Random Packer News & Notes

[Golfman]

14 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Veldheer could actually be nice.  Very nice.  Most promising in-season move singe Breeland, whom we should have re-signed.

Hasn't he been a LT his whole career? 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, MrBobGray said:

I mean, literally in this thread there are people disputing this.  The point being made is that this team has 8 wins, but they aren't playing nearly as well as other 8 win teams.  If you expect them to keep winning at the rate they were, you'll likely be disappointed unless something changes drastically in their play from how they've been the whole season.  This isn't just about the last three games; in fact it's specifically not about those games.  The point is that a surprising number of their wins are mostly due to them making clutch plays at the right time, which history shows is not a reliable method to win.  Clutching out a 4th down stop at the goal line is amazing, but it's not likely to happen every time no matter how good your defensive group is.  If the Packers keep ending up in games decided by one score, it's almost certain you'll see them begin to lose those games at a much higher rate than they have been.

Ya know.....I think we're doing some serious micro managing here.

SEA just beat SF by the skin of their teeth - or a missed winning FG by SF.
MN just won a game against DEN - that any competent team would have put away.

It happens across the league all year. 

I think folks are trying to bleed blood from a stone and the stone has run dry.

[MrBobGray]

10 minutes ago, Leader said:

Ya know.....I think we're doing some serious micro managing here.

SEA just beat SF by the skin of their teeth - or a missed winning FG by SF.
MN just won a game against DEN - that any competent team would have put away.

It happens across the league all year. 

I think folks are trying to bleed blood from a stone and the stone has run dry.

I mean this isn't a new idea.  I remember it being talked about heavily on this very forum circa 2010 or so.  Of course it happens across the league; it just deals with the frequency you win those games vs losing.

The Packers are 4-1 in close games; the 49ers are 2-1.  If half your wins are games that are statistically closer to a coin flip, you're probably not as good a team as you look.  On the other hand, if you win 10 games and only 20% of those games are close games, then you're likely just as good a team as you look.  The Seahawks are actually a good example, as they are a ridiculous 7-1 in close games this year.  They went 5-5 in the same type of games last year.  They ended last season 10-6, this season they're likely to go 12-4 or better.  This is despite the fact that they're actually worse offensively and defensively than they were last year.  In 2018, they were 6th in points for and 11th in points against; this year they're 7th in points for and 21st in points against.  They're performing worse than last year in a bunch of metrics, but they have more wins.  Why?  Because this year those close games are bouncing their way.

It's fine if people don't care about this stuff, but it's a lot more helpful to have proper expectations.  A lot of fans were riding super high at 8-1, talking Super Bowl, despite the fact that the Packers did not look or perform like an 8-1 team.  Looking at the numbers, finishing 11-5 is about what you'd expect from them even when they were at 8-1, because they weren't likely to continue winning games the way they were.  Now they're not.  I don't know what else to say here.

[Leader]

I've grown tired of the book length posts. Points are understood.

All teams records are comprised of some W's secured by clutch plays. Critical plays. Critical penalties. Consequential mistakes. Missed gimme FGs. Made extra long kicks. 

Every team has this in their history this year....and last.

Are the GBPs worldbeaters? No...and nobodies saying they are.

We dont need to over analyze "how much and to what numerical exactitude" the GBPs aren't world beaters do we?

 

[Sasquatch]

4 minutes ago, Leader said:

I've grown tired of the book length posts. Points are understood.

All teams records are comprised of some W's secured by clutch plays. Critical plays. Critical penalties. Consequential mistakes. Missed gimme FGs. Made extra long kicks. 

Every team has this in their history this year....and last.

Are the GBPs worldbeaters? No...and nobodies saying they are.

We dont need to over analyze "how much and to what numerical exactitude" the GBPs aren't world beaters do we?

 

The degree to which some analyze even the minutest details is astounding, and borderline absurd.

It’s also what makes Packer fans the best, most die-hard, smartest in the world.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, Sasquatch said:

The degree to which some analyze even the minutest details is astounding, and borderline absurd. It’s also what makes Packer fans the best, most die-hard, smartest in the world.

Yes - but the ongoing and never ending micro breakdown - when its not in fact necessary - when there's nobody saying the GBP's are world beaters - serves to turn this entire enterprise into a boring, academic exercise. "Take notes....there will be a quiz on this later" 

For and over what? The fact the GBP's have some flaws? All teams do. Some more than others. Simple concept.

[Sasquatch]

Just now, Leader said:

Yes - but the ongoing and never ending micro breakdown - when its not in fact necessary - when there's nobody saying the GBP's are world beaters - serves to turn this entire enterprise into a boring, academic exercise. "Take notes....there will be a quiz on this later" 

For and over what? The fact the GBP's have some flaws? All teams do. Some more than others. Simple concept.

I was more or less agreeing with you.  I’ve no time to micro-analyze the Green Bay Football Packers.  I do enough analysis at my job.

But at some level, deep down inside, I guess I take some satisfaction in knowing that there’s fans of our great team who care enough to while away their precious time in life, digging so deep into the weeds that a dissertation could be written - one that would bore many to tears, but has some relevance to someone in Packerland.

[Leader]

Lily Zhao -  In Davante Adams’ absence the Packers offense was scoring about 32.5 ppg. In his return? The production has slipped to 14.3 ppg. Aaron Rodgers said the slip has nothing to do with Adams. Said they had 2 terrible games in California. Need to figure it out.

[Leader]

Just now, Sasquatch said:

I was more or less agreeing with you.  I’ve no time to micro-analyze the Green Bay Football Packers.  I do enough analysis at my job.

But at some level, deep down inside, I guess I take some satisfaction in knowing that there’s fans of our great team who care enough to while away their precious time in life, digging so deep into the weeds that a dissertation could be written - one that would bore many to tears, but has some relevance to someone in Packerland.

I realized we're in agreement....I was still coming out of "Rant" mode

I'm fine with analytical approaches. Read, consider and appreciate them all. Just saying it can start to feed on itself - run out of new perspectives and data - taking on the "dog chasing tail" circular motion....at which point "over kill" and "tedious" comes to mind.

[gopackgo972]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

Lily Zhao -  In Davante Adams’ absence the Packers offense was scoring about 32.5 ppg. In his return? The production has slipped to 14.3 ppg. Aaron Rodgers said the slip has nothing to do with Adams. Said they had 2 terrible games in California. Need to figure it out.

The Carolina game wasn’t any better but since they won that doesn’t matter. 

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, YaddaHolla said:

The Carolina game wasn’t any better but since they won that doesn’t matter. 

The CAR game was far better than either LAC or SF games. Far better. If I recall correctly, CAR came in to that game giving up over 5yds per rush. We averaged over 6yds. If anything, we didnt run the ball enough. On that GDT I was calling for us to run it down their throats!

[coachbuns]

1 hour ago, Sasquatch said:

The degree to which some analyze even the minutest details is astounding, and borderline absurd.

It’s also what makes Packer fans the best, most die-hard, smartest in the world.

All I know is I'm not smart enough or have enough time to micro manage the what ifs/what nots of what the odds/occurrences to win or lose are.  All I care about is we are 8-3 with a couple of crap games played and being where nobody expected us to be.  What we end up at the end of the season is what it is more than likely dependent on a couple breaks good or bad.  Carry on all that love analyzing and breaking down every play and situation of the game.     

[pacman5252]

I’m intrigued by Veldheer. Back in 2010 I wanted us to take him as a development guy in round 2 (small school freak) but Bulaga fell to us.

[{Family Ghost}]

2 hours ago, Leader said:

Lily Zhao -  In Davante Adams’ absence the Packers offense was scoring about 32.5 ppg. In his return? The production has slipped to 14.3 ppg. Aaron Rodgers said the slip has nothing to do with Adams. Said they had 2 terrible games in California. Need to figure it out.

They quit throwing the ball to Aaron Jones ... 1 catch in 3 games or something ridiculous.  Makes me think we are being run by idiots.

[AlexGreen#20]

3 hours ago, Leader said:

Lily Zhao -  In Davante Adams’ absence the Packers offense was scoring about 32.5 ppg. In his return? The production has slipped to 14.3 ppg. Aaron Rodgers said the slip has nothing to do with Adams. Said they had 2 terrible games in California. Need to figure it out.

Glad the Twitter verse could get all their stuff from my old posts