As far as I can tell, the last time the Packers had a blocked extra point was in Week 3 of the 2005 season against Cleveland's Phil Dawson.

When was the last time the Packers scored with under a minute remaining? I'd be willing to wager a good deal of money they've done it several times since 2005.

The probabilities were overwhelmingly on the side of giving the Packers offense a chance to score.

I'd love to play poker against Mike McCarthy. I'm confident I could win quite a few bucks against him. I'd be terrified to challenge Ted Thompson to a game, though. That man is a walking corpse.

---

Zero. whether it was a long shot w/ a minute to go isn't the point...the point is that the team at least would have had SOME control of their fate.

Would you rather have an arranged marriage or be able to date and pick your spouse? There is probably a tragic inevitability looming on the horizon regardless :icon_smile: , but at least you have some say in the matter!

I think trying to push it to overtime is like giving a race horse a crutch ... the end is inevitable, just put a bullet in it and be done with it and move on.

The Packers did nothing from the 3rd quarter onward to entice me to believe we had a chance in hell. That is my point. I am not going to ridicule the coach for THAT decision to continue FIGHTING hoping for a strip, a turn over of some kind instead of rolling it up and letting them score, then lose by 7, or get toasted AGAIN by a return in over time.

It's pretty crazy some think we'd have risen to the challenge with less than a minute, one time and flags surely to be thrown that we'd have tied it. And then won the toss, and then scored again when ... nm broken record.

Funny how we don't look at things from the point in time we're revisiting them, instead we chunk it up on the how it ended, something we didn't know at the time. But yea we're being logical in thinking LET THEM SCORE! Because ya know, it was a free for all for us to score that WHOPPING 17 points!

Sorry fellas' I just don't see it, that's all. I think the fact that they could have kneeled down is something most of you fail to comprehend at all and that's bothersome. Open your eyes, think abroad, out side of what you WANT and what COULD be.

---

OK, cool.

Glad it wasn't just me thinking the same thing.

I'm going to give the original poster a +1 for starting this thread.

---

zero...I see the "stick a fork in it" point from a fan's perspective, but a team/coach would rightfully be crucified in the public eye for that mentality.

If you're playing the odds, there is no conceivable way that having the ball w/ 50 sec left is less favorable than missing a 20 yarder...no possible way, regardless of what the team has done to that point. How often do 2 minute drills magically work because a team falls back to prevent?!?

Again, I get the "prolonging the inevitable standpoint," but as a competitor you have to maximize your odds, and having some control of your fate is undoubtedly better.

i actually thought, that the aim of this game is to end up with a W instead of being glad to only lose by 3 instead of 7. It doesn't make a shit piece of difference if you lose by 7 or by 3, so I can't get it that anyone wouldn't at least take a shot to tie it. I can't see any advantage in taking the L in 99.9% of cases.

---

Not only that, but considering how Rodgers was performing on short passes last night, I would have given us about an 80% chance of completing a 2 point play.

---

IMO letting a team score is the sign of a coach that deserves to lose.

I have never agreed with Holmgren's decision in Super Bowl XXXII to let Denver score.

You win by "beating" the team. And you beat the other team by scoring, NOT by letting the other team score.

This game was lost because the team let Chicago get in FG position. Because they let Chicago get in a position where a FG would win it.

Not because they let Chicago run the clock out before GB got one more chance at possession.

This game should not have been close. 17 penalties, zero running game, and horribly inconsistent (to be as charitable as I can) OL play. That's why the game was close at the end, and its why the Bears won.

Not because McCarthy didn't let them score.

If McCarthy would have let them score, I would have rooted against the Packers for the remainder of the game.

If you have to let the other guy score to win, you're a loser.

---

So what you and Kevin are advocating is literal surrender, simply because we "should" have beat that team earlier in the game. I cannot accept that mentality under any circumstances. It's not the point of the game to look honorable in defeat -- it's to win by any means allowed within the rules. Given the undeniable FACT that the odds overwhelmingly favored putting the ball back into the hands of the offense versus hoping for a miracle block, and the decision becomes simply indefensible.

---

My armchair coaching order of operations would have been as follows:

If winning, try to stop them/force a turnover.

In the actual scenario where it was tied, let them score and give your offense a chance to tie.

If I went against my judgement and tried to stop them, you better believe the kicker would have seen the most ruthless rush of his career. I liked the kick blocking nucleus in the middle (would have been better if any of those guys had more than 12" vertical), but I would have lined the rest up on one side and and turned them loose. If they crush the kicker and get a flag, then so be it, but I would make sure that Gould remembered that rush when writing his memoirs.

On a loosely related note, the never ending kick return was pure awesome (save the 2 forward laterals). Can't remember ever seeing one of those last so long.

---