Are the Packers an underachieving big tease like The Chargers?

quote:

Originally posted by Aaronstory:


Neither did dropped passes or fumbles or overthrown passes or not being able to run the ball or...

Absolutely. Question for you. Were the 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens a somehow lesser champions because their defense picked up the slack of the offense?

Prove me wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
Yes, everything else is static throughout the season Phadreus therefore point totals are the only solid measure of performance. Not even W-L records matter with that fat, tinder dry strawman you just slapped up.

If you apply the essence of your argument across the board, there is no reason to have a Packer forum.

Alternatively, it is reasonable to furnish opinions and be able to do so with basic stats like won-losses and point totals, realizing no stat is some omniscient end-all.

It is noted your positing the straw man observation is done so in complete absence of ANY supporting evidence.

Pot calling the kettle black?

This is better than Buckley vs. Vidal.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaronstory:


Neither did dropped passes or fumbles or overthrown passes or not being able to run the ball or...

Absolutely. Question for you. Were the 85 Bears or 2000 Ravens a somehow lesser champions because their defense picked up the slack of the offense?

Prove me wrong.

The Bears and the Ravens, regardless of the year, have nothing to do with Mike McCarthy's Packers.

Prove me wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
If you apply the essence of your argument across the board, there is no reason to have a Packer forum.

Alternatively, it is reasonable to furnish opinions and be able to do so with basic stats like won-losses and point totals, realizing no stat is some omniscient end-all.

It is noted your positing the straw man observation is done so in complete absence of ANY supporting evidence.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Here's the thing. Not spending time writing a hair splitting thesis on the myriads of different scenarios and contexts accompanied by the a overall study of individual tendencies is a elimination of your "why do we exist on the internet" brick shot.

Sometimes you just expect people to have enough friggin' sense to not try to make a whole argument out of ONE ****IN' STAT.

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
The Bears treating the Packers differently ought to be offset by the Packers treating the Bears differently.

Ah they did. 3 points given up. Sacked Cutler 6 times and picked him twice.

In a thorough ass beating on defense to get into the playoffs.

I don't give a rats ass that is was 10-3 or 45-3.

The Bears played hard and played all of their starters in a fierce attempt to knock GB out of the playoffs and go 6-0 in the division.

The Packers did exactly what they were supposed to do.

Win.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry: Sometimes you just expect people to have enough friggin' sense to not try to make a whole argument out of ONE ****IN' STAT.

Like YPC?

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
If you apply the essence of your argument across the board, there is no reason to have a Packer forum.

Alternatively, it is reasonable to furnish opinions and be able to do so with basic stats like won-losses and point totals, realizing no stat is some omniscient end-all.

It is noted your positing the straw man observation is done so in complete absence of ANY supporting evidence.

Pot calling the kettle black?

Here's the thing. Not spending time writing a hair splitting thesis on the myriads of different scenarios and contexts accompanied by the a overall study of individual tendencies is a elimination of your "why do we exist on the internet" brick shot.

Sometimes you just expect people to have enough friggin' sense to not try to make a whole argument out of ONE ****IN' STAT.

OK, the hair is riding pretty high up your crack, big boy so I had better stop.

quote:

Originally posted by Brak:
This is better than Buckley vs. Vidal.

I pine.

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
If a team, in spite of its injuries, has the stats the Packers do, I don't think it loses close games at a higher ratio than games that are not close because of those injuries.

Rong.

If a healthy Jermicheal Finley is available at the end of a close game the Packers chances of winning go way up.

I defer to the "experts" but am guessing you have to be stoned to understand some of these opinions around here.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeSafety:

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
If a team, in spite of its injuries, has the stats the Packers do, I don't think it loses close games at a higher ratio than games that are not close because of those injuries.

Rong.

If a healthy Jermicheal Finley is available at the end of a close game the Packers chances of winning go way up.

Toss in Grant and you have a party.

Seriously people...

I've never figured the Packers for being "a big tease",

But if they are, they'll just tease the Eagles into thinking the game will be close, right up until the opening kickoff. Containing Vick is going to be a Marvelous thing to watch.

quote:

Originally posted by Pakrz:

quote:

Originally posted by FreeSafety:

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
If a team, in spite of its injuries, has the stats the Packers do, I don't think it loses close games at a higher ratio than games that are not close because of those injuries.

Rong.

If a healthy Jermicheal Finley is available at the end of a close game the Packers chances of winning go way up.

Toss in Grant and you have a party.

Seriously people...

Well, the thing is, if you have Finley and Grant, a lot of the close games are not close games any more. The games are close because the teams are - well - close. Sure, improve the quality level of a team and voila!, it is more likely to win close games.

How would it be possible to win more close games if the games are no longer close? Aren't you the one who decried all the binary simpletons for concentrating on the score in terms of the result of the game? Wasn't that also after a win over the Bears that was 'objectively' a loss because CHI put up more yards?

Perhaps we should attempt to lose by larger margins more often.

It's either that, or win every game. Admirable goal, but not very realistic.

As obvious as it sounds, it only takes one extra score to turn a close loss into a close win. I don't see it as any kind of stretch to believe Grant and Finley would have provided that extra 3-7pts in at least half of those losses.

I'll tell you what I think is a worse-case scenario for why the close game losses.

The clutch factor, which is to me one of the most intriguing characteristics of an athlete. I would define clutch this way. If you measure an athlete's average performance and also his performance level when the game is on the line. Take the difference between the two and where the value is the largest, that is clutch.

The most clutch athlete I ever saw was Dennis Johnson, the guard for the Supersonics, Celtics, and other teams. His shooting percentage was actually pretty bad. But, in clutch situations? Much higher. He's the doofus who had to drop the 43 footer against the Bucks in a western conference playoff Game 6.

One of the worse examples of clutch I ever saw was the Sacramento Kings. They had a wonderful team. Their average performance level was really high. This is the year they were robbed by the refs in Game 6. Well, Game 7 was tight and I swear, no one on that team except Bibby even wanted anything to do with the ball. Man, were they tight. Stojakovich shot a frigging air ball (usually he shot lights out). It was so visible.

The worst case scenario is the Packers may be just a bit tight, at least at certain positions. I certainly think Crosby is tight. Rodgers may be a bit tight, as perhaps supported by his late game passing stats as compared to his stats overall. Now, I did hear that he was rushed, but a possible case in point is his pass to Jennings against the Cardinals in OT. The pass was way off and Jennings was wide open.

Make the pass and the game is over. Miss the pass...

I am not insisting this is the case, but I think it may be, at least to an extent.

Nefarious

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:

Make the pass and the game is over. Miss the pass...

I am not insisting this is the case, but I think it may be, at least to an extent.

Like the two to Jennings against the Lions and Bears?

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD:
How would it be possible to win more close games if the games are no longer close? Aren't you the one who decried all the binary simpletons for concentrating on the score in terms of the result of the game? Wasn't that also after a win over the Bears that was 'objectively' a loss because CHI put up more yards?

By winning more close games, I meant a higher percentage of them, I did not mean an absolute number of them

In other words, let's say the Packers had 8 close games and won 2. By winning more, I mean >25% of them.

Let's say they have Finley and Grant and because of this, they played in 4 close games, winning 2 and the other 4 were no longer close.

BUT, they won 50% of their close games and I am not penalizing them for "only" winning 2 close games. I am just recognizing that a few of the games likely would not be close when you add your top RB and an elite TE in Finley.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:

Make the pass and the game is over. Miss the pass...

I am not insisting this is the case, but I think it may be, at least to an extent.

Like the two to Jennings against the Lions and Bears?

Man, I don't know Coach. I don't think Jennings choked and you make a great point.

If Jenning's misses are not choke, my argument is weakened, and the factor that is "just plain bad luck" might be the over-riding cause of close game losses.

The thing is, the more close games we are talking, I think the less likely the cause is just plain random bad luck.

Sort of like if you toss a coin twice, getting 100% heads is not so out of the ordinary. But, what if you toss it 5 times?

If anything this 2010 team has somewhat overachieved. The case can be made that had they tanked 8 weeks ago noone would've been surprised given the onslaught of injuries.

The offense puts up good numbers because they're fundamentally a good offense with a good scheme, and playmakers at QB and WR. The close games argument is old, and when you look at scenarios of close losses, it wasn't generally the offense that came up small. Rodgers has had numerous 4th qtr drives to tie or take the lead in games, which tells me the so called "big tease" is a comparison being made without looking at ALL the facts. The big numbers on offense ebb and flow, as we saw last week, depending on many factors including division rival, defenses built specifically to stop certain teams, and any number of in-game scenarios. So to look at a 4000 yd passer and say his numbers are great but he doesn't win games, close or otherwise, is a weak argument when one fails to factor in the gray areas.

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
I don't think it loses close games at a higher ratio than games that are not close because of those injuries.

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
Sure, improve the quality level of a team and voila!, it is more likely to win close games.

So which is it?????????????????????????????

quote:

Originally posted by packerboi:
When the mission statement of the Bears HC above and beyond anything else is to beat the Packers?

YOU FORGOT ONE SMALL ITEM REGARDING THAT MISSION STATEMENT.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaronstory:


The Bears and the Ravens, regardless of the year, have nothing to do with Mike McCarthy's Packers.

Prove me wrong.

I like sarsaparilla.

Prove me wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Brak:
This is better than Buckley vs. Vidal.

Silly poof.

The tooth fairy exists.

Prove me wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaronstory:

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:
Go play now.

Why are you so abrasive? What have I done to piss you off?

He's that way with everybody. Me included. I have to hide japf or Henry will kick him.

quote:

Originally posted by Iowacheese:
Nefarious

Too binary

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:

Make the pass and the game is over. Miss the pass...

I am not insisting this is the case, but I think it may be, at least to an extent.

Like the two to Jennings against the Lions and Bears?

No the one to Jordy Nelson on 4th down vs. Atlanta to tie the game

This is a really stupid question/topic that I just cannot help myself from posting in.

Underachieving? Based on WTF?

You got a team that could fill a floor by themselves at GB General Hospital (or wherever) yet here they are in the playoffs with many "experts" saying they are the most dangerous team out there.

Were the Packers of 93-95 underachieving?

Good organizations work towards the playoffs and keep themselves competitive for many years, with the expecation that year in and year out they will be in postion to make a run into and through the playoffs. That is exactly what TT (and MM) have built.

Underachieving is consistently starting out the year in a hole, moving to the playoffs and bowing out and then allowing your coach to stick around. (Read San Diego Chargers.)

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
I'll tell you what I think is a worse-case scenario for why the close game losses.

The clutch factor, which is to me one of the most intriguing characteristics of an athlete. I would define clutch this way. If you measure an athlete's average performance and also his performance level when the game is on the line. Take the difference between the two and where the value is the largest, that is clutch.

The most clutch athlete I ever saw was Dennis Johnson, the guard for the Supersonics, Celtics, and other teams. His shooting percentage was actually pretty bad. But, in clutch situations? Much higher. He's the doofus who had to drop the 43 footer against the Bucks in a western conference playoff Game 6.

One of the worse examples of clutch I ever saw was the Sacramento Kings. They had a wonderful team. Their average performance level was really high. This is the year they were robbed by the refs in Game 6. Well, Game 7 was tight and I swear, no one on that team except Bibby even wanted anything to do with the ball. Man, were they tight. Stojakovich shot a frigging air ball (usually he shot lights out). It was so visible.

The worst case scenario is the Packers may be just a bit tight, at least at certain positions. I certainly think Crosby is tight. Rodgers may be a bit tight, as perhaps supported by his late game passing stats as compared to his stats overall. Now, I did hear that he was rushed, but a possible case in point is his pass to Jennings against the Cardinals in OT. The pass was way off and Jennings was wide open.

Make the pass and the game is over. Miss the pass...

I am not insisting this is the case, but I think it may be, at least to an extent.

What on God's Green Earth are you talking about? Seriously....

Could one look at it this way?

How many games did they win when they were an underdog? I would guess one...NYJ.

How many games did they lose when favored? I would guess three (Wash, Mia and Detroit).

The only game I'm not sure about is the opener at Philly. I am well aware of the injury factor but I think they have underachieved to some degree this year. But that can all be erased now.

They were underdogs at Philly week #1 and they are underdogs this week too.

They were also underdogs at New England (covered the spread but did lose)

Green Bay was a 3 point favorite week 1. I believe the only games they were dogs in were @NYJ and @NE.

All the unachievers are playing madden this weekend

quote:

Originally posted by The GBP Rules:
Green Bay was a 3 point favorite week 1.

Yep...

As far as the "clutch" thing...there is no real measurement for it, especially in a game like football where it's such a team game. Basketball it is very easy to find the guys who are clutch, but football not so much. An RB can only be so clutch if his line opens up the holes. A QB can't be clutch when he's on the sidelines and the defense is on the field.

Get rid of the "4 points or less" stat and just go with a 1 score game, 7 points or less. IN the last 2 years the Packers are 7-7 in those games. Not great, but far from terrible.

If you want to judge "clutch" then look at the entire game stats for close games (7 points or less) and also 4th quarter stats in close games.

Which QB is more "clutch"?

Quarterback A:

+/- 7 points in the 4th quarter

2008 - 54/85, 709 yds, 6 TD, 4 INT 93.7 rating (93.8 for entire season (-.01) deviation)
2009 - 29/49, 444 yds, 3 TD, 1 INT 101.1 rating (103.2 rating for entire season (-2.01) deviation)
2010 - 47/70, 548 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT 94.2 rating (101.2 rating for entire season (-6.8) deviation)

Final margin 0-7 points

2008 - 172/272, 2078 yds, 13 TDs, 6 INT, 93.4 rating (93.8 for entire season (-.04) deviation)
2009 - 138/221, 1736 yds, 9 TDs, 1 INT, 98.5 rating (103.2 rating for entire season (-4.7) deviation)
2010 - 183/280, 2205 yds, 12 TD, 11 INT, 87.3 rating (101.2 rating for entire season (-13.9) deviation)

Quarterback B:

+/- 7 points in 4th quarter

2008 - 26/42, 331 yds, 2 TD, 2 INT 82.5 rating (87.7 for entire season (-5.2) deviation)
2009 - 32/53, 328 yds, 3 TD, 4 INT, 65.6 rating (80.9 for entire season (-15.3) deviation)
2010 - 65/99, 648 yds, 5 TD, 3 INT, 88.3 rating (91.0 for entire season (-2.7) deviation)

Final margin 0-7 points

2008 - 137/213, 1767 yds, 8 TD, 7 INT, 89.1 rating (87.7 for entire season (+1.4) deviation)
2009 - 63/116, 620 yds, 5 TD, 2 INT, 76.8 rating (80.9 for entire season (-4.1) deviation)
2010 - 209/329, 2153 yds, 14 TD, 6 INT, 88.9 rating (91.0 for entire season (-2.1 deviation)

GPB,

Substantial stuff. I'd say QB A though the differences are not compelling.

Kickers are easy to measure. Man, the guy for the Chargers (Kaeding?). A lock to make FG's in the regular season and a lock to miss them in crunch time in the playoffs.

I think QB's also, to some extent. Accuracy of throws, decision-making. Was favre's INT against the Eagles in the dreaded 4th and 26 a lack of clutch? I think so and that was measurable. He lost his mind, it seems to me.

Elway and Montana were money in the "clutch." If you look at Elway's numbers (specifically INTs and rating, especially early in his career) he wouldn't appear "clutch" to the statistic eye but he sure was to the naked eye.

Rodgers will outplay Vick

this guy summarizes the situational awareness and measurables with an alarming alacrity.