skibrett15 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Outpost31 said: This is a myth. I'm literally the only Pettine detractor here right now. Everybody else loves the guy, and I don't even dislike him. I'm not sold on him the same way I'm not sold on a 75 inch TV when I already have a 65 inch TV. Pettine is the 65 inch TV and he's probably fine, but that 75 inch TV is tempting. changed your tune a lot since those early games vs the vikings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 47 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Unless someone is an knowledgeable and has had the opportunity to review defenses recently, the eye test is absolute crap. People literally don't remember more than a handful of plays from which they form their eye test opinion. Plays that are obviously selected, then, to confirm the opinion they want to have. Those that want to like Pettine ignore the bad plays and games. Those that want to dislike him ignore the good plays and games. Yeah hard pass on fans' "eye-tests". Give me emotionless data to judge results. Looking at a box score and play results is as emotionless as it can get. And it limits what you see. As you actually see nothing. Dvoa isnt without merit. Eye test isnt without merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 12 minutes ago, vegas492 said: Looking at a box score and play results is as emotionless as it can get. And it limits what you see. As you actually see nothing. Dvoa isnt without merit. Eye test isnt without merit. It's not even close to a box score. It literally quantifies the eye test. It's like a nearly complete record of an unbiased eye test watching and remembering every play of every game. So unless you watch and remember a sufficient number of plays and have the background needed to judge them, the eye test is completely meritless. If you have the background and ability to conduct and record an eye test (i.e. opponent scouting done by the guys in the business) the 'eye test' has a ton of merit. 99.99999% of fans' eye tests are 100% trash, though. Maybe even more. 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Just now, skibrett15 said: changed your tune a lot since those early games vs the vikings Exactly. I saw what I wanted to see. Half of what I post here is me trying to convince myself of things more than others. I defended Capers for years and years and years because I didn't want to believe our defense sucked. Then again, I also argue things that I do believe, like the Bears making a mistake with trading away their future and cap space for Mack, that Rodgers doesn't throw to running backs and that Jaire Alexander is gonna be a multiple time all-pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 27 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Half of what I post here is me trying to convince myself of things more than others. I'm glad you pointed this out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Just now, Leader said: I'm glad you pointed this out! My shtick is pretty obvious around here and most people who've been around long enough get that I really don't take myself seriously all that much unless I do and that I'm bipolar unless I'm not except when I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: As others have said the "eye" test is a throwaway comment for me. Anytime anyone says it I disregard their opinion on the subject. It's completely meritless. Unless you have watched every game and have eidetic memory. I disagree 100% with this. You should clearly be able to decipher when someone knows what they're seeing and isn't trying to push agendas. Now you can say that my "eye test" means nothing and that's fine, but I think it's a good measure of perception. Like the Washington game, San Francisco game, Detroit game for example. Total trainwreck for our D in the 1st half. Games that probably hurt us hard in DVOA. Yet the D allowed an average of 5 pts in the 2nd half of those games, leaving the door open for the offense to come back. Dom's late career here you never saw that. If they rolled out of bed bad, they stayed bad. It may not show it in the numbers, but when you watch these games you see the defense make consecutive stops late in games that give our O a chance to win, they've rarely converted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 35 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Exactly. I saw what I wanted to see. Half of what I post here is me trying to convince myself of things more than others. I defended Capers for years and years and years because I didn't want to believe our defense sucked. Then again, I also argue things that I do believe, like the Bears making a mistake with trading away their future and cap space for Mack, that Rodgers doesn't throw to running backs and that Jaire Alexander is gonna be a multiple time all-pro. seems like there are more than a few Pettine is meh people here though. Pettine would hardly be safe even if this was a 10-6 playoff team that retained McCarthy given performance on the field. Fact is, this is a bad team hiring a new HC so Pettine really isn't a factor for me since I think he's as good as gone. His only chance is if the new HC independently surveys the DC landscape and determines that he's the man for the job. Which would be pretty unlikely IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 49 minutes ago, incognito_man said: It's not even close to a box score. It literally quantifies the eye test. It's like a nearly complete record of an unbiased eye test watching and remembering every play of every game. So unless you watch and remember a sufficient number of plays and have the background needed to judge them, the eye test is completely meritless. If you have the background and ability to conduct and record an eye test (i.e. opponent scouting done by the guys in the business) the 'eye test' has a ton of merit. 99.99999% of fans' eye tests are 100% trash, though. Maybe even more. 😂 Yea, but I have two eyes. So my eye test counts for double. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Like the Washington game, San Francisco game, Detroit game for example. Total trainwreck for our D in the 1st half. Games that probably hurt us hard in DVOA. Yet the D allowed an average of 5 pts in the 2nd half of those games, leaving the door open for the offense to come back. Dom's late career here you never saw that. If they rolled out of bed bad, they stayed bad. It may not show it in the numbers, but when you watch these games you see the defense make consecutive stops late in games that give our O a chance to win, they've rarely converted. Game losing halves are just game losing performances that happen over a shorter time span. Even the worst Defenses should shut down Detroit/Washington/San Francisco (24th/27th/29th ranked offenses respectively) a good amount of the time. This team shut out the Bills (the 7th worst offense in the league from 1986-2018), and it gave up 20 to the Cardinals (the 6th worst over the same period). The viable excuses for "this defence is better than DVOA says it is" are: coaching turnover, Player injuries - especially those who are forced to play while injured, "freak game changing plays" where the ball bounces off the defender into the arms of the offense for touchdowns (or similarly bizarre plays where everyone did things right and something really unpredictable happened). otherwise you are just slicing things up into arbitrary samples and saying that the small sample is indicative of overall or future performance. What people are saying : "this d is good, but it's inconsistent". What I read: "this D is bad because bad Ds are inconsistent, and even the worst Ds get stops sometimes, and even Ds that get stops at a low rate string several together over the course of a half or quarter or occasional full game." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packer_ESP Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 22 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Like the Washington game, San Francisco game, Detroit game for example. Total trainwreck for our D in the 1st half. Games that probably hurt us hard in DVOA. Yet the D allowed an average of 5 pts in the 2nd half of those games, leaving the door open for the offense to come back. Dom's late career here you never saw that. If they rolled out of bed bad, they stayed bad. The Bengals are giving up 30 ppg and I just skimmed over their last 5 games and I could find 7 points or less halves in three of them. I agree with @skibrett15, a good half is just an anecdote if you can't make it a full game with a somewhat decent performance. Also, let's take a look at the three examples you mention: Washington: we were down 28-10 at the half. Yes, we only gave up 3 points after that but you're still asking the offense to score 21+ points in one half. How is that fair? Also, Washington was pretty much running down the clock in the fourth quarter. San Francisco: I'll give you this one, nice second half, albeit against a pretty bad offense (bottom 10 in ppg, ypg, dvoa, whatever you want to look at) Detroit: down 24-0 at the half, see San Francisco. Giving up 7 in the second would be great if the first half wasn't such a disaster. Also, I don't see how asking your offense to score 32+ points in a half is "leaving the door open for a comeback". All three phases crapped the bed. Look, I've also seen glimpses of good play and I want to believe the defense has improved / will improve, but when you analyze the performance for the whole year I can't say the jump is there, at least not a big one as some other folks seem to see it. DVOA just validates that, compared to the rest of the league, we're in more or less the same spot that we used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: It's not even close to a box score. It literally quantifies the eye test. It's like a nearly complete record of an unbiased eye test watching and remembering every play of every game. So unless you watch and remember a sufficient number of plays and have the background needed to judge them, the eye test is completely meritless. If you have the background and ability to conduct and record an eye test (i.e. opponent scouting done by the guys in the business) the 'eye test' has a ton of merit. 99.99999% of fans' eye tests are 100% trash, though. Maybe even more. 😂 Only it is. They look at the the plays run, play by play. They don't WATCH the plays, just the end result. They try to quantify the unquantifyable. If that is a word. Football isn't black or white, it is grey. That's why there is a .1% chance of Miami winning on that last play, yet it worked and they won. No way does DVOA account for Gronk being on the field, or the multiple laterals. I go back to the GB/Chicago game....GB's stats will be skewed because when they started moving the ball in the 3rd quarter, DVOA weighs against those yards as they are insignificant based on the score. Yet without those yards and points, GB doesn't win the game. Again, it is not without merit, DVOA. However, it is hardly the end all, be all, and you are the only one on here arguing that it is. (Edit...okay, it isn't just you....defending DVOA.) And I find that interesting as you seem like one of the more facts based posters here. Yet you take their value to mean something when they do not tell you their formula. Literally you have to take their word for it that it is scored and weighed appropriately. Yet post after post it is about player X not being worth Y........ (not just you, rather all of us, myself included) No fans eye test is trash. If you've watched any GB offense this year, the eye tests tells you that it is clunky and forced. Especially when you watch other games and see QB's like Trubisky making moving the ball look easy, compared to the Rodgers led Packers offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 All models are wrong Some of them are useful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannondale Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Sometimes depends on the tint of your glasses. Remember the Buffalo game ? We won 22-0. What was your reaction ? I thought it was ugly and others were ecstatic. Also depends on whether you are happy with instant gratification or if you are more of a big picture thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Pettine's Packers 2018 Defense to date: Top 5 in sacks with (40) - tied with the Bears Top 2 in sack percentage, ahead of the vikings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.