Go for 2 monkey pile

[buchunter03]

The point is, at least you get another shot. If you wait, you don't even get another chance the game is over.

Or, if you have timeouts and score with say 2:30 left, you now get a chance to get the ball back and don't need the onside kick. I've seen it multiple times when teams are down 8 they have no urgency with under 4 minutes. It's the last drive or nothing.

[woodbuck27]

This is exactly the way I saw it. There was a lot of time left for this scenario to play out. The scenario of stopping the bears cold, and in turn being stopped cold seemed the least likely of all scenarios.

Yes.

That game wasn't exactly a classic shoot out... yet... it sorta had that feel.

For some time our 'D' looked like a deer blinded by an engine on train tracks. Our 'D' looked really tight and I don't mean that in any positive sense.

We needed a sure thing and a simple one-point convert.

Also it's this:

MM needed to keep it as +ve as possible. Kick the easy 1 Pt. convert and don't risk missing on the 2 Pt. conversion play and setting the team back 2 points.

Keep it positive ...keep it simple.

PACKERS !

[bobblehead]

I think I figured out how to quantify my theory on going for 2. Generally speaking if you are going to get another possession you don't go for 2. (unless you are down 10 in which case you need the 2 and another 2 after that to tie it). Going for 2 When there is enough time left for them AND you to have a possession USUALLY will not be the correct strategy based on a lot of possible outcomes.

[pbmax]

ThunderDan said it well regarding if the Bears were to kick a FG. That's why I agreed on going for 1 at the time. Once we got the stop and a lot of time came off the clock, McCarthy probably would've liked to have gone for 2. Hindsight is 20/20.

However, whoever says they would rather wait for the two point conversion to the last moment is wrong. If you are down 8 and it's the last drive you can score and then miss the 2pt conversion and game is over. If you go for it early (In the 4th) and miss you know you need 2 scores and can plan the last couple drives accordingly. Therefore you will hurry up and try to get a score and an onside kick. Rather than taking your time and trying to get a TD on the last drive. Then if you miss the 2pt conversion, game is over and you don't get that extra possession.

Again, if you're down 8 with 4 minutes left you will probably take your time and make sure you score with around 30 seconds left. But if you're down 9 with 4 minutes left, chances are you now hurry up to score before 2 minutes left and kick onside for another opportunity. Down 8 you only play for 1 last drive. The 2pt conversion is going to be the same either way, you would rather know early on if you need another possession.

Agree with your main thrust. Its better to know you need another 2 later OR that you need 2 scores early, so waiting itself is not helpful.

But in this case, the chance of more scoring is high enough the single score calculations are not helpful.

As it worked out, 10+ minutes worked out to be about the least amount of time you would choose to eschew the 2 point conversion. If it was 9 minutes, I think you have to take it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The scenario of stopping the bears cold, and in turn being stopped cold seemed the least likely of all scenarios.

Yes, but the scenario of the Packers and Bears exchanging scores seemed plenty likely, and in that case the 1 point was worthless, 2 points priceless. Until late in the game, a Packer loss by 1 point looked quite possible.

[Cleft Crusty]

At first Clefty thought this was a pretty boring topic, but the reason it persists is that either option is pretty reasonable.

[Teamcheez1]

I believe I heard that the Packers are now 0-4 on 2 point conversions now.

[Packers4Glory]

not going for 2 was the right call. Too much time left. If you fail and chicago goes down and scores another TD then you're down 9 points w/ a lot less time left. If they score and you kicked for 1, then you're still a TD and a 2 pt conversion from a tie with a lot less time left. Lets face it, who really was confident in the defense to keep chicago out of the endzone after that TD? raise your hand and you're a fucking liar!

Right call. I would have been livid had he went for 2 there.

[hoosier]

Yes, but the scenario of the Packers and Bears exchanging scores seemed plenty likely, and in that case the 1 point was worthless, 2 points priceless. Until late in the game, a Packer loss by 1 point looked quite possible.

If they had gone for two and converted, MM would almost certainly have punted on the first 4th-and-inches and then we would have missed that great drive. No grind it out, gut-wrenching conversions, no desperation game winning TD heave to Cobb. Instead, we would have been faced with the GB defense trying to stop Chicago from carrying out its own clock-killing drive into field goal range. That is what your logic would have wrought us.

[mraynrand]

If they had gone for two and converted, MM would almost certainly have punted on the first 4th-and-inches and then we would have missed that great drive. No grind it out, gut-wrenching conversions, no desperation game winning TD heave to Cobb. Instead, we would have been faced with the GB defense trying to stop Chicago from carrying out its own clock-killing drive into field goal range. That is what your logic would have wrought us.

Assuming if the conversion was made that every subsequent event would have transpired exactly the same way. Without the wind currents altered by Crosby's extra point, there might have been more favorable breezes in the stadium, resulting in better passes and no fourth downs on that final drive. I'm surprised that more people weren't amazed by the quantum indeterminacy on display in yesterday's game.

[King Friday]

It is a tough call at that point in the game. Personally, I would rarely go for two prior to the 4th quarter. This one was slightly into the 4th quarter, but there was still a good chance GB could have 2 possessions left in the game at that point.

I'm guessing the lack of success we've had going for two of late probably was a large factor in the decision.

[woodbuck27]

It is a tough call at that point in the game. Personally, I would rarely go for two prior to the 4th quarter. This one was slightly into the 4th quarter, but there was still a good chance GB could have 2 possessions left in the game at that point.

I'm guessing the lack of success we've had going for two of late probably was a large factor in the decision.

A) I think that at that time that was 'a too macho move' for Mike McCarthy.

B) I think that it could have gone badly and sill off momentum.

C) I think it was simply the wrong move.

GO PACK GO...PACKERS ** WIN Vs San Fran 49ers @ Home.

** In an epic battle... the PACK gets it done Sunday Jan. 5, 20014. Aaron Rodgers kicks his game up a notch.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you fail and chicago goes down and scores another TD then you're down 9 points w/ a lot less time left.

The fact that time is winding down means you ought to go for the two points.

This obsession with nine points is too much, it's just one scenario. Even if you keep within 8 as result of kicking the point (big if, the Bears might wisely go for 2 themselves), you still leave yourself with the burden of scoring a two point play to close gap.
And what if the Bears come back with a field goal? With that relatively easy feat, they force you to score a touchdown to beat um. A chance to even the score is worth foregoing a sure 1 in a close game.

[woodbuck27]

The fact that time is winding down means you ought to go for the two points.

This obsession with nine points is too much, it's just one scenario. Even if you keep within 8 as result of kicking the point (big if, the Bears might wisely go for 2 themselves), you still leave yourself with the burden of scoring a two point play to close gap.
And what if the Bears come back with a field goal? With that relatively easy feat, they force you to score a touchdown to beat um. A chance to even the score is worth foregoing a sure 1 in a close game.

Now you have us.......................... thinking.

Good job Mr. Blue Dog'. Take that in the chops Packerrats.

Ole Huck still has it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm guessing the lack of success we've had going for two of late probably was a large factor in the decision.

4 tries is not a huge statistical sample. (Why, that's just the first 15 minutes in the bar.)

Also, if the problem is you can't score from two yards out, the 8-point "one score" theory is looking in trouble.