Going For 2

[Ceodore]

I don't have a strong feeling either way, though going for 2 makes a lot of sense. You don't get many chances to win the game with the ball on your own 2 yard line. You could argue that would be a better position than they may have gotten even if they had gotten the ball first in OT. Also, the PATs aren't gimme's anymore either.

The thing that bugs me is reading about the players complaining about not getting a chance to get the ball to tie in OT. If you were concerned about not getting the ball back in OT then you should have taken the bull by the horns and went for the game yourself on the 2 pt conversion.

Going for 2 would have shown me that MM has a little moxie, i find him to be too conservative most of the time, and i would have at least been able to appreciate that.

 

[Half Empty]

Don't know why it took so long, and I realize it's not apples and apples, but I remember the story about Lombardi in the Ice Bowl deciding whether to kick the tying FG or go for the win - something like "let's just score and go home".

 

[Bh676]

That's not true. Since the new OT rules were put in, both teams have gotten the ball in over 80% of the games.

20% is not insignificant at all. That's one in five. So with the lower likelihood of making the XP this year, and a 20% chance that you won't see the ball should you lose the coin flip, it only reinforces the argument of going for two.

 

[Un4GivN]

What I wondered the last year or two is...

Why haven't teams attempted to perfect this.... Like spent serious amounts of time and effort in this area. The odds support going for 2. Could you have a bad game and miss more than you make? Sure. But it could also win a lot of games at the same time.

All you need to do is convert over 50% and you break even. And if league average is 50 percent, don't you think it would be quite game-changing if you could covert say 65 percent of these?

 

[Bh676]

What I wondered the last year or two is...

Why haven't teams attempted to perfect this.... Like spent serious amounts of time and effort in this area. The odds support going for 2. Could you have a bad game and miss more than you make? Sure. But it could also win a lot of games at the same time.

All you need to do is convert over 50% and you break even. And if league average is 50 percent, don't you think it would be quite game-changing if you could covert say 65 percent of these?

Before this game was played, I can't recall this issue being discussed so heavily, although maybe it has been.

Perhaps this game could be the catalyst that really gets this going. Like I said before, I won't hold it against McCarthy for going with what was conventional wisdom at the time, but I do believe it's time teams really start looking into this.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

I don't have a strong feeling either way, though going for 2 makes a lot of sense. You don't get many chances to win the game with the ball on your own 2 yard line. You could argue that would be a better position than they may have gotten even if they had gotten the ball first in OT. Also, the PATs aren't gimme's anymore either.

The thing that bugs me is reading about the players complaining about not getting a chance to get the ball to tie in OT. If you were concerned about not getting the ball back in OT then you should have taken the bull by the horns and went for the game yourself on the 2 pt conversion.

Going for 2 would have shown me that MM has a little moxie, i find him to be too conservative most of the time, and i would have at least been able to appreciate that.

The problem with that is that the player's don't get to make that decision. The players complaining is no different than fans complaining. Now if McCarthy was complaining, then you have a valid point.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

What I wondered the last year or two is...

Why haven't teams attempted to perfect this.... Like spent serious amounts of time and effort in this area. The odds support going for 2. Could you have a bad game and miss more than you make? Sure. But it could also win a lot of games at the same time.

All you need to do is convert over 50% and you break even. And if league average is 50 percent, don't you think it would be quite game-changing if you could covert say 65 percent of these?

Conventional wisdom is a hard thing to change or go against, especially if your job is on the line if it doesn't work out. There was an article in Sports Illustrated (I believe) a while back about a high school football team that never punted. Stats showed that going for it on 4th down all the time was a much better choice (at least in high school). I'm sure a lot of high school football coaches read that article, or at least heard about that team, but how many high school teams adopted that philosophy? Not very many, if any more at all because it goes against conventional wisdom.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Don't know why it took so long, and I realize it's not apples and apples, but I remember the story about Lombardi in the Ice Bowl deciding whether to kick the tying FG or go for the win - something like "let's just score and go home".

I'm sure the weather had a lot to do with that decision. I bet the players sure didn't want to play overtime in that cold, plus the chances of something going wrong on the fg were high (just ask Walsh of the Vikings ).

 

[Un4GivN]

Conventional wisdom is a hard thing to change or go against, especially if your job is on the line if it doesn't work out. There was an article in Sports Illustrated (I believe) a while back about a high school football team that never punted. Stats showed that going for it on 4th down all the time was a much better choice (at least in high school). I'm sure a lot of high school football coaches read that article, or at least heard about that team, but how many high school teams adopted that philosophy? Not very many, if any more at all because it goes against conventional wisdom.

He also doesn't kick off... Onside kicks every time.

http://www.sportsgrid.com/uncategor...always-goes-for-the-onside-kick-explains-all/

Though he has some rules about when to go for it on 4th. Like I believe he wont go for in on his own side of the field if it is like over 10 yards. Forget the exact requirements.

But it is interesting as well. That article is actually what started me thinking about other things that have just been "accepted" in the NFL.

 

[longtimefan]

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-p...mccarthy-going-for-two-wasnt-the-right-option

There was a considerable delay while officials were looking at replays to confirm that Janis maintained control of the 41-yard touchdown as time expired. It was long enough that the TV broadcast of the game went to a commercial break (also, a camera man was injured in the end zone and had to be carted off the field).

“The two-point conversion was definitely an option,” McCarthy said Monday in his season wrap-up press conference. “But it wasn’t the right option.”

Almost same phrase I said last night---Now he is saying same thing

thinks that make you go hmmmmm

McCarthy said he liked how well his defense had played up to the point and said he had “great confidence in stopping Arizona’s offense.”

Frankly where we were as far as our young guys at receiver and the two-point plays we had available, I wasn’t comfortable with those particular calls,” McCarthy said.

 

[Gonepackin]

I said yes and I said yes right at the time of the Hail Mary, had plenty of time during the review to talk about a play. Arizona was out of time outs, so they couldn't stop the play if they didn't like the Packers spread.

Also the chances of making the two pointer was greater than making a 33 yard kick and winning the game in OT.

 

[Pkrjones]

Haven't read all 110+ messages in this thread, yet, but found this statistical analysis of pretty much THIS scenario.
http://chance.amstat.org/2015/04/nfl-overtime/

Quick summary is going for it from the 2 yd. line is 74% win even if a team isn't very good on 4th downs (or short yardage) and 78% chance if a team is good on 4th down (or short yardage).


BTW, as soon as Janis came down with the TD hail mary I wanted MM to go for 2 for the win. The D wasn't consistently stopping AZ's offense in the 4th quarter and I wanted the ball in AR's hands for the win or loss. 4th & 26 still makes me queasy, as Mike Sherman didn't go for a 4th & 1 with a dominant offensive line (& Ahman Green running for 156 yds that day), giving Philly opportunity to steal the win. When you have Favre or AR at the helm they should ALWAYS have the ball in their hand to win, IMHO.

 

[Pkrjones]

...I believe we would have scored from the 2-yard line, however, remember how we lost games late at Carolina and Chicago this season, and our goalline struggles are well-known.

But I was planning way ahead, and I would have called a play very similar to the one at Carolina where Cobb got open in motion pre-snap, but Rodgers didn't throw to him. The scary thing was that this would have been called for Abbrederis.

What play would you guys have called?
A QB draw?
A shovel pass like Fitzgerald beat us on?

I would have loaded the backfield with Kuhn & Ripkowski, faked the dive to Ripkowski and rolled Kuhn to the right with AR following on a keeper aiming for the pylon. AZ would've had an OLB containing the play but I would bet on Kuhn to get a piece of him and AR to beat a DB to the corner.

MM usually tries a roll-out pass into the end zone, but minimize the chance, keep it in AR's hands and have him sprint to the corner for the win!!

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Had no problem not going for two. Packers offense was incapable of doing much near the goal line.

Here's another question. Ovens is built so that if both teams score field goals on their first possessions, then the next field goal wins the game. The team that kicked off first in OT received the ball first in the second OT. Wouldn't it make sense in OT to always kick if you win the toss? Since it's far more likely that both teams kick field goals, wouldn't you want to get the ball first when a field goal wins the game?

 

[Pkrjones]

Here's another question. Ovens is built so that if both teams score field goals on their first possessions, then the next field goal wins the game. The team that kicked off first in OT received the ball first in the second OT. Wouldn't it make sense in OT to always kick if you win the toss? Since it's far more likely that both teams kick field goals, wouldn't you want to get the ball first when a field goal wins the game?

If you read thru the analysis that I linked they determined that the average Time of Possession is around 5 minutes for teams that end up kicking a FG in OT. In the situation where both teams get a FG the team that received 1st would get 2 possessions in the first OT. Coupled with the rule that if the team receiving the ball first scores a TD game's over that would be 2 drawbacks to kicking off first.

 

[El Guapo]

How many 4th and goals with 1 second left on the clock did we miss en route to losing games this season? Plenty more than many Packers fans seem willing to admit. We were not good on the goal line this year.

 

[Caleb Hendricks]

Given our lack of success that we had in short yardage situations throughout the season, going for 2 was not an ideal choice. Sure it's easy to look back now and wonder what if, but at the time there was no prior indication to make McCarthy consider that going for 2 would be a success. We struggled all season running straight ahead, and our receivers struggled all season to release from press coverage.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Had no problem not going for two. Packers offense was incapable of doing much near the goal line.

Here's another question. Ovens is built so that if both teams score field goals on their first possessions, then the next field goal wins the game. The team that kicked off first in OT received the ball first in the second OT. Wouldn't it make sense in OT to always kick if you win the toss? Since it's far more likely that both teams kick field goals, wouldn't you want to get the ball first when a field goal wins the game?

Your point makes no sense since games hardly ever go to a second overtime, plus it has already been pointed out a td on the first possession wins.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Had no problem not going for two. Packers offense was incapable of doing much near the goal line.

Here's another question. Ovens is built so that if both teams score field goals on their first possessions, then the next field goal wins the game. The team that kicked off first in OT received the ball first in the second OT. Wouldn't it make sense in OT to always kick if you win the toss? Since it's far more likely that both teams kick field goals, wouldn't you want to get the ball first when a field goal wins the game?

To answer what I think is your question. I may be wrong, but if AZ kicks a FG and then GB kicks a FG, the 1st overtime is not over. The Packers would then kickoff again after their FG as if it was a game. The only time you begin a second OT, is if its still tied when the time runs out. Even then and I could be wrong, time is added to the clock, not rekicked, but they do switch ends.

 

[Un4GivN]

How many 4th and goals with 1 second left on the clock did we miss en route to losing games this season? Plenty more than many Packers fans seem willing to admit. We were not good on the goal line this year.

So making it 80 yards would be easier against a top rated defense? I would love to see the packers percentage of scoring drives verses top rated defenses of this year.

The offense was overall bad... You are still more likely to get 2 yards on 1 play. Than average 3.33 for 15 to get in field goal range.

 

[Caleb Hendricks]

So making it 80 yards would be easier against a top rated defense? I would love to see the packers percentage of scoring drives verses top rated defenses of this year.

The offense was overall bad... You are still more likely to get 2 yards on 1 play. Than average 3.33 for 15 to get in field goal range.

You would think it'd be easier, but too many times that theory of being able to go 2 yards in one play was proven wrong. Besides, what play are you supposed to run? We were dominated inside all game, unable to get any penetration up front, our best available receiver would've been pressed by one of the best CB's in the league, and our other receivers struggled all game to get open in press situations.

 

[Pkrjones]

Post #113 above is my play choice.

I would have loaded the backfield with Kuhn & Ripkowski, faked the dive to Ripkowski and rolled Kuhn to the right with AR following on a keeper aiming for the pylon. AZ would've had an OLB containing the play but I would bet on Kuhn to get a piece of him and AR to beat a DB to the corner.

MM usually tries a roll-out pass into the end zone, but minimize the chance, keep it in AR's hands and have him sprint to the corner for the win!!

 

[Un4GivN]

You would think it'd be easier, but too many times that theory of being able to go 2 yards in one play was proven wrong. Besides, what play are you supposed to run? We were dominated inside all game, unable to get any penetration up front, our best available receiver would've been pressed by one of the best CB's in the league, and our other receivers struggled all game to get open in press situations.

It's not that I think it is easier... It is statistically easier.

1. Your odds of getting a short yardage on a long field are relatively high. Especially when you consider most drives you will have to go 50+ yards to get a field goal or 80 to get a touchdown. 3rd and 2 or something to that extent and you have to make it anyways. And likely you could have more than 1. Not to mention things like penalties, blown calls, all of that are more likely to happen on a long field with multiple plays.

2. Arizona ranks higher than you both offense vs defense and vice versa. Meaning no matter if you get the ball first or second the odds are not in your favor.

3. Add in the other factors, making the xp, a tired and shell-shocked Cardinal defense... And having a 20% chance to never touch the ball.

I understand why MM did it, and I would not crucify him for making the "by the book" call of extending the game.

But I truly believed at that point, that breaking it down... You would find out statistically that your odds were better going for two.

 

[scotscheese]

i voted YES, not because i don;t Masthay wouldn't make it, an d i wont criticize the choice either as it was 95% the easy choice

i just think that we should have gone straight for the win in my eyes

 

[Un4GivN]

i voted YES, not because i don;t Masthay wouldn't make it, an d i wont criticize the choice either as it was 95% the easy choice

i just think that we should have gone straight for the win in my eyes

I agree, I just think it is something that warrants serious consideration for the future... And perhaps special planning for situations just like this.