Packers notes

[Deleted member 6794]

He does, but he is perhaps the most talented CB in this coming draft. If we do our due diligence and decide he is cleaned up, I wont gripe if we draft him. He is a big physical corner who can cover.

Peters is a talented corner (although I have Trae Waynes ranked above him) but I'm really worried about his character. In addition there's more pressing needs on defense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers have told Matt Flynn that the team doesn´t have any plans to re-sign him.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Just because there's statistical evidence to go for it from the one yard line (which is based on data from several seasons) it doesn't mean going for it in these situations would have been a good idea and guaranteed to result in at least one TD.

On the first drive the Seahawks had already stopped the Packers twice from the one yard line. On the second they would have only had one chance to go for it on fourth down.

Taking into consideration the game was on the road in one of the loudest stadiums in the league I was OK with taking the points.

See, that might have made sense 15 years ago, when studies and data on going for it weren't available. Now, you go for it. You only have to convert one-in-two of those one-yard plays and it's a win. All the evidence, all the facts, say that you should go for it (excepting of course if you're offense is missing a key piece or that key piece is hurt). The only thing I need to point to is the result of the game. Had the Packers scored a TD on just one of those plays, they win the game DESPITE all the screw-ups at the end.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

See, that might have made sense 15 years ago, when studies and data on going for it weren't available. Now, you go for it. You only have to convert one-in-two of those one-yard plays and it's a win. All the evidence, all the facts, say that you should go for it (excepting of course if you're offense is missing a key piece or that key piece is hurt). The only thing I need to point to is the result of the game. Had the Packers scored a TD on just one of those plays, they win the game DESPITE all the screw-ups at the end.

Once again, there´s no guarantee the Packers would have scored at least one TD out of the two plays.

The league wide success rate on fourth down from the one was at 50% last season which would suggest the Packers would have ended up with seven instead of six points. With both instances happening in the first quarter that doesn´t mean the additional point would have resulted in a Packers win.

 

[PackerDNA]

This doesn't have anything to do with stats or probabilities for me.
The 1st time, although I disagreed with it, I had no problem with kicking the FG.
The 2nd time? I go for it, period. That's man up time. By backing away MM told his team and the Seahawks that we weren't up to it. You could see the lift the Seahawks got- "We got this, just ride it out".

 

[Half Empty]

It would have been nice if Burnett didn't slide to the ground with no one near him after an INT.

It would have been nice if Clay Matthews had actually toughed it out and been on the field the last few minutes.

It would have been nice if we hadn't been suddenly helpless to stop Lynch.

It would have been nice if Clinton - Dix hadn't just inexplicably watched a ball pass by.

It would have been nice if Bostick had followed instructions.

Ugh. It would have been nice if just one of these things could have happened so we could instead talk about what the Packers did in Super Bowl 49.

No argument from anyone. Missing the point, though.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This doesn't have anything to do with stats or probabilities for me.
The 1st time, although I disagreed with it, I had no problem with kicking the FG.
The 2nd time? I go for it, period. That's man up time. By backing away MM told his team and the Seahawks that we weren't up to it. You could see the lift the Seahawks got- "We got this, just ride it out".

The second FG happened with five minutes left in the first quarter, the Packers dominated the game for another three quarters after that.

 

[longtimefan]

The Packers have told Matt Flynn that the team doesn´t have any plans to re-sign him.

I have stated that since last year...Scott is better but needed a year to learn the system.


https://www.packerforum.com/threads/updates-on-players-being-cut.53999/#post-567318

but no one likes to believe me lol

 

[TJV]

The only thing I need to point to is the result of the game.

This is faulty logic for two reasons IMO. First, it ignores the other actions and decisions which decided the game. Second, what if a coach did something that had a 10% success rate which turned out in his favor and his team won the game? Just because his long-odds gamble paid off doesn’t mean it was the smart decision at the time.

This doesn't have anything to do with stats or probabilities for me. The 1st time, although I disagreed with it, I had no problem with kicking the FG. The 2nd time? I go for it, period. That's man up time. By backing away MM told his team and the Seahawks that we weren't up to it. You could see the lift the Seahawks got- "We got this, just ride it out".

So the Seahawks thought they had the game won after the second Packers FG with about 5 minutes left in the first quarter? I’m not buying it: They proceeding to give up 10 more points and didn’t score until about 5 minutes left in the third quarter on a fake FG. And their offense didn’t score a TD until about 2 minutes left in the game. It took an awful long time for their “we got this” to kick in, didn’t it? And somehow the lift the Seahawks got must have led to one of the all-time worst brain farts in NFL history when Bostic was reminded right before the onsides kick what his assignment was and he did the opposite anyway. That "lift" must have also somehow affected HHCD becoming lost in coverage on the 2-point conversion.

And if you really believe that give the Seahawks such a lift then you have to acknowledge what a letdown it would have been for the Packers to go for the TD once or twice and not make it.

 

[longtimefan]

This is faulty logic for two reasons IMO. First, it ignores the other actions and decisions which decided the game. Second, what if a coach did something that had a 10% success rate which turned out in his favor and his team won the game? Just because his long-odds gamble paid off doesn’t mean it was the smart decision at the time. So the Seahawks thought they had the game won after the second Packers FG with about 5 minutes left in the first quarter? I’m not buying it: They proceeding to give up 10 more points and didn’t score until about 5 minutes left in the third quarter on a fake FG. And their offense didn’t score a TD until about 2 minutes left in the game. It took an awful long time for their “we got this” to kick in, didn’t it? And somehow the lift the Seahawks got must have led to one of the all-time worst brain farts in NFL history when Bostic was reminded right before the onsides kick what his assignment was and he did the opposite anyway. That "lift" must have also somehow affected HHCD becoming lost in coverage on the 2-point conversion.

And if you really believe that give the Seahawks such a lift then you have to acknowledge what a letdown it would have been for the Packers to go for the TD once or twice and not make it.

I think he just forgot when the fg happened

 

[PackerDNA]

You guys keep pointing to what happened after; which isn't my point.
They- or I would have- needed to go for it at least the second time. You don't have the benefit of hindsight, or seeing the future to help decide. But when you are faced with that decision twice, and twice you decide to play it safe and back away from the challenge and opportunity, nothing good can come of that.
Dare greatly, or stay home.

 

[Mondio]

and you're getting to make claims without knowing what would have happened next. It's not as if they didn't get opportunity from short yardage for a TD. They did, and failed every time. Just one more? Ok, a couple minutes in, they go for it on 4th down, get stuffed and the next play Marshawn Lynch busts off a 40 yard run from the goaline out to mid field and the crowd is going wild. Still a smart choice? What happens next? you'll never have to be responsible for that decision because nothing happened next in that scenario. The real game had the offense moving the ball and scoring points and forcing the Seahawks in to Turnovers.

 

[TJV]

You guys keep pointing to what happened after; which isn't my point. They- or I would have- needed to go for it at least the second time. You don't have the benefit of hindsight, or seeing the future to help decide. But when you are faced with that decision twice, and twice you decide to play it safe and back away from the challenge and opportunity, nothing good can come of that. Dare greatly, or stay home.

Perhaps what happened next wasn’t your point but you posted, "By backing away MM told his team and the Seahawks that we weren't up to it. You could see the lift the Seahawks got- 'We got this, just ride it out' ". What I was pointing out was there was no evidence of either: The Packers were in command of the game until the final minutes. To think something that happened in the first quarter didn’t affect the mindset of either team for more than 2.5 quarters and then "kicked in" in the final couple of minutes of the game is a huge stretch IMO.

Mondio gave an example of the letdown I was talking about. And just for the record, before the first FG:
2nd and 1 at SEA 1: J.Tretter and L.Taylor reported in as eligible. J.Kuhn up the middle to SEA 1 for no gain (K.Williams; B.Wagner).
3rd and 1 at SEA 1: J.Tretter and L.Taylor reported in as eligible. E.Lacy left guard to SEA 1 for no gain (M.Smith; B.Irvin).

I think it was reasonable for McCarthy to think it would be a very close game and getting points against an excellent Seattle defense was important. It turned out his D turned in the excellent performance until the last few minutes of the game, but I don't blame him for thinking points would be very important. IMO insisting that we shouldn’t be looking at what happened in the first quarter in hindsight goes in favor of McCarthy, not against him.

 

[PackerDNA]

Holy Jeebus, is this really that hard to get???
What claims??? Faced with the situation not once but twice, I would have at the least gone for it on the 2nd go around.
That's it! Whatever happened or could have happened after that, my entire point is I go for it on at least the 2nd time. If you all want to add on to that for me, or put words in my mouth, go on ahead.
The Packers played safe and not to lose- and they lost. When it came to ' is you is, or is you ain't', the Packers had no balls.
You have a chance- two chances- to seize momentum at the time, and go chickens**t both times.
I would have gone for it at least on the second time - that's it. No other points, seeing into the future, calculating odds from past situations, whatever.
I know I don't always do a great job of getting my points across, but wow, if you can't see the simple point of go for it and play unafraid and to win, then I have no idea how I could explain it.

 

[TJV]

I know I don't always do a great job of getting my points across...

Well at least I agree with you on this.

 

[PackerDNA]

Thanks, ThxJackVainisi!

Well at least I agree with you on this.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Once again, there´s no guarantee the Packers would have scored at least one TD out of the two plays.

The league wide success rate on fourth down from the one was at 50% last season which would suggest the Packers would have ended up with seven instead of six points. With both instances happening in the first quarter that doesn´t mean the additional point would have resulted in a Packers win.

Well, since the game went to OT that extra point would have helped.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

This is faulty logic for two reasons IMO. First, it ignores the other actions and decisions which decided the game. Second, what if a coach did something that had a 10% success rate which turned out in his favor and his team won the game? Just because his long-odds gamble paid off doesn’t mean it was the smart decision at the time. So the Seahawks thought they had the game won after the second Packers FG with about 5 minutes left in the first quarter? I’m not buying it: They proceeding to give up 10 more points and didn’t score until about 5 minutes left in the third quarter on a fake FG. And their offense didn’t score a TD until about 2 minutes left in the game. It took an awful long time for their “we got this” to kick in, didn’t it? And somehow the lift the Seahawks got must have led to one of the all-time worst brain farts in NFL history when Bostic was reminded right before the onsides kick what his assignment was and he did the opposite anyway. That "lift" must have also somehow affected HHCD becoming lost in coverage on the 2-point conversion.

And if you really believe that give the Seahawks such a lift then you have to acknowledge what a letdown it would have been for the Packers to go for the TD once or twice and not make it.

We're not talking about a coach taking a stupid statistical gamble. Both FGs were about the distance of a PAT. Crosby was 96% on the year for PATs. That means you could expect 2.88 points by kicking the field goal. In 2014, the Packers gained two or more yards on third or fourth down with two yards or less to go 66.7% of the time. So, from the two yard line, the Packers could expect to score a TD 66.7% of the time (that's actually a low estimate since those third-and-2-or-less plays during the regular season wouldn't include the additional fourth-and-2 play if the offense gained zero yards). So the Packers could expect (based on their own offensive skill) to score 4.96 points by trying to go for it (66.7% chance of scoring 6 and then a 96% chance of getting the PAT). If you asked most people if they would prefer 2.88 points or 4.96 points, most would chose 4.96 points. McCarthy chose 2.88 points TWICE. This doesn't even factor in the high probability that even had the Packers failed on both conversions the Seahawks would have started with terrible field position and the Packers would likely have gotten the ball back with good field position and been able to move the ball into FG range anyway (so maybe it would have been a 42 yard FG instead of a PAT).

 

[TJV]

We're not talking about a coach taking a stupid statistical gamble.

My response to you was regarding your posting, "The only thing I need to point to is the result of the game." You agree that is faulty logic, right? Just because something works (or doesn't) doesn't mean it was the wise - or unwise - thing to do statistically, right?

Regarding the stats you quoted those were stats against all opponents and according to those stats, what were the Packers' chances of scoring from the 1 yard line in two attempts? Certainly north of 66.7%, right? Well here's where experience against a very good D meets stats against all 2014 opponents:

2nd and 1 at SEA 1: J.Tretter and L.Taylor reported in as eligible. J.Kuhn up the middle to SEA 1 for no gain (K.Williams; B.Wagner).
3rd and 1 at SEA 1: J.Tretter and L.Taylor reported in as eligible. E.Lacy left guard to SEA 1 for no gain (M.Smith; B.Irvin).

 

[HardRightEdge]

I have stated that since last year...Scott is better but needed a year to learn the system.

https://www.packerforum.com/threads/updates-on-players-being-cut.53999/#post-567318

but no one likes to believe me lol

It would surprise me not in the least if the Packers told all of the FAs not yet signed that they they're not coming back.

It would also not surprise me in the least if not re-signing Flynn turns out to be a mistake if no vet of some ability does not take his place. That would exclude any reasonable facsimile of the likes of Seneca Wallace or Vince Young.

The Packers did not offer Woodson a renegotiation...he was fired...with Jennings taking his place.

I would not consider this anything to celebrate. Thompson is looking to save a million bucks.

 

[TJV]

I'm surprised they didn't bring Flynn back - the only reason not to IMO would be if he insisted on a lot of guaranteed money and I doubt that was/is the case. Otherwise, why not bring him back to compete with Tolzien and bring in one or more QBs to compete for the developmental spot? Even if they believe (as apparently they do - and I do too) Tolzien would win that competition, what if he gets injured in TC?

 

[Poppa San]

I'm surprised they didn't bring Flynn back - the only reason not to IMO would be if he insisted on a lot of guaranteed money and I doubt that was/is the case. Otherwise, why not bring him back to compete with Tolzien and bring in one or more QBs to compete for the developmental spot? Even if they believe (as apparently they do - and I do too) Tolzien would win that competition, what if he gets injured in TC?

Every snap the insurance policy Flynn takes for the backup getting hurt is one fewer snap said backup or developmental prospect gets. In camp, snaps for the young guys are vital.

 

[adambr2]

I have stated that since last year...Scott is better but needed a year to learn the system.


https://www.packerforum.com/threads/updates-on-players-being-cut.53999/#post-567318

but no one likes to believe me lol

I think everyone pretty much believes you on that, it's just simply that Tolzien has yet to prove he can perform at a level needed to be Rodgers' backup, whereas Flynn has proven that, although certainly lacking, he is serviceable enough to give our team a chance to win.

They're gambling that Tolzien has progressed enough to be that guy for us now. They've been wrong about it before and it almost cost us the division in 2013. We'll see. I need to see a guy do it in a game before I can buy in. Coaches raved about Graham Harrell's practices. It doesn't mean anything until it translates to a regular season game.

I get what they're doing, but I wish they wouldn't. I prefer security over upside from our backup QB position.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think everyone pretty much believes you on that, it's just simply that Tolzien has yet to prove he can perform at a level needed to be Rodgers' backup, whereas Flynn has proven that, although certainly lacking, he is serviceable enough to give our team a chance to win.

They're gambling that Tolzien has progressed enough to be that guy for us now. They've been wrong about it before and it almost cost us the division in 2013. We'll see. I need to see a guy do it in a game before I can buy in. Coaches raved about Graham Harrell's practices. It doesn't mean anything until it translates to a regular season game.

I get what they're doing, but I wish they wouldn't. I prefer security over upside from our backup QB position.

Well stated.

 

[Pack-12]

I think everyone pretty much believes you on that, it's just simply that Tolzien has yet to prove he can perform at a level needed to be Rodgers' backup, whereas Flynn has proven that, although certainly lacking, he is serviceable enough to give our team a chance to win.

They're gambling that Tolzien has progressed enough to be that guy for us now. They've been wrong about it before and it almost cost us the division in 2013. We'll see. I need to see a guy do it in a game before I can buy in. Coaches raved about Graham Harrell's practices. It doesn't mean anything until it translates to a regular season game.

I get what they're doing, but I wish they wouldn't. I prefer security over upside from our backup QB position.

Flynn did well for us for the most part a couple years ago but nothing he put on tape last year in preseason or in limited snaps was very confidence inspiring. Tolzien was more impressive in preseason and everything else being equal should have won a QB competition if there was one. Flynns arm looked completely shot last year and nostalgia aside it looks like time to move on. Not to mention the odds that he is around at some point next year are probably pretty high.