PackyAttacky Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Wait so people on here think Dallas sucks, they are still a very good team but they have a brutal schedule, NFC AND AFC west good luck!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Cakeshoppe said: Not buying this approach. Dallas got so few drives because of the offense they ran. They don't get to be awarded points for successfully running a TOP control offense against us and then get awarded again because they didn't have as many drives as other teams get. I'm not going to argue with anyone who wasn't satisfied with the defensive performance because I wasn't either, but this approach doesn't do it for me. If they had played a game to get more drives in, there would have been added incompletions, sack opportunities, etc. that all allow for changes of posession. You get the time you're alotted in football. They don't get to be awarded a 44-point performance for playing a 31-point game. It's not an approach, it's a way of framing the result that happened. Dallas was impressive on offense but GB happened to be better. It's simply saying that Dallas played a TOP game, we played a TOP game at times, and the game was shorter as a result. Shorter game always means fewer raw points available for both teams. Look at all the pace of play statistics in basketball. IF you score 31 points in a "short" game that is exceptional results, and one could also say that the defending team was "awful". The way to frame that and put a number to it is by saying "the efficiency dallas showed is equivalent to 44/38 points in a normal length game". Another way to frame that is by saying they scored 3.88/3.38 points per drive, but no one really knows what that means... is it good? is it bad? (It's good. No team has averaged more than 3.1 points per drive since 2009) The main point of the post is that "raw points" are not a good measure of what happened in this game because there were so few drives. The better metric is points per drive, and by that metric, Dallas was running a historic, all-time level offense last night. Green Bay was running a better historic, all-time level offense supplemented by a pick 6. Whether Dallas is capable of scoring 44 against GB in a normal length game is another conversation, and it's not one that my post discusses in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: It's not an approach, it's a way of framing the result that happened. Dallas was impressive on offense but GB happened to be better. It's simply saying that Dallas played a TOP game, we played a TOP game at times, and the game was shorter as a result. Shorter game always means fewer raw points available for both teams. Look at all the pace of play statistics in basketball. IF you score 31 points in a "short" game that is exceptional results, and one could also say that the defending team was "awful". The way to frame that and put a number to it is by saying "the efficiency dallas showed is equivalent to 44/38 points in a normal length game". The main point of the post is that "raw points" are not a good measure of what happened in this game because there were so few drives. The better metric is points per drive, and by that metric, Dallas was running a historic, all-time level offense last night. Whether Dallas is capable of scoring 44 against GB in a normal length game is another conversation, and it's not one that my post discusses in any way. I just don't see any relevance to the 38/44 thing. It was a normal length game, they played 60 minutes of football. Dallas chose a gameplan where they sought out long drives. They wanted 3rd and shorts, they went for some 4th downs. They openly traded less offensive touches for Aaron's less offensive touches, knowing that he only needs 60 seconds to score. Our defense wasn't very good, but when you take into account the last two times we've played them, Ill take this performance over the other 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 aaron jones diving comeback catch earned him serious credit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Not to mention our defense does exactly that, they force a team into longer drives to score because they don't give up big plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: I just don't see any relevance to the 38/44 thing. It was a normal length game, they played 60 minutes of football. Dallas chose a gameplan where they sought out long drives. They wanted 3rd and shorts, they went for some 4th downs. They openly traded less offensive touches for Aaron's less offensive touches, knowing that he only needs 60 seconds to score. Our defense wasn't very good, but when you take into account the last two times we've played them, Ill take this performance over the other 2. And it's a smart strategy if you feel you are the inferior team. Shorten the game which allows variance to swing to your favor. By preventing both teams from having many possessions, over which the better team would prevail (at the limits... you can assume aggregate score for 100 possessions for each team across multiple games) you shorten the game by allowing for fewer drives. Which means each individual drive means more and the overall quality disparity between the teams is masked. When you look at raw points or adjusted points, which have been the topics discussed in this thread, you ignore efficiency. Dallas was historically efficient (in terms of projecting to a season-long statistic) last night. Green Bay was even more so (4 points per drive). While this game was high scoring by NFL standards... it had the makeup of an absolute shootout in that both teams rarely punted and both teams were extremely efficient in the red zone and goal to go situations (80% and 66% for GB, 100% and 100% for Dallas). I thought there were some things to like about the defensive performance, and there were some mitigating factors as well which suggest they were better than the points they allowed (the pick 6, the forced fumble, the injury to king, the incredible plays by Prescott in the 1st quarter). But I don't think we should ignore that the same defense allowed an extremely efficient offensive performance from Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 1 hour ago, PackyAttacky said: Ones getting cut or two take a pay cut. It's not even going to be an issue. Their contracts are ending and you can structure Adams so that the cap hit isn't huge in the first year if you need to. After 2018, I expect Jordy to be back cheaper and Cobb to either come back MUCH cheaper or more likely, move on elsewhere. One year of all 3 making decent money isn't really a problem. Better than the alternative of Adams walking, Cobb leaving the next year and now the only good WR left is an aging (and declining) Nelson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 2 hours ago, packfanfb said: What was the point though? Risk outweighed the reward by a lot. We get an extra point so when we kick the game winning FG we win by 2 instead of 1? I'm guessing he was anticipating that there would be more possessions in the game with 10 minutes left or whatever it was but the entire game was littered with long possessions. Dallas needed a TD to win either way and a 2 point conversion would not change that one way or the other. The point is math. We were up 4. The decision to go for 2 vs XP is based on the other team scoring a TD. If we kick the XP we are up 5. Guess what, if other team scores they are obviously going to go for 2. You are completely missing half the logic here. Either MM goes for two, or, if he doesn't, the opponent will. So the call comes down to whether you trust your offense to execute more than your defense. You, of all people, should be applauding MM for going for 2 since you hate the defense so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 rodgers was just keeping it close so he could once again have late game heroics. it wouldn't be my approach, but thats a way of framing the result that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Bennett reportedly has a foot injury? Anyone hear anything about that? Related to his cracked bone in foot from last year with pats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cakeshoppe Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 win probability chart for the game. That's 98.2% for Dallas with 1:18 left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 13 minutes ago, Cakeshoppe said: win probability chart for the game. That's 98.2% for Dallas with 1:18 left computer treating rodgers like the mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Is Rodgers still 0-1000 in whatever stupid stats for late game stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 2 hours ago, PackyAttacky said: Wait so people on here think Dallas sucks, they are still a very good team but they have a brutal schedule, NFC AND AFC west good luck!! They're a better team than they showed IMO. They've got their issues, but so does any team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PackyAttacky Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 1 hour ago, skibrett15 said: Bennett reportedly has a foot injury? Anyone hear anything about that? Related to his cracked bone in foot from last year with pats? no crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.