<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Packers&#8217; Playcalling Too Conservative?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://packergeeks.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/packers-playcalling-too-conservative/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://packergeeks.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/packers-playcalling-too-conservative/</link>
	<description>All Things Green Bay Packers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:57:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://packergeeks.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/packers-playcalling-too-conservative/#comment-1766</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 15:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://packergeeks.wordpress.com/?p=798#comment-1766</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gregg Easterbrook writes on this topic a lot.  Here is one of his columns where he lays out the statistical reason for going for in on fourth and four or less. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/060926

In this one he reports a computure simulation that tested his threory. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrookpreview/070904&amp;sportCat=nfl

I also agree with going for it more often.  Next, I wish someone would compile data on the always frustrating and (I suspect) counter productive prevent defense.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gregg Easterbrook writes on this topic a lot.  Here is one of his columns where he lays out the statistical reason for going for in on fourth and four or less. </p>
<p><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/060926" rel="nofollow">http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/060926</a></p>
<p>In this one he reports a computure simulation that tested his threory. </p>
<p><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrookpreview/070904&#038;sportCat=nfl" rel="nofollow">http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrookpreview/070904&#038;sportCat=nfl</a></p>
<p>I also agree with going for it more often.  Next, I wish someone would compile data on the always frustrating and (I suspect) counter productive prevent defense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
