1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Studs vs Duds: Heart Attack Edition

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Lunchboxer, Sep 30, 2012.

  1. Forget Favre

    Forget Favre Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,834
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Starks helped us out big time in the playoffs and SB a couple years ago.
    Have you all forgotten what he did for us?
    I thought he did just fine and I hope he comes back.
     
  2. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    ^ I don't think that people have forgot that, just that starks didn't even come close to keeping up that type of production and has been bitten by the injury bug. Lack of production and being lame with injuries does not help his portfolio with fans.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. rodell330

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,991
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    This is a what have you done for me lately league sir. That was two yrs ago.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Dud, Lance Easley masquerading as Triplett. Wait a minute, Triplett is a buffoon in his own right. :confused:
     
  5. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    There's the rub though. Without a source, what prevents people from making up or saying anything because, "Everyone knows. . . " For example, I can say, " Everyone knows that people with 'Edge' in their forum names are meth-heads," and it would be utter crap because I haven't provided any proof. You could and should call me out on that, because of the 17,000 logical fallacies I've committed.

    Now then, who has the burden of proof: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

    To quote: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim."
     
  6. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,646
    Ratings:
    +2,563
    It's called opinion based on observation and experience, with credibility established (or not) based on the body of work on a subject matter not amenable to facts or statistics.

    Read Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" for another perspective.

    If you don't like it, so be it. If somebody wants to call me names, that's their choice...I just cease to converse with them and allow them the last word. It does happen with some regularity, I might add. ;)

    If an observation resonates, great. If it doesn't fine. I think in this case the opinions in favor of the call are swayed by the result, which is not a credible way to look at it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Mike McCarthy is generally a conservative guy. Obviously they do a good job of scouting opposing ST's and how they line up. They scouted it, practiced it, and executed it.
    You don't run these plays when it's obvious that the situation may call for a gamble and the defense is on guard. That play wasn't called until they were lined up and saw that NO was thinking punt all the way. They got the look they wanted and ran it.
     
  8. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Duds: Blown assignments and defensive calls coming in too late.
    You could hear and see Hawk and Mathews screaming at the sidelines for the allignment. They looked confused at times and not sure they were in the right defense.

    Duds: 3 man rush. If we can't guard anybody down the middle what's the point?

    Duds: Pass rush. Wasn't good enough. Bree's far to often had way too much time. If we are going to play a zone they better get to the QB better then that. Our safeties don't react well enough or get to the ball fast enough. With no rush they were getting torched.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    The problem with "observation and experience" is selection bias. Humans are terrible at being objective without some rigor. We see patterns where there aren't any and exclude evidence that doesn't fit our narrative.

    You say the fake was risky--why? How likely was the play to work? Presume we have a sheet in front of us that says the down and distance, everything about that play, has a 99% chance of success. With 99% certainty, would you call the fake? If not, what level of certainly do you require before you do call the fake? What is your reasoning?

    Now, an obviously small sample size, but consider not punting at all: http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=892888
     
  10. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,529
    Ratings:
    +879
    Agreed, Warhawk, you beat me to this statement.

    We had a 3 man rush on last week's Fail Mary pass. Even before the blown call, I was wincing at the fact that Dom Capers brought only three, which was sure to give Wilson all the time he needed to launch a deep pass into the endzone. Why didn't Dom bring the heat and force him to scramble or throw quickly? Will never know.

    Then, yesterday, on 3rd and forever, Dom sends 3 and drops 8. I groaned again and watched NO easily pick up the 1st down.

    "3 man rush" equals yesteryear's "Prevent defense". It's f-in useless.

    Dom Capers is my DUD of this game.
     
  11. Einstein McFly

    Einstein McFly Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    381
    Ratings:
    +235
    Our run defense looks pretty good. Pickett is playing great, Hawk has stepped up, D.J. Smith plays the run well, and Woodson and McMillan are good tacklers from the secondary. It seems like our tackling is generally much better than last year.


    Our ability to cover over the middle particularly with big and athletic TEs is going to kill us. Graham owned us and so will Pettigrew (if he can catch the ball) and Gronk and Davis and any other one we come up against. We don't have a Brandon Chillar type LB who can over a TE down the field and we're just going to have to hope it doesn't determine the game.
     
  12. Einstein McFly

    Einstein McFly Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Messages:
    381
    Ratings:
    +235
    Wow, did I imagine Ahman Green's career? Ya'll musta forgot.
     
  13. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,646
    Ratings:
    +2,563
    The point would be there is no evidence you could supply by which you could calculate a % chance of success within any reasonable margin of error in a case where there is no large body of comparable situations. It could be argued the situation is in fact sui generis. If you think you have a statistical basis for the liklihood of success or failure in this case, you've deluded yourself. And there's the rub.

    To repeat, many things in this game, or this life for that matter, are not amenable to quantitative analysis. You might conclude a vague indication from the stats, but that's about it. I can only conclude the cost of failure heavily outweighs the benefit of success in this case.

    Belichick thought he had the right formula, and after the fact there were some who argued in favor of it statistically:

    http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2009/11/i_love_the_call_belichicks_4th.html

    In the end, if you don't have faith in your defense to stop Peyton Manning on one critical drive you don't deserve to win. The long term costs can be substantial as well in stating unequivocally before a national audience, "my defense sucks".

    Belichick tried it again, and failed again. He's since given up on that tactic.
     
  14. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,646
    Ratings:
    +2,563
    The 3-man looked pretty good against SEA, better than it has in quite a while, getting the QB off his spot. SEA does not have the O-line New Orleans does, and the rookie QB is not likely to sort out so well what's going on against those 8 defenders. Brees, on the other hand, has a track record of taking apart our zone. So, I'd have to conclude it's situational.
     
  15. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,646
    Ratings:
    +2,563
    Here's the thing. If Starks has fully recovered from the turf toe (or recovered enough anyway), he's a credible threat and a guy you'd really want to have around if Benson gets injured. At the least, he'd be a good guy to spell Benson for a few series a game to keep him fresh for the playoffs.

    Going with just Green and Saine would not be acceptable in my mind. Neither has shown they are anything more than 3rd. down backs. We've seen that picture before with T-Jax and should prefer not to see it again.

    Next draft, next season...that's another matter, a long way away, with too many variables to be determined in the interim.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    On what basis can you reach that conclusion? Without something tangible behind a decision, it is near indefensible. It could be summarized as, "Just Cuz." (tm)
     
  17. MLB

    MLB Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    53
    Ratings:
    +14
    1000% Right!
     
  18. MLB

    MLB Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    53
    Ratings:
    +14
    LOL !!
     
  19. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,646
    Ratings:
    +2,563
    Making the first down buys you what an average possession would buy you, plus the opportunity to score which is less than a 50/50 proposition from that distance. 40 yards of field position is pretty valuable in it's own right if you punt (over +40 net on punts so far this year...great job, Slocum).

    The negative is what concerns me. It is akin to a turnover deep in your own territory. You can explain it any way you like, but such turnovers have a relatively high frequency of resulting in quick TDs by the opponent. And next thing you know you'll be asking me to quantify momentum, as though failing to means it does not exist.

    Making the first down has a relatively low probability of resulting in a score; turning the ball over a relatively high probability. Just cuz.
     
  20. Shawnsta3

    Shawnsta3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,037
    Ratings:
    +375
    I did not.
     
  21. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,646
    Ratings:
    +2,563
    I probably should have read this link sooner.

    Let's set aside for the moment that the college stats cited and the ways and means of high school football do not translate to the NFL.

    The approach taken by the high school coach is clearly sound in one particular respect...he eschews the punt ALL THE TIME to exploit the law of averages that he sees in the statistics, leaving aside whether or not they are the relevant statistics.

    Picking and choosing spots to employ the strategy (where it becomes a tactic instead of a consistent strategy) based on the statistics would be as equally dumb as applying it tactically from time to time without reference to stats.

    Stats aside, if you eschew the punt ALL THE TIME, it completely changes your play calling and offensive strategy. Every series becomes a 4 down series, which has clear merits. Again, picking and choosing defeats the whole point.

    Would I like to see somebody try it as an all-the-time strategy in the NFL? Absolutely. Just like I'd like to see Tebow be Tebow in a full blown spread option offense. It is always interesting to see teams try to invent new ways to win. I just would not want to see it in Green Bay.
     
  22. Forget Favre

    Forget Favre Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,834
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    By that logic (I dunno if it's your own or if your just using it for example) then we should forget about Bart Starr, Ray, Vince and all the greats of the 60's too since they ain't part of the 2012 Packers. Right?

    Starks has 4.3 AVG YPC while Benson has 3.6
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/13214/james-starks
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/8419/cedric-benson

    Pathetic that some of you want to throw Starks under a bus just because he has a different way of running with the ball.
     
  23. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    The problem that I find with that argument is that it (potentially) assigns too little risk to punting and not enough "safety" or "chance of success" to the fake.

    A punt could be blocked. It could be returned for a touchdown. The most likely good out come from a punt is picking up 41 yards, Mastay's net average, which would put the ball at the 42. That's not exactly a winning scenario in my mind. How likely is an NFL team to score when starting from their own 42? I don't think the punt buys you that much.

    Similarly, the fake might have been the right call based on their alignment. I saw a rather large hole up the middle, I'm guessing the staff saw the same thing, which is why the fake was called. The Saints left themselves vulnerable to the fake. What would you do if the Saints trotted out with 7 men 40 yards off the ball and the other 4 outside the punt team's "tight end?" If punt return teams can do something so unsound and count on the opposition to not respond, the punt team is at an immediate disadvantage.

    And that is basically what the Saints did. They lined up in an unsound defense in an effort to improve their chances for a big return.
     
  24. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,646
    Ratings:
    +2,563
    That puts the shoe on the other foot, doesn't it? You tell me. Provide a source, LOL. I don't know what the NFL stats show, but I'd wager the TD % from that position is much lower than the 50%. The odds of giving up a field goal are decent, not great.

    Punt blocks are rare. Given the outstanding quality of our punter combined with the kick coverage crew in place now, even 10 yards is hard to come by, let alone a TD. The high school coach's experience was different. He had a high powered offense, and a poor coverage crew, from what we can tell. And to repeat the most critical point, the high school coach did it ALL THE TIME.

    That we liked the defensive look is the best argument, and that throws any calls for sources and stats out the window. In that case I go back to my earlier point...a guy sees something, makes a play, blows it up. Happens all the time. Then you're screwed big time.
     
  25. mradtke66

    mradtke66 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    476
    Ratings:
    +190
    The problem with that argument is it can be applied to any play call on any down and distance. First and 10, pass play. Safety sees something and blows it up via an interception.
     

Share This Page