like the packers are playing rock/paper/scissors except they have a fourth option called The Great Godgering Of Our Time which wins 80% of the time regardless of what the opponent selects

yet fat mike picks each option 25% of the time because gotta balance dem ranges

Well actually Fat Mike's problem historically has been the opposite. He generally runs too little on specifically 4th and goal from the 2. He has literally never run the ball going for two in his ten years as head coach. It's like 17 straight passing plays. Horrible. It is a "passing down". Rodgers was actually exploiting the Jags exploiting Fat Mike by audibling to a run, but his line was all "lol no bro this is a passing down ima pass block k thx" so the play went nowhere.

belichick has been horrible at in game decisions ever since that infamous 2pt failure

looks like fat mike does at least one thing right then. godgers pass play the defense knows is coming is more likely to result in a TD than a fatarse run they doesnt know is coming imo

--

i suppose exploitability would matter more if the league was full of DCs that are part time game theoreticians..

I mean if you don't think opposing teams all know the packers always pass on two point attempts I don't know what to say. Agree to disagree I guess.

yet they still work

Sure, sometimes. A little less than half the time if I recall correctly. But throwing in a random 20% run would surely increase the overall success rate.

same logic that coaches use to run it on 1st & 25

gotta remain unpredictable at all costs

I count 11 successful and 8 failed passes for aaron rodgers, including 5 out of the last 6 converting when it should be easy for the defense since they now know the packers "always pass"

Your merciless use of facts against keeeed is mean.

There are certain situations where passing is probably a dominant strategy. I'm not sure that 1st and 25 is one of them but it could be. There is no way passing on 4th and goal at the two, even with Aaron Rodgers, is a dominant passing strategy. I mean if it were then you should literally never run the football since two yards isn't far and running tends to get more valuable on a given down and distance the closer you get to the end zone since surplus yards are worthless.

Where did you get this information? I'm getting 9/22 converted 2 point conversions since 2009. I mean making up facts is an extremely powerful technique, kudos.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/st...atistics/2009/

that site looks like it was created by a middle schooler during computer lab

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...ss_location=DR

defenses are playing to stop the pass whether you run it every now & then on 1st & 25 or not, throwing in some runs is simply a waste of time

--

literally never running doesnt sound bad with the best QB ever tbh, godgers + 5 WRs every down & distance prolly crushes the NFL. bring fat eddie in when the game is won to run clock & protect god

OK but you're still wrong, it was 4 out of his last 6 and 11/20. Which proves what exactly? Certainly not that running sometimes is a bad idea. I mean ffs RODGERS agrees with me! He audibled out of a pass on that 3rd and 2!

i didn't realize taking a knee after scoring a TD as time expired against detroit was statistically meaningful. note my use of "passes" in my post

what does it prove? nothing really except that at least my facts are right and passing all the time with rodgers doesn't seem to hurt

Right, it's still 4 of the last 6. Sort by date bro.

edit: oops, nope. But way to cut it off right before a streak of like 5 straight failures.

But it doesn't matter. You're really arguing that the Packers are correct to never mix in a run on 3rd/4th and goal at the 2? Seems insane. Rodgers is going to convert a lot of times even if the defense knows that the Packers are going to pass because he's Rodgers. But throwing in a run now and again randomly seems prudent and like it would increase the overall success rate.

And let's not pretend that I HAS ARUN ROGER factors into Fat Mike's decision making. He has literally never run on a two point conversion. Not with Rodgers, not with Favre, not with MATT FLYNN. This cannot be correct, and I think it is likely due to the fact that Fat Mike cannot deal with the ball carrier being stopped a yard short of the goal line. A pass will always get to the end zone. He has literally said that 3rd/4th and goal from the 2 is a "passing down". Think about how ****ing stupid that is for a second. Then think about how dumb it is to agree with Fat Mike that always passing on two point conversions is a good move.

i think you're overestimating the metagame advantage of chucking in the occasional run play, think u have to balance it further between pass/run if you want to meaningfully impact the way the defense approaches the situation. which means you're taking the ball out of god's hands a large % of the time. which is clear & full ******ation

this is assuming DCs are even paying attention to fat mike's 2 pt conversion tendencies. if they aren't then it doesn't matter if you're predictable or not

imo only good reason to run ever is if you think the defense is so over-adjusted to the pass that running is gonna result in more conversions than passing

That is actually funny to see they passed every time, I mean hard to argue throwing with Rodgers, but stats show that running plays convert a higher percentage of 2pc.

Also funny as a Giants fan to realize how many DJ Ware draw plays worked for 2pc and in big spots too.

It was awful and unexplainable. He got three separate 4th downs completely wrong in the first half. Kicked two field goals on 4th and 1 in the 1st half against a high powered offense. just awful

To be clear it has to increase overall success rate not just increase the success rate of the times that you pass. And the success rate of runs is lower, so the increase on passing tries has to outweigh that. And it's a double edged sword a bit because you have to run a pretty significant percent of the time to actually force them to respect the run. So without looking at any numbers it seems extremely likely that it is true that running it 1% of the time is better than literally 0% of the time. But it's less clear that 5% is better than 1%, right? Both are rare but make it still "possible" but with the added waste of those extra 4% of runs.

I guess it's conceivable there is a sweet spot somewhere and thst sweet spot is 20% as you guess but honestly i doubt it. If I had to guess a sweet spot I'd guess 0.1%. Your opponents are humans so they don't think about the actual percentage times that you go for it but they just think "rarely, sometimes, often" and whatever you pick you wanna maximize the error they are making with their categorization. 0.1% seems to maximize the error of "rarely" better than some random number you pick maximizes the error of "sometimes."

Doing it once in preseason is probably enough.

Yeah this. I also don't know why you so cavalierly dismiss the idea that in today's nfl it might actually be the case that passing is basically a dominant strategy for some teams.

this post is great