He means Betty White
Hooray!
Butt not all about #2.
Bill Belichick
I feel like we're accumulating pages in an unfair fashion. The issue has been lost.
Had we won, let's speculate on what we would've done against the Panthers on the road.
No way Rodgers stinks it up the way Palmer did, but would Abby and Janis have been able to get anywhere with that D?
They should've kicked in FG in the Super Bowl that hasn't occurred and they're not in.
Not with the offense McCarthy runs.
Tolzien would have started against the Panthers with Hundley mopping up.
I no longer know what is and isn't a catch.
I know Abby put on a great shake and made the catch on the two against the Redskins.
Hungry5 posted:I no longer know what is and isn't a catch.
Did you say 'catch', or 'coach'?
And now that we know Rodgers had an injured knee, it makes more sense to go for two to preserve him for the showdown with the Panthers...
We didn't go for 2 cuz Eddie couldn't tie his shoes.
In this case, an oft-cited factor is that the Packersâ receiving corps was weakened by injuries, including the loss of Randall Cobb earlier in the game. But, as I discussed in the footnotes, anything that makes the Packers weaker relative to the Cardinals is likely to hurt their chances in overtime more than their chances of converting the 2-point try.
Thus, our best (and perhaps slightly conservative) estimate is that the Packers cost themselves about 7.9 percent of a win by kicking rather than going for two,
Can we put this topic out of its misery and lock it?
no, no, no. the flogging must continue until all are sufficiently... proved either right or wrong conclusively by subjective reasoning.
Tdog posted:no, no, no. the flogging must continue until all are sufficiently... proved either right or wrong conclusively by subjective reasoning.
And intimidation
and flatulation
The Packers took the lead, and then came back to tie the game, all AFTER Cobb went down. I can understand a lot of arguments for going for 2, but the lesser chance of winning in OT because they were without Cobb just isn't one of them for me.
Abby and Janis had strong games, especially considering the times Rodgers looked at them when they were open and went elsewhere, sometimes to complete a pass to Starks and lose yardage. His decision making was suspect all game, and gives another reason to rationalize playing for the WIN.
The chances of winning in OT were lesser than completing a 2 point conversion even if you had Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb and Jerry Rice. That is just a statistical fact.
Being down to your 4th, 5th and 6th WRs is a VERY valid argument for avoiding extending the game. In every game, at every level of organised football. I don't know how you can disagree with that.
The Packers took the lead, and then came back to tie the game, all AFTER Cobb went down.
Yet late in the 4th quarter, with a chance to win the game, they went 4 and out and then on their next possession, had to rely on a 4th down hail mary to even get a first down.......after Cobb went down.
Other than the fluke big run by Phat Eddie, the offense was sputtering without Cobb.
I've still seen ZERO links to any articles of a head coach being critized for going for 2 for the win at the end of a game instead of a PAT and not making it. Everyone's argument for the PAT seems to involve the CRITICISM McCarthy would be getting if he went for 2 and didn't make it.
I've seen no evidence of anyone ever having been criticized for it before.
If it isn't on the internet, it must have never happened.
Probably because no coach would go for 2 in that situation.
Bellichick would. Look at him dodging field goals in that Bronco game.
Playing to win. He lost, but he played to win.
YaYa. You have no clue that Belichick would go for 2 in that situation.
H5, lotta lotta experts posting in this thread.
Hungry5 posted:YaYa. You have no clue that Belichick would go for 2 in that situation.
It wasn't a 2 point conversion, but Belichick got some criticism for going for it on 4th and 2 from his own 28 in a game against the Colts in 2009 up 6 with 2:08 left. A conversion ends the game and a failure sets up the Colts in a much better position to win. It's essentially the same type of situation except that the defense did have to guard much more the field (12 yards of depth vs. essentially the whole field).
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes...-down-decision/?_r=0
Not even remotely close. Sorry.
I was trying to remember that story Michiganpacker....
Pikes Peak posted:Tdog posted:no, no, no. the flogging must continue until all are sufficiently... proved either right or wrong conclusively by subjective reasoning.
And intimidation
Raisins.
Boulders would have been lining up for the kick and pulling out the Crabtree special.
MichiganPacker posted:Hungry5 posted:YaYa. You have no clue that Belichick would go for 2 in that situation.
It wasn't a 2 point conversion
cuqui posted:H5, lotta lotta experts posting in this thread.
If only.
Are we to 10 pages yet?
soon
Hungry5 posted:MichiganPacker posted:Hungry5 posted:YaYa. You have no clue that Belichick would go for 2 in that situation.
It wasn't a 2 point conversion
The point is it was even a lower risk proposition than a 2 point conversion since the Colts still had to score a TD even with a stop, but picking up the 2 yards essentially would have ended the game. Even given that, Belichick was still criticized (I was watching the game live and thought it was a great decision).