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

[woodbuck27]

Reminded me of this.

A 'Stone Cold' RB.

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

[mmmdk]

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

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

[Freak Out]

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

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

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

[bobblehead]

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

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

[Bossman641]

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

[Patler]

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

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

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

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

[SkinBasket]

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

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

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

Not sure how other people don't understand this.

[pbmax]

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

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

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

Not sure how other people don't understand this.

16 point deficit. 8 + 8 = 16

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

[Guiness]

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

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

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

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

[denverYooper]

16 point deficit. 8 + 8 = 16

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

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

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

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

[Rodgers12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rodgers12]

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

Rex Ryan is gonna be available.

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

[Pugger]

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

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

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

[Pugger]

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

I didn't care for that call either.