Going For 2

[Pokerbrat2000]

That is exactly what it is... Doesn't matter if Green bay didn't score the whole game. OR scored 1000 points. You are trying to say the data from 1 game should over-rule the average. And that is not the way it works. Regression to the mean is the most likely scenario.

Go back to my post #218 and answer what your decision would be given both scenarios.

I'm not throwing out math and probability, but remember, those probabilities are an average over many instances, not one. In the case of the Packers, they have one shot, not 100 to make the right decision. A decision revolving around a 50/50 probability but also revolving around many other factors having nothing to do with math.

Which funny enough is exactly what happened. Arizona's #1 ranked offense took 3 or 4 plays to score on young and sometimes undisciplined defense middle of the road defense that throughout the game over-acheived. All the shoulda coulda wouda doesn't matter. What happened is exactly what should be predicted to happen. That was the most likely scenario if Arizona got the ball if you look at the season as a whole when comparing Arizona offense vs Green Bay defense.

"Human element" isn't an actual thing... It is just used to describe what you can't understand.

So by probability and statistics, AZ wins the game before it even begins, why play the game? Math theories tell us that AZ should have been up by 2-3 touchdowns at the end of the game, but they weren't that day. So yes, you do have to take into account the situation and what led to it. Rodgers gets tackled on the touchdown pass to Janis and is shaken up and its unknown if he can continue, do you still go for 2 with Tolzien?

 

[Un4GivN]

Go back to my post #218 and answer what your decision would be given both scenarios.

I'm not throwing out math and probability, but remember, those probabilities are an average over many instances, not one. In the case of the Packers, they have one shot, not 100 to make the right decision. A decision revolving around a 50/50 probability but also revolving around many other factors having nothing to do with math.

Why do you keep saying 50/50... Everything that I have seen was around 57% going for two and 37% of going into OT. Those aren't close to the magical 50/50. 20% better chance of victory is HUGE.

So by probability and statistics, AZ wins the game before it even begins, why play the game? Math theories tell us that AZ should have been up by 2-3 touchdowns at the end of the game, but they weren't that day. So yes, you do have to take into account the situation and what led to it. Rodgers gets tackled on the touchdown pass to Janis and is shaken up and its unknown if he can continue, do you still go for 2 with Tolzien?

Because there wasn't a zero percent chance of victory, if it was absolute zero then you wouldn't have to play the game.

As I said, just because you would probably guess that flipping a coin 10 times would give you five heads and five tails doesn't mean it can't be 9 heads and 1 tails.

And to answer the Tolzien question yes... If he isn't going to get 2 how the F is he going to drive the field. You don't get different players. The only time that would come into account is if Aaron could come back in OT but couldn't do the 2 pt. In that case your odds change because you are not using the same players. Otherwise if you are stuck with Tolzien, I'd rather him go 2 yards then 60. It's much more likely to get a favorable outcome once. Then it is to happen 10 times in a row.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

37% of going into OT.

Let me get this straight, you are saying there was a 37% chance of the Packers winning this particular game in overtime? Or are you saying that in 100 situations the visiting team has a 37% chance of winning in OT? I highly doubt its the second, since this isn't the case.

Because if you are saying the first is correct, you are changing a statistical model and inputting variables not used in any other situation but this particular one. So if you are going to apply that theory of thought, you must go back to the beginning and apply it to the decision to even go for 2. What were the Packers odds of making 2, using the same methods that you used to derive the 37%. Remember to take into account the same variables and not just use "The league average or the Packers average"...I want to know what was the probability of the Packers making 2 points against the Arizona Cardinals on that day, in that particular moment.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And to answer the Tolzien question yes... If he isn't going to get 2 how the F is he going to drive the field. You don't get different players. The only time that would come into account is if Aaron could come back in OT but couldn't do the 2 pt. In that case your odds change because you are not using the same players. Otherwise if you are stuck with Tolzien, I'd rather him go 2 yards then 60. It's much more likely to get a favorable outcome once. Then it is to happen 10 times in a row.

I never said Rodgers was out for the rest of the game, just that Tolzien would have to come in for the 2 point conversion. But again, my point is.....your decision just wavered because the variables changed, thus changing the probability of the outcome. Flipping a coin is simple probability, 50-50 and like you pointed out, that doesn't mean you can't have heads come up 15 times in a row. But flip that coin a million times......and chances are 1/2 will be heads and 1/2 will be tails. But using probability in Football is a lot more complicated and doesn't take all the unknown or changing variables into consideration. They don't get to run that same play a million times to have the odds work the way they were suppose to. I'm fine with someone saying "In the NFL there is a 47% chance of the visiting team winning in Overtime", since that is pure stats of a lot of data. But to use that number and say "The probability of the Green Bay Packers winning in Overtime against the Cardinals last Saturday when time ran out was 47%". I don't agree with this. At that particular moment, the probability could have been any number, based on all the variables leading up to the time frame of that one particular instance. Coaches obvious are fully aware of the odds of success of decisions like this, but they use that along with many other factors in making the final decision.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

I think we've pretty much covered the advantages/disadvantages to both situations and I agree that going for 2 was a statistically 'better' option. What I have an issue with is when people say going for 2 was the 'right' option, which implies forcing overtime was the 'wrong' decision. Personally I don't think there is a right/wrong decision here, just one is better than the other. If the Packers had won in overtime, which they could have, would is still have been the wrong decision?

 

[Un4GivN]

Let me get this straight, you are saying there was a 37% chance of the Packers winning this particular game in overtime? Or are you saying that in 100 situations the visiting team has a 37% chance of winning in OT? I highly doubt its the second, since this isn't the case.

Because if you are saying the first is correct, you are changing a statistical model and inputting variables not used in any other situation but this particular one. So if you are going to apply that theory of thought, you must go back to the beginning and apply it to the decision to even go for 2. What were the Packers odds of making 2, using the same methods that you used to derive the 37%. Remember to take into account the same variables and not just use "The league average or the Packers average"...I want to know what was the probability of the Packers making 2 points against the Arizona Cardinals on that day, in that particular moment.

Once again I am not... I am not wanting to re-do everything again but the basics are.

Packers score near 60% on 2pt conversions.

They score on normal drives 35% of the time. and of those 20.8% touchdowns.

Take into account you have to win a coin toss... 50% - if you win you have 20% chance to win, 17 percent chance for a FG, and 63% chance to do nothing. Then Arizona scores touchdowns on 28% of their drives by comparison. and 45% overall, and a much lower 55% chance they don't score anything. Then you add in the fact that over the course of the year Arizona's defense is also better.

On the flip side you can figure Arizona's odds are even better if they win the coin toss. Taken the fact that every fact of going to OT favors them winning, there offense vs our defense and vise versa you can see how the rate would be well below 50% as you are suggesting.

That is without adding outside variables... Just historical data from 2015 season, you can conclude that the odds are not near 50/50. As the more opportunity for plays the average is likely to come back to mean.

If you break it down to just data of Arizona vs Green Bay it gets much much worse for putting the game into OT. And the choice is near obvious.

I really am done with this conversation, if a person can not logically think their way through the decision no more data that I add will get them there.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you break it down to just data of Arizona vs Green Bay it gets much much worse for putting the game into OT. And the choice is near obvious.

Now you are talking something I agree with. Take out the stats of overtime, since they would not exist when this decision had to be made. How were the Cardinals a better team, giving them a better chance in OT, that day?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Why do you keep saying 50/50... Everything that I have seen was around 57% going for two and 37% of going into OT. Those aren't close to the magical 50/50. 20% better chance of victory is HUGE.

Packers score near 60% on 2pt conversions.

You keep using a very small sample size (six tries) to state your claim and come up with a huge statistical advantage to try the two-point conversion. If, for example, you include all Packers 3rd- and 4th-and-2 plays from this season (38.5%) or take a look at the team´s conversion rate on two point attempts from the last five seasons (38.9%) the probability to win in overtime suddenly becomes higer than going for it there.

So, the mathematical evidence supports both options depending on which set of data is being used.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Just from an informational perspective, the stat I would love to see is: In the history of the NFL, what % of teams have chosen to go for 2 on the final play of the game to win it. If this stat is available, what % of those attempts were successful. Same might be found looking at how many teams have chose to kick a tying field goal from the 2 yard line (or closer) or opting to go for the win on the last play of the game.

Even though the second scenario is pretty much the same as the first, I think people on the surface would initially view it much differently. Nor would the results influence my feelings about what MM and the Packers did against AZ.

 

[Half Empty]

Just from an informational perspective, the stat I would love to see is: In the history of the NFL, what % of teams have chosen to go for 2 on the final play of the game to win it. If this stat is available, what % of those attempts were successful. Same might be found looking at how many teams have chose to kick a tying field goal from the 2 yard line (or closer) or opting to go for the win on the last play of the game.

Even though the second scenario is pretty much the same as the first, I think people on the surface would initially view it much differently. Nor would the results influence my feelings about what MM and the Packers did against AZ.

I remember a really, really cold game in the '60s.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I remember a really, really cold game in the '60s.

Hmmmm.....Dec. 31st 1967? I've read about that game. But come on, that was from 2 feet away and on sheer ice...Starr skated into the end zone!

 

[Tacklynn]

Just wondering...For those of you who said you wanted MM to go for 2 after the Miracle Touchdown catch by Janis--if the 2-pt conversion had failed, would your reaction have been something like, "I admire the gutsy call. It was the right thing to do. We didn't execute it, but it was the right call. I'd say do it again next time." ? Be honest, now.

For me, I'd be more upset with the going for 2 if we didn't make it than I was with the going for the tie and the debacle that followed. But I tend to be risk averse and have never coached anything.

------------------------------

Another 2-pt related question. In the Patriots-Bronco game, the Patriots had to go for the 2 pts at the end and they failed. Does what happened in that scenario change or reinforce your opinion on what the Packers should have done when they had a choice to go for 2? Or does it bring up any other 2-pt insights? Thanks.

 

[Pkrjones]

Just wondering...For those of you who said you wanted MM to go for 2 after the Miracle Touchdown catch by Janis--if the 2-pt conversion had failed, would your reaction have been something like, "I admire the gutsy call. It was the right thing to do. We didn't execute it, but it was the right call. I'd say do it again next time." ? Be honest, now.

For me, I'd be more upset with the going for 2 if we didn't make it than I was with the going for the tie and the debacle that followed. But I tend to be risk averse and have never coached anything.

------------------------------

Another 2-pt related question. In the Patriots-Bronco game, the Patriots had to go for the 2 pts at the end and they failed. Does what happened in that scenario change or reinforce your opinion on what the Packers should have done when they had a choice to go for 2? Or does it bring up any other 2-pt insights? Thanks.

Multi-question answer here...
- After last year's NFC Championship game where MM "settled" for FG's and didn't capitalize on Russell Wilson's 0.00 passer rating throughout 55 minutes of the game I've been PO'd at MM's conservative play calling... so I was one screaming after the Hail Mary TD to go for it and end the game NOW. I would have been down if they had lost after a failed 2 pt. try, but would've admired MM for growing a pair and going for the win.
- Opinion doesn't change after NE's failed attempt, or AZ's & Carolina's successful attempts. If you have a QB with speed (Rodgers, Newton) it should be a QB run with 10 guys blocking. Palmer & Brady are old/slow so pass play is the right call in most cases, however a pass is much more risky as the throw & catch need to be "on" and you're counting on the receiver beating the defender.

I mentioned it in a "coaching" thread that Clements, if he is retained as a Packer coach, should be named the Red Zone Czar and concentrate ALL of his time/efforts into short yardage formations, plays and SUCCESS which get practiced every day. The NY Jets went from last to first in 2015 in red zone efficiency by regularly practicing short yardage situations & plays.

 

[Sky King]

Just wondering...For those of you who said you wanted MM to go for 2 after the Miracle Touchdown catch by Janis--if the 2-pt conversion had failed, would your reaction have been something like, "I admire the gutsy call. It was the right thing to do. We didn't execute it, but it was the right call. I'd say do it again next time." ? Be honest, now.

For me, I'd be more upset with the going for 2 if we didn't make it than I was with the going for the tie and the debacle that followed. But I tend to be risk averse and have never coached anything.

------------------------------

Another 2-pt related question. In the Patriots-Bronco game, the Patriots had to go for the 2 pts at the end and they failed. Does what happened in that scenario change or reinforce your opinion on what the Packers should have done when they had a choice to go for 2? Or does it bring up any other 2-pt insights? Thanks.

I'll be honest here. At the time it had never crossed my mind to go for two. Play for the tie and live another day.

Also, to be honest I never imagined that a 75 yard play would immediately occur at the onset of OT. I was expecting more of a dig-and-scratch type of series from the Cards. You cannot convince me that the play was designed or expected to go almost the entire length of the field. At most, it should have produced a first-down with some extra yards. It was the outcome of great individual efforts occurring simultaneously with failed individual efforts. The Packers seem to have had a knack for being on the losing end of a series of strange and unlikely plays with disappointing outcomes that have occurred during recent playoff games. It's bewildering.

IMHO, McCarthy played it correctly but the desired outcome was betrayed badly by youth and inexperience. Would a more experienced CB have played coverage correctly? Perhaps. But more frequent mistakes are practically a given with a more youthful roster. Youthful mistakes may have happened on the two-point try, as well.

 

[Half Empty]

Of course I'd have been furious at the idiot for trying for 2, unless he made it. Heck, how many times have fans, and some 'wired' coaches started yelling "nooooo" during a play, only to change mid-rant when it succeeds? From the fan side, I have no input, nor do I get paid millions to make the decisions. My only satisfaction is the right to berate the people who do.

If the game had been at home, or our defense hasn't consistently laid down at the end of many games, or any number of factors, I'd probably have opted for the tradition kick-and-play option. My thinking in Arizona was that it was an away game, but more importantly, the Cards were/should have been confused and demoralized - what better time to try something unexpected?

Have to agree with the intent of the first Arizona play, though. Run that thing against a defense that knows its stuff, or can converge on a ball-carrier, or can tackle him when they get there, and it's a pretty routine gain.

 

[Uncle Jake]

I said go for 2 before they even scored....no brainer....one play to win....do you believe in your team? Or not...

If you go for it, then you believe more in your O than your D. If you don't go for it there, then you believe more in your D than your O. There is no option where you do not believe in some aspect of your team. "Do you believe in your team" cannot actually be at issue except in the mind of fans who dice things too finely.

 

[scotscheese]

I also said go for the two during the game, and as i said earlier in the thread as much as i wanted us to go for it, i had no qualms with MM going for the PAT as it keeps the game alive, and hey that coin toss goes the other way then we get the chance to get the TD

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

IMHO, McCarthy played it correctly but the desired outcome was betrayed badly by youth and inexperience. Would a more experienced CB have played coverage correctly? Perhaps.

Evidently you are not aware that it was Peppers who blew the coverage on that play, not a CB.

 

[Mondio]

a beat writer pinned it on Peppers. The Packers staff said it was a blown coverage by a rookie CB that didn't follow him across the field.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

If you go for it, then you believe more in your O than your D. If you don't go for it there, then you believe more in your D than your O. There is no option where you do not believe in some aspect of your team. "Do you believe in your team" cannot actually be at issue except in the mind of fans who dice things too finely.

I think you are over simplifying things. Just because you go for 2 doesn't necessarily mean you believe more in the O than the D. It could be that you have less confidence in your offense to put a long scoring drive together in OT versus getting 2 yards on a single play. Conversely, if you play for OT, maybe you expect to win the coin toss and get the ball and score a td, then you wouldn't even have to put your D on the field.

 

[Claymaker]

Evidently you are not aware that is was Peppers who blew the coverage on that play, not a CB.

Randall blew it, not Peppers.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

a beat writer pinned it on Peppers. The Packers staff said it was a blown coverage by a rookie CB that didn't follow him across the field.

Thanks - I wasn't aware that it was Randall's fault.

 

[adambr2]

Even with the blown coverage they had plenty of opportunities to make tackles long before he got that far downfield.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Even with the blown coverage they had plenty of opportunities to make tackles long before he got that far downfield.

I don't think anyone is denying that. The original question/issue was about who blew the coverage, which has now been confirmed to have been Randall.

 

[Sky King]

Evidently you are not aware that it was Peppers who blew the coverage on that play, not a CB.

Initially, Peppers was the lightening rod in the media. That's what I thought, too, based upon the articles written overnight. However, subsequent articles and statements by coaches in the days following have laid it at Randall's feet. Somebody blew it, that's for certain.