Jump to content

Lions vs. Packers GDT (Week 14)


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Sllim Pickens said:

The point is that there are three minutes left and its a two possession game.  Either way you need an onside kick (very low success rate) or give their offense a chance.  In the long run, we ran out of time because we wasted over 2 mins moving closer for a FG.  I would rather play for the chance to tie with 3 mins to go than to lose or depend on an onsides kick.  If time isn't a factor, sure you go for the TD, or if you have three timeouts left and the two minute warning, than sure.  

I can agree I would not instantly kick it, but I would take some shots at the end zone, or longer shots down the field and make sure that you are giving them the ball back with us having two time outs and the 2 min warning left to stop the clock. 

They scored with 2:03 left and it was called back due to a holding call. That put them on the 14 yard line. It wasn’t just a two score game. It was two TD’s for the win. TL is talking about over 3 minutes left in the game.

They were moving the ball with success and they were deep. You have to go for the major score when you’re that close. If you take three points from that close it’s totally limiting. There are lots of variables in getting the ball back however in all circumstances it’s easier to move into field goal range than it is to score the TD. It also takes more time to march the field for a TD. 

I understand the concept I just don’t agree. With all the analytics and decades of film teams have what’s being described would be done all the time if teams thought it gave them a better opportunity. I expect the reason we don’t see it all the time is teams playing for the win as long as it’s possible.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, diehardlionfan said:

They scored with 2:03 left and it was called back due to a holding call. That put them on the 14 yard line. It wasn’t just a two score game. It was two TD’s for the win. TL is talking about over 3 minutes left in the game.

They were moving the ball with success and they were deep. You have to go for the major score when you’re that close. If you take three points from that close it’s totally limiting. There are lots of variables in getting the ball back however in all circumstances it’s easier to move into field goal range than it is to score the TD. It also takes more time to march the field for a TD. 

I understand the concept I just don’t agree. With all the analytics and decades of film teams have what’s being described would be done all the time if teams thought it gave them a better opportunity. I expect the reason we don’t see it all the time is teams playing for the win as long as it’s possible.

You can play for the win by going for 2 after the TD, but getting to the point of having a chance is necessary to get there.  Scoring as quickly as possible should be the goal.  Even if they do score at 2:03, the kickoff likely would have been returned and the 2 Min warning lost.  Teams need to show more urgency with 3+ mins to go.  and this game is exactly why.  Yes it takes more time to score a TD than a FG, so why not take points and give yourself as much time as possible to get the TD?  The situation is relatively rare, but I would bet that analytics show that it has a very small chance of coming back and winning when down 10 with 3 mins to go.  I will bet the odds of tying are much higher.  So take the tie, and if you want to be aggressive and play for the win, go for 2.  But going to OT is not a bad option when down 10 with 3 mins to go, especially at home. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, diehardlionfan said:

All things being equal I’m kicking the field goal. The reason......because I’m not getting the ball back.

In your scenario plenty of time and two scores to win. With that much time you don’t play for a tie. One of which they got with 2:03 remaining but it got called back because of a penalty on Nelson.

3:21 remaining and two timeouts in a 10 score game isn't "plenty of time", especially against Aaron Rodgers. You mentioned analytics: I'd love to see the stats on Rodgers getting the ball back with 2:30 left in the game. The guy is incredible at getting the first down and ending it.

In my opinion, wasting time going for the TD when you need both a TD and a FG is playing to lose. The clock matters most.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sllim Pickens said:

You can play for the win by going for 2 after the TD, but getting to the point of having a chance is necessary to get there.  Scoring as quickly as possible should be the goal.  Even if they do score at 2:03, the kickoff likely would have been returned and the 2 Min warning lost.  Teams need to show more urgency with 3+ mins to go.  and this game is exactly why.  Yes it takes more time to score a TD than a FG, so why not take points and give yourself as much time as possible to get the TD?  The situation is relatively rare, but I would bet that analytics show that it has a very small chance of coming back and winning when down 10 with 3 mins to go.  I will bet the odds of tying are much higher.  So take the tie, and if you want to be aggressive and play for the win, go for 2.  But going to OT is not a bad option when down 10 with 3 mins to go, especially at home. 

How about you and TL find examples of coaches who followed that plan. Then if you can find an example, determine if it worked.

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

3:21 remaining and two timeouts in a 10 score game isn't "plenty of time", especially against Aaron Rodgers. You mentioned analytics: I'd love to see the stats on Rodgers getting the ball back with 2:30 left in the game. The guy is incredible at getting the first down and ending it.

In my opinion, wasting time going for the TD when you need both a TD and a FG is playing to lose. The clock matters most.

You’re entitled to your opinion and it’s an interesting discussion.

I disagree and in my memory have only seen what you suggest, attempted once. It didn’t work.

If it was the right way to proceed we would see it done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, diehardlionfan said:

How about you and TL find examples of coaches who followed that plan. Then if you can find an example, determine if it worked.

I'll just see all of those who have tried it the "typical" way and failed as a reason to try something else.  Just because its not common doesn't mean its not a good idea.  At one point, passing the ball regularly was seen as dumb and the game evolves.  As data analytics continues to evolve the game, I will bet we see more of it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sllim Pickens said:

I'll just see all of those who have tried it the "typical" way and failed as a reason to try something else.  Just because its not common doesn't mean its not a good idea.  At one point, passing the ball regularly was seen as dumb and the game evolves.  As data analytics continues to evolve the game, I will bet we see more of it.  

Perhaps, however analytics isn’t new and they’ve been playing the game a long, long time. 

Also, heavy passing attacks were new at one time. So was the 3-4 defence, so was every formation etc. However it’s nieve to think coaches don’t run scenarios involving clock management. Just as they did on the practice field with new formations etc. 

We just have to disagree because in my opinion it’s not the right way to go. 

 

Edited by diehardlionfan
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, diehardlionfan said:

Perhaps, however analytics isn’t new and they’ve been playing the game a long, long time. 

Also, heavy passing attacks were new at one time. So was the 3-4 defence, so was every formation etc. However it’s nieve to think coaches don’t run scenarios involving clock management. Just as they did on the practice field with new formations etc. 

We just have to disagree because in my opinion it’s not the right way to go. 

 

https://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/game-strategy/155-field-goal-first

Quote

These results surprised me. Going in, I thought there would likely be very few scenarios when a FG first strategy would be preferred. I thought something was wrong with the model, so I watched the simulated play-by-play for several games. When a team was able to tie or win, they were able to do one thing almost every time. They avoided a situation that called for an onside kick.

It shows that your win probability goes up when kicking the FG first unless when starting from the 30 up until there is 4 minutes remaining and you have 3 time outs.  If you are at the 15 yard line, the FG is better for anything under 3 mins remaining.  

So although this study isnt about kicking it right away, kicking the FG first is beneficial for win probability.  I am sure it would increase even more if you kick the FG with extra time remaining. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HashtagFTW said:

It amazes me that y’all still have faith in Matt Prater. He’s kicking like he’s drunk again. 

I am not even caring who the kicker is.  If he is on your roster you have to have faith in him.  And it would be in the best interest of the team to get the FG.  He also hasnt missed since week 9 and is still 100% from under 45.  If we kicked it with from the 32 (which he is 100% from) we would have had 3:00 left and two timeouts and the 2 min warning.  Very good chance we get the ball back with a chance to tie, instead we never had that chance. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sllim Pickens said:

I am not even caring who the kicker is.  If he is on your roster you have to have faith in him.  And it would be in the best interest of the team to get the FG.  He also hasnt missed since week 9 and is still 100% from under 45.  If we kicked it with from the 32 (which he is 100% from) we would have had 3:00 left and two timeouts and the 2 min warning.  Very good chance we get the ball back with a chance to tie, instead we never had that chance. 

This.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...