Turkey stud n dud

[Pokerbrat2000]

DUDS: The NFL and allowing all the pushing

It wasn't a tush push, just another rugby scrum. In the 1st Q. Gibbs momentum was stopped for about a 1-2 yard gain, but he stayed upright. His teammates then began the "rugby scrum push" on him. They pushed him forward for another 5 yards. While this was going on, and I watched this a few times, a few Lions players were pushing Packer players, from behind. The worst offender, Lions RT Dan Skipper took a running start and plowed into the back of Devonte Wyatt (beyond 3 yards of the LOS). Now I am kind of new to football, but isn't hitting a guy in the back, outside of the "free-blocking zone" a penalty? This isn't the first time I have seen offensive players plow into defenders from behind.

 

[milani]

I think that was Valentine with the missed tackle. Horrible play where he just threw himself at Williams' (missing badly) instead of wrapping up. I'll never understand why defenders, especially CBs, think that they can knock a runner or receiver down with a shoulder. "Wrapping up" should be a mantra for these guys.

But it was a day for studs. The duds were few and far between.

He was trying to tackle a great athlete in the open field. What you hope at least is that he can slow him up enough for a second wave of tacklers to get there in time.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I find it a little funny that everyone is lauding MLF for the aggression on 4th down and Campbell is being absolutely crucified for the same exact thing.

I guess the only thing that really matters to most is that it ends up working.

Anyone that criticizes Dan Campbell over his 4th down aggression yesterday, needs to put down the bottle. The dude has coached that way from day one, and is one of the big reasons the Lions have had so much success.

I have no problem with MLF being aggressive on 4th down, but for me, it really depends on what he did on 3rd down to get to that point and of course, what play he calls on 4th down. After that, success does help, but even in failure, if the calls and the situation to go were good and just well defended, then it is what it is.

 

[coulomb]

DUDS: The NFL and allowing all the pushing

It wasn't a tush push, just another rugby scrum. In the 1st Q. Gibbs momentum was stopped for about a 1-2 yard gain, but he stayed upright. His teammates then began the "rugby scrum push" on him. They pushed him forward for another 5 yards. While this was going on, and I watched this a few times, a few Lions players were pushing Packer players, from behind. The worst offender, Lions RT Dan Skipper took a running start and plowed into the back of Devonte Wyatt (beyond 3 yards of the LOS). Now I am kind of new to football, but isn't hitting a guy in the back, outside of the "free-blocking zone" a penalty? This isn't the first time I have seen offensive players plow into defenders from behind.

Wasnt a holding penalty called on the packers on that play as well? Yeah, This rugby crap has too go.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

think that was Valentine with the missed tackle. Horrible play where he just threw himself at Williams' (missing badly) instead of wrapping up. I'll never understand why defenders, especially CBs, think that they can knock a runner or receiver down with a shoulder. "Wrapping up" should be a mantra for these guys.

I would think at the NFL level, all players would learn to wrap and arm tackle. I get so frustrated seeing any Packer defender just try to throw his shoulder into a guy and expect it to knock him down. Jaire was famous for that kind of "tackling". When it works, you look like a stud, but when it fails...."Come on man!"

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Wasnt a holding penalty called on the packers on that play as well? Yeah, This rugby crap has too go.

Nope. No penalty called on the play....Gibbs was given ALL of his teammates forward progress. Which is also interesting, because if that pile moves the opposite direction, due to the Packers out scrummin' the Lions, he is still given his forward progress.

I wish they would just go back to aiding a runner is a penalty.

 

[adambr2]

Anyone that criticizes Dan Campbell over his 4th down aggression yesterday, needs to put down the bottle. The dude has coached that way from day one, and is one of the big reasons the Lions have had so much success.

I have no problem with MLF being aggressive on 4th down, but for me, it really depends on what he did on 3rd down to get to that point and of course, what play he calls on 4th down. After that, success does help, but even in failure, if the calls and the situation to go were good and just well defended, then it is what it is.

Me personally, I would have run the ball on 3rd and 3, and if you get it, it’s over. If you don’t, you can probably run it down to 1:05-1:10 and if Whelan pins them inside their 10-15 that’s an awful lot of ground to cover in just over a minute with no timeouts. Protect the sidelines and funnel everything to the middle of the field and you’d have to figure your worst case scenario is a last ditch Hail Mary attempt.

But, I’m glad it worked out, and once they passed on 3rd down and stopped the clock I think that changed things a little. I think they would have been more apt to punt with 40 less seconds on the clock. Glad we don’t have to ever know.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Me personally, I would have run the ball on 3rd and 3, and if you get it, it’s over. If you don’t, you can probably run it down to 1:05-1:10 and if Whelan pins them inside their 10-15 that’s an awful lot of ground to cover in just over a minute with no timeouts. Protect the sidelines and funnel everything to the middle of the field and you’d have to figure your worst case scenario is a last ditch Hail Mary attempt.

But, I’m glad it worked out, and once they passed on 3rd down and stopped the clock I think that changed things a little. I think they would have been more apt to punt with 40 less seconds on the clock. Glad we don’t have to ever know.

Agree. That 3rd down, especially with Love's shoulder injury, is the perfect time to bring Willis in and call an RPO. Ideally, you want a first down, but I think more importantly, as you point out, you want to keep the clock running, which would have brought it down to about 1:10 and a Packer timeout to punt. So after a punt, maybe 50 seconds or so for Goff to go a long way. I honestly thought that was going to be the path MLF followed, but it worked out.

Had the 4th down pass to Wicks been incomplete, and Detroit takes over at their own 45, scores a TD and wins in OT, not sure where the discussion would be today. Goes to show you how 1 single play/decision can determine a game.

 

[Pugger]

I find it a little funny that everyone is lauding MLF for the aggression on 4th down and Campbell is being absolutely crucified for the same exact thing.

I guess the only thing that really matters to most is that it ends up working.

When Campbell went for it I think he was on the wrong side of the 50 yard line with a lot of game left to play. IMO the time Campbell passed on a FG earlier in the game was dumber. I was pissed at Matt for doing this against the Gmen. For some reason HCs today are allergic to taking points via a FG. Yesterday MLF was trying to end the game and was up by 7 late. I wasn't crazy about it but I tend to be more conservative. I would have punted and let my defense get after Goff.

 

[adambr2]

Agree. That 3rd down, especially with Love's shoulder injury, is the perfect time to bring Willis in and call an RPO. Ideally, you want a first down, but I think more importantly, as you point out, you want to keep the clock running, which would have brought it down to about 1:10 and a Packer timeout to punt. So after a punt, maybe 50 seconds or so for Goff to go a long way. I honestly thought that was going to be the path MLF followed, but it worked out.

Had the 4th down pass to Wicks been incomplete, and Detroit takes over at their own 45, scores a TD and wins in OT, not sure where the discussion would be today. Goes to show you how 1 single play/decision can determine a game.

I think we know what the discussion would be today. MLF would be getting crucified for both the 3rd and 4th down call.

As an aside from what we know about Dan Campbell, I don’t think the game was ever going into OT if Detroit had scored. It was either ending 32-31 or 31-30.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

When Campbell went for it I think he was on the wrong side of the 50 yard line with a lot of game left to play. IMO the time Campbell passed on a FG earlier in the game was dumber. I was pissed at Matt for doing this against the Gmen. For some reason HCs today are allergic to taking points via a FG. Yesterday MLF was trying to end the game and was up by 7 late. I wasn't crazy about it but I tend to be more conservative. I would have punted and let my defense get after Goff.

Seems the use of advanced analytics in the NFL is getting bigger and bigger and the success that coaches like Campbell have had with it, have made others take note.

I will say this about going for it on 4th down from the Lions 45. Too long for a not 100% healthy McManus to try and kick a 62 yarder and if you miss, Lions ball on the Packers 48. If you punt, Lions might get the ball at their own 20, and in prevent defense, those 25 yards to get it back to the 45, are pretty much a given.

If anything, with the way the Packers defense has been playing, MLF may have decided he can gamble on 4th down more.

 

[Magooch]

I wish there was a good source to go back and check the in-game probabilities for situations like that (if there is, I'm not aware of it).

Anecdotally, the "go for it" percentage usually seems WAY higher than my gut would expect it to be.

Usually I don't have a huge problem with many of Campbell's calls (I thought some of the tricky stuff seemed a bit gimmicky/desperate, but that's another matter). It's hard not to grade in hindsight and of course it really depends on execution.

Detroit's first failed 4th down conversion came with 11 minutes left in the 3rd and they're trailing just 17-14 at that point. Ball is on our 47 so I'm fine with being aggressive there. It's kind of that no man's land where it's not really field goal range and a punt doesn't swing position that much unless you're totally confident you can pin them. But much like our call against the Eagles on 4th, it's not the going for it that I take issue with, it's the play call and execution of it. We had generally contained both Montgomery and Gibbs pretty well, and Goff hadn't had an incompletion since ~4 min left in 1Q.

The second, it's 31-21 with 11 minutes left. And the call is fine, but Goff puts it just a little behind and Williams drops it. My only thing here is that you're down two scores, so there's an argument that you just take the field goal and move on... but we turned around and punted less than 2 minutes after getting the ball back, so it's not like that was particularly consequential.

Like I said, I'd like to see what the punt/FG/go for it "win percentages" were but if I had to guess it probably wasn't going to be an obvious decision or egregious error one way or another. A better playcall on the first 4th and better throw/catch on the second 4th and no one is having anything to gripe about today.

 

[Sanguine camper]

This is the problem with internet sluthing. Those "first reports" you read were other random people just theory crafting

I know this cause we dont actually have any credible reports yet other then "Its a serious ankle injury"

The first report that I read was from somebody who I think exclusively covers the Packers. Justice Mosqueda - Could he be wrong? Sure, but the early reports on the other devastating Packer injuries were unfortunately correct.

 

[Sanguine camper]

This is the problem with internet sluthing. Those "first reports" you read were other random people just theory crafting

I know this cause we dont actually have any credible reports yet other then "Its a serious ankle injury"

The Packers have confirmed Wyatt has a fractured ankle. They didn't mention if he also has ligament damage. If it's just a break, that's likely better long-term than torn ligaments. Looks like Mr Mosqueda may have gotten his story wrong trying to be the first scoop.

 

[gopkrs]

I find it a little funny that everyone is lauding MLF for the aggression on 4th down and Campbell is being absolutely crucified for the same exact thing.

I guess the only thing that really matters to most is that it ends up working.

I don't think that is true and in our case I certainly hope not. There should be a method to the madness. I was happy to put up the 3 at the start and would not mind that as a rule of thumb. Get points before messing around. Those 3 points were a factor the whole game.

 

[gopkrs]

DUDS: The NFL and allowing all the pushing

It wasn't a tush push, just another rugby scrum. In the 1st Q. Gibbs momentum was stopped for about a 1-2 yard gain, but he stayed upright. His teammates then began the "rugby scrum push" on him. They pushed him forward for another 5 yards. While this was going on, and I watched this a few times, a few Lions players were pushing Packer players, from behind. The worst offender, Lions RT Dan Skipper took a running start and plowed into the back of Devonte Wyatt (beyond 3 yards of the LOS). Now I am kind of new to football, but isn't hitting a guy in the back, outside of the "free-blocking zone" a penalty? This isn't the first time I have seen offensive players plow into defenders from behind.

Yeah. Momentum has traditionally been called when he stops going forward. Pretty quickly.

 

[Firethorn1001]

DUDS: The NFL and allowing all the pushing

Agree. I'm over it and my wife is really over it. Now it's to the point that you don't even know when a play is done.

 

[Thirteen Below]

I find it a little funny that everyone is lauding MLF for the aggression on 4th down and Campbell is being absolutely crucified for the same exact thing.

Where do you see Campbell being ''absolutely crucified''? Because I haven't seen anything remotely like that. I'm seeing a few people suggesting that maybe it'd be wiser to dial back the balls-to-the-wall aggression, and be more cautious about when to go full throttle, which is a valid argument to make.

But I'm not sure how that constitutes ''absolutely crucifying'' the dude.

 

[Thirteen Below]

The Packers have confirmed Wyatt has a fractured ankle. They didn't mention if he also has ligament damage. If it's just a break, that's likely better long-term than torn ligaments. Looks like Mr Mosqueda may have gotten his story wrong trying to be the first scoop.

Some media outlets (SI and I think the Milwaukee Sentinel) are still reporting ''significant ligament damage", but hopefully they're just not caught up with the official word. The thing is, it's not unheard of to have both at the same time, and the way his ankle bent sideways almost 90 degrees was worrisome - so maybe it is still possible, and the SI report was updated 40 minutes ago.

But I sure as hell hope they're wrong, and just haven't updated their content. That'd be a tough one for the poor guy, and be harder to recover from.

 

[adambr2]

Where do you see Campbell being ''absolutely crucified''? Because I haven't seen anything remotely like that. I'm seeing a few people suggesting that maybe it'd be wiser to dial back the balls-to-the-wall aggression, and be more cautious about when to go full throttle, which is a valid argument to make.

But I'm not sure how that constitutes ''absolutely crucifying'' the dude.

I don’t mean by us. By his own fanbase and writers, mostly. A lot of second guessing.

 

[Thirteen Below]

I don’t mean by us. By his own fanbase and writers, mostly. A lot of second guessing.

I haven't seen that, either, but I haven't been paying attention to Detroit fans. I guess I should; it'd be useful to hear what the fans of a serious rival are saying about their team.

I understand their criticism, but that's who Dan Campbell is, the Lions live and die with his aggressiveness. His style is a big reason for their recent success; his aggressive philosophy emboldens his own team and intimidates their opponents to so degree. They're kind of the new Raiders - that aggression can get inside the heads of other teams, and take them off their game.

I think in this case, though, Lafleur was actually the one who got inside Campbell's head by going for and successfully converting 2 4th downs early in the game on (I think) consecutive series. I think Campbell saw that as an implied challenge, and that may have been a factor in his decision to go for it himself - at least on that one for which people are criticizing him.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

I'm only gonna mention 1 dud, and it's a position group. CBs have GOT to play better than they did yesterday. Valentine missed tackles, Nixon grabbing in coverage, Hobbs has to get out of the tub and back on the field so that Nixon can move back to where he's good...the nickel corner spot

Everything else to me looked at least a C+ grade

 

[adambr2]

Everything else to me looked at least a C+ grade

Has to be the all-time highest grade you’ve ever given to any Packer, so there is that.

 

[milani]

I'm only gonna mention 1 dud, and it's a position group. CBs have GOT to play better than they did yesterday. Valentine missed tackles, Nixon grabbing in coverage, Hobbs has to get out of the tub and back on the field so that Nixon can move back to where he's good...the nickel corner spot

Everything else to me looked at least a C+ grade

Looking at the next game the pass defense is not the big worry. It will be the run defense. If we do not stop the run Caleb will only need to throw 12-13 passes the whole game.

 

[BrokenArrow]

No. Just asking . Never have they done this and 1st chance with policy and boom

Oh ok. I thought maybe you had read something I missed. Maybe Policy has simply given Gute more overall freedom to do what he wants.