gbguy20 said:
The decision to go for 2 after the td was worse than his penalty
***************

wpr said:
Yeah I thought they should have tried it on the 2nd td but not that one.
*************

Nerdmann said:
I never want to look at the chart until 8:00 remaining.
*************

rabidgopher04 said:
They had nothing to lose and everything to gain if they make it. I thought it was a great call.
*************

gbguy20 said:
Didn't have much to gain at all, only helps them to create a tie if dallas kicks 2 field goals. Did have something to lose though and it actually playedf out under that scenario. Kick the extra point you're up by 5. They score a td you're only down by 2. March down the field at the end of the game and now you're playing for a game winning fg rather than a tie. Luckily it didn't matter today, but it almost did. You don't go for 2 until you have too.
***********

wpr said:
While I agree with your scenario I want to point out that you are relying on a kicking game to be successful twice. Nothing was certain yesterday. It also may never happen again. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new LS in camp for a tryout tomorrow.

No disrespect to Crosby but I wouldn't mind seeing GB go for 2 every single time. The break even point is being successful 50% of the time. With Sir Aaron under center they would be successful 2/3 of the time or better. They had the right play yesterday Aaron just missed on his pass a little.
***************

gbguy20 said:
I'd be ok with that too. McCarthy just makes a lot of boneheaded decisions. Needs to study time and scoreboard management imo.

***********

mi_keys said:
Going for two means Dallas only ties you if they miss the extra point. Since moving the PAT back, kickers have missed at about a 5-6% clip. It's no longer automatic, as we got a painful reminder. A field goal is still worthless to Dallas if we miss the two point try.

If you kick the PAT, Dallas is going for two. At that point in the game there would be zero difference between a 1 or 2 point lead. If Dallas scores the two point conversion, it's a 3 point game anyway.

When Randall scored the pick six, I'd have placed better odds on Green Bay scoring a two point conversion than stopping one. And if Rodgers doesn't uncharacteristically miss a wide open throw, we do score.
****************
**************
*****************
*************

I;m looking at this from a flow of game and Dallas perspective:

With 9 minutes left, given the tenor of the game, one must assume each side gets 1 possession. The only other plausible scenario was Dallas gets 2 possessions to GB’s 1.

If GB don’t score or gets a TD on their remaining possession, the 2 point decision is meaningless [Unless as GB guy20: we get zero, Dallas gets 2 possessions and 2 FGs]. It only factors if GB kicks a FG on their remaining possession. If GB gets 2, and a FG, theoretically game is over. If GB gets 1 and a FG, Dallas must make their 2 point for OT; if ya get 0, and a FG, we’re assured OT.

I think we all agree OT is bad in Dallas. So facially it seems that going for 2 is the only real choice.

I’m actually glad we missed the 2 point. Because if we made it, Dallas wins that game. Maybe Rodgers’ foresaw what I’m saying and the overthrow was not an accident, all game he didn’t come close to throwing a ball that bad and that was real real bad!


Dallas was ultra aggressive the entire game, even when up by 15. Garrett did not trust his D to stop GB a lick. If GB makes the 2, Garrett is playing it 1 of 2 ways: quick score so he gets a 2 for 1 [I didn’t want to try to live thru that] or he plods and runs out the clock. That read option was a killer play at end, a KILLER and Garrett was saving it. If Dallas was down by 6, they are not leaving Rodgers 1 minute on the clock. Dallas would have called a run, not a pass on play before the TD and Prescott falls at 6” line. Now with 15 seconds left and 2 TOs Dallas has 4 shots for TD. Garrett was only okay with scoring right away down by 4 because he didn’t figure GB would get a TD only needing a FG and he’d deal with us in OT.

The chart says up by 4, go for 2. In a different game, probably, but in this one to keep max control over your destiny, you kick the kinda sure 1 and hope to stop their 2 point. If not ya hope to win in OT.

I think the chart was protecting you from two FGs.

Which in the second half, up to that point, the Cowboys had not been able to get inside the Packers 25 yard line... so the second half did seem like a kicking half.

Packers trusted their players... and the Nelson two point play was wide open. Rodgers just missed him. So it was clearly there for the taking. And Packers trusted their offense could go down and score again, just like Mike McCarthy said, if Rodgers can get the ball, then they couldn't stop him.

---

Agree the chart is about 2 FGs. But there's almost no scenario where Dallas kicks the first FG. By the time they get to FG range, they'll fear GB will just run out the clock. EG, they had a 3rd and 1 at 5:35, if we're up by 6, for sure they go for it on 4th, not kick a 60 yarder.

if they get 9 yards in next 3 plays, they're not kicking a 50 yarder w/ 3:39ish left. If they get 20 yards in 4 plays, they're not kicking a 40 yarder with 3:00ish left. We know they refused a sure FG w/ 2:16 left.

They only way they kick a FG is if they get 50-60 yards on 4-5 plays and think they can get ball back. But Capers was defending against the long play that'd give them a 2 for 1.

Its hindsight but predictable that it would be Dallas' choice to give us the ball back. In this game its predictable that we're not stopping Dallas on their last drive if they had 4 plays to get 10 instead of the usual 3.

This is where Belichek's genius in these situation comes in, he'll go for it on forth in his own territory down by 4 or 5. If stopped they other team gets the feeling they;ve won and 99.99% of times kicks a FG giving Brady one last drive to get 7 or 8.

And that is where Mike McCarthy failed in his thinking. Garrett didn't have to give us the ball back and he wouldn't have if we were up by 6.

Agreed with going for 2 100%. Not only does the offense come out fired up, the defense comes out unprepared.

The bad thing was that Rodgers bad throw got Jordy hurt.

---

What if it's a 4th and 6 with a 45 yard FG as the alternative? 4th and 10? Yeah, if it's 4th and short, go for it. But these sorts of things happen all the time.

Yes, but not Sunday by Dallas!

As it was, the 45 yard FG would have come with about 3 minutes left. If its 4th and 6/4th and 10, Dallas aint kicking a 45 yard FG, unless they think they got a great onside kick play. The 4th and 10 is unlikely, because Dallas is playing 4 downs to get 10 yard instead of the usual 3.

Dallas only kicks a FG if they feel certain to get the ball back after a GB score. So there's one scenario, they get into FG range in about 2 minutes; leaving 7+. Dallas has not been able to stop anyone's run and Jones was unbelievable Sunday. Heck, GB's last TD drive was 7:43 and they got a 15 yard penalty and 22 yard run by Jones. Garrett may not even kick a FG w/ 7 minutes left. Belichek wouldn't!

Study the 4Q of NE-Denver PO game 2 years ago. Belichek lost because he didnt kick the FGs LOL, but I'm sure he was more confident in his D to stop Manning than Garrett's D stopping Rodgers. Garrett would have adopted the exact thinking, he exhibited his absolute distrust of his D throughout the game.

Regardless of whether going for two was the right move or not (I liked the decision at the time, and despite the arguments pro and con, I'm still comfortable with it overall), I still can't wrap my head around the fact that the Green Bay Packers failed to convert on not one, not two, but three tries and still managed to come out on top. When was the last time a team missed three tries in a single game and won? For that matter, win or lose, when was the last time a team missed two point-after attempts and a two-point try in the same game? That has to be an exceedingly rare occurrence.

---

Always pragmatic

---

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that comment, but in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't being negative. I think it's pretty awesome that Green Bay managed to overcome that kind of adversity and engineer a win.

---

I know you weren't being negative. You rarely are.



It's one of the reasons l enjoy your posts. Unlike other posters, who can be more unyielding and fanatical in their opinions, you tend to not be as emotional one way or the other. Even in non sports related posts I don't feel like i have been bludgeoned when I read your comments.

---