6 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Their offensive line will be able to hold without any calls being made.  Their defense looks to have some really effective blitzes.

But we have an Elite QB, so we should win handily.

9 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Their offensive line will be able to hold without any calls being made.  Their defense looks to have some really effective blitzes.

How did that work for the Ravens, though? One of them had Carter in a headlock and they still contained Henry.

Someone put $3.1M on Eagles money-line against the Panthers. 

I kinda hope Panthers win just because an idiot putting up that much to win $442k deserves to lose. 

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Someone put $3.1M on Eagles money-line against the Panthers. 

I kinda hope Panthers win just because an idiot putting up that much to win $442k deserves to lose. 

Based on the reactions, I think we know who the idiot was.....  amirite @vikas83?    

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Based on the reactions, I think we know who the idiot was.....  amirite @vikas83?    

LOL -- no chance I would risk so much for so little return.

Also, as a rule, I never bet on the Eagles. Barely ever bet on sports, but never on the Eagles.

1 hour ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

 

Spoiler

Horrible edit, I know. 😂

 

2 minutes ago, QuinnWR4 said:

Campbell is really just Allen from the hangover

 

1 hour ago, just relax said:

I take some small consolation in knowing, if we don't get the #1 seed, we get to watch the Eagles for an extra week.

I have tickets to the game against the Giants so I kind of hope it's in play all the way to the wire.  

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

But the kicker still has to make the FG either way to win the game, and they only got marginally closer with the conversion. Analytically, the probability of them losing the game because of a failed 4th down conversion outweighed the chances of them converting on 4th down and then making the FG. 

You can maybe make the argument that there's an emotional and motivational component to it, by placing an immense amount of trust in the offense that you're gonna need to ride into the playoffs and beyond. I get that, and while it's tough to quantify, you can hear the effect something like that has in the sound of Goff's voice after the game.

But setting all that aside and dispassionately assessing it strictly by the numbers, the math is very clear, they should've kicked it on 4th down.

But aren’t you discounting the fact that a shorter kick would be easier to make? I don’t know exactly what yard lines are in play here, but I would suggest that the odds of making a field goal on fourth down were about 80% whereas the odds on the shorter kick at the gun were closer to 90%...and would have been even higher if they hadn’t intentionally lost yards on the Goff kneel down to center the kick which actually only moved it to the other hash mark.

To be clear, I would have kicked it on fourth down. But I also can relate to the fear of giving the ball back to the Packers with some time left to do some magic. I guess my greater point is that I think the Lions were convinced their fourth down play was going to work because the Packers would almost certainly be on their collective heels because they would be convinced the Lions were only trying to draw them offsides.

For the sake of argument, if they felt the fourth down conversion was a 90% proposition (not saying that is what it actually would be but rather what they thought) and the subsequent kick would also be 90%, you’re looking at a winning chance of 81%. You’d have to compare that to the chance of the longer kick, which I’ve suggested was probably around 80% (but may have been a little higher — I’m not sure of the distance involved), which would then be reduced by some amount to account for the Packers then getting the ball with time on the clock.

I just don’t think it is as clear cut as people are saying today and making it out to be something moronic that lucked into actually working.

2 hours ago, RLC said:

If we played the Lions today we'd win.

But in January, the Lions will have a lot of their guys back and likely have HFA. We're going to rightfully be underdogs and probably use.

It's a big blow.

How many players do they get back? They're at like 18 players on IR which is pretty crazy

1 hour ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Practice attendance same as yesterday. Looking like Blakenship, Brown and Goedert are all out. 

Dang, you scared me for an instant before I realized you were talking about SYDNEY Brown, not the Brown who actually matters.

4 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

But aren’t you discounting the fact that a shorter kick would be easier to make

The difference in success rate between a 35 yd FG and a 40 yd FG is marginal. Maybe a few pct? You probably have better stats on that than I do but I can't imagine it's significant at that distance.

11 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

But aren’t you discounting the fact that a shorter kick would be easier to make? I don’t know exactly what yard lines are in play here, but I would suggest that the odds of making a field goal on fourth down were about 80% whereas the odds on the shorter kick at the gun were closer to 90%...and would have been even higher if they hadn’t intentionally lost yards on the Goff kneel down to center the kick which actually only moved it to the other hash mark.

To be clear, I would have kicked it on fourth down. But I also can relate to the fear of giving the ball back to the Packers with some time left to do some magic. I guess my greater point is that I think the Lions were convinced their fourth down play was going to work because the Packers would almost certainly be on their collective heels because they would be convinced the Lions were only trying to draw them offsides.

For the sake of argument, if they felt the fourth down conversion was a 90% proposition (not saying that is what it actually would be but rather what they thought) and the subsequent kick would also be 90%, you’re looking at a winning chance of 81%. You’d have to compare that to the chance of the longer kick, which I’ve suggested was probably around 80% (but may have been a little higher — I’m not sure of the distance involved), which would then be reduced by some amount to account for the Packers then getting the ball with time on the clock.

I just don’t think it is as clear cut as people are saying today and making it out to be something moronic that lucked into actually working.

As was pointed out by others, the Lions couldn't call timeout because they had just used one. So GB had to think they were going to snap it, or I guess purposely take a delay of game (which would have been more asinine). 

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

The difference in success rate between a 35 yd FG and a 40 yd FG is marginal. Maybe a few pct? You probably have better stats on that than I do but I can't imagine it's significant at that distance.

About 87% at 35 yards vs 80% at 40 yards. Perhaps higher now because kickers are better now than they were a generation ago when those numbers were created. And slightly higher still because it’s indoors. But the delta of seven percent probably still holds. 

To be clear, Campbell's decision to go for it from his own 31 with just over a minute remaining in the 3rd quarter, while leading 24-21, was significantly dumber. He gifted the Packers a TD and a 4th quarter lead. It's that hubris that is going to cost him in the playoffs.

Since they couldn't call timeout on the last one, and had to snap it, it was remarkably reckless and just a dumb decision as well.

Dan Campbell is just a moron going for every 4th down because he's biting kneecaps. And it's going to get him bounced from the playoffs just like it did last year.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

As was pointed out by others, the Lions couldn't call timeout because they had just used one. So GB had to think they were going to snap it, or I guess purposely take a delay of game (which would have been more asinine). 

It’s a fair point, for sure. As I’ve said, I would have kicked but I don’t think it was as cut and dried as most people are thinking. 

Just now, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

It’s a fair point, for sure. As I’ve said, I would have kicked but I don’t think it was as cut and dried as most people are thinking. 

If they could have called a TO, then I see more logic. Try and draw them offsides, and maybe as you said take advantage of the Packers relaxing at the end of the play clock. But without that threat...it's just stupid, IMO. He is very lucky Goff was able to make the handoff after being tripped and no d-lineman touched him.

57 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Someone put $3.1M on Eagles money-line against the Panthers. 

I kinda hope Panthers win just because an idiot putting up that much to win $442k deserves to lose. 

If I could turn $3.1 million to $3.542 million in 3 hours I'd consider it.

 

16 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

Dang, you scared me for an instant before I realized you were talking about SYDNEY Brown, not the Brown who actually matters.

My bad

9 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

As was pointed out by others, the Lions couldn't call timeout because they had just used one. So GB had to think they were going to snap it, or I guess purposely take a delay of game (which would have been more asinine). 

I'm not convinced players would actually know that in the heat of the moment. It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of GB defense came to the conclusion they were just trying to draw them offsides. 

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I'm not convinced players would actually know that in the heat of the moment 

Fair point. You'd hope the GB coaches told them during the timeout.

3 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

If I could turn $3.1 million to $3.542 million in 3 hours I'd consider it.

 

Would make more sense to invest that $442k into scratch tickets.  That's the best ROI you can get.. GUARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANTEEEEEED