Packers notes

[Deleted member 6794]

As far as the two draft classes for Thompson before them, they're for the most part still on the roster and young so there's time for them to switch things around, but you won't catch an argument from me. It's a shame Ted had to settle for Worthy in 2012 when he traded up for Chandler Jones.

Well, there are only three guys out of the 2012 draft class still with the team and Perry (who the Packers should have never drafted in first place) has been mostly disappointing for a first round pick. In addition Cobb is the only player from the 2011 draft that got signed to a second contract by the Packers.

Not good enough for a draft and develop team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I have actually gone over the consequences quite a bit. To summarize: green bay fails, Seattle (who's offense has sucked) gets the ball at the one or two yard line, most realistic scenario they get a couple first downs and punt, green bay drives the ball back into field goal range and still gets two field goals...

But fine. Every statistical analysis says to go for it but "this time was different!", no matter the packers lost, the decision to say, "our offense isn't good enough to get two yards" was the right one.

At the time the Packers kicked both field goals the Seahawks offense had touched the ball a total of three times and had turned over the ball once. There was no guarantee they wouldn't be able to score for another three quarters.

Once again, the Packers success rate on third and fourth down inside the opponent's two yard line doesn't say they should go for it but you keep ignoring it.

Not 100% sure where you got your numbers but when I use pro football reference's play finder for packers plays within the opponent's three yard line, I get a touchdown rate of 33 of 60 from 2013-2014 (Eddie lacy on team) and it could be argued that's probably low since Rodgers missed a good chunk of last season.

You can't just look at fourth down because part of the stat is, when you score you never GET to fourth down. If your team can convert on second and third down, then why should that performance not matter on fourth down?

I got my numbers from PFR's play finder as well. There's no reason to include first or second down into the analysis as the Packers were facing fourth down both times when they kicked the field goals (the only reason I took third down into consideration was because of the lack of a meaningful sample size). The Seahawks had already stopped them from scoring a TD three times on both drives so the only relevant stat is how the Packers fare when facing a situation like that.

You're also completely ignoring what happens if the Packers don't convert. People seem to just assume that if the Packers don't convert that the defense will automatically let Seattle drive the ball sixty yards. Chances are the Packers get the ball back in good field position.

A drive starting inside the own two yard line resulted in an average of 0.36 points in 2014.

But the win probability of a team not scoring twice going for it on fourth down is significantly lower than kicking the FG both times.

 

[longtimefan]

Do you BOTH honestly think the packers can evaluate the stats for the area they are at along with the score, and then call a play and then get it snapped in time?

I dont, so not sure why your tossing out the geek numbers...

They lost and every game things could have been done different..

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Do you BOTH honestly think the packers can evaluate the stats for the area they are at along with the score, and then call a play and then get it snapped in time?

I dont, so not sure why your tossing out the geek numbers...

Of course teams don´t have the time to evaluate stats during the game. I´m convinced they´re well aware of tendencies in the days leading up to a game and use them for game planning though.

 

[longtimefan]

Of course teams don´t have the time to evaluate stats during the game. I´m convinced they´re well aware of tendencies in the days leading up to a game and use them for game planning though.

Yes that is true

But to debate back and forth geek #, that teams just can't use to prove a point is fruitless imo

But have at it

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But to debate back and forth geek #, that teams just can't use to prove a point is fruitless imo

While a lot of football fans don´t like others to bring up geek numbers a lot of teams have already hired specialists to evaluate and use them to their advantage. I´m convinced those stats will find their way into football more and more in the future, just like in baseball over the last 10+ years.

 

[longtimefan]

While a lot of football fans don´t like others to bring up geek numbers a lot of teams have already hired specialists to evaluate and use them to their advantage. I´m convinced those stats will find their way into football more and more in the future, just like in baseball over the last 10+ years.

So when will the teams have a chance on the field to apply those geeky numbers ?

My point isn't saying it is useless ..

I'm saying right now teams don't have the time to take all those numbers in during the speed of the game..

But I can say with 100% confidence something is being charted and used during games .

Just not as detailed as you two are stressing on about.. I don't forsee it ever happening unless they up the play clock

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So when will the teams have a chance on the field to apply those geeky numbers ?

My point isn't saying it is useless ..

I'm saying right now teams don't have the time to take all those numbers in during the speed of the game..

But I can say with 100% confidence something is being charted and used during games .

Just not as detailed as you two are stressing on about.. I don't forsee it ever happening unless they up the play clock

I agree that if teams haven´t incorporated those geeky numbers to help set up the game plan there´s no way there´s enough time to apply them during a game.

 

[Half Empty]

The roster isn't set until Labor Day. There are 5 months of transactions until we play our 1st regular season game. The season as you say may have begun on March 10, it dang sure didn't end on March 20th like you'd have thought by reading some of the posts from the nervous Nellies and chicken littles. Same stuff every year at this time of year. Some people just refuse to learn.

So why are you even checking, much less posting, to Packer forums at this time? Some of us enjoy kicking ideas and opinions around, regardless. If you find that offensive, just go away and come back on Labor Day.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Do you BOTH honestly think the packers can evaluate the stats for the area they are at along with the score, and then call a play and then get it snapped in time?

I dont, so not sure why your tossing out the geek numbers...

They lost and every game things could have been done different..

Teams that ignore "geek" numbers tend to be really bad...look at the NBA. Spurs were one of the first teams to use "geek" numbers and it's worked out well for them.


Also, NFL coaches are paid a lot of money and employ a lot of assistants. Yeah, I fully expect them to be able to analyze things during the game.

So when will the teams have a chance on the field to apply those geeky numbers ?

My point isn't saying it is useless ..

I'm saying right now teams don't have the time to take all those numbers in during the speed of the game..

But I can say with 100% confidence something is being charted and used during games .

Just not as detailed as you two are stressing on about.. I don't forsee it ever happening unless they up the play clock

Teams would only have to analyze those things at high speed if they came in unprepared. It should be pretty easy for a coach to say, "well, based on success rates, once we get to the x-yard line, we'll go for it on fourth down if there's this many or fewer yards to go". Done. Now the coach doesn't have to analyze anything, he just knows that in those situations you go for it.

 

[longtimefan]

Teams that ignore "geek" numbers tend to be really bad...look at the NBA. Spurs were one of the first teams to use "geek" numbers and it's worked out well for them.


Also, NFL coaches are paid a lot of money and employ a lot of assistants. Yeah, I fully expect them to be able to analyze things during the game.



Teams would only have to analyze those things at high speed if they came in unprepared. It should be pretty easy for a coach to say, "well, based on success rates, once we get to the x-yard line, we'll go for it on fourth down if there's this many or fewer yards to go". Done. Now the coach doesn't have to analyze anything, he just knows that in those situations you go for it.

Again

I know this happens for a fact

But to get down as precise as you two are doing can not happen in the play clock time

Again-- teams have charts with things laid out but there will always be something that can't be charted

 

[JBlood]

Mike Eayrs has been the head of research and development with the Packers since 2001. He spends all of his time on evaluating both the Packers' and other teams' tendencies in every conceivable game situation.

We lost because we fell apart in the final few minutes. I doubt that was predicted by Eayrs' computers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Do you BOTH honestly think the packers can evaluate the stats for the area they are at along with the score, and then call a play and then get it snapped in time?

I dont, so not sure why your tossing out the geek numbers...

They lost and every game things could have been done different..

It doesn't really matter whether the Packers use those stats or not. It's a debate about what should or should not have been done.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Jamari Lattimore has signed with the New York Jets.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Jamari Lattimore has signed with the New York Jets.

No surprise he went somewhere else.

 

[PackerDNA]

It doesn't really matter whether the Packers use those stats or not. It's a debate about what should or should not have been done.

That, and without the benefit of hindsight' or seeing into the future at the time .

 

[PackerDNA]

Glad he's gone, wish him well.
Addition by subtraction.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That, and without the benefit of hindsight' or seeing into the future at the time .

Statistical analysis is by definition hindsight. Have an idea? Back test it statistically, which has a better track record than guessing. The Packers do plenty of statistical analysis internally.

Attempting to see into the future is unavoidable; only ostriches as a species seem to successfully avoid it.

Living in the moment is entirely overrated.

 

[PackerDNA]

A lot of big decisions- 'gut' decisions- are made in the moment.

 

[HardRightEdge]

A lot of big decisions- 'gut' decisions- are made in the moment.

Certainly. That does not invalidate statistical analysis. Quite the contrary; it informs gut decisions.

Here's are a couple of examples.

Not so long ago, it was routine in the league to attempt a FG on 4th. and short at the opponent's 35. Today it is fairly routine to go for it in that situation, including by McCarthy. The stats no doubt have shown that the risk/reward proposition favors trying to get the first down.

The decision regarding going for 2 instead of kicking the EP is informed by stats.

That's two instances among potentially many where quick decisions are backed by study. "Not enough time" to study past performance and the probabilities in-game is certainly true. But to assume study in advance can't inform in-game decisions is ignoring the obvious.

 

[PackerDNA]

Didn't say it invalidated it,HRE. Sometimes it sets parameters to offer help in a situation, aiding in the decision making process. Others, it doesn't factor in at all.
Your last sentence is what drives me crazy watching some games. That is, to watch how some teams will mismanage the clock and perform as if they have no idea what to do in late half/game situations. They didn't practice some kind of plan for these situations? Drives me crazy to see pros brainlock like that.

 

[Canadian Packer Fan]

Lattimore seemed as though he was always hurt.......glass.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Lattimore seemed as though he was always hurt.......glass.

He played in 14, 15 and 11 games in the past 3 seasons. He wasn't hurt all that often.

It's more a case of a guy who did not make the jump in the second, third or fourth year.

The Jets wanted a special teams player and a backup LB. That's what they're getting.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Didn't say it invalidated it,HRE. Sometimes it sets parameters to offer help in a situation, aiding in the decision making process. Others, it doesn't factor in at all.
Your last sentence is what drives me crazy watching some games. That is, to watch how some teams will mismanage the clock and perform as if they have no idea what to do in late half/game situations. They didn't practice some kind of plan for these situations? Drives me crazy to see pros brainlock like that.

If the guy managing the clock also happens to be the guy calling the plays, it's not hard to see how he'd have trouble optimizing end-of-half/game situations. It's one of several reasons why calling the game from the sidelines is not a good idea. I can't agree enough with McCarthy's decision to back away from play calling and take a wider view of the overall team operation.

 

[PikeBadger]

And a low injury count is needed even if 3 average starters are acquired. The bench is awfully thin.

Compared to whom? I expect we will be one of the deepest teams in the league this year........................ On Labor Day.