NFL Wildcard Weekend

[Flames24Rulz]

The only thing I've implied is that a 3-ish point average margin of defeat is much harder to obtain with multiple losses than with 1 loss. When a game is that close, both teams have pretty much played each other to a standstill. Any one bounce, call, or other similar intangible element could have gone one way or another and either team could have won. The Packers are 2-6 in games decided by 4 points or less. That, to me, seems like the Packers have been incredibly unlucky this year.

 

Or bad coaching. Or poor performance when a game is close and late. Or lack of a running game to run out the clock. Or lack of a run defense to stop the other team from running out the clock...

 

The last two points aren't very good ones. Every game we've lost, we've had to either come back at the very end of the game (where no running is really required), or we've stalled out on offense in overtime.

 

In fact, I think we've been able to successfully run out the clock more often than not this year when need be.

 

Admittedly, I haven't watched all the GB games this season. I was just throwing out other possibilities besides "luck" which seems to be a catch all for people when the results don't match the way the team looks on paper.

 

It's definitely not luck either. I put 75% of the losses solely on McCarthy with the other 25% coming on injuries to Rodgers and Matthews.

[Banedon]

I'm actually a bit mad at myself for this argument...I've clearly jinxed things back into GB's direction now. You're welcome Packer fans.

 

Get in here and reverse jinx this for me Sulley.

[Flames24Rulz]

I look forward to Seattle winning tomorrow and all of "you people" coming to the dark side on Sunday.

[chuckywang]

The only thing I've implied is that a 3-ish point average margin of defeat is much harder to obtain with multiple losses than with 1 loss. When a game is that close, both teams have pretty much played each other to a standstill. Any one bounce, call, or other similar intangible element could have gone one way or another and either team could have won. The Packers are 2-6 in games decided by 4 points or less. That, to me, seems like the Packers have been incredibly unlucky this year.

 

Or bad coaching. Or poor performance when a game is close and late. Or lack of a running game to run out the clock. Or lack of a run defense to stop the other team from running out the clock...

these posts just sound like confirmation bias, to me

 

is it bad coaching that Flynn mismanaged the clock at the end of the NE game, or that the refs decided to eat their whistles on the PI no-call in the 2nd Lions game?

 

(disclaimer: i thought it pretty poetic justice, because the Packers could have easily have lost to us the first go-around had either of two PI no-calls on Woodson been called at the end of the game. this just goes to show how much luck is involved in close wins)

 

Don't forget the first Bears game either, when the Bears got that crucial fumble at the end that directly led to the winning FG. It wasn't luck that got the Bears the fumble since the Bears defense is probably the best in the league at stripping the ball out of a ball carrier's hands, but I will say it is bad luck that the Packers gave it up. If you ran that play 100 times, I bet 95 times he just gets tackled.

[sneakypower]

It's definitely not luck either. I put 75% of the losses solely on McCarthy with the other 25% coming on injuries to Rodgers and Matthews.

because you're looking at this irrationally. what the [expletive] else do you call (Crosby) hitting the left upright with 1 second left to force OT?

Edited January 7, 2011 by sneakypower

[Banedon]

It's definitely not luck either. I put 75% of the losses solely on McCarthy with the other 25% coming on injuries to Rodgers and Matthews.

what the [expletive] else do you call hitting the left upright with 1 second left to force OT?

 

Boise State vs Nevada? Oh wait...the upright wasn't tall enough to hit....

[Flames24Rulz]

It's definitely not luck either. I put 75% of the losses solely on McCarthy with the other 25% coming on injuries to Rodgers and Matthews.

because you're looking at this irrationally. what the [expletive] else do you call (Crosby) hitting the left upright with 1 second left to force OT?

 

Wasn't that a 53 yard FG attempt? Crosby has a leg, but at best, that's a 50-50 kick.

 

Not to mention in that game, I think we were like 1/10 on 3rd downs and we were horrific on 3rd and 1 and 4th and 1 situations in that game.

[Magnetic Curses]

The only thing I've implied is that a 3-ish point average margin of defeat is much harder to obtain with multiple losses than with 1 loss. When a game is that close, both teams have pretty much played each other to a standstill. Any one bounce, call, or other similar intangible element could have gone one way or another and either team could have won. The Packers are 2-6 in games decided by 4 points or less. That, to me, seems like the Packers have been incredibly unlucky this year.

 

Or bad coaching. Or poor performance when a game is close and late. Or lack of a running game to run out the clock. Or lack of a run defense to stop the other team from running out the clock...

these posts just sound like confirmation bias, to me

 

is it bad coaching that Flynn mismanaged the clock at the end of the NE game, or that the refs decided to eat their whistles on the PI no-call in the 2nd Lions game?

 

(disclaimer: i thought it pretty poetic justice, because the Packers could have easily have lost to us the first go-around had either of two PI no-calls on Woodson been called at the end of the game. this just goes to show how much luck is involved in close wins)

 

Don't forget the first Bears game either, when the Bears got that crucial fumble at the end that directly led to the winning FG. It wasn't luck that got the Bears the fumble since the Bears defense is probably the best in the league at stripping the ball out of a ball carrier's hands, but I will say it is bad luck that the Packers gave it up. If you ran that play 100 times, I bet 95 times he just gets tackled.

 

james jones has fumbled 3 times against the bears with 15 catches. i'd say it's more like 80 times out of a hundred.

[sneakypower]

even a nearly inconsequential shift in the winds would have probably blown the ball off course enough to sneak in the uprights, if that's not a play determined by luck, i don't know what is

 

conversely, before people paint me as an apologist, what was the joke that was made about the Packers only winning the first Vikings game because Harvin was out of bounds by less than the length of Favre's penis on the would-be go-ahead TD?

[Exile on Waveland]

It's definitely not luck either. I put 75% of the losses solely on McCarthy with the other 25% coming on injuries to Rodgers and Matthews.

because you're looking at this irrationally. what the [expletive] else do you call (Crosby) hitting the left upright with 1 second left to force OT?

 

Wasn't that a 53 yard FG attempt? Crosby has a leg, but at best, that's a 50-50 kick.

 

Sure, it's a tough kick. But it hit the post (evidently, I honestly don't remember this either way). It could have bounced left, right, in, out, whatever. You're talking inches -- maybe less -- from being a good field goal. That's luck. How else would you describe it?

[woodchip2153]

It's definitely not luck either. I put 75% of the losses solely on McCarthy with the other 25% coming on injuries to Rodgers and Matthews.

because you're looking at this irrationally. what the [expletive] else do you call (Crosby) hitting the left upright with 1 second left to force OT?

 

Wasn't that a 53 yard FG attempt? Crosby has a leg, but at best, that's a 50-50 kick.

 

Sure, it's a tough kick. But it hit the post (evidently, I honestly don't remember this either way). It could have bounced left, right, in, out, whatever. You're talking inches -- maybe less -- from being a good field goal. That's luck. How else would you describe it?

 

yea, but a quarter of an inch the other way, and he would have missed completely

[chuckywang]

The only thing I've implied is that a 3-ish point average margin of defeat is much harder to obtain with multiple losses than with 1 loss. When a game is that close, both teams have pretty much played each other to a standstill. Any one bounce, call, or other similar intangible element could have gone one way or another and either team could have won. The Packers are 2-6 in games decided by 4 points or less. That, to me, seems like the Packers have been incredibly unlucky this year.

 

Or bad coaching. Or poor performance when a game is close and late. Or lack of a running game to run out the clock. Or lack of a run defense to stop the other team from running out the clock...

these posts just sound like confirmation bias, to me

 

is it bad coaching that Flynn mismanaged the clock at the end of the NE game, or that the refs decided to eat their whistles on the PI no-call in the 2nd Lions game?

 

(disclaimer: i thought it pretty poetic justice, because the Packers could have easily have lost to us the first go-around had either of two PI no-calls on Woodson been called at the end of the game. this just goes to show how much luck is involved in close wins)

 

Don't forget the first Bears game either, when the Bears got that crucial fumble at the end that directly led to the winning FG. It wasn't luck that got the Bears the fumble since the Bears defense is probably the best in the league at stripping the ball out of a ball carrier's hands, but I will say it is bad luck that the Packers gave it up. If you ran that play 100 times, I bet 95 times he just gets tackled.

 

james jones has fumbled 3 times against the bears with 15 catches. i'd say it's more like 80 times out of a hundred.

 

And then how many of those 20 fumbles would the ball have inexplicably stayed in bounds?

[Banedon]

Yeah...I don't know how you can say it was a half inch from going in or whatever...it was a half inch from missing entirely too. Why would wind necessarily help the kick? It could've made it worse.

 

If the kicker would've put it in the middle, it'd be a non-issue.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

 

 

 

And then how many of those 20 fumbles would the ball have inexplicably stayed in bounds?

 

all of them, because McCarthy would have chosen them to.

[Magnetic Curses]

And then how many of those 20 fumbles would the ball have inexplicably stayed in bounds?

 

funny you mention that, considering it was the jacobs fumble that was the turning point in the giants game. that was a hell of a bounce and a blind swat.

[chuckywang]

And then how many of those 20 fumbles would the ball have inexplicably stayed in bounds?

 

funny you mention that, considering it was the jacobs fumble that was the turning point in the giants game. that was a hell of a bounce and a blind swat.

 

Ok sure, but it was a 14 point game at the point. Given the final score, I don't think that was a huge turning point play.

[sneakypower]

Yeah...I don't know how you can say it was a half inch from going in or whatever...it was a half inch from missing entirely too. Why would wind necessarily help the kick? It could've made it worse.

 

If the kicker would've put it in the middle, it'd be a non-issue.

my god, you're being so annoyingly contrarian at this point

 

it couldn't have made the kick any worse. Crosby kicks the ball, it goes right towards the upright, odds are like 48% it goes left, 48% it sneaks in, and like 4% or something it just clanks off the post

 

I.E. COIN FLIP A.K.A. LUCK, HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN I MAKE THIS

[minnesotacubsfan]

Yeah...I don't know how you can say it was a half inch from going in or whatever...it was a half inch from missing entirely too. Why would wind necessarily help the kick? It could've made it worse.

 

If the kicker would've put it in the middle, it'd be a non-issue.

my god, you're being so annoyingly contrarian at this point

 

it couldn't have made the kick any worse. Crosby kicks the ball, it goes right towards the upright, odds are like 48% it goes left, 48% it sneaks in, and like 4% or something it just clanks off the post

 

I.E. COIN FLIP A.K.A. LUCK, HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN I MAKE THIS

 

Crosby has no control over not kicking it at the goal post in the first point? this isn't just "bad luck"

[Banedon]

Yeah...I don't know how you can say it was a half inch from going in or whatever...it was a half inch from missing entirely too. Why would wind necessarily help the kick? It could've made it worse.

 

If the kicker would've put it in the middle, it'd be a non-issue.

my god, you're being so annoyingly contrarian at this point

 

it couldn't have made the kick any worse. Crosby kicks the ball, it goes right towards the upright, odds are like 48% it goes left, 48% it sneaks in, and like 4% or something it just clanks off the post

 

I.E. COIN FLIP A.K.A. LUCK, HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN I MAKE THIS

 

You're acting as though the kicker has no impact.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I'm beginning to think I should be the kicker for GB. its all chance, really, and it pays better then my current position.

[sneakypower]

Crosby has no control over not kicking it at the goal post in the first point? this isn't just "bad luck"

where he kicked the ball lent itself to luck

 

the Packers have avoided leaving their games at the hands of chance better than most every other team (i.e. blowout wins), but the games they weren't able to, they fared terribly (2-6 record in games decided by less than a TD). aberrations like these are why smart people don't lean very hard on W-L record

 

this should really be obvious common sense stuff, i'm being trolled so hard right now and for some reason i'm still feeding it

[sneakypower]

Yeah...I don't know how you can say it was a half inch from going in or whatever...it was a half inch from missing entirely too. Why would wind necessarily help the kick? It could've made it worse.

 

If the kicker would've put it in the middle, it'd be a non-issue.

my god, you're being so annoyingly contrarian at this point

 

it couldn't have made the kick any worse. Crosby kicks the ball, it goes right towards the upright, odds are like 48% it goes left, 48% it sneaks in, and like 4% or something it just clanks off the post

 

I.E. COIN FLIP A.K.A. LUCK, HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN I MAKE THIS

 

You're acting as though the kicker has no impact.

looking back at it, his impact was to make the kick a coin flip, if he had hooked it well wide or if he had drilled it straight through the uprights (and we assumed this to be through skill), you couldn't call it good or bad fortune. just execution.

[Flames24Rulz]

And again, that game wouldn't have come down to a FG attempt if Matthews didn't get hurt towards the end of the 3rd quarter. It wasn't a coincidence that as soon as Matthews pulled up lame with a hamstring injury, the Redskins were finally able to put points on the scoreboard.

 

I'd say that's more of an unlucky break than hitting an upright on a 53 yard attempt.

[CubColtPacer]

Yeah...I don't know how you can say it was a half inch from going in or whatever...it was a half inch from missing entirely too. Why would wind necessarily help the kick? It could've made it worse.

 

If the kicker would've put it in the middle, it'd be a non-issue.

my god, you're being so annoyingly contrarian at this point

 

it couldn't have made the kick any worse. Crosby kicks the ball, it goes right towards the upright, odds are like 48% it goes left, 48% it sneaks in, and like 4% or something it just clanks off the post

 

I.E. COIN FLIP A.K.A. LUCK, HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN I MAKE THIS

 

You're acting as though the kicker has no impact.

 

Of course the kicker has an impact. All they're saying is that if Crosby kicks that kick the exact same way the next time, almost 50 percent of the time that kick is going in. There will be absolutely no change in talent/execution and yet sometimes there will be a different result. Obviously the team tries to be good enough to leave themselves out of such coin flips. If the Packers were 16-0 or 15-1 good, then they wouldn't have left themselves in 6-8 games where the bounce of the ball made a difference. But they aren't that good. But they probably are better than 10-6 and had some bad bounces of the ball that cost them games.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Crosby has no control over not kicking it at the goal post in the first point? this isn't just "bad luck"

where he kicked the ball lent itself to luck

 

the Packers have avoided leaving their games at the hands of chance better than most every other team (i.e. blowout wins), but the games they weren't able to, they fared terribly (2-6 record in games decided by less than a TD). aberrations like these are why smart people don't lean very hard on W-L record

 

this should really be obvious common sense stuff, i'm being trolled so hard right now and for some reason i'm still feeding it

 

being trolled? I just dont agree with your reasoning here. and bad execution is exactly what leads to losses, not bad luck