Jump to content
squire12

1/4 season brief thoughts

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Going 1-2 is not a good realistic result. Going 1-2 is a bad realistic result. Going 2-1 is an ok realistic result. Going 3-0 is a good realistic result.

Why is everyone so negative? This is a top 4 team in the NFL even with the injuries...

because people are spoiled and ignorant of the state of other teams. They don't understand the follies of anecdotal evidence or small sample sizes, or the importance of statistical deviation.

Share this post


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

because people are spoiled and ignorant of the state of other teams. They don't understand the follies of anecdotal evidence or small sample sizes, or the importance of statistical deviation.

Too many peoples ideal of what a good team is isn't rooted in much reality but just what they think it should be. 

And what you said. Good post brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claiming 2-1 against two above average teams with and 2 road games is merely 'ok' and not 'good' is not indicative of a good understanding of expectation or variance- quite the contrary. Moreso if you think your team is in a worse relative position injury-wise than their 'true' strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Acrid Josher said:

Claiming 2-1 against two above average teams with and 2 road games is merely 'ok' and not 'good' is not indicative of a good understanding of expectation or variance- quite the contrary. Moreso if you think your team is in a worse relative position injury-wise than their 'true' strength.

Back up your claim. What are the expectations/probabilities you are working with? And what is your reasoning? Do you expect GB is more likely than not to lose to each of Dallas and Minnesota? Even if you assign a rather conservative (IMO) 50/50 odds for those games and a more reasonable 75/25 for New Orleans it works out to almost exactly my claim: that 1-2 is bad realistic (31%), 2-1 is ok realistic (44%), and 3-0 is good realistic (19%) and 0-3 is not very realistic (6%).

2-1 is what would happen most often in this scenario, and therefore not "good" or "bad", but "ok" relative to expectations.

Edited by incognito_man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Going 1-2 is not a good realistic result. Going 1-2 is a bad realistic result. Going 2-1 is an ok realistic result. Going 3-0 is a good realistic result.

Why is everyone so negative? This is a top 4 team in the NFL even with the injuries...

Because there's always going to be a faction of fans who expect nothing but perfection.  Just like there's a faction of fans who constantly look at everything with rose colored glasses.  None of them are more right than the others.  At 2-1, I'm pleased with where the Packers are given the amount of injuries we've had at tackle, the up and down play of our corners, and the overall adversity that the Packers have faced thus far.  Would I prefer to be 3-0?  Absolutely, but this is a team that has shown that it's good but needs to fix a few things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2017 at 9:40 PM, NormSizedMidget said:

Jim Ross is more apt.

There it is...that's the one!  Good ole JR....  OUTTA NOWHERE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else given up on Damarious Randall? Also, his recent titty baby antics really make me dislike him, I was really happy when Hawkins came in and played well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2017 at 8:10 AM, Stevein2012 said:

Has that little 1 yard quick throw to the TE running toward the sideline ever netted us a positive play besides on the goalline?  It just seems like a wasted play every time we do it.

I distinctively remember R.Rodgers getting like 10 yards and a first down on one of those last year. I shook my head in confusion of whether to be disappointed or excited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ReadyToThump said:

Has anyone else given up on Damarious Randall? Also, his recent titty baby antics really make me dislike him, I was really happy when Hawkins came in and played well.

If he is unhappy because he is frustrated with his play then I'm not gonna give up on him.  That shows he cares.  If he is acting like a spoiled child pouting because his coaches benched him then it might be time to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ReadyToThump said:

Has anyone else given up on Damarious Randall? Also, his recent titty baby antics really make me dislike him, I was really happy when Hawkins came in and played well.

So, I've given up on him in the slot.  And I thought he would be outstanding in the slot or at safety.  He's awful in space.  No instincts.  Very low football IQ.  On his TD, I think there were two guys lined up outside of his guy who was inside.  Randall was about 12 yards off at the snap.  All the help in the world was inside, and still he played straight up.  In that situation, you have to defend space.  There was a ton of space to the outside and when the outside receivers ran in (and the corners ran with them), there was even more space.  He looked thoroughly confused after that play, like he was expecting help.  Here's the thing...he lined up deep enough to be a safety on the hash, if there was help to be had on the play, he WAS THE HELP.  

So, I've given up on him and the mental part of the game.  He will always be beaten mentally with any scheme thrown at him.  If you are analyzing film of the defense and how to beat it, he's the guy you attack over and over with different looks.  Like a sucker at a poker table, if you can't spot him, then guess what...you are the sucker.  That's Randall in the defense right now.

I think he has some coachable qualities outside, 1:1, man on man.  But his confidence out there is shot.  

Truthfully, I think he needs to sit and watch for a few games.  Take in the game and see if he learns something from that.  Because right now, he's a liability out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2017 at 7:56 PM, incognito_man said:

Going 1-2 is not a good realistic result. Going 1-2 is a bad realistic result. Going 2-1 is an ok realistic result. Going 3-0 is a good realistic result.

Why is everyone so negative? This is a top 4 team in the NFL even with the injuries...

...

Back up your claim. What are the expectations/probabilities you are working with? And what is your reasoning? Do you expect GB is more likely than not to lose to each of Dallas and Minnesota? Even if you assign a rather conservative (IMO) 50/50 odds for those games and a more reasonable 75/25 for New Orleans it works out to almost exactly my claim: that 1-2 is bad realistic (31%), 2-1 is ok realistic (44%), and 3-0 is good realistic (19%) and 0-3 is not very realistic (6%).

2-1 is what would happen most often in this scenario, and therefore not "good" or "bad", but "ok" relative to expectations.

Back up your own. I made a lengthy post explaining the factors I thought made it difficult for this team to perform at full expectation (injuries, road schedule, strength of opponent) and all you did was assign your own value judgements that contradicted my own without discussing any of the factors I brought up or why they weren't relevant.

Equivalent teams playing on the road have a less than 50/50 chance of winning. Teams with a relative injury deficit lose more points of expectation, especially when those players are key positions or contributors like your best pass rusher (Daniels) or best Tackle or two (Bakh, Bulaga) not to mention everyone else I already discussed. Despite wins against the Bengals and Bears at home this team is thin enough that given recent history it's not unreasonable to expect we are vulnerable to two competent road teams in a row. I think if we take the same active roster into the next two games that we took into the Bengals game our expectation is slightly less than a win. Against NO we should be favorites, likely not as high as 75/25 because NFL results have a very high degree of randomness and a 75% expectation is about as high as you can get in any single game, and I don't think that's a match up of a best in league/worst in league set of teams.

Even by your own conservative numbers the expectation for the three games is 0.5+0.5+0.75 = 1.75 games. 2 is above expectation and therefore "good". Running above expectation is not "ok" is a better than anticipated result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ReadyToThump said:

Has anyone else given up on Damarious Randall? Also, his recent titty baby antics really make me dislike him, I was really happy when Hawkins came in and played well.

I'm nearly there. I like to give a guy 3 years in the league to render a judgement. But that's if they at least show flashes. I don't remember many flashes from Randall, and the "lows" have been very low. What I don't like is that he doesn't seem to have alot of attention to detail. I feel like he's lackadaisical before the snap & often doesn't seem to be in a good stance when the ball is snapped. I know he didn't play alot of football in college and had the injury setbacks last year, but I would think being ready at the snap is a basic concept. 

While improvement in the NFL can happen at a steady pace, there are usually certain times during which players make larger leaps of improvement such as after an offseason and after a mid-season bye-week. I imagine for 90% of players, if they haven't made a leap by the bye week in their 3rd season, they're as good as they're ever going to get. In Randall's case, my hope will be gone after the next Bears game. 
 

Edited by TransientTexan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Acrid Josher said:

Back up your own. I made a lengthy post explaining the factors I thought made it difficult for this team to perform at full expectation (injuries, road schedule, strength of opponent) and all you did was assign your own value judgements that contradicted my own without discussing any of the factors I brought up or why they weren't relevant.

Equivalent teams playing on the road have a less than 50/50 chance of winning. Teams with a relative injury deficit lose more points of expectation, especially when those players are key positions or contributors like your best pass rusher (Daniels) or best Tackle or two (Bakh, Bulaga) not to mention everyone else I already discussed. Despite wins against the Bengals and Bears at home this team is thin enough that given recent history it's not unreasonable to expect we are vulnerable to two competent road teams in a row. I think if we take the same active roster into the next two games that we took into the Bengals game our expectation is slightly less than a win. Against NO we should be favorites, likely not as high as 75/25 because NFL results have a very high degree of randomness and a 75% expectation is about as high as you can get in any single game, and I don't think that's a match up of a best in league/worst in league set of teams.

Even by your own conservative numbers the expectation for the three games is 0.5+0.5+0.75 = 1.75 games. 2 is above expectation and therefore "good". Running above expectation is not "ok" is a better than anticipated result.

I stand by my question of how someone thinks a 1-2 record over the next 3 games is somehow 'good'. I don't know how one comes up with an expected win total of less than 1 in the next 3 games.

I also think that quick calc of randomness is flawed to the point of being completely useless. It ignores so much meaningful input it's basically worthless. Sure, luck is involved, but trying to quantify it is impossibly difficult, and that attempt at quantifying it is rather elementary.

 

*Edit, just for a fun reference 538 has our expected wins at 1.7 over the next 3 games, which is remarkably close to my rough numbers, so I maintain than winning 1 game is bad, 2 is nearest to expect and therefore 'ok', and 3 would be good. And that value accounts for everyone we've been missing. Getting guys back that we are expecting too will only increase our chances.

Edited by incognito_man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, incognito_man said:

I stand by my question of how someone thinks a 1-2 record over the next 3 games is somehow 'good'. I don't know how one comes up with an expected win total of less than 1 in the next 3 games.

I also think that quick calc of randomness is flawed to the point of being completely useless. It ignores so much meaningful input it's basically worthless. Sure, luck is involved, but trying to quantify it is impossibly difficult, and that attempt at quantifying it is rather elementary.

 

*Edit, just for a fun reference 538 has our expected wins at 1.7 over the next 3 games, which is remarkably close to my rough numbers, so I maintain than winning 1 game is bad, 2 is nearest to expect and therefore 'ok', and 3 would be good. And that value accounts for everyone we've been missing. Getting guys back that we are expecting too will only increase our chances.

Sounds like you are both saying the same thing but arguing the semantics of the word "good".

 

3 wins would be great, 2 wins would be good, 1 would be fair, and 0 would be poor.  

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



×