I think I figured out McCarthy!

I completely disagree with the OP. If you want to make the case McCarthy is soft with his play-calling go ahead but IMO running up the score at the very end of a won game isn't evidence supporting your point. And IMO the aftermath of yesterday's game is a strange time to make this claim. I'm not saying the Packers running game is "fixed" because the Cards struggle vs. the run, but how many run plays did McCarthy call? How many yards were gained in total and what was the per carry average? In what way was that "soft"?

Also as you make your case, remember to include all the blowouts from last year when advancing your point. How many times did we see a long pass last season when the Packers had a comfortable lead? Also remember the Packers led the league in points scored last season. Or are you contending McCarthy just become "soft" this season? Last week running Green into the line time after time for 2 yards per may have been foolish, but it wasn't "soft". And do you think the myriad of injuries has something to do with McCarthy not being able to "insert the dagger" as early and frequently as last season?

I would have like to see them try for the TD. You never know when they mightve needed that 7pts for one of the tiebreakers. I get taking the knee when you're far back, but I thought they should've gone for it when they are knocking on the door. Could have possibly used it to get Harrell some practice.

Some years ago the points scored/allowed difference was higher on the tie breaker criteria list. I vaguely recall one tie breaker being decided by it, or maybe it was a case where it looked like it might be late in the season. Some teams then started trying for late scores. While some expressed outrage, these coaches shrugged, arguing (correctly) that the rules dictated going for that score.

The league smartened up and buried the points tie breaker so deep in the list it's highly likely you'll never see it used...maybe a once in a 100 year fluke.

Whether going for a score like this is "ungentlemanly" or not is a function of the rules. Today, it would be poor form. Rubbing somebody's nose in it should not be worth covering a 1000-1 shot.

However, perform the thought experiment whereby points is the first tie breaker. McCarthy would be (correctly) lambasted for not going for it. And the other team should, if they have any sense at all, not take it personally...they'd do the same if the shoe was on the other foot.

It comes down to the rules, not some abstract notion of sportsmanship.

^ Nice.

As far as tie breakers I wouldn't be upset about them not burying the cards, I would be still upset over the Seahawks game. That is still unbelievable to me.

Points well taken, I guess I just want the Pack to dominate everyone and every chance and i would have liked to see them get another score yesterday. I just get tired of seeing them go conservative at times.

I admit I would've like for us to score again BUT by doing so could've caused an unnecessary injury to either team & yes the W was already ours.

As someone has said points are way down the list of tie breakers. I'm happy MM showed some class.

They would have needed to get a yard or two closer. As it was, it was a bit out of Crosby's range.

You see conservative I see brains. When it comes towards the end of the game, there is one thing that is the losing team's problem. That is the clock. When you have the lead, you want to give the opponent the least amount of time to score. Passing is a high risk/ reward system. When you pass you can get tons of yards and score quickly and fast, but the cost of it is stopping the clock and a higher % of a turnovers. If you want to lose a game, turn the ball over. Ask the Titans and see how they feel about it. Running the ball is a much more secure play and it eats up the clock and allows the defense to rest. I'm not saying the Packers should completely head towards running the ball and abolish the pass game. I'm saying the smart thing is to run more towards the end of the game.

One of the smartest plays I have ever seen was Troy Palamanoau. Steelers were up by 1, Troy intercepted the ball and ran it back to the 1 yard line and laid down. The look on Cowher's face was priceless. WTF?!?!?! To near immediate recognition and appreciation.

You see, if Troy scores the TD he gives the other team a chance. There was less than 2 minutes and the other team had no timeouts. By laying down and NOT scoring, the Steelers took the knee a couple of times and the game was over. Had he scored and got the extra point, the other team would have been down by 8 with a 90 seconds left. They would have had a shot to tie the game.

For that play alone, I have always had a tremendous amount of respect for Troy.

Abstract concept: It’s a sad day when lack of manners and sportsmanship are considered unimportant because there is a lack of a standard definition. As someone once said, ‘I can’t define what pornography is, but I know it when I see it.”

Friend of mine got his butt kicked at a bar one night. The police were called. The cop got him in a chair and was asking him if he could describe his assailant. My friend, drunk and a face covered in blood, responded, “Of course I can describe him. I was busy describing him when he started punching me in the face!”

The OP mentioned the non-scoring attempt because it helped him "figure out" McCarthy. I think that most of us would agree with the OP's premise that McCarthy's play calling gets conservative in the second halves when he builds up a lead. Most of us just disagree with going for it from the two yard line with seconds remaining and a lead in hand. We may all be reading into the OP's words too much because the intent seemed to be to use that lack of aggression to underscore his point. If he hadn't called for MM to step on the gas at the point, we'd probably all have clicked "Agree" a few times and moved onto the next topic

Here's an exercise in situational ethics, if we want to call it that (maybe situational "manners" would be more apt), starting with a quote from Pro Football Reference:

"The first, and only, case of a tiebreaker deciding a playoff spot prior to the AFL-NFL merger was a notable one. In 1967, the Baltimore Colts entered the final week of the regular season at 11-0-2, trying to become the first team to go undefeated since the 1929 Green Bay Packers. However, they had to travel to Los Angeles to face the 10-1-2 Rams, their Coastal Division rival. The Rams won that game, and the tiebreaker, on net points scored in the two head to head match-ups, and advanced to the playoffs. The Colts, despite tying for best record in the league, stayed home."

Not mentioned here is the fact that the first Colts-Rams game ended in a 24-24 tie. The first tie breaker was not head-to-head wins/losses like today, but head-to-head point differential. Either way, it was winner takes all in that final game because of the earlier tie.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say the two teams had entered that last game with those same records, but the Colts had won the first match-up by 5 points. That would mean the Rams not only needed to win that last game to advance to the playoffs, they needed to win by 5 points to get to the next tiebreaker, or 6 points to guarantee advancement.

So, in this hypothetical, if the Rams had the ball in the same position as the Packers possession under question, but were leading by just 1 point, should they have gone for the TD? Sitting on the ball would assure a game win but also assure playoff elimination; scoring a TD would pad the lead but assure playoff advancement.

What would you do?

I thought the same thing.

We were involved in this situations about 12 years ago. As I recall, we were playing a team and it came down to the points scored on the last game of the season. We would score a TD and then the other team would score a TD. We would then try and score again, even though we were up by a decent margin. That is a different animal at the end of the season, last game.

Anything other than that, yes. I would rather the Packers did not go into the playoffs. I will not bitch about McCarthy's decision at the end of the season, if it comes down to the tie breakers and we don't get in based on not running up the score. I can accept that.

Can't argue with that. I'm not a big fan of the "sportsmanship" argument.

This thread is dumb

Seems you're mixing and matching intent. Polamalu's move was a tactical decision to assure victory. It had nothing to do with sportsmanship or manners.

Then it's not an absolute, not a precept come from on high as a matter of "manners"...there's a spectrum of appropriate actions ranging from "no way" to "absolutely", depending upon circumstances.

I guess that my posts were not read in full. I AGREED with McCarthy's decision. It's a 1000-1 shot you can get into points scored as a tie breaker. Those points are not needed for anything; the only thing that comes of it is bad blood.

However, if net points were involved in the FIRST tie breaker, I believe it would be smart to try to put up more points, and only an unthinking opponent would take umbradge.

LMFAO!!

YES, when are we going to get a real coach??? What about the that assistant at Miami? I think he use to be HC at TEx AM.

I can't. He runs when I would pass, and passes when I would run. But that's why I'm not coaching football!

Amish-- I completedly agree. I, too, always refer to that play when talking about game smarts. Troy chose to win over a stat line. Too often, we see the reverse.

Wow what a forum...c'mon chipackfan....tell the truth, you needed the points for the over