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

[Pugger]

Well, honestly, I wasn't expecting a win with our OL injuries so a win is sweet. It should've been an easier win honestly...

 

Glad they put it in the foot of our MVP.

 

Easier? Lately we've had nightmares playing those guys so this win was indeed sweet. Our banged up OL kept Bosa in check a lot of the time, AR got the ball out quick and Davante was clutch even after getting the wind knocked out of him. The Steelers appear to be a mess so we have a good chance at being 3-1 after next weekend if we keep playing like this.

[Pugger]

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.

 

Yes. I'm glad King was sick and stayed home...

[Pugger]

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

 

I'm encouraged because I'm seeing improvement in this D every week and they should be even better getting Z back.

[Pugger]

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.

 

I've always been a proponent of taking the points when they are there, especially on the road. We are a much better team with a lead than not.

[igor67]

No points on the board I'd have kicked it, but for the chance to try and put a game out of reach I'm all for it. I thought the defense actually did quite well, even with the no call on the grounding it took how many goal line plays for them to score? I wonder how much fire they would have had to start the second half if that's called and they end up with nothing at the half (I can't remember if they had a timeout to preserve the clock or not).

[homer]

I would like to see just how close that guy got to blocking Crosby's kick. I haven't seen a good replay of that yet.

[CheezWizHed]

Well, honestly, I wasn't expecting a win with our OL injuries so a win is sweet. It should've been an easier win honestly...

 

Glad they put it in the foot of our MVP.

 

Easier? Lately we've had nightmares playing those guys so this win was indeed sweet. Our banged up OL kept Bosa in check a lot of the time, AR got the ball out quick and Davante was clutch even after getting the wind knocked out of him. The Steelers appear to be a mess so we have a good chance at being 3-1 after next weekend if we keep playing like this.

 

Yes, easier. We were in the red zone several times and came up short. Bad kickoff coverage essentially gave up a TD. Rodgers inexplicably airmailing three deep throws for a late three-and-out.

 

The team played a good game considering how banged up the OL was and they made a good general game-plan. But a few different in-game decisions/execution and we probably win easily.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Looking at the box score the defense basically did most of what you could ask. They made SF one-dimensional via the pass which is exactly what you want. Played the run really well and forced 2 TOs passing the ball. You'll win most games doing that with Rodgers. Garopollo's line isn't even good and was probably a lot worse before the last drive.

 

ST did them no favors at the end of the half and even then they arguably forced a grounding penalty that would have preserved a shutout with the 10 second run off.

 

Really their lone black mark is the "stand" at the very end, which likely never takes place if that PI isn't called.

[homer]

Looking at the box score the defense basically did most of what you could ask. They made SF one-dimensional via the pass which is exactly what you want. Played the run really well and forced 2 TOs passing the ball. You'll win most games doing that with Rodgers. Garopollo's line isn't even good and was probably a lot worse before the last drive.

 

ST did them no favors at the end of the half and even then they arguably forced a grounding penalty that would have preserved a shutout with the 10 second run off.

 

Really their lone black mark is the "stand" at the very end, which likely never takes place if that PI isn't called.

 

I think we are going to have to get used to teams getting long, sustained drives against GB. I am guessing their strategy is to prevent big plays and that most teams either don't have the patience or the talent to dink and dunk and move down the field in 5-yard chunks. The issue then becomes keeping teams out of the end zone and holding them to field goals when they do get down there and GB hasn't been too good at that yet this year.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I thought the defense played very well last night given the perception of the mismatch it had upfront coming into the game - Some of that goes to San Fran being limited a bit in the run game with all their RB injuries, but the front 7 held their own in the trenches. Also, it was nice watching DBs actually close enough to receivers to even attempt making plays on the ball and having PI to debate, and to me that's largely due to Stokes being on the field. He'll take his lumps, but he's on another planet athletically than King is and can cover guys man to man. Seeing San Fran throw towards Alexander in coverage last night much more than we have come to expect has alot to do with the corner on the other side of the field actually covering someone, and that is significant for how this defense works.

 

I also think Garappolo will be either holding a clipboard in San Fran or traded pretty soon...hell, I didn't even realize he was still starting games and just assumed Lance had overtaken him.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Yeah I don't want to rain on the parade but I don't really think SF is the contender some seem to think. It's a great road win either way but I'd guess they don't make the playoffs this year and that in the end it's Tampa, Arizona and LA that are threats to the Packers. It's rare to go through the rash of injuries SF has had and come out on the other side, especially without a top QB, which Jimmy is not.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Yeah I don't want to rain on the parade but I don't really think SF is the contender some seem to think. It's a great road win either way but I'd guess they don't make the playoffs this year and that in the end it's Tampa, Arizona and LA that are threats to the Packers. It's rare to go through the rash of injuries SF has had and come out on the other side, especially without a top QB, which Jimmy is not.

 

Don't sleep on Carolina either....although they've got some key injuries piling up now, too. Their defense is legit

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Forgot about Carolina. That's exactly the type of team that always seems to give us fits.

[pacopete4]

I really like the way Carolina plays defense. I know you need the personnel but they are fast and aggressive on that side of the ball. I'm pulling a bit for their QB as well as no one ever deserves to have to play QB for the Jets.

[igor67]

I didn't see anyone mention it, but switching the offense to run heavy combined with quick routes and throws really helped the O-line. Rodgers not playing the run around and heave game was huge

[wallus]

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

 

Myers will be in the same breadth as Jenkins soon. The guy is a terrific lineman already.

 

Winning on the road at SF with that young of an offensive line is impressive.

[homer]

I would like to see just how close that guy got to blocking Crosby's kick. I haven't seen a good replay of that yet.

 

It was pretty darn close

 

[sixtolezcano16]

I will have to go back and look but it seems like it was more like 4th and a yard and a half, run didn’t seem like an option, and we just fumbled the play before and were fortunate it went out of bounds. Sometimes you take the points and move on, I have no idea why that would be a 100% call.

 

I totally agree with you. The fumble on the previous play, a young and inexperienced offensive line and the historically poor success rate in short yardage situations made the 3 points an attractive option. MLF was going for the kill shot with almost 3 quarters to go, which was way to early in the game I say respect the points. They left points on the table that was totally unnecessary. This was a poor decision to go for it in the 1st quarter.

[adambr2]

We keep rehashing this, but it's a good percentage call to go for that. MLF was not going for the "kill shot" early, he did it because it's the higher percentage play and hopefully he'll do the same next time.

 

As another said if they take the points they probably lose about 25 yards in field position and the following drive by the 49ers is likely a FG instead of a punt making the whole thing a wash anyway and worth trying for 7.

[Fear The Chorizo]

We keep rehashing this, but it's a good percentage call to go for that. MLF was not going for the "kill shot" early, he did it because it's the higher percentage play and hopefully he'll do the same next time.

 

As another said if they take the points they probably lose about 25 yards in field position and the following drive by the 49ers is likely a FG instead of a punt making the whole thing a wash anyway and worth trying for 7.

 

Oh, so only the people that like the go for it on 4th down move can act like the following 49er drive would have automatically led to points had they started at the 25 instead of the 5, and just assume they get as much or more yardage? I thought it doesn't work that way...

 

Sorry, nobody's mind is getting changed, we will agree to disagree here. 3 points in that spot in the game against a really good defense to me is worth far more than a consolation prize of 20 yds in field position if you don't convert. IMO, scoring decisions early in the second quarter should never be about weighing how many scores/possessions different decisions put you up by, it should be all about what decision gives you the best odds of increasing your point total. Converting and getting a TD on that drive is the obvious best case scenario, but I didn't like the risk taken at that point in the game given how it was unfolding compared to just picking up 3 more points and really giving san fran no sort of advantage afterwards. Had the GB defense forced a 3 and out right away leading to a short field on GB's next TD drive, I could see an argument justifying pinning them back as an advantage - but that didn't happen.

 

I actually would have been more ok with going for it on 4th and short from the 30 in that spot compared to opting not to take a gimme field goal.

[HarveysWBs]

Looking at the box score the defense basically did most of what you could ask. They made SF one-dimensional via the pass which is exactly what you want. Played the run really well and forced 2 TOs passing the ball. You'll win most games doing that with Rodgers. Garopollo's line isn't even good and was probably a lot worse before the last drive.

 

ST did them no favors at the end of the half and even then they arguably forced a grounding penalty that would have preserved a shutout with the 10 second run off.

 

Really their lone black mark is the "stand" at the very end, which likely never takes place if that PI isn't called.

 

I think we are going to have to get used to teams getting long, sustained drives against GB. I am guessing their strategy is to prevent big plays and that most teams either don't have the patience or the talent to dink and dunk and move down the field in 5-yard chunks. The issue then becomes keeping teams out of the end zone and holding them to field goals when they do get down there and GB hasn't been too good at that yet this year.

 

The weird part is that this is basically my understanding of Pettine's Platonic ideal of a defense. So it is weird, because, you know, we already had a guy who wanted to do this, and did it fairly consistently (except for a certain playoff game that does not bear mentioning...).

 

I am not saying replacing him was a bad move, or even that Barry necessarily won't have a better defense in the end, but it is pretty dang funny if they end up basically operating under the same basic philosophy. But hey, if Barry is just Pettine with better blitz schemes and a willingness to move on from Kevin King on the boundary, then that is a worthwhile improvement in my book.

[adambr2]

We keep rehashing this, but it's a good percentage call to go for that. MLF was not going for the "kill shot" early, he did it because it's the higher percentage play and hopefully he'll do the same next time.

 

As another said if they take the points they probably lose about 25 yards in field position and the following drive by the 49ers is likely a FG instead of a punt making the whole thing a wash anyway and worth trying for 7.

 

Oh, so only the people that like the go for it on 4th down move can act like the following 49er drive would have automatically led to points had they started at the 25 instead of the 5, and just assume they get as much or more yardage? I thought it doesn't work that way...

 

Sorry, nobody's mind is getting changed, we will agree to disagree here. 3 points in that spot in the game against a really good defense to me is worth far more than a consolation prize of 20 yds in field position if you don't convert. IMO, scoring decisions early in the second quarter should never be about weighing how many scores/possessions different decisions put you up by, it should be all about what decision gives you the best odds of increasing your point total. Converting and getting a TD on that drive is the obvious best case scenario, but I didn't like the risk taken at that point in the game given how it was unfolding compared to just picking up 3 more points and really giving san fran no sort of advantage afterwards. Had the GB defense forced a 3 and out right away leading to a short field on GB's next TD drive, I could see an argument justifying pinning them back as an advantage - but that didn't happen.

 

I actually would have been more ok with going for it on 4th and short from the 30 in that spot compared to opting not to take a gimme field goal.

 

I mean, you can feel however you want to feel about it, I'm just saying that at this point, there's years of analytics and data that demonstrate that going for a 4th and short inside the 5 (and most other situations) is almost always better toward your chances of winning the game than kicking a FG. You're literally arguing against math.

 

https://medium.com/@greerre/when-should-nfl-teams-go-for-it-on-4th-down-expected-points-vs-cvar-428c9e26b0a9

 

I understand that each situation is different and you can't just be a total slave to analytics but when you're talking 4th and 1 and inside the 5 the value of each of your two choices as far as contributing toward your chances of winning is actually not very close.

[PinaMadness]

OMG are we still talking about this go for it or kick the field goal stuff? WTH cares? We won. Let it go already.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

We keep rehashing this, but it's a good percentage call to go for that. MLF was not going for the "kill shot" early, he did it because it's the higher percentage play and hopefully he'll do the same next time.

 

As another said if they take the points they probably lose about 25 yards in field position and the following drive by the 49ers is likely a FG instead of a punt making the whole thing a wash anyway and worth trying for 7.

 

Oh, so only the people that like the go for it on 4th down move can act like the following 49er drive would have automatically led to points had they started at the 25 instead of the 5, and just assume they get as much or more yardage? I thought it doesn't work that way...

 

My God. I've never seen anyone miss the thesis of something over and over again like this. It's amazing.

 

I'll try one more time: Nobody knows what would have happened. Including you. The point is that you can't make the assumption that all things in the game AFTER the field goal remain the same. I've been consistent on the point that I don't know how things play out. But the other side of this keeps rehashing that it "would have made the end of the game less stressful," which isn't a fact. It's just a guess.

 

The whole equation is a guess, and the point is that the percentages, overall, favor going for the first down/TD. MLF doesn't make that call on the fly; he's (or an asst) likely has some kind of chart or simulator telling him the %, and he can obviously overrule that if the situation calls for it.

 

It's fair if you want to dig your heels on the FG just for the sake of it, but this much is really the only fact: The percentage play is going for it.

[OldHeidelberg]

This a baseball site so not surprising the debate gets into percentages but not sure it's so easy to do that in football. I mean obviously you only need to get a TD 50% of the time for for the points to favor going for it, 7 to 6. But a good offensive team may really be converting at 60% and a poor one 40%, not converting one week can contribute to a close loss, converting the next can be a nothing burger in a game decided by 4 TD's. How good is the opposing defense? Are there key injuries? So many factors that can't be just glossed over by looking at league average success rate. I know it is brought up that going for 2 every time would likely give you more points over a season but teams don't do it because they are afraid a random streak of failed conversions could cost them a game.

 

I didn't think it was the right call real time in this game but in retrospect the fact that we have one of the GOAT's playing QB probably makes it the right call for us.