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

[Guiness]

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

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

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

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

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

[Guiness]

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

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

[ThunderDan]

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

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

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

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

PACK !

[Bossman641]

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

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

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

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

[denverYooper]

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

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

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

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

Nice post.

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

[Zool]

Not sure how other people don't understand this.

Math is hard.

[denverYooper]

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

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

[Patler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Guiness]

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

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Patler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

[Patler]

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

That's 24.3%.

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

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