Game 3: Packers @ 49ers - Sunday, September 26th 7:20pm

[Fear The Chorizo]

The score remained 10-0 and the Packers got the ball back in no small part because the Niners had to go 95 yards.

 

You can't just tack 3 points on the score at half or at the end and say an isolated decision was a mistake. The flow of the game changes after a decision like that.

 

In the sequence we're discussing the Packers wound up netting +7. Could they have kicked the FG, gotten the stop and gone up 20-0? Maybe. But it's also possible SF gets 3 or 7 if we let them start a drive at the 25 or take a kick back.

 

That sequence started with the 49ers flipping the field and pinning GB back inside their 20 after after a few first downs and taking the ball to midfield. GB's touchdown drive was not influenced at all by SF starting inside their 5 after the failed 4th and short instead of opting for a chip shot field goal. Thank the football gods they found a way back down the field and Crosby hit another 50+yard field goal to win it in spite of some horrible officiating tonight - but if they take those 3 points in the first half, there's much less drama at the end of this game.

 

Nope. Doesn't work that way. The events over the course of the game aren't isolated. Each one potentially changed the following decisions. What you're not taking in to account here is the 49ers drive that began inside the 5 ended up stalling out. Was fatigue a factor? Who knows. Would they have kicked a fg if they started at the 25 or the 35? Would their offensive playcalling change if they're not backup at the 3?

 

You don't know how any of that plays out. So you can't just assume that if they take the 3, they're up 9 and the end of the game. It's just not that simple.

 

You don't know how any of it plays out either - I'm just taking the points in that spot of this game on the road, simple as that. I'm glad they won despite that decision and alot of crap they had to deal with in the 2nd half and I'll just leave it at that.

[homer]

If GB had an elite defense I might agree with you. But they don't.

[yourout]

At least the D showed some signs of improvement.

Stokes by himself is a huge upgrade. He is going to take some welts but at least when a pass goes his direction he is usually in the camera shot.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

Ok, tell me how exactly it plays out worse if they go up 13-0 in that spot early in the 2nd quarter instead of giving them the ball at their 5 and having them march to midfield before punting. I think if anything that leads to SF making decisions in much more of a chase mode, which benefits the Packers. Would've been perfect had they converted, but to me at that stage of the game I take the points.

 

And I'd agree with OldHeidelberg - that whole sequence seemed out of whack and in part was why I wished they had just kicked the FG there, seemed like they were forcing something that just wasn't gonna succeed for whatever reason. Jones fumbling out of bounds on 3rd down, took awhile to get the 4th down play in and set up at the line, should have been a delay of game and the snap almost nailed the guy in motion....seemed to have a better chance at ending in disaster than simply not converting.

 

Oh well, glad they won in spite of alot going against them during the 2nd half - I'll take 2-1 no matter how they got there!

 

He didn't say it plays out worse. You aren't getting the point. You can't assume the outcome of a course of events that never took place unless it's literally end of game and nothing else happens. Maybe it goes worse. Maybe it goes better.

 

What you can't do is take single plays in a game and put them in a vacuum and just say "if we'd kicked the fg in the 2nd quarter we'd end the game with 3 more points than we did, but instead we went for it. The decisions influence future decisions. It's not like adding an extra tablespoon of salt to a cake.

[young guns]

He doesn't care:

[sarcasm]He's definitely tanking to spite the team.[/sarcasm]

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I think I'm pretty obviously conceding I don't know how it plays out as I've said literally that several times.

 

You're adding points to the box score from the 2nd quarter and saying "well we'd have been up 9!"

[homer]

At least the D showed some signs of improvement.

Stokes by himself is a huge upgrade. He is going to take some welts but at least when a pass goes his direction he is usually in the camera shot.

 

Getting Zadarius back will help a bunch too. He's pretty good against the run.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Defense was ok. I wish we could have seem a hold at the end because I have the same "here we go again" feeling, but that PI was atrocious and then roughing the pretty boy right after that brutal hit on Adams. I felt the defense deserved a better fate. They had a nice takeaway on a deep ball and a key turnover in the 2nd half as well

[adambr2]

Going for it on 4th and 1 inside the 5 in a vacuum is a good percentage move. That's it. The historical percentages bear out that in that situation (again, in a vacuum, every game situation varies), you increase your odds of winning by going for it rather than kicking it.

 

As with any move in any professional sport, things can go wrong where the alternative now looks like a better outcome.

[homer]

I have to give props to the O Line. They are going to be pretty darn good once they are up to full strength.

[OldHeidelberg]

Going for it on 4th and 1 inside the 5 in a vacuum is a good percentage move. That's it. The historical percentages bear out that in that situation (again, in a vacuum, every game situation varies), you increase your odds of winning by going for it rather than kicking it.

 

As with any move in any professional sport, things can go wrong where the alternative now looks like a better outcome.

 

I think FG’s are underrated.

[endaround]

If thw Packers kick a FG, kickoff and the 49ers drive 45 yards like they did after the 4th down, they kick a filed goal and nothing has changed in terms of the game but some people's fantasy plays end up different.

[homer]

The Packers have a punter now.

[sveumrules]

And to think some people wanted the team to move on from Rodgers.

 

I thought it was Rodgers that wanted to move on from the team?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I didn't realize the new punter was also holding for the kicks, which isn't surprising I guess since I dunno who else would, but glad that appears to have worked out.

[homer]

Mason Crosby has made 65 of his last 69 fg attempts

 

[MrTPlush]

He doesn't care:

[sarcasm]He's definitely tanking to spite the team.[/sarcasm]

 

[sarcasm]I heard he didn't really value or care about winning.[/sarcasm]

[Pugger]

I get being aggressive - but you take the points there

 

We could have used those 3 points at the end of the game so I wouldn't need to reach for my pepto...

[Pugger]

If they hadn't called that, my Lord.

 

That officiating crew left something to be desired big time last night.

[Pugger]

What is Collinsworth worth talking about? That was totally catchable without grabbing his arm.

It probably wasn't for him.

 

[Pugger]

A football catch shouldn't be science. Ball hit the ground and he didn't have control of it. Incomplete...

I thought it was the right call. Didn’t like the outcome obviously, but when it looked like it may have popped loose, it went right back toward the receiver’s chest. The call could have gone either way.

 

I suspect if they had called in incomplete and SF challenged that would stand too.

[Pugger]

What the heck!!! Screw these refs. That was as blatant of a targeting as there is!

 

IMO the NFL needs targeting just like the NCAA.

[Pugger]

How are Myers (Ohio St) and Runyan (MI) working well together?

 

I thought all those young guys on the OL played great last night.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

A football catch shouldn't be science. Ball hit the ground and he didn't have control of it. Incomplete...

I thought it was the right call. Didn’t like the outcome obviously, but when it looked like it may have popped loose, it went right back toward the receiver’s chest. The call could have gone either way.

 

I suspect if they had called in incomplete and SF challenged that would stand too.

 

I also thought it was the right call, but as I said in-game, the challenge was dumb. That's a play you challenge on 3rd down, perhaps even 2nd down as you force them into a passing situation on 3rd and 10. But challenging a 12- or 13-yard pass on 1st down is not something I'd ever waste a challenge on at that point in the game. Unless it's totally situational, like puts them in FG range with 2:05 left or something.

[Pugger]

The penalty on ALexander was bogus as heck. The tripping on Amos was legit. That was clear as day tripping. I don't know what to say if someone thinks that wasn't tripping. It was textbook.

 

Someone on another Packers forum last night said Amos tripped the QB was while he was being held.