Going For 2

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm sitting right square in the middle of the fence on this one, but after the fact. The thought crossed my mind when the Packers were down by 7 and at that time, I said to myself "no, the defense has been playing well, the offense has been moving the ball, despite no Cobb and do we want to gamble our season against the front 7+ of AZ? Had MM and the Packers been known for having a few good trick plays up their sleeves and healthy players capable of pulling them off, maybe. But even after the hail mary, I was saying "just go all in and win it"....."no wait....." I wouldn't have faulted MM had he gone for 2 and not made it, I doubt the media or some fans would have felt the same. It's easy to sit here today and be critical of not going for 2, since we know the outcome of the game. But MM knew what his team was probably most capable of at the time and he chose the safer route. Sucks to be on this end of an OT loss, but would have sucked even more not even making it to overtime.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree, I just think it is something that warrants serious consideration for the future... And perhaps special planning for situations just like this.

I would hope, especially with the change in where the ball is spotted for a 2 point that the Packers would have a handful of plays designed around a 2 point conversion. Have to wonder how many of those included Cobb and without him and facing a damn good front 7 of AZ, MM just wasn't confident in any of them?

 

[Caleb Hendricks]

Post #113 above is my play choice.

Ok, you call that play, and AZ comes out in their 9 men lined up in the box formation like they did earlier in the game on short yardage situations. Rodgers BARELY got a the pass off on the hail mary, and that was only a 6 man rush. In this situation AZ would bring in their beefy guys to blow up the middle again, and allow Minter, Bucannon to blow through the holes or scrape across once Rodgers got out wide, where he would meet Tony Jefferson coming downhill and Justin Bethel who was responsible for Richard Rodgers at TE because you wouldn't have a loaded backfield without a TE on the line. Rodgers get stopped short and the season is ended on one play, rather than giving you defense a chance to make another stop like they had done for a majority of the game.

 

[Un4GivN]

I would hope, especially with the change in where the ball is spotted for a 2 point that the Packers would have a handful of plays designed around a 2 point conversion. Have to wonder how many of those included Cobb and without him and facing a damn good front 7 of AZ, MM just wasn't confident in any of them?

You're right and even beyond Cobb, when the playbook is instituted... They also had Ty, Jordy, and Davante. So hard to win game without your top 4 receivers at the start of the season. Almost all that work in pre-season and camps means nothing. Because none of those guy are playing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Has anyone found stats on the % of 2 point conversions attempted in this same situation, for the win? Guessing its a small pool to choose from and probably doesn't change anything, other then the extreme nature of the pressure of the one play on both the offense and the defense.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Post #113 above is my play choice.

Isn't that just blowing your own horn?

 

[Un4GivN]

Has anyone found stats on the % of 2 point conversions attempted in this same situation, for the win? Guessing its a small pool to choose from and probably doesn't change anything, other then the extreme nature of the pressure of the one play on both the offense and the defense.

I have never seen it personally, not sure it ever happened. Takes some major cojones to try.

The sample size might be zero. lol

Here is another article on it from a couple years ago before they changed the XP.

The math behind going for two.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...he_late_game_scenario_in_which_going_for.html

 

[Caleb Hendricks]

It's not that I think it is easier... It is statistically easier.

1. Your odds of getting a short yardage on a long field are relatively high. Especially when you consider most drives you will have to go 50+ yards to get a field goal or 80 to get a touchdown. 3rd and 2 or something to that extent and you have to make it anyways. And likely you could have more than 1. Not to mention things like penalties, blown calls, all of that are more likely to happen on a long field with multiple plays.

2. Arizona ranks higher than you both offense vs defense and vice versa. Meaning no matter if you get the ball first or second the odds are not in your favor.

3. Add in the other factors, making the xp, a tired and shell-shocked Cardinal defense... And having a 20% chance to never touch the ball.

I understand why MM did it, and I would not crucify him for making the "by the book" call of extending the game.

But I truly believed at that point, that breaking it down... You would find out statistically that your odds were better going for two.

But you can't coach based on numbers. You can't make a decision like that based on odds, you have to make them based on your situation. If you wanna look at odds and percentages, the Packers had a 53.3% success rate on 3rd and 1! And thats on the whole season, not even taking into account that this is against one of the top defenses in the league. And you can talk about how a drive could play out from both sides. Sure, sometimes you do have to put a 50+ yard drive together to get into scoring position. But on the other hand, sometimes defenses cause turnovers, sometimes you get a bad punt or a good return, sometimes the defense gets a penalty. How different is this conversation if Mike Neal wraps up Carson Palmer on the first play of OT and the Cardinals are backed up in their own territory with a 2nd and 16, so they are forced to be conservative?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The math behind going for two.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...he_late_game_scenario_in_which_going_for.html

Yup....but in the situation he describes, it is going for two down by 14, he adds this:

(For what it’s worth, touchdown + extra point + touchdown + two-point conversion is the worst route of all. That’s because it gives our Cowboys no path to an overtime-producing tie and no opportunity to recover from a botched two-pointer. The win probability here is the same as the probability of making a single two-point conversion: 47.9 percent.)

So don't you take from that, that the Packers mathematically were correct on kicking the extra point?

 

[Un4GivN]

Yup....but in the situation he describes, it is going for two down by 14, he adds this:

(For what it’s worth, touchdown + extra point + touchdown + two-point conversion is the worst route of all. That’s because it gives our Cowboys no path to an overtime-producing tie and no opportunity to recover from a botched two-pointer. The win probability here is the same as the probability of making a single two-point conversion: 47.9 percent.)

So don't you take from that, that the Packers mathematically were correct on kicking the extra point?

Remember though that was before the kick was moved back and not automatic. I do agree that the it is relatively close. I mean if it was a 20 percent difference everyone would do it.

I think when I tried to account for it, if there was two teams of exactly equal strength... It was like 49-47% based on Going for 2 vs XP OT.

That number tilts more in the favor of 2pt if the cardinals are a better team and more likely to score compared to the Packers. Also for some odd reason, the NFL has like a 61% win rate for the home team in OT. Which I dont fully understand.

 

[Un4GivN]

But you can't coach based on numbers. You can't make a decision like that based on odds, you have to make them based on your situation. If you wanna look at odds and percentages, the Packers had a 53.3% success rate on 3rd and 1! And thats on the whole season, not even taking into account that this is against one of the top defenses in the league. And you can talk about how a drive could play out from both sides. Sure, sometimes you do have to put a 50+ yard drive together to get into scoring position. But on the other hand, sometimes defenses cause turnovers, sometimes you get a bad punt or a good return, sometimes the defense gets a penalty. How different is this conversation if Mike Neal wraps up Carson Palmer on the first play of OT and the Cardinals are backed up in their own territory with a 2nd and 16, so they are forced to be conservative?

That's my point is that it should never change...

Yes, we could have won on OT. You make the sack get the ball back, Rodgers drives the field. You win.

Going into OT doesn't mean you auto lose. It just means your odds are worse than getting a two point conversion. It's not like you are playing against a different team in OT. You have to beat the same defense but for more yards. Plus there is a chance you have to stop their offense first to even get that opportunity.

 

[Caleb Hendricks]

Remember though that was before the kick was moved back and not automatic. I do agree that the it is relatively close. I mean if it was a 20 percent difference everyone would do it.

It was Mason Crosby kicking. It's automatic.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The REAL ballsy move would have been to line up for an extra point and had Masthay hit a TE in the open field for 2

 

[Caleb Hendricks]

That's my point is that it should never change...

Yes, we could have won on OT. You make the sack get the ball back, Rodgers drives the field. You win.

Going into OT doesn't mean you auto lose. It just means your odds are worse than getting a two point conversion. It's not like you are playing against a different team in OT. You have to beat the same defense but for more yards. Plus there is a chance you have to stop their offense first to even get that opportunity.

But you have to get one thing straight, the overall league's odds may be in favor of going for two, but that doesn't mean for an individual team it is. Especially a team with a 28th ranked 53% success rate in those situations. The Packers are on the low end of that statistic. And with regards to the Cardinals, you're not playing the same defense. In overtime defense, they settle into their base defense. Which, is still great don't get me wrong, but their goalline and short yardage defense is a completely different monster. And when the Packers success rate is one of the league's worst, the odds are not in THEIR odds are not as good.

 

[Caleb Hendricks]

The REAL ballsy move would have been to line up for an extra point and had Masthay hit a TE in the open field for 2

Or pull a Nick Saban and onside kick to start OT.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Or pull a Nick Saban and onside kick to start OT.

That thought briefly crossed my mind before the OT kickoff.

 

[Un4GivN]

But you have to get one thing straight, the overall league's odds may be in favor of going for two, but that doesn't mean for an individual team it is. Especially a team with a 28th ranked 53% success rate in those situations. The Packers are on the low end of that statistic. And with regards to the Cardinals, you're not playing the same defense. In overtime defense, they settle into their base defense. Which, is still great don't get me wrong, but their goalline and short yardage defense is a completely different monster. And when the Packers success rate is one of the league's worst, the odds are not in THEIR odds are not as good.

I'd take 53% that is much better odds than the 39% of an away team winning in OT. That's better odd's than winning the coin toss.

The packers also scored on exactly 4 of 10 drives that game. One being a hail mary, which I'll give the benefit of the doubt too. Even though I think it could be argued to use 3 of 9.

So for the game you had 40% chance of scoring with a long field. (this is being generous because I could use the prior games drives as well since it is relevant data and taken out the hail mary since that defense is not normally played nor is that offense in an OT period)

The Packers realistic odds of scoring in OT was probably near 35 percent (and less than 20% of getting a touchdown to end immediately). Give or take. Given the strength of the Cardinals D, and length of field are hard to judge. (Which is also not taking into account you may never touch the ball as 20 percent never do, or the fact that the home team wins 61% of OTs since this format is in place.)

SO basically you have to figure out, do you think your Odds of getting two yards is better than your 35% (Being VERY generous here more realistically the packers had about 20% chance of scoring per drive if they even get the chance).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Hate to throw a wrench into your calculations and I may be over simplifying things by stating this, but before the flip of the coin, weren't the odds of either team winning the game in OT the same (throw out home field advantage, because from what I see, that is a wash)?

 

[mongoosev]

it's like picking stocks. you always beat yourself up AFTER you know the outcome. you take your profit only to have the stocks keep going up; sell it because you are in the red and it goes right back up the next day.
no one knows the outcome and since we know what happened people think we should have called for the two point. I thinks majority of coaches would have kicked it and went into OT.

oh well.

 

[El Guapo]

So making it 80 yards would be easier against a top rated defense? I would love to see the packers percentage of scoring drives verses top rated defenses of this year.

The offense was overall bad... You are still more likely to get 2 yards on 1 play. Than average 3.33 for 15 to get in field goal range.

Week 9 vs Panthers: Down by 8, 4th & goal from the 4, Rodgers throws a game-ending INT
Week 12 vs Bears: Down by 4, 4th & goal from the 8 with 22 seconds left, pass bounced off of Adam's hands
Week 13 vs Lions: Down by 2, 1st & 10 from the opposite 39 with no time on clock, Rodgers-to-Rodgers Hail Mary
Week 17 vs Vikings: Down by 7, 4th & 2 from the 38 with 1 second left, pass defended by Anthony Barr

Up to this point, Green Bay had gone 1 for 4 this season when the game was on the line. Now with nothing but backups you think it was smart to run another game-winning play? Crazy.

I don't like losing but I can handle it better when the right decisions are made.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

I would hope, especially with the change in where the ball is spotted for a 2 point that the Packers would have a handful of plays designed around a 2 point conversion. Have to wonder how many of those included Cobb and without him and facing a damn good front 7 of AZ, MM just wasn't confident in any of them?

What change would that be? They changed the spot for an extra point by moving it back, but the spot for a 2 point conversion has always been at the 2 yard line.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Also for some odd reason, the NFL has like a 61% win rate for the home team in OT. Which I dont fully understand.

I saw that stat somewhere too, but I think that stat included all overtime games and not just since the new rules were put in place.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

I'd take 53% that is much better odds than the 39% of an away team winning in OT. That's better odd's than winning the coin toss.

The % of time away teams win in overtime since they changed the rules is around 46%, not 39%.

 

[Un4GivN]

Week 9 vs Panthers: Down by 8, 4th & goal from the 4, Rodgers throws a game-ending INT
Week 12 vs Bears: Down by 4, 4th & goal from the 8 with 22 seconds left, pass bounced off of Adam's hands
Week 13 vs Lions: Down by 2, 1st & 10 from the opposite 39 with no time on clock, Rodgers-to-Rodgers Hail Mary
Week 17 vs Vikings: Down by 7, 4th & 2 from the 38 with 1 second left, pass defended by Anthony Barr

Up to this point, Green Bay had gone 1 for 4 this season when the game was on the line. Now with nothing but backups you think it was smart to run another game-winning play? Crazy.

I don't like losing but I can handle it better when the right decisions are made.

How does that make it the right decision? Just because you roll the dice 6 times in a row on 2, doesn't mean its less likely to roll a 2 on your next roll.

People don't understand odds, like at all.

So using this principle...
If you cant get two yards, how are more likely to get 80 or even 40 for a field goal (needing to average 4 yards per play and likely needing short yardage gain anyways), especially when there is a chance you don't get the ball. I don't see how people don't understand this.

Check how the Packers where on two point conversion for the year.... Give me that percentage once, like not just your scenarios... But all of them? Because anyone with knowledge will tell you the game on the line or not doesn't change your odds. Or are you leaving that out because it doesn't make your point?

 

[JP Doyal]

This is a really tough choice but I said yes and here is why.
Like noted, we weren't sure if the Extra point would've been made. The extra point is no longer a chip shot making it very risky now.
Going for 2 in my mind actually seems less risky. You get the ball at the 2. Only need 2 yards to score. But of course it is easier said then done but somewhat controllable because you get to run the play and not hope a coin flip goes your way.

Yes the defense could've stopped them from scoring, but let's be real. The NFL is aimed for the offense to be successful. To me you could give one of the best offenses in the league a chance to score because of a coin flip. OR have your offense coming off a HUGE play try to score from 2 yards out.
I say they are both just as risky but why not have a tad bit more control of it and not bet on a coin toss.