Should The Packers Have Went For 2?

The Crusher posted:

titmfatied posted:

If MM goes for two and they don't get it the whole world is screaming how he was scared to go to over time and that lead him to botch the end of game decision process once again.  Suddenly everyone calling for the 2 pt attempt here flips the script because "he should know better" as the coach.  And they'd be right. 

......................

Looks like someone on this board graduated from high school.

After holding ARZ to 75 yards in the first half, GB gave up 213 yards in the second half.  That should indicate either the Packer defense is wearing down, or the Cardinals have GBs defense that day figured out.  Either way, giving them a chance in OT was not prudent.  Do the math. 

I will only be unconvinced either way if this goes on for 6 more pages...   keeriste

"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

That is not great defense"

I'm not saying GBs defense is great but most teams would be thrilled to force two turnovers in four possessions. If 3 of the above scenarios happen in OT then GB gets the ball back with a chance to win it. If I remember right, even the TD play came after the ball bounced off a GB defenders arm/hand ? Or was that earlier in the game ? 

I would have been OK with MM going for two and letting the chips fall where they may but I think he made the right call kicking the extra point. 

People's minds are made up despite any an all evidence presented.  I will say, however, the PAT people all seem to be hanging their decision on ambiguous HOPE, while the 2-pt people numbers and statistics.

Has ANYBODY in this entire thread changed their opinion from what they came in with?

I now prefer the tangy zip of Miracle Whip over mayo.  So there's that.

If nobody has changed his/her opinion, with over 200 posts attempting to do just that, then that means we ALL suck at convincing anybody of anything.

Nobody cares.

But please keep posting about the efficacy of opinions and debate on a football BB. 

Next up, Schrodinger's coin flip.

MoonBat posted:

If nobody has changed his/her opinion, with over 200 posts attempting to do just that, then that means we ALL suck at convincing anybody of anything.

Hungry changed his opinion 

OK, I was for kicking the PAT but I've been convinced that going for 2 was a worthwhile gamble.

Flip a coin, kill a cat?

I went from certainty of infallibility to uncertainty of the hypothetical. 

I have a circular driveway and I can't get out.

Henry, you convinced me.

No, no I didn't. My post "after thinking about it..." was facetious as I noted knowing what happened, guess you missed that. Since no one knew what was going to happen in OT, regardless of past OT experiences, I was being flippant about changing my opinion.

The 57%+ successful 2 point conversion rate that was posted earlier is all anybody should need to look at.

Nobody can tell me they felt we had a 60% chance of winning in OT.

I realize we were missing the top 3 WRs who probably helped with that conversion percentage, but we were also missing our top 3 WRs if we planned on driving the length of the field on offense.

Henry posted:

I now prefer the tangy zip of Miracle Whip over mayo.  So there's that.

I have the good taste to hate both.

FreeSafety posted:

The 57%+ successful 2 point conversion rate that was posted earlier is all anybody should need to look at.

Nobody can tell me they felt we had a 60% chance of winning in OT.

I felt we had a 61% chance of winning in OT.

DH13 posted:

i have a circular driveway and I can't get out.

Mine is a Möbius strip. 

Henry posted:

FreeSafety posted:

The 57%+ successful 2 point conversion rate that was posted earlier is all anybody should need to look at.

Nobody can tell me they felt we had a 60% chance of winning in OT.

I felt we had a 61% chance of winning in OT.

I carefully tabulated my data with expert stat analysis derived from 30 Russians on a vodka bender.  

My big takeaway is had MM gone for 2 & not made it, I may have been the only 1 applauding but I don't care. Going for 2 was the right call

Boris posted:

My big takeaway is had MM gone for 2 & not made it, I may have been the only 1 applauding but I don't care. Going for 2 was the right call

Totally agree and you wouldn't have been the only one applauding.

I was hoping they'd run the exact same play Washington pulled on them in the red zone a week earlier. Split Janis or Rodgers out wide so the safety is looking jump ball and cheating over, then just run a draw with Rodgers. 

That's why all this hand wringing over the OT format is dumb. Yeah, for the 2nd straight year they lost when Rodgers didn't touch the ball in OT. But MM passed on a chance to let Rodgers win the game at the end of regulation. 

I was on the phone with San Doggy at that point of the game and said, would you go for 2? I said, I would seriously consider it. You win or lose the game, but you have the most control at that moment. I was not saying I would have done it, but man it would be tempting. Put it all on the line.

depends: 

should have went for 2 ? No

should have gone for 2? Absolutely

since this is so much fun I will forward what a friend sent me for more fun  - enjoy.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...h/?ex_cid=538twitter

I assumed we would go to OT, but after reading all the back and forth I would completely been fine with going for 2pt.  I think it would of caught Arizona a bit off guard after the TD.  I don't think they even had a timeout to take in order to go back and regroup after seeing us line up. (I might be wrong about the timeout, not sure if they had one left or not) 

I believe they were out of timeouts too and I think the Cards would have been ill prepared for the two point try. Arod might have caught them with 12 men on the field, giving us a free try.

I'm starting to waffle on that whole Miracle Whip vs mayo thing.  

WolfPack posted:

depends: 

should have went for 2 ? No

should have gone for 2? Absolutely

Should have went 2.  Not enough fibre.

Miracle Whip on a waffle? You may be on to something.

I was cool with either call, but I figured I would let the professionals decide what was best

I would have admired MM's huge balls to go for the win but I understood the call to go for the PAT and OT.  

I could have lived with the results either way.

Throw in a little leather, an excited monkey and breakfast just got weirder.  

Henry posted:

I carefully tabulated my data with expert stat analysis derived from 30 Russians on a vodka bender.  

I used a Cray computer.  I know I am CD - calculator dependent, but some things require advanced math.

Cray Computers 

I asked Seri.  She said it was none of my f'ing business.  Bitch.

Siri told me "that may be beyond my abilities at the moment" 

So "my" means "Clements" in Apple talk. I learned something today. 

  DH

My $.02.  I understand both sides, after having spent 2 hours reading this thread. Go into OT, IMO.  I wouldn't have been upset going for 2, it would have been balls of steel.  But you can't convince me that we had a decent shot at 2, with JJ and JA as our WR's.  It would've been a disaster, our only hope would've been that AZ was all over the place, not ready to defend the 2 pt conversion, which is possible.

I know lots are saying, decide the game with the best player on the team (AR).  I get that, the problem with that, is that AR is just one player.  The best unit that night, hands down was the Defense.  I say go with the D!!  

Didn't  Vince go for the win rather than a tie?

I'd agree, but on the last three drives the D was playing poorly. Scheme or execution, something was messing itup...