But if they did it could have worked 57% of the time or failed 43% of the time
It all depends on which multiverse you're in at the time.
Had McCarthy opted for the 2 pt try and they made it I would have been ecstatic, and it would have been remembered as one of the ballsiest moves over.
Had McCarthy opted for the 2 pt try and they didn't make it I would have been pissed, and it would have been remembered as one of the stupidest moves over.
The Crusher posted:http://www.sportingcharts.com/...ion-statistics/2015/
Interesting to see Denver, New England, Carolina and Arizona completed ZERO 2 point conversions in 2015. The only team to try one was Denver (and NE in the playoffs).
Let's beat this horse...
All are near the top or NFL leaders in point differential...no need to go for 2 with big leads.
Hungry5 posted:Had McCarthy opted for the 2 pt try and they didn't make it I would have been pissed, and it would have been remembered as one of the stupidest moves over.
If MM had later explained himself and his decision with reasoning similar to the list of points I presented on the previous page, how would you argue that it was one of the stupidest moves [over] ever?
Hungry5 posted:Lesser team?
"We're nobodies underdog."
"That's a losers mentality."
"Statistics are for losers."
He can say that all he wants. Reality is they were 7 point underdogs.
Freesafety, no one would remember the reasons. And, McCarthy would never give us that much detail.
So it would be misremembered as one of the stupidest moves over?
Attachments
Images (1)
FreeSafety posted:Hungry5 posted:Had McCarthy opted for the 2 pt try and they didn't make it I would have been pissed, and it would have been remembered as one of the stupidest moves over.
If MM had later explained himself and his decision with reasoning similar to the list of points I presented on the previous page, how would you argue that it was one of the stupidest moves [over] ever?
If he went for two and failed, there would probably be as much or more discussion on why he didn't go for the tie. Damned if you you, and damned if you don't.
Which is what this 8 page thread basically is.
I can't imagine "going for the win" ever resulting in 8 pages of boneheads ripping on the head coach. Do you, or do you not, pay a coach to win?
I don't care who you are, what team you are, how good or bad you are, and/or how good or bad the opponent is - if you get an opportunity for your offense to have one shot at going TWO YARDS, winner take all, you do it. PERIOD.
Nobody could eviscerate the head coach in the press for going for the win. People might try, but there's no way it would gain any traction. No way.
Thunderbird posted: If he went for two and failed, there would probably be as much or more discussion on why he didn't go for the tie. Damned if you you, and damned if you don't.Which is what this 8 page thread basically is.
valid point , but I think the general opinion would be major props for going for the win, especially in light of last years debacle. MM was vilified for being so conservative in that game and he expressed that he would change his philosophy. AR even questioned our aggressiveness after that one
he had the golden opportunity to put his money where his mouth was...and he backed down again.
If anybody can produce a news article about a football coach being criticized for going for two for the win instead of the tie at the end of the game and not getting it, please post a link. And I don't care what level of football, from Pee-Wee through High School, College and up.
I've had no luck finding one.
Every ****ing person questioning MM for going for two or not going for two has a substantial number of seminal fork in the road moments in their own lives that they look back on and wonder "what if". You made that decision. Yet you openly question this one.
We all want to see the alternate ending because we didn't like the directors cut. But that ain't how life's decisions work.
So you are saying I should have went left, right?
ChilliJon posted:if NE kicked FG's the last two trips inside the 20, they'd be down 2.
Every ****ing person questioning Belichick not kicking a FG has a substantial number of seminal fork in the road moments in their own lives that they look back on and wonder "what if". You made that decision. Yet you openly question this one.
We all want to see the alternate ending because we didn't like the directors cut. But that ain't how life's decisions work.
What if Denver scored during that period whe NE kicked the field goals? What if they scored twice?
Yogi Berra said, "When you come to the fork in the road, take it."
"12 Monkeys" is the greatest time travel movie of all time
Eddie Lacy said: I've never seen a fork that I didn't use to eat something.
CAPackFan95 posted:ChilliJon posted:if NE kicked FG's the last two trips inside the 20, they'd be down 2.
Every ****ing person questioning Belichick not kicking a FG has a substantial number of seminal fork in the road moments in their own lives that they look back on and wonder "what if". You made that decision. Yet you openly question this one.
We all want to see the alternate ending because we didn't like the directors cut. But that ain't how life's decisions work.
This is your comp? You're better than this. **** man. You said it yourself. Denver gave NE every chance to steal that game. Coaches being morons. Right?
We're saying the same thing. Just don't try and make me be your argument.
Trust me, I'm not better than anything or anyone. Well, my home bar is probably way better than most peoples, but other than that, notsomuch.
That said, I'm not sure we're saying the same thing. I didn't write that response because I disagreed with your take on BB and FG's there.
During the Denver game, I said NFL coaches are morons, mainly due to the conservatism of Kubiak. You agreed during that game thread. You also questioned BB's decision in hindsight and during that game. Have at it! I think it's a great discussion. (In that instance, I think he should have kicked on that drive with 6 to go, but totally agreed to go for it with 2 minutes to go, because if you kick the FG with 2 to go, you're still down 5, and then you probably onsides kick, but maybe not! But, if so, most likely Denver recovers and has great FP and worst case pins you extremely deep to score the go ahead TD with minimal time remaining) No matter, it's a good discussion if one can come with strategic and rational reasoning. That's the point of sports message boards! I have no issue if you disagree with me on that!
The reason I wrote that is, in the NE/Den game, questioning calls after the fact is A-OK with you, yet, in this thread, where many people have posited rational and thoughtful positions on why going for 2 pts was the correct and most optimal call (and it was!), you are lecturing them as if they questioning McCarthy is not something Packer fans should do.
Either coaches are humans that are not always correct (and often conservative morons) and can be questioned; or they are infallible geniuses that can't be questioned. I'm in the camp of the former. You seem to be in the camp of the former, unless its Mike McCarthy where you lecture those that questioned his call.
I have no issue questioning Mike McCarthy or Kubiak or Lovie Smith or Belichick when I think they make poor decisions. I don't think McCarthy deserves a pass simply because he's coaches the team I root for or because he won a Super Bowl 6 years ago.
This conversation between us is is best served separating the Denver game and the Green Bay game. It's two different arguments. And maybe best offline
MoonBat posted:Nobody could eviscerate the head coach in the press for going for the win. People might try, but there's no way it would gain any traction. No way.
How long have you been asleep?
MoonBat posted:I can't imagine "going for the win" ever resulting in 8 pages of boneheads ripping on the head coach. Do you, or do you not, pay a coach to win?
I don't care who you are, what team you are, how good or bad you are, and/or how good or bad the opponent is - if you get an opportunity for your offense to have one shot at going TWO YARDS, winner take all, you do it. PERIOD.
Nobody could eviscerate the head coach in the press for going for the win. People might try, but there's no way it would gain any traction. No way.
I dont have any data to back this up, but I think most coaches go for the tie and take their chances in OT, rather than risk the game, and in this case the season, on 1 final play.
Its akin to criticizing a coach for punting on 4th and short when you wanted them to go for the 1st. It's easy to say the coach should have done this instead of that.
As I said earlier, the coach is damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
No he isn't.
One decision has many valid points and arguments to back it up and the other doesn't.
Other than Cobb was out of the game, the arguments for going into OT in that specific scenario are not even close to equal in number or substance to the arguments for going for two.
What is wrong with criticizing a coach for punting on 4th and short? If he made a bad decision.....he made a bad decision.
And the college rules are so different that is not a valid comparison.
El-Ka-Bong posted:"12 Monkeys" is the greatest time travel movie of all time
If young James Cole had tripped Dr. Peters in the airport the world wouldn't have ended.
Fontenot, short yardage game planning. I win.
bvan posted:What does Fedya think about your rating?
I don't think about El-Ka-Bong.
Vivid homoerotic dreams about Bongwater's beard count.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"