There were certainly times when both Green Bay's offense and defense rose to the occasion and made some great plays. But due to all of the injuries it appears as if Green Bay was out played by Miami on both sides of the ball over the course of the game.

With that said do you feel they should have gone for broke and tried to win in regulation by going for the 2 point conversion or kicked the PAT and tried to win in regulation?

Personally as soon as Miami made their touchdown in the 4th Q I was hoping
GB would try to go for the win instead of settling for a tie and try to win it later.

For the record I am not second guessing Mike he is HC and did what he felt was best. If I had the headset on I would have probably done the same thing.

---

We just got stood up twice on short and goal and tookbasically trickery to get in. Absolutely not.

---

Hindsight is 20-20. I'd have been no more upset if we'd have gone for 2 and not made it, than I am in losing the game in OT.

I;m def. not criticizing MM on this one because of what PFWT said - we needed trickeration on a 4th attempt to punch it in from a yard out, plus like you said wpr, it's very easy for us to critique when we're not wearing the headset. By the book, I have no problem with what Mike did.

However, the "I will suffer no consequences for my decision' arm chair qb in me says we should have. The team was seemingly playing with house $ at that point in the game since they had been outplayed to that point, I had no confidence that we could drive/stop a drive in OT, so as long as you're there, might as well take a shot.

Exactly.

On one side, I'd like to go for two there. Finish the game in regulation.

On the other side, our defense was playing some pretty decent football near the end of the game. Our offense was struggling immensely. I don't know if we would've gotten the two points if we tried, but it's not a bet I'd be willing to take. Not after that pretty bad sequence of plays and that drive where we had to convert 4th downs multiple times.

No because if we can't convert it we would have a better chance of losing I would take the extra point any day instead of trying to convert and trying a onside kick.

---

We are the worst team ever in OT, but I wouldn't have gone for 2. We're even worse in goal line.

---

At first, I thought this thread may have been inspired by a wish for McCarthy to make an unbelievably bad coaching decision just so he would get fired. But looking at wpr's other posts, I don't think he would do that.

To answer the question, then: I only see teams go for two in that situation when they are the underdog AND they are playing on the road. Neither of those things were true for the Packers. And on top of that, it had just taken them three tries (and a trick play) to score from the two yard line.

As for their chances in OT, well, the Packers had just driven for a TD, so clearly they were capable of getting a field goal in OT.

---

Rodgers seen no one covering the line, moves up and snaps it and take off. That's a trick play now? Sorry, my uneducated guess is Rodgers seen the opening and took it.

---

The Packers are 0-4 in their past four overtime periods. The last thing I wanted was for this game to go to OT. I was yelling at the radio for Mike McCarthy to go for two. I knew he wouldn't, though; I don't know why I wasted my breath.

Yes, they'd gotten stood up twice in a row . . . running the ball. How many times in the past few years have the Packers had spectacular success on the goal line with crossing patterns? Why wasn't a crossing pattern (with run option for Rodgers) attempted?

After the Packers' first 4th quarter three-and-out, I texted zombieslayer that they were going to lose. It's gotten so predictable.

The Packers are still -28 in 4th quarter scoring.

---