That’s a good point. One was when they were in FG range, but the other two were for 30 and 28 yards downfield. Like 2 short punts.
Hate to turn this into a COVID thread but this was just irresponsible - as it was in other stadiums. People are going to die because they went to the stadium and either get it themselves or pass it to another
When being wrong feels oh so right.
Why do the Buffalo Bills eat cereal on a plate?
I’m pretty vigilant when it comes to masking and such, but I really don’t have a problem with it. Yes it’s a risk, but no more so than a trip to the grocery store or the mall. People are outside, which is a massive risk mitigator, and wearing masks is pretty consistent since it’s cold out and people don’t mind having a warm nose for a change. Pretty much everyone in attendance as a group are probably families and friends who are already inside their bubble. Outside with lots of air movement, masks and gloves >>>> inside touching common surfaces.
It’s something I’ll never forget-- I’ve been on this Earth for 40 birthdays, and that’s a remarkable belated birthday present to me (getting to see a Super Bowl where the designated home side is playing home in their own stadium).
Yes, they’re outside – until they visit the bathrooms at halftime. Then you have a problem.
GB’s coach defended the decision by saying that they had already tried and failed three times, and they would still need to pick up the two point conversion; plus they had three timeout and the two minute warning to get the ball back; then a touchdown and PAT wins the game.
Of course, by taking the ball from Aaron Rodgers and giving it to Tom Brady, they sealed their fate.
I am pretty sure the analytics would have said to go for it on 4th down at that point.
Okay, why? 
My guess is something like they don’t have any bowls.
Something like “because they lost all their bowls” would be my guess, yeah.
Wow that is so much better and pretty damn funny. 
“Because if you put it in a bowl, they’d lose it.”
Apparently, several different analytic groups all indicated that the odds of victory under either scenario were pretty similar. From SI.com:
On the other hand, that same article also notes:
I assumed they’d take one more crack at the end zone too, but that logic by Rogers seems backwards to me. If you’re planning to go on 4th, then running is the play since the yards have value even if you don’t reach the end zone. If you’re going to kick the FG, then the yards hardly matter so it makes sense to try a tough throw.
That sounds right to me.
Yeah I recall hearing one of the commentators say that the analytics defended the call.
But sorry, I don’t believe you can allow analytics to make all of your calls for you – the analytics can tell you about tendencies, but it’s still an evolving field and I’m not sure it can factor “What happens if Tom Brady gets a first down or two on the next drive with X minutes left in the game” – maybe in a few years Watson will make all the decisions for coaches, but anyone watching that game had to be thinking go for it.
Agreed. The more that I’ve thought about that decision, the less I like it.
- It takes the ball out of the hands of one of the most competitive players in the game (and the presumptive MVP), who’s been striving to get back to the Super Bowl for a decade now, and who would have likely had better than the “assumed” odds of getting that TD on fourth down.
- It puts the ball back in the hands of the GOAT, who, even if he didn’t have a great second half, knows how to close out a game – despite what the overall analytics say, I have to believe that the actual odds of getting the ball back were less than that, due to Brady.
Hell even if we’re talking about a mere mortal like Nick Foles and not Brady, the analytics maybe tell you that you can tie the game if the Bucs go down and attempt a FG or win it if they somehow get stalled and GB scores a heroic TD – maybe I’m wrong, but do they factor in the time left?
Even assuming the science does factor time remaining, you’re knowingly sacrificing the ball with a deficit that requires a touchdown to overcome. The only reason a FG attempt even makes sense is if you assume that the Bucs drive quickly and attempt a FG, but that’s not even what the Bucs were trying to do; they were trying to run out the clock. The Bucs didn’t need a FG. But the Packers needed those extra points, and the sooner, the better.
I don’t think Lafleur’s a terrible coach; he’s a young coach and inexperienced in big, big situations like that and he just flat out fucked up. It happens. Good coaches will make gaffes like that from time to time, but that could end up cutting some time off his tenure in Green Bay for sure, especially if Rodgers throws him under the bus on his way out of Wisconsin.
I think that’s likely accurate. I had a discussion with someone on Facebook today, who was complaining about the quality of the Packers’ offensive line, and that they should have used their first round pick this year on another lineman, rather than Jordan Love. I said, “Dude! They have two All-Pros, and another guy who’s a Pro Bowler. Pro Football Focus rated the Packers’ line as #2 in the entire league. Even without Bakhtiari, they pushed the Rams’ defense around all day a week ago. They’re a very good line. They had two bad games all year, and both of those were against the Bucs. That tells me that they got out-coached.”
And, yes, I’m concerned about what Rodgers decides to do next. I have no doubt that he is pissed as hell about the fourth down call.