Go for 2 monkey pile

[woodbuck27]

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.

The focus has shifted to the Bears and what they should have ... shouldn't have done and again based on a moot point as they didn't even get there.

Please gentleman >>> Back to the original argument and Packers and a single convert or a two point conversion with 11:38 remaining in the 4th quarter.

1st and 6 at CHI 6 (No Huddle, Shotgun) E.Lacy right guard for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN. 26 28

M.Crosby extra point is GOOD, Center-B.Goode, Holder-T.Masthay. 27 28

SCORE:

Chicago 28 - Green Bay 27

M.Crosby kicks 60 yards from GB 35 to CHI 5. D.Hester to CHI 26 for 21 yards (D.House).


DRIVE TOTALS: GB 27, CHI 28, 6 plays, 77 yards, 3:17 elapsed

Chicago Bears possession at 11:38 remaining in the 4th Qtr.

Was the single point convert the best option over going for the two point conversion?

Thank You.

[bobblehead]

I'm bored of this thread. Both sides have valid arguments. My biggest argument is the Viking Game. We went for 2 and failed. We tied instead of won.

[red]

i'm on the side that we should have gone for two, i was baffled in the GDT that we didn't go for two at the time

i thought it was a no brainer

there were no guarantees that we were gonna score again, gotta try and get the points when you can IMO

[woodbuck27]

I'm bored of this thread. Both sides have valid arguments. My biggest argument is the Viking Game. We went for 2 and failed. We tied instead of won.

MM wasn't wrong when he tried that 2 pointer. His team simply failed to execute.

This thread discusses a completely different situation as the conditions aren't the same as in the Minny game.

In this instance was MM wrong simply electing the almost sure convert over the 2 point conversion?

I don't believe he was. That simple one point convert was MM's call and it was successful. MM was then as a result successful. The team took that 'all positive' >>> forward into the game.

That success contributed more to the eventual outcome than a flat out miss of another more risky two point coversion.

The lesson of this debate:

Your never wrong when what your call succeeds.

[woodbuck27]

i'm on the side that we should have gone for two, i was baffled in the GDT that we didn't go for two at the time

i thought it was a no brainer

there were no guarantees that we were gonna score again, gotta try and get the points when you can IMO

and red there is where this debate gets complicated.

[bobblehead]

MM wasn't wrong when he tried that 2 pointer. His team simply failed to execute.

To paraphrase a poster named woodbuck27 from another thread...I am more about results.

[woodbuck27]

To paraphrase a poster named woodbuck27 from another thread...I am more about results.

In any debate it's certainly important to accompany the argument 'if any exists' with valid reference towards derailing the opponent.
It's never in good taste to use any reference out of context to improperly sway the audience.

I enjoy a proper debate.

[bobblehead]

The proper context was that he shouldn't have gone for it at that junction because the risk of failure was too high...soooo I was using proper context when I said I am about results.

[Bossman641]

This chart says Packers should have gone for 2 if they thought they had a 14% chance of success.

http://www.footballcommentary.com/twoptchart.htm

[woodbuck27]

The proper context was that he shouldn't have gone for it at that junction because the risk of failure was too high...soooo I was using proper context when I said I am about results.

and ...I believe your correct.

All the same this has turned out being a stimulating debate. Both sides held their positions up very well.

It's inspired much thought. That usually has a chance to stimulate learning.

[Pugger]

I'm coming into this debate a tad late but I did not - and still don't - have an issue with Mike kicking the extra point there. I'm with those who say keep it within one score/possession instead of 2.

[Harlan Huckleby]

keep it within one score/possession instead of 2.

That "one possession" theory requires you to convert a 2-point play later, so have you really bought anything?

And if the other team kicks a field goal, you have to score a touchdown to overcome it.

Kicking the extra point seems like a safe choice, but in actuality it gets you very little. Trailing by a point in last quarter of close game stinks, and it nearly bit the packers in the ass.

[mraynrand]

Trailing by a point in last quarter of close game stinks, and it nearly bit the packers in the ass.

you are right. So now all you need to do is acknowledge that trailing by two in a close game was very likely if they tried the conversion, and that sucks for it's own reasons, and could have bit them in the ass too.

[Pugger]

That "one possession" theory requires you to convert a 2-point play later, so have you really bought anything?

And if the other team kicks a field goal, you have to score a touchdown to overcome it.

Kicking the extra point seems like a safe choice, but in actuality it gets you very little. Trailing by a point in last quarter of close game stinks, and it nearly bit the packers in the ass.

If you kick the extra point you are down 8. If you attempt the 2 point conversion and fail you are down 9 = that is 2 scores. In the end we did stop them and went ahead with the TD to Cobb in the last moments of the game anyway.

[Rodgers12]

you are right. So now all you need to do is acknowledge that trailing by two in a close game was very likely if they tried the conversion, and that sucks for it's own reasons, and could have bit them in the ass too.

Not really. The conversion success rate is 47%. That's almost a coin flip. That's better than the percentage of kicking XP + making defensive stop + marching into scoring position + executing score, I am sure.