.  Two very different guys where Wilson needs to run more outside and less up the gut.  The last two games, it looks like Brooks is bringing zilch to the team.  

WR: Golden looked like he was going to have a huge game after the first couple of drives, but then didn't do much else.  Doubs quietly had a good day.  I'd bet Heath doesn't last the week with Watson taking his place. 

TE: Tucker Kraft - MORE COWBELL PLEASE!  The rest - meh.  We really need to find a blocking TE that can sneak out and catch the odd short yardage pass reliably (like Marcedes Lewis) for the 2nd TE.  Musgrave can't block (nor seems overly coordinated to run and catch a ball at the same time) and Fitzpatrick doesn't seem to have the comfort level of the coach to catch a pass. 

OL: I'm interested to see the numbers here (snap and PFF).  I didn't see Rhyan out there this week (but might've missed him if he was in briefly).  Morgan seemed to have a good day run blocking and was OK in pass block - a few key pressures at least.  Tom didn't seem to be his usual either.  Walker looked a little off or slow too.  Banks had a penalty, but didn't see any bad plays. 

DL: Star of the game was Parsons.  He had some contorsions of his upper body that were freaky.  I swore a couple of times, his upper half looked like a wet noodle where his lower half just ran around while the T was trying to block his upper half.  His upper half would just bend and contort so that there was nothing to really push against (i.e. wet noodle) and then pop back up when the lower half got around the T to sack the QB. Brinson looked solid again.  Stackhouse even held up -probably better when he has fewer snaps - and did excellent on the 4th and 1 stop. Gary had the strip sack, but seemed pretty quiet otherwise - solid, but not a ton of pressure.  Barryn looked active out there but made some mistakes. It will help to get Wyatt back for pressure up the middle.

LB: Walker made a bad personal foul, but part of it was missing the pass and coming down on the QB's facemask.  Otherwise, he had a good game.  I do wonder how much of the communication issue we see is on him as the QB of the defense or just lack of practice together (injuries in TC).  Covering TEs was atrocious out there.  Way too many wide open throws to McBride.  I'm thinking this on Cooper unfortunately.  He looks a bit lost going backwards into coverage.  And he isn't playing with the speed and decisiveness of last year.

DB: Hobbs - woof.  What a bad day.  Nixon - still pretty average play.  Gave some up, but not much.  Made a nice play - forced fumble or broken up pass - either way it was a good one. McKinney, Williams, and Bullard - solid play. Nothing great, but nothing terrible either.  I just get the feeling this unit isn't communicating or comfortable where each other should be.  Double teams and zones seem to leave some BIG gaps yet. 

ST: 61 yards.  Havrisik made himself some money these last two weeks. I wonder if he might be tradable when McManus is healthy? A 7th round or 6th for 7th swap? 

[adambr2]

2 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

It was 100% the right call even had we lost the game. No faith in that defense to prevent them from gaining the 5 yards that would have put them in FG range after we let them return the kick to the 50.

The dumb call IMO was AZ going for it on 4th down QB sneak with a 3-pt lead. Dumb might be harsh as I think at least 1/3 of coaches do the same, but there are good teams who would take that chance to pin us deep and just not give up a TD.

The Arizona call I thought was ok but subjective. I wanted them to punt, so I felt a lot better about driving the field than stopping them. I think they were probably also thinking we could milk most of the clock if we drove down the field and if they failed on 4th they’d still probably get another possession. 

In general I’ve noticed analytics favor aggression in football, and in baseball it can be more of a mix depending on variables.

Not that I am or will ever be close to qualified to be an NFL head coach or a football coach at any level for that matter, but I have wished for years that coaches would start using a little more logic and statistics in their game decisions.

I remember watching the Packers have the ball on 4th and inches at the Eagles 40 in the 4th and 26 game in early 2004 and they could have iced the game and naturally Sherman punts. That was against Andy Reid too and of course the rest is history.

I remember even thinking at that time it was crazy not to try going for 4th and inches over what amounted to be 20 yards of field position with the touchback but sadly most HCs at that time would have done the same. Nowadays I doubt there is one. In that way I think the game has definitely changed for the better and coaches are making choices based on what is the true best chance to win and not out of fear of what the media will say.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

6 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

The Arizona call I thought was ok but subjective. I wanted them to punt, so I felt a lot better about driving the field than stopping them. I think they were probably also thinking we could milk most of the clock if we drove down the field and if they failed on 4th they’d still probably get another possession. 

In general I’ve noticed analytics favor aggression in football, and in baseball it can be more of a mix depending on variables.

Not that I am or will ever be close to qualified to be an NFL head coach or a football coach at any level for that matter, but I have wished for years that coaches would start using a little more logic and statistics in their game decisions.

I remember watching the Packers have the ball on 4th and inches at the Eagles 40 in the 4th and 26 game in early 2004 and they could have iced the game and naturally Sherman punts. That was against Andy Reid too and of course the rest is history.

I remember even thinking at that time it was crazy not to try going for 4th and inches over what amounted to be 20 yards of field position with the touchback but sadly most HCs at that time would have done the same. Nowadays I doubt there is one. In that way I think the game is definitely for the better and coaches are making choices based on  what is the true best chance to win and not out of fear of what the media will say.

We had the best O-line in the league and Ahman Green was averaging 6.5 YPC that game with 150+ yards. That's what made it so horrific. But Sherman was always a scaredy-cat.

[adambr2]

12 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

We had the best O-line in the league and Ahman Green was averaging 6.5 YPC that game with 150+ yards. That's what made it so horrific. But Sherman was always a scaredy-cat.

He was, he took his chicken crap 5 yard delay penalty and then the punt went into the end zone. Then on the very first play the Eagles runner, Brian Westbrook or Duce Staley maybe, ripped off a 20 yard game. So the minuscule field position gain was immediately lost and we didn’t even take the chance to win on 4th and inches for it.

Sherman sucked. Somehow a worse GM than a HC, too.

His biggest advantage was following Ray Rhodes so the bar was pretty low for him.

[homer]

13 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

We had the best O-line in the league and Ahman Green was averaging 6.5 YPC that game with 150+ yards. That's what made it so horrific. But Sherman was always a scaredy-cat.

They went for it on 4th down earlier in the game and got stuffed. I'm assuming that's why he didn't do it the second time even though GB was getting like 5 yards a carry on the 2nd half.

[OldHeidelberg]

This game felt like a loss most of the way through and when I saw the kicker run out on 4th and 2 I figured that was it. Scoring a TD on that drive seemed like our last chance to steal it so I completely agree it was right call, too bad MLF needed 2 shots at the decision to get it right. 

It seems like we get a win or 2 like this early every season, had to sweat out Jags and Texans last year. We are banged up and even the bad teams still trying this time of year, I think Zona was supposed to be good this year too and may just have bad luck to come in 2-4. If we won one we shouldn't have that's just karma since we gagged one in Cleveland.

 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

All our wins have been like this with the exception of the Lions. So was the loss and the tie. WAS we were in control the whole time but the outcome never should have been in any doubt the way it was. We haven't beaten a good team outside of Detroit Week 1.

Fortunately there aren't style points and we are 4-1-1, but there's plenty to not like.

[OldHeidelberg]

9 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

All our wins have been like this with the exception of the Lions. So was the loss and the tie. WAS we were in control the whole time but the outcome never should have been in any doubt the way it was. We haven't beaten a good team outside of Detroit Week 1.

Fortunately there aren't style points and we are 4-1-1, but there's plenty to not like.

I think this one was different, the announcers beat it to death but we trailed most of the game, never got out to double digit lead like the others and even trailed by double digits briefly. Yep, plenty not to like, but the big game by Parsons sort of revives my hopes that we finally have the star on defense to take over a game. 

[AKCheesehead]

5 hours ago, homer said:

They went for it on 4th down earlier in the game and got stuffed. I'm assuming that's why he didn't do it the second time even though GB was getting like 5 yards a carry on the 2nd half.

Yup.  I believe it was Wahl who slipped and that's why it got stuffed.  Later when the other 4th came, I could feel it in my gut that Sherman wouldn't go for it then (he didn't) and as a result the Packers would lose.  Still haunts me to this day.  That loss suuuuuucked and it was stupid.   

[CheezWizHed]

23 hours ago, adambr2 said:

I remember watching the Packers have the ball on 4th and inches at the Eagles 40 in the 4th and 26 game in early 2004