WrigleyField 22

Well if the Bears kick for one and Balt scores and goes 2, a subsequent FG unfortunately only ties it. But that's where revising odds on personnel comes in. If it was Lamar Jackson, you're prob giving them pretty good odds on a potential go for 2. With Huntley, it'd presumably be a lot lower. So there may be a perfect storm of two bad offenses (without Jackson), but still two leaky/vulnerable secondaries and two good to great kickers that I could at least entertain the 1 instead of 2 argument. Higher quick score odds, really strong PAT kick odds, weak 2 pt odds on both sides, etc. Or just keep the rule application simple. And the simple application is go for 2. You maybe don't have time to Calc a half a dozen different forks on a preset call sheet. Don't burn a TO for it. you're right on the 17-14 score, a FG ties it at the end. But I think its clear his first inclination was to kick the PA, didn't he run the PA group out there before calling the TO? Just keep the plan as is and kick it. And your point of a dozen different forks on the call sheet, I realize Lamar was a late scratch, but Nagy should have had Huntley factored into that equation at that point. The D was battering him all game, you have to bet against him getting the 2 pt even it Vildor looks like Grabby Mcgrabberpants all 2nd half Well the 2 is only partially consequential as you still need time to run a play if/when Balt scores. But all decisions should at least work on concert. For example, I might as well play super agressive and dare them to burn me on a broken coverage or whatever. If they're gonna score, might as well preserve time with a quick score. The main goal is still stopping any score . Not sure what coverage they ended up doing, and they did leave themselves some time, but they had very little hand in that as Harbaugh actually called TO after the big completion (correctly, I would add). They didn't leave any of their own destiny in possibly controlling a last possession.

Yep. Or booted it out of the end zone to avoid a possible big return if you wanted to go conservative, even. Really the only amazing thing is they didn't manage to commit a false start out of the timeout and totally negate any attempt to go for 2. Kudos, Bears.

I get the complaint but I also think the Bears ran way too much early on based on the opponent they are playing. Monty was playing well and we didn't need more running. I believe I also saw Herbert running back kicks as well. I still can't believe we played the worst pass D in the league (by yardage allowed) and Fields threw 7 passes in the first half. Yes there were at least 3 RPO's called (all runs) and yes he got sacked 1-2 more times on drop backs but still way too many called run plays, particularly on 1st down. I think every first down except 1 in the first half was a run. I don't mean just getting him the ball in the run game. You had 1 1/2 capable WRs, throw the ball to the backs out of the backfield. Do something to get the ball in playmakers hands. Not just yesterday, but in general. Oh like throw a RB screen? Sorry, they're still working that into the playbook I think.

Well if the Bears kick for one and Balt scores and goes 2, a subsequent FG unfortunately only ties it. But that's where revising odds on personnel comes in. If it was Lamar Jackson, you're prob giving them pretty good odds on a potential go for 2. With Huntley, it'd presumably be a lot lower. So there may be a perfect storm of two bad offenses (without Jackson), but still two leaky/vulnerable secondaries and two good to great kickers that I could at least entertain the 1 instead of 2 argument. Higher quick score odds, really strong PAT kick odds, weak 2 pt odds on both sides, etc. Or just keep the rule application simple. And the simple application is go for 2. You maybe don't have time to Calc a half a dozen different forks on a preset call sheet. Don't burn a TO for it.

With the penalty and everything I actually think it's slightly more complicated than some are making it out to be, BUT the worse thing you can do is lose the TO. That's gonna swing the odds more than anything. Wasting a TO to get it right is foolish. Rather be slightly wrong with a TO in hand than lose a TO. https://rbsdm.com/stats/fourth_calculator/ Also pfr's win probability can be played with to test different win probabilities at 4, 5, and 6 points. http://pfref.com/tiny/7jrHB help me with this, is this saying that either with the penalty or not, the 2 pt try was the correct decision and he should not have taken the TO. but tried for the 2 pts from the typical spot? I would have probably just kicked the PA and held the TO. Sure, its 5 pt lead as opposed to a 6 pt lead, it still means the other team has to score a TD and if they do, wouldnt they just kick the PA and win by 1 anyway? Yea that decision tool is saying it's better to go from 2. It doesn't have a way to toggle penalty or not, so who knows how odds sort out there, but presumably 2 pt remains the favorite, just depends on the spot. The screenshots I snipped shows what happened to the odds when toggling between 1 timeout remaining (left) to zero (right). It dropped your odds 6-7%, regardless of the 2 v 1 decision. Whereas the difference between 2 and 1 is only about 2% difference. So you're literally better off being wrong and saving the TO rather than using the TO and making the "right" call. The one thing I'll say about the 2 v 1 odds is it appears to pretty consistently use a 93% PAT success rate. Which is definitely low for Baltimore (Tucker is 98.5% career from current PAT spot). So in the "play for a missed PAT and overtime" chances that going up by 6 provides, the successful outcome going from 7% to 1.5% seems significant. But base odds everywhere I look seem to like going for 2. And at either 7% or 1.5% odds you're really splitting winning odds by 1/3 again for just a chance at OT. The pro football reference win probability does show a non significant change in odds between +4 and +5 with 1:40 remaining. So people saying it's not significant are wrong IMO. We saw the downside of the missed 2. In a quick TD scenario you are then down 3 and playing for at best a tie to force OT. That they also didn't have a TO to try and force the tie with a FG... Weeelllllll...

Thats pretty low on my list considering everything. Considering game situation I think overall Run/pass split was fine and it's not like Montgomery wasn't having success.

Ok I found the quote. Look at this jibberish. The more he talks in this answer the dumber he sounds With the penalty and everything I actually think it's slightly more complicated than some are making it out to be, BUT the worse thing you can do is lose the TO. That's gonna swing the odds more than anything. Wasting a TO to get it right is foolish. Rather be slightly wrong with a TO in hand than lose a TO. https://rbsdm.com/stats/fourth_calculator/ Also pfr's win probability can be played with to test different win probabilities at 4, 5, and 6 points. http://pfref.com/tiny/7jrHB

Just checking in to see if Nagy is still head coach.

This team bad. Fire Nagy. Fire Pace.

The Lions can't find a better back-up? It’s the NFL, NO ONE has a good backup Okay but most crappy NFL backups were still stars in the NCAA. A 1:13 TD:INT at the FBS and then 11:13 TD:INT in FCS is also a bad NCAA QB. Literal wtf. Here's Detroits one time backup who actually looked somewhat interesting in a game against the Bears a couple years ago when he started. https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/jeff-driskel-1.html Solid college stats! He's now a TE with the Texans. Make it make sense.

DJJ is better for this team than Markkanen would be, and oh they picked up a 1st along the way.

Of course it involved two former Bears QBs if it wasn't gonna be the Bears directly. I also had no idea Harbaugh played until 2000.

Well, that kinda sucks. Trevis Gipson, time to step up and prove the Bears can cut bait with one of the two massive edge contracts sucking up cap room on the roster.

40 teams, but the 8 new teams have to play in the second tier. Last place from each upper division gets relegated each year. Just soccer up our football so badly until we come full circle and they're the same sport again.

Save traditionalist rants for later (tried to make everyone give up something) Raiders, Chiefs, Broncos, Chargers to NFC. Euro team goes to AFC. New North American cities are NFC: STL, San Antonio, San Diego? Portland? All central/west. Then Texans are only AFC team not in East coast I think. Swap them over to NFC for someone. Ends up like (new teams+, swapped conf*) AFC D1, London+, London+, Dublin+, Germany+ D2, New England, New York, New York*, Philly* D3, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Indy, Miami D4, Buffalo, Detroit*, Cleveland, Cincy D5, Carolina*, Jax, Atlanta*, Tampa* NFC D1, Seattle, Arizona, Portland+, Vegas* D2, LA, LA*, San Fran, San Diego+ D3, San Antonio+, Denver*, Houston*, KC* D4, Chicago, Green Bay, Minny, St Louis+ D5, Dallas, Tennessee*, New Orleans, Washington (AFC D3 and NFC D5 I don't love, but I got all the AFC teams as East Coast/Euro). And just two East Coast teams in the NFC. Also split up the new NA teams in separate divisions for competetive reasons (Euro division is what it is) Edit. Maybe swap Washington and Miami, but I was trying to leave a token rivalry for Dallas too, which obviously leaves no good fit for a location based realignment. Edit2. Or let Dallas keep their rivalries intact but they get to be the one non Eastern Time Zone team that has to travel to Europe every year, and basically keep the NFC East intact but in the AFC (might need to rename the "A" there), then move a few things around elsewhere.

Putting an actual team in NYC makes a ton of sense. But I think if they did expand to 40 teams for some reason (hate this idea), then there would definitely be 2 European teams at the least. Maybe even have 4 of them to form a division and make the travel/bye week schedule easier. Thinking 2 in England (both in London or 1 in Wales). 1 in Germany. And I think Ireland would get the other as they hosted a college game a couple years ago. NYC/Brooklyn St Louis London 1 London 2 Germany Ireland San Diego Monterrey My anecdotal evidence is that the Irish would definitely support a team. I think you're right, make it a 4 division Europe division is the only way it makes sense. Maybe realign NFC/AFC even to make one of the conferences more East coast exclusive, which would include the Euro division.

Honestly I have a bigger problem with Marsh's jump kick celebration than the pathetic stare down. This is all so dumb.

Who stole from who? If it's a fugazi, does it matter who stole from whom?? Packers are 3-1 in the past 4 years coming out of the bye. I mean, you have to go all the way back to last season to find out how incorrect the statement was, but.... Um not according to pro football reference.

It's basically fact :dontknow:

Can you just eat some salary in the NHL? #TheCapIsntReal?

On the flip side unless you have a big 45 man active day issue it's cheaper not to IR them. Gonna have several inactives anyways. As long as you have the healthy bodies, save some money.

I don't think you can call it grifting. Nobody thinks it is anything more than an expensive souvenir that looks good framed on a wall that makes it not quite as weird to refer to the team as "we". I'm shocked (and pleased) that they didn't figure out a way to have NFTs involved somehow. Just because they're relatively upfront about it doesn't make it not a grift. It's basically soliciting donorations.

Who stole from who?

Just wait until All Star Vucevic picks it back up too.

I guess it makes sense since their top scorer lives in the mid range, but this surprised me still: