The only prayer the Packers would have had is to play Seattle in GB and then play that game in bone shattering cold weather. So ridiculously cold neither team could do schit in the air. So that maybe gives you a shot with none of your top WR's.
But sadly, then there's the SB that would be playing in perfect conditions. And the AFC team would thoroughly kick our ass.
Agree on the Packers chances the following week unless they could get some defensive scores. But you have to try.
And if they blow the 2 point try and lose , MM comes up to the podium and says,
1. We had the momentum in our favor, AR and the OLine and Janis were hot.
2. We were pretty banged up and tired and I didn't want to extend the game any longer when I had a chance to win it right there.
3. My/our recent OT history isn't good, I wanted to avoid OT if at all possible.
4. I didn't want to take a chance on the coin flip, where we wouldn't get a chance with the ball.
5. You want your best players on the field in crunch time. AR is our best player. I am not going to have the game decided with out best player on the bench.
Who is gonna argue with him?
Nobody.....if they won
You just completed one of the most demoralizing plays in playoff history, you needed 2 yards. You had a long time during the review to craft your plans. I was saying it immediately after the score, this isn't hindsight. Take your shot to win right there, why depend on the flip of a coin or a fluke TO or deflected pass or broken play to determine your outcome.
Yes! Of course, I am a fan of a team going for 2 in that stadium! I thought AZ had no timeouts and was shell shocked at the time.
With the new OT format, I can understand not going for it, but we were screaming for going for it here. Straight up balls call that would have been.
How is playing for overtime a no brainer? Packers are now 0-8-1 in their last 9 overtime games. The only game they've won was the Denver game in 2007. Rodgers has never won an overtime game.
You need 2 yards. Yet somehow winning a coin toss, moving the ball 80 yards and scoring another TD is a better option? It makes no sense.
gbIdaho posted:Yes! Of course, I am a fan of a team going for 2 in that stadium!
I remember that play. Combined with the hook and ladder TD earlier in the game it was one of the most awesome endings in college history.
CAPackFan95 posted:You just completed one of the most demoralizing plays in playoff history, you needed 2 yards. You had a long time during the review to craft your plans. I was saying it immediately after the score, this isn't hindsight. Take your shot to win right there, why depend on the flip of a coin or a fluke TO or deflected pass or broken play to determine your outcome.
It's true. He said it in the chat room & I think I can pull the transcript with times if you really need to see it & don't believe either of us.
Every situation is different. In most situations I kick the 1 & move along.
Not this time. This time I take my chances & hopefully get my team to advance.
2 yards....1 play. All the marbles
I was at a party when Janis caught the TD and I immediately turned to my wife next to me and said "they should go for two, but won't". Never in a million years would MM have gone for two in that situation.
The Packers red zone short yardage plays have been wanting the last couple of years. I would guess that the plays the Pack had drawn up for a 2 pt play most likely included Cobb.
2 things to think about if you are MM
Could have been a butterfly wing 2 points.
2nd round of playoffs coasting on competence.
The old addage says you go for the tie at home, go for the win on the road.
When regulation ends as it did and you have the adrenalin and momentum on your side, I say you go for it, rather than letting the Cardinals settle back in and regroup.
Can you elect to go for two from the 33, cause then it would be the right call (after two consecutive false starts).
Can't throw a hail mary from the two yard line.
Bong, I pride myself on usually knowing what you are talking about or referencing, but I am lost on this one. 
On the other hand I got it and I agree
Belichick would've kicked.
Probably, but the Patriots don't have an almost unbelievably bad playoff OT history.
FreeSafety posted:Bong, I pride myself on usually knowing what you are talking about or referencing, but I am lost on this one.
The only successful play from the last few weeks has been the pass interference play and the hail mary. You cannot throw a hail mary from the 2 yard line, so if Mike wanted to go for two with any chance of being successful, he would need to somehow back up to the 40 yard line.
Arizona's 2nd half possessions:
3 play -1 yard INT
10 play 74 yards FG
7 play 59 yard INT
14 play 80 yard TD
4 play 2 yard FG
Dom's defense showed the only way they could stop Arizona in the 2nd half was with an interception. MM should have had little to no faith that Dom's defense could keep the Cardinals from scoring in OT. Kicking the PAT and going for OT to me says you feel you can intercept Arizona in OT if they win the coin toss.
Under most other circumstances I kick the PAT and go to OT. With the defense not having answers for an entire half, I put the ball in AR's hands.
Go for two and I said so in the game thread prior.
These are the moves that ultra confident coaches like BB and Tomlin make without hesitation. They get roasted in the media when it fails but they don't give a ****.
El-Ka-Bong posted:FreeSafety posted:Bong, I pride myself on usually knowing what you are talking about or referencing, but I am lost on this one.
The only successful play from the last few weeks has been the pass interference play and the hail mary. You cannot throw a hail mary from the 2 yard line, so if Mike wanted to go for two with any chance of being successful, he would need to somehow back up to the 40 yard line.
Then why expect them to drive for a winning score in OT? I realize you are being facetious, but its a valid point about the offense not producing many drives in the 2nd half.
Even if the success rate of a 2 PT attempt is only 35℅ or so with this team, that's higher than the rate for a normal drive.
El-Ka-Bong posted:FreeSafety posted:Bong, I pride myself on usually knowing what you are talking about or referencing, but I am lost on this one.
The only successful play from the last few weeks has been the pass interference play and the hail mary..... so if Mike wanted to go for two with any chance of being successful, he would need to somehow back up to the 40 yard line.
Disagree.
Short memory?
2 points.
Outlier
Agree.
I have been as big a critic of the red zone offense as anybody. I know what you are saying.
But I gave the Packer offense about a 10% chance of going 80 yards and scoring and the Packer defense about a 25% chance of keeping AZ out of the EZ. I figured they had a 40%-50% chance at the two point play.
No, they absolutely should not have gone for two points.
After some more reflection, I am still no closer to a definitive answer, and I've had more than a day to think about it. One would like to think that McCarthy and the coaching staff would have their i's dotted and t's crossed well in advance should this situation arise, but that's a hell of an assumption to make. Who would be crazy enough to conceive of the Packers completing a 40 + yard Hail Mary to potentially tie the game and send it to OT, or win it outright? Against the Lions, yes, I could see that. Against the #5 defense with a MASH unit for wide receivers? Er, no.
On the one hand, I totally get the thinking "play to win, and if we're going to lose, lose on our own terms, and not because of some arbitrary flip of the coin." I totally understand taking luck out of the equation, and part of my brain says "yes, you had the Cardinals on their heels. This franchise that has, let's be honest, never won a thing in any of our lifetimes, doesn't have the swagger of a New England or a Pittsburgh. They don't have the pedigree, and from Carson Palmer's atrocious play, it's clear he didn't have that swagger/confidence, either. He was clearly playing not to make the big mistake, and when you play scared, mistakes happen. So, going 100 yards in two plays may have just put the fear of God (failure) in them.
On the other hand, the problem with going for two is what has been alluded to already. What play are you going to run with the personnel we have available? We've had problems in the red zone since the 6-0 start. Hell, we had problems in the red zone in the first half of THIS game. While we did well to move the ball with long sustained drives, and looked like the Packer offense I am used to, a part of me cringed when Lacy didn't make it into the endzone on his long run. A two-point conversion is, what, a five yard play? Shorter? We've really struggled this season with converting on third and short. And while we had our full starting offensive line on the field for the first time in a while, they're still not full strength. Protecting Rodgers is one thing. Converting a power run for a few yards may be another altogether. If you don't run, what pass with Janis, Rodgers and Abbrederis as the primary receivers do you feel comfortable with?
I have a feeling this is something we're all going to be second-guessing for quite some time.
No reason to second-guess. No coach would ever go for two in that same situation.
You had a defense that had dominated the game. In fact, you remove the tipped pass TD (replace with FG) and the last field goal (not fair as if we were out of time and would never give them that field position ) and we had really given up 13 points. The D had two picks. Shields had dropped three more and Hayward one. You can possibly make the case for two points if the game had been a shoot out and no one could stop the other team (see last playoff in Arizona where we enter OT 45-45). That was not the case on either side. Going for two points in that situation might cost you your job as HC. Idiocy
0-8-1 in their last 9 overtime games. 0-7 with Rodgers
Dom Capers OT defense history
I would advise this coach to try and avoid OT.
Plenty of reason to second guess.
"You had a defense that had dominated the game."
WTF game were you watching?
RushRunner posted:Arizona's 2nd half possessions:
3 play -1 yard INT
10 play 74 yards FG
7 play 59 yard INT
14 play 80 yard TD
4 play 2 yard FG
Dom's defense showed the only way they could stop Arizona in the 2nd half was with an interception. MM should have had little to no faith that Dom's defense could keep the Cardinals from scoring in OT. Kicking the PAT and going for OT to me says you feel you can intercept Arizona in OT if they win the coin toss.
Under most other circumstances I kick the PAT and go to OT. With the defense not having answers for an entire half, I put the ball in AR's hands.
The Crusher posted:You had a defense that had dominated the game. In fact, you remove the tipped pass TD (replace with FG) and the last field goal (not fair as if we were out of time and would never give them that field position ) and we had really given up 13 points. The D had two picks. Shields had dropped three more and Hayward one. You can possibly make the case for two points if the game had been a shoot out and no one could stop the other team (see last playoff in Arizona where we enter OT 45-45). That was not the case on either side. Going for two points in that situation might cost you your job as HC. Idiocy
Define dominated. Cardinals had 213 yards of offense on their previous 3 drives in the 2nd half.
Exactly.
Why even risk a coin flip giving them the ball first?
So you are going to give them the FG where we went for it on 4th down?
Palmer threw a terrible pass that was deflected for a TD. That was luck and they would have settled for a field goal to make the score 13-13.
Why don't we just go for it on 4th down all the time as well (since our 3rd down percentage is so poor). We are so bad in OT, we should just forfeit if it gets to that point...lol. Joker
The Crusher posted:Going for two points in that situation might cost you your job as HC. Idiocy
As a coach I would be much more worried about losing playoff game after playoff game on the last play of the game because of a play being made by the other team, than I would about being criticized for trying something different to win a game on my terms.
The Crusher posted:We are so bad in OT, we should just forfeit if it gets to that point...lol. Joker
Rong.
We should try and avoid OT if possible when our team is not playing very well. 3 of Clubs.
It's easy to say go for 2 from your couch. Again, no coach would've made that decision.
Monday Morning Hindsight...lol Not to mention you have Abby and Janis as your #1 and #2 for your 2 point conversion. I know Abby caught one but you wonder how many 2 point conversion plays that Janis had even practiced for. Janis was great on a couple hail mary's but I don't know if MM wants to put the entire game into a 2 point conversion fielding that receiving core.
Jon Gruden did. And made it. Others have too.
Pittsburgh goes for 2 all the time, Make most of 'em
I'm taking about going for 2 in that same situation. Every coach would kick the PAT and go to OT.
