Go for 2 monkey pile

[Harlan Huckleby]

Somebody explain how it is smart to kick an extra point when you are down by 2 in 4th quarter, relatively low scoring game at that point

[Joemailman]

Because if you don't get it and the other team gets a TD, you're down 9. As in 2 scores.

[LEWCWA]

Easy, very early in the quarter taking the ep ensures you are only down one score if Bears score another touchdown. I agreed completely with going for one.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Because if you don't get it and the other team gets a TD, you're down 9. As in 2 scores.

ya, but then you still leave yourself having to make a 2-point play to catch up.

I see your point, but I think it was the wrong call

It comes down to how much time is left and how often both teams are scoring

[hoosier]

11:00 left in 4th usually means two more possessions for each team. If I am down to my second to last possession (8:00 or less) then I would go for two in that situation, but with that much time left there is so much that can happen, you have to take the sure point.

[pbmax]

Because if you don't get it and the other team gets a TD, you're down 9. As in 2 scores.


ya, but then you still leave yourself having to make a 2-point play to catch up.

Ah, what?

9 point lead is touchdown and FG to beat. No 2 point play necessary.

[Harlan Huckleby]

you have to take the sure point.

no, the call is certainly not obvious, as evidenced by the fact that going for 1 damn near cost them the game. It depends on the flow of the game.

[pbmax]

ya, but then you still leave yourself having to make a 2-point play to catch up.

I see your point, but I think it was the wrong call

It comes down to how much time is left and how often both teams are scoring

The one score the Bears got was enough to make the game a 2 score game again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ah, what?

9 point lead is touchdown and FG to beat. No 2 point play necessary.

joe's point was you pull to 8

[pbmax]

joe's point was you pull to 8

Ah, gotcha. Still like the odds of scoring once and needing a 2 point to tie than 2 scores to win. Especially with 11 minutes remaining. I cannot be the only person surprised the Packers only gave up one more TD.

[woodbuck27]

joe's point was you pull to 8

Good Luck ! :grin:

HH After the '6' we're down -2.

Take the One (1) Point convert and be down -1.

They score a 6 + 1 and go up +1 + (6 +1) = + 8 Bears

We score a TD and it becomes +8 - (+6) = +2 Bears and Packers miss the 2 Pt. conversion it then remains at +2 Bears and we stop them and ...

With a FG on the next possession:

It goes from +2 Bears to +1 Packers with Packers FG = (+3 Packers) -2 Bears = +1 Packers.


and...... so on but right there we're winning! :grin:

[Iron Mike]

Who cares, we won. :)

[Bossman641]

I agreed with kicking the xp. You essentially want to put off having to go for 2 as long as possible

[channtheman]

I agreed with kicking the extra point both times. The 2nd time could be argued more than the first in that if you don't convert and stop the Bears, a field goal still wins it. You have to weigh if you think your defense will stop the Bears and if you can even convert the 2 point attempt. With the way our defense was playing at the time, it seemed very unlikely we would stop them, and with our woeful red zone offense, it was very unlikely we would convert. The end result would be being down 9 instead of 8.

Our 2 point attempt at the end of the game helps my argument. I called for a shotgun formation with Starks up the middle, but whatever we did was terrible.

[gbgary]

i guess.

[channtheman]

I agreed with kicking the xp. You essentially want to put off having to go for 2 as long as possible

Very simply and well said.

[woodbuck27]

I agreed with kicking the xp. You essentially want to put off having to go for 2 as long as possible

Yes.

[ThunderDan]

Here is why I like going for the 1 point. If we had missed we would be down 2, in the next possession if we hold Chi to a FG instead of a punt we are then down 5. If the Packers score a TD on the next possession we go up by 1 and need a 2 point conversion to go up by 3. If we don't get the second 2 pointer a FG wins the game for Chi on the last possession instead of a tie. If we kick 2 extra points that FG ties the game instead of wins it for the Bears.

[pbmax]

Don't have the Tweet, but Advanced NFL Stats put the leverage point of a 2 point conversion at 47%. That means if you covert at a greater than 47% rate, its worth the try.

I am not sure anyone Packer fan, without looking at the stats for this year, would think the Packers have a 47% shot at a 2 point conversion. I would tilt more in favor of the 1 pt try because I expected more scoring at that point. I may be too generous in my estimate though with 10:47 left.

[CaptainKickass]

Math is hard, m'kay?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h4IGM93iB1g/T2l5uHJDsHI/AAAAAAAAAHc/QPub-bAb450/s1600/Math-Mom_17397-l.jpg



But I also would have gone for 1 in that situation.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There isn't a magic formula, but if you think the Bears are likely to score a touchdown in remainder of game, you'd kick the extra point. On the other hand, if you expect a defensive struggle with field goals (at most) likely, the extra point is pretty worthless, and the 2 points to draw even are attractive.

The offenses were inept in first half. I can't remember how the third quarter went, but I thought a chance of a close finale was good at 11 minutes left.

The argument that "you put off going for two until you have to" is too simple. There is much more of a grey area in 4th quarter

[channtheman]

There isn't a magic formula, but if you think the Bears are likely to score a touchdown in remainder of game, you'd kick the extra point. On the other hand, if you expect a defensive struggle with field goals (at most) likely, the extra point is pretty worthless, and the 2 points to draw even are attractive.

The offenses were inept in first half. I can't remember how the third quarter went, but I thought a chance of a close finale was good at 11 minutes left.

The argument that "you put off going for two until you have to" is too simple. There is much more of a grey area in 4th quarter

I think at that point Chicago had scored 3 TD's on their 3 second half possessions. There was little reason to think we'd hold them.

[mraynrand]

I think at that point Chicago had scored 3 TD's on their 3 second half possessions. There was little reason to think we'd hold them.

that's were I was. Was more worried about being down by 9.

[Bossman641]

that's were I was. Was more worried about being down by 9.

Yep, d had been making no stops. I did not want to miss the 2, give up td and go down 9. Preference was to keep it within a one score game and not abandon the run game

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think at that point Chicago had scored 3 TD's on their 3 second half possessions. There was little reason to think we'd hold them.

well, they scored twice.

The "down by nine" theory forgets that you might also be stung by a field goal. Or you might just exchange scores with the other team. In either case the 1 does you no good.

I want the two there because I sense a very close finish.

The argument that the Packer D is crap has some merit.

[woodbuck27]

well, they scored twice.

The "down by nine" theory forgets that you might also be stung by a field goal. Or you might just exchange scores with the other team. In either case the 1 does you no good.

I want the two there because I sense a very close finish.

The argument that the Packer D is crap has some merit.

It's all about the choice between one and two possessions and keeping it at a one possession game is the best strategy.

[bobblehead]

Somebody explain how it is smart to kick an extra point when you are down by 2 in 4th quarter, relatively low scoring game at that point

He took your advice and went for 2 in Minnesota. He didn't get it, but I can't see how anything would have changed if he had taken the point....except the outcome.

[bobblehead]

Here is why I like going for the 1 point. If we had missed we would be down 2, in the next possession if we hold Chi to a FG instead of a punt we are then down 5. If the Packers score a TD on the next possession we go up by 1 and need a 2 point conversion to go up by 3. If we don't get the second 2 pointer a FG wins the game for Chi on the last possession instead of a tie. If we kick 2 extra points that FG ties the game instead of wins it for the Bears.

This is exactly the way I saw it. There was a lot of time left for this scenario to play out. The scenario of stopping the bears cold, and in turn being stopped cold seemed the least likely of all scenarios.

[buchunter03]

ThunderDan said it well regarding if the Bears were to kick a FG. That's why I agreed on going for 1 at the time. Once we got the stop and a lot of time came off the clock, McCarthy probably would've liked to have gone for 2. Hindsight is 20/20.

However, whoever says they would rather wait for the two point conversion to the last moment is wrong. If you are down 8 and it's the last drive you can score and then miss the 2pt conversion and game is over. If you go for it early (In the 4th) and miss you know you need 2 scores and can plan the last couple drives accordingly. Therefore you will hurry up and try to get a score and an onside kick. Rather than taking your time and trying to get a TD on the last drive. Then if you miss the 2pt conversion, game is over and you don't get that extra possession.

Again, if you're down 8 with 4 minutes left you will probably take your time and make sure you score with around 30 seconds left. But if you're down 9 with 4 minutes left, chances are you now hurry up to score before 2 minutes left and kick onside for another opportunity. Down 8 you only play for 1 last drive. The 2pt conversion is going to be the same either way, you would rather know early on if you need another possession.

[mraynrand]

ThunderDan said it well regarding if the Bears were to kick a FG. That's why I agreed on going for 1 at the time. Once we got the stop and a lot of time came off the clock, McCarthy probably would've liked to have gone for 2. Hindsight is 20/20.

However, whoever says they would rather wait for the two point conversion to the last moment is wrong. If you are down 8 and it's the last drive you can score and then miss the 2pt conversion and game is over. If you go for it early (In the 4th) and miss you know you need 2 scores and can plan the last couple drives accordingly. Therefore you will hurry up and try to get a score and an onside kick. Rather than taking your time and trying to get a TD on the last drive. Then if you miss the 2pt conversion, game is over and you don't get that extra possession.

Again, if you're down 8 with 4 minutes left you will probably take your time and make sure you score with around 30 seconds left. But if you're down 9 with 4 minutes left, chances are you now hurry up to score before 2 minutes left and kick onside for another opportunity. Down 8 you only play for 1 last drive. The 2pt conversion is going to be the same either way, you would rather know early on if you need another possession.

I don't think you like a scenario where you have to recover an onside kick

[buchunter03]

The point is, at least you get another shot. If you wait, you don't even get another chance the game is over.

Or, if you have timeouts and score with say 2:30 left, you now get a chance to get the ball back and don't need the onside kick. I've seen it multiple times when teams are down 8 they have no urgency with under 4 minutes. It's the last drive or nothing.

[woodbuck27]

This is exactly the way I saw it. There was a lot of time left for this scenario to play out. The scenario of stopping the bears cold, and in turn being stopped cold seemed the least likely of all scenarios.

Yes.

That game wasn't exactly a classic shoot out... yet... it sorta had that feel.

For some time our 'D' looked like a deer blinded by an engine on train tracks. Our 'D' looked really tight and I don't mean that in any positive sense.

We needed a sure thing and a simple one-point convert.

Also it's this:

MM needed to keep it as +ve as possible. Kick the easy 1 Pt. convert and don't risk missing on the 2 Pt. conversion play and setting the team back 2 points.

Keep it positive ...keep it simple. :whist:

PACKERS !

[bobblehead]

I think I figured out how to quantify my theory on going for 2. Generally speaking if you are going to get another possession you don't go for 2. (unless you are down 10 in which case you need the 2 and another 2 after that to tie it). Going for 2 When there is enough time left for them AND you to have a possession USUALLY will not be the correct strategy based on a lot of possible outcomes.

[pbmax]

ThunderDan said it well regarding if the Bears were to kick a FG. That's why I agreed on going for 1 at the time. Once we got the stop and a lot of time came off the clock, McCarthy probably would've liked to have gone for 2. Hindsight is 20/20.

However, whoever says they would rather wait for the two point conversion to the last moment is wrong. If you are down 8 and it's the last drive you can score and then miss the 2pt conversion and game is over. If you go for it early (In the 4th) and miss you know you need 2 scores and can plan the last couple drives accordingly. Therefore you will hurry up and try to get a score and an onside kick. Rather than taking your time and trying to get a TD on the last drive. Then if you miss the 2pt conversion, game is over and you don't get that extra possession.

Again, if you're down 8 with 4 minutes left you will probably take your time and make sure you score with around 30 seconds left. But if you're down 9 with 4 minutes left, chances are you now hurry up to score before 2 minutes left and kick onside for another opportunity. Down 8 you only play for 1 last drive. The 2pt conversion is going to be the same either way, you would rather know early on if you need another possession.

Agree with your main thrust. Its better to know you need another 2 later OR that you need 2 scores early, so waiting itself is not helpful.

But in this case, the chance of more scoring is high enough the single score calculations are not helpful.

As it worked out, 10+ minutes worked out to be about the least amount of time you would choose to eschew the 2 point conversion. If it was 9 minutes, I think you have to take it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The scenario of stopping the bears cold, and in turn being stopped cold seemed the least likely of all scenarios.

Yes, but the scenario of the Packers and Bears exchanging scores seemed plenty likely, and in that case the 1 point was worthless, 2 points priceless. Until late in the game, a Packer loss by 1 point looked quite possible.

[Cleft Crusty]

At first Clefty thought this was a pretty boring topic, but the reason it persists is that either option is pretty reasonable.

[Teamcheez1]

I believe I heard that the Packers are now 0-4 on 2 point conversions now.

[Packers4Glory]

not going for 2 was the right call. Too much time left. If you fail and chicago goes down and scores another TD then you're down 9 points w/ a lot less time left. If they score and you kicked for 1, then you're still a TD and a 2 pt conversion from a tie with a lot less time left. Lets face it, who really was confident in the defense to keep chicago out of the endzone after that TD? raise your hand and you're a fucking liar!

Right call. I would have been livid had he went for 2 there.

[hoosier]

Yes, but the scenario of the Packers and Bears exchanging scores seemed plenty likely, and in that case the 1 point was worthless, 2 points priceless. Until late in the game, a Packer loss by 1 point looked quite possible.

If they had gone for two and converted, MM would almost certainly have punted on the first 4th-and-inches and then we would have missed that great drive. No grind it out, gut-wrenching conversions, no desperation game winning TD heave to Cobb. Instead, we would have been faced with the GB defense trying to stop Chicago from carrying out its own clock-killing drive into field goal range. That is what your logic would have wrought us.

[mraynrand]

If they had gone for two and converted, MM would almost certainly have punted on the first 4th-and-inches and then we would have missed that great drive. No grind it out, gut-wrenching conversions, no desperation game winning TD heave to Cobb. Instead, we would have been faced with the GB defense trying to stop Chicago from carrying out its own clock-killing drive into field goal range. That is what your logic would have wrought us.

Assuming if the conversion was made that every subsequent event would have transpired exactly the same way. Without the wind currents altered by Crosby's extra point, there might have been more favorable breezes in the stadium, resulting in better passes and no fourth downs on that final drive. I'm surprised that more people weren't amazed by the quantum indeterminacy on display in yesterday's game.

[King Friday]

It is a tough call at that point in the game. Personally, I would rarely go for two prior to the 4th quarter. This one was slightly into the 4th quarter, but there was still a good chance GB could have 2 possessions left in the game at that point.

I'm guessing the lack of success we've had going for two of late probably was a large factor in the decision.

[woodbuck27]

It is a tough call at that point in the game. Personally, I would rarely go for two prior to the 4th quarter. This one was slightly into the 4th quarter, but there was still a good chance GB could have 2 possessions left in the game at that point.

I'm guessing the lack of success we've had going for two of late probably was a large factor in the decision.

A) I think that at that time that was 'a too macho move' for Mike McCarthy.

B) I think that it could have gone badly and sill off momentum.

C) I think it was simply the wrong move.

GO PACK GO...PACKERS ** WIN Vs San Fran 49ers @ Home.

** In an epic battle... the PACK gets it done Sunday Jan. 5, 20014. Aaron Rodgers kicks his game up a notch.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you fail and chicago goes down and scores another TD then you're down 9 points w/ a lot less time left.

The fact that time is winding down means you ought to go for the two points.

This obsession with nine points is too much, it's just one scenario. Even if you keep within 8 as result of kicking the point (big if, the Bears might wisely go for 2 themselves), you still leave yourself with the burden of scoring a two point play to close gap.
And what if the Bears come back with a field goal? With that relatively easy feat, they force you to score a touchdown to beat um. A chance to even the score is worth foregoing a sure 1 in a close game.

[woodbuck27]

The fact that time is winding down means you ought to go for the two points.

This obsession with nine points is too much, it's just one scenario. Even if you keep within 8 as result of kicking the point (big if, the Bears might wisely go for 2 themselves), you still leave yourself with the burden of scoring a two point play to close gap.
And what if the Bears come back with a field goal? With that relatively easy feat, they force you to score a touchdown to beat um. A chance to even the score is worth foregoing a sure 1 in a close game.

Now you have us.......................... thinking.

Good job Mr. Blue Dog'. Take that in the chops Packerrats.

Ole Huck still has it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm guessing the lack of success we've had going for two of late probably was a large factor in the decision.

4 tries is not a huge statistical sample. (Why, that's just the first 15 minutes in the bar.)

Also, if the problem is you can't score from two yards out, the 8-point "one score" theory is looking in trouble.

[ThunderDan]

HH forgets the two FG CHI scenario in his analysis.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Take that in the chops Packerrats.

BTW, I am making pork chops today. Not because I care about the chops, for some reason I've been obsessing about sauerkraut, this is excuse to make it. I LOVE sauerkraut, haven't made it for years. By "make" I mean open a jar.

[Harlan Huckleby]

HH forgets the two FG CHI scenario in his analysis.

its the 2 FG + safety you have to account for

[Rodgers12]

I agree with Harlan. Have to take your shot when the opportunity presents itself.

[woodbuck27]

BTW, I am making pork chops today. Not because I care about the chops, for some reason I've been obsessing about sauerkraut, this is excuse to make it. I LOVE sauerkraut, haven't made it for years. By "make" I mean open a jar.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRr1NENDcRSMmQKcUmhHYYiNY9tkcOQQ xX72r9a29MRRboQm9z_1A



OK then....

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSY49kDwfcIdCwXpKG0Fq9jvMPisx7m FvAobqgCIKhUMQlqRCy

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSt_nk56A0hb9kPhkpFLs9Q5IQnD7rQY hRBDEmZYAhodbD4A8-x

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQj6B7rk2dP__muxZYV0n_oHZbrLwT4L d_L0zf2hAYaZqUNBPEvBA

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwOVBe4NwoqjOG9Ibr8nsW0ZAqFI5H8 r9VY5eeI8HMDTkOaQ1RbQ

[LEWCWA]

I agree with Harlan. Have to take your shot when the opportunity presents itself.

And that ends the conversation!

[woodbuck27]

BTW, I am making pork chops today. Not because I care about the chops, for some reason I've been obsessing about sauerkraut, this is excuse to make it. I LOVE sauerkraut, haven't made it for years. By "make" I mean open a jar.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDVjgJJaOB3bZItnb_8MO3I5Ryd5A7K 5AkWx9vJ7UCkHFtFUmW

Just cooking.

[woodbuck27]

Somebody explain how it is smart to kick an extra point when you are down by 2 in 4th quarter, relatively low scoring game at that point

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7GhOOPm1hq6QLmvGvialINwwNZUehT RMNTKPM0clwwQajNpFI9A

Now... Let's make this cake again.

[bobblehead]

The fact that time is winding down means you ought to go for the two points.

This obsession with nine points is too much, it's just one scenario. Even if you keep within 8 as result of kicking the point (big if, the Bears might wisely go for 2 themselves), you still leave yourself with the burden of scoring a two point play to close gap.
And what if the Bears come back with a field goal? With that relatively easy feat, they force you to score a touchdown to beat um. A chance to even the score is worth foregoing a sure 1 in a close game.

But again, if you fail to get it and the bears come back with a FG, then you score a TD to get the lead, there was a lot of time left. The bears then could have beaten you with a FG instead of tying you. So in the end, I see that concern a push.

[bobblehead]

And that ends the conversation!

Yep, even HH probably will concede he is wrong now.

[Rodgers12]

But again, if you fail to get it and the bears come back with a FG, then you score a TD to get the lead, there was a lot of time left. The bears then could have beaten you with a FG instead of tying you. So in the end, I see that concern a push.

In that case, you go for 2 again; if you convert, they would tie you with only a FG.

It's the 4th qtr. Down 8, you have to try to even up the game ASAP; you might not get another chance.

[Rodgers12]

Anybody watched Dallas-Philly? Garrett made the right decision to go for two. Execute and game would've been tied and Orton would've been under less pressure to move Dallas on their last drive.

Gotta take your shot when the opportunity presets itself.

[pbmax]

Too much time left. What was left on the clock when Garrett went for 2?

Gamebook says 3:57.

[Rutnstrut]

My take on it, FIRE CAPERS!!!!

[Rodgers12]

Too much time left. What was left on the clock when Garrett went for 2?

Gamebook says 3:57.

Put it this way: What's easier?

Go for two from the 2 to tie the game, especially when the game is in the 4th quarter.

Or

Kick EP AND then have your defense to make a stop AND then have your offense march into scoring position.

[pbmax]

Put it this way: What's easier?

Go for two from the 2 to tie the game, especially when the game is in the 4th quarter.

Or

Kick EP AND then have your defense to make a stop AND then have your offense march into scoring position.

League average for 2 point conversion is 47%. Packers have been worse than that this year. Odds are you will need to score again after holding the Bears anyway.

As it played out, missing the 2 doesn't make a difference. But I, along with every player and coach on the field expected more Bear points.

[woodbuck27]

League average for 2 point conversion is 47%. Packers have been worse than that this year. Odds are you will need to score again after holding the Bears anyway.

As it played out, missing the 2 doesn't make a difference. But I, along with every player and coach on the field expected more Bear points.

As any Packer fan who was awake did as well.

I cannot even imagine what the entire Bear organization is feeling after that loss to the Packers.

The words complete and shock wouldn't likely describe it.

That loss might be equivalent to the Chicago Bear organization and it's fans? As the way Packer Nation felt when Steve Young and TO and the San Fran 49ers punched our lights out in 1998.

That was a dramatic Ouch ! A huge shock!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Green_Bay_Packers_season

[Packers4Glory]

The fact that time is winding down means you ought to go for the two points.

This obsession with nine points is too much, it's just one scenario. Even if you keep within 8 as result of kicking the point (big if, the Bears might wisely go for 2 themselves), you still leave yourself with the burden of scoring a two point play to close gap.
And what if the Bears come back with a field goal? With that relatively easy feat, they force you to score a touchdown to beat um. A chance to even the score is worth foregoing a sure 1 in a close game.

It was the beginning of the 4th qt. you were going to get the ball back. You just don't want to be a for sure 2 scores down in the 4th. Our TD came with 11:38 left in the 4th. Here is what we were facing with our defense:

Chicago Drives
13:18 3 02:32 GB 30 5 30 Touchdown
07:27 3 02:23 CHI 26 4 74 Touchdown
03:27 3 03:32 CHI 32 7 68 Touchdown

They were moving the ball at will against our defense. You can't assume we could get a 2pt conversion. You have to factor in the chance that if you fail, then what??? What are the odds you can get the ball 2 more times in the event that chicago goes down and gets another TD by running the ball down our throats like they'd been able to do all game?? how much times comes off the clock in a drive like that?

In fact they took the ball the next series after our TD and ran off 5+ minutes. There was just no way I'd risk a 2pt conversion with that much time left on the clock.

[woodbuck27]

It was the beginning of the 4th qt. you were going to get the ball back. You just don't want to be a for sure 2 scores down in the 4th. Our TD came with 11:38 left in the 4th. Here is what we were facing with our defense:

Chicago Drives
13:18 3 02:32 GB 30 5 30 Touchdown
07:27 3 02:23 CHI 26 4 74 Touchdown
03:27 3 03:32 CHI 32 7 68 Touchdown

They were moving the ball at will against our defense. You can't assume we could get a 2pt conversion. You have to factor in the chance that if you fail, then what??? What are the odds you can get the ball 2 more times in the event that chicago goes down and gets another TD by running the ball down our throats like they'd been able to do all game?? how much times comes off the clock in a drive like that?

In fact they took the ball the next series after our TD and ran off 5+ minutes. There was just no way I'd risk a 2pt conversion with that much time left on the clock.

Solid analysis. Good job.

[mraynrand]

I didn't bother to re-read the whole damn thread so sorry if this has been covered. But, here's a two point certainty: Chicago, scoring a TD up 28-27, would have gone for two. If they get it, and it's likely they do, that's two scores. So, based on that scenario, the Packers should have gone for two and the 28-28 tie, because they are almost guaranteed to be down two scores with a Chicago TD.

[woodbuck27]

I didn't bother to re-read the whole damn thread so sorry if this has been covered. But, here's a two point certainty: Chicago, scoring a TD up 28-27, would have gone for two. If they get it, and it's likely they do, that's two scores. So, based on that scenario, the Packers should have gone for two and the 28-28 tie, because they are almost guaranteed to be down two scores with a Chicago TD.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1kGIXE6giDfStt44GHd0muOMhZzPly kEIz8uMmXANe2sBAoyN

I'm President of the 'Support For Blue Dog' Club.

[hoosier]

I didn't bother to re-read the whole damn thread so sorry if this has been covered. But, here's a two point certainty: Chicago, scoring a TD up 28-27, would have gone for two. If they get it, and it's likely they do, that's two scores. So, based on that scenario, the Packers should have gone for two and the 28-28 tie, because they are almost guaranteed to be down two scores with a Chicago TD.

Wha? If Chicago leads 28-27 and scores a TD (34-27) why would they go for two instead of kicking the XP for 35-27 and force GB to try for 2 if they can score again?

[Packers4Glory]

Wha? If Chicago leads 28-27 and scores a TD (34-27) why would they go for two instead of kicking the XP for 35-27 and force GB to try for 2 if they can score again?

kind of what I was wondering. I can see a team with nothing to lose going for it, but not a team in what's essentially a playoff game doing that. Just with the idea that you have less than a 50% chance of converting a 2pt try. I think I'd rather gamble on forcing the visiting team having to attempt it rather than my team playing at home.

Add to this fact that if you did score you probably took some time off the clock running and throwing the ball. So you get a TD go up 8 and figure the Packers are going to be throwing a lot more because they have to score asap in the event that they fail on the 2pt conversion and need to get the ball back. That makes calling defenses a lot easier that late into the 4th. Plus you're at home. I think the bears kick for 1 and make GB dink and dunk the ball down the field via the pass.

[woodbuck27]

Wha? If Chicago leads 28-27 and scores a TD (34-27) why would they go for two instead of kicking the XP for 35-27 and force GB to try for 2 if they can score again?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjOSgFueQGuu0h3tN-ZgH3uPqrfqV5U6zAWTE-uktUGLOvMEILWA

The other side isn't out of it yet !

[pbmax]

Wha? If Chicago leads 28-27 and scores a TD (34-27) why would they go for two instead of kicking the XP for 35-27 and force GB to try for 2 if they can score again?

Yes, I could see them considering that, but a PAT puts ALL the pressure on the Packers to convert. I would not consider it inevitable.

[woodbuck27]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKY1U6SGsQ6Ct1_HrNDgIAVbPjEtRAW OXDUI9JALPQpNBMGVTc

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuBSZdibYigB1xCUMlIyk1kyiO4SMIx YgUOk_Gec77adN9wlz8

[Harlan Huckleby]

League average for 2 point conversion is 47%. Packers have been worse than that this year. Odds are you will need to score again after holding the Bears anyway.

A lot of people have pointed out that the Pack have shitty (Altho small) track record with 2 point conversions. I don't think this is a huge factor.

In a close, 4th quarter game, the 2-point conversion is a lot like an onside kick. The upside is huge, and the consequences of the downside are manageable. The success rate of onside kick is probably 15%, if memory serves. A 2-point conversion in 25% to 50% range is still attractive.

Tying the game in a close struggle is worth risking a point.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Chicago Drives
13:18 3 02:32 GB 30 5 30 Touchdown
07:27 3 02:23 CHI 26 4 74 Touchdown
03:27 3 03:32 CHI 32 7 68 Touchdown

Ya, the Bears were scoring in second half, but Packers were answering the scores, keeping the game in a down-to-the wire state.

With about 4 minutes left in the game, we were sitting with the Bears stubbornly ahead by 1 point. Going for 2 would have had a decent chance of closing that gap. And if it failed, the consequences would not have been severe.

There is no formula for a right answer, so many factors to consider that you go with your gut. Although MM is generously endowed with gut, I think it failed him in this instance.

[QBME]

Going for two and failing was the correct call, as I had the Pack in the 33 point pool. Cha-ching!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Wha? If Chicago leads 28-27 and scores a TD (34-27) why would they go for two instead of kicking the XP for 35-27 and force GB to try for 2 if they can score again?

Kicking the extra point to go up by 8 would be a good call.

But going for 2 to get a 9 point lead also very defensible choice. The downside risk not so bad.

I don't think the statistical percentages yield a right answer in a close call like this. There are intangibles, game flow.

[woodbuck27]

Kicking the extra point to go up by 8 would be a good call.

But going for 2 to get a 9 point lead also very defensible choice. The downside risk not so bad.

I don't think the statistical percentages yield a right answer in a close call like this. There are intangibles, game flow.

The focus has shifted to the Bears and what they should have ... shouldn't have done and again based on a moot point as they didn't even get there.

Please gentleman >>> Back to the original argument and Packers and a single convert or a two point conversion with 11:38 remaining in the 4th quarter.

1st and 6 at CHI 6 (No Huddle, Shotgun) E.Lacy right guard for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN. 26 28

M.Crosby extra point is GOOD, Center-B.Goode, Holder-T.Masthay. 27 28

SCORE:

Chicago 28 - Green Bay 27

M.Crosby kicks 60 yards from GB 35 to CHI 5. D.Hester to CHI 26 for 21 yards (D.House).


DRIVE TOTALS: GB 27, CHI 28, 6 plays, 77 yards, 3:17 elapsed

Chicago Bears possession at 11:38 remaining in the 4th Qtr.

Was the single point convert the best option over going for the two point conversion?

Thank You. :drma:

[bobblehead]

I'm bored of this thread. Both sides have valid arguments. My biggest argument is the Viking Game. We went for 2 and failed. We tied instead of won.

[red]

i'm on the side that we should have gone for two, i was baffled in the GDT that we didn't go for two at the time

i thought it was a no brainer

there were no guarantees that we were gonna score again, gotta try and get the points when you can IMO

[woodbuck27]

I'm bored of this thread. Both sides have valid arguments. My biggest argument is the Viking Game. We went for 2 and failed. We tied instead of won.

MM wasn't wrong when he tried that 2 pointer. His team simply failed to execute.

This thread discusses a completely different situation as the conditions aren't the same as in the Minny game.

In this instance was MM wrong simply electing the almost sure convert over the 2 point conversion?

I don't believe he was. That simple one point convert was MM's call and it was successful. MM was then as a result successful. The team took that 'all positive' >>> forward into the game.

That success contributed more to the eventual outcome than a flat out miss of another more risky two point coversion.

The lesson of this debate:

Your never wrong when what your call succeeds.

[woodbuck27]

i'm on the side that we should have gone for two, i was baffled in the GDT that we didn't go for two at the time

i thought it was a no brainer

there were no guarantees that we were gonna score again, gotta try and get the points when you can IMO

and red there is where this debate gets complicated.

[bobblehead]

MM wasn't wrong when he tried that 2 pointer. His team simply failed to execute.



To paraphrase a poster named woodbuck27 from another thread...I am more about results.

[woodbuck27]

To paraphrase a poster named woodbuck27 from another thread...I am more about results.

In any debate it's certainly important to accompany the argument 'if any exists' with valid reference towards derailing the opponent.
It's never in good taste to use any reference out of context to improperly sway the audience. :rs:

I enjoy a proper debate.

[bobblehead]

The proper context was that he shouldn't have gone for it at that junction because the risk of failure was too high...soooo I was using proper context when I said I am about results.

[Bossman641]

This chart says Packers should have gone for 2 if they thought they had a 14% chance of success.

http://www.footballcommentary.com/twoptchart.htm

[woodbuck27]

The proper context was that he shouldn't have gone for it at that junction because the risk of failure was too high...soooo I was using proper context when I said I am about results.

and ...I believe your correct.

All the same this has turned out being a stimulating debate. Both sides held their positions up very well.

It's inspired much thought. That usually has a chance to stimulate learning. ;-)

[Pugger]

I'm coming into this debate a tad late but I did not - and still don't - have an issue with Mike kicking the extra point there. I'm with those who say keep it within one score/possession instead of 2.

[Harlan Huckleby]

keep it within one score/possession instead of 2.

That "one possession" theory requires you to convert a 2-point play later, so have you really bought anything?

And if the other team kicks a field goal, you have to score a touchdown to overcome it.

Kicking the extra point seems like a safe choice, but in actuality it gets you very little. Trailing by a point in last quarter of close game stinks, and it nearly bit the packers in the ass.

[mraynrand]

Trailing by a point in last quarter of close game stinks, and it nearly bit the packers in the ass.

you are right. So now all you need to do is acknowledge that trailing by two in a close game was very likely if they tried the conversion, and that sucks for it's own reasons, and could have bit them in the ass too.

[Pugger]

That "one possession" theory requires you to convert a 2-point play later, so have you really bought anything?

And if the other team kicks a field goal, you have to score a touchdown to overcome it.

Kicking the extra point seems like a safe choice, but in actuality it gets you very little. Trailing by a point in last quarter of close game stinks, and it nearly bit the packers in the ass.

If you kick the extra point you are down 8. If you attempt the 2 point conversion and fail you are down 9 = that is 2 scores. In the end we did stop them and went ahead with the TD to Cobb in the last moments of the game anyway.

[Rodgers12]

you are right. So now all you need to do is acknowledge that trailing by two in a close game was very likely if they tried the conversion, and that sucks for it's own reasons, and could have bit them in the ass too.

Not really. The conversion success rate is 47%. That's almost a coin flip. That's better than the percentage of kicking XP + making defensive stop + marching into scoring position + executing score, I am sure.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you kick the extra point you are down 8. If you attempt the 2 point conversion and fail you are down 9 = that is 2 scores.

Thanks for that clarification.

You are kicking the extra point to avoid the difficulty of going for two. OK, but in order to count the 8 points as "a single score", you still have convert a 2-point play, you've just delayed the pain.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So now all you need to do is acknowledge that trailing by two in a close game was very likely if they tried the conversion, and that sucks for it's own reasons, and could have bit them in the ass too.

Trailing by 2 does not suck much more than trailing by 1. They both are overcome by a field goal.

Tying the score is MUCH better than trailing by 1, you preserve a shot at overtime in the case that the teams trade scores.

Go for the brass ring, for christ's sake.

[pbmax]

Not really. The conversion success rate is 47%. That's almost a coin flip. That's better than the percentage of kicking XP + making defensive stop + marching into scoring position + executing score, I am sure.

That is the League wide average. Not the Packers chances of success.

[woodbuck27]

Trailing by 2 does not suck much more than trailing by 1. They both are overcome by a field goal.

Tying the score is MUCH better than trailing by 1, you preserve a shot at overtime in the case that the teams trade scores.

Go for the brass ring, for christ's sake.

These fellas say:

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/m/two-monkeys-playing-22544953.jpg

The two Monkey Pile...Tis ALL RIGHT !

[mraynrand]

Tying the score is MUCH better than trailing by 1

no kidding. But that's not the point. The point is all about probabilities and guessing which will work out


Trailing by 2 does not suck much more than trailing by 1. They both are overcome by a field goal.

of course. No difference, unless the other team scores a TD. Then you're fucked.

http://076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.c om/images/files/000/607/422/original/original.jpg



So now all you need to do is acknowledge that trailing by two in a close game was very likely if they tried the conversion, and that sucks for it's own reasons, and could have bit them in the ass too.

[woodbuck27]

no kidding. But that's not the point. The point is all about probabilities and guessing which will work out of course. No difference, unless the other team scores a TD. Then you're fucked.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTJJ3WmZ6548rVg5UAJ81_YbhfREgxAR TtychypDfPCFL_SFQqVMA

Irrrt'ss soo con..fuuusssiiinng !

[Teamcheez1]

Not really. The conversion success rate is 47%. That's almost a coin flip. That's better than the percentage of kicking XP + making defensive stop + marching into scoring position + executing score, I am sure.

The Packers success rate is 0% this season (0 for 4).

[woodbuck27]

The Packers success rate is 0% this season (0 for 4).

I don't want to get to the :

We're due point !

GO PACK GO !