Jump to content
Malfatron

MNF: Lions at Packers

who wins  

17 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. wins


  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 10/15/2019 at 12:33 AM

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

I don't think that's really good context, and besides, it's not true. According to this play-by-play link, the Lions threw more deep passes in the 2nd half (5) than in the 1st half (3).

The Lions weren't ahead by more than one score from the 2nd quarter on aside from like 3 minutes in the 4th. To say they had no reason to take chances on medium and deep passes is silly.

I watched the game. The Packers weren't threatening throughout, and the Lions appeared to become much more conservative as the game moved forward. This wouldn't have been their mentality with the ball on the 20 with 1:30 left, down by 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I watched the game. The Packers weren't threatening throughout, and the Lions appeared to become much more conservative as the game moved forward. This wouldn't have been their mentality with the ball on the 20 with 1:30 left, down by 1.

I watched the game too. The Lions wanted to move the ball in the 2nd half, but couldn't. I have my eyes and the numbers I provided earlier to back my argument.

I also have this:

  • In the first half, the Lions had 8 rushes and 5 passes on 1st down (62% rushes). In the 2nd half, they had 6 rushes and 4 passes on 1st down (60% rushes). So they were more aggressive on 1st down in the 2nd half
  • Overall, in the 1st half the Lions had 12 rushes and 17 dropbacks/passes (41% rushes); in the 2nd half they had 8 rushes and 18 dropbacks/passes (31% rushes). So they actually were more aggressive in playcalling in the second half overall
  • Therefore, what you thought "appeared" to happen didn't really happen

Either way, it's likely not going to change the percentage that much. Maybe it goes from 30% to 35%. We're quibbling over fairly minor details imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my. Those poor, poor stats... they have been assualted. As if each dropback is always an aggressive play, and not potentially a low risk short pass.

Hockenson was targeted six times. McKissic three, Kerryon four, James three, even Bawden once. They threw plenty of conservative passes while playing with the lead.

Those poor stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Oh my. Those poor, poor stats... they have been assualted. As if each dropback is always an aggressive play, and not potentially a low risk short pass.

Hockenson was targeted six times. McKissic three, Kerryon four, James three, even Bawden once. They threw plenty of conservative passes while playing with the lead.

Those poor stats.

I think that has more to do with the Packers taking away the deep options than the plays not being there. 

Simply put the Packers D played the pass much more aggressively in the 2nd half pretty much daring the Lions to run and when the Lions did run they were pathetic at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I think that has more to do with the Packers taking away the deep options than the plays not being there. 

Simply put the Packers D played the pass much more aggressively in the 2nd half pretty much daring the Lions to run and when the Lions did run they were pathetic at it.

Yeah, absolutely. When you open the game getting gashed, you tend to adjust. They did, and the Lions' struggles in the running game returned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, time to move on.

Still not the most ridiculous 4th Q call(s) in a Lions/GB matchup. 

That will forever be the Samkon Gado 5 minute bailout-from-a-safety call.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Oh my. Those poor, poor stats... they have been assualted. As if each dropback is always an aggressive play, and not potentially a low risk short pass.

Hockenson was targeted six times. McKissic three, Kerryon four, James three, even Bawden once. They threw plenty of conservative passes while playing with the lead.

Those poor stats.

I never said that every dropback is always an aggressive play, but generally speaking it is safe to assume that passes are more aggressive than runs, and deep passes are more aggressive than short passes. The Lions had a higher percentage of deep passes and a higher percentage of passes overall in the 2nd half, as well as a higher percentage of passes on 1st down in the 2nd half. Both of those things confirm what I saw with my eyes, which is that the Lions had trouble moving the ball in the 2nd half despite trying to.

Thanks for listing a handful of players and how many targets they got without breaking down when they got them. First of all, James was only targeted once. See here: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201910140gnb.htm

Secondly, out of the 15 total targets between the five of them, 7 were in the 1st half and 8 in the 2nd half. So hardly any difference. The Lions really didn't go that conservative in the 2nd half. Sorry.

Edited by childofpudding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lions' last four drives (3rd quarter, after a Packers' punt, with a 19-13 lead, while the Packers had done nothing unless aided by penalties):

 

Drive #1:

Deep pass

Run

Run

Run

Incomplete deep pass

Short pass

 

Drive #2:

Short pass

Short pass

Incomplete short pass

Incomplete short pass

Sack

 

Drive #3:

Run

Incomplete short pass

Incomplete short pass

 

Drive #4:

Run

Incomplete short pass

Short pass

Run

Incomplete deep pass

Incomplete short pass

 

20 plays. Three deep attempts, two on the first of these four drives. Yeah, we didn't get conservative as the game moved along. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, incognito_man said:
19 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

1) PFR has not updated it's win probability format since 2016 mid season. They still provide the EPA in the game by game but the win probability calculator has been broken for 3 years now. 

2) It only dates from 1994-2016, not in NFL game history like you tried to pass it off as.

3) It's a VERY small sample size. There are only 26 TOTAL PLAYS listed in that link you provided. 26 plays out of a total of 813 regular season games since 1994! Hell, that's not even a small sample size. 

4) The vegas odds that you selected was wrong as well. You put in 4 and PFR's resource had the vegas odds at 3.5 which even by this outdated format bumped the odds up to 40%.

(1) irrelevant to larger point

(2) irrelevant to larger point

(3) 26 > 0 (his and your sample size)

(4) completely false. Using 3.5 changes results by 0.5%.

Try harder lol.

1) Not at all irrelevant. You just weren't aware of it before posting such a dumb comment.

2) You said for word for word "it was generated using data from every NFL game in history?" and that was completely false. Again, you just weren't aware of it before posting such a dumb comment.

3) You were the one who brought up a system that is broken and outdated so It's not up to anyone else but yourself to provide an alternative. Using a broken and outdated formula that only shows 26 plays out of 1,458 over the course of 23 years doesn't prove anything. 

4) You're right. I was using +3.5. However, Expected Points: 0.277 down by 1.

I would tell you to try harder but I'm afraid you have already gave it your all here. As sad as that is.

Edited by JustAnotherFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

You were the one who brought up a system that is broken and outdated so It's not up to anyone else but yourself to provide an alternative. Using a broken and outdated formula that only shows 26 plays out of 1,458 over the course of 23 years doesn't prove anything. 

Lol

Yeah the burden of proof is not on me you dunce.

The other poster literally preferred a random guess with no basis to a value with a basis of l, what 25 years of data? 

The burden is on you two to provide a better alternative if you criticize the best available one.

Lordy this place is a cess-pool of idiocy sometimes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Lions' last four drives (3rd quarter, after a Packers' punt, with a 19-13 lead, while the Packers had done nothing unless aided by penalties):

...

20 plays. Three deep attempts, two on the first of these four drives. Yeah, we didn't get conservative as the game moved along. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

Now do the Lions' first four drives.

  1. Deep pass, aborted snap, incomplete deep pass, short pass
  2. Deep pass, run, short pass, short pass, run, short pass, run, run
  3. Run, run, run, short pass, short pass, run, short pass, short pass, incomplete short pass, incomplete short pass
  4. Run, short pass, short pass, incomplete short pass, run, sack

Three deep attempts, two on the first of these four drives. The same exact thing as the last four drives. So I guess I'm telling myself the right thing. LOL

Edited by childofpudding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Lol

Yeah the burden of proof is not on me you dunce.

The other poster literally preferred a random guess with no basis to a value with a basis of l, what 25 years of data? 

The burden is on you two to provide a better alternative if you criticize the best available one.

Lordy this place is a cess-pool of idiocy sometimes...

Lol someone got his feelings hurt after being called out for making so many dumb posts in a row. That's gotta be embarrassing and I apologize for doing that to you kid. 

Yeah the burden of proof is on you since you were the one who decided to post such garbage that was totally flawed in so many ways.

Quote

Lordy this place is a cess-pool of idiocy sometimes...

1474790-0817%5B5%5D.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Now do the Lions' first four drives.

  1. Deep pass, aborted snap, incomplete deep pass, short pass
  2. Deep pass, run, short pass, short pass, run, short pass, run, run
  3. Run, run, run, short pass, short pass, run, short pass, short pass, incomplete short pass, incomplete short pass
  4. Run, short pass, short pass, incomplete short pass, run, sack

Three deep attempts, two on the first of these four drives. The same exact thing as the last four drives. So I guess I'm telling myself the right thing. LOL

So, you agree with my point all along: the Lions were playing conservatively for most of the second half, which makes these drives irrelevant to how they would have played with 1:30 left, down by 1.

Took a while, but we got there.

Edited by TL-TwoWinsAway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

So, you agree with my point all along: the Lions were playing conservatively in the second half, which makes these drives irrelevant to how they would have played with 1:30 left, down by 1.

Took a while, but we got there.

It seems like you've forgotten what your own point was. You didn't write that they played conservatively in the second half; you wrote that the Lions "appeared to become much more conservative as the game moved forward."  I've proved that wrong several times in several different ways in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

It seems like you've forgotten what your own point was. You didn't write that they played conservatively in the second half; you wrote that the Lions "appeared to become much more conservative as the game moved forward."  I've proved that wrong several times in several different ways in this thread.

You need to move it back farther. The entire point was that their lack of second half yards was a byproduct of conservative play and wouldn't be an accurate comparison to how they'd play with 1:30 left, down by 1. That was this entire conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×