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
Vikings studs n duds
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="Magooch" data-source="post: 1080553" data-attributes="member: 17987"><p>I certainly understand the logic that we should play it safe, keep the clock moving, play the "low-risk" option and ride it out.</p><p></p><p>Yes, we could have a tipped INT. We could see Love get sacked and hurt. We could have our WRs drop three passes in a row and run virtually no clock and save the opponent their time outs. These are all things that COULD happen. The trouble is that IMO sometimes we come at it with an approach that's so cautious that it feels like we're almost assuming these things WILL happen if we don't err on the side of caution. I am not saying that we should just throw caution into the wind, but at the same time I don't think this sort of "worst-case scenario" preparation/planning is really an approach you see a ton from championship-caliber teams. </p><p></p><p>And of course there is an argument the opposite direction as well. This year, we are losing fumbles* at a higher rate than throwing interceptions, and we have a higher success rate on passing plays than on running ones - we are *more likely* to keep the chains moving and *less likely* to turn over possession when we go more pass-heavy vs run. </p><p>So of course there are merits to both approaches. Pass the ball and you might have an incompletion and stop the clock (without using a timeout), but you're more likely to get a fresh set of downs (is that a wash, then?). Run the ball and you keep the clock going and/or use up timeouts, but you're less likely to move the chains (and consequently more likely to either have to take a field goal or punt and give possession back). Both come with their own pros and cons. </p><p></p><p>*To be fair some of these lost fumbles have come on dropbacks, I acknowledge that. But passing has generally been relatively "low risk" for us this year on the whole.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Magooch, post: 1080553, member: 17987"] I certainly understand the logic that we should play it safe, keep the clock moving, play the "low-risk" option and ride it out. Yes, we could have a tipped INT. We could see Love get sacked and hurt. We could have our WRs drop three passes in a row and run virtually no clock and save the opponent their time outs. These are all things that COULD happen. The trouble is that IMO sometimes we come at it with an approach that's so cautious that it feels like we're almost assuming these things WILL happen if we don't err on the side of caution. I am not saying that we should just throw caution into the wind, but at the same time I don't think this sort of "worst-case scenario" preparation/planning is really an approach you see a ton from championship-caliber teams. And of course there is an argument the opposite direction as well. This year, we are losing fumbles* at a higher rate than throwing interceptions, and we have a higher success rate on passing plays than on running ones - we are *more likely* to keep the chains moving and *less likely* to turn over possession when we go more pass-heavy vs run. So of course there are merits to both approaches. Pass the ball and you might have an incompletion and stop the clock (without using a timeout), but you're more likely to get a fresh set of downs (is that a wash, then?). Run the ball and you keep the clock going and/or use up timeouts, but you're less likely to move the chains (and consequently more likely to either have to take a field goal or punt and give possession back). Both come with their own pros and cons. *To be fair some of these lost fumbles have come on dropbacks, I acknowledge that. But passing has generally been relatively "low risk" for us this year on the whole. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
Yesterday at 8:07 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: tynimiller
Yesterday at 6:14 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: milani
Yesterday at 5:41 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 3:06 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
M
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: mradtke66
Yesterday at 2:30 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Vikings studs n duds
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
