I agree with everything but the bold. If Hester calls for fair catch because it is only a 45 yd punt instead of a booming kick that outkicked coverage you still saying that. IOW, I think this thought is result oriented thinking.

So what's the rumored price tag on Lynch?

as much as it seems it would be its not, i was talking w/ my roomate about how its a slightly different situation where billicheck was behind by 4 took a saftey on purpose after a punt pinned them inside the 2 w/ 3 minutes left.

essentially the think was as follows: you have hester a dynamic returner, a rookie punter and questions all about hte special teams all the way back from last year. penalties were just starting to surface then. BUT they key is we dont have a running game to get out 3-5 yards for a punt, and in a cover scheme teh outside recievers are jammed more and everyones facing the QB, increasing the chances of an INT. put on top of that our shaky oline and any hit on rodgers could let the ball get loose for a TD.

if you gain 45 yards of field position IF he fair catches (whens the last time packers forced a fair catch?!) (thats also quite a big IF), you still about garuantee them a FG. a saftey gives them 2 prs but you probably give the ball back ~chi 35

give masthay a 50yd punt and hester his career average of 11 yards that puts the ball on the gb 38, about garuanteeing them a FG. i have much more faith in the GB def than the special teams to force them to go 40 yards than the special teams and a rookie punter

If they start on the 38 it's better to punt. You do need to account for punting ability, quality of return, and offensive and defensive caliber, but in general if you buy into win probabilities, a safety is worth more than a field goal, and starting 38 yards away from the endzone is worth about as much as a field goal. (Safeties are worth 3.3, field goals 2.7)



You can check this stuff out here: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009...dy-part-1.html

**** you Hester

**** you Cutlahhhhhh and **** your massive luckbox too*

* **** you GB Defense for not making more than 1 of Cutler's INTs actually count.

**** you James Jones for fumbling*, though I approve of your overall refusal-to-fall-down beasting of the defense this game.

* **** you soldier field for having super-glue on it instead of letting that fumble go OOB like it does 80% of the time

**** you Mike McCarthy for playcalling like a giant pussy twice on 3rd and long* to move it from 45-48yard FG to 35-40yard FG attempts instead of giving Rodgers a shot to make a play.

* **** you linemen for holding basically every single play of the game, even if you only got called for it half the time.



...I think that's all. What a terrible game. I want Lion-blood next week, even though they're probably my 2nd favorite NFC team at this point.

not disagreeing with the conclusions, but i am with your methodology. as the debate starts on first down, not on 4thi use point differentials and by that we should be adding in our expected points to see what it is vs a safety.

i understand the sample size issue, but our expected points going ~100 yds seem to be ~-0.3-0.5pts (using the line of regression (debatable @ extremes) it would be much closer to -1pt

so adding that into the safety yields a value of 2.8-3.0pts for chicago, making the difference between that and a FG relatively negligible. i think from here the difference of superiority of chi's devin hester v gb's rookie punter+ ST problems and the caliber of our defence can shift the argument to taking the saftey. this is one point where in a low scoring affair id favor a possibly slightly more -ev play w/ less variance, than the variance of kicking to hester. and if you go to the extreme of looking @ the graph at essentially 99 or 100 yds to go out expected points are -1, making a safety worth only 2.3pts in differentials

Re: the punt v. safety debate:

Interesting angle, I completely forgot about the Pats doing that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/sp...in-safety.html

I semi agree with your analysis, but still think you're being results oriented. It's too close to call either way imo and I don't think either decision is that much different. Still way too much game time left.

Don't know how anyone hasn't brought up the horrendous punt to end the first half. I actually thought the 2nd punt was a good kick other than it being right in the middle of the field. The first punt was god awful, gave the coverage zero time to get down and do anything. I didn't have a good feeling with the 10-7 score at half. Green Bay completely dominated the first half and Cutler looked lost. That ****ty punt gave them great field position, got Cutler + the crowd back into the game and was a bigger turning point imo.

Feel like we need Herman Boone to give a pep talk because the mistakes are so annoying:

That was the one that Hester should've run back except for LOLPUNTERTACKLE?

Yeah, that was god-awful.

i can see where you get the results oriented, but im using the first punt as evidence for my point along with all the defensive matchups up to that point---

perhaps i should just post my thoughts in real time next time

im not saying do this every time at all. more that we should be more apt to take the safety when facing an above average return game while our defense outshines the offense. and against a above average d-line.

also look at our scheme for the game. it was like 80-20 pass w/o an Oline so were averaging 2.4 pass attempts in 3 downs. gb isolated their offensive line against the entire defensive scheme and i dont like that matchup at all.

Can't be too upset about the loss

The Bears offense only drove down the field once, and only because they got 30 yards in Packers penalties to get them there. This was also the drive Barnett picked it off and got called back.

The Pack drove down the entire field multiple times, only to get a holding call in or near the red zone to stall the drive. The Packers one dimensional offense dominated the Bears.

The Packers outplayed the Bears, but they got the lucky win as usual.

If I did the math right

Bears avg starting field position 35.5 yard line
Packers avg 18.75

nearly twice as far.

^^The only aspect the Bears outplayed the Packers in.

Lifes I see your points and in that specific instance, it might have been smarter to take a safety.

The field position was huge. Not upset by any means just annoyed. Vegas obv has faith in the bears as they are 4 point dogs Sunday night.

If I remember correctly, wasn't Denver's kicker injured earlier in the game when the Pats took the safety? (if it was already mentioned, my bad)

This should be Jackson last chance to prove himself as a capable starter in any way. If you can't get it done against the Lions, you're pretty much screwed.

hes pretty much proven he cant read blocks or see any cutback lanes

CMON already

trade 1st rnd + 2nd rnd next yr for mankins, and 2nd rnd this year for lynch

least that way we only have a slightly huge hole @ RT and decently sized whole @ rG

I've heard that the Packers are in talks with the Panthers for Williams.

Headed to Lambeau in about 1/2 hour or so. I live only a few blocks away so it isn't like a huge TR or anything, but I am going to the game!!!

plz be nice to us today

Packers are going to either blow out the Lions, or lose. There will be no inbetween, today.

I'm not ready to abandon Jackson and Kuhn yet. If you watched the MNF game, most of Jackson's runs were dead from the start. The D-line was already in his face because they mauled our O-line. He didn't have much of a chance.

Plus, I'm really hoping that James Starks can provide a boost when he comes off of the PUP after week 6.

I'm not willing to give up a 2nd rounder for Lynch. The running game just isn't that important to us.

Should have lost the game so you were spot on.

from where? i havent read that on espn or nfl

this is true and one of my biggest gripes about mccarthy/philbin. i know we have offensive weapons, but it didnt seem that we ever kept lee/finley in to block on running plays, much less pass plays. were intenionally isolating our aging tackles on some of the best pass rushers.

and as i already stated earlier, we have yet to institute any WR screens to complement slants/beat cover 2 or 3

the probelm with jackson is he has yet to show any vision about seeing cutback lanes, if you watched the game today, kuhn found some nice cutbacks especially towards teh end of the game

Source please?

Sick hold today. I wonder which Washington team will show up next week.

Losing Grant sucks more than I thought. Tear. Also, I don't think the running game is that terrible that they need to go give away a 1st or 2nd round pick for someone. Kuhn/BJ are averaging close to 4 ypc this year. The OL, secondary, and DL are much more important issues to address imo

You haven't really heard anything about it, because there really isn't anything substantial with it, yet. Just one of those "Hey, what would it take to get this guy?" kinda things. For all I know, it could just be a ploy to try and get Buffalo to drop their asking price on Lynch. It's strictly a rumor and heresy, for now.