Yes, letting the Bears score would have put the Packers down by 7 instead of by 3, but it would have dramatically increased their probability of tying the game. This is indisputable. I can't believe we're still arguing about this.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Some of the best "stars" to ever play the game rise to the occasion in the face of the toughest adversity. Aaron Rodger's did not get that chance. You all are right, we probably wouldn't have won anyway. I'm just not sold on the opinion that we were better off to not even try.

"doddpower" wrote:

Normally, I'd side with those saying giving the ball back to Rodgers with a minute and a timeout to go to tie would be a definite thing. However, look at how we played the game. If you can't figure it out from that, I don't know what to tell ya.

I'm not gonna freak out on those who say we should have let them scored, like some of you are on the few who say it wouldn't have mattered.

Letting them score is a awfully close minded thinking process. You assume the ball carrier would run it in. That would be a helluva funny scene though, lol. Ball carrier runs it into the 5 yard line, stops, the Defense doesn't pursue... they just all stand there ... waiting ... GAME OVER! hah


I dunno, I think its funny. It's too bad some are so pigheaded and refuse to see things from another perspective other than their own. And when you start to show positives to their perspective, they just pounce on it as if there's no other perspective instead respecting both scenarios, or multiple scenarios.

Take, take, take, no give with some of ya. Amusing how predictable it is too, almost as predictable as some of our play calling.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Normally, I'd side with those saying giving the ball back to Rodgers with a minute and a timeout to go to tie would be a definite thing. However, look at how we played the game. If you can't figure it out from that, I don't know what to tell ya.

"Zero2Cool" wrote: