Go for 2 monkey pile

[pbmax]

Put it this way: What's easier?

Go for two from the 2 to tie the game, especially when the game is in the 4th quarter.

Or

Kick EP AND then have your defense to make a stop AND then have your offense march into scoring position.

League average for 2 point conversion is 47%. Packers have been worse than that this year. Odds are you will need to score again after holding the Bears anyway.

As it played out, missing the 2 doesn't make a difference. But I, along with every player and coach on the field expected more Bear points.

[woodbuck27]

League average for 2 point conversion is 47%. Packers have been worse than that this year. Odds are you will need to score again after holding the Bears anyway.

As it played out, missing the 2 doesn't make a difference. But I, along with every player and coach on the field expected more Bear points.

As any Packer fan who was awake did as well.

I cannot even imagine what the entire Bear organization is feeling after that loss to the Packers.

The words complete and shock wouldn't likely describe it.

That loss might be equivalent to the Chicago Bear organization and it's fans? As the way Packer Nation felt when Steve Young and TO and the San Fran 49ers punched our lights out in 1998.

That was a dramatic Ouch ! A huge shock!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Green_Bay_Packers_season

[Packers4Glory]

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.

It was the beginning of the 4th qt. you were going to get the ball back. You just don't want to be a for sure 2 scores down in the 4th. Our TD came with 11:38 left in the 4th. Here is what we were facing with our defense:

Chicago Drives
13:18 3 02:32 GB 30 5 30 Touchdown
07:27 3 02:23 CHI 26 4 74 Touchdown
03:27 3 03:32 CHI 32 7 68 Touchdown

They were moving the ball at will against our defense. You can't assume we could get a 2pt conversion. You have to factor in the chance that if you fail, then what??? What are the odds you can get the ball 2 more times in the event that chicago goes down and gets another TD by running the ball down our throats like they'd been able to do all game?? how much times comes off the clock in a drive like that?

In fact they took the ball the next series after our TD and ran off 5+ minutes. There was just no way I'd risk a 2pt conversion with that much time left on the clock.

[woodbuck27]

It was the beginning of the 4th qt. you were going to get the ball back. You just don't want to be a for sure 2 scores down in the 4th. Our TD came with 11:38 left in the 4th. Here is what we were facing with our defense:

Chicago Drives
13:18 3 02:32 GB 30 5 30 Touchdown
07:27 3 02:23 CHI 26 4 74 Touchdown
03:27 3 03:32 CHI 32 7 68 Touchdown

They were moving the ball at will against our defense. You can't assume we could get a 2pt conversion. You have to factor in the chance that if you fail, then what??? What are the odds you can get the ball 2 more times in the event that chicago goes down and gets another TD by running the ball down our throats like they'd been able to do all game?? how much times comes off the clock in a drive like that?

In fact they took the ball the next series after our TD and ran off 5+ minutes. There was just no way I'd risk a 2pt conversion with that much time left on the clock.

Solid analysis. Good job.

[mraynrand]

I didn't bother to re-read the whole damn thread so sorry if this has been covered. But, here's a two point certainty: Chicago, scoring a TD up 28-27, would have gone for two. If they get it, and it's likely they do, that's two scores. So, based on that scenario, the Packers should have gone for two and the 28-28 tie, because they are almost guaranteed to be down two scores with a Chicago TD.

[woodbuck27]

I didn't bother to re-read the whole damn thread so sorry if this has been covered. But, here's a two point certainty: Chicago, scoring a TD up 28-27, would have gone for two. If they get it, and it's likely they do, that's two scores. So, based on that scenario, the Packers should have gone for two and the 28-28 tie, because they are almost guaranteed to be down two scores with a Chicago TD.

I'm President of the 'Support For Blue Dog' Club.

[hoosier]

I didn't bother to re-read the whole damn thread so sorry if this has been covered. But, here's a two point certainty: Chicago, scoring a TD up 28-27, would have gone for two. If they get it, and it's likely they do, that's two scores. So, based on that scenario, the Packers should have gone for two and the 28-28 tie, because they are almost guaranteed to be down two scores with a Chicago TD.

Wha? If Chicago leads 28-27 and scores a TD (34-27) why would they go for two instead of kicking the XP for 35-27 and force GB to try for 2 if they can score again?

[Packers4Glory]

Wha? If Chicago leads 28-27 and scores a TD (34-27) why would they go for two instead of kicking the XP for 35-27 and force GB to try for 2 if they can score again?

kind of what I was wondering. I can see a team with nothing to lose going for it, but not a team in what's essentially a playoff game doing that. Just with the idea that you have less than a 50% chance of converting a 2pt try. I think I'd rather gamble on forcing the visiting team having to attempt it rather than my team playing at home.

Add to this fact that if you did score you probably took some time off the clock running and throwing the ball. So you get a TD go up 8 and figure the Packers are going to be throwing a lot more because they have to score asap in the event that they fail on the 2pt conversion and need to get the ball back. That makes calling defenses a lot easier that late into the 4th. Plus you're at home. I think the bears kick for 1 and make GB dink and dunk the ball down the field via the pass.

[woodbuck27]

Wha? If Chicago leads 28-27 and scores a TD (34-27) why would they go for two instead of kicking the XP for 35-27 and force GB to try for 2 if they can score again?

The other side isn't out of it yet !

[pbmax]

Wha? If Chicago leads 28-27 and scores a TD (34-27) why would they go for two instead of kicking the XP for 35-27 and force GB to try for 2 if they can score again?

Yes, I could see them considering that, but a PAT puts ALL the pressure on the Packers to convert. I would not consider it inevitable.

[woodbuck27]

[Harlan Huckleby]

League average for 2 point conversion is 47%. Packers have been worse than that this year. Odds are you will need to score again after holding the Bears anyway.

A lot of people have pointed out that the Pack have shitty (Altho small) track record with 2 point conversions. I don't think this is a huge factor.

In a close, 4th quarter game, the 2-point conversion is a lot like an onside kick. The upside is huge, and the consequences of the downside are manageable. The success rate of onside kick is probably 15%, if memory serves. A 2-point conversion in 25% to 50% range is still attractive.

Tying the game in a close struggle is worth risking a point.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Chicago Drives
13:18 3 02:32 GB 30 5 30 Touchdown
07:27 3 02:23 CHI 26 4 74 Touchdown
03:27 3 03:32 CHI 32 7 68 Touchdown

Ya, the Bears were scoring in second half, but Packers were answering the scores, keeping the game in a down-to-the wire state.

With about 4 minutes left in the game, we were sitting with the Bears stubbornly ahead by 1 point. Going for 2 would have had a decent chance of closing that gap. And if it failed, the consequences would not have been severe.

There is no formula for a right answer, so many factors to consider that you go with your gut. Although MM is generously endowed with gut, I think it failed him in this instance.

[QBME]

Going for two and failing was the correct call, as I had the Pack in the 33 point pool. Cha-ching!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Wha? If Chicago leads 28-27 and scores a TD (34-27) why would they go for two instead of kicking the XP for 35-27 and force GB to try for 2 if they can score again?

Kicking the extra point to go up by 8 would be a good call.

But going for 2 to get a 9 point lead also very defensible choice. The downside risk not so bad.

I don't think the statistical percentages yield a right answer in a close call like this. There are intangibles, game flow.