"It wasn't my decision."
— Bleacher Report (@BleacherReport) January 25, 2021
Aaron Rodgers on Packers coach Matt LaFleur deciding to kick a field goal on 4th down late in the 4th quarter.
(via @CBSSportsHQ)pic.twitter.com/aThJYXgT2f
२५ जानेवारी, २०२१
"It wasn't my decision."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
Poor guy!
I couldn't believe the decision was made when it occurred.
But then, maybe the coach knew something I didn't. If not, the decision is close to indefensible.
It was his decision, however, to try and thread a needle to Adams rather than run the ball himself to at least the one or two yard line if not the endzone. Two questionable decisions by two different people or back to back plays.
As I seemingly post here every year the problems with the Packers begin and end with the people devising their offensive system. It's too conservative, the offense runs slowly and can't change gears and they always suck at clock management.
Just awful. I'm a Bucs fan and living in the Tampa Bay area, I'm geeked that they are in the SB. But the Packers had a great shot to win that game. Rogers is the best in the game today in my opinion. Their coach literally took the ball out of the hands of a future Hall of Famer having one of the best years in his career. I think most football people felt that the game was about to be tied up. And then...duh. The coach did what a lot of coaches did. He overthought it. He blew it. The clearest, most important call of the season- perhaps of his career. And he blew it.
It is a gut punch to Rogers and all Packer fans. You want to at least take a chance to win. The coach took away that chance. I don't know how Rogers could ever work with that coach again, honestly.
A little bit bummed myself.
That field goal was required because the previous play, a run/pass option, Lazard was not anticipating the"pass" part of the play and didn't see the pass coming.
We have a familial connection, through marriage to Lazard. Its been fun watching him at IA State and his transition into the NFL.
The dumbest coaching decision since Russell Wilson's goal line pass in the Super Bowl.
Winning teams are all alike; every losing team finds ways to lose in its own way.
It was the right decision. Even if the Packers go for it there, their win probability was very small... a lot else would have needed to go right.
It was the defense's decision not to defend the long bomb before halftime that really made the difference.
Mid-Life Lawyer observes: It was his decision, however, to try and thread a needle to Adams rather than run the ball himself to at least the one or two yard line if not the endzone. Two questionable decisions by two different people or back to back plays.
My thoughts exactly. It would have made all the difference.
Shit
It's a shame someone had to lose. As a Pats fan, I'm happy for Brady, but I really wanted a Green Bay/Buffalo Super Bowl.
Packers O-line allowed 5 QB sacks. By the 4th quarter Rodgers wasn't playing with a full deck. You could see it in his eyes.
The GOAT ate the clock. Delicious.
Tough luck, who cares. I 'was' a lifelong Packers fan who quit when they refused to come out of the locker room for the national anthem. Who needs it? As someone else remarked, who in the NFL thinks people tune in to a sporting event to be lectured about politics? I've enjoyed all the spare time that NFL abandonment has given me.
"thump"
I really don't follow professional sports, never more so than now.
Hawkeyedjib: Yeah, I was all set to root for the Bills yesterday until they stayed in the locker room for the anthem. Chiefs all the way!
Rodgers is an arrogant asshole who thinks he is smarter than his last and current Head Coach.
The unfortunate truth is that he is smarter than Mike McCarthy (whom he undermined) and Matt Lafleur.
Shit
The dumbest coaching decision since Russell Wilson's goal line pass in the Super Bowl.
My thought exactly. They needed to score a TD either way, better to try when so close to the GL.
Mid-Life Lawyer said...
It was his decision, however, to try and thread a needle to Adams rather than run the ball himself to at least the one or two yard line if not the endzone. Two questionable decisions by two different people or back to back plays.
1/25/21, 6:11 AM
--------
That's what I was thinking. He had a choice and he chose not to risk possible injury with the season on the line.
I would care, but it is football and I can only handle so much politics.
Packers O-line allowed 5 QB sacks. By the 4th quarter Rodgers wasn't playing with a full deck. You could see it in his eyes.
The sacks weren't their decision.
Rodgers holds the ball too long. The Packer O-Line isn’t great but Rodgers flaw is that he won’t just get rid of the ball.
Tom Brady gets rid of the ball. That’s why he’s still playing. That’s why he’s going to his 10th Super Bowl.
Rodgers is a great player. Brady is better.
They needed to score a TD either way, better to try when so close to the GL.
Yes, the FG just made the losing margin closer. Plus Brady is the guy who wins these.
It looks like a football analytics decision: a field goal nets more expected points than going for it. I also think there is a built-in tendency toward risk aversion that late in the game. Plus defense is tighter that close to the goal line. I don't think it was a bad decision.
Spiros: The problem with analytics, as with all statistical projections, is that they don't allow for judgment based on conditions. It's the same kind of logic [and failure of same] involved in 'zero tolerance' laws. Also why AI will never fully replace human reasoning.
As Drago would say, I'm a LLBF (lifelong Bucs Fan), and I was certain Rodgers was going to run it in for the TD, and get the 2 point play.
I felt good about the Bucs chances in OT, but two bad decisions made that moot.
One by Rodgers, and one by LaFleur.
But I must admit I don't think anybody can beat KC. They can be down by 21, and then be up by 14 in about 10 minutes.
The Bucs best chance to win the game is Tyreek Hill getting arrested by the Tampa PD...
The dropped 2 point conversion was the tipping point of the game. Because it was tipped.
The field goal at that point makes no sense. If you fail on 4th down, you still have to stop Brady but he's pinned to his own endzone. If you score the TD but fail the two point, you have options to kick away or onsides needing just a field goal.
Just a total lack of situational awareness by the coach.
Fuckin...fuck
"that late in the game."
2:09 isn't enough time to give the ball back to TB without putting up at least 6.
The problem with analytics is it’s based on NFL averages.
The Bucs are an above-average team. Brady is a generational player.
The Packers weren’t getting the ball back.
I think overall LaFleur has done a nice job, but if he doesn't lead the Packers to the Super Bowl, that will be the defining moment of his career. It will be first paragraph of Wikipedia stuff: "LaFleur is most known for...."
Hopefully, that's motivation.
There were only two possibilities if the Packers went for it on 4th down: The Packers score (a good outcome) or the Packers don't score and Tampa Bay takes over the ball deep in their own territory and very close to their own end zone. (Not a good situation for Tampa Bay to be in.) As it turned out, with a field goal, the Packers were forced to kick off to Tampa Bay. And Tampa Bay, by getting the ball back at mid-field instead of close to its own end zone, was in a much better situation and the Packers a worse situation.
And that is why the coach's decision to go with a field goal was a very bad decision.
The worst part is, now I have to root for Tom Brady.
It's kind of a Cinderella story if Cinderella was working on snagging her fifth husband.
There were only two possibilities if the Packers went for it on 4th down: The Packers score (a good outcome) or the Packers don't score and Tampa Bay takes over the ball deep in their own territory and very close to their own end zone. (Not a good situation for Tampa Bay to be in.) As it turned out, with a field goal, the Packers were forced to kick off to Tampa Bay. And Tampa Bay, by getting the ball back at mid-field instead of close to its own end zone, was in a much better situation and the Packers a worse situation.
And that is why the coach's decision to go with a field goal was a very bad decision.
Seventh husband.
The old slipper trick never fails.
Both games yesterday were pretty good. The better teams won. Looking forward to the Superbowl. Pat Garrett versus Billy the Kid.
I didn't watch the game, but I did look at the scoring summary at Yahoo sports, and the decision to kick the field goal is definitely the wrong one in that particular situation. The only benefit to taking the 3 points there is that if you do stop the opponent on downs in their next possession, you won't have to go for two if you score the touchdown. However, that doesn't really balance out the missed opportunity to get the touchdown the one time you are assured to getting a shot at the end zone. The worst case scenario is that you don't score on 4th down and you have the opponent inside his 10 yard line on his subsequent possession.
Did Green Bay at least try an onside kick?
"Did Green Bay at least try an onside kick?"
Nope, and as they have been doing all season, the special teams allowed a big runback.
It really wasn't that bad of a decision.
Here are all the scenarios:
1. Packers go for for it and score, and make the two point conversion: Have to stop the Bucs from getting FG or they lose. If they do they likely tie.
2. Packers go for for it and score, and miss the two point conversion: Have to stop the Bucs from getting FG or running out the clock or they lose.
3. Packers go for for it and don't score: Have to stop the Bucs from getting FG or running out the clock or they lose.
4. Packers kick the the field goal: Have to stop the Bucs from getting FG or running out the clock or they lose or at best maybe tie.
The FG was pretty much automatic. They then needed to stop the bucs and score a TD to WIN. Going for it meant scoring a TD, and a two point conversion, for a TIE. And then stopping the Bucs.
That's why I think Lafleur kicked the FG.
"Yancey Ward said...
Did Green Bay at least try an onside kick?"
LOL of course not. They had three time outs. A failed onsite kick, and that's likely (90%) with the new rules, gives the Bucs a short field and the Packers a long field even if they do stop them. The Bucs would be one first down from being in FG range to go back up 8.
GB's kick after the FG was short enough to have to be run back IIRC. Smart move, it gives you a chance to pin them back deep, or maybe even get a turnover.
Total agree with you Monkey Man. Thanks for breaking it all down for us. And I'll say it again: Rodgers was not himself. It even shows in the embedded video here.
Curious George said...
It really wasn't that bad of a decision.
There's a HUGE difference between stopping the Bucs from scoring and stopping them from making a first down.
"Meade said...
And I'll say it again: Rodgers was not himself. It even shows in the embedded video here."
I agree, but I don't think he was concussed. Those are big men going after him. It's scary. I think QB's that get knocked around get gun shy, even Rodgers.
I've enjoyed all the spare time that NFL abandonment has given me.
Same. Add to it, the NBA, NHL and MLB.
I look back and wonder why I invested so much with them in the first place.
"Michael said...
There's a HUGE difference between stopping the Bucs from scoring and stopping them from making a first down."
Yes. So? I've laid out each scenario.
The game was over when the Bucs converted their sixth third-and-long, going 6-for-6 on third downs at that point. Everything after that conversion was commentary.
Can we say the obvious? Since 2010, Green Bay has become legendary for choking on the big game. Where you want to apportion the blame is the only question.
The play by play commentator, former quarterback himself, had predicted Rodgers was going to "go for it".
Tonight I heard a remarkable stat on ESPN radio; out of the nearly 200 times, since 1994, in which NFL teams have faced a similar situation, 4th down late in the 4th quarter and in the red zone, they have only chosen to "go for it" 3 times.
Stunning, if true.
Two things:
1) Going for a TD only helps you IF you make the 2 point conversion. Otherwise, you're still behind.
2) Odds of Conversion succeeding (League-wise) are 50-50
3) Rodgers had been sacked 5 times, and just missed 3 throws. What are the chances of a TD on 4th and 8?
4) FG was 3-points in the bank. 99% certain.
5) Not getting on TD on 4th and Goal, means GAME OVER.
So to recap, here were the possibilities:
a) You go for it and don't get a TD- Result? you Lost
b) You go for it, you get a TD, but miss the 2 pointer - Result? No better than a FG
c) You go for it, get the TD and make 2 points - Results? A tie. With TB getting the ball.
Your defense has intercepted Brady 3 times. Why not gamble that they can stop him and you get the ball back and score a TD for the win?
I was 14 when Brett Favre came in for an injured Don Majkowski and threw a bullet to Kitrick Taylor to beat the Bengals at Lambeau-never missed a game between '87 and when I went to boot camp in '96 and got right back into them after going back to WI after the military. GB is nearing 30 years of Hall-of-Fame level quarterback play and has 2 Super Bowl wins in that time. Pathetic.
GB is a shit organization front-office wise, particularly during Rodgers' career. Sticking with McCarthy 4 years too long, Ted Thompson (RIP) refusing to sign free agents IN their prime, rather than past it. Never building a top-tier defense to match the explosive offense. Garbage draft picks like Brett Hundley (lol). Drafting a qb in the 1st round rather than giving your MVP-level qb another weapon to win right away. And on and on.
The Packers don't care about winning and anyone who thinks they do is a sucker and I've got some Packers 'stock' to sell them. People need to stop worshiping this organization and realize just what an embarrassment its been for years. Tear through the regular season and then get smoked when it matters - even when they're the better team. Like yesterday.
I bled green and gold for years. Aaron Rodgers is the only reason I watch them now. I hope he demands a trade or otherwise heads to a team that is actually hungry. Cuz GB is going to be entering the wilderness here pretty quick.
And yes, I know this is only football and doesn't matter. Bread and circus and all that. I've just wanted to get this off my chest for a while, and my wife really doesn't care.
"5) Not getting on TD on 4th and Goal, means GAME OVER."
No it doesn't. 2:15 left and GB had three time outs plus the two minute warning.
"So to recap, here were the possibilities:
a) You go for it and don't get a TD- Result? you Lost
b) You go for it, you get a TD, but miss the 2 pointer - Result? No better than a FG
FALSE.
c) You go for it, get the TD and make 2 points - Results? A tie. With TB getting the ball."
a) False. 2:15 left and GB had three time outs plus the two minute warning. Plenty of time to get the ball back, score, and get the two point conversion. For a TIE and OT
b) False. FG puts the Packers down five still needing a stop and a TD. TD and no conversion puts the Packers down 2 and only needing a stop and a FG.
3) True.
So what's your point?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा