Jelly posted:How many of you were screaming to go for two before the overtime like you are now? My guess is none.
Look... there's a reason it has never been attempted in the playoffs before.
Many people were on the game thread and in the chat room. But good guess.
I understand both sides. I thought tie it up. Others thought otherwise. Our D was playing pretty dang good and thoughts of another INT were floating in my mind. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. How many pages can we really go on about it?
I'm sure if the Pack lined up for the 2 it would have been church like in there.
i would have entertained going for 2 if I had Cobb, my guess is every play practiced for this situation during the week had him in the equation.
Pikes Peak posted:I'm sure if the Pack lined up for the 2 it would have been church like in there.
Good point, I shouldn't have said that.
/oh wait...
Pikes Peak posted:i would have entertained going for 2 if I had Cobb, my guess is every play practiced for this situation during the week had him in the equation.
If that is that case, that is a terrible preparation job by an NFL coaching staff getting ready for a playoff game. And I seriously doubt that was the case.
Our defense played well in regulation. We had all the momentum after the final drive. All you have to do is not allow a TD, and we see the ball again.
Under those circumstances, I have no problem with MM choosing to kick it. Unfortunately, one broken play effectively ended the game.
Lambeau Lobo posted:All you have to do is not allow a TD, and we see the ball again.
Which we hadn't done the previous 2 OT games, but hey, hoping it will happen this 3rd time is a strategy as well. I guess.
FreeSafety posted:If that is that case, that is a terrible preparation job by an NFL coaching staff getting ready for a playoff game. And I seriously doubt that was the case.
Beginning at about 1:15 in he explains his thinking behind not going for two. The available receivers apparently played a major role.
I logged into the chat room. The last 100 posts are there but it doesn't go back far enough to see when we wanted to go for 2 at the time they scored on the hail mary.
This new software doesn't allow logging like the old site except in a "Chat Event" which we didn't have.
Had MM gone for 2 & not made it, I wouldn't have been mad. Disappointed sure but I would've understood the logic. It was their chance to steal the game from a superior team while they were down FOUR WR's.
As others have said the odds of the Packers getting 2 yards was probably 40%. Their best chance to win, statistically. Would it have taken balls of steel? Sure, but even if they don't make it, at least I put the ball in my best players hands & gave our team the opportunity to win & advance. That's all you can ask for as a fan.
CUPackFan posted:Yes they should have gone for two. The Cardinals had a better team, top to bottom, and the longer you draw a game out, the better team comes out ahead. IMO, the odds of completing a 2 pt conversion were probably 50%..........their odds of winning in overtime were easily less than that. But I don't blame MM - I blame the culture of the NFL, which pushes coaches to be over-conservative to alleviate blame.
I bolded a great point here. The NFL coaches are so risk adverse it's not even funny. It's better to play the field position game and blame your defense/credit the other team than it is to throw the ball with 2 minutes left and win the game.
I was at the bar with some buddies. I'm like you've gotta go for 2 here.
CAPackFan95 posted:Lambeau Lobo posted:All you have to do is not allow a TD, and we see the ball again.
Which we hadn't done the previous 2 OT games, but hey, hoping it will happen this 3rd time is a strategy as well. I guess.
For me, the play of the defense in the game should influence the decision much more than outcomes in playoff games in prior years. Our defense played great ball in regulation. Palmer could have easily finished with 3+ INTs in that game.
On top of that, there is only a 50% chance that Arizona wins the toss and gets the ball.
With the injuries on offense, I would not have argued if MM had taken a chance and gone for two, but I completely understand the decision to kick it.
michiganjoe posted:FreeSafety posted:If that is that case, that is a terrible preparation job by an NFL coaching staff getting ready for a playoff game. And I seriously doubt that was the case.
Beginning at about 1:15 in he explains his thinking behind not going for two. The available receivers apparently played a major role.
But the same receivers have a better chance of helping the offense go 80 yards for a game winning touchdown, assuming you either win a coin flip or hope your gassed defense gets a stop?
I agree previous OT losses have little/nothing to do with Saturday night. And while I agreed the D had played a damn good game to that point, they also allowed 10 points on 2 scoring drives in the 4th quarter. I was 100% certain kicking the XP was the right call until I remembered that 4th quarter performance. On top of that, our offense did nothing in the 4th quarter short of 2 answered prayers in a matter of a few plays, that you may never see the likes of again. Harder to image us driving close enough for a FG much less a TD in OT.
But I don't fault MM for not going for 2. That is a lot to track and analyze in the pressure cooker of those final seconds.
Thank you, michiganjoe. I missed MM's presser, and while I still disagree with the call, I accept his explanation.
I'm sure everyone will sleep better now, knowing that I can finally put this behind me.
Teams have a limited number of 2 pt. conversion plays that they have installed for that week based on what they have seen from their opponent when defending the 2 pt. conversion. I'm sure that if these plays involved Cobb, MM would not be as confident running them without him.
Jelly posted:How many of you were screaming to go for two before the overtime like you are now? My guess is none.
Look... there's a reason it has never been attempted in the playoffs before.
Your right, I wasn't screaming, but I wanted them to go for 2 - before the OT - actually before they kicked the extra point.
Just so I am clear, what is it that that hasn't been attempted in the playoffs before?
1) A 2 point conversion?
OR
2) Going for a win vs a tie?
Those are potentially 2 different things. And one has been done in the playoffs - successfully. I don't know about the other.
Chucky for the win with Tampa, though not a playoff game
Also, 2005 marked a return to the playoffs, as the Bucs posted a surprising 11â5 record, despite the loss of starting quarterback Brian Griese and some controversial coaching decisions, including a two-point conversion in the final seconds to defeat theWashington Redskins, who would later return to Tampa and eliminate the Bucs from the wild-card round of the playoffs.
last-minute win over the Washington Redskins in a 36â35 thriller to break that slump. In a gutsy move, Gruden went for the win with a two-point conversion plunge by fullback Mike Alstott
Chucky's a grinder.
I would look at their short yardage efficiency prior to that play to get a little context. I'm guessing with Alstott and Dunn, it was on the high side.
Lambeau Lobo posted:For me, the play of the defense in the game should influence the decision much more than outcomes in playoff games in prior years. Our defense played great ball in regulation.
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. Unless we intercepted the ball, they scored. Every time they had the ball.
The chance of getting a turnover is far, far, far less than the chance of converting a 2 point play, even without Cobb.
The GBP Rules posted:CUPackFan posted:Yes they should have gone for two. The Cardinals had a better team, top to bottom, and the longer you draw a game out, the better team comes out ahead. IMO, the odds of completing a 2 pt conversion were probably 50%..........their odds of winning in overtime were easily less than that. But I don't blame MM - I blame the culture of the NFL, which pushes coaches to be over-conservative to alleviate blame.
I bolded a great point here. The NFL coaches are so risk adverse it's not even funny. It's better to play the field position game and blame your defense/credit the other team than it is to throw the ball with 2 minutes left and win the game.
I was at the bar with some buddies. I'm like you've gotta go for 2 here.
I'd love to see a coach Trump (so to speak) come into the NFL and kick some establishment ass.
NFL coaches should go for it on 4th down a lot more than they do as well.
For God sakes you could play action your way into the playoffs on 4th down throwing the ball with a bad team and a bad QB... if you only had the balls to do it and break trends.
Modeling an NFL coach after Donald Trump seems like a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?
Make the Packers Great Again.....
In this world of yours, would that make Sarah Palin the defensive coordinator or the offensive coordinator? Assistant head coach?
Please elaborate. And start from the beginning.
Here she is.
DH13 posted:In this world of yours, would that make Sarah Palin the defensive coordinator or the offensive coordinator? Assistant head coach?
Please elaborate. And start from the beginning.
Whatever, she'd quit bt Thanksgiving
CUPackFan posted:
Pfft, that nerd probably didn't graduate from high school...
I remember dating Sarge.....I wish I hadn't gone for 2. or 3. or ???????
DH13 posted:In this world of yours, would that make Sarah Palin the defensive coordinator or the offensive coordinator? Assistant head coach?
In mine, she would coach receivers, primarily tight ends.
I would be open to trying her at wide receiver if she can handle it.
CAPackFan95 posted:CUPackFan posted:Pfft, that nerd probably didn't graduate from high school...
Finally, letâs look at some specifics: With Aaron Rodgers at quarterback, in the regular season and playoffs combined, Green Bay has converted 12 of 23 (52.2 percent) of its 2-point tries. This includes 12 of 21 (57.1 percent) when Rodgers throws and 0 of 2 otherwise.
This math says we should always go for two. 
Pikes Peak posted:DH13 posted:In this world of yours, would that make Sarah Palin the defensive coordinator or the offensive coordinator? Assistant head coach?
Please elaborate. And start from the beginning.
Whatever, she'd quit bt Thanksgiving
I wonder if you can see Michigan from the top of Lambeau Field ?
DH13 posted:Modeling an NFL coach after Donald Trump seems like a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?
We've already had one...Vince worked out pretty well.
I can see Minnesota from my toilet!
bvan posted:I can see Minnesota from my toilet!
bvan posted:I can see Minnesota from my toilet!
Jelly posted:How many of you were screaming to go for two before the overtime like you are now? My guess is none.
Look... there's a reason it has never been attempted in the playoffs before.
Would you like a link to the game thread? Your guess is wrong.
Lambeau Lobo posted:Our defense played well in regulation. We had all the momentum after the final drive. All you have to do is not allow a TD, and we see the ball again.
Under those circumstances, I have no problem with MM choosing to kick it. Unfortunately, one broken play effectively ended the game.
The second part of that equation is your offense driving a full field for a TD.
The he way I saw it as it was unfolding was:
