adambr2

35-40 yards from a reasonable FG attempt, but yea, still agree worth taking a shot. 20 yards gets you to the 45 and 25 gets you to the 40. That's a 57-62 yard field goal. Both are "reasonably possible" for a last half attempt in this era of kickers.

What a chicken crap call. You got a good field position gift, you're only 20-25 yards from a reasonably possible FG attempt. Just throw it downfield and see what happens. It's not like they've been able to stop you all night.

I still don't get why teams don't just kick it from center. They always spend the ends or games trying to line up the game winning FG from right between the hashes but on an extra point they want to kick from a hash for some reason?

Dude I love what I'm seeing out of Gary lately.

At this point I would just like to see us have the opportunity to play in the Super Bowl and worry about what our chances are against the Chiefs or Steelers once we get there.

I thought the Bears' defense was supposed to be the strength of their team. They look like warm feces to me.

I mean Foles is just as bad, and I'm pretty sure he's hurt anyway.

That was a dumb play. They were moving the ball well and then took a shot. It's Mitchell Trubisky, not Aaron Rodgers.

Dude, don't throw that flag.

I think you could have taxied a small airplane through that hole.

Man, our special teams lately. Even Crosby is in on it now.

I've always found it incredible that Norm Van Brocklin's single game passing record of 554 yards has stood since 1951 throughout NFL eras that have been pass dominant. Every time a QB gets an early 300 like this, I always end up expecting that this is the day it finally falls.

I think some may have jumped the gun on the greatness of the Tampa Bay Bucs.

I would have run the ball on 3rd down down there, then run it on 4th down again. Your absolute worst case scenario is the Vikings get it back down 3 with a minute left backed up at their own goalline and needing to go 70 yards just to tie or 100 to win with no timeouts.

And still won. Ugh. Matt Rhule did a terrible job of managing the clock those last couple minutes. He botched that game away.

It's an advantage, again, just a very minimal one. It's so much better than when a FG won it immediately. What would be your 50/50 solution with no advantage to either side? Again, college rules still favor the toss winner even more. If it was me I would give one possession to each team and the game ends after that no matter what the score, save sudden death after that for playoffs when you have to have a winner. That solves the get it over quick TV problem that brought about the sudden death rules in the first place. I don't expect much support for this lol but the idea of ties doesn't bother me like they do most other NFL fans and I think it would be interesting how teams play it, especially late in the season. Ok, but that's a huge advantage for the second team to possess. Probably a lot more than 53%. They already know what they need. They can play for the win, play for the tie, however much risk they're willing to take on. The first team knows nothing -- they can't take those risks. Additionally, if they go 3 and out, what do they do? Just punt and play for nothing better than a tie? Now if they don't get it, the other team can just bring out the FG and win it. Maybe you're saying both teams get 4 downs and there is no punting -- if Team A fails on 4th down then Team B starts their possession back at their own 25 or whatever. But team B still has a big advantage knowing what they need to play for. I think you'd have to take field goals out entirely for this to really be equitable, and then you are going to have a LOT of ties. I guess what I'm saying is there is no perfect way to do OT. Ties don't bother me a ton either, but I think they'd bother the average fan if the majority of OT games were ending in ties.

It's an advantage, again, just a very minimal one. It's so much better than when a FG won it immediately. What would be your 50/50 solution with no advantage to either side? Again, college rules still favor the toss winner even more.

Why even flip a coin? Why not just let the home team decide? 53% is still an advantage. The Packers have lost 7 coin tosses in a row and it is costing them possessions (but so are the turnovers, obviously). 53% is basically within a margin of error. You're not going to be able to make it exactly 50/50. (I was referring to the OT coin toss on that stat, not all coin tosses) The coin toss isn't costing the Packers anything. They won the OT coin toss the other day, possessed the ball in OT and still lost. Losing the opening coin toss means nothing. It's just flipped in half 2. Each team still gets the exact same amount of possession opportunities whether they win or lose the coin toss. Losing the coin toss is a red herring, it simply isn't among the Packers' issues right now or in any way comparable to turning the ball over.

Man I wish the Steelers/Ravens was on now.

The NBA effectively eliminated divisions years ago. I think 2 eight team divisions per conference is the way to go, just alternate the home and away division schedule every year like college does. For the Packers I think this would likely mean a merger with the NFL west, would prefer the East of course but there are a lot of old historic NFL teams in the west and we actually have rivalries with Rams/Niners/Cardinals that go back beyond most of our memories. Makes too much sense though and the NFL is loathe to admit how they are doing it now isn't perfect, they still make a coin toss in OT a major play. The coin toss actually has a very minimal effect on who wins now -- I think it's less than 53%, as opposed to college rules where the coin toss winner wins about 55% of the time. I don't have a big problem with the NFL overtime rules. I don't really like that they shortened it to 10 minutes, but it's a heck of a lot better than when first FG won the game. Especially now that the 40 yard line is FG range for most NFL kickers.

I'm ok with the division winner getting an automatic playoff spot. I wouldn't be opposed to the better record team getting home field, though. The playoff field has already been watered down enough with 7 teams that adding the #8 team in lieu of the division winner isn't likely to be a super deserving team either.

I can keep 2 of these 3 receivers for next year: Diggs, Claypool, Cooper. As of right now, who would you keep? I think I keep Diggs for sure and then it's between Claypool and Cooper. I love Claypool's upside, but Cooper was averaging 22 PPG before Dak went down this year. If Dak is back and 100%, I see no reason that Cooper shouldn't be a top WR in 2021.

I'm not in total disagreement with Nodak. I'd respectfully question as to why the Pelicans weren't at least competing for conference championships in the West in the AD/Holiday era if Holiday is indeed a good enough second player.

The administrative mistakes made by our FO is something that does need to be addressed. However, in regards to Bogdanovic, at least we're not the Kings. We still have Wilson and a nice young talented player in DDV. The Kings now get none of that....and they still lost Bogdanovic. Ouch. Still sucks to lose Bogdanovic, but let's not lose sight of the fact that keeping DiVincenzo is no small consolation. Hindsight being 20/20 I would have assumed before the Holiday trade that DDV would be a necessary piece.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-bogdan-bogdanovic-giannis-antetokounmpo-040028104.html Article says that Bogdanovic was Giannis' preferred addition this offseason and that confidence that Giannis will sign has been significantly impacted when the deal fell through.