sneakypower

execution.

have some sympathy for the poor Bears and Packers fans

? he only fumbled three times all year, same as Jones Well I think there's some causation there with fatigue, picking Jones for certain carries, etc, and Charles has a much worse history with ball security than Jones. mostly because Jones is elite in that respect, but Charles is well more than adequate in ball security

but look what happened to the cook!

? he only fumbled three times all year, same as Jones

Charles & Berry are really fun to watch

oh, i'd very much like to see this http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/2011-01/2011-nfl-draft/story/2011-mock-draft-shakeup-at-the-top-without-luck

No, no, no, no, no. Do not want. No Miles and no Hoke. Think outside the box, Brandon. yeah, i had been hoping we'd kick the tires on Malzahn or something

:shock:

why does he keep calling Carlson "Golden Gopher", he went to ND?

can we just tell Rich Rod we changed our mind?

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 that's really just an easy dismissal of a complex situation it wasn't really bad execution that prevented the Bears from falling on any of the Redskins five fumbles not lost and it wasn't good execution on the Bears part to will Calvin Johnson to "not complete the process of a catch", that's just dumb luck stuff i was mostly joking about the troll comment

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.

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

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

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?

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?

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)

I was confused for a minute...at first I thought you were talking about SD, but apparently you just decided to ignore that question. Nobody was arguing that GB isn't one of the 12 best teams in football. no, i was talking about SD that entire post

162 games vs 16 games. wouldn't that even further my point? it's intuitively obvious from even the most basic understanding of statistics that you're going to have a better picture of the truth from a sample of 162 than 16, but even then we realize the sample of 162 isn't ideal, because there's so much luck and chance involved in close wins, and that's precisely why we accept pythagorean record as an improvement upon old-fashioned W-L. to look at two teams and say "this one's better 'cause they won one more game" is so patently ludicrous. Similarly, it's patently ludicrous to use solely point differential to determine who's a good team and who's not. If my quick math is correct, GB's point differential between just Dallas, Minnesota (in Minny), SF and Buffalo is +111. The point differential in the other 12 games they played this season...+37. That's cherry picked of course, but it's simply to point out that they had a few huge blowouts against some bad teams...and the rest of their games were mostly close games. So that differential is misleading. San Diego has a +119 point differential and they didn't make the playoffs. How good do you think they are? i absolutely think they're one of the best 12 teams in football. furthermore, i'd probably favor them over NO, CHI, KC, IND and obviously SEA in a hypothetical neutral-field matchup. an abominable special teams performance managed to sabotage the efforts of one of the otherwise most complete teams in the league.

including Archer on top of the rest of that package is completely indefensible sigh, at least it's for a pitcher i like

then he should chew his food better

162 games vs 16 games. wouldn't that even further my point? it's intuitively obvious from even the most basic understanding of statistics that you're going to have a better picture of the truth from a sample of 162 than 16, but even then we realize the sample of 162 isn't ideal, because there's so much luck and chance involved in close wins, and that's precisely why we accept pythagorean record as an improvement upon old-fashioned W-L. to look at two teams and say "this one's better 'cause they won one more game" is so patently ludicrous.

they have the 2nd best point differential in all of football, despite a tough schedule (like the rest of the NFCN) Oh. Then the losses don't count. you're being purposefully dense. nowhere did i suggest that. why do we all freely accept pythagorean record for baseball as a much better indicator of the quality of a team's performance, but you're seemingly shrugging off point differential like it's [expletive]?

they have the 2nd best point differential in all of football, despite a tough schedule (like the rest of the NFCN)