Should The Packers Have Went For 2?

just about to post the same thing. we had a 20+ person game watching party screaming to go for 2

the hail mary was luck, you gotta roll with that.... coulda ended it right there

Gone

Saw

Yes

Regular season I go for it, not so sure in the playoffs.

No - AZ had only scored 2 TD's. Palmer was begging the Packer to intercept his passes. Just a freaky ending. If we had to lose this way, I'm glad #11 made the play. Hard to find more class in the NFL than with Fitzgerald.

No, take your chances in OT. 

I vote no.

No.  People love patting themselves on the back when their hindsight is 20/20.

No

I vote no. don't limit yourself to one chance. In OT anything can happen.

No. Stupid question.

No. But I wondered.

Both? Only go for two it it works. Otherwise, SACK PALMER!!!!!

No, Kill Palmer......JMHO.    Still sick......should have won this game.  

I honestly felt like it was our best chance to win the game.

Most times I vote "no"...this time I vote yes.

I would've rather lost it by missing the 2 point conversion than the way we lost it in OT

Play for the tie at home, go for the win on the road.  The Cards were shocked, it may well have worked.  Think Seattle last season. 

Maybe...but NO.

McCarthy would have been crucified here and everywhere if they had gone for 2 and not made it.

The right football play is the kick and take a shot in OT.

Sometimes, you need to NOT play it "according to Hoyle"

I felt like this was 1 of those times.

No you don't, though considering the track record of this team in the playoffs in OT....I guess so

Seriously though, no, you don't. They had Arizona at their own 20 and the defense HAD played well all game. They simply blew it on that drive by blowing coverage in spectacular fashion.

Without knowing what we know now. Of course not. Media and fans would have eviscerated MM if it failed.

With hindsight that everyone would be aware of. Of course. 

Is that what is says in the football manual or?

Only 'football manual' rubes would 'crucify' McCarthy for going for the win there in 2016. With the new extra point rule the choice is pretty much... well... a coin flip statistically all other things being equal.

I don't know how as a coaching staff you don't have a 2 point play in your back pocket that you are confident in being better than 50/50.  Being on the road, with the other team getting hometown calls is a reasonable argument for going for it. And being the worse of the two teams overall (let's face it) is also a reason to go for the high variance play there.

It's not a slam dunk Coach Stupid Face game management blunder of which he is all too often guilty of or anything, but I don't think the case for the PAT is very compelling.

No

butterfly wing ish.

With all the injuries the Packers have I would of gone for 2 to win the game. But it was not my decision and I am good with what happened.

Red zone offense has been an issue for years and was an issue in this game. Hell, this offense has struggled in short yardage all year long even when they had their weapons. They made the right call IMO

In the other thread, I said 100% of the time, the PAT was the right call. Now, I'm having second thoughts.

With our full compliment of receivers and tight ends? Maybe. We'd just grabbed momentum in a big way, and I think the Cardinals were in shock. 

But with Nelson, Cobb, Adams, Montgomery and Quarless out? No. That's not at all meant to be a slight against Jeff and Jared-a hell of a lot was asked of those two young guys who'd combined for 11 career catches coming into today. But for a two point play to work, you've got to have incredible rapport with the quarterback on such a short field. There's no room for error because there are so many bodies in close proximity. And I just don't know if Aaron is comfortable enough with them yet in that kind of situation. 

I think tonight, especially, kicking the PAT was the right choice. Carson Palmer spun away from the pressure, found Fitzgerald, and he just ran with all his might deep into our red zone. We could second guess a couple of things, but I choose instead to tip my hat to two guys who each made a hell of a play with the game, and the season on the line. 

Its an interesting thought 

had you known their D would have imploded the way they did in OT I think most people would have said "go for 2" 

a 33 yard XP is also no longer a gimme 

I was asking the question last night as this was happening. It would have taken brass balls to go for 2. I was wondering if the thought crossed MMs mind? It is certainly taking your fate into your own hands.

Had they done it and succeeded, heads would've exploded nationwide.

Same if they failed.

As it is, this was another game for the ages. The buzz is, once again, the Packers play entertaining games. No wonder their ratings are always so high. Facebook friends of mine who are not Packer fans are saying that game will probably be better than the Super Bowl.

Bruce Arians' aggressive approach pays off; take note, Packers

by Bill Barnwell

This year, it was not going for two after the Hail Mary. Kickers hit 94.2 percent of their extra points this year; that figure rose to 97.6 percent indoors, and Crosby was 36-for-36 this year, so let's just be kind and say that Crosby's going to tie the game 98 percent of the time. (Vikings fans will tell you that no kick is automatic.) So 2 percent of the time, the Packers lose without ever getting to overtime.

If the Packers do go to overtime, they're going to be underdogs. The Cardinals were seven-point favorites heading into the contest; after taking out the vig, the implied odds from the Vegas money line suggested that the Packers packers-@-cardinals.cfm/date/1-16-16/time/1305#J" target="_new">had a 26 percent chance of winning the game. Green Bay had certainly played better than they had during Arizona's regular-season blowout in the previous matchup, but they had lost Randall Cobb and needed two Hail Mary completions to tie the game.

It's almost always better for the underdog to try to turn the game into a shorter contest. Taken to an extreme, if you're playing Steph Curry one-on-one and you start with the ball, it's better to play to one than 11, because you might fire off a jumper and get lucky, but you're not going to hit 11 shots over Steph without giving him the ball.

Even an aggressive estimate would suggest that the Packers had, say, a 40 percent chance of winning the game if it went into overtime. Factor in the aforementioned possibility of a missed Crosby extra point and you're down to a 39 percent shot if you kick the extra point. The chances of the Packers converting their two-pointer are almost definitely better than 39 percent. The league has converted 48.1 percent of its attempts over the past three years, with the Packers going 5-for-9. Give the Cardinals credit for a tough defense and take into consideration that the Packers don't have a great running game. You're still going to find it difficult to come up with a scenario in which the chances of winning the game heading into overtime are better than converting a two-pointer.

 Who the hell is going to do all that figurin' after they just scored a hail mary TD?  Kick the extra point there every single time. 

Not me.

I go for two if I am MM.

I will never blame him for trying to avoid OT. Especially on the road.

Why place your fate on the flip of a coin?  You have one of the greatest qbs to ever play and you just went 100 yards in a minute. 

If the overtime rules were different (not sudden death), then you can justify playing for overtime.   Given the fact that they reviewed the pass to Janis they had plenty of time to come up with a good play. 

Defense was playing well in the 3rd, but 4th q they had no answers. It was worth a thought, but I don't think the wrong call was made. 

Barnwell's a good analyst but he runs a close second to x4 hero Bedard in terms of non-board members looking to bust MM's chops over something, anything.

Arians would have looked like a complete goat had the Packers won that game.  His decision to throw the ball late was Denny Green like stupidity.  Luck bailed his ass out more than anything - same thing with Palmer.  Sure, he made that Houdini spin play and pass to Fitz but if Shields hangs on to his poor throws GB wins this one easily. 

I like Arians going for it on 4th and 1 in the 1st quarter at the 10. 

Arians 2nd down pass call in the 4th quarter last night was a terrible decision. If MM would do something like that, he be rightfully crucified on this board and  nationally. 

Having to waste the timeout in the 3rd quarter was probably the coaching/planning problem that cost them the most. If they hadn't done that, he might have been more aggressive in challenging a couple of the questionable spots. 

The Fitzgerald catch challenge was a great challenge. I don't know how that was a catch based on the previous Dez Bryant/Calvin Johnson type calls we've seen before. He snatched the ball and then tripped himself as he came down and the ball clearly hit the ground. I can imagine the guys in New York basically saying "we can't overrule this and give GB this huge a break two years in a row." Dez Bryant made more of a football move (reaching to get the ball to the goal line) than Fitzgerald did last night.

titmfatied posted:

 Who the hell is going to do all that figurin' after they just scored a hail mary TD?  

Well, clearly not Mike McCarthy.  

Even if you win the toss, why force yourself to score from your own 15 or 20 yard line after a kickoff when you can win the game right now by scoring from the opponents 2 yard line? In the Packers' two previous possessions the only way they could even get a first down was on hail marys. If they were gonna go 80 yards for a winning score they had 2 possessions at the end of regulation to do it.

Based on the momentum at the time and MM and the Packers' OT history, nobody will ever convince me that kicking that extra point in that game was the right call.

It's easy to kick the point & go into OT.

It's difficult to make the tough call & go for the win.

In that particular situation, I would've gone for 2 because it was the chance to win the game.

In the end, I know the right team won, because had the Packers gone for 2 & made it, there is NO WAY they are beating either Seattle or Carolina without their top 4 WR's