Things that annoyed me about the Packers vs Queens game...

[CaptainKickass]

A fucking tie?!? I guess neither team "deserved" the W.


-Announcer: Tolzien is one of the "shorter QB's"
-Announcer: Ponder with an outstanding ball on that throw
-Refs with terrible "defensless receiver" call
-Announcer: "tantalizing... ponder" ???
-GDT "Ponder is killing us with the pass."
-"Ponder is having A VERY VERY GOOD DAY
-Thunder Dan trying to tell me to "stop it"
(Really Dan? Does that ever work in a forum?)
-Announcers: "with that kind of hole anyone can run through it"
-"Gerhart with another big run"
- some other chat: "this packers team is making Christian Ponder look like a pro bowler"
-Announcer: "The Vikings have been impressive since the 1st quarter"
- "MYSTERY" review by the refs

Special moment of the game:
I know he meant to say "clock" but I'm pretty sure I heard the announcer say that the Vikings were "trying their best to eat a lot of cock"

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am most annoyed by the fact that the PAckers didn't win. Otherwise it would be a game for the ages.

[denverYooper]

I am most annoyed by the fact that the PAckers didn't win. Otherwise it would be a game for the ages.

This. After the exciting comeback and promising drives in OT, that was anticlimactic.

A tie might as well be a loss. Either way they need to win out to get to 10 wins.

[Carolina_Packer]

Yeah, DYoop, I don't think anything less than 10 wins is going to the playoffs in the NFC. I believe you get what you deserve or earn, so if the Packers are not good enough this year, then they'll have to figure out how to get better next year. They'll have to figure out if it's scheme or personnel and what to do about the under-performing defense. Does Capers get a pass because of all the injuries, or does he pay with his job because something needs to change?

If New Orleans can suck royally on defense the last few years and then hire Rob Ryan and make a transformation, then perhaps that change is needed. It may not all be on Capers, but the buck ultimately stops with him, and he has to get the players prepared to play.

Fix the defense
Get A-Rod back
Get some health/continuity on offensive line
Keep feeding Lacy the ball

Once those things happen, the ship should be righted.

[pittstang5]

What a annoyed me? What didn't.

Def. annoyances:
When we blitzed, they picked it up perfectly
Tackling was piss poor, esp. Against Gerhardt
Containment sucked ass against Peterson....one day I hope this defense will get that but probably not.

Sp. team annoyances:
Same old story, can't get past the 20 and let the other team run free

Off. Annoyances:
That stupid fuckin pitch on a running play.
Tolzien throwing high
Newhouse's best impression of a turnstile.
Batted down balls - I think there was at least 4

[pittstang5]

Dp

[run pMc]

Annoyances:

3rd downs: not converting on offense, and not getting off the field on defense.

False starts in your home stadium.

OL not blocking well. Does Newhouse compromise them that much?

DL letting anyone run wild. That was a pretty miserable performance defending the run, and they sacked Ponder 6 times but I still thought he had a clean pocket more than he should have.

Watching Matthews stunt inside and they run Peterson right at the gap Matthews vacated. I saw a bunch of plays where he took himself out of it and Peterson right to where he wasn't.

Vikings are not a team of JJ Swatts, and it seems like there have been a lot of batted balls so I'm thinking teams are seeing something on tape.

Nobodies and slumping QBs having career games against the Packers. Yesterday it was Rhett Ellison, Chase Ford, Toby Gerhart...even Ponder had statistically an efficient game. Eli Manning & Josh McCown had good games against this D. If Frazier started Freeman would he have lit them up for 5TD?

Dropped interceptions. They've had several opportunities to get a pick-six during this Rodgers-less stretch.

Not keeping a single team -- none of which are serious contenders -- under 25 points during same stretch of games.

I'm annoyed about lots.

[pbmax]

The weird thing about pass blocking is that the Packers rate highly in that category in most indicators and on the advanced stat sites.

It just always looks like a tire fire back there. Rodgers feet and legs saved them from their worst performances and generally improved pass pro has helped Wallace/Tolzien/Flynn.

And to give credit where it is due, Newhouse was less quick to give up yesterday. He was giving up the wide edge but he stayed engaged longer than normal. Flynn was able to find room to operate longer than 3 seconds inside a very small pocket.

[Patler]

The thing that annoyed me the most was their inability to stop ....... TOBY GERHART.
Te rest of the stuff I could live with.

Not that Gerhart isn't a capable back, but he ran crazy on the Packers. With Peterson out the defense needs to make a stop and get the ball. It got to the point that I was glad to see Peterson back in.

[woodbuck27]

A fucking tie?!? I guess neither team "deserved" the W.


-Announcer: Tolzien is one of the "shorter QB's"
-Announcer: Ponder with an outstanding ball on that throw
-Refs with terrible "defensless receiver" call
-Announcer: "tantalizing... ponder" ???
-GDT "Ponder is killing us with the pass."
-"Ponder is having A VERY VERY GOOD DAY
-Thunder Dan trying to tell me to "stop it"
(Really Dan? Does that ever work in a forum?)
-Announcers: "with that kind of hole anyone can run through it"
-"Gerhart with another big run"
- some other chat: "this packers team is making Christian Ponder look like a pro bowler"
-Announcer: "The Vikings have been impressive since the 1st quarter"
- "MYSTERY" review by the refs

Special moment of the game:
I know he meant to say "clock" but I'm pretty sure I heard the announcer say that the Vikings were "trying their best to eat a lot of cock"

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKITSB9pIUccOexs3sDdmx-bEGl8hAS6ZzzEtxlA2vHRuXdxUB

Was your coverage there?

Mine was and FOX sucks the big salami.

[Fritz]

It's annoying that this team's defense is like a rapidly deflating wiener.

[woodbuck27]

The thing that annoyed me the most was their inability to stop ....... TOBY GERHART.
Te rest of the stuff I could live with.

Not that Gerhart isn't a capable back, but he ran crazy on the Packers. With Peterson out the defense needs to make a stop and get the ball. It got to the point that I was glad to see Peterson back in.

It almost seems like their hiding Toby Gerhart who will be a FA at seasons end.

Someone like the NE Patriots should focus on that guy. He's very solid as a back and IMO in terms of use....versatile.

[denverYooper]

It almost seems like their hiding Toby Gerhart who will be a FA at seasons end.

Someone like the NE Patriots should focus on that guy. He's very solid as a back and IMO in terms of use....versatile.

He's a lunchpail, blue collar kind of guy who always gives a workmanlike performance when he's in the game.

The Patriots love that.

[MadtownPacker]

The thing that annoyed me the most was their inability to stop ....... TOBY GERHART.
Te rest of the stuff I could live with.

Not that Gerhart isn't a capable back, but he ran crazy on the Packers. With Peterson out the defense needs to make a stop and get the ball. It got to the point that I was glad to see Peterson back in.Reminded me of this.


http://youtu.be/DSp-Kea5Wp4

[Fosco33]

I would like to understand the %'s for the following scenarios (both down 16 in 4th Q)
1. Score 2 TDs AND 2 2pt conversion (I'd have to say each 2 pt conversion is ~50%)
2. Score 2 TDs and a FG (6+7+3)

I.E., if the Pack hadn't went for the 2pt conversion and just kicked the pat to go down 9 points - we could have won the fucking game...

[woodbuck27]

Reminded me of this.


http://youtu.be/DSp-Kea5Wp4

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTM3Njk0OTAzMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNDM3MzYz._V1_S Y317_CR3,0,214,317_.jpg

A 'Stone Cold' RB.

Don't mess with him. He'll turn you into a pretzel.

[mmmdk]

Packers showed me something yesterday, it was not pretty but I'm "married" to the Green'N'Gold. :lol:...so there! And the 1989 season is still golden to me.

The beauty of a tie...you'll never get it...never! Sadly? No! Just not to be.

[Freak Out]

I would like to understand the %'s for the following scenarios (both down 16 in 4th Q)
1. Score 2 TDs AND 2 2pt conversion (I'd have to say each 2 pt conversion is ~50%)
2. Score 2 TDs and a FG (6+7+3)

I.E., if the Pack hadn't went for the 2pt conversion and just kicked the pat to go down 9 points - we could have won the fucking game...

I was fucking screaming to just kick the EP.....but nooooo....Stubby has to go for two.

[bobblehead]

I was fucking screaming to just kick the EP.....but nooooo....Stubby has to go for two.

Yep, I am on record that you never go for 2 outside of about 4 1/2 minutes.

[Bossman641]

Sorry, but I was fully on board with going for 2. The defense couldn't stop anything at that point and has wilted in the 4th almost every game. At that point, you have to try to make it a 2 score game.

[Patler]

Sorry, but I was fully on board with going for 2. The defense couldn't stop anything at that point and has wilted in the 4th almost every game. At that point, you have to try to make it a 2 score game.

How did going for two change anything, other than the possibility of a tie?

23-14 after an extra point - Need two scores to win
23-15 after two-point conversion - Still need two scores to win.

The only reason to go for two is to bring OT into the list of possibilities. It had absolutely no impact on the number of scores needed to win, even if two point conversions had been successful after both TDs. The negative is that by missing the first and not trying the second, it then required two more TDs or three scores to win.

[SkinBasket]

How did going for two change anything, other than the possibility of a tie?

23-14 after an extra point - Need two scores to win
23-15 after two-point conversion - Still need two scores to win.

The only reason to go for two is to bring OT into the list of possibilities. It had absolutely no impact on the number of scores needed to win, even if two point conversions had been successful after both TDs. The negative is that by missing the first and not trying the second, it then required two more TDs or three scores to win.

Not sure how other people don't understand this.

[pbmax]

How did going for two change anything, other than the possibility of a tie?

23-14 after an extra point - Need two scores to win
23-15 after two-point conversion - Still need two scores to win.

The only reason to go for two is to bring OT into the list of possibilities. It had absolutely no impact on the number of scores needed to win, even if two point conversions had been successful after both TDs. The negative is that by missing the first and not trying the second, it then required two more TDs or three scores to win.


Not sure how other people don't understand this.

16 point deficit. 8 + 8 = 16

If successful, the first 2 point conversion = 23-15

Another TD, which they got. Another 2 point conversion = 23-23

McCarthy said he had no idea how many other possessions he was going to get. I completely agree. I was stunned the D stopped them two more times and given the way the Vikings moved in OT, I think it was the clock killing offense of the Vikings that saved the Packers D in the 4th Quarter.

[pbmax]

Outside of putting Flynn in, this was the sanest decision he made all day. Worst case scenario you need three scores total (2 more after 23-13) to either win or get to OT.

Best case scenario you only need 1 more possession to tie.

Kicking the XP means your only out is 2 more possessions to win.

Odds are much better you get one more scoring drive than two. Esp. considering defense.

[Guiness]

How did going for two change anything, other than the possibility of a tie?

23-14 after an extra point - Need two scores to win
23-15 after two-point conversion - Still need two scores to win.

The only reason to go for two is to bring OT into the list of possibilities. It had absolutely no impact on the number of scores needed to win, even if two point conversions had been successful after both TDs. The negative is that by missing the first and not trying the second, it then required two more TDs or three scores to win.

It would have been an 8pt game. The idea, crazy as it is, was that the Packers would score another TD...followed up by another 2pt conversion, so a 1 score game. Well, if you don't count a 2pt conversion as an extra score.

[denverYooper]

16 point deficit. 8 + 8 = 16

If successful, the first 2 point conversion = 23-15

Another TD, which they got. Another 2 point conversion = 23-23

McCarthy said he had no idea how many other possessions he was going to get. I completely agree. I was stunned the D stopped them two more times and given the way the Vikings moved in OT, I think it was the clock killing offense of the Vikings that saved the Packers D in the 4th Quarter.

It sure sounded like he wasn't planning on the D getting off the field as it did.

[Rodgers12]

How did going for two change anything, other than the possibility of a tie?

23-14 after an extra point - Need two scores to win
23-15 after two-point conversion - Still need two scores to win.

The only reason to go for two is to bring OT into the list of possibilities. It had absolutely no impact on the number of scores needed to win, even if two point conversions had been successful after both TDs. The negative is that by missing the first and not trying the second, it then required two more TDs or three scores to win.

McCarthy was trying to make it a ONE POSSESSION game when he decided to go for two. That was the correct decision, especially since the game was in the 4th quarter when McCarthy made the call. Kick PAT, its a two possessions game. Fail 2 pts, its still a two possessions game.

Past two games, defense allowed opponents to milk clock with 7+ minute drives in the 4th quarter. Convert the 2 pt conversion and defense only needs 1 stop and offense only needs another TD and another 2 pt. Better than needing 2 stops, a td and finally marching the ball into field goal range - all in the 4th quarter.

The latter, the Packers pulled it off against the woeful Vikings. Not gonna happen against, say, the Saints.

In the 4th quarter all the planets aligned for the Packers but they couldn't pull out a victory against a woeful team. The Packers are either a very injured team or they're not a very good team. I would like to believe that the Packers would be a contender with a healthy A-Rod, Cobb, J-Mike, DuJuan Harris, Perry, etc.

[Rodgers12]

If New Orleans can suck royally on defense the last few years and then hire Rob Ryan and make a transformation, then perhaps that change is needed.

Rex Ryan is gonna be available.

McCarthy is gonna need to act fast, though. Rex Ryan, like his sibling Rob, will be out of work for like 5 minutes.

[Pugger]

The thing that annoyed me the most was their inability to stop ....... TOBY GERHART.
Te rest of the stuff I could live with.

Not that Gerhart isn't a capable back, but he ran crazy on the Packers. With Peterson out the defense needs to make a stop and get the ball. It got to the point that I was glad to see Peterson back in.

Who on the D line was in there in the second half? We didn't have Jolly, Pickett has a bad knee, Wilson left the game, Raji disappeared again and poor Worthy was thrown into the game in his first week back on the active roster off the PUP list. Am I missing anyone?

[Pugger]

I was fucking screaming to just kick the EP.....but nooooo....Stubby has to go for two.

I didn't care for that call either. :-?

[Guiness]

Outside of putting Flynn in, this was the sanest decision he made all day. Worst case scenario you need three scores to either win or get to OT.

Best case scenario you only need 1 more possession to tie.

Kicking the XP means your only out is 2 more possessions to win.

Odds are much better you get one more scoring drive than two. Esp. considering defense.

Looked to me like Leslie Frazier has his own version of the 4th quarter phone booth offense you rail against quite frequently. He used it and it allowed the Packers D to look good.

[Guiness]

Who on the D line was in there in the second half? We didn't have Jolly, Pickett has a bad knee, Wilson left the game, Raji disappeared again and poor Worthy was thrown into the game in his first week back on the active roster off the PUP list. Am I missing anyone?

Neal and D. Jones? Don't know where they were lining up, I'm pretty sure I saw Jones without his hand in the dirt on at least one play.

[ThunderDan]

A fucking tie?!? I guess neither team "deserved" the W.

-Thunder Dan trying to tell me to "stop it"
(Really Dan? Does that ever work in a forum?)


I felt bad for Scott Tolzien and people calling for his head. MM called a horrible game in the first half I thought. ARod would have had a bad 1st half with that play calling.

[woodbuck27]

I felt bad for Scott Tolzien and people calling for his head. MM called a horrible game in the first half I thought. ARod would have had a bad 1st half with that play calling.

There's no way that Scott Tolzien should be seriously blamed.

He was merely with his lack of NFL experience 'our wish and a prayer'.

PACK !

[Bossman641]

How did going for two change anything, other than the possibility of a tie?

23-14 after an extra point - Need two scores to win
23-15 after two-point conversion - Still need two scores to win.

The only reason to go for two is to bring OT into the list of possibilities. It had absolutely no impact on the number of scores needed to win, even if two point conversions had been successful after both TDs. The negative is that by missing the first and not trying the second, it then required two more TDs or three scores to win.

Sorry, to make it a 1 score game. Packers have given up 7, 8, 9 minute drives repeatedly in the 4th and hadn't slowed Minn down at all. With 12 minutes left, relying on the defense to make 1 stop and hope to force OT is a better option to me.

[denverYooper]

McCarthy was trying to make it a ONE POSSESSION game when he decided to go for two. That was the correct decision, especially since the game was in the 4th quarter when McCarthy made the call. Kick PAT, its a two possessions game. Fail 2 pts, its still a two possessions game.

Past two games, defense allowed opponents to milk clock with 7+ minute drives in the 4th quarter. Convert the 2 pt conversion and defense only needs 1 stop and offense only needs another TD and another 2 pt. Better than needing 2 stops, a td and finally marching the ball into field goal range - all in the 4th quarter.

The latter, the Packers pulled it off against the woeful Vikings. Not gonna happen against, say, the Saints.

In the 4th quarter all the planets aligned for the Packers but they couldn't pull out a victory against a woeful team. The Packers are either a very injured team or they're not a very good team. I would like to believe that the Packers would be a contender with a healthy A-Rod, Cobb, J-Mike, DuJuan Harris, Perry, etc.

Nice post.

I would like to point out, though that the Lions lost to a 2-8 team this past weekend.

[Zool]

Not sure how other people don't understand this.

Math is hard.

[denverYooper]

Sorry, to make it a 1 score game. Packers have given up 7, 8, 9 minute drives repeatedly in the 4th and hadn't slowed Minn down at all. With 12 minutes left, relying on the defense to make 1 stop and hope to force OT is a better option to me.

Not to mention that the Vikings have a pretty good running back who'd been having his way with the D.

[Patler]

Outside of putting Flynn in, this was the sanest decision he made all day. Worst case scenario you need three scores to either win or get to OT.

Best case scenario you only need 1 more possession to tie.

Kicking the XP means your only out is 2 more possessions to win.

Odds are much better you get one more scoring drive than two. Esp. considering defense.


It would have been an 8pt game. The idea, crazy as it is, was that the Packers would score another TD...followed up by another 2pt conversion, so a 1 score game. Well, if you don't count a 2pt conversion as an extra score.

Yes, one score (TD + 2)......to TIE. I thought the objective was to win? He still needed two scores to WIN, whether he went for one or two after the first TD. With almost 12 minutes remaining, I think it is a defeatist attitude to be going for a tie.

If he truly believed he might not get two more possessions, the game was lost anyway, because if MN kept it that long, they would likely score at least 3, making it 26-15. Then, you still need two more scores to win. Which, coincidentally is the same predicament you put your self into by going for two and not getting it.

Putting all your trust in your red-zone deficient team to get two two-point conversions? They have struggled in close even with Rodgers, let alone QB #4 who had taken all of two snaps with the first string in practice.

So, to achieve the ultimate possibility of needing one score for a tie he risked needing two TDs or three scores two win, and his trump suit was his offenses ability to get two consecutive two-point conversions. Pretty weak hand in my opinion.

[Guiness]

Yes, one score (TD + 2)......to TIE. I thought the objective was to win? He still needed two scores to WIN, whether he went for one or two after the first TD. With almost 12 minutes remaining, I think it is a defeatist attitude to be going for a tie.

If he truly believed he might not get two more possessions, the game was lost anyway, because if MN kept it that long, they would likely score at least 3, making it 26-15. Then, you still need two more scores to win. Which, coincidentally is the same predicament you put your self into by going for two and not getting it.

Putting all your trust in your red-zone deficient team to get two two-point conversions? They have struggled in close even with Rodgers, let alone QB #4 who had taken all of two snaps with the first string in practice.

So, to achieve the ultimate possibility of needing one score for a tie he risked needing two TDs or three scores two win, and his trump suit was his offenses ability to get two consecutive two-point conversions. Pretty weak hand in my opinion.

Didn't say I agreed with it, I said that was the thought process. Playing for OT seemed like the best possible scenario at that point, did anyone think the Pack would get the ball back twice, and score twice with 11:42 left in the game? Don't put me on that list.

[pbmax]

Yes, one score (TD + 2)......to TIE. I thought the objective was to win? He still needed two scores to WIN, whether he went for one or two after the first TD. With almost 12 minutes remaining, I think it is a defeatist attitude to be going for a tie.

If he truly believed he might not get two more possessions, the game was lost anyway, because if MN kept it that long, they would likely score at least 3, making it 26-15. Then, you still need two more scores to win. Which, coincidentally is the same predicament you put your self into by going for two and not getting it.

Putting all your trust in your red-zone deficient team to get two two-point conversions? They have struggled in close even with Rodgers, let alone QB #4 who had taken all of two snaps with the first string in practice.

So, to achieve the ultimate possibility of needing one score for a tie he risked needing two TDs or three scores two win, and his trump suit was his offenses ability to get two consecutive two-point conversions. Pretty weak hand in my opinion.

Needing scores on 3 consecutive drives is tough to achieve with the way both offense and defense played up to that point. Being able to tie the game in two possessions total is the best possible hand to play.

The Vikings would not need to drive the length of the field and kick a FG to drain more clock than the Packers could afford in the two intervening Vikes' series. By stalling at the LOS, you can trim 2:00 off each three down sequence with runs and completed passes prior to a first down. Fortunately for the Packers, the Vikings offense in such a situation failed to pick up first downs.

If the Vikings do kick a FG, then its still a 2 score game needing two TDs. The tradeoff is a slim possibility for a 3 score win versus the chance at a 2 score tie PLUS a 3 score tie. I haven't seen advancednflstats.com do an analysis yet, but that scenario has got to be more likely. Even with Flynn, playing for 3 scores looked hopelessly optimistic.

[Patler]

Didn't say I agreed with it, I said that was the thought process. Playing for OT seemed like the best possible scenario at that point, did anyone think the Pack would get the ball back twice, and score twice with 11:42 left in the game? Don't put me on that list.

Playing for OT in what could have been a 9 point game with basically a quarter to go? Ridiculous.

The more I think about it, the dumber this decision becomes. I thought it was ill-advised at the time. Now I think it was idiotic.

Hoping this team could score two consecutive two-point conversions? Not likely at all.

Worried that the defense would not get the ball back to you more than once? The two point conversion helps only if you think MN would run off huge chunks of the clock, but not get at least a FG.

Risk needing to score two more TDs instead of one plus a FG to win, or needing one TD and two FGs instead of one TD plus a FG to win, for the chance to get a tie if and only if you get two consecutive two-point conversions? Very little to be gained from a tie, and very long odds of attaining it.

[pbmax]

Hoping this team could score two consecutive two-point conversions? Not likely at all.


You think 2 consecutive 2 point conversions is unlikely but expect the McCarthy to believe that he is going to score on 3 consecutive possessions given what has happened since Rodgers was injured?

You point to the red zone offense difficulty yet dismiss scoring from the 2.5 yard line. Red zone offense stats don't really convey the ease at which scoring from the 2.5 yard line represents. But the red zone stats do convey the trouble the Packers have in scoring at all. This is especially true of a Flynn offense where he does not have the arm to score from distance like Tolzien could hope to.

How many total scoring drives have the Packers had on offense since his injury? Ten?

That success rate is far less than the 2 point conversion rate.

[Patler]

Needing scores on 3 consecutive drives is tough to achieve with the way both offense and defense played up to that point. Being able to tie the game in two possessions total is the best possible hand to play.

The Vikings would not need to drive the length of the field and kick a FG to drain more clock than the Packers could afford in the two intervening Vikes' series. By stalling at the LOS, you can trim 2:00 off each three down sequence with runs and completed passes prior to a first down. Fortunately for the Packers, the Vikings offense in such a situation failed to pick up first downs.

If the Vikings do kick a FG, then its still a 2 score game needing two TDs. The tradeoff is a slim possibility for a 3 score win versus the chance at a 2 score tie PLUS a 3 score tie. I haven't seen advancednflstats.com do an analysis yet, but that scenario has got to be more likely. Even with Flynn, playing for 3 scores looked hopelessly optimistic.

At that point you are looking at future possessions, not the one you just scored on. Can you get 10 points to win with 12 minutes left in the game, while preventing MN from scoring? That is it. Your ability to score twice in twelve minutes. You need to score twice regardless, and you need to stop MN regardless.

[pbmax]

Not counting the drive Rodgers got hurt on and not counting Flynn's drives, the Packers were on a 10 scores out of 41 series pace.

That's 24.3%.

Two point conversion hover around 50% (I think 48% which gives you 2 in a row at a 23% chance). You need two 2 pointers. Or you need 3 scoring drives in a row (1.43%).

EDIT: Two scoring drives in a row (if we calculate from the moment M3 is deciding on a 2 point conversion) by these numbers is a 6% likelihood.

[pbmax]

At that point you are looking at future possessions, not the one you just scored on. Can you get 10 points to win with 12 minutes left in the game, while preventing MN from scoring? That is it. Your ability to score twice in twelve minutes. You need to score twice regardless, and you need to stop MN regardless.

I doubt you can get it done twice. I prefer to have to do it once. If I miss the 2 pointer, I still have the same dilemma as if I kicked the XP.

[CaptainKickass]

Also -

It DOES annoy me that the Packers did not win.

Just to be clear and overstate the obvious.

.

[Patler]

It really isn't even that complicated. No matter what he did, he needed the second touchdown TD of the fourth quarter, so those cancel out of the equation. If he didn't get the second TD of the fourth quarter, it wouldn't have mattered what he had done. So, his options and plausible scenarios were:

1. Make the first two point conversion, then
- make the second two point, and have a tie, needing a further score to win in regulation or O.T.
- miss the second, and need a field goal in regulation to win.

2. Miss the first two point conversion, then
- kick an extra point and need yet another TD to win in regulation, or a FG in regulation to tie, plus another score in regulation or OT to win.

3. Kick two extra points and need a FG in regulation to win.

So, in comparison to kicking two extra points:
- making two two-point conversions buys you extra time (OT) to score the additional points needed
- making the first and missing the second results in no change.
- missing the first increases the scoring requirements, with the possibility of OT.

Any of these scenarios require stopping the Vikings numerous times.

No matter how I look at it, in view of the difficulty in scoring two two-point conversions, the minimal benefit gained from it (OT) the wash from missing the second and the detriment from missing the first, I think it was a mistake to go for two.

[sharpe1027]

To be fair, it was two scores to go to overtime and have a chance to win. A tie never almost happens in the nfl. The choice was 8 or maybe 10 vs 9 for sure. 10 and 9 are each two possessions. Unless you are conceding that the Vikings will score, you go for two. If you do assume a score, then you go for one but your odds aren't great if they do score so why assume they will?

[pbmax]

So, in comparison to kicking two extra points:
- making two two-point conversions buys you extra time (OT) to score the additional points needed
- making the first and missing the second results in no change.
- missing the first increases the scoring requirements, with the possibility of OT.

You seem to give next to no value to getting to OT. Scoring three times in the 4th Q is harder than scoring 3 times in the 4th and OT combined.

The Packers have an offense that is having difficulty scoring and is behind in this game. It will have a limited number of possessions left in the 4th Q. Getting to OT is a net win from the Packers point of view because the time restraint will no longer apply to the number of necessary points/possessions PLUS you will have accomplished this with either fewer scoring drives (2 total) or the same number as XP/XP/FG. That is a net positive for a low scoring team which the Packers seem now to be.

And OT has one advantage for the Packers that regulation does not provide. A TD there wins the game. If you receive the kick off first, you can polish them off and not have to defend again.

This advantage does not accrue to the Vikings in the same way as ANY TD by the Vikings at any time effectively ends the game, Sudden Death or not.

[Patler]

You seem to give next to no value to getting to OT. Scoring three times in the 4th Q is harder than scoring 3 times in the 4th and OT combined.

The Packers have an offense that is having difficulty scoring and is behind. It will have a limited number of possessions left in the 4th Q. Getting to OT is a net win from the Packers point of view because the time restraint will no longer apply to the number of necessary points/possessions PLUS you will have accomplished this with either fewer scoring drives (2 total) or the same number as XP/XP/FG. That is a net positive for a low scoring team which the Packers seem now to be..

I would suggest that you are not appreciating the difficulty of scoring two successive two-point conversions, and you are ignoring the significant disadvantage that results from missing the first two-point conversion, especially for a team struggling in the red zone as the Packers are. It made their scoring requirements even more difficult.

You keep reverting to the scoring three times in the fourth argument, but it really comes down to whether or not they could score a single FG in addition to the TD that was needed either way. It was two scores, not three, because the first was a completed event already. A TD and a FG in almost 12 minutes, that's all that was needed, and the TD was needed either way.



And OT has one advantage for the Packers that regulation does not provide. A TD there wins the game. If you kick off first, you can polish them off and not have to defend again.

This advantage does not accrue to the Vikings in the same way as ANY TD by the Vikings at any time effectively ends the game, Sudden Death or not.

There was no guarantee that GB would have even one possession in OT, because MN could drive the opening kick for a TD and end the game anyway. Getting to OT might give you more, but realistically you should count on just one extra possession when you have been having difficulty stopping the Vikings at the time the decision was made. Doesn't seem like much of an advantage, when the risk you take is that you miss the first two point conversion and then have even greater scoring requirements than if you kicked two extra points.

[sharpe1027]

Getting to OT might give you more, but realistically you should count on just one extra possession when you have been having difficulty stopping the Vikings at the time the decision was made.

When trying to make a large comeback you really don't have the luxury to feel like you can't stop the other team. If you assume they can string together enough stops to reach overtime, then that changes your analysis on how your defense is looking. If you assume you can't string together the stops then you lose regardless.

I think it is a horse a piece and don't really understand why people think one is so much better than the other.

[pbmax]

I think the odds of a 2 pt try succeeding are better than the odds that the Packers would score on a 3rd drive in the 4th Quarter. Even if it was just a FG that was needed. Their overall drive and scoring stats tell us its a substantial advantage in favor of the 2pt tries, though I admit, I did not find 2 pt try data for the Packers this year. I am not sure it would apply to Flynn anyway for better or worse.

When the first went amiss, they lost the chance at an outright win only. The same series of scores gets them to OT where the odds tilt towards the Packers again as they can end the game on a TD just as the Vikings could have done since their last FG early in the 4th.

The only variable I haven't considered is that OT doesn't allow a FG to win without a defensive stop. That is not quite as favorable as the Packers last scoring drive in your scenario or a another TD in any scenario at the end of the game. Even so, McCarthy, at that point of the game for his decision (11:47), cannot count on 2 more possessions with 8:40 left (time after Vikings give ball back to Packers).

[HarveyWallbangers]

I had no problem whatsoever with the decision to go for two. None! The way the Packers offense and defense were playing, you'd be crazy to think we'd stop the Vikings twice more and score twice more. It's not like it was the end of the third quarter. There were like 11 minutes left, I think.

Also, I think 9-6-1 wins the division. I don't see Detroit or Chicago going 4-1. Detroit has the talent and schedule to do it, but they are schizophrenic. Chicago is a mess right now. With the way their run defense is playing, they could lose to Minnesota this week. Of course, it's a longshot that we get to 9-6-1 at this point, but it's possible if Rodgers is back next week.

The one thing the tie did was give us a break if we lose to Detroit. Losing to Minnesota and then Detroit would have pretty much guaranteed any tiebreakers would go to Detroit. Being two games back while also losing the tiebreaker would have been VERY difficult to overcome. Now, I think we still have a shot at the division--even if we lose on Thursday. We'd very likely have to run the table though, so Rodgers needs to be back next week.

[Bossman641]

Look at the Vikings' drives prior to the Packer TD (in reverse order):

12 for 85. 6:04 FG
6 for 59. 3:28 TD
3 for 0. 2:03 Punt
7 for 63. 2:23 TD
10 for 69. 4:23 FG
7 for 36. 3:19 Fumble
6 for 24. 3:22 FG
4 for 3. 2:21 Punt

Vikings had scored on 4 of their previous 5 drives. At that point, it wasn't even about the 12:00 remaining. It was about MM having no faith in the defense. Looking at those drives, there is zero reason to believe the Packers were going to stop the Vikings 2 straight times and should have kicked the XP so they could kick a game-winning FG as time expired. The 2 point try was a no brainer.

[SkinBasket]

A lot of ifs mights and maybes. That's why you take the point with that much time left.

[run pMc]

2pt or XP, the team got to OT only to let Peterson run for 15 on a 3rd-and-9 and Toby Gerhart run wild. Say what you want about M3's decision to go for 2, but the defense fell short when they needed a stop in OT.

[pbmax]

2pt or XP, the team got to OT only to let Peterson run for 15 on a 3rd-and-9 and Toby Gerhart run wild. Say what you want about M3's decision to go for 2, but the defense fell short when they needed a stop in OT.

That is the worst part of the game. The only thing that stopped the Vikings offense was their game plan in the 4th Quarter.

[StPaulPackFan]

At the time I agreed with going for the 2pt conversion. After they did not convert it I hated the decision :grin:. I suppose that makes me a typical fan.

I don't think MM went for the 2pt conversion because he thought his offense would only get 1 more shot at scoring. I think he anticipated at least 2 more possessions, possibly 3. But I also think he felt it was more likely that at least 1 or more of those possessions would stall. I don't think he had any confidence they could put two scoring drives together in the last 10+ minutes, even if they were fortunate enough to get 2 or 3 more possessions.

[Smidgeon]

Watching PB and Patler feels like watching gentlemen in the late 18th century argue.

"But sir, I must insist!"

[woodbuck27]

I wasn't going to go here but for what it's worth:

7 + 6 (as it turned out) + ( 7 + 3 ) = 23 ALL Tie in Regulation = 'Just OK' and another chance to WIN.

7 +( 8 + 8 ) = 'a 23 all tie' ... Who thinks that way? That's not smart thinking.

You never play for a tie unless it's late in regulation. You certainly don't go there with 11:42 remaining on the clock in the 4th Qtr.

IMO this is best thinking/strategy... given the situation that MM was in after the Eddie Lacy rushing TD:

7 + 7 (a simple convert) + 7 (or if necessary '3' and then a '7') + 3 = 24 and a WIN.

When the score was 23-13 and MM didn't have to decide convert or two Pt. conversion.

He should have simply gone for the single point. That was by far his best or most assured thinking.

Keep it simple:

23-13 >>> missed 2 Pt. conversion >>> 23 -13 >>> +10 = 23-23 tie.

or

23-13 >>> +1 Pt >>> 23-14 >>> +10 = 24-23 PACKERS WIN !

In review:

If this is the question:

Did MM do the correct thing going for that 2 pt. convert after Eddie Lacy scored?

The correct response is:

NO !

In a simple situation >>> keep it simple .... Mike.


GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

I wasn't going to go here but for what it's worth:

7 + 6 (as it turned out) + ( 7 + 3 ) = 23 ALL Tie in Regulation = 'Just OK' and another chance to WIN.

7 +( 8 + 8 ) = 'a 23 all tie' ... Who thinks that way? That's not smart thinking.

You never play for a tie unless it's late in regulation. You certainly don't go there with 11:42 remaining on the clock in the 4th Qtr.



Prior to the TD to make the game 23-13, the Packers had scored on only 10 of 41 possessions since Rodgers got injured. Several of those scores were FGs.

It is insanity to think you are suddenly going to turn into an offensive juggernaut. McCarthy even said they were calling plays that weren't on the call sheet because they needed something Flynn could execute. And the Defense had not been generating many 3 and outs either. So even at 11:47, time was critical. How many 4th Quarter drives has the D allowed over six minutes in the last few games?

You are not simply playing for a tie, you are maximizing the points you can get when you are in a position to score. Its an added benefit that extending the game would benefit the Packers. But the chief benefit is for the game to still be in doubt with only 2 scoring possessions needed.

[Bossman641]

Prior to the TD to make the game 23-13, the Packers had scored on only 10 of 41 possessions since Rodgers got injured. Several of those scores were FGs.

It is insanity to think you are suddenly going to turn into an offensive juggernaut. McCarthy even said they were calling plays that weren't on the call sheet because they needed something Flynn could execute. And the Defense had not been generating many 3 and outs either. So even at 11:47, time was critical. How many 4th Quarter drives has the D allowed over six minutes in the last few games?

You are not simply playing for a tie, you are maximizing the points you can get when you are in a position to score. Its an added benefit that extending the game would benefit the Packers. But the chief benefit is for the game to still be in doubt with only 2 scoring possessions needed.

+1

With Rodgers and co and a defense that had proven it could get stops or take the ball away I'm a lot more inclined to make it a 9 point game and hope to get a TD and FG to win. Not the case with Flynn and a defense that hadn't stopped the Vikings and has consistently failed in the 4th quarter.

[woodbuck27]

Details:

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=331124009&period=4


Looking beyond that first missed 2-Pt. conversion attempt:

*** Vikings Possession:

Minnesota Vikings at 11:42 Min. Remaining in the 4th Qtr.

DRIVE TOTALS: 5 plays, 22 yards, 2:52 elapsed


*** Green Bay Packers get the ball back at 8:40 remaining in the 4th Qtr

SCORE: 23-13 Vikings.

I'll record the plays here so that you get some idea of how MM ran the offense with Matt Flynn behind center:

1st and 10 at GB 24 (Shotgun) E.Lacy left end to GB 41 for 17 yards (R.Blanton, C.Cook).

1st and 10 at GB 41 (No Huddle, Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short left to J.Boykin to MIN 49 for 10 yards (C.Cook).

1st and 10 at MIN 49 (No Huddle) E.Lacy left end pushed ob at MIN 43 for 6 yards (C.Cook).

2nd and 4 at MIN 43 (No Huddle, Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short left to J.Boykin to MIN 36 for 7 yards (C.Cook).

1st and 10 at MIN 36 (No Huddle, Shotgun) M.Flynn pass incomplete short left.

2nd and 10 at MIN 36 (No Huddle, Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short right to J.Jones to MIN 28 for 8 yards (X.Rhodes, A.Cole).

3rd and 2 at MIN 28 (No Huddle, Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short middle to E.Lacy to MIN 27 for 1 yard (A.Cole).

Timeout #1 by GB at 05:23.

4th and 1 at MIN 27 E.Lacy left end to MIN 23 for 4 yards (M.Mitchell).

1st and 10 at MIN 23 (No Huddle, Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short right to E.Lacy pushed ob at MIN 10 for 13 yards (A.Cole).

1st and 10 at MIN 10 E.Lacy right tackle to MIN 10 for no gain (R.Blanton, J.Allen). MIN-L.Guion was injured during the play.

2nd and 10 at MIN 10 (Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short left to E.Lacy to MIN 6 for 4 yards (A.Cole).

3rd and 6 at MIN 6 (Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short right to J.Boykin for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN.


SCORE: 23 - 19 Vikings

M.Crosby * extra point is GOOD, Center-B.Goode, Holder-T.Masthay.

SCORE: 23 - 20 Vikings


* Comment woodbuck27:

Note that here MM doesn't go for a 2 Point conversion. Here he takes 'the sure single point convert' and looks ahead to another score being 'only' a FG down.


M.Crosby kicks 62 yards from GB 35 to MIN 3. C.Patterson to MIN 21 for 18 yards (D.House, J.Bush).

DRIVE TOTALS: 12 plays, 77 yards, 5:10 elapsed


*** Minnesota Vikings at 3:30 Remaining in the 4th Qtr.

Vikings go 3 and out... 3 plays, - 2 yards, 0:53 elapsed


*** Green Bay Packers at 2:27 MIN GB

1st and 10 at GB 31 (Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short right to J.Jones to GB 40 for 9 yards (X.Rhodes).

2nd and 1 at GB 40 (No Huddle, Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short middle to E.Lacy ran ob at MIN 44 for 16 yards (C.Greenway).

1st and 10 at MIN 44 (Shotgun) E.Lacy right tackle to MIN 40 for 4 yards (A.Cole, B.Robison).

2nd and 6 at MIN 40 (No Huddle, Shotgun) M.Flynn pass incomplete short right.

3rd and 6 at MIN 40 (Shotgun) M.Flynn pass incomplete short left to J.Boykin . The Replay Assistant challenged the fumble ruling, and the play was Upheld.

4th and 6 at MIN 40 (No Huddle) M.Flynn pass deep left to J.Jones to MIN 12 for 28 yards (M.Sherels) [A.Cole]. Penalty on MIN-E.Griffen, Defensive Offside, declined.

1st and 10 at MIN 12 E.Lacy left end to MIN 12 for no gain (K.Williams, B.Robison).
Timeout #1 by MIN at 01:03.

2nd and 10 at MIN 12 (Shotgun) M.Flynn pass incomplete short left to A.Quarless (L.Guion).

3rd and 10 at MIN 12 (Shotgun) M.Flynn pass short right to J.Boykin to MIN 9 for 3 yards (X.Rhodes).
Timeout #2 by MIN at 00:50.

4th and 7 at MIN 9 M.Crosby 27 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-B.Goode, Holder-T.Masthay. 23 23
M.Crosby kicks 52 yards from GB 35 to MIN 13. T.Gerhart to MIN 30 for 17 yards (A.Mulumba, B.Bostick).

DRIVE TOTALS: 10 plays, 60 yards, 1:41 elapsed

[B]SCORE Tied Up at 23 ALL.


*** Minnesota got the ball back with :46 remaining on the clock.

They ran four pays in :37 seconds and we got the ball back near the end of regulation (:02 Sec.).


So a 23 -23 tie headed to OT. OT ended with the score at 26-26 with both teams trading FG's.



PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

Prior to the TD to make the game 23-13, the Packers had scored on only 10 of 41 possessions since Rodgers got injured. Several of those scores were FGs.

It is insanity to think you are suddenly going to turn into an offensive juggernaut. McCarthy even said they were calling plays that weren't on the call sheet because they needed something Flynn could execute. And the Defense had not been generating many 3 and outs either. So even at 11:47, time was critical. How many 4th Quarter drives has the D allowed over six minutes in the last few games?

You are not simply playing for a tie, you are maximizing the points you can get when you are in a position to score. Its an added benefit that extending the game would benefit the Packers. But the chief benefit is for the game to still be in doubt with only 2 scoring possessions needed.

pbmax I have no problem with your mind.

I suspect that Mike McCarthy's mind isn't working at all like yours and especially that in a stressful game time situation.

It should have been easy (simple)

OK it's 23-13 and convert or 2 Pts?

CONVERT !

23-14 Vikings

OK then..... add 10 Points.... 24-23 Packers !

Voila !! A Green Bay Packers WIN !

No magical or complicated thinking.

Simple common sense.

Flat out......

MM was 'out to lunch' going for that 2 Pt. conversion.

[Bossman641]

pbmax I have no problem with your mind.

I suspect that Mike McCarthy's mind isn't working at all like yours and especially that in a stressful game time situation.

It should have been easy (simple)

OK it's 23-13 and convert or 2 Pts?

CONVERT !

23-14 Vikings

OK then..... add 10 Points.... 24-23 Packers !

Voila !! A Green Bay Packers WIN !

No magical or complicated thinking.

Simple common sense.

Flat out......

MM was 'out to lunch' going for that 2 Pt. conversion.

You are completely ignoring both the offensive and defensive performances over the past handful of games.

[woodbuck27]

You are completely ignoring both the offensive and defensive performances over the past handful of games.

A simple RULE of THUMB:

Keep it simple.

Believe in that 'simple way'.... no matter what has gone on in the past.

7 + 6 +1 + 10 = 24 = WIN = Simple. :grin:

[Guiness]

Prior to the TD to make the game 23-13, the Packers had scored on only 10 of 41 possessions since Rodgers got injured. Several of those scores were FGs.

It is insanity to think you are suddenly going to turn into an offensive juggernaut. McCarthy even said they were calling plays that weren't on the call sheet because they needed something Flynn could execute. And the Defense had not been generating many 3 and outs either. So even at 11:47, time was critical. How many 4th Quarter drives has the D allowed over six minutes in the last few games?

You are not simply playing for a tie, you are maximizing the points you can get when you are in a position to score. Its an added benefit that extending the game would benefit the Packers. But the chief benefit is for the game to still be in doubt with only 2 scoring possessions needed.

This.

I don't know what confused me more - the offense moving down the field, or the stops the defense got in the fourth. After the Packer's first 4th quarter TD, the defense held the Vikings to a single first down, and on Minnesota's next possession, forced a 3 and out. The two times Minnesota had the ball before that, a TD and a FG.

How's that for schizophrenic? Actually, my guess would be an inspired defense, having some confidence the O can do something.

[woodbuck27]

Your point and 'history' has some merit for me.

I made a mistake this past week in the Pro Pickem by ignoring history. Peyton Manning Vs Tom Brady. That certainly cost me.

It's easy to error or make a mistake in judgement and especially in a stressful situation.

We all get there. Mike McCarthy gets there and he demonstrated that clearly; going for that 2 Pt. conversion after Eddie Lacy scored. I especially feel that way with Matt Flynn as his QB.

Keep it rolling...positive.

Take the far easier one (1) point convert.

Set your team at '9' points back (Vikings 23-14 ) and '10' more for the WIN.

Do not risk having your team stuck at 10 points back (by not converting after the six) and more likely playing for a tie in regulation and forcing the game to OT where the outcome could be set in motion by the results of a coin toss.

ie the Packers lose the toss in OT and the Vikings score a TD on their first possession. It's over and we lose.

That's just slightly worse that a tie based in history. Please see my thread on this topic posted today.

[woodbuck27]

This.

I don't know what confused me more - the offense moving down the field, or the stops the defense got in the fourth. After the Packer's first 4th quarter TD, the defense held the Vikings to a single first down, and on Minnesota's next possession, forced a 3 and out. The two times Minnesota had the ball before that, a TD and a FG.

How's that for schizophrenic? Actually, my guess would be an inspired defense, having some confidence the O can do something.

Yes.

That shift to the positive in how the entire team played following the insertion of Matt Flynn.

A credit to MM for that move as late as it was.

PACKERS !

[Bretsky]

Yes.

That shift to the positive in how the entire team played following the insertion of Matt Flynn.

A credit to MM for that move as late as it was.

PACKERS !

Do we realy give MM credit for making the move or wonder what in the heck he was thinking for stubbornly going with Tolzien again ?

I'm more bias than anybody. I was pimping Russell Wilson as the second best QB in Wisconsin when Matt Flynn was our #2. I loved Brooks Bollinger...Darrell Bevell...those three guys had so many intangibles. Heck I even thought Mike Samuel was OK.

While Wilson was the only one with clearly more talent, I just didn't think Tolzien had all the intangibles some of the above had without a ton of time to develop in MM's system. Even then I'm not sure.

Starting Matt Flynn was a no brainer last week...

[woodbuck27]

Do we realy give MM credit for making the move or wonder what in the heck he was thinking for stubbornly going with Tolzien again ?

I'm more bias than anybody. I was pimping Russell Wilson as the second best QB in Wisconsin when Matt Flynn was our #2. I loved Brooks Bollinger...Darrell Bevell...those three guys had so many intangibles. Heck I even thought Mike Samuel was OK.

While Wilson was the only one with clearly more talent, I just didn't think Tolzien had all the intangibles some of the above had without a ton of time to develop in MM's system. Even then I'm not sure.

Starting Matt Flynn was a no brainer last week...

I looked at it this way:

OK start Scott Tolzien but as soon as that game started to go south pull him for Matt Flynn.

When the Vikings scored in the 3rd Qtr. and the score went to Minny 20 - Green Bay 7

The game was 'now' going south.

MM replaced Scott Tolzien with Matt Flynn with 8:22 remaining in the 3rd Qtr.

GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

pbmax I have no problem with your mind.

I suspect that Mike McCarthy's mind isn't working at all like yours and especially that in a stressful game time situation.



McCarthy said on Monday that he was concerned about getting the ball back 2 more times in the time left. He was doing the same calculation. He reviews the offensive film more than I do and is well aware of both the offensive and defensive shortcomings. He also knows they are running an offense they haven't practiced.

[woodbuck27]

McCarthy said on Monday that he was concerned about getting the ball back 2 more times in the time left. He was doing the same calculation. He reviews the offensive film more than I do and is well aware of both the offensive and defensive shortcomings. He also knows they are running an offense they haven't practiced.

Back to back 2 Pt. converted TD's for a tie with a hold on the Vikings scoring.

Optimistic?

No way Hose. That's strange optimism as I view it.

Take the easy convert and hold the Vikings.

Score 'at least' 10 more points to win 24-23.

That's good and proper optimism.