OFFICIAL GREEN BAY PACKERS vs. NY GIANTS GAME DAY THREAD

[Pugger]

I'll take it...Bush still sucks ass. God I hate him and Shields is fast becoming next on my shit list.

Bush is great on ST but not in the secondary. I hope he's not out there next week...

[Guiness]

I would never hand the other coach a chance to beat me on one possession when I have the better team. I can't mind read Coughlin. He might play it cautious. But he is at home, he might go for the win. They were desperate.

Agreed.

Was it Shannahan that did that a few years ago? Against the Chargers, I think. Went for 2 and the win, and got it.

[Guiness]

Bush is great on ST but not in the secondary. I hope he's not out there next week...

If Woodson is banged up, I imagine we'll see House active. He's a healthy scratch.

[Cleft Crusty]

think about it--if we dont make the 2 were up 7. coughlin would never play for the win or lose with a 2 pt conversion. He'll only play for the tie, they are still in a playoff hunt. But if we make it-we win. Attempting the 2 point then was a no lose situation.

I would never hand the other coach a chance to beat me on one possession when I have the better team. I can't mind read Coughlin. He might play it cautious. But he is at home, he might go for the win. They were desperate.

Mr. Sheep makes a reasonable point. The problem is that Coach Coughlin is well aware of the abilities of the Packer offense and may have wanted to go for the 'win' with the conversion. Psychologically, its' tougher on an offense in that last drive if you are behind by one rather than tied. McCarthy played the percentages and made the correct call.

[Cleft Crusty]

A number of comments about the announcers. The 'Buck' name and the 'Aikman' name seem to be carrying this so-called number one announcing team. Buck is monotonous and Aikman is well-skilled at stating the obvious. For my money, I would enjoy listening to Gus Johnson call a game any day. Surprisingly, James Lofton has become an excellent color commentator on the radio. Stanford guys are pretty bright. Someone should put those two together for a dynamite TV crew.

[pbmax]

I am not sure this was mentioned, but did anyone notice the foot on the gas pedal on the last drive? Prior to Jennings catch, the Packers had moved into Crosby's range; it was a 46 yard kick prior to Saine's pass to the flat, 47 yards after that.

Change in plan or something specific about windy New Meadowlands/Metropolitan Life Stadium?

[denverYooper]

I am not sure this was mentioned, but did anyone notice the foot on the gas pedal on the last drive? Prior to Jennings catch, the Packers had moved into Crosby's range; it was a 46 yard kick prior to Saine's pass to the flat, 47 yards after that.

Change in plan or something specific about windy New Meadowlands/Metropolitan Life Stadium?

Crosby's earlier miss?

[Brandon494]

I am not sure this was mentioned, but did anyone notice the foot on the gas pedal on the last drive? Prior to Jennings catch, the Packers had moved into Crosby's range; it was a 46 yard kick prior to Saine's pass to the flat, 47 yards after that.

Change in plan or something specific about windy New Meadowlands/Metropolitan Life Stadium?

I noticed Dallas had a opportunity to make it a shorter FG and decided they decided to let the clock run down and kick a 48 yarder. I think we all know how that turned out.

[pbmax]

I noticed Dallas had a opportunity to make it a shorter FG and decided they decided to let the clock run down and kick a 48 yarder. I think we all know how that turned out.

Worked the first time.

I take it all back. Even with the CBA/lockout of 2011, I hope Danny and Jerry stay in the League a long time.

[Bossman641]

Going for 2 to go up 9 actually was mentioned in an article I was reading today by Bill Barnwell. He is a big stats guy and agrees with Sheepshead.

"Why don't teams go for a two-point conversion when they score a touchdown and go up seven points (before the extra point) in the fourth quarter? There were two teams on Sunday that each had a chance to make that decision and chose against it, and in each case, it's hard to understand why.

First, the logic. Of course, going for a two-point conversion in every situation doesn't really make sense unless you're a team like Carolina or Denver that is capable of being dominant in short yardage. In a vacuum, this play only really makes sense if you think your chances of picking up a two-point conversion are greater than the other team's chances of picking up a two-pointer later on. It's probably not worth the aggravation.

In a situation where time is limited, though, it becomes an extremely valuable gambit. Let's think about this in the prism of that amazing Giants-Packers game from Sunday afternoon. When the Packers scored on a Donald Driver catch with 3:34 left, they went up 34-27 before the extra point. Kicking would give them a 35-27 lead, forcing the Giants to drive down the field and pick up a two-point conversion just to tie the game. Tough, but as the Giants ended up exhibiting on that very drive, not exactly impossible.

Now, what if the Packers had gone for two in that situation? If they don't make the two-point conversion, they're still up by a touchdown with less than four minutes to go. The Giants still have to drive the length of the field, just like they do in an eight-point game, but they only have to kick an extra point to tie it up as opposed to going for two. That's easier, but the long drive is still more difficult than the two-point conversion, which an average team will pick up 47.9 percent of the time. Furthermore, while the other team could theoretically go for two and win the game with a two-point conversion, they never will; teams in a one-point game will kick here virtually every time and tie it up, even if they should go for two. So whether the Packers kick an extra point or go for a two-point conversion, the worst result for them is almost surely that the game will be tied.

The upside, though, is massive. A two-point conversion puts the Packers up nine with 3:30 left. That's a two-possession game, and it simply leaves the Giants with too much to do. First, they have to score a touchdown. They'll obviously tack on an extra point down three with virtually no time left, so it'll be a two-point game with whatever time is left after the touchdown drive. Now, the Giants have to either recover an expected onside kick (success rate: 21.1 percent) or stop the Packers from picking up a first down in order to get the ball back. And they're still not done! If they get the ball again, they have to drive down the field and set up for a game-winning field goal, and that field goal has to go through the uprights. All of this has to happen in 3:30 with one timeout and the two-minute warning for the Giants. The Packers' chances of winning with a successful two-pointer have to be in the high nineties, and their chances of getting a two-point conversion with Aaron freaking Rodgers on the move are surely greater than 48 percent.

Let's go back and envision that final 3:30 in a scenario where the Packers pick up a two-point conversion and go up nine. The Giants have to march downfield and score, which took them 2:36. Even if we assume that they'll go into a no-huddle and drive faster, they're unlikely to score before the two-minute warning. After that play, the Giants have to attempt an onside kick versus a team of freakish athletes at wide receiver. And if the Giants do somehow score before the two-minute warning, all Aaron Rodgers needs to do is get one first down — at most, two — to end the game. Instead, when the Giants scored eight points and tied up the game, Rodgers had to march the Packers 68 yards downfield to set up a game-winning field goal attempt.

Again, the only way the Packers increase their chances of losing by going for two in this scenario is if the Giants score and then decide to go for two and get it. The reality is that coaches aren't brave enough to do that. By our memory, no team has been bold enough to try that move since the Bucs successfully pulled it off against the Redskins in 2005. Obviously, it's easier to win against a team that has to pick up a two-point conversion to tie as opposed to a team that only needs an extra point, but the tradeoff of creating a two-possession game with limited time seems far more valuable."

[pbmax]

I am still not convinced that a coach of a more desperate, underdog team wouldn't go for the win. NFL coaches are notoriously cautious and risk averse, but if faced with a superior opponent, I think the odds increase they would go for it.

[mraynrand]

I like the analysis. During the game, I was kind of excite to see if Stubby would try the 2 pointer.

One flaw in the analysis is the same flaw teams make time after time. If you are down by 9 and have the ball, you should never waste a ton of time getting that first score when you have to recover an onside kick. You should play quickly for a solid FG try and then kick onsides. Why? Because you have to recover the onside kick anyway, which will give you a short field for a TD drive. So many times you see teams blow all their time trying for the TD, when the whole thing is pointless if they don't recover the onsides kick and don't have any time remaining. Sure, get the TD first if it presents itself. But if you get to around a minute, and are 20+ yards away in bad down and distance - just kick the FG and see if you can recover onsides. The onside kick is the key play, and you'll just be kicking yourself if you recover it but have no time left to do anything.

[mraynrand]

I am still not convinced that a coach of a more desperate, underdog team wouldn't go for the win. NFL coaches are notoriously cautious and risk averse, but if faced with a superior opponent, I think the odds increase they would go for it.

"I agree" Dave Wannstedt, 1997

[HarveyWallbangers]

I am still not convinced that a coach of a more desperate, underdog team wouldn't go for the win. NFL coaches are notoriously cautious and risk averse, but if faced with a superior opponent, I think the odds increase they would go for it.

The Giants had too much at stake to take the risk. They may have been an underdog and desperate, but they were 1/2 game behind the Cowboys at that point with two games to play against Dallas. They likely wouldn't take that risk. If we were playing the 2-10 Vikings, it's a different call. Like I said, I only remember a 3 or 4 win Vikings team doing it before.

I think it's the right statistical move to go for 2 when you have Aaron Rodgers on offense and a defense playing as poorly as ours, but no coach has had the guts to do it. I'd like to see McCarthy do it, if in that situation again. I, for one, would not second guess the decision.

[mraynrand]

Like I said, I only remember a 3 or 4 win Vikings team doing it before.

You don't remember the game at Chicago in '97? Anyway, I think you're right - the team that pulls this stunt mostly will have nothing to lose.