Packers coach Mike McCarthy: Going for two 'wasn't the right option'.

[woodbuck27]

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/27496/packers-coach-mike-mccarthy-going-for-two-wasnt-the-right-option

Packers coach Mike McCarthy: Going for two 'wasn't the right option'


Rob Demovsky ... ESPN Staff Writer

*** “The two-point conversion was definitely an option,” McCarthy said Monday in his season wrap-up press conference. “But it wasn’t the right option.” Green (YES) and Red ( no ) = Purple = We'll never know Mike.

The Question I would ask Packer Head Coach Mike McCarthy:

Mike and with all respect Sir:

Your past success this season and the two pint conversion supports that you should have gone for it. Mike how far away from the Arizona Goal Line we're you when you decided to cast your team into a much more elaborate DRAMA situation?

Background Fact:

An other's supported opinion:

There are those who disagree with McCarthy.

Among them include ESPN’s Bill Barnwell, who **used probability statistics to support his argument ** ... that McCarthy should have forgone the game-tying extra point and tried to win the game in regulation.

** Click on the LINK at the top of this page please.

Then there's our experience with the Green Bay Packers and this fact... A FACT that should have given Mike McCarthy enough confidence in the Packers and the 2-Pont conversion play >>> TO WIN THAT GAME...THEN and THERE...END IT and analytically thinking MM should have called the 2 Point Play with confidence. Live and die with a play that your team has executed successfully this season a whopping 71.4 % of the time !

This 2 Point Conversion call was used by Mike McCarthy a total of seven (7 times) and the Green Bay Packers succeeded in securing those 2 Points five (5) of those 7 times.



More thoughts

He (by calling the 2-Pint Conversion) removes all manner of DRAMA...a given.... extending that game to OT. i Pull out the dagger (the 2-Point conversion_)....and simply execute your best choice of the exact plays you go over and over again in Practise.

The stage was prepared for a Dramatic win.... NOT .......... a tie.

A dramatic win after a dramatic Hail Mary by Aaron Rodgers to WR Jeff Janis.

That sudden strike set the two point play up perfectly.

The Arizona Cardinals we're in some shock >>> Numb. Confidence suddenly out the window; clouded by doubt and in some denial that Green Bay could be now....so close to winning that game.

It's all about opportunity meets a far better than a 50/50 chance of success.

If I could..... I'd ask Mike McCarthy this question:

What do you practise the Two-Point Play for Mike? Don't you practise it to properly execute it when...it's necessary or otherwise best to go for the Two-Point play or maybe as we had here....an outstanding OPPORTUNITY.

We've seen this before.

Mike McCarthy elects to pass up playing for a WIN and opts for 'just a tie'.



FACT:

The Packers converted five of their seven two-point tries this season, including one in the wild-card game against the Redskins the previous week.

[mraynrand]

Stubby's explanation of why he didn't go for two is fine. It was a reasonable call. I wanted the 2 point attempt, but the fact that they lost doesn't mean it wasn't a good call. There are no guarantees.

[Maxie the Taxi]

The Arizona game was like a game of chicken. Stubby blinked first.

[mraynrand]

The Arizona game was like a game of chicken. Stubby blinked first.

Five way chicken and Shields blinked first

The refs blinked second (TD offensive interference non-call, two Janis interference non-calls)

Then Stubby

Then the defense

[woodbuck27]

Stubby's explanation of why he didn't go for two is fine. It was a reasonable call. I wanted the 2 point attempt, but the fact that they lost doesn't mean it wasn't a good call. There are no guarantees.

I certainly understand why MM elected the tie and OT Vs the Two Point Convert and the Win in Regulation Time if successful. NFL HC's are reluctant to pin a game result on such as this would have been 'an ALL IN' ... Win or Lose call.

If that attempt 'if called' hadn't succeeded then MM would have looked like the Goat. Part of his legacy as the Green Bay Packers HC would be that... he made the wrong call ...with a failure.

** Prudence (and I choose a kind word here) exceeds Failure.

A member such as red would substitute a different word.

That word might start with the letter.....'C' and have nine (9) letters?

That word would never describe me. Thus if I had to make the call. Based in all I know and Packers in this season:

I'd shoot the 2 Point play. That's just how I am. I play a lot of Texas Holdem.

If I have pocket Aces I have slightly better than a 50% chance of winning the hand 'going all in' or with a heavy bet.

MM had a much better chance than I'd have in my cited situation. He had a 71% or only a 3 out of 10 chances of failure based on previous results given 2 Point Convert opportunities in this season up to that moment in time.

Too easy.....shoot for Two ! GO ALL IN because the goal line is so close right then and there and you might not even get the ball on 'O' in OT!

Damn ! MM wants to rely...take a chance on a coin toss when he has a higher probability of getting it right for the Team and Packer Nation by a call for two Points.

Mike lacks what it takes to close.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Five way chicken and Shields blinked first

The refs blinked second (TD offensive interference non-call, two Janis interference non-calls)

Then Stubby

Then the defense

Actually, Arians had a blink in there too somewhere. Remember the 4th qtr, time running down, Arizona has a 4th and four and Arizona ahead by four points. Arians could have won the game by gaining four yards. He opted for the field goal. I felt a field goal wouldn't help him at all; it's still a one possession game. Of course, I wasn't anticipating Janis heroics.

I was wrong; Arians was right to blink. Stubby was wrong.

[Deputy Nutz]

In hindsight I would going for two was the right decision, but with the personnel on the field I understand why they didn't. 2pt conversions are tricky because they are set plays and practiced with a set personnel during the week of practice. Having your 4th and 5th options at receiver on the field at that moment probably would have ended in total confusion.

[Maxie the Taxi]

In hindsight I would going for two was the right decision, but with the personnel on the field I understand why they didn't. 2pt conversions are tricky because they are set plays and practiced with a set personnel during the week of practice. Having your 4th and 5th options at receiver on the field at that moment probably would have ended in total confusion.

Not a problem because Stubby had the 4th and 5th options practicing all week with the ones. Stubby either lacked two-point plays in his gameplan or two balls in his pants. Take your pick.

[Smidgeon]

Not a problem because Stubby had the 4th and 5th options practicing all week with the ones. Stubby either lacked two-point plays in his gameplan or two balls in his pants. Take your pick.

All week, M3 was practicing with Cobb, Jones, and Abby. In the end, he had a shutdown Jones, Abby, and a very raw Janis. Not the same package at all.

Janis was the only one getting open at the end, but if he ran a slant instead of an out, game over.

M3's reasoning makes perfect sense considering the circumstance. If Cobb was still in the game, I'm convinced they would have gone for 2.

By holding to this narrative, you're being far more "stubby" than M3.

[Bossman641]

All week, M3 was practicing with Cobb, Jones, and Abby. In the end, he had a shutdown Jones, Abby, and a very raw Janis. Not the same package at all.

Janis was the only one getting open at the end, but if he ran a slant instead of an out, game over.

M3's reasoning makes perfect sense considering the circumstance. If Cobb was still in the game, I'm convinced they would have gone for 2.

By holding to this narrative, you're being far more "stubby" than M3.

+1. The running game stats look good but down in down out it wasn't that successful. Tough to go for the 2 point conversion when you have NO go-to position player at that time. Even now I'm not sure what they would have called. Tough to imagine going to Jones when he was shut out. Janis doesn't have the precision required at the goal line. So that leaves DickRod and Abby as your top 2 options? I need to go back and watch the game again. I see that Abby only had 4 receptions on 12 targets. Was that mostly the result of bad throws or tight coverage?

[Maxie the Taxi]

All week, M3 was practicing with Cobb, Jones, and Abby. In the end, he had a shutdown Jones, Abby, and a very raw Janis. Not the same package at all.

Janis was the only one getting open at the end, but if he ran a slant instead of an out, game over.

M3's reasoning makes perfect sense considering the circumstance. If Cobb was still in the game, I'm convinced they would have gone for 2.

By holding to this narrative, you're being far more "stubby" than M3.

I'm not saying Stubby's call was unreasonable. I'm saying that my call was just as reasonable, if not more so, considering the game situation.

If you think Stubby would have gone for two if Cobb were still in the game, you're the only one in the country who thinks so. Even Ryan Glasspiegel, McCarthy's biggest defender, says:

That being said, having (I think) watched every game McCarthy’s coached, the idea that they’d even consider going for two never crossed my mind.

Why? Because Stubby is a "play it by the book" coach. He plays percentages. [Although in this case you could argue the percentages were against him.] Anyway, the times he hasn't played by the book have been few and far between, like when he called an onsides kick at the start of a playoff game, or the fake FG with Crabtree. [And, surprise, they mostly all worked.]

Generally-speaking, his playcalling and game tactics are by the book as well. I remember having a debate with Vince after last year's debacle about this same, exact thing. And here we are again. But that's another discussion for another time.

[By the way, how do I change my handle to "Maxie McStubby?"]

[Harlan Huckleby]

Stubby's explanation of why he didn't go for two is fine. It was a reasonable call. I wanted the 2 point attempt, but the fact that they lost doesn't mean it wasn't a good call. There are no guarantees.

Ya, I thought his explanation made sense.

I still think I'm smarter than Stubby and Packers would be moving on to a drubbing in Carolina if Coach Huckleby could have gone for 2.

[mraynrand]

I still think I'm smarter than Stubby and Packers would be moving on to a drubbing in Carolina if Coach Huckleby could have gone for 2.

I agree, except the part about the drubbing

[mraynrand]

You know, I get in trouble for talking about your family, so you should at least have the decency not to post pictures of 'em.

[Patler]

Wasn't there a time when a roll out inside the 5 almost guaranteed a TD from inside the 5? If they covered on that side he would beat them to the flag, if they came up to stop him, he had an easy throw.