That should take the topic another 22 pages.

BTW, I didn't know GB has been 5 out of 7 in their latest attempts. That's a pretty good success rate.

22 pages of groupthink

Mike has always been a 'fan's coach'.  He knew we would need something to chew on in the summer doldrums before the start of training camp.

Thanks McCarthy!

Shorter MM: "The theory may be sound, but we won't be doing it."

Can someone explain what MM means when he says this

"You have to look at the defense, the development of your special teams and so forth. I think there's a little more to the question than, 'Can we score more than 50 percent?' Because I definitely agree with what Ben and Drew are saying, because I would definitely have the confidence to go after a defense and win more than 50 percent of them."

....does making or missing a 2 pt conversion really effect your defense or special teams? 

I wonder how many teams facing the Packers, Steelers, Saints, Patriots etc would love seeing them go up 20+ points at a meaningless point in the game (e.g. the 4th Q) by adding on 2 more after a TD. I could see opponents getting chippy and cheap shots ensuing if they thought any of these teams were running up the score.

The other issue would be a key player going down from injury on a 2 point conversion at a point in the game where the extra point wouldn't make a difference.

It would also suck if a key player went down on the first 2 point try of the game.

Bill Gramatica is not a key player.

Which poster on here is most likely to be Mike McCarthy himself?  It's obvious the 22 page discussion has influenced him in some way.

I don't think that was McCarthy in that article as he is no risk taker.

That beard looks risky

Shaving is even riskier.

Especially if you have dissociative identity disorder.

michiganjoe posted:

Shorter MM: "The theory may be sound, but we won't be doing it."

"THE THEORY MAY BE SOUND,BUT WE WON'T BE DOING IT."

Fixed that for you.

He thinks of this now?  Where was this thinking on Jan. 16, 2016?   

antooo posted:

Shaving is even riskier.

Especially if you have dissociative identity disorder.

I hope you're not suggesting he wax it. 

whew!  with Shea Butter!

Boris posted:

That beard looks risky

I think you need the help of a spelling bee champ.  Any of those around here?

FinnLander posted:

Boris posted:

That beard looks risky

I think you need the help of a spelling bee champ.  Any of those around here?

Not me.  But I have spell check.  Does that count? 

michiganjoe posted:

Shorter MM: "The theory may be sound, but we won't be doing it."

Especially during a playoff game when it could win the game despite a 71.4% success rate during the season.  I STILL think we should have done it.  JMO - but I think MM said he was in favor of it to get the reporter to go away.  I am sure we will be no closer to any answer after 22-23 pages of vicious personal attaches - so let the attac .... I mean posting commence. 

I've known Ghosts, I served with them in the Senate, and some of them were friends of mine. Mr. GOL, you're no Ghost!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWXRNySMW4s

When you own something. When you win something. It's yours. You have it. It's in your possession. It's safe and tucked away and probably tucked away and forgotten. We own lots of things we don't realize we own. 

When you lose something. It's gone. And chances are strong you'll never get it back. You lost it. It belongs to someone else now. And that's disconcerting. Heavily disconcerting. 

What we have pales in comparison to what we've lost. We have a high aversion to losing things. That belief has jammed itself into our historical mental DNA. 

I mention this based on the number of posts of games lost vs. games won. We have a 23 page thread over not going for 2 and now another looking like it's heading for the second trimester. 

Fans remember loses and dwell on them and replay them and agonize over them and hypothetically articulate how changes in events after the fact may have  changed that loss into not a loss. If GB goes for two and wins and loses to Carolina we're just changing the dialogue. 

1997. 4th and 26. The Giants (twice) SF (twice) Seattle, going for 2. Think about how many times those have been relived, rehashed, revisited vs 2010 and even 1996. And when 2010 comes up it inevitably ends up with luck, breaks, or backed in. Green Bay could have lost. 

Its a fascinating dynamic. We hate losing far more than we appreciate winning. 

Very astute observation, Chillijon.  Loss aversion.  Important area in economic theory.  But then there are teams like the Vikings whose fans find loss and failure to be a familiar warm blanket of comfort that tells you that you are home. 

The Vikings fall outside all common rules of logic, reasoning, and fact. They are the the definition of outliers. They lose everything with risk playing zero part of the outcome. Risk is a non factor with the Vikings. Risk is a shield to their impenetrable shell of failure. 

The Vikings Suck. 

I think there is a thread about that.

More reasons to go for 2:

http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...ts-on-going-for-two/

They say MM should have gone for it. 

BTW, the article points out that the Steelers kicked the PAT 3 times more than they went for 2. 

And we are not to page 2 yet?  How can we expect MM to go for 2 if we aren't going for 2 (or 22 for that matter). 

Ghost of Lambeau posted:

And we are not to page 2 yet?  How can we expect MM to go for 2 if we aren't going for 2 (or 22 for that matter). 

Thank you!

I bet 12 gets any two at once when he wants...

between the sheets!

With six, you get eggroll.  

Congratulation!! You sorved revrel.

I like AR rollouts with play action so he can run it or flip it in....