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

[Patler]

Basically, McCarthy plays so as to not lose. Kicking the extra point to tie is playing not to lose. If you delay losing, you might have an opportunity to win. Problem is, when the gods of football present you with an opportunity to win, and you thumb your nose at it, they may not give you another chance. They can be fickle that way.

[3irty1]

Going for 2 there is an underdog strategy in that situation. It's shortening the game to one more play, making the game's outcome as high-variance as possible. I'd have gone for it because I believe the Cardinals were the superior team and I'd love the chance to gamble for a win.

McCarthy never believes his team is the underdog and I'm glad he's the coach instead of me. I don't think this is the same as playing not to lose.

[Patler]

Playing to tie when you have the opportunity for a play to win/lose is absolutely playing not to lose. It has no positive effect other than not losing.

The interesting thing is that it was a much closer call than in the past, with the extra point now being equivalent of a 33 yard FG. Still a high percentage kick, but not quite as automatic as the extra point was in the past, as evidenced by the announcers pointing out that only 5 kickers, including Crosby, had not missed one this year. Throw in the factor of a new long snapper who has been around only a few weeks, and it could have ended up like Blair Walsh's even shorter FG attempt (albeit outdoors in the cold).

The thing I liked about the situation is that GB had control of the moment. It was their opportunity to do something to win. On defense you play to prevent a loss, you might get lucky with an interception or fumble and have a chance to win, but being on defense in OT is playing to prevent losing. More than likely, they would still have to make positive plays on offense to win, just like going for two. Yes, they might have more than a single play opportunity, but also more yards to cover.

The thing is, you never know if you will ever again have the opportunity to make a play to win, and as we saw, they did not ever have that chance again. They played not to lose, and they never had another chance to make a play to win.

[3irty1]

Playing to tie when you have the opportunity for a play to win/lose is absolutely playing not to lose. It has no positive effect other than not losing.

The interesting thing is that it was a much closer call than in the past, with the extra point now being equivalent of a 33 yard FG. Still a high percentage kick, but not quite as automatic as the extra point was in the past, as evidenced by the announcers pointing out that only 5 kickers, including Crosby, had not missed one this year. Throw in the factor of a new long snapper who has been around only a few weeks, and it could have ended up like Blair Walsh's even shorter FG attempt (albeit outdoors in the cold).

The thing I liked about the situation is that GB had control of the moment. It was their opportunity to do something to win. On defense you play to prevent a loss, you might get lucky with an interception or fumble and have a chance to win, but being on defense in OT is playing to prevent losing. More than likely, they would still have to make positive plays on offense to win, just like going for two. Yes, they might have more than a single play opportunity, but also more yards to cover.

The thing is, you never know if you will ever again have the opportunity to make a play to win, and as we saw, they did not ever have that chance again. They played not to lose, and they never had another chance to make a play to win.

If you think you are the better team good strategy is to seek as many opportunities to have that superiority realized.

Lets say a 2 pt conversion is about a 50% proposition as per normal league averages. Sample sizes are way too low to try and get much more resolution than that. I think I remember reading after Belichick elected to play defense first in OT week 16 against the Jets that the team that gets the ball first in OT wins in roughly a 54% of the time. If you have the superior football team then you ought to like your odds in OT where more football is played. Even if you lose the toss its far from giving away control of the outcome. Defense is half of the reason you consider yourself a superior football team to begin with.

Playing not to lose does not simply mean avoiding high-variance outcomes. By this logic any coach who ever punts, kicks a field goal, or chooses not to on-side-kick is playing not to lose. In football, playing not to lose would be like the four-minute offense and prevent defense. Trading away the aggressiveness required to be effective to bleed the clock and shorten the game, presumably with the lead. What McCarthy did was closer to the opposite.

Furthermore even if the Packers were the worse team (again which I think they were) and in a thousand attempts at 2-pt conversions in this situation we really would have a better outcome than the thousand attempts at OT, I think there is value in having a head coach who believes the opposite for every situation but this one.

[Bossman641]

......

I was wondering this same thing the other day. McCarthy has made numerous comments about not being an underdog. He made that exact statement days before the Cardinals game.

I can't remember which analogy he used, but he also made comments referencing getting Rodgers as many chances as possible. If you think of a basketball game, the better team usually wants to play more up tempo and get as many possessions as they can, with the thinking being that their superiority would eventually win out.

Was McCarthy wrong to think this way with the game going to OT? Was it hubris? Was he blind to how good the team actually was?

I can't really make a hard stance either way. How many 2 point conversions had Janis/Abby/Perillo practiced during the year? Cause they sure as hell hadn't had any in an actual game. So the alternative is the run game, RRodgers, or James Jones.

[pbmax]

Basically, McCarthy plays so as to not lose. Kicking the extra point to tie is playing not to lose. If you delay losing, you might have an opportunity to win. Problem is, when the gods of football present you with an opportunity to win, and you thumb your nose at it, they may not give you another chance. They can be fickle that way.

Yes, and it also known as MartyBall.

The telltale sign is that despite recognizing there might be time to be aggressive, it is never time to be aggressive late as the circumstances somehow always change in favor of being conservative.

Now when you have the 1985 Cleveland Brown dump truck of an offense (2-1,000 yard backs), you can understand much of the time. But when you have Rodgers, good lord why are you taking the ball out of his hands.

[pbmax]

Going for 2 there is an underdog strategy in that situation. It's shortening the game to one more play, making the game's outcome as high-variance as possible. I'd have gone for it because I believe the Cardinals were the superior team and I'd love the chance to gamble for a win.

McCarthy never believes his team is the underdog and I'm glad he's the coach instead of me. I don't think this is the same as playing not to lose.

I agree its the underdog strategy, but in this situation its also playing to your strengths/against your weaknesses. The Cardinals had adjusted and spent all the 2nd half moving on the Defense and the Offense had been shut down.

If it was the end of the 3rd Quarter and each side was getting 2 more possessions, maybe that flips again. But it wasn't the reality at the time of the Hail Mary II.

They weren't likely to get that close again. It took two miracles to get a TD.

By the way, if everyone in the League doesn't copy SkyBall with trailing receiver as their go to Hail Mary play, I will be surprised. Janis did exactly what Rich Rod did. Big body jumping into coverage while facing the QB.

[Pugger]

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.

Agreed.

[3irty1]

I agree its the underdog strategy, but in this situation its also playing to your strengths/against your weaknesses. The Cardinals had adjusted and spent all the 2nd half moving on the Defense and the Offense had been shut down.

If it was the end of the 3rd Quarter and each side was getting 2 more possessions, maybe that flips again. But it wasn't the reality at the time of the Hail Mary II.

They weren't likely to get that close again. It took two miracles to get a TD.

By the way, if everyone in the League doesn't copy SkyBall with trailing receiver as their go to Hail Mary play, I will be surprised. Janis did exactly what Rich Rod did. Big body jumping into coverage while facing the QB.

Its playing with the momentum of the game I agree, but not in line with any particular strengths/weaknesses unless that strength is luck and weakness is more football. This is ultimately the same as saying we were the underdog in that moment--which I agree with. I don't think MM does though and I like that about him.

Easier said that done. You need a QB who can buy the extra time it takes, even if that means running backwards, and still put a rainbow in the endzone.

[woodbuck27]

Yes, and it also known as MartyBall.

The telltale sign is that despite recognizing there might be time to be aggressive, it is never time to be aggressive late as the circumstances somehow always change in favor of being conservative.

Now when you have the 1985 Cleveland Brown dump truck of an offense (2-1,000 yard backs), you can understand much of the time. But when you have Rodgers, good lord why are you taking the ball out of his hands.

Going for two points from 2 yards out and a better than 50% chance with a QB and offense that's pumped up Vs a defense that's all whirly numb struck is being aggressive?

I'd call the two point call right there:

a) Simply, a common sense call.

b) Taking care of business with a huge advantage,.

c) The logical thing to do when your in control of the game situation.

d) ALL OF THE ABOVE.

[pbmax]

Its playing with the momentum of the game I agree, but not in line with any particular strengths/weaknesses unless that strength is luck and weakness is more football. This is ultimately the same as saying we were the underdog in that moment--which I agree with. I don't think MM does though and I like that about him.

Easier said that done. You need a QB who can buy the extra time it takes, even if that means running backwards, and still put a rainbow in the endzone.

I think its more than momentum of the game, though that perhaps best describes Arizona's O versus the Packer D.

Packer's O suffered in this game from its main weakness this season, an inability to sustain drives. That was not influenced by the momentum of the game.

Scoring more with fewer plays needed is precisely what the team needed. As a game plan, that might not be practical. But a 2 point conversion is something different.

[yetisnowman]

You guys are funny. I thought kicking the extra point was the right move at the time, and I still do. It was the smart play....the fact we lost doesn't change that. Sort of reminds me how MM was a moron for running the ball up 12 with 5 minutes left in the NFCCG last year. Hindsight is 20/20.

Yes kicking the extra point is the safe play, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Out of 17 OT games this season only 3 times did the first possession by the receiving team result in a TD. And one of those 3 was the infamous Jets-Pats game. Meaning only 2 times out of 17 did a team win the coin toss, and score a TD on their first possession. MM has 2 nightmare scenarios last Saturday after Janis catches that pass. 1) we kick the extra point, AND lose the coin toss, AND the Cards score a TD on the first possession or 2) we go for the two point conversion win and fail. I can sort of understand his logic here. You think maybe the momentum carries more weight in an entire extra session of events and sequences as opposed to the 40 second/one play/ high variances scenario of a two point attempt. And the analytics certainly lean towards going for the tie. I mean how many postseason NFL games/NCAA championship type games has the coach had the stones for that move?
Our team had played fundamentally sound all game, what happened in OT was far more shocking than had we failed the 2 pT attempt.

[woodbuck27]

[mraynrand]

You guys are funny. I thought kicking the extra point was the right move at the time, and I still do. It was the smart play....the fact we lost doesn't change that. Sort of reminds me how MM was a moron for running the ball up 12 with 5 minutes left in the NFCCG last year. Hindsight is 20/20.

It wasn't hindsight. Several of us were calling for it right at the time. I'm Ok with people differing on the call, but I and others thought the best bet was going for two. People have different opinions.

[mraynrand]

Our team had played fundamentally sound all game

Meh. In the second half they had the Lacy runs, several three and outs, an interception, a 23 yard drive and the hail marys. Their drives pretty much sucked. There was good reason to believe they would struggle to get in range for a FG let alone a TD. And the defense was getting gassed. And you're on the road. Go for two Stubby.