4th & Goal from the 1 in OT

[El Guapo]

On our first drive in overtime, the Packers couldn't punch it into the endzone from the one yard line. On fourth down, McCarthy took the safe route and kicked the field goal. Minnesota then drove down to kick a tying field goal that eventually resulted in a tie.

At the time, I was convinced that going for it on 4th down was the better call. Here was my reasoning:

1) A touchdown wins the game
2) Turning the ball over on downs at the one, makes the Vikings have to work out of the endzone
3) Our defense wasn't stopping AP or Gerhardt, so trusting Flynn and the offense seemed to make more sense

In the end, our defense did hold the Vikings out of the endzone but did allow a FG. What would you have done. Take the points when you can in OT or go for the glory?

 

[Ogsponge]

On our first drive in overtime, the Packers couldn't punch it into the endzone from the one yard line. On fourth down, McCarthy took the safe route and kicked the field goal. Minnesota then drove down to kick a tying field goal that eventually resulted in a tie.

At the time, I was convinced that going for it on 4th down was the better call. Here was my reasoning:

1) A touchdown wins the game
2) Turning the ball over on downs at the one, makes the Vikings have to work out of the endzone
3) Our defense wasn't stopping AP or Gerhardt, so trusting Flynn and the offense seemed to make more sense

In the end, our defense did hold the Vikings out of the endzone but did allow a FG. What would you have done. Take the points when you can in OT or go for the glory?

Going for it on 4th down and failing would have been a monumental blunder that would have had everyone in football thinking MM was a complete and total moron, you simply do not take points off the board in overtime. There is no question to what you do here, you take the points, it flat out gives you the best chance to win.

 

[bozz_2006]

I felt the same way. I know it was the "smart" move to go for the 3. But was it the truly smart move? After seeing the Pats give the ball to Denver to take the win in OT, I was less sure. I mean, taking the FG ensured Vikings were in 4-down territory until they got in FG range. And I trust our D a lot more with a 99 yard field than an 80 yard field.

I still feel like we should've gone for the 7. Momentum was going our way. Our defense was horrendous and gassed. It wasn't the generally accepted smart move, but I do think it would have been the smart move for our team.

Edit: I know I'm not the most prolific poster, but those who know me recognize that I'm on the conservative side and am generally a very vocal supporter of our staff and the decisions they make. But I think the FG was a ***** move....

 

[Forget Favre]

I dunno if they should have gone for it on 4th down.
Instead I think they should have tried passing instead of handing off on 2nd.
By this time the Vikes D was ready for the run.
Just a nice short pass of a screen or get someone open in front of the goal line.
The pass in the corner was not the right one to try on 3rd.

 

[Royal Pain]

Sounds like McCarthy at least considered the option:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/233359161.html

Green Bay - Facing a third and goal from the 2-yard line on the Packers' first drive of overtime in Sunday's 26-26 tie with Minnesota, coach Mike McCarthy did consider using all four downs for the win.
In the league's new format, a touchdown on the first possession ends the game. Kick a field goal and the other team has a chance to match.
On Monday, McCarthy said he considered running the ball on back-to-back plays on third and fourth downs. Instead, he had Matt Flynn throw a fade route to Jordy Nelson that fell incomplete and Mason Crosby kicked the chip-shot field goal.
"I thought about running it on third and fourth down ... based on where the ball was," McCarthy said. "I thought the first two runs were pretty clean. I thought in the game, watching it live, we had a chance to get both of those. But also what you do is when you get in those type of situations you have to ultimately attack the end zone. That’s why we did what we did on third down.
"But yeah, I was considering a four-down run mindset at that point because I felt our run blocking unit and I thought Eddie was doing a heck of a job. I definitely thought about putting the ball in his hands.”



I'm not confident in this teams ability to convert a 4th and short. Our short yardage blocking has not been very good lately.

 

[Terre Haute Cheesehead]

Going for it on 4th down and failing would have been a monumental blunder that would have had everyone in football thinking MM was a complete and total moron, you simply do not take points off the board in overtime. There is no question to what you do here, you take the points, it flat out gives you the best chance to win.

No doubt about it. I'm not a gambler, but caught up in the momentum of our drive to the red zone, though, I would have to be lying if I said I wasn't teeterering (or should say wondereing if MM would roll the dice) on the decision to go for the winning TD, however, I was relieved when MC trotted out on the field and had to agree with MM's logic to put the three up on the board and "cautiously" trust the D to hold them out of the end zone, just conceding the tying field goal at worst, which is "luckily" what occured after that dropped TD pass. Whew....that was close!

Despite how bad Minny's D may have looked and "running on fumes" or not, red zone defenses defending the goal line are a whole different "animal" than the one we carved up on the drive down the field that led to the leading FG. A run stopping QB sacking big playmaker like Jared Allen leading that goal line defense and with all the bad luck we have had lately? My worst nightmare would have been to see a fumble scooped up or a tipped pass and ran back for a TD.

At the end of the day, MM made the obvious correct decision and we were very very fortunate to have had the game end in a "tie" instead of a loss.

 

[adambr2]

I can see the logic in going for it, and I don't think something should be simply dismissed just because it isn't conventional wisdom.

Consider more than just the obvious points. 26-23 does not end the game, only 29-23 does. So if you go for it, 2 major possibilities: You win, or Minnesota gets the ball on their own 1. That's a huge field position disadvantage for them that limits their playcalling and could easily lead to a 3 and out after which you could end up kicking for the win. They still need 70 yards to go to win the game, which they would need anyway after a kickoff to score a TD and win. You also don't risk a return TD from Patterson after the FG (you know you were worried about that).

On the flip side of it, you have the intangible value of momentum which some put more weight on than others. Huge momentum shift if you get stopped on 4th and goal. Also, if you do stop them from going anywhere from their own 1, you could just as easily argue that you could have won the game if you would have kicked the FG all the same trusting that you also would have stopped them at a different spot on the field. That's the approach MM used and I can't fault him for it. Defense just needed to stop them from going 50+ yards. Didn't happen.

 

[weeds]

I don't know.... I'm still throwing up inside my mouth a little bit with the knowledge that the Pack didn't beat those guys like a drum. Recognizing that it was a division game and it's tough to beat a divisional opponent with all hands on deck ... I still cannot wrap my mind around that defense. I'm sorry ... I have to keep reminding myself that the Pack picked up a half game just to stay afloat.

I'm with you in that I thought that, at least for a moment that we'd have to go for a touchdown there because I had ZERO faith in the defense to stop the Vikings -- again, the Pack picked up a half game on the Lions -- the Bears still have the tie-breaker.

 

[adambr2]

I don't know.... I'm still throwing up inside my mouth a little bit with the knowledge that the Pack didn't beat those guys like a drum. Recognizing that it was a division game and it's tough to beat a divisional opponent with all hands on deck ... I still cannot wrap my mind around that defense. I'm sorry ... I have to keep reminding myself that the Pack picked up a half game just to stay afloat.

I'm with you in that I thought that, at least for a moment that we'd have to go for a touchdown there because I had ZERO faith in the defense to stop the Vikings -- again, the Pack picked up a half game on the Lions -- the Bears still have the tie-breaker.

There is no more tiebreaker. We have a tie on our record, the odds of the Lions or Bears having one on theirs by the end of the season is slim to none. So we either beat them or we don't. Our playoff hopes will come down to overall record any way you slice it.

 

[weeds]

There is no more tiebreaker. We have a tie on our record, the odds of the Lions or Bears having one on theirs by the end of the season is slim to none. So we either beat them or we don't. Our playoff hopes will come down to overall record any way you slice it.

Yep... you're right. Duh... hahahaha... sheesh, it sucks getting old

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Yep... you're right. Duh... hahahaha... sheesh, it sucks getting old

Take up a pipe Grandpa

 

[longtimefan]

I was okay with the fg..But on 2nd down I wanted a fake hand off to Lacy and then have Flynn roll out to the side he prefers to run...I think I even said it in chat

 

[Terre Haute Cheesehead]

There is no more tiebreaker. We have a tie on our record, the odds of the Lions or Bears having one on theirs by the end of the season is slim to none. So we either beat them or we don't. Our playoff hopes will come down to overall record any way you slice it.

It's a given that we MUST beat the Lions and Bears. You are exactly correct! The "tie" to me was like a "we did/didn't win the battle, but our objective is to still WIN the war" kind of feeling and it made my evening a lot more enjoyable to know that the Vikings could not hold onto a 16 point lead in the 4th quarter and hang a "L" on us. But we got a lot more work to do, no doubt.

 

[Hjalmar Davidson]

I thought about going for it too, but decided that was craziness. Take the points and stop them.
If you do go for it though it makes more sense to me to try a fake field goal. If I'm not mistaken you can still win the game by forcing a safety after leaving the ball on the one yard line ? Not that our defense is likely to do that.

 

[gatorpack]

I think we should of gave lacy 4 cracks at it.

 

[Zartan]

Take the points. The D isnt to be trusted. MM did right thing can take the points.

 

[AmishMafia]

3) Our defense wasn't stopping AP or Gerhardt, so trusting Flynn and the offense seemed to make more sense

Exactly. Turning the ball over on the 1 is just a matter of them taking longer to get into field goal range. AP or Gerhardt seemed to be able to run at will up our gut. Going for the TD was a matter of win or loss. But, personally, I think I would have gone for it. The play would have been a fake to Lacy and then a Flynn keeper/option wide with a TE sneaking out into the endzone.

 

[adambr2]

If it had been Week 17 against the Bears and a tie doesn't help you, you need a win to get in, I think you go all-in there and take all 4 downs trying to get a TD. Knowing that wasn't the situation, I think playing it safe was the right call.

Tying at home against the Vikings isn't a desirable result, but at the end of the day we still gained ground on our division rivals.

 

[Southpaw]

I probably would have gone for it. But MM is a conservative playcaller so his decision wasn't a surprise. Even if we didn't get it, we'd have them in a tough spot up against their own end zone. Not that we'd have done anything with it though.

What I would have done is called a better sequence of plays at the goal line. The fade or whatever the hell you called that play to Jordy was pretty bad.

I also would have started Flynn in this game. In fact I'd have started his *** last week. IDK why the hell we stuck with Tolzien so long when he's done nothing but fail to deliver the last 3 weeks.

 

[gatorpack]

I don't blame mm for taking the points at all but Lacy was a monster that game and I don't think he could be stopped 4 straight times.

 

[Sandolf]

The Chargers has a similar situation against Wash. They kicked the field goal on 4th and 1 on the last play of the 4th qtr to force OT... only to go on to lose on a first possession TD.

Years ago when that toad Shanahan was still coach of the Donks... he went for it on 4th and 9 in the same situation and won the game. That came after Hochuli belew a recovered fumble dead on the previous play. Very painful.

At least you guys didn't lose.

 

[adambr2]

I probably would have gone for it. But MM is a conservative playcaller so his decision wasn't a surprise. Even if we didn't get it, we'd have them in a tough spot up against their own end zone. Not that we'd have done anything with it though.

What I would have done is called a better sequence of plays at the goal line. The fade or whatever the hell you called that play to Jordy was pretty bad.

I also would have started Flynn in this game. In fact I'd have started his *** last week. IDK why the hell we stuck with Tolzien so long when he's done nothing but fail to deliver the last 3 weeks.

I probably would have called a play action bootleg on at least one play. Maybe even an empty backfield QB draw on 3rd and goal.

 

[ARPackFan]

I probably would have called a play action bootleg on at least one play. Maybe even an empty backfield QB draw on 3rd and goal.

I have to agree with mixing up the play calling and I was thinking play action pass on first down. The Vikings loaded the box. Way to predictable with "run, run, pass."

 

[FrankRizzo]

I also would have started Flynn in this game. In fact I'd have started his *** last week. IDK why the hell we stuck with Tolzien so long when he's done nothing but fail to deliver the last 3 weeks.

And I would have signed Flynn the minute the Raiders released him.
I'm not saying that now hindsight being 20/20.

But I don't fault McCarthy for not going for it.
I cannot EVER remember a team in the NFL getting a FG in OT, and still not winning the game.
Leave it to our defense, facing a crappy QB, to let them march right back down and tie it. At least they didn't get a TD and beat us. Thanks Greg Jennings, for that.

I thought we were going to punch it in with the running...... we had all the momentum.
Can't really second guess MM for anything there. Just needed to block better.

 

[profile_removed]

On our first drive in overtime, the Packers couldn't punch it into the endzone from the one yard line. On fourth down, McCarthy took the safe route and kicked the field goal. Minnesota then drove down to kick a tying field goal that eventually resulted in a tie.

At the time, I was convinced that going for it on 4th down was the better call. Here was my reasoning:

1) A touchdown wins the game
2) Turning the ball over on downs at the one, makes the Vikings have to work out of the endzone
3) Our defense wasn't stopping AP or Gerhardt, so trusting Flynn and the offense seemed to make more sense

In the end, our defense did hold the Vikings out of the endzone but did allow a FG. What would you have done. Take the points when you can in OT or go for the glory?

Believe it or not I would've done what Mike McCarthy did here. It's simple, Eddie Lacy was in the locker room, Starks can't get the tough yards, Franklin was out with a concussion. No Finley, what would the play call have been on 4th down? And remember, if the D does their job it's a home win!