WEEK 13 Gameday Thread ---- Green Bay Packers (4-8) @ Chicago Bears (3-9) --- LOVE showcase game???

[vegas492]

4 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

Agreed.  I said the same right away in the thread. That isn't what this discussion has been about.   

Yah, I'm catching up on that.  I only went back like 2 pages on this thing, as I don't have the time, nor the patience to read this whole thread.

For what it is worth, I'd love someone to take the time to look at a true throw away number.  But that would be a pain in the neck to do.

In my "from memory" test.  I remember one scramble to the left that Rodgers threw out of bounds, no chance, just a throw away.  And I think he had 2 if not three of those in the end zone, no real chance at completion, but probably close enough to be an attempt and throw away.  So I'll bet those get really, really subjective.

[vegas492]

2 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

I understand that line of thinking.  Could be the truth, but don't think it is true for the first 7 - 8 games of this season for this team.  Our interior OL play, and OL play overall was weak in the beginning of the season.   There were a lot of throw aways and give up plays due to it.

No doubt.

But again, you gotta define a "throw away".  Spiking a ball in the dirt on a blown up screen is an attempt and not a throw away, IMHO.  Putting a ball just out of bounds so that it cannot be picked (in the end zone) is really a throw away, but probably still counts as an attempt.

I would be that there were a lot of pseudo throw aways early in the season due to our offensive line being simply offensive to watch.

[HighCalebR]

If only there were people who already compiled football data into one place, that was easily accessible.. But none of thise fake numbers only the numbers i want to see!

Oh well I guess we'll never really know.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, hitnhope said:

I don't give a crap who it is.  If the Site is stating that there have only been 19 throw aways for the Packer's this year they are wrong.   It is a statistic without value the way they are tallying it.  That is the kindest thing I could say about it.

Anyone that has watched the games knows there have been a significantly higher number that that.   It is obvious that there could be disagreement on what a throw away is, but if the tally is 19 and you give that any credence we will never come to any kind of an agreement.  

I'm not taking a loss based on some ridiculous and obviously incorrect stat.   It's a trash number.  

I think the forum will await your detailed breakdown and count of the throw aways for the first 13 games.  

[hitnhope]

4 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

If only there were people who already compiled football data into one place, that was easily accessible.. But none of thise fake numbers only the numbers i want to see!

Oh well I guess we'll never really know.

If only the stats were strong enough to have real meaning.  Drawing conclusions from half-truths often leads to a misconception of the problem.

Notice the other stats that would lead people to another conclusion that were ignored for proof.

[hitnhope]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I think the forum will await your detailed breakdown and count of the throw aways for the first 13 games.  

Hold your breath waiting for me to go through that work just for people like you to then ignore it.

BTW read further for stats ignored that give the exact opposite impression of the OL play.

Edited December 5, 2022 by hitnhope

[vegas492]

11 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

Hold your breath waiting for me to go through that work just for people like you to then ignore it.

Point/counterpoint.

I won't always agree with you.  Nor will I always disagree with you.

Even if I'm really frustrated with something you said....I'll always read stats if you take the time and effort to put them together.

And I'm not going to bust you on the number if I'm not dedicated enough to put in the time myself.  But I will want to know the parameters by which you judged those throw aways.  

In other words, I'd love to see what you find out if you do the work!

[minnypackerfan]

33 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

I understand that line of thinking.  Could be the truth, but don't think it is true for the first 7 - 8 games of this season for this team.  Our interior OL play, and OL play overall was weak in the beginning of the season.   There were a lot of throw aways and give up plays due to it.

The throw aways could be partially explained by the lack of chemistry between Rodgers and his new receivers.  One stat to look at is the time Rodgers had before getting sacked.  If its 4 seconds or over, that is pretty good protection.  It would interesting to know that and how it compared to previous years.

Edited December 5, 2022 by minnypackerfan

[vegas492]

4 minutes ago, minnypackerfan said:

The throw aways could be partially explained by the lack of chemistry between Rodgers and his new receivers.  One stat to look at is the time Rodgers had before getting sacked.  If its 4 seconds or over, that is pretty good protection.  It would interesting to know that and how it compared to previous years.

Oooh.  I like this game!

You bring up that point of throws with over 4 seconds of time.

I'll add this....let's look at scowls after throws, when he has 3-4 seconds to throw.

If he's scowling, odds are the WR did something wrong that led to a "throw away" that was really an attempt (and the WR just screwed up the route).

I'm a fan of the scowl test!

[hitnhope]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Point/counterpoint.

I won't always agree with you.  Nor will I always disagree with you.

Even if I'm really frustrated with something you said....I'll always read stats if you take the time and effort to put them together.

And I'm not going to bust you on the number if I'm not dedicated enough to put in the time myself.  But I will want to know the parameters by which you judged those throw aways.  

In other words, I'd love to see what you find out if you do the work!

How do we define the parameters to get agreement?   

A throw at the backs feet on a screen that was immediately blown up - you said is an attempt not a throw away.  I think that is a throw away to avoid sack.

A ball thrown in the general direction of a receiver but not close to being catchable or being intercepted?

A ball thrown way out of bounds? 

Pressure in QB face so ball thrown way over everyone's head?

Immediate pressure causing incompletion?  (I think these should be attempts and not throw aways) 

 

[hitnhope]

Just now, vegas492 said:

 

I'm a fan of the scowl test!

Now that is a good measure.   Do we need scowl definitions?

[vegas492]

Just now, hitnhope said:

How do we define the parameters to get agreement?   

A throw at the backs feet on a screen that was immediately blown up - you said is an attempt not a throw away.  I think that is a throw away to avoid sack.

A ball thrown in the general direction of a receiver but not close to being catchable or being intercepted?

A ball thrown way out of bounds? 

Pressure in QB face so ball thrown way over everyone's head?

Immediate pressure causing incompletion?  (I think these should be attempts and not throw aways) 

 

No reason you can't create two sets of rules, right?

First, look at the clear throw aways...avoiding sacks and whipping the ball out of bounds.  Plays where there is simply no hope to get a completion.  Count those.

Then count those other ones.  Balls in the dirt on screens.  Clearly passes that were meant to get out of sacks.

But I'd be careful about general direction rule.  If it is close enough to where the receiver can make a play on it?  Attempt.  If he watches it sail 10 yards over his head, throw away.  If it is like the one to Cobb that Rodgers flat out missed badly?  Attempt.  LOL.

And I'd be real leery of QB pressure.  If it is instant pressure, watch the route.  If the ball goes quickly when the route isn't supposed to be quick, it's a throw away in my book.

But if it is a real route and the ball is pretty close....attempt.

I'm good with whatever you want to do, just so long as you define it.  But....I would have the two sets of numbers.  I'll bet that the clear throw aways is what PFR is getting at.  But we all know there are other ones in there and that method of rating will clear up those issues.

[vegas492]

4 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

Now that is a good measure.   Do we need scowl definitions?

And a smirk!  They are different!

[hitnhope]

I'll check what games I still have on tape.   Some of them were so bad that after rewatching them once I decided life would be better without ever looking at them again.

[vegas492]

19 minutes ago, hitnhope said:

I'll check what games I still have on tape.   Some of them were so bad that after rewatching them once I decided life would be better without ever looking at them again.

I'd say...keep it simple.

Go check out the PFR link that AG20 posted.  Pick one game from that link and go re-watch it.  Then see what you find with two sets of parameters against what they saw.

As a possible spoiler alert....I think you will find that your definition of a throw away is very different from theirs.  And that is why their results will differ from yours...if you use those two sets of rules.

And really?  I'm probably most interested in scowls, smirks AND smiles!

Edited December 5, 2022 by vegas492