The Game Goat Thread: Wk. 4 @ Green Bay

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,877
Dallas
Brissett is a great comp. Rookie in the early part of the season, thrust into the middle of the game, due to injury to the 2nd string QB.
Brissett's line in that game: 11/19 for 103yds, 0 TD, 0 INT, 1 Sack, 72.9 RTG.
Zappe's line for yesterday: 10/15 for 99yds, 1 TD, 0 INT, 3 Sack, 107.4 RTG.
Bailey Zappe had an ESPN QBR of 16.0 last night.
Brissett had a 60.0 with his 72.9 QB rating. I’m not sure either measure is worth a damn.

The 16.0 is probably in part from taking 3 sacks in 18 dropbacks which is dreadful.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,091
Bailey Zappe had an ESPN QBR of 16.0 last night.
Brissett had a 60.0 with his 72.9 QB rating. I’m not sure either measure is worth a damn.

The 16.0 is probably in part from taking 3 sacks in 18 dropbacks which is dreadful.
One of those sacks wasn’t on him at all. Wynn got absolutely beaten badly and it was the same kind of hit that Hoyer took. The other two….sure.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,091
View: https://twitter.com/mikereiss/status/1577005725011783680?s=46&t=2MNmEpN39OkfLzn-Y2LDSg

Probably the worst officiating crew so far this year. They missed calls on both sides but the Patriots were hurt worse by some pretty soft calls or just blatantly wrong ones. They deserve an HM. First time I’ve complained about officiating this year too (to an HM degree I mean).
Wait a second. So on that Cody Davis play, #6 on the packers Committed a penalty with an illegal block on Davis but the refs accidentally called it on Davis and didn’t make the correction?
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,877
Dallas
One of those sacks wasn’t on him at all. Wynn got absolutely beaten badly and it was the same kind of hit that Hoyer took. The other two….sure.
Sure - Wynn was dogshit last night. One of his worst performances in a Patriots uniform in pass pro. But (imo) even if you looked at Zappe with the rosiest of glasses you'd think his pocket presence//internal clock is troubling at best. That's to be expected of course. The bigger problem is long term is Wynn.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,052
Zappe was pretty good for a 3rd string day 3 drafted rookie, pressed into action.

For an NFL QB he was quite bad, but hey, that's kind what you expect.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,877
Dallas
Wait a second. So on that Cody Davis play, #6 on the packers Committed a penalty with an illegal block on Davis but the refs accidentally called it on Davis and didn’t make the correction?
I believe so. They also had that play where they originally called a penalty on Patriots offense #97 when it was on defense #97 but they at least got that one right after correcting themselves. Still... not a good night for the zebras. It didn't swing the entire game and the Patriots probably deserved to lose (as hard as it is to write that given they almost won with freaking Zappe) but the refs helped GB quite a bit last night net net.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,486
The 16.0 is probably in part from taking 3 sacks in 18 dropbacks which is dreadful.
You're correct that is "probably" is, but since ESPN doesn't tell anyone how they come up with this it's essentially useless, no?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,091
I believe so. They also had that play where they originally called a penalty on Patriots offense #97 when it was on defense #97 but they at least got that one right after correcting themselves. Still... not a good night for the zebras. It didn't swing the entire game and the Patriots probably deserved to lose (as hard as it is to write that given they almost won with freaking Zappe) but the refs helped GB quite a bit last night net net.
No wonder BB was livid. Holy cow.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,052
You're correct that is "probably" is, but since ESPN doesn't tell anyone how they come up with this it's essentially useless, no?
It's not totally useless since they use the same formula for everyone so you can use it comparatively.

PFF which is the most generous towards QBs who just complete some short passes and don't throw picks had him at a 51 grade for yesterday, it's pretty much a consensus that he was bad bordering on very bad, and that's without any INT.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
Bailey Zappe had an ESPN QBR of 16.0 last night.
Brissett had a 60.0 with his 72.9 QB rating. I’m not sure either measure is worth a damn.

The 16.0 is probably in part from taking 3 sacks in 18 dropbacks which is dreadful.
The fumble probably didn't help either.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,029
It's not totally useless since they use the same formula for everyone so you can use it comparatively.

PFF which is the most generous towards QBs who just complete some short passes and don't throw picks had him at a 51 grade for yesterday, it's pretty much a consensus that he was bad bordering on very bad, and that's without any INT.
They have changed their undisclosed formula for QBR so it’s not obvious that a QBR in 2016 can be used in comparison with a QBR in 2022.

It’s a mostly useless stat for that reason.
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,052
They have changed their undisclosed formula for QBR so it’s not obvious that a QBR in 2016 can be used in comparison with a QBR in 2022.

It’s a useless stat for that reason.
I meant comparatively within the season. It's not that useful, but honestly not significantly less than anything else, we don't have great ways to measure QBs, because the statistical inputs aren't enough and allocation of fault is judgement based.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,003
Mansfield MA
And someone mentioned that he looks small out there. True enough. But he's 6'1", 220 pounds. He's not a small guy AT ALL. He's just dwarfed by those offensive linemen. He's just one inch shorter than Mahomes is, and Mahomes doesn't look short at all. Weird.
6'1" is definitely short, and Bailey is actually 6' and 1/2", which is 14th percentile.

They wanted to run on first down, run on second down, and if possible run on third down.

But 3rd and 5 made a third run a lot less likely to succeed, so they felt they had to throw.
The tough part is that you want to take the game out of the young QB's hands, but when you run on 1st and 2nd down and don't get very far, you put him in a position where you have to throw on 3rd down. Would you be better off trying to pass on an earlier down and giving him an easier look? Or do you just keep pounding the ball and hope you can convert running it? I get what they were trying to do, but it's really hard to keep converting running the ball. I would have preferred more aggression, personally.

To push back on your push back...following that TD the pats went a quick 3 and out followed by a 31 yard whopper of a punt by Bailey giving Rodgers the ball at the GB 43 with just under 4 to go. The pats D stepped up and didnt allow a score (Id argue they stopped them 2x on that drive given the slightly annoying DPI called on Bryan on the first 3rd down). Then on first possession of OT they forced a 3 & out. How many of us watching that game figured given it was Rodgers at home though the game was over on both those drives? I dont think my push back absolves them of giving up the lead...but I do think yesterday was a pretty encouraging performance overall (especially now that Jamie Collins is back to save the run D). I know the packers put up points, but given we turned it over once and punted SEVEN times (previous high this season was four), I cant fault the D entirely for those points allowed. You just cant ask the D to make that many stops.
The D wasn't terrible, but it wasn't as good as they needed it to be given the circumstances. It's important to note that, while Rodgers is on the other sideline, this has not been a very good Green Bay offense so far this year. 27 points tied their season high. They scored 14 and 7 in their other two games and currently rank 22nd in scoring O.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,585
South Dartmouth, MA
6'1" is definitely short, and Bailey is actually 6' and 1/2", which is 14th percentile.


The tough part is that you want to take the game out of the young QB's hands, but when you run on 1st and 2nd down and don't get very far, you put him in a position where you have to throw on 3rd down. Would you be better off trying to pass on an earlier down and giving him an easier look? Or do you just keep pounding the ball and hope you can convert running it? I get what they were trying to do, but it's really hard to keep converting running the ball. I would have preferred more aggression, personally.


The D wasn't terrible, but it wasn't as good as they needed it to be given the circumstances. It's important to note that, while Rodgers is on the other sideline, this has not been a very good Green Bay offense so far this year. 27 points tied their season high. They scored 14 and 7 in their other two games and currently rank 22nd in scoring O.
As I indicated in my post though some of that point total I put on the pats offense for continually giving the ball back. So yes GB tied season high in points, which imo is correlated with the pats nearly doubling up their season high in punts.
Or maybe bill has just really indoctrinated me too much with his “complimentary football” talk!!
If pats get a first down and fg in overtime I think we’d likely be gushing about the D

edit: to be completely clear…not advocating we have some terrific D. Just that I thought it was a net positive and some encouraging signs
 
Last edited:

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,477
Springfield, VA
Wait a second. So on that Cody Davis play, #6 on the packers Committed a penalty with an illegal block on Davis but the refs accidentally called it on Davis and didn’t make the correction?
The block by #6 looked legal to me. Not sure what Reiss (or the zebras) were seeing at all.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
9,483
NOVA
Bad is not just limited to those options. If he hits Agholor in stride it's a TD.

FWIW PFF gave him a 51 grade for his performance. That's a below average to bad grade.

The coaching staff had a great day improvising schemed touch plays for him as well as utilizing play action. He took 3 sacks in 18 dropbacks. He was responsible or partly responsible for 60% of his pressures!

We talk about how box score scouting can be incredibly misleading and I would point to this game and Zappe as one of many prime examples of this.

Quick edit: I don't have any personal animus against Bailey. I don't hate the guy. None of this is personal.
You just don't like to consider context. Much like PFF.
 

leftfieldlegacy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
993
North Jersey
The block by #6 looked legal to me. Not sure what Reiss (or the zebras) were seeing at all.
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't think a blocker is allowed to dive at the knees of a defensive player. That was legal at one time but I believe that rule has been changed.
NFL owners tabled a proposed change to the rules governing blocks below the waist earlier this year, but they voted to approve it on on Wednesday.

The change expands the area where blocks by offensive and defensive players are prohibited. Such blocks are now against the rules when they occur within the tight end box.

The tight end box is defined as five yards on either side of the line of scrimmage and two yards outside either tackle position. All contact below the waist outside that box is now barred except for when it involves a runner or player trying to catch a forward or backward pass. That would include a defensive player taking out the legs of a pulling lineman in addition to any blocks made by offensive players.

A penalty for an illegal block below the waist will cost a team 15 yards.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,091
The block by #6 looked legal to me. Not sure what Reiss (or the zebras) were seeing at all.
I think your point has already been addressed, but really the issue is that the patriots player was coming in to block the punt and the packer player dove at his knees taking him out and incredibly they called a penalty on the patriots player. In what universe did the patriots player do anything wrong there?
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,877
Dallas
You just don't like to consider context. Much like PFF.
You’re right and wrong. Part of this is context means dick in some ways (but it’s important in other ways). Does the scoreboard consider context? There isn’t a column for moral victories either. But I do take context into consideration. For example if an OT is going up against Joey Bosa his PFF grade is not adjusted accordingly vs I will take the level of competition into consideration when talking about how well they did. I’ve put in multiple posts that’s it isn’t Zappe’s fault. That’s adding context to it. I’ve also looked at what they did playcalling wise to aid him. Isn’t that context? He was put into a difficult situation. I’ve noted that. Context also matters for if he’s a good option going forward and what kinds of game plans they will need to formulate around him. If your criticism is I am being unfair to the third string rookie because I’m setting the bar of whether or not he plays well compared to a starting QB I don’t really care. That’s the bar that matters whether that fair or unfair to his situation. Hell I have noted his biggest issues were pocket presence and missing some open guys/not hitting guys in stride. So I’m adding context to why I didn’t think he played well.

Edit: I am known elsewhere for my hatred of PFF individual grades and especially individual player game grades and their process so tbh I am a little stunned you tossed that my way. I merely brought up his grade as just one more data point to go along with film review. I started the analysis out with film observations.

Further edit: PFFs individual game grades are not as bad for QBs as they are for say OL, DBs, ILBs for example.

Last edit, I promise:

Zappe unfortunately had a bad game too. It’s not his fault that he isn’t ready but he’s clearly not ready.
SJH has this one nailed. Zappe was bad. It sucks to have to say that about a guy who understandably is going to be bad. I am not mad or upset with how he played. It's just the reality for anyone in his situation.

He missed stuff all day and panicked way too much.
He's a rookie QB from a college offense going into week 5 of year 1. Do you really think he can be trusted this year? His pocket presence was bad. They did a great job scheming some option looks for him and using play action. He also threw a lot of super short passes.
I think saying I am ignoring context with the bolded is characterizing my take unfairly. Bolded after.
 
Last edited:

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,943
If your criticism is I am being unfair to the third string rookie because I’m setting the bar of whether or not he plays well compared to a starting QB I don’t really care. That’s the bar that matters whether that fair or unfair to his situation. Hell I have noted his biggest issues were pocket presence and missing some open guys/not hitting guys in stride. So I’m adding context to why I didn’t think he played well.
You're ultimately right about the "bar." Being "great" for a rookie 3rd stringer coming in cold is irrelevant in the long term.
But isnt the context of him being a 3rd string rookie entering midgame a contributing factor to pocket presence and inaccuracy, as opposed to those shortcomings somehow standing apart from that context, which is what your final sentence implies.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,877
Dallas
You're ultimately right about the "bar." Being "great" for a rookie 3rd stringer coming in cold is irrelevant in the long term.
But isnt the context of him being a 3rd string rookie entering midgame a contributing factor to pocket presence and inaccuracy, as opposed to those shortcomings somehow standing apart from that context, which is what your final sentence implies.
It is probably a large part of it but not all of it.
Let us split those traits up. Some guys come in with better pocket presence. I don’t think you can say his pocket presence is just because he’s a rookie. It’s a part of it but his being a rookie is more of a factor with his… Accuracy is also to a degree because of the situation and that’s way more of a causal vs pocket presence. Accuracy involves some of the knowing when to hit a guy and where they will be. Getting reps with guys and what not. Even wide ass open schemed shots down the field were not 100% on target because of his lack of familiarity with the offense. It’s rare that a rookie can overcome that. Dak is the only guy I can think of recently who did well in a similar situation. But even Dak came in after 2-3 weeks with the starting offense.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,877
Dallas
EPA wise check this out.

56101


The Patriots offensive success was almost entirely running. Their passing game had a negative EPA. On clutch/late downs (including 3rd and 4th downs) they were 0/7 for success rates passin the ball but were 4/4 running it.
56102

Zappe and Hoyer no surprisingly had negative EPA but Rodgers wasn't great even considering his cast this season.
56103

Look at Harris and Stevenson - 67% and 57% success rates is amazing for RBs. Both guys had a better EPA per play than all of the QBs. That's incredible. OL run blocking as well as their individual rushing efforts were truly praiseworthy.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,603
Deep inside Muppet Labs
That was posted in the game thread right after it happened. Is the “Surrender Index” a completely made-up thing? Because it sounds like a completely made-up thing. I would’ve been interested to see what they did with a 4th and 1, but with 4th and 5 and that QB, punting is a no-brainer.
It's literally a bot. Just a formula bot. There's no analysis performed at all.

Look at this nonsense:

View: https://twitter.com/surrender_index/status/1576714999287906307?s=20&t=iv8262PA3KMTsRwrARse-g
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
47,865
Its literally Sunday morning quarterbacking or quarterbotting or whatever.

Also, I like the term "surrender" because it carries no connotations at all - a decision to give up will never be second guessed by the Ram Tough crowd. NFL fans are known for thoughtful, independent takes so this is meeting them right where they live.

The creator of this bot/account knows their audience well.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,814
Needham, MA
It's literally a bot. Just a formula bot. There's no analysis performed at all.

Look at this nonsense:

View: https://twitter.com/surrender_index/status/1576714999287906307?s=20&t=iv8262PA3KMTsRwrARse-g
We discussed it earlier in the thread, I think, but without knowing anything else about how this is calculated, any metric that thinks the punt at the end of regulation was a cowardly punt needs to be fired into the sun. You could argue they should have been more aggressive on first through third down (personally I was fine with playing for OT with a rookie third string QB behind center), but once it got to fourth down on the 11 yard line with GB out of timeouts punting was a no-brainer.
 

TPIRman

New Member
Oct 15, 2007
7
We discussed it earlier in the thread, I think, but without knowing anything else about how this is calculated, any metric that thinks the punt at the end of regulation was a cowardly punt needs to be fired into the sun. You could argue they should have been more aggressive on first through third down (personally I was fine with playing for OT with a rookie third string QB behind center), but once it got to fourth down on the 11 yard line with GB out of timeouts punting was a no-brainer.
The "surrender index" is a pretty whimsical metric and as such has a community feedback mechanism to "cancel" the occasional nonsense judgments that the formula spits out. This punt was justly canceled from the index:

View: https://twitter.com/surrender_idx90/status/1576730640543776769
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,273
around the way
LOL. The Pats probably had less than a coin flip odds of keeping Green Bay out of field goal range with the punt. Our third string QB most likely giving them the ball at midfield would have been actual surrender.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,485
The Island
That was posted in the game thread right after it happened. Is the “Surrender Index” a completely made-up thing? Because it sounds like a completely made-up thing. I would’ve been interested to see what they did with a 4th and 1, but with 4th and 5 and that QB, punting is a no-brainer.
It's literally a bot. Just a formula bot. There's no analysis performed at all.

Look at this nonsense:

View: https://twitter.com/surrender_index/status/1576714999287906307?s=20&t=iv8262PA3KMTsRwrARse-g
Its literally Sunday morning quarterbacking or quarterbotting or whatever.

Also, I like the term "surrender" because it carries no connotations at all - a decision to give up will never be second guessed by the Ram Tough crowd. NFL fans are known for thoughtful, independent takes so this is meeting them right where they live.

The creator of this bot/account knows their audience well.
The Surrender Index comes from a Jon Bois video about overly conservative punts.

View: https://youtu.be/F9H9LwGmc-0
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
41,966
AZ
I don't know from surrender index, but I guess my problem with the overtime punt is that it almost -- not quite but almost -- put tie as the best possible outcome. It largely took win off the table. Not completely. But with the team needing time to run the ball to get back in field goal range it was close to a declaration that tie was ok. Anything other than a turnover or a three and out on defense was likely to result in a tie or loss. I thought they had very little chance of picking up the conversion there but if you're playing for a three and out anyway, why not go for it? Get your three and out on defense anyway and the Packers aren't in field goal range yet.

So it leads to a question for me -- is this team in a position where it should be considering the percentage of various plays or decisions by weighting tie? I think BB would probably say yes. The ultimate goal is a championship and so you have a better chance of making the playoffs if you have the tie than if you have a loss, and that's that.

For me, we are down to our third string QB. We already had 2 losses. We have a tough schedule. We aren't winning the championship. I would have valued a win highly, not for what it means for the rest of the season, but just because as a fan of a team that probably does not have championship aspirations this year, a win there in the circumstances would have been cool. But a tie? No thanks. A tie just feels like a thing that happens that moves you down two draft picks.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,091
The Packers got the ball with 3:50 left in the game, tied at 24, on their own 43. The outcome seemed entirely certain. But the Pats' D, after allowing a first down, held (though got lucky on a would-be TD pass that wasn't held onto, but hey, that's part of life) GB to zero points, forcing a punt.

The Packers got the ball at the start of overtime, tied at 24, on their own 25. The Pats' D forced a three and out, giving the ball back to NE on the NE 49.

By the time the Pats punted, there was 6:47 left on the clock. Given how the D had played the previous two possessions, it wasn't unreasonable to think that they could have held one more time and given the offense one more chance.

Obviously it didn't happen, but punting there wasn't really "playing for the tie".
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,486
I think your point has already been addressed, but really the issue is that the patriots player was coming in to block the punt and the packer player dove at his knees taking him out and incredibly they called a penalty on the patriots player. In what universe did the patriots player do anything wrong there?
Does the NFL address these things anywhere? Has some former official on Twitter mentioned this?

That said, what ended up happening on the ensuing drive?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
41,966
AZ
The Packers got the ball with 3:50 left in the game, tied at 24, on their own 43. The outcome seemed entirely certain. But the Pats' D, after allowing a first down, held (though got lucky on a would-be TD pass that wasn't held onto, but hey, that's part of life) GB to zero points, forcing a punt.

The Packers got the ball at the start of overtime, tied at 24, on their own 25. The Pats' D forced a three and out, giving the ball back to NE on the NE 49.

By the time the Pats punted, there was 6:47 left on the clock. Given how the D had played the previous two possessions, it wasn't unreasonable to think that they could have held one more time and given the offense one more chance.

Obviously it didn't happen, but punting there wasn't really "playing for the tie".
I think I addressed this. A three and out and they can get the ball back with enough time to have a Zappe led offense get a field goal. Anything more than that and I don't see them with much of a chance. A puncher's chance maybe. 6 plays is 2 to 4 minutes. Even with one time outs and the two minute warning, Patriots are very unlikely to get in field goal range with 2:30. Maybe with 4:00. Unless they are willing to let Zappe sling it. And if you're willing to let Zappe sling it, and potentially needing your defense anyway, then go on 4th down. And there's certainly no reason to think that if they got the ball back with 2:30 that the first play would be anything but a run to ensure the Packers didn't get the ball back again. We all know that's exactly what they would have done -- among other reasons because run was the only way they were going to get in field goal range anyway.

If you need a three and out anyway to have a realistic chance of a win, why not go for it?

Could they have punted and still won? Yeah, it's football. If "play for a tie" is too strong for you, then call it "put tie as the realistic best case scenario on the table."

Or maybe the best way to say it is simply this: Was punting the best choice if you wanted to maximize your chance of not losing? Yes. Was punting the best choice if you wanted to maximize your best chance of winning? No.

Usually maximizing the best chance of winning is the same as maximizing the best chance of not losing. But it's not in the third possession of OT.
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
6,957
Pasadena, CA
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,091
I think I addressed this. A three and out and they can get the ball back with enough time to have a Zappe led offense get a field goal. Anything more than that and I don't see them with much of a chance. A puncher's chance maybe. 6 plays is 2 to 4 minutes. Even with one time outs and the two minute warning, Patriots are very unlikely to get in field goal range with 2:30. Maybe with 4:00. Unless they are willing to let Zappe sling it. And if you're willing to let Zappe sling it, and potentially needing your defense anyway, then go on 4th down. And there's certainly no reason to think that if they got the ball back with 2:30 that the first play would be anything but a run to ensure the Packers didn't get the ball back again. We all know that's exactly what they would have done -- among other reasons because run was the only way they were going to get in field goal range anyway.

If you need a three and out anyway to have a realistic chance of a win, why not go for it?

Could they have punted and still won? Yeah, it's football. If "play for a tie" is too strong for you, then call it "put tie as the realistic best case scenario on the table."

Or maybe the best way to say it is simply this: Was punting the best choice if you wanted to maximize your chance of not losing? Yes. Was punting the best choice if you wanted to maximize your best chance of winning? No.

Usually maximizing the best chance of winning is the same as maximizing the best chance of not losing. But it's not in the third possession of OT.
Good question. I mean, what were the odds of converting the fourth and 5 in that spot, versus the odds of getting a stop and getting the ball back in good enough field position to try to advance the ball for a winning FG attempt?
 

Cotillion

New Member
Jun 11, 2019
4,881
I guess I'll push back a little on the defensive performance. My biggest issue is they havne't been able to get stops after the team gets a lead. It happened last week against Baltimore and again in the 2nd half yesterday. GB answered every NE score with a score of their own on the following possession. They were up 24-17 wtih 11:00 left in the 4th quarter on the road with a 3rd string rookie QB. Feels like a spot where you'd like to be able to lean on the defense to close it out.
The throws Rodgers completed in several of the plays in big situations were perfect throws that the D had no chance to stop.

If we want to ding them, the thing to focus on were the huge cushions in OT on several plays that didn’t forced Rodgers to have to make Rodgers throws. Can’t believe that was the scheme to keep giving up easy throws for first down. So that has to come down to individual player execution.