Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Studs vs Duds: Heart Attack Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 466981"><p>Fine, if that's what the data tells you. But I'll go back to my earlier point...if you're going to follow the data, you must do it ALL THE TIME for the law of averages dictated by the stats to do their work. That's clearly not the case in an occasional attempt to go for it, and invoking the stats in support of the occasional attempt is a falacy.</p><p> </p><p>In further support of my earlier comment, the Cornell study found this regarding the outcome of 1st. and 10 from your own 20 (very similar to the Packer situation):</p><p> </p><p>"The team with the ball is slightly more likely to score the next points in the game (1628 times the next score was a touchdown by team A, and 1413 times the next score was a touchdown by the other team)." In other words, the value of the first down in that situation is not persuasive, as I noted earlier.</p><p> </p><p>I view the the 4th. and 1-or-less data with some skepticism. You'd have to think those instances in the data set are weighted toward trailing teams later in games. And a certain number are teams trailing by a wide margin at any point in the game. In these instances, the defense is not likely to sell out for the run, are playing prevent, or would gladly trade a short gain for a first down in exchange for time burned off the clock or a burned time out, while protecting against the big gain.</p><p> </p><p>I'd be a lot more agreeable to the call if it's on the opponent's 35 yard line on a cold or windy day. The FG is a dicey proposition under those condition; the punt could go touchback or short out of bounds causing you to lose the field position advantage, which is what punting is all about.</p><p> </p><p>Unless and until somebody does it ALL THE TIME, and leverages the 4 down run/pass series (which could possibly be a powerful strategy) by imbedding it in their offensive play call strategy (and even their personnel selection process), I fail to be persuaded. With the kickoff rules as they stand now, ditching the punt entirely relieves you of the need to keep quite as many guys who are coverage specialists. Maybe Denver should try it? The Jets? <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 466981"] Fine, if that's what the data tells you. But I'll go back to my earlier point...if you're going to follow the data, you must do it ALL THE TIME for the law of averages dictated by the stats to do their work. That's clearly not the case in an occasional attempt to go for it, and invoking the stats in support of the occasional attempt is a falacy. In further support of my earlier comment, the Cornell study found this regarding the outcome of 1st. and 10 from your own 20 (very similar to the Packer situation): "The team with the ball is slightly more likely to score the next points in the game (1628 times the next score was a touchdown by team A, and 1413 times the next score was a touchdown by the other team)." In other words, the value of the first down in that situation is not persuasive, as I noted earlier. I view the the 4th. and 1-or-less data with some skepticism. You'd have to think those instances in the data set are weighted toward trailing teams later in games. And a certain number are teams trailing by a wide margin at any point in the game. In these instances, the defense is not likely to sell out for the run, are playing prevent, or would gladly trade a short gain for a first down in exchange for time burned off the clock or a burned time out, while protecting against the big gain. I'd be a lot more agreeable to the call if it's on the opponent's 35 yard line on a cold or windy day. The FG is a dicey proposition under those condition; the punt could go touchback or short out of bounds causing you to lose the field position advantage, which is what punting is all about. Unless and until somebody does it ALL THE TIME, and leverages the 4 down run/pass series (which could possibly be a powerful strategy) by imbedding it in their offensive play call strategy (and even their personnel selection process), I fail to be persuaded. With the kickoff rules as they stand now, ditching the punt entirely relieves you of the need to keep quite as many guys who are coverage specialists. Maybe Denver should try it? The Jets? ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: Thirteen Below
1 minute ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: AKCheese
25 minutes ago
Draft Talk
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: AKCheese
32 minutes ago
Draft Talk
Most hated teams outside of the division
Latest: milani
54 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 12:11 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Studs vs Duds: Heart Attack Edition
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top