63-yarder

I have to admit I was a serious doubter of how good the 49ers were before the season started but I am a believer now. Their defense was suffocating and mix things up to confuse an offense. On Offense they do just enough to make like difficult on a defense and they have some decent talent.

As for the 63 yarder? what can you say that was a damn good kick.

Such an echo of the last game we lost there.

An inexplicable run before the scoring play. Did Capers and the staff not realize Kapernick is just their Michael Vick? Long gain that should have been stuffed even though they spread the offense.

Then a Hail Mary scoring play. Why no push up the middle since on long field goals they typically get low trajectory because they need the distance?

It was a heck of a kick that never would have happened if not for poor clock management by the Packers.

^^^ Bingo. The kick never should have happened. My recollection might be a bit foggy, but I remember an Arod incompletion when he should have slid in bounds, keeping the clock running, and a head-scratcher time out called by McCarthy.

Yes, Rodgers should have slid in-bounds and not underhanded chucked the ball out of bounds and stopped the clock. S.F. may or may not have used their last time out then. No way they should have gotten the ball back with any time left to do anything. And, not sure why their backup QB was able to run for so many yards to get them into what turned out to be field goal range.

That 3 points is on MM. The timeout was a ridiculous call there in that situation

It really did remind me of the Giants game where you gave a team a gift to end the half and change it from a 1 possession deficit to a 2 possession deficit.

Incredible job by Akers who made up for his bad performance against the Pack as an Eagle in 2010.

I don't think the timeout was the best decision, but it was excusable. That toss out of bounds though is indefensible. Just poor situational awareness.

Another game management blunder, not going for 2 after the last touchdown. May as well get the conversion attempt out of the way. All that delaying it for the potential tying touchdown does is deny you the knowledge of whether you're going to still need another score or not.

Kicking the extra point puts you down by 8. You don't go for 2 there. If you miss you're down by 9. MM played it right

So what? Missing the 2-point conversion at the end of the game ends with you losing as well. Is that potential 2-point conversion somehow easier to score? It helps the TV ratings but it does nothing as far as winning a football game goes.

You're at home. You've been outplayed to that point. MM did exactly the right thing in that situation. Miss the 2 pointer & you put the momentum right back in the Niners laps. Too much gambling already put them in a hole.

And you also make it a two score game if you miss instead of one. You don't go for two unless you have to.

quote:

Originally posted by 4 Favre:
So what? Missing the 2-point conversion at the end of the game ends with you losing as well. Is that potential 2-point conversion somehow easier to score? It helps the TV ratings but it does nothing as far as winning a football game goes.

Boris and Coach are right. No coach in the history of the game does what you're suggesting MM should have done.

MM was bad enough without your piling on.

I'm not exactly piling on MM, heck, I defended his end of first half timeout and put the blame squarely on A-Rod. My god man, chuck it up for grabs 60 yards downfield even, not every situation calls for avoiding a sack or INT at all costs.

Anyway, the "no coach does it" argument is pretty hollow unless you believe that there are no more efficiencies to be gained from challenging conventional wisdom in football.

"You don't go for 2 unless you have to"... well. They did have to, sooner or later, so I don't think that argument really applies. I don't see how it's a gamble for the same reason. If there were 10 minutes remaining in the game I'd agree with you, but at 6 minutes I think the end game is clear enough.

The psychological argument is interesting, but it's not entirely convincing for me. Yes, the Packers would "lose momentum" by missing the conversion, but you'd have to suppose that they'd "gain momentum" if they made the conversion. Maybe their final drive would've been better had they had that momentum.

Sherman is derided (rightly so IMO) for punting on 4th and 1 against Philly as "playing not to lose" where you could easily make the same "well he didn't want to give the Eagles momentum" argument. Or how about "you don't go for it on 4th and 1 unless you have to"

quote:

Originally posted by 4 Favre:
silent killer, just use the reply button instead of quoting the entire message above

A lot of things could have happened that they wouldn't need the two point conversion. A turnover and a quick score or maybe the Packers get a quick field goal then they would only need six to win.

Even if Alex Smith threw the instant pick-6 on the next possession, they would've gone for 2 at that point to tie it up though, right?

4 Favre, I don't thinkg you're wrong, but you're not right either. I don't think it matters when you go for 2, but convention says you wait until the end of the game before you do something that could end the game. I don't think either decision changes your odds of winning, so really it's a moot point. It's like discussing whether you kick or defer if you win the toss. At the end of the day, the only potential advantage of either is psychological.

No way do you go for 2 when down 15 with that much time left.

Bobbled kick return, tackled at the 2, 49ers holding in the EZ gives the Packers a safety....

Smith throws a quick pick and Packers drive stalls at the 35 and they kick a FG with still plenty of time left in the game...

Too many things can happen where you wouldn't need to go for two.

CU, I think there is a benefit, albeit a very small one beyond the psychological aspect, but you're right, in the grand scheme of things it's an extremely minor point to try and make. But it's an aspect of games that I find fascinating, so I tend to ramble a bit.

What gets me is I think most coaches simply defer to an all-knowing "when to go for 2" chart rather than thinking through the situation themselves. They have lot more to deal with than this sort of thing on gameday, so it's probably not fair for me to nitpick it so much. But I imagine Belicheck is thinking about these things