20-28 2pt. Conversion

[Ceodore]

Obviously this is somewhat moot as we still won the game, however I didn't understand the call to kick the extrapoint when we scored to make it 26-28. Unless I'm missing something, even if we didnt convert the 2pts we would have been down by less than a fieldgoal, the same as making the extra point. And obviously by making the 2pt conv. we tie the ballgame.

Does anyone know if there was another reason to kick the EP as opposed to going for 2?

Edit: Thread title should be "26-28" i guess.

 

[Poppa San]

11 minutes + left in the game. Chance for one or two more offensive possessions to score. Trust the defense to do their job and stop opponent. Plenty of time for alot of scores yet. Besides you are 0-3 on 2pt tries for the season at that time and your redzone offense this year is not the greatest.
Say you miss the two, score is 28-26. Bears kick FG, 31-26. Packers score TD then get 2 pt. 34-31. Bears kick FG to tie. Kick the XP twice which is near a sure thing to get same results.

 

[PFanCan]

If the Bears scored a TD on their next possession, we would only be down eight. However, if MM would ave gone for two and failed, a Bears TD would make it a two score game.

It was the right call, IMO.

 

[BorderRivals.com]

I completely disagree. This was a terrible decision to not go for two. He did the same thing against Dallas. I said it then (which was later substantiated by Bill Barnwell) that we had to go for two. To me, this decision is more egregious. If the Bears scored a TD, we would have had to go for two at some point. Whether it was then or later, it doesn't matter. Frankly, knowing that you failed or succeeded in going for two is of greater benefit when you have more time left to make up for it. Thankfully it didn't matter.

 

[BorderRivals.com]

Here's the write-up by Barnwell on the play, where he also sidenotes the bad decision not to go for 2: That would be kicking the extra point down two with 11:30 to go in the fourth quarter. There's no TYFNC (Thank You For Not Coaching) this week because of the holiday, but that's an astoundingly bad decision against a great defense, let alone the horrific Bears run D with Aaron freaking Rodgers as your quarterback. The two-point chart at Footballcommentary.com suggests that the Packers should have tried the two-point conversion if they had a 14 percent chance of succeeding. 14 percent! The Packers ended up needing to convert three fourth-down plays on that final drive to win the game, including the fourth-and-8 that produced the touchdown pass to Cobb. It worked out for the Packers, but trust me: The two-pointer would have been the right call.

 

[TJV]

At the time I thought the smart move was to go for two but didn't we hear during the game the Packers were 0-3 going for the two point conversion? If so, that's somewhat less than 14%!

 

[RustyShackleford]

Going for two is the clear choice. The only way that the 1 point helps them is if the Packers score a touchdown and the Bears getting two field goals. With 11 minutes to go there are only a few possessions left, so basically the kicked PAT only helps if the Bears get a FG on their next possession, the Packers then get a TD, and then the Bears get another field goal. Not impossible, but highly unlikely that it plays out exactly like that. In every other situation, going for 2 either helps or makes not difference.

Honestly, I just don't get how McCarthy misses this stuff so consistently.

 

[Simms87]

Imagine, if we would have scored on the 2pt conversion. we would have punted on 4th an 1 on our final drive and who knows, if we then would have won that game... so, it turned out to get us winning. sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

 

[Jordyruns]

If the Bears scored a TD on their next possession, we would only be down eight. However, if MM would ave gone for two and failed, a Bears TD would make it a two score game.

It was the right call, IMO.

This was my thinking, the way the bears were driving down the field up to that point in the second half I did not trust our d to stop them. When they said the pack was 0-3 in 2 pt conversions I felt that getting 1 was undoubtedly the better option. A very likely scenario based on past results would have been the packers missing the 2 point conversion and the bears then driving down and scoring a TD, like they had their last couple possessions. Going down 2 scores with more then likely less then 8 min left on the road would have been as close to a dagger as you could get.

The benefits were high but I felt the risks outweighed the benefits.

 

[FrankRizzo]

If the Bears scored a TD on their next possession, we would only be down eight. However, if MM would ave gone for two and failed, a Bears TD would make it a two score game.

It was the right call, IMO.

Agreed 100%.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Here's the write-up by Barnwell on the play.....

With all due respect, at that point in the game, it was an "either-or".
It's not science at that point.
Barnwell is smart, but he's not God.

I agreed with that call at that time.
I just wish we did better running our 2PT-conversions.
Although missing that one allowed the game to playout perfectly. Would not want to change anything.

 

[Carl]

Another way to look at it.

If the Packers go for two and tie the game, they punt on their last drive and most likely don't win the game in regulation. Of course, it wasn't possible to know that at the time, but it's nice how it worked out.

 

[Title Town USA]

Imagine, if we would have scored on the 2pt conversion. we would have punted on 4th an 1 on our final drive and who knows, if we then would have won that game... so, it turned out to get us winning. sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

Exactly correct. I think it was the right decision to go for the extra point anyway. 11 minutes is a lot of time left to be going for 2.

 

[adambr2]

I'm with the crowd that thinks that if we would have converted the 2 pointer, we would have punted 4th and 1. I doubt our defense would have been able to prevent the Bears from milking the clock and driving into FG range, and I think the most likely scenario would have been a 31-28 heartbreaker.

That said, McCarthy would have been murdered in the media if we would have lost a 28-27 game.