Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-28-2010, 08:49 AM   #301
bacats32
Pooh-Bah
 
bacats32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: your pocket
Posts: 5,595
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifes3ps View Post
its all about adjustments

and i didnt see any adjustments to keep an extra TE in like Lee to help blocking or using jackson to chip/cover outside pressure. we have to face it that the Oline is aging and loses a step. theyve tried to compensate by 5 wide looking for matchups. i would counter that only puts more pressure on the O line if the wrs are jammed like in cover 2 scheme

- i would have insta taken the safety after stopping them on 4th+goal, by punting youre actually only giving them the ball back at best with 40-50yards to go, 15 for a FG they have a dynamic returner while their offense was struggling. spot them 2 and put them back at their own 35. not to mention how wrong it is to turn the ball over passing there, w/ no running game.

- i would have also insta given them the TD after the interference call---no excuse to let them have it as a tie or win w/o a shot

defensively im fine w/ the penalties actually. zambos was aggresive trying to sack cutler, had his hands up before the play but he lead w/ the helmet, thatll come w/ reps (obv sucks nOW), woodsons PI was a good one, burnetts penalty, it looked like he was trying to turn himself around but momentums collided and hte rest we say is physics

offensively i think we ran 1 swing pass, WR screens were meant to counter the cover 2, i really think they need to be added to the scheme and get livid everytime i see them open
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.
bacats32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 01:36 PM   #302
rafiki
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
rafiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 36,220
Re: Green Bay Packers

So what's the rumored price tag on Lynch?
rafiki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 02:01 PM   #303
lifes3ps
Pooh-Bah
 
lifes3ps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,691
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by bacats32 View Post
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.
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
lifes3ps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 02:08 PM   #304
lifes3ps
Pooh-Bah
 
lifes3ps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,691
Re: Green Bay Packers

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
lifes3ps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 07:01 PM   #305
Michael Davis
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Michael Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,999
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifes3ps View Post
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
Michael Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 07:38 PM   #306
DCIAce
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DCIAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,540
Re: Green Bay Packers

**** 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.
DCIAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 07:48 PM   #307
lifes3ps
Pooh-Bah
 
lifes3ps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,691
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Davis View Post
(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
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
lifes3ps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 11:32 PM   #308
mclaughlin04
veteran
 
mclaughlin04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: naptown
Posts: 2,400
Re: Green Bay Packers

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:

Quote:
Coach Boone: We will be perfect in every aspect of the game. You drop a pass, you run a mile. You miss a blocking assignment, you run a mile. You commit another ****ing penalty, and i will break my foot off in your John Brown hind parts and then you will run a mile. Perfection. Let's go to work.
mclaughlin04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2010, 11:39 PM   #309
DCIAce
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DCIAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,540
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by mclaughlin04 View Post
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.
That was the one that Hester should've run back except for LOLPUNTERTACKLE?

Yeah, that was god-awful.
DCIAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2010, 03:16 AM   #310
lifes3ps
Pooh-Bah
 
lifes3ps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,691
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by mclaughlin04 View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by lifes3ps; 09-29-2010 at 03:24 AM.
lifes3ps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2010, 05:05 AM   #311
Poker is Rigged
old hand
 
Poker is Rigged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bellagio
Posts: 1,366
Re: Green Bay Packers

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.
Poker is Rigged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2010, 12:24 PM   #312
mclaughlin04
veteran
 
mclaughlin04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: naptown
Posts: 2,400
Re: Green Bay Packers

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.
mclaughlin04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 06:40 PM   #313
tweedybirdd
Canadian national treasure
 
tweedybirdd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: olive gardening
Posts: 21,374
Re: Green Bay Packers

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)
tweedybirdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 02:33 AM   #314
Nofear3838
Now 20% Cooler
 
Nofear3838's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Playing Touhou
Posts: 35,132
Re: Green Bay Packers

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.
Nofear3838 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 02:46 AM   #315
lifes3ps
Pooh-Bah
 
lifes3ps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,691
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nofear3838 View Post
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
lifes3ps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 03:54 AM   #316
Nofear3838
Now 20% Cooler
 
Nofear3838's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Playing Touhou
Posts: 35,132
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifes3ps View Post
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.
Nofear3838 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 11:42 AM   #317
bacats32
Pooh-Bah
 
bacats32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: your pocket
Posts: 5,595
Re: Green Bay Packers

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!!!
bacats32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 11:42 AM   #318
thedeezy
My name is Carlos
 
thedeezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: POGBA
Posts: 26,194
Re: Green Bay Packers

plz be nice to us today
thedeezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 11:45 AM   #319
Nofear3838
Now 20% Cooler
 
Nofear3838's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Playing Touhou
Posts: 35,132
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedeezy View Post
plz be nice to us today
Packers are going to either blow out the Lions, or lose. There will be no inbetween, today.
Nofear3838 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 12:34 PM   #320
tweedybirdd
Canadian national treasure
 
tweedybirdd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: olive gardening
Posts: 21,374
Re: Green Bay Packers

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.
tweedybirdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 05:25 PM   #321
bacats32
Pooh-Bah
 
bacats32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: your pocket
Posts: 5,595
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nofear3838 View Post
Packers are going to either blow out the Lions, or lose. There will be no in between, today.
Should have lost the game so you were spot on.
bacats32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 05:40 PM   #322
lifes3ps
Pooh-Bah
 
lifes3ps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,691
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nofear3838 View Post
I've heard that the Packers are in talks with the Panthers for Williams.
from where? i havent read that on espn or nfl
lifes3ps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 05:45 PM   #323
lifes3ps
Pooh-Bah
 
lifes3ps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,691
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by tweedybirdd View Post
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.
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
lifes3ps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2010, 11:03 PM   #324
mclaughlin04
veteran
 
mclaughlin04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: naptown
Posts: 2,400
Re: Green Bay Packers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nofear3838 View Post
I've heard that the Packers are in talks with the Panthers for Williams.
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

Last edited by mclaughlin04; 10-03-2010 at 11:08 PM.
mclaughlin04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 12:50 AM   #325
Nofear3838
Now 20% Cooler
 
Nofear3838's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Playing Touhou
Posts: 35,132
Re: Green Bay Packers

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.
Nofear3838 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online