Blogger Blames Packers Loss on Coach letting Defense do it's Job!

Status
Not open for further replies.

TopekaRoy

The Wizard of OZ
Donator
Joined:
Apr 21, 2010
Posts:
1,687
Liked Posts:
365
Defenses get paid to keep the other team from scoring, don't they?

Mike Vandermause says coach McCarthy is to blame for the loss because he didn't allow the defense to let Forte score a touchdown at the end of the game!

I thought this was pretty funny.
As distasteful as it sounds, coach Mike McCarthy should have ordered his Green Bay Packers defense to allow the Chicago Bears to score a touchdown late in Monday night’s game. The ultimate goal is to win, and in that situation, the Packers’ best chance to do that was to put the ball into the hands of Aaron Rodgers one last time.

Full Story
 

waldo7239117

Driving Wreckless DA Best
Donator
Joined:
May 10, 2010
Posts:
11,225
Liked Posts:
788
I think the Pack should of let Forte score. They would of had like 40 seconds on the clock and with Rodgers, the WR, they could of score. But, I doubt it. They had to know, the Bears were going to scrib and that's always not a gtood sign for a good return.
 

TopekaRoy

The Wizard of OZ
Donator
Joined:
Apr 21, 2010
Posts:
1,687
Liked Posts:
365
I think the Pack should of let Forte score. They would of had like 40 seconds on the clock and with Rodgers, the WR, they could of score. But, I doubt it. They had to know, the Bears were going to scrib and that's always not a gtood sign for a good return.

They actually would've had closer to a minute and a half if they let Forte score the first time, and they might have tied it up to force overtime, or the Bears might have stopped the Packers or forced a turnover and they would have lost by 7 instead of 3. But they could have lost the coin toss in OT and the Bears could win with a FG.

Letting the other team score might work in arena football, but it's a pretty dumb strategy in the NFL.

The writer is showing so much disrespect for the Bears defense, he's just assuming that Rodgers would be able to tie the game up, after the Bears held the Packers to their lowest point total of the year.

Nonsense!
 

JustinTCB

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 29, 2010
Posts:
578
Liked Posts:
85
Instead of letting the Bears score, McCarthy could have not challenged the fumble, and kept his timeout.

Then, after the defense forced the FG attempt, which they did, Rodgers would have had 45 seconds to try and tie or win the game.

I never would give up the go ahead TD just for the chance to score yourself, especially in a game where scoring was at a premium.
 

Rush

Fuck it, Go Deep
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Apr 16, 2010
Posts:
13,278
Liked Posts:
7,435
Location:
North Carolina
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Carolina Hurricanes
  1. Duke Blue Devils
You think Matt Forte is going to walk into the endzone with 55 seconds to go? LOL, get real Green Bay.
 

ClydeLee

New member
Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
Posts:
14,829
Liked Posts:
4,113
Location:
The OP
It's actually a 7% better chance of winning or tying if they let him score. Statisticians going over stats of missed field goals from that range and chances of kick off returns calculated against the chance of success of the Packers having 40 seconds to move the ball to get down field.

Sure you can say, well it's not an NFL move... well it's a logical, rational, and statistically beneficial move, if that doesn't fit into what an NFL coach should decide to base his judgments on then it's gonna lead to a lot more risky gambles.

Obviously in Wisconsin they don't care about actual stats though, they can just make up their hypothetical irrational 1% verse 20% BS percentages.
 

JustinTCB

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 29, 2010
Posts:
578
Liked Posts:
85
It's actually a 7% better chance of winning or tying if they let him score. Statisticians going over stats of missed field goals from that range and chances of kick off returns calculated against the chance of success of the Packers having 40 seconds to move the ball to get down field.

Sure you can say, well it's not an NFL move... well it's a logical, rational, and statistically beneficial move, if that doesn't fit into what an NFL coach should decide to base his judgments on then it's gonna lead to a lot more risky gambles.

Obviously in Wisconsin they don't care about actual stats though, they can just make up their hypothetical irrational 1% verse 20% BS percentages.

Is that based on the Bears defense against the Packers offense though?

I'm not not asking sarcastically, I'm honestly curious.

Even with whatever amount of time left on the clock, 40 seconds, 1:30, 1:55, whatever, I could not justify putting that offense in the position of needing a touchdown. Not when the O-Line couldn't go 5 plays in a row without negating something, not when there was no reason for the Bears to stack the box, and not when Finley was in the locker room.
 

ClydeLee

New member
Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
Posts:
14,829
Liked Posts:
4,113
Location:
The OP
No it isn't calculating that... but the 1% is probably too high if you put together the Bears ability to kick a 1 yard field goal and cover a kick off... With Dave Toub as Special Teams coach idk how many field goals have been blocked. I can recall 2. Although Gould never has missed a field goal short of 30 yards... has 1 missed extra point out of many and Mannerly and Maynard are great at what they do. Those factors are high against you.
 

Globetrotter

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2010
Posts:
3,543
Liked Posts:
1,161
I believe it's 4%, atleast that's what I heard on espn..

...and like someone else said, McCarthy blew it when he wasted the TO on the challenge. He was standing right there.
 

Uncle Meatball

New member
Joined:
Sep 15, 2010
Posts:
11
Liked Posts:
2
Defenses get paid to keep the other team from scoring, don't they?

Mike Vandermause says coach McCarthy is to blame for the loss because he didn't allow the defense to let Forte score a touchdown at the end of the game!

I thought this was pretty funny.


Full Story

Because this worked so well for them in the superbowl.

Packer Backers are stupid.
 

ClydeLee

New member
Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
Posts:
14,829
Liked Posts:
4,113
Location:
The OP
Because this worked so well for them in the superbowl.

Packer Backers are stupid.

It's a lot easier for offenses to move the ball downfield with the changes made in the sport. That was 15 years ago.

If your playing percentages, it's a clear cut analyzed higher chance of success. It isn't just a hindsight view, it was a thought at the moment, if that MNF crew was aware to mention how it could of been a move to make it is something legit. They were slower than slow to bring up what was going on in that game.
 

Veritas

Member
Joined:
Sep 13, 2010
Posts:
161
Liked Posts:
71
Location:
Carol Stream
Letting the other team score might work in arena football, but it's a pretty dumb strategy in the NFL.

The writer is showing so much disrespect for the Bears defense, he's just assuming that Rodgers would be able to tie the game up, after the Bears held the Packers to their lowest point total of the year.

You're an idiot. The writer is not showing disrespect for the Bears defense he is simply pointing out there is a much better chance that Aaron Rodgers could tie the game with 90 seconds of clock to work with rather than taking the chance of blocking the field goal attempt. You seem to forget Rodgers was moving the ball at will most of the game and if James Jones did not fumble the ball we might not be having this conversation.

Would you honestly rather take the chance of blocking a chip shot field goal attempt or give Aaron Rodgers 90 seconds to try and drive the field for the tie. I mean Shaun Hill almost did the same thing in week 1 against us and Aaron Rodgers is only like 100000xs better.
 

TopekaRoy

The Wizard of OZ
Donator
Joined:
Apr 21, 2010
Posts:
1,687
Liked Posts:
365
You're an idiot.

No sir, I am not. The score of 142 on the last IQ test I took indicates that I am a "genius," which is considerably higher than "idiot" on the intelligence scale. Would you like me to share my ACT and SAT scores? They put me in the top 1 percentile of the general population, intelligence wise, as well.

How does calling me an idiot strengthen your argument? If your argument is valid, calling me an idiot does not make it any more so. And if your argument is fallacious (that means untrue), as I will show it be, no amount of childish name calling will make it any less so. That you open your argument with "You're an idiot," shows a high level of immaturity and a low level of ability to reason and to state your opinions in a clear concise and coherent manner. But far be from me to question your intelligence, simply because I disagree with your conclusion. That would be childish.

The writer is not showing disrespect for the Bears defense he is simply pointing out there is a much better chance that Aaron Rodgers could tie the game with 90 seconds of clock to work with rather than taking the chance of blocking the field goal attempt.

In my opinion the writer is doing exactly that. (showing disrespect.) He states that allowing the Bears to score a touchdown "would have given Chicago a 24-17 lead, but it also would have given Aaron Rodgers about a minute and a half to drive the Packers down the field for a game-tying touchdown. Conservatively speaking, there might have been a 20% chance for success, quite possibly more." The wording indicates he doesn't think the Bears could stop the Packers. While he admits that his plan would have up to an 80% of failing he feels that is better than allowing the Bears to run out the clock and kick a field goal with 4 seconds left which he estimates is 99% likely to fail. Ignoring the fact that his numbers are fabricated out of thin air and likely far from accurate for the moment, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He fails to take into account several factors. First, the Packers defense had several downs to try to force a fumble or possibly intercept the ball which would have ended the game right there with a Packers victory. Given Cutler's past propensity to make bad decisions, especially in goal line situations, there was a reasonably high chance this would have happened. Unfortunately for them, it didn't.

Second, of the Packers 9 offensive drives, only two ended in a touchdown. Two of those drives also ended in a turnover. While they were moving the ball with ease, they were having difficulty getting it into the end zone. There is no good reason to believe that would have changed.

Third, a Packer's touchdown would have required a 2 point conversion to win (which is about 50/50 at best) or an extra point to tie and force overtime. I already covered, in an earlier post the several ways this could have backfired on the Packers.

You seem to forget Rodgers was moving the ball at will most of the game and if James Jones did not fumble the ball we might not be having this conversation.
I didn't forget. They were moving the ball. They just weren't scoring which is pretty much the whole point. We also wouldn't be having this conversation if they hadn't racked up 18 penalties, but they did.

Would you honestly rather take the chance of blocking a chip shot field goal attempt or give Aaron Rodgers 90 seconds to try and drive the field for the tie.

I like the third option, which would have been forcing a turnover.

I mean Shaun Hill almost did the same thing in week 1 against us and Aaron Rodgers is only like 100000xs better.

Shaun hill wasn't going up against the Bears defense so this argument is irrelevant. Besides he failed. And I doubt Rodgers is 100 thousand times better than Hill. He might be ten times better but I think even that is an exaggeration.

There are at least 18 good reasons (penalties) why the Packers put the Bears in position to win this game. Stopping them from scoring a touchdown is not one of them.
 

ClydeLee

New member
Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
Posts:
14,829
Liked Posts:
4,113
Location:
The OP
Idiot does not entirely weigh on ones intelligence. You can be smarter than anyone around but have a lack of sense relating to the subject. Sensing ability isn't something directly connected to all types of intelligence. To some people to some situations it can be completely opposite. That's all irrelevant and I am not gonna call anyone that here.

I will say, from his perspective it can be seen as kind of senseless to be fully in favor of being against percentages. Not the writers hypothetical ones but the actual NFL statisticians numbers of a 7% difference. The point of it all is Mike McCarthy didn't put himself in the best STATISTICAL situation to win. I'm pretty sure they also calculated the chance of a fumble or bad move by Cutler(though why anyone would think he'd throw then I can't answer) At least according to what I heard said, it also didn't range the teams themselves.

It includes how 6% of all field goals from under that 30 under range are miss. That doesn't count for how Gould has missed none and just 1 XP in his career Nor does it include the success of the team in that game against the Bears. Both numbers are likely down if you count the way those factors are including but it's still probably a 5-7% range of improvement to let the Bears score.

It's considered a 3%-10% difference of what the options he had were. That's starting from when they have the first and goal from the 9 after the PI.
 

Veritas

Member
Joined:
Sep 13, 2010
Posts:
161
Liked Posts:
71
Location:
Carol Stream
Blah Blah Blah, I am a stupid Bears Homer.
Shaun Hill was going against the Bears defense "Mr. I have an IQ 142." He was the Lions quarterback after Matthew Stafford left the game due to injury. If you can recall he was very nearly successful if it was not for Calvin Johnson not finishing with the ball in the end zone.

You would rather try for the turnover? That has even less of a chance of happening than Robbie Gould missing the field goal or the Packers blocking the kick being that there was no chance the Bears would throw the ball and the fact that Matt Forte was thinking secure the ball first in this situation.

I can care less what your fucking IQ scores came out as or what you scored on your ACT or SAT the fact is you cannot see that giving one of the best quarterbacks and receiving cores in the NFL over 90 seconds to try and score is much more likely than a fluke play happening at the goal line. It is not an insult to the Bears defense, you moronic homer, it is simply taking the best chance to win the game.

By your reasoning of saying you would play for the turnover I guess you could say that is an insult to the Bears offense then, being that you think there is a high percentage that we make a mistake and give the ball to the Packers.
 

TopekaRoy

The Wizard of OZ
Donator
Joined:
Apr 21, 2010
Posts:
1,687
Liked Posts:
365
Idiot does not entirely weigh on ones intelligence. You can be smarter than anyone around but have a lack of sense relating to the subject. Sensing ability isn't something directly connected to all types of intelligence. To some people to some situations it can be completely opposite. That's all irrelevant and I am not gonna call anyone that here.

I agree with you 100%. Intelligence has nothing to do with knowledge. I know nothing about baseball, because i don't watch it and I know nothing about neurosurgery because I haven't studied it. My only point was that calling me an idiot was childish, irrelevant, and incorrect. It had nothing to do with this discussion and did nothing to support his argument

I will say, from his perspective it can be seen as kind of senseless to be fully in favor of being against percentages. Not the writers hypothetical ones but the actual NFL statisticians numbers of a 7% difference. The point of it all is Mike McCarthy didn't put himself in the best STATISTICAL situation to win. I'm pretty sure they also calculated the chance of a fumble or bad move by Cutler(though why anyone would think he'd throw then I can't answer) At least according to what I heard said, it also didn't range the teams themselves.

I get that statistically a 20% chance of success (or more accurately, as you have pointed out, a 7% chance) of tying the game is better than a one percent chance of winning. Both scenarios are likely to fail, and I just feel that allowing The Bears to score the go ahead touchdown is a desperation move and the Packers would be pretty much rolling over and conceding defeat at that point. Cutler did throw a pass in that final drive and it was incomplete.

It includes how 6% of all field goals from under that 30 under range are miss. That doesn't count for how Gould has missed none and just 1 XP in his career Nor does it include the success of the team in that game against the Bears.

Actually, Gould did miss a 39 yarder earlier in the game and almost missed an extra point as well. but I agree that his missing the game winning FG was highly unlikely.

Shaun Hill was going against the Bears defense "Mr. I have an IQ 142." He was the Lions quarterback after Matthew Stafford left the game due to injury. If you can recall he was very nearly successful if it was not for Calvin Johnson not finishing with the ball in the end zone.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were talking about the Bears-Lions game. My mistake.

You would rather try for the turnover? That has even less of a chance of happening than Robbie Gould missing the field goal or the Packers blocking the kick being that there was no chance the Bears would throw the ball and the fact that Matt Forte was thinking secure the ball first in this situation.

My point is that they didn't lose the game because they didn't let Forte score. They lost the game because they committed so many penalties and because they let the Bears get into FG range in the first place. I guess that's reason enough to give up on the Packers defense. :rolleyes:

I can care less what your fucking IQ scores came out as ... blah, blah blah ...

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? You can challenge my opinion all you want. Offer counter arguments, find holes in my logic, that's great. I welcome that. That's what forums are all about.

Calling someone an idiot simply because you disagree with him is childish, rude, offensive and, again, does nothing to strengthen your argument.

By your reasoning of saying you would play for the turnover I guess you could say that is an insult to the Bears offense then, being that you think there is a high percentage that we make a mistake and give the ball to the Packers.

It's more of a compliment to the relentless rush of the Packers defense, actually. The Bears did a good job of not turning the ball over against the Cowboys, but made a bunch of turnovers against the Lions who, I'm sure you will agree are not nearly as good as the Packers.

I will concede that allowing Forte to score a TD would have given the Packers a very slightly better chance of winning than holding them to a FG.

I also say that the writer's blaming the loss on the coach not allowing the defense to give up the touchdown is asinine. There are so many other reasons they lost that game long before they allowed the Bears to get into FG position.
 

Veritas

Member
Joined:
Sep 13, 2010
Posts:
161
Liked Posts:
71
Location:
Carol Stream
My point is that they didn't lose the game because they didn't let Forte score.

I will concede that allowing Forte to score a TD would have given the Packers a very slightly better chance of winning than holding them to a FG.

I agree with your point, the Packers did not lose because of the decisions made at the end of the game, I never tried to argue that point, but you have argued that the Packers made the correct decision to not let Forte score and give the Packers offense some clock to work with. You also said letting Forte score would be an insult to the Bears defense. Neither of which are true and you end up contradicting yourself anyway by agreeing with me.
 

TopekaRoy

The Wizard of OZ
Donator
Joined:
Apr 21, 2010
Posts:
1,687
Liked Posts:
365
I agree with your point, the Packers did not lose because of the decisions made at the end of the game, I never tried to argue that point, but you have argued that the Packers made the correct decision to not let Forte score and give the Packers offense some clock to work with. You also said letting Forte score would be an insult to the Bears defense. Neither of which are true and you end up contradicting yourself anyway by agreeing with me.

Well I still think it is wrong to intentionally give up a go ahead touchdown with a minute and a half to go in the game, regardless of whether it gives you a tiny statistical advantage or not. The only time I can see giving up points on purpose would be if your team is ahead by 4 or 5 and the Quarterback runs around in his own end zone on 4th and long to give up a safety and run out the clock at the same time.

My argument was more about the writer blaming the coach for the loss because he let the defense do what they are paid to do - Keep the other team out of the end zone. I think he is "grasping at straws" at that point and ignoring the way more obvious reasons for the Packers loss. He is looking at the situation through Packers green glasses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top