Possible to score too soon?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am as certain as can be that McCarthy's calculations were intuitive: he preferred to take the almost-sure TD and give his defense a chance to hold, rather than screw around and take the risk of botching an end of game red zone opportunity.

I agree that the decision is made intuitively, there are far too many factors to calculate odds for. The old beaner is subconciously taking into account hundreds of little factors.

I would have done a QB sneak on first down, but I'm not strongly confident it is the right call.

[pbmax]

When you're talking about a single decision, where both sides try and get the same outcome, one side has to be wrong. BECAUSE THAT DECISION MUST MAKE IT MORE LIKELY FOR ONE TEAM OR THE OTHER TO WIN, AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR THE IMPACT ON BOTH STRATEGIES. This is true even though the decision is part of a more complicated strategy for each side.

We're going to just have to agree to be disagreeable

If you reduce this argument down to the bolded statement, then our argument is pointless. The point of the game is not to win this decision, even if it temporarily increased the odds of winning.

The point is to win the game. And that might involve making a decision that no one in a zero sum game makes in order to preclude being eliminated from further chances of winning (not scoring) or to preserve a reasonable chance of winning later (getting ball back trailing with time left).

[hoosier]

I agree that the decision is made intuitively, there are far too many factors to calculate odds for. The old beaner is subconciously taking into account hundreds of little factors.

I would have done a QB sneak on first down, but I'm not strongly confident it is the right call.

Only on first down? So you would have given up the down (and taken the slight risk of a fumble or botched snap) just to make Dallas burn their final timeout? With over a minute left and Dallas about to need a field goal to win or tie, I'm not sure the timeout is really worth that much. It probably gets them one, maybe two more plays, but with over 60 seconds left Dallas is probably either going to get into field goal position or throw an interception trying.

[Cleft Crusty]

After taking all factors into consideration, only one side can be making a smart decision.

When you're talking about a single decision, where both sides try and get the same outcome, one side has to be wrong.

Clefty notices that in many of you arguments, you constantly change the conditions of the argument on the fly - Sort of like moving the goalposts, as it were. It may be a smart way to try and win an argument, but it's still wrong.

[pbmax]

Think about it this way: if the Packers kneel, they absolutely reduce their chance of taking the lead. But they also reduce the chance the cowboys can comeback if the Packers take the lead.

One of those outcomes, down 6, is far more important to the Packers. The other is more important to the Cowboys.

[woodbuck27]

I agree that the decision is made intuitively, there are far too many factors to calculate odds for. The old beaner is subconciously taking into account hundreds of little factors.

I would have done a QB sneak on first down, but I'm not strongly confident it is the right call.

After considering it all... I like that too.

If it doesn't go over you at least take their time out. You have three more cracks (from more likely than not) ' now inside ' the one yard line .

I've watched the Eddie Lacy go ahead TD over and over and again....over again. I'm NOT yet sold on the Dallas Cowboys simply allowing Eddie Lacy's rushing TD. Jason Garrett doesn't demonstrate to me that he's that brilliant a strategist, and certainly not on that day.

Whatever..... Eddie Lacy's TD was a thing of beauty. Every Packer fan watching that jumped with joy ! That whole come back was spectacular. I have it recorded twice. The 'LIVE' game courtesy of FOX and NFL Access's presentation last night @ 9 PM EST. That was good.

The funniest thing I saw on the Packers 'Jumbo Package' ... Eddie Lacy go ahead rushing TD call was BJ Raji's wussy attempt at a block on NO. 57 LB DeVonte Holloman 6' - 2 " 242 lbs who is hardly jarred by BJ's 'body' @ 6' - 2 " and 337 lbs.

Hey on that play BJ did keep his feet and 'just almost' fell over. That guy ... is he part GIRL.

If Ted Thompson shells out anything close to $8 Million$ / year to that 'once Boy Wonder' I'll be sick. I don't know who's worse...BJ or Brad Jones. It's a certain head shaker to watch these two.

GO BJ Raji...GO Brad Jones....go somewhere else.

PACKERS !

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clefty notices that in many of you arguments, you constantly change the conditions of the argument on the fly

No, I just speak louder, slower and in simpler terms out of courtesy for you.

[Cleft Crusty]

No, I just speak louder, slower and in simpler terms out of courtesy for you.

and in so posting, prove my point.

[bobblehead]

Clefty notices that in many of you arguments, you constantly change the conditions of the argument on the fly - Sort of like moving the goalposts, as it were. It may be a smart way to try and win an argument, but it's still wrong.

Nah, he has been consistent. He never said his or theirs were right, he simply said that they couldn't both be right (in response to someone saying they were both right).

[MadtownPacker]

HH still wins cuz he makes you honkies care. Truly the master!

[Cleft Crusty]

Nah, he has been consistent. He never said his or theirs were right, he simply said that they couldn't both be right (in response to someone saying they were both right).

You are missing the point. He changed the criteria from 'smart' to 'right'

[Cleft Crusty]

HH still wins cuz he makes you honkies care. Truly the master!

you are incorrect. We do not care. In my case, it is only that arguing the point is more distracting than fixating on clearing sputum from my breathing tube.

[bobblehead]

You are missing the point. He changed the criteria from 'smart' to 'right'

Soooo....sometimes wrong is smart??

[bobblehead]

Ok, I finally started laughing out loud about the absurdity of this entire debate.

[Cleft Crusty]

Soooo....sometimes wrong is smart??

I would argue that sometimes smart is wrong (such as throwing to receiver in single coverage as opposed to running into a nine man front).

But you are missing the point: the point is that it is disingenuous to change the argument on the fly from one about smart and stupid into one about 'right' and 'wrong' calls, especially in the context of the so-called 'zero sum' framework.

The obvious general conclusion is that with only one outcome possible, someone will be right and someone will be wrong, regardless of whether any specific call was smart or stupid (or strongly supported by stats and history or not).