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

[pbmax]

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.

I doubt you can get it done twice. I prefer to have to do it once. If I miss the 2 pointer, I still have the same dilemma as if I kicked the XP.

[CaptainKickass]

Also -

It DOES annoy me that the Packers did not win.

Just to be clear and overstate the obvious.

.

[Patler]

It really isn't even that complicated. No matter what he did, he needed the second touchdown TD of the fourth quarter, so those cancel out of the equation. If he didn't get the second TD of the fourth quarter, it wouldn't have mattered what he had done. So, his options and plausible scenarios were:

1. Make the first two point conversion, then
- make the second two point, and have a tie, needing a further score to win in regulation or O.T.
- miss the second, and need a field goal in regulation to win.

2. Miss the first two point conversion, then
- kick an extra point and need yet another TD to win in regulation, or a FG in regulation to tie, plus another score in regulation or OT to win.

3. Kick two extra points and need a FG in regulation to win.

So, in comparison to kicking two extra points:
- making two two-point conversions buys you extra time (OT) to score the additional points needed
- making the first and missing the second results in no change.
- missing the first increases the scoring requirements, with the possibility of OT.

Any of these scenarios require stopping the Vikings numerous times.

No matter how I look at it, in view of the difficulty in scoring two two-point conversions, the minimal benefit gained from it (OT) the wash from missing the second and the detriment from missing the first, I think it was a mistake to go for two.

[sharpe1027]

To be fair, it was two scores to go to overtime and have a chance to win. A tie never almost happens in the nfl. The choice was 8 or maybe 10 vs 9 for sure. 10 and 9 are each two possessions. Unless you are conceding that the Vikings will score, you go for two. If you do assume a score, then you go for one but your odds aren't great if they do score so why assume they will?

[pbmax]

So, in comparison to kicking two extra points:
- making two two-point conversions buys you extra time (OT) to score the additional points needed
- making the first and missing the second results in no change.
- missing the first increases the scoring requirements, with the possibility of OT.

You seem to give next to no value to getting to OT. Scoring three times in the 4th Q is harder than scoring 3 times in the 4th and OT combined.

The Packers have an offense that is having difficulty scoring and is behind in this game. It will have a limited number of possessions left in the 4th Q. Getting to OT is a net win from the Packers point of view because the time restraint will no longer apply to the number of necessary points/possessions PLUS you will have accomplished this with either fewer scoring drives (2 total) or the same number as XP/XP/FG. That is a net positive for a low scoring team which the Packers seem now to be.

And OT has one advantage for the Packers that regulation does not provide. A TD there wins the game. If you receive the kick off first, you can polish them off and not have to defend again.

This advantage does not accrue to the Vikings in the same way as ANY TD by the Vikings at any time effectively ends the game, Sudden Death or not.

[Patler]

You seem to give next to no value to getting to OT. Scoring three times in the 4th Q is harder than scoring 3 times in the 4th and OT combined.

The Packers have an offense that is having difficulty scoring and is behind. It will have a limited number of possessions left in the 4th Q. Getting to OT is a net win from the Packers point of view because the time restraint will no longer apply to the number of necessary points/possessions PLUS you will have accomplished this with either fewer scoring drives (2 total) or the same number as XP/XP/FG. That is a net positive for a low scoring team which the Packers seem now to be..

I would suggest that you are not appreciating the difficulty of scoring two successive two-point conversions, and you are ignoring the significant disadvantage that results from missing the first two-point conversion, especially for a team struggling in the red zone as the Packers are. It made their scoring requirements even more difficult.

You keep reverting to the scoring three times in the fourth argument, but it really comes down to whether or not they could score a single FG in addition to the TD that was needed either way. It was two scores, not three, because the first was a completed event already. A TD and a FG in almost 12 minutes, that's all that was needed, and the TD was needed either way.

And OT has one advantage for the Packers that regulation does not provide. A TD there wins the game. If you kick off first, you can polish them off and not have to defend again.

This advantage does not accrue to the Vikings in the same way as ANY TD by the Vikings at any time effectively ends the game, Sudden Death or not.

There was no guarantee that GB would have even one possession in OT, because MN could drive the opening kick for a TD and end the game anyway. Getting to OT might give you more, but realistically you should count on just one extra possession when you have been having difficulty stopping the Vikings at the time the decision was made. Doesn't seem like much of an advantage, when the risk you take is that you miss the first two point conversion and then have even greater scoring requirements than if you kicked two extra points.

[sharpe1027]

Getting to OT might give you more, but realistically you should count on just one extra possession when you have been having difficulty stopping the Vikings at the time the decision was made.

When trying to make a large comeback you really don't have the luxury to feel like you can't stop the other team. If you assume they can string together enough stops to reach overtime, then that changes your analysis on how your defense is looking. If you assume you can't string together the stops then you lose regardless.

I think it is a horse a piece and don't really understand why people think one is so much better than the other.

[pbmax]

I think the odds of a 2 pt try succeeding are better than the odds that the Packers would score on a 3rd drive in the 4th Quarter. Even if it was just a FG that was needed. Their overall drive and scoring stats tell us its a substantial advantage in favor of the 2pt tries, though I admit, I did not find 2 pt try data for the Packers this year. I am not sure it would apply to Flynn anyway for better or worse.

When the first went amiss, they lost the chance at an outright win only. The same series of scores gets them to OT where the odds tilt towards the Packers again as they can end the game on a TD just as the Vikings could have done since their last FG early in the 4th.

The only variable I haven't considered is that OT doesn't allow a FG to win without a defensive stop. That is not quite as favorable as the Packers last scoring drive in your scenario or a another TD in any scenario at the end of the game. Even so, McCarthy, at that point of the game for his decision (11:47), cannot count on 2 more possessions with 8:40 left (time after Vikings give ball back to Packers).

[HarveyWallbangers]

I had no problem whatsoever with the decision to go for two. None! The way the Packers offense and defense were playing, you'd be crazy to think we'd stop the Vikings twice more and score twice more. It's not like it was the end of the third quarter. There were like 11 minutes left, I think.

Also, I think 9-6-1 wins the division. I don't see Detroit or Chicago going 4-1. Detroit has the talent and schedule to do it, but they are schizophrenic. Chicago is a mess right now. With the way their run defense is playing, they could lose to Minnesota this week. Of course, it's a longshot that we get to 9-6-1 at this point, but it's possible if Rodgers is back next week.

The one thing the tie did was give us a break if we lose to Detroit. Losing to Minnesota and then Detroit would have pretty much guaranteed any tiebreakers would go to Detroit. Being two games back while also losing the tiebreaker would have been VERY difficult to overcome. Now, I think we still have a shot at the division--even if we lose on Thursday. We'd very likely have to run the table though, so Rodgers needs to be back next week.

[Bossman641]

Look at the Vikings' drives prior to the Packer TD (in reverse order):

12 for 85. 6:04 FG
6 for 59. 3:28 TD
3 for 0. 2:03 Punt
7 for 63. 2:23 TD
10 for 69. 4:23 FG
7 for 36. 3:19 Fumble
6 for 24. 3:22 FG
4 for 3. 2:21 Punt

Vikings had scored on 4 of their previous 5 drives. At that point, it wasn't even about the 12:00 remaining. It was about MM having no faith in the defense. Looking at those drives, there is zero reason to believe the Packers were going to stop the Vikings 2 straight times and should have kicked the XP so they could kick a game-winning FG as time expired. The 2 point try was a no brainer.

[SkinBasket]

A lot of ifs mights and maybes. That's why you take the point with that much time left.

[run pMc]

2pt or XP, the team got to OT only to let Peterson run for 15 on a 3rd-and-9 and Toby Gerhart run wild. Say what you want about M3's decision to go for 2, but the defense fell short when they needed a stop in OT.

[pbmax]

2pt or XP, the team got to OT only to let Peterson run for 15 on a 3rd-and-9 and Toby Gerhart run wild. Say what you want about M3's decision to go for 2, but the defense fell short when they needed a stop in OT.

That is the worst part of the game. The only thing that stopped the Vikings offense was their game plan in the 4th Quarter.

[StPaulPackFan]

At the time I agreed with going for the 2pt conversion. After they did not convert it I hated the decision . I suppose that makes me a typical fan.

I don't think MM went for the 2pt conversion because he thought his offense would only get 1 more shot at scoring. I think he anticipated at least 2 more possessions, possibly 3. But I also think he felt it was more likely that at least 1 or more of those possessions would stall. I don't think he had any confidence they could put two scoring drives together in the last 10+ minutes, even if they were fortunate enough to get 2 or 3 more possessions.

[Smidgeon]

Watching PB and Patler feels like watching gentlemen in the late 18th century argue.

"But sir, I must insist!"