Packers coach Mike McCarthy: Going for two 'wasn't the right option'.

[woodbuck27]

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/27496/packers-coach-mike-mccarthy-going-for-two-wasnt-the-right-option

Packers coach Mike McCarthy: Going for two 'wasn't the right option'


Rob Demovsky ... ESPN Staff Writer

*** “The two-point conversion was definitely an option,” McCarthy said Monday in his season wrap-up press conference. “But it wasn’t the right option.” Green (YES) and Red ( no ) = Purple = We'll never know Mike.

The Question I would ask Packer Head Coach Mike McCarthy:

Mike and with all respect Sir:

Your past success this season and the two pint conversion supports that you should have gone for it. Mike how far away from the Arizona Goal Line we're you when you decided to cast your team into a much more elaborate DRAMA situation?

Background Fact:

An other's supported opinion:

There are those who disagree with McCarthy.

Among them include ESPN’s Bill Barnwell, who **used probability statistics to support his argument ** ... that McCarthy should have forgone the game-tying extra point and tried to win the game in regulation.

** Click on the LINK at the top of this page please.

Then there's our experience with the Green Bay Packers and this fact... A FACT that should have given Mike McCarthy enough confidence in the Packers and the 2-Pont conversion play >>> TO WIN THAT GAME...THEN and THERE...END IT and analytically thinking MM should have called the 2 Point Play with confidence. Live and die with a play that your team has executed successfully this season a whopping 71.4 % of the time !

This 2 Point Conversion call was used by Mike McCarthy a total of seven (7 times) and the Green Bay Packers succeeded in securing those 2 Points five (5) of those 7 times.



More thoughts

He (by calling the 2-Pint Conversion) removes all manner of DRAMA...a given.... extending that game to OT. i Pull out the dagger (the 2-Point conversion_)....and simply execute your best choice of the exact plays you go over and over again in Practise.

The stage was prepared for a Dramatic win.... NOT .......... a tie.

A dramatic win after a dramatic Hail Mary by Aaron Rodgers to WR Jeff Janis.

That sudden strike set the two point play up perfectly.

The Arizona Cardinals we're in some shock >>> Numb. Confidence suddenly out the window; clouded by doubt and in some denial that Green Bay could be now....so close to winning that game.

It's all about opportunity meets a far better than a 50/50 chance of success.

If I could..... I'd ask Mike McCarthy this question:

What do you practise the Two-Point Play for Mike? Don't you practise it to properly execute it when...it's necessary or otherwise best to go for the Two-Point play or maybe as we had here....an outstanding OPPORTUNITY.

We've seen this before.

Mike McCarthy elects to pass up playing for a WIN and opts for 'just a tie'.



FACT:

The Packers converted five of their seven two-point tries this season, including one in the wild-card game against the Redskins the previous week.

[mraynrand]

Stubby's explanation of why he didn't go for two is fine. It was a reasonable call. I wanted the 2 point attempt, but the fact that they lost doesn't mean it wasn't a good call. There are no guarantees.

[Maxie the Taxi]

The Arizona game was like a game of chicken. Stubby blinked first.

[mraynrand]

The Arizona game was like a game of chicken. Stubby blinked first.

Five way chicken and Shields blinked first

The refs blinked second (TD offensive interference non-call, two Janis interference non-calls)

Then Stubby

Then the defense

[woodbuck27]

Stubby's explanation of why he didn't go for two is fine. It was a reasonable call. I wanted the 2 point attempt, but the fact that they lost doesn't mean it wasn't a good call. There are no guarantees.

I certainly understand why MM elected the tie and OT Vs the Two Point Convert and the Win in Regulation Time if successful. NFL HC's are reluctant to pin a game result on such as this would have been 'an ALL IN' ... Win or Lose call.

If that attempt 'if called' hadn't succeeded then MM would have looked like the Goat. Part of his legacy as the Green Bay Packers HC would be that... he made the wrong call ...with a failure.

** Prudence (and I choose a kind word here) :sad: exceeds Failure.

A member such as red would substitute a different word.

That word might start with the letter.....'C' and have nine (9) letters?

That word would never describe me. Thus if I had to make the call. Based in all I know and Packers in this season:

I'd shoot the 2 Point play. That's just how I am. I play a lot of Texas Holdem.

If I have pocket Aces I have slightly better than a 50% chance of winning the hand 'going all in' or with a heavy bet.

MM had a much better chance than I'd have in my cited situation. He had a 71% or only a 3 out of 10 chances of failure based on previous results given 2 Point Convert opportunities in this season up to that moment in time.

Too easy.....shoot for Two ! GO ALL IN because the goal line is so close right then and there and you might not even get the ball on 'O' in OT!

Damn ! MM wants to rely...take a chance on a coin toss when he has a higher probability of getting it right for the Team and Packer Nation by a call for two Points.

Mike lacks what it takes to close.

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/55158/55158,1159308506,18/stock-photo-a-bull-s-testicles-1909683.jpg

[Maxie the Taxi]

Five way chicken and Shields blinked first

The refs blinked second (TD offensive interference non-call, two Janis interference non-calls)

Then Stubby

Then the defense

Actually, Arians had a blink in there too somewhere. Remember the 4th qtr, time running down, Arizona has a 4th and four and Arizona ahead by four points. Arians could have won the game by gaining four yards. He opted for the field goal. I felt a field goal wouldn't help him at all; it's still a one possession game. Of course, I wasn't anticipating Janis heroics.

I was wrong; Arians was right to blink. Stubby was wrong.

[Deputy Nutz]

In hindsight I would going for two was the right decision, but with the personnel on the field I understand why they didn't. 2pt conversions are tricky because they are set plays and practiced with a set personnel during the week of practice. Having your 4th and 5th options at receiver on the field at that moment probably would have ended in total confusion.

[Maxie the Taxi]

In hindsight I would going for two was the right decision, but with the personnel on the field I understand why they didn't. 2pt conversions are tricky because they are set plays and practiced with a set personnel during the week of practice. Having your 4th and 5th options at receiver on the field at that moment probably would have ended in total confusion.Not a problem because Stubby had the 4th and 5th options practicing all week with the ones. Stubby either lacked two-point plays in his gameplan or two balls in his pants. Take your pick.:sad:

[Smidgeon]

Not a problem because Stubby had the 4th and 5th options practicing all week with the ones. Stubby either lacked two-point plays in his gameplan or two balls in his pants. Take your pick.:sad:

All week, M3 was practicing with Cobb, Jones, and Abby. In the end, he had a shutdown Jones, Abby, and a very raw Janis. Not the same package at all.

Janis was the only one getting open at the end, but if he ran a slant instead of an out, game over.

M3's reasoning makes perfect sense considering the circumstance. If Cobb was still in the game, I'm convinced they would have gone for 2.

By holding to this narrative, you're being far more "stubby" than M3.

[Bossman641]

All week, M3 was practicing with Cobb, Jones, and Abby. In the end, he had a shutdown Jones, Abby, and a very raw Janis. Not the same package at all.

Janis was the only one getting open at the end, but if he ran a slant instead of an out, game over.

M3's reasoning makes perfect sense considering the circumstance. If Cobb was still in the game, I'm convinced they would have gone for 2.

By holding to this narrative, you're being far more "stubby" than M3.

+1. The running game stats look good but down in down out it wasn't that successful. Tough to go for the 2 point conversion when you have NO go-to position player at that time. Even now I'm not sure what they would have called. Tough to imagine going to Jones when he was shut out. Janis doesn't have the precision required at the goal line. So that leaves DickRod and Abby as your top 2 options? I need to go back and watch the game again. I see that Abby only had 4 receptions on 12 targets. Was that mostly the result of bad throws or tight coverage?

[Maxie the Taxi]

All week, M3 was practicing with Cobb, Jones, and Abby. In the end, he had a shutdown Jones, Abby, and a very raw Janis. Not the same package at all.

Janis was the only one getting open at the end, but if he ran a slant instead of an out, game over.

M3's reasoning makes perfect sense considering the circumstance. If Cobb was still in the game, I'm convinced they would have gone for 2.

By holding to this narrative, you're being far more "stubby" than M3.I'm not saying Stubby's call was unreasonable. I'm saying that my call was just as reasonable, if not more so, considering the game situation.

If you think Stubby would have gone for two if Cobb were still in the game, you're the only one in the country who thinks so. Even Ryan Glasspiegel, McCarthy's biggest defender, says:

That being said, having (I think) watched every game McCarthy’s coached, the idea that they’d even consider going for two never crossed my mind.

Why? Because Stubby is a "play it by the book" coach. He plays percentages. [Although in this case you could argue the percentages were against him.] Anyway, the times he hasn't played by the book have been few and far between, like when he called an onsides kick at the start of a playoff game, or the fake FG with Crabtree. [And, surprise, they mostly all worked.]

Generally-speaking, his playcalling and game tactics are by the book as well. I remember having a debate with Vince after last year's debacle about this same, exact thing. And here we are again. But that's another discussion for another time.

[By the way, how do I change my handle to "Maxie McStubby?":-)]

[Harlan Huckleby]

Stubby's explanation of why he didn't go for two is fine. It was a reasonable call. I wanted the 2 point attempt, but the fact that they lost doesn't mean it wasn't a good call. There are no guarantees.

Ya, I thought his explanation made sense.

I still think I'm smarter than Stubby and Packers would be moving on to a drubbing in Carolina if Coach Huckleby could have gone for 2.

[mraynrand]

I still think I'm smarter than Stubby and Packers would be moving on to a drubbing in Carolina if Coach Huckleby could have gone for 2.

I agree, except the part about the drubbing

[mraynrand]

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/55158/55158,1159308506,18/stock-photo-a-bull-s-testicles-1909683.jpg

You know, I get in trouble for talking about your family, so you should at least have the decency not to post pictures of 'em.

[Patler]

Wasn't there a time when a roll out inside the 5 almost guaranteed a TD from inside the 5? If they covered on that side he would beat them to the flag, if they came up to stop him, he had an easy throw.

[Patler]

Basically, McCarthy plays so as to not lose. Kicking the extra point to tie is playing not to lose. If you delay losing, you might have an opportunity to win. Problem is, when the gods of football present you with an opportunity to win, and you thumb your nose at it, they may not give you another chance. They can be fickle that way.

[3irty1]

Going for 2 there is an underdog strategy in that situation. It's shortening the game to one more play, making the game's outcome as high-variance as possible. I'd have gone for it because I believe the Cardinals were the superior team and I'd love the chance to gamble for a win.

McCarthy never believes his team is the underdog and I'm glad he's the coach instead of me. I don't think this is the same as playing not to lose.

[Patler]

Playing to tie when you have the opportunity for a play to win/lose is absolutely playing not to lose. It has no positive effect other than not losing.

The interesting thing is that it was a much closer call than in the past, with the extra point now being equivalent of a 33 yard FG. Still a high percentage kick, but not quite as automatic as the extra point was in the past, as evidenced by the announcers pointing out that only 5 kickers, including Crosby, had not missed one this year. Throw in the factor of a new long snapper who has been around only a few weeks, and it could have ended up like Blair Walsh's even shorter FG attempt (albeit outdoors in the cold).

The thing I liked about the situation is that GB had control of the moment. It was their opportunity to do something to win. On defense you play to prevent a loss, you might get lucky with an interception or fumble and have a chance to win, but being on defense in OT is playing to prevent losing. More than likely, they would still have to make positive plays on offense to win, just like going for two. Yes, they might have more than a single play opportunity, but also more yards to cover.

The thing is, you never know if you will ever again have the opportunity to make a play to win, and as we saw, they did not ever have that chance again. They played not to lose, and they never had another chance to make a play to win.

[3irty1]

Playing to tie when you have the opportunity for a play to win/lose is absolutely playing not to lose. It has no positive effect other than not losing.

The interesting thing is that it was a much closer call than in the past, with the extra point now being equivalent of a 33 yard FG. Still a high percentage kick, but not quite as automatic as the extra point was in the past, as evidenced by the announcers pointing out that only 5 kickers, including Crosby, had not missed one this year. Throw in the factor of a new long snapper who has been around only a few weeks, and it could have ended up like Blair Walsh's even shorter FG attempt (albeit outdoors in the cold).

The thing I liked about the situation is that GB had control of the moment. It was their opportunity to do something to win. On defense you play to prevent a loss, you might get lucky with an interception or fumble and have a chance to win, but being on defense in OT is playing to prevent losing. More than likely, they would still have to make positive plays on offense to win, just like going for two. Yes, they might have more than a single play opportunity, but also more yards to cover.

The thing is, you never know if you will ever again have the opportunity to make a play to win, and as we saw, they did not ever have that chance again. They played not to lose, and they never had another chance to make a play to win.

If you think you are the better team good strategy is to seek as many opportunities to have that superiority realized.

Lets say a 2 pt conversion is about a 50% proposition as per normal league averages. Sample sizes are way too low to try and get much more resolution than that. I think I remember reading after Belichick elected to play defense first in OT week 16 against the Jets that the team that gets the ball first in OT wins in roughly a 54% of the time. If you have the superior football team then you ought to like your odds in OT where more football is played. Even if you lose the toss its far from giving away control of the outcome. Defense is half of the reason you consider yourself a superior football team to begin with.

Playing not to lose does not simply mean avoiding high-variance outcomes. By this logic any coach who ever punts, kicks a field goal, or chooses not to on-side-kick is playing not to lose. In football, playing not to lose would be like the four-minute offense and prevent defense. Trading away the aggressiveness required to be effective to bleed the clock and shorten the game, presumably with the lead. What McCarthy did was closer to the opposite.

Furthermore even if the Packers were the worse team (again which I think they were) and in a thousand attempts at 2-pt conversions in this situation we really would have a better outcome than the thousand attempts at OT, I think there is value in having a head coach who believes the opposite for every situation but this one.

[Bossman641]

......

I was wondering this same thing the other day. McCarthy has made numerous comments about not being an underdog. He made that exact statement days before the Cardinals game.

I can't remember which analogy he used, but he also made comments referencing getting Rodgers as many chances as possible. If you think of a basketball game, the better team usually wants to play more up tempo and get as many possessions as they can, with the thinking being that their superiority would eventually win out.

Was McCarthy wrong to think this way with the game going to OT? Was it hubris? Was he blind to how good the team actually was?

I can't really make a hard stance either way. How many 2 point conversions had Janis/Abby/Perillo practiced during the year? Cause they sure as hell hadn't had any in an actual game. So the alternative is the run game, RRodgers, or James Jones.

[pbmax]

Basically, McCarthy plays so as to not lose. Kicking the extra point to tie is playing not to lose. If you delay losing, you might have an opportunity to win. Problem is, when the gods of football present you with an opportunity to win, and you thumb your nose at it, they may not give you another chance. They can be fickle that way.

Yes, and it also known as MartyBall.

The telltale sign is that despite recognizing there might be time to be aggressive, it is never time to be aggressive late as the circumstances somehow always change in favor of being conservative.

Now when you have the 1985 Cleveland Brown dump truck of an offense (2-1,000 yard backs), you can understand much of the time. But when you have Rodgers, good lord why are you taking the ball out of his hands.

[pbmax]

Going for 2 there is an underdog strategy in that situation. It's shortening the game to one more play, making the game's outcome as high-variance as possible. I'd have gone for it because I believe the Cardinals were the superior team and I'd love the chance to gamble for a win.

McCarthy never believes his team is the underdog and I'm glad he's the coach instead of me. I don't think this is the same as playing not to lose.

I agree its the underdog strategy, but in this situation its also playing to your strengths/against your weaknesses. The Cardinals had adjusted and spent all the 2nd half moving on the Defense and the Offense had been shut down.

If it was the end of the 3rd Quarter and each side was getting 2 more possessions, maybe that flips again. But it wasn't the reality at the time of the Hail Mary II.

They weren't likely to get that close again. It took two miracles to get a TD.

By the way, if everyone in the League doesn't copy SkyBall with trailing receiver as their go to Hail Mary play, I will be surprised. Janis did exactly what Rich Rod did. Big body jumping into coverage while facing the QB.

[Pugger]

All week, M3 was practicing with Cobb, Jones, and Abby. In the end, he had a shutdown Jones, Abby, and a very raw Janis. Not the same package at all.

Janis was the only one getting open at the end, but if he ran a slant instead of an out, game over.

M3's reasoning makes perfect sense considering the circumstance. If Cobb was still in the game, I'm convinced they would have gone for 2.

By holding to this narrative, you're being far more "stubby" than M3.

Agreed.

[3irty1]

I agree its the underdog strategy, but in this situation its also playing to your strengths/against your weaknesses. The Cardinals had adjusted and spent all the 2nd half moving on the Defense and the Offense had been shut down.

If it was the end of the 3rd Quarter and each side was getting 2 more possessions, maybe that flips again. But it wasn't the reality at the time of the Hail Mary II.

They weren't likely to get that close again. It took two miracles to get a TD.

By the way, if everyone in the League doesn't copy SkyBall with trailing receiver as their go to Hail Mary play, I will be surprised. Janis did exactly what Rich Rod did. Big body jumping into coverage while facing the QB.

Its playing with the momentum of the game I agree, but not in line with any particular strengths/weaknesses unless that strength is luck and weakness is more football. This is ultimately the same as saying we were the underdog in that moment--which I agree with. I don't think MM does though and I like that about him.

Easier said that done. You need a QB who can buy the extra time it takes, even if that means running backwards, and still put a rainbow in the endzone.

[woodbuck27]

Yes, and it also known as MartyBall.

The telltale sign is that despite recognizing there might be time to be aggressive, it is never time to be aggressive late as the circumstances somehow always change in favor of being conservative.

Now when you have the 1985 Cleveland Brown dump truck of an offense (2-1,000 yard backs), you can understand much of the time. But when you have Rodgers, good lord why are you taking the ball out of his hands.


Going for two points from 2 yards out and a better than 50% chance with a QB and offense that's pumped up Vs a defense that's all whirly numb struck is being aggressive?

I'd call the two point call right there:

a) Simply, a common sense call.

b) Taking care of business with a huge advantage,.

c) The logical thing to do when your in control of the game situation.

d) ALL OF THE ABOVE.

[pbmax]

Its playing with the momentum of the game I agree, but not in line with any particular strengths/weaknesses unless that strength is luck and weakness is more football. This is ultimately the same as saying we were the underdog in that moment--which I agree with. I don't think MM does though and I like that about him.

Easier said that done. You need a QB who can buy the extra time it takes, even if that means running backwards, and still put a rainbow in the endzone.

I think its more than momentum of the game, though that perhaps best describes Arizona's O versus the Packer D.

Packer's O suffered in this game from its main weakness this season, an inability to sustain drives. That was not influenced by the momentum of the game.

Scoring more with fewer plays needed is precisely what the team needed. As a game plan, that might not be practical. But a 2 point conversion is something different.

[yetisnowman]

You guys are funny. I thought kicking the extra point was the right move at the time, and I still do. It was the smart play....the fact we lost doesn't change that. Sort of reminds me how MM was a moron for running the ball up 12 with 5 minutes left in the NFCCG last year. Hindsight is 20/20.

Yes kicking the extra point is the safe play, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Out of 17 OT games this season only 3 times did the first possession by the receiving team result in a TD. And one of those 3 was the infamous Jets-Pats game. Meaning only 2 times out of 17 did a team win the coin toss, and score a TD on their first possession. MM has 2 nightmare scenarios last Saturday after Janis catches that pass. 1) we kick the extra point, AND lose the coin toss, AND the Cards score a TD on the first possession or 2) we go for the two point conversion win and fail. I can sort of understand his logic here. You think maybe the momentum carries more weight in an entire extra session of events and sequences as opposed to the 40 second/one play/ high variances scenario of a two point attempt. And the analytics certainly lean towards going for the tie. I mean how many postseason NFL games/NCAA championship type games has the coach had the stones for that move?
Our team had played fundamentally sound all game, what happened in OT was far more shocking than had we failed the 2 pT attempt.

[woodbuck27]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V0TYIO6yv4

[mraynrand]

You guys are funny. I thought kicking the extra point was the right move at the time, and I still do. It was the smart play....the fact we lost doesn't change that. Sort of reminds me how MM was a moron for running the ball up 12 with 5 minutes left in the NFCCG last year. Hindsight is 20/20.

It wasn't hindsight. Several of us were calling for it right at the time. I'm Ok with people differing on the call, but I and others thought the best bet was going for two. People have different opinions.

[mraynrand]

Our team had played fundamentally sound all game

Meh. In the second half they had the Lacy runs, several three and outs, an interception, a 23 yard drive and the hail marys. Their drives pretty much sucked. There was good reason to believe they would struggle to get in range for a FG let alone a TD. And the defense was getting gassed. And you're on the road. Go for two Stubby.

[Bretsky]

2 point conversions succeed 48 perecent of the time
We odds higher than that we'd beat AZ in OT given how that fourth quarter went ???

[pbmax]

Packers were 5 of 6 in 2 point conversions this year. All passes. They could have found a play, hell, they could have spread them out and run.

[woodbuck27]

2 point conversions succeed 48 perecent of the time
We odds higher than that we'd beat AZ in OT given how that fourth quarter went ???

The most dangerous player on both sides was Larry FitzGerald and the Packer 'D' was in fits trying...were they..to defend against him.

MM had to see that was the case. Yet he try's to make us believe that HE had confidence in the Packers 'D'. ????????? Why Mike???????? What did you see Mike in the second half of that game that had you so confident in Dom Capers 'D'?

As I saw the game Mike Mccarthy should have:

a)Realized his offense was stuttering at best

b) Realized that the Packer offense was just freaking lucky to get a second time last second heroic Hail Mary play executed for a TD

c) Seized that moment and 'easily ...with determination /conviction as it was one of those...the time was 'NOW' moments in his Coaching career and certainly with courage elected to go for broke and the game right then and there. Mike McCarthy should have taken advantage of his Irish (if he has it...I'm wondering now) and gone all balls to the walls for the TWO POINT CONVERSION.

FIRE THE TWO POINT CONVERSION PLAY....He had his team 2 Yards away from another possible Super Bowl Game.

Mike McCarthy simply cannot seize the moment and next season we'll suffer the same ..this Fact of Life and MM is right before your total Green Bay Packer consciousness and yet you ignore it

Mike McCarthy chokes up in HUGE games Packer fans.

This is absolutely way too obvious people.

[Joemailman]

I think MM put his faith in the defense which was justified. The defense had given up 2 FG's and 2 TD's. One TD was when Arizona got the ball at the Packers 42 yard line. The other was a lucky break for Arizona when Randall deflected the ball away from Fitz and it ended up in Floyd's hands. One of the field goals was when Arizona got the ball at the Packers 25 yard line. Packers had intercepted 2 passes and had their hands on a couple of others. MM went with his strength. It didn't work out, but I think it was the right call.

[woodbuck27]

I think MM put his faith in the defense which was justified. The defense had given up 2 FG's and 2 TD's. One TD was when Arizona got the ball at the Packers 42 yard line. The other was a lucky break for Arizona when Randall deflected the ball away from Fitz and it ended up in Floyd's hands. One of the field goals was when Arizona got the ball at the Packers 25 yard line. Packers had intercepted 2 passes and had their hands on a couple of others. MM went with his strength. It didn't work out, but I think it was the right call.

I respect your right to feel as you do.

Going my way might have led to victory.

Going his way...that you agrees with >>> led to >>> a defeat.

[Joemailman]

I respect your right to feel as you do.

Going my way might have led to victory.

Going his way...that you agrees with >>> led to >>> a defeat.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[George Cumby]

I seem to recall M3 being more aggressive in his play calling earlier in his career. Would he have gone for it 4-5 years ago?

[yetisnowman]

It wasn't hindsight. Several of us were calling for it right at the time. I'm Ok with people differing on the call, but I and others thought the best bet was going for two. People have different opinions.

Well I only saw one person clamoring for 2 BEFORE the coin toss(woodbuck). After the bunk flip, then AZ wins the toss. It's easier to say 2pt convo was smarter. Your quote after the toss was"shoulda gone for 2".... MM didn't have the luxury of knowing AZ would get the ball first. That's the very definition of hindsight. But I'll give you credit for leaning that way. While the defense wasn't spectacular in the 2nd half, the Cards only TD was a miraculous bounce off the DBs forearm.

[mraynrand]

Well I only saw one person clamoring for 2 BEFORE the coin toss(woodbuck). After the bunk flip, then AZ wins the toss. It's easier to say 2pt convo was smarter. Your quote after the toss was"shoulda gone for 2".... MM didn't have the luxury of knowing AZ would get the ball first. That's the very definition of hindsight. But I'll give you credit for leaning that way. While the defense wasn't spectacular in the 2nd half, the Cards only TD was a miraculous bounce off the DBs forearm.

You're suck a dick. I posted before even knowing what the toss was. We were watching on DirecTV with about a 30-45 minute delay. It was kinda weird because I was going back to watch the game at times already knowing what had happened from here. (I also actually missed the final regulation AZ TD because I walked into a different room to post on here as well and had to go back and look at the interference later). It wasn't hindsight - it was my initial immediate reaction. If you don't believe me, you know what? I don't give a fuck. But I still think it was the right call.

[mraynrand]

I seem to recall M3 being more aggressive in his play calling earlier in his career. Would he have gone for it 4-5 years ago?

Nah. I think all coaches under almost all situations would kick the extra point. It's just such a risky call. The other way the thinking is that you have so many more chances to pull out the win. I liked the 2 point call for all the reasons I listed, but I have no problem with the other view.

[Deputy Nutz]

Honestly I didn't even think to go for two. I fee like you coach and play to extend the game. Now the NFL is different because one coin flip and one possession can lead to victory. If this was college or high school I never think to go for two.

[mraynrand]

It was my initial reaction. The immediate thought I had was that the defense was stunned and you had them on their heels, maybe you just totally catch them off balance and shock the hell out of them. And/or you force them to take a TO, them come back with a totally different look, etc. Plus the way the offense was playing pretty much sucked except two runs and two hail marys in the second half. Oh well, enough of this - time to let it go.

[Patler]

If there were going to go for 2, they should have taken 7 or 8 delay of game penalties to put the ball back at the 40 yard line or so. They would have had a decent chance of converting that.

[yetisnowman]

You're suck a dick. I posted before even knowing what the toss was. We were watching on DirecTV with about a 30-45 minute delay. It was kinda weird because I was going back to watch the game at times already knowing what had happened from here. (I also actually missed the final regulation AZ TD because I walked into a different room to post on here as well and had to go back and look at the interference later). It wasn't hindsight - it was my initial immediate reaction. If you don't believe me, you know what? I don't give a fuck. But I still think it was the right call.

Why do you always resort to name calling....Why would I assume or know that you were watching the game on a 30-45 minute delay? So you were keeping up with play by play on the game thread but watching the game on a delay? Sounds like a miserable gameday experience but to each their own. You posted at the time of the coin toss. Much less than 30 min after the Janis catch. Your timeline and habits are very confusing. Your post was in past tense. Sorry for taking it a face value. You have nothing that shows your reaction was immediate.

My point that the vast majority of people bitching about kicking the extra point were not vocal about it until well after the fact.

Relax man.

[Scott Campbell]

I would have gone for two. In fact I believe it was a brilliant young coach Scott Campbell who once said "Then run it, and let's get the hell out of here." Or maybe that was some other dude. I forget. But I digress.

That was a game you're trying to steal. You should take your chances on winning at the end of regulation - especially short handed.

[Scott Campbell]

I respect your right to feel as you do.

Going my way might have led to victory.

Going his way...that you agrees with >>> led to >>> a defeat.


Ok genius. Nice 20/20 hindsight.

So what about the time after the 2007 NFCCG that you guaranteed that Ted and Mike would NEVER sniff another NFCCG?

Your PermaTard status is never getting revoked after that gem.

[yetisnowman]

I would have gone for two. In fact I believe it was a brilliant young coach Scott Campbell who once said "Then run it, and let's get the hell out of here." Or maybe that was some other dude. I forget. But I digress.

That was a game you're trying to steal. You should take your chances on winning at the end of regulation - especially short handed.

Ice bowl qb sneak was on 3rd down though. Truly amazing how many of you guys "woulda gone for 2" , especially since we lost on the first possession of OT. Almost everyone of you was right. It's sort of mind boggling how many of you retroactively guessed correctly.

[Scott Campbell]

Ice bowl qb sneak was on 3rd down though. Truly amazing how many of you guys "woulda gone for 2" , especially since we lost on the first possession of OT. Almost everyone of you was right. It's sort of mind boggling how many of you retroactively guessed correctly.

What's mind boggling is how I sold most of my stocks 2 months ago.

[yetisnowman]

Haha^^^

[pbmax]

I make no bones about it. I came around to the go for two option after the game. So it is hindsight.

But its backed up by a lot of middle school math.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-coaches-are-getting-away-with-crimes-against-middle-school-math/

[Joemailman]

I make no bones about it. I came around to the go for two option after the game. So it is hindsight.

But its backed up by a lot of middle school math.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-coaches-are-getting-away-with-crimes-against-middle-school-math/

The math though doesn't fully take into account MM's stated reason for not going for 2 - the team's WR situation. Now they do mention that anything that makes the Packers weaker vs. the Cardinals hurts them more in overtime than in regulation. I would argue though that Janis' greatest strength - his speed - is negated in the congested spaces of a 2 point conversion. He is, as we saw, much more dangerous in the open field.

[pbmax]

The math though doesn't fully take into account MM's stated reason for not going for 2 - the team's WR situation. Now they do mention that anything that makes the Packers weaker vs. the Cardinals hurts them more in overtime than in regulation. I would argue though that Janis' greatest strength - his speed - is negated in the congested spaces of a 2 point conversion. He is, as we saw, much more dangerous in the open field.

Expecting another Janis Hail Mary after two of them is asking a lot and its a low percentage play regardless.

If you cannot go 2 yards with your WRs, then the odds of you going 75 yards are not better. Not to mention the mitigating factors of the coin flip and needing the D to stop a very good offense again.

I could understand the Janis issue is paramount if it was one play, possession either on the 2 or midfield, but it is most definitely not that. In fact Janis, at his size, has a lot to offer on the goal line. See his catch on the slant. Choosing the PAT was just playing to extend the game.

[Joemailman]

Expecting another Janis Hail Mary after two of them is asking a lot and its a low percentage play regardless.

If you cannot go 2 yards with your WRs, then the odds of you going 75 yards are not better. Not to mention the mitigating factors of the coin flip and needing the D to stop a very good offense again.

I could understand the Janis issue is paramount if it was one play, possession either on the 2 or midfield, but it is most definitely not that. In fact Janis, at his size, has a lot to offer on the goal line. See his catch on the slant. Choosing the PAT was just playing to extend the game.

Or maybe giving your defense, the stronger unit, the chance to set up a win. They had intercepted Palmer twice, and probably should have had a couple more.

[woodbuck27]

The math though doesn't fully take into account MM's stated reason for not going for 2 - the team's WR situation. Now they do mention that anything that makes the Packers weaker vs. the Cardinals hurts them more in overtime than in regulation. I would argue though that Janis' greatest strength - his speed - is negated in the congested spaces of a 2 point conversion. He is, as we saw, much more dangerous in the open field.

Hi Joe:

If Aaron Rodgers would simply find an eligible receiver wide open in the End Zone and having done so. Take the shot or try to hit 'that target' and forget the diagrammed play. A game situation isn't school time. It isn't at all about ..." " but ...but you were supposed to cut in or out..that's what we practised. " The QB has to be instinctive and seize the moment and make it happen as it is developing.

Take the game right back to basics and .........sandlot football.

Your the QB Joe. You see a lad open. Do you throw the ball 8 yards to that fellas's left based on some pre conceived designed receiver route or do you spot and hit him for a TD?

On two occasions Aaron Rodgers played his spoiled kid act and neglected to make a rather easy throw to an open man....Jeff Janis was that man. In this case and two times and a very decent shot of adding 2 X TD = 14 Points...was...Jeff Janis. Janis...maybe a poor route runner but take that away and what do we see? I see a supremely gifted athlete who will often get you the points you need to win a game. If the QB passes the ball to him.

The Coach:

" Get that open man the pill. OK Aaron forget the way we drew that route up. If Janis is open ..throw the damn ball top him."

" Ohh Yea Aaron. All this smirking and shoulder shrugging and hands raising and head shaking.

[B]SHOVE IT where the sun doesn't shine because it looks terrible on you. Terrible will be noticed and keep that shit up and it turns to fricken UGLY ON YOUR ASS SHIT Aaron."

I saw a good possibility for another 14 points on the board for our side if Aaron Rodgers had simply fired the ball at Jeff Janis's position when he was open..

Posters here seem to want to get all defensive and ARod. Blame poor route running and Jeff Janis as the reason for another Aaron Rodgers bad throw; or 'at least' it seems that way to me. I apologize if I'm seeing that wrong and this forum. No apology needed and Aaron Rodgers and passing. He's got some serious issues and passing mechanics. Then again isn't his fricken attitude ...his head?

"Aaron please.....try to put the ball on a pass on the receivers numbers...OK Aaron !? The numbers are on a receivers chest not his shoes."

I can't be seeing it as I do and so many not seeing the same. It's right there in front of us all.

It's got a whole lot to do with Aaron Rodgers ...way (s). Is he such a perfectionist that he'll purposefully pass on an open target and one as athletically gifted as Jeff Janis? If (a former QB) ever saw an open man. Screw the designed play in terms of where that target was supposed to be...(the designed route) .... that former QB simply would rifle the ball to that open man. That former QB...... also hit many open targets with touch pass's. If Mr. Former QB had a Jeff Janis on his side. A Packer with Janis's gifts he would eat that up. That former QB would (what was his name....ohh yea...Brett Favre) he'd simply....tell Jeff Janis.... to just get open any way he could. "Get open and I'll get the ball to you and then you catch it."

"You'd better catch that ball Jeff if you want some ink.....because I spread it around."

Aaron Rodgers wants it to be just so. If the pass he throws which must fail hitting the target because it's way off target finally ends off target. He makes some kind of shrugging jester...he shows a spoiled kid attitude. On the sand lot that sort got his fricken ass kicked. He soon learned to clean up his silly to stupid attitude. He either got the fricken message or he didn't play ball with the rest of us just normally gifted athletes.

What am I informing you of here Joe.

We (Packerrats) just a small part of Packer Nation..... should be seeing and all be suffering as I am this obvious mess before us. If I could run the Packers and I could convince a tough ass-minded all football man like a Jon Gruden to return to Green Bay. I'd FIRE both TT (if Gruden insisted on wanting a dual role) and otherwise retain Ted Thompson and MMwould be out the door in a moments notice after the debacles we've witnessed losing in the playoffs the past two years. I place the blame on Mike McCarthy. He always looks like a deer caught in the headlights. He's 'a fricken chicken shit of a man' in games that are huge for Packer Nation.

Now there is this and look bback at my criticism of Aaron Rodgers. How much of too much Aaron Rodgers is too much or a distraction to Mike McCarthy. I'm not stupid. I need better than Mike McCarthy to let him ride off to some College program.

Is it this:

Mike McCarthy cannot finish as a Packer Head Coach because he doesn't prepare his team correctly with the right all for one attitude to win.

OR Is it this:

Finally and again. Someone has to come into Green Bay and shake Aaron Rodgers out of his...it's got be just this way banana tree. Aaron Rodgers has enormous talent and potential but ...PLEASE simply be the QB that throws the fricken ball at the men who get open. Can I be any clearer in this complaint that's fully justified because it's based on .... all that we all see in games.

I'm NOT willing to wait to see the same garbage next season...the same or worse the next. The problem is before us all and clearly not a mystery.:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyRSV9eqTUY

Short and NOT sweet:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocV5bGHdYag

I generally record Packer games to study later. I looked at that game again and again. Frankly just like in Seattle and this time MM and his Coaching staff had more adversity to deal with. Frankly the Green Bay Packers let this game slip away just as the team did last season in Seattle.

What does that say to you and the rest of Packerrats.?

It says to me that we have a problem that lies in heart of solid communication. When you have a QB like Aaron Rodgers and your his Head Coach. You let that horse fly...give that horse the reins but you tame down his pissy assed attitude.

[pbmax]

Or maybe giving your defense, the stronger unit, the chance to set up a win. They had intercepted Palmer twice, and probably should have had a couple more.

Again, that is a low percentage event to hope for. But I would be more worried that the Cardinals offense was solving the Packer D in the second half.

[woodbuck27]

Again, that is a low percentage event to hope for. But I would be more worried that the Cardinals offense was solving the Packer D in the second half.

Carson Palmer >>> Larry FitzGerald was clearly and screaming......`growing...... more ...ominous`.

[Pugger]

If there were going to go for 2, they should have taken 7 or 8 delay of game penalties to put the ball back at the 40 yard line or so. They would have had a decent chance of converting that.

:lol:

[woodbuck27]

If there were going to go for 2, they should have taken 7 or 8 delay of game penalties to put the ball back at the 40 yard line or so. They would have had a decent chance of converting that.


As usual:

B . r . i. l. l. i. a. n. t.

[yetisnowman]

Carson Palmer >>> Larry FitzGerald was clearly and screaming......`growing...... more ...ominous`.

I will give you credit. After looking at the game thread, you were the one who clearly said go for 2 at the time the decision was being made. Doesn't mean it was an obvious decision though. Remember what occurred was a nightmare scenario. Their only touchdown since the first quarter was a fluke play.

[mraynrand]

By the way, if everyone in the League doesn't copy SkyBall with trailing receiver as their go to Hail Mary play, I will be surprised. Janis did exactly what Rich Rod did. Big body jumping into coverage while facing the QB.

I was thinking the same thing, then I thought, how many QBs can actually throw that thing and put it right in the end zone, and do that going the wrong way off their back foot. Lots of teams are just drooling about having a QB with reasonable skills and accuracy let alone insane arm strength and accuracy!

[yetisnowman]

I was thinking the same thing, then I thought, how many QBs can actually throw that thing and put it right in the end zone, and do that going the wrong way off their back foot. Lots of teams are just drooling about having a QB with reasonable skills and accuracy let alone insane arm strength and accuracy!

If only Aaron can fine tune his accuracy on throws under 50 yards, we'd be set.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2016/1/18/10786698/packers-cardinals-reactions-2-point-conversion-attempt-jeff-Janis

Quick Outs, Packers-Cardinals: On the 2-point debate and Jeff Janis' amazing game

By Evan "Tex" Western, Jason B. Hirschhorn, PaulNoonan, and Brendan Kennedy on Jan 18, 2016, 3:30p

"He compliments MM (read the LINK please) .... and adds this.....McCarthy has his warts, and the unwillingness to buck conventional wisdom in these situations has now contributed to Green Bay's last two playoff losses." Jason B. Hirschhorn

[ThunderDan]

Here is the first part of the quote:

McCarthy does plenty of good for the Packers. He has a well-deserved reputation as one of football's best talent developers, his offenses have regularly ranked among the NFL's elite and, though some choose not to acknowledge it, he has developed some of the best game plans in the league. For proof of the latter, look no further than last season's masterpiece against the eventual-champion New England Patriots

[woodbuck27]

Here is the first part of the quote:

McCarthy does plenty of good for the Packers. He has a well-deserved reputation as one of football's best talent developers, his offenses have regularly ranked among the NFL's elite and, though some choose not to acknowledge it, he has developed some of the best game plans in the league. For proof of the latter, look no further than last season's masterpiece against the eventual-champion New England Patriots

Thanks ThunderDan. :-)