Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
2 Pages12>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline sschind  
#1 Posted : Sunday, November 24, 2013 3:57:52 PM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 117
Applause Received: 414

I was at basketball games all afternoon so I didn't see the game but in looking at the scoring summary all I can think of is why do you go for 2 when an extra point puts you down by 9.

I get that if we make the 2 point we are down by only 8 but that means we have to make another 2 pointer for the tie.

1 score vs 2 I guess I can understand it but I still don't agree with it. There was still plenty of time left. Essentially you are saying "I have no confidence at all in our defense" which may be justified but you don't come out and admit it.

I know, I know, hindsight is 20/20 but I still don't agree with the call.
I respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
Sponsor
Offline Cheesey  
#2 Posted : Sunday, November 24, 2013 4:01:13 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 173
Applause Received: 379

I can see why they did it. At the time, our
offense wasn't moving the ball very well.
Flynn was a big shot in the arm.
UserPostedImage
Online nerdmann  
#3 Posted : Sunday, November 24, 2013 4:03:01 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,498
Applause Received: 625

Originally Posted by: sschind Go to Quoted Post
I was at basketball games all afternoon so I didn't see the game but in looking at the scoring summary all I can think of is why do you go for 2 when an extra point puts you down by 9.

I get that if we make the 2 point we are down by only 8 but that means we have to make another 2 pointer for the tie.

1 score vs 2 I guess I can understand it but I still don't agree with it. There was still plenty of time left. Essentially you are saying "I have no confidence at all in our defense" which may be justified but you don't come out and admit it.

I know, I know, hindsight is 20/20 but I still don't agree with the call.


It's controversial, given that there was more than 8 minutes remaining, but I didn't have a problem with it at the time.

Queens were running wild on the ground with Peterson and Gerhart (11 f*cking yards/carry) so they were gonna drain major clock. Similar situation as being under 8 minutes.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Cheesey on 11/24/2013(UTC), wpr on 11/25/2013(UTC)
Online gbguy20  
#4 Posted : Sunday, November 24, 2013 4:10:15 PM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 203
Applause Received: 285

Look, at the time, going for 2 was the right choice. In the end, it screwed us.

When we scored it looked like there would only be time for 1 more possession, so we had to make it a 1 possession game, which is why we went for 2.

Missing the 2 point conversion would put us in no worse position than had we just kicked the extra point to begin with. Kicking the extra point or missing the 2 point conversion would still make it a 2 possession game. So there was no harm in going for it and cutting it down to 1 possession.

As it turns out there was plenty of time and had we known that we would have kicked the extra point, scored another td and kicked another extra point, then the field goal would have been the game winner instead of game tying.

You cannot fault McCarthy for this, it was without question the right choice. With how our games had ended the last 2 weeks why would McCarthy ever even fathom that he would have time enough for 2 possessions. He did what he thought was his only choice to TIE the game. And he knew that going for it would not put him in any worse position. He made the right choice.
call me Dan
thanks Post received 3 applause.
cheeseheads123 on 11/24/2013(UTC), nerdmann on 11/24/2013(UTC), wpr on 11/25/2013(UTC)
Offline DarkaneRules  
#5 Posted : Sunday, November 24, 2013 4:35:19 PM(UTC)
DarkaneRules

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/15/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 350

No regrets. Next game is all I care about now.
Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance
Offline K_Buz  
#6 Posted : Sunday, November 24, 2013 4:52:18 PM(UTC)
K_Buz

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/17/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2
Applause Received: 19

I like to find fault with any McCarthy decision, but I can't with the call to go for two. I think I would have ran Lacey up the middle given he was a beast, but that doesn't change what I thought of the call to go for 2.
Online gbguy20  
#7 Posted : Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:06:39 PM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 203
Applause Received: 285

If you guys are going to question a decision today, don't question the call for 2. Question the decision to throw the ball on 3rd down at the goal line in overtime instead of handing it to lacy.
call me Dan
Offline DarkaneRules  
#8 Posted : Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:30:59 PM(UTC)
DarkaneRules

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/15/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 350

Too many plays in that game to go over. I will leave that to the coaches and writers. I think we can all say that given the NFC North situation that a tie was better than a loss.
Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance
Online beast  
#9 Posted : Sunday, November 24, 2013 9:19:15 PM(UTC)
beast

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 199
Applause Received: 288

Mike McCarthy went for it, because it would of been an 8 point game if they had got it. But I was against it and said so before the play.

My general rule for two point plays, is don't go for them unless they

1) Tie the game

2) Put you in a 3 or 7 point lead

3) Put you in a 3 or 7 point trail.

(maybe 4 if the game is over and the points don't matter)

Other wise they effect the 3 pointers, just like Mike McCarthy call did. Took the 3 points from being a winner ot making the just a tier.

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 Go to Quoted Post
Missing the 2 point conversion would put us in no worse position than had we just kicked the extra point to begin with..


ummm yes it did. It made getting 10 points, a tie instead of a win. That is a worse position.


Originally Posted by: gbguy20 Go to Quoted Post
You cannot fault McCarthy for this, it was without question the right choice. With how our games had ended the last 2 weeks why would McCarthy ever even fathom that he would have time enough for 2 possessions. He did what he thought was his only choice to TIE the game. And he knew that going for it would not put him in any worse position. He made the right choice.


without question? I questioned it very much at the time. I can't blame him for trying, but it without question was NOT the right choice.

And I promise you Mike McCarthy wasn't thinking his only option was a tie...
America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People
UserPostedImage
~ madeby ~ pack93z ~
Offline Zero2Cool  
#10 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 6:12:00 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,897
Applause Received: 2,094

I liked the aggressiveness of going for two, but the Packers red zone offense is terrible this year. Even with Aaron Rodgers it was bad. So getting into the end zone twice on consecutive plays? I wanted the extra point. The only time I think you go for two is when you need it to tie the game and there's not much time left.
UserPostedImage
Online gbguy20  
#11 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 1:45:43 PM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 203
Applause Received: 285

Originally Posted by: beast Go to Quoted Post
MM went for it, because it would of been an 8 point game if they had got it. But I was against it and said so before the play.

My general rule for two point plays, is don't go for them unless they

1) Tie the game

2) Put you in a 3 or 7 point lead

3) Put you in a 3 or 7 point trail.

(maybe 4 if the game is over and the points don't matter)

Other wise they effect the 3 pointers, just like Mike McCarthy call did. Took the 3 points from being a winner ot making the just a tier.



ummm yes it did. It made getting 10 points, a tie instead of a win. That is a worse position.




without question? I questioned it very much at the time. I can't blame him for trying, but it without question was NOT the right choice.

And I promise you Mike McCarthy wasn't thinking his only option was a tie...


You think mccarthy expected to have time for anything but a tie? There was what? 10 minutes or less left in the game? the last 2 weeks our opponent has been able to completely run the clock out at that point. MN was running right through us and you think he expected us to stop them twice?

He expected 1 more possession if he was LUCKY and knew he had to make it a 1 possession game.
call me Dan
Online beast  
#12 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 2:05:35 PM(UTC)
beast

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 199
Applause Received: 288

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 Go to Quoted Post
You think mccarthy expected to have time for anything but a tie? There was what? 10 minutes or less left in the game? the last 2 weeks our opponent has been able to completely run the clock out at that point. MN was running right through us and you think he expected us to stop them twice?

He expected 1 more possession if he was LUCKY and knew he had to make it a 1 possession game.


Yes Mike McCarthy expected to WIN the game... not tie the game. You don't play to tie (or shouldn't)... maybe you're right, he was playing to tie the game (and not to win) and that's why we tied (and not won).

America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People
UserPostedImage
~ madeby ~ pack93z ~
Online cheeseheads123  
#13 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 2:47:16 PM(UTC)
cheeseheads123

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 66
Applause Received: 103

Originally Posted by: beast Go to Quoted Post
Yes Mike McCarthy expected to WIN the game... not tie the game. You don't play to tie (or shouldn't)... maybe you're right, he was playing to tie the game (and not to win) and that's why we tied (and not won).



A tie leads to overtime
UserPostedImage
Online gbguy20  
#14 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 4:33:22 PM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 203
Applause Received: 285

Originally Posted by: beast Go to Quoted Post
Yes Mike McCarthy expected to WIN the game... not tie the game. You don't play to tie (or shouldn't)... maybe you're right, he was playing to tie the game (and not to win) and that's why we tied (and not won).



If mccarthy expected to have time he wouldn't have gone for 2. it's that simple. He was playing to get those 16 points that he needed to force overtime and win it then. He clearly didn't expect to have enough time for that extra possession. Nor did anyone else, except for you, apparently.
call me Dan
Online steveishere  
#15 Posted : Monday, November 25, 2013 7:06:11 PM(UTC)
steveishere

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2013

Joined: 7/28/2012(UTC)

Applause Given: 45
Applause Received: 922

I dont see the problem. To kick there would be expecting to pull off 3 straight 4th q scoring drives with your 4th string qb and a defense that cant stop the run. Mike rightfully expected to probably only get the ball once more. This is a perfec case of hindsight being 20/20. Mike coached for the more likely scenario.
 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.957 seconds.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
54m / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

2h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

3h / Super Bowl Talk / wpr

3h / Random Babble / wpr

4h / Random Babble / musccy

5h / Random Babble / yooperfan

10h / Welcome to our Community! / Smokey

10h / Around The NFL / Smokey

12h / Random Babble / Cheesey

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

13h / Random Babble / texaspackerbacker

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

20-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere


Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.