Go for 2??

[espnpack]

When we scored our last TD to pull within 1 point...The group that I was watching the game with all agreed (AT THE TIME), that if MM went for 2 we would be ok with that decision, successful or not. (we actually started talking about it during that drive.)

Considering the onside kick, the going for it on 4th down, the feeling of not being able to be stopped, nor being able to stop the Cards, it somewhat felt like it might be the right thing to do.

Now, we all also were OK with the call to kick it and tie the game...So, this is not a bash MM type discussion.

Just curious, did anyone else have any strong feelings for going for 2?

or (more curious), how do you think you would have reacted if we went for 2 and were unsuccessful?

[Bavarian]

It seemed we were on a roll & my gut instinct said to go for it. Of course, alcohol played a factor so it probably would have turned out disastrous & we would be calling for Coach McCarthy's head to roll.

[Half Empty]

Definitely was a consideration. I mentioned it first in my board and chat, and many were on board with the idea. I don't know the stats for success, but with the offensive roll we were on, combined with the 'lose the coin toss, lose the game' mentality, we figured it was a reasonable choice. What really killed me was winning the toss, missing the bomb, and then...

[Jello]

As Gregg Easterbrook of TMQ would say ... MM was making the decision to keep his job. Had they not made it, everyone would blame him. By playing it safe and taking the point he removed scrutiny. I say he should have gone for 2 and challenged his team to win the game.

[Fantasy Ninja]

It all had to do with the clock. Down inside 20 seconds, you go for the win. But the way the defense was playing, you can't allow Zona the chance to score again. McCarthy made the right call.

[think]

Originally Posted by Fantasy Ninja

It all had to do with the clock. Down inside 20 seconds, you go for the win. But the way the defense was playing, you can't allow Zona the chance to score again. McCarthy made the right call.

Since the PAT doesn't run any time off the clock, it won't change the amount of time that Arizona will have no matter what call you make. I thought they needed to run the ball at least once to run the clock down before they scored the touchdown. I felt they should have tried the two point conversion. If they made it, it would have put more pressure on Arizona to score. Arizona should have made the field goal and won the game in regulation time and a successful two point conversion wouldn't have prevented that but it puts much more pressure on Arizona to score. They played from the lead or tied all day. Playing from behind adds pressure.

Going for the 2 points is playing to win. Going for the tie is playing not to lose.

[cgc73]

No, I think it would have been a terrible decision.

We miss it we lose, game over, done. One defender with a tipped ball, a good pass rush, a misfire by Rodgers, or a stumbling ball carrier and we're done, season over.

If we make it we haven't changed their 2 minute drill (or 1:52 drill) one iota. Either way they're going to be going all out to try to get the FG to win (and either way it's just a FG).

If we go for it we just give them one more snap in which they can win the game -- think about it, if we make the 2 we can't win the game with that snap of the ball, if they stop us they can.

[Fantasy Ninja]

Originally Posted by think

Since the PAT doesn't run any time off the clock, it won't change the amount of time that Arizona will have no matter what call you make. I thought they needed to run the ball at least once to run the clock down before they scored the touchdown. I felt they should have tried the two point conversion. If they made it, it would have put more pressure on Arizona to score. Arizona should have made the field goal and won the game in regulation time and a successful two point conversion wouldn't have prevented that but it puts much more pressure on Arizona to score. They played from the lead or tied all day. Playing from behind adds pressure.

Going for the 2 points is playing to win. Going for the tie is playing not to lose.

I meant to state that if the Packers had drained the clock down before the touchdown, then going for 2 is the way to go. Because they left a lot of time on the clock, taking the field goal was the way to go.

[BTP]

Originally Posted by Jello

As Gregg Easterbrook of TMQ would say ... MM was making the decision to keep his job. Had they not made it, everyone would blame him. By playing it safe and taking the point he removed scrutiny. I say he should have gone for 2 and challenged his team to win the game.

could you imagine the people on the Packer forums screaming up and down the exact opposite if he had went for it and not made it?

Going for the Xp was the right call,IMHO.

[espnpack]

Like I said, I have no problem with MM's call.

But, having time on the clock was a factor in why it may have been an option to try it IMO...If it would have been unsuccessful, they could have tried an onside kick...

It is one of those quirky things that happen...

It is a very similar thing that happened in the Philly playoff game in 2004...Both coaches made the conservative call, and both coaches got what the wanted: MM got OT and the ball...MS got 4th and 26...and both coaches lost. Tough, tough, deal...

[think]

Remember; Crosby is our kicker so an extra point under pressure isn't a sure thing. It would be just as easy for that to go wrong. The coin toss is a 50/50 chance even if the defense holds at the end of regulation.

Clock management was poor. You have a first and goal with about a minute and a half left. You need to score and you need to use time doing it. It looked like Arizona allowed the score to preserve time.

[cgc73]

It would be just as easy for that to go wrong.

Sure Crosby could miss an XP -- but to say it would be "just as easy" is laying it on pretty thick, the odds aren't remotely similar.

[SoCalPackFan]

I was talking with a couple of other Packer fans around me at the game at that time also, asking what they're thought was on the going for two. We all would have been fine with it. But as the drive continued, I started thinking about the odds. If the Packers score and go for two, I'd give them about a 40% chance of making it. That would also leave plenty of time on the clock for the Cardinals to drive down the field for a FG. So I'd put the chance at victory by going for two at about 25-30%. If they make the PAT, then it would depend on the Cardinals not scoring with the time they had left, and the Packers scoring first in overtime. I'd put that chance at about 45%. By taking the PAT, I think they made the best move percentage-wise to win the game.

[pkrbkr]

old saying---play for the tie on the road--the win at home.

[NYPACKER]

Going for 2 at that point in the game would have been assinine....if there had been less than 20 seconds left on the clock it would have been an interesting decision & I think the odds may have favored going for 2 vs. the odds of winning the coin toss & driving for winning points.

[Jello]

Originally Posted by BTP

could you imagine the people on the Packer forums screaming up and down the exact opposite if he had went for it and not made it?

Going for the Xp was the right call,IMHO.

Sorry, but the average NFL play goes for 4.5 yards. Going for it was statistically a safe decision. MM wanted to keep his job. Imagine the amount of energy in that huddle had MM order in to AR, we are going for the win, ties are for pussies.

[NYPACKER]

Originally Posted by Jello

Sorry, but the average NFL play goes for 4.5 yards. Going for it was statistically a safe decision. MM wanted to keep his job. Imagine the amount of energy in that huddle had MM order in to AR, we are going for the win, ties are for pussies.

...2 pt. conversions are made 44% of the time but this is not the point! Yes in retrospect with Rackers missing the FG we win...if we'd made the 2 pt. conversion. MM played the odds & got what he wanted ...the ball & a chance to win. AR missing on the first play & the holding / non roughing call on the second play were really the plays of the game. Even if AR had not fumbled, with us punting from deep in our own territory I doubt that we could have stopped the Cards from scoring. MM made the right call, put his players in position to win the game...they just didn't make the plays in OT.

[cgc73]

Sorry, but the average NFL play goes for 4.5 yards. Going for it was statistically a safe decision

Is the 2 yard line with only one snap available to the offense statistically the average place to start a play? No? Then why are you bringing up the average result in a down-and-distance that's not average?

I already said it but I'll say it again: Going for two, assuming no penalty, ends up with one of two results. We make it, in which case we've taken the lead but we haven't won the game by any stretch with 1:54 left on the clock. Or we miss it, in which case Arizona wins.

Why would a coach gift wrap to the other team an opportunity to win the game on any given snap when they don't have to? The cost-benefit is all on the Cardinals side, we can deal them a nice punch but we can't knock them out, they on the other had can knock us out.