Going For 2

[Claymaker]

Bill Bellicheck would NEVER go for two at the end of a divisional playoff game.

Got a link to back your theory?

Bill Belichick once chose to kick off to Peyton Manning's Broncos to start overtime. This was just 2 years ago, the year Manning threw for 55 touchdowns. It worked and the Patriots won.

Also, under Belichick I think the Patriots have played in exactly 1 overtime game (tuck rule game). It's not like they're experts at blowing overtime playoff games like the Packers have become under Mike McCarthy.

Another time he chose to go for it on 4th and 1 from their own 35 yard line late in the game, to prevent Peyton Manning from getting the ball back. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right call.

"Conventional Wisdom" is really just an excuse from putting your neck out there to win a game. In the NFL the mantra is that it's better to lose a game and blame your defense or special teams than it is to take the risk. Why do you think people rant when coaches throw the ball late in a game to run the clock out, like what Arians did on Saturday? Because it is "against conventional wisdom". When it works nobody says anything. Look no further than last year's Packers who threw the ball to close out games against the Jets, Patriots and Cowboys.

The bigger mistake was not going for 2 the first time they had the chance, when it was 12-7.

 

[adambr2]

But Bill Bellicheck would never do that. This is a real life situation, not math. I think this is a ridiculous statement. If you know Bill Bellicheck you know he is extremely aggressive in play calling in the first half, then very conservative in the second half. Note their loss to Phili this year. He was overly aggressive in the first half and too conservative in the second which ultimately cost his team the game. Bill Bellicheck would NEVER go for two at the end of a divisional playoff game. Chip Kelly might, if he ever gets a shot at playoffs. This kind of thing doesn't happen for a reason. Had he gone for two and failed imagine what we would be saying about him today? The wildcat is a play no one in the NFL uses anymore. The Texans used it in their playoff game. It failed, right? JJ Watt and Vince Wilfork got stuffed quickly running the wildcat against the Kansas City defense. Did Bill Obrein look like a hero because he "gave it a shot"? No he looked like an idiot for trying a play that is obsolete in the NFL. If MM went for 2 and failed, he would look like an idiot for not doing the sure 50/50 shot in OT. He believed the defense would make a stop because they were playing at a high level all game. I believed the D would make a stop. They blew it and we lost. Enough over speculating. No one should go for two in the NFL with a playoff game on the line. And Bill Bellicheck would fully agree with me on that.

OT isn't a 'sure 50/50 shot'. Not when you're the road team or when you're a 7 point underdog. Definitely not when you're both.

 

[RepStar15]

I think if you think that Bill Bellicheck needs to go for 2 at the end of a playoff game to win it instead of going into overtime to prove he is the best coach in the NFL, you have missed the last 15 years of football. If a coach needs to go for 2 points to win or lose a playoff game to prove they are a good coach, I have misevaluated football for my entire life, because there is not one good coach that exists in that case.

My stance is that is makes absolutely no sense to risk losing the game going for two instead with two recievers on the field that have had limited reps with Rodgers all season. Risk Rodgers throwing an INT at the goal line, like he became very good at, at the end of the season. Risk another WR drop that we had experienced all season long. OUR OFFENSE WAS NOT TRUSTWORTHY THIS SEASON OUR DEFENSE WAS. By 50/50 shot I mean A) You win toss and your offense tries to put up at least 7 or B) You lose the toss and trust your Defense make the stop. If (anyone that actually watched the Packers defense in playoffs) thought the defense would give up 75 yards to Larry Fitzgerald, they also probably won 1.6 Billion in Powerball. I was impressed our team did as well as they did given who they had on the field. We can all sit here and play the "what-if" game. What-if we played Seattle in the first round and did not blow it to the Vikings. What-if we beat the Bears at home on Thanksgiving. What-if Jordy Nelson never got hurt. Fact of the matter is, given what the Packers put on the field, Arizona was a better team. The Packers played well, but Arizona is the better team, which is why they won in OT. They also would have made a stop against the sporadic Packers offense, had they made a stupid decision to go for 2.

 

[RepStar15]

Got a link to back your theory?

Bill Belichick once chose to kick off to Peyton Manning's Broncos to start overtime. This was just 2 years ago, the year Manning threw for 55 touchdowns. It worked and the Patriots won.

Also, under Belichick I think the Patriots have played in exactly 1 overtime game (tuck rule game). It's not like they're experts at blowing overtime playoff games like the Packers have become under Mike McCarthy.

Another time he chose to go for it on 4th and 1 from their own 35 yard line late in the game, to prevent Peyton Manning from getting the ball back. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right call.

"Conventional Wisdom" is really just an excuse from putting your neck out there to win a game. In the NFL the mantra is that it's better to lose a game and blame your defense or special teams than it is to take the risk. Why do you think people rant when coaches throw the ball late in a game to run the clock out, like what Arians did on Saturday? Because it is "against conventional wisdom". When it works nobody says anything. Look no further than last year's Packers who threw the ball to close out games against the Jets, Patriots and Cowboys.

The bigger mistake was not going for 2 the first time they had the chance, when it was 12-7.

Tell me how BB choosing to kick in OT is the same as MM choosing to go for 2 to avoid OT?

 

[RepStar15]

Got a link to back your theory?

Bill Belichick once chose to kick off to Peyton Manning's Broncos to start overtime. This was just 2 years ago, the year Manning threw for 55 touchdowns. It worked and the Patriots won.

Also, under Belichick I think the Patriots have played in exactly 1 overtime game (tuck rule game). It's not like they're experts at blowing overtime playoff games like the Packers have become under Mike McCarthy.

Another time he chose to go for it on 4th and 1 from their own 35 yard line late in the game, to prevent Peyton Manning from getting the ball back. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right call.

"Conventional Wisdom" is really just an excuse from putting your neck out there to win a game. In the NFL the mantra is that it's better to lose a game and blame your defense or special teams than it is to take the risk. Why do you think people rant when coaches throw the ball late in a game to run the clock out, like what Arians did on Saturday? Because it is "against conventional wisdom". When it works nobody says anything. Look no further than last year's Packers who threw the ball to close out games against the Jets, Patriots and Cowboys.

The bigger mistake was not going for 2 the first time they had the chance, when it was 12-7.

The Patriots played in OT this year against the Jets. BB tied it up with a TD and a 1 point conversion to go into OT. Then Matt Slater accidentally said he wanted to "kick-off" and the referee did not let him change it. The jets marched 80 yards down the field and won the game. I guess BB is a terrible coach like MM then?

 

[adambr2]

Tell me how BB choosing to kick in OT is the same as MM choosing to go for 2 to avoid OT?

His point was that Bellichick has been known for unconventional choices to the degree that there's no way you can say with certainty that BB would never go for 2 to win a game in the playoffs.

 

[adambr2]

The Patriots played in OT this year against the Jets. BB tied it up with a TD and a 1 point conversion to go into OT. Then Matt Slater accidentally said he wanted to "kick-off" and the referee did not let him change it. The jets marched 80 yards down the field and won the game. I guess BB is a terrible coach like MM then?

Apples and oranges as there was still 2 minutes left in regulation, time for both teams to still have a chance to score again depending on how the Jets wanted to play it. It was not an all or nothing proposition like it would have been on Saturday.

Also, just because BB might have played for the tie one time doesn't mean he'd do the same thing every time. It depends on the situation and game flow. I'm sure there have been numerous times on 4th down in his own territory late in a game with a small lead that he punted and trusted his defense rather than going for it.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Bill Belichick once chose to kick off to Peyton Manning's Broncos to start overtime. This was just 2 years ago, the year Manning threw for 55 touchdowns. It worked and the Patriots won.

The weather (cold & windy) had a lot to do with that situation. I think his decision to kickoff in overtime considering the conditions was the right choice. Zimmer for the Vikings also did the same thing for an overtime game this year. The Patriots also chose to kickoff against the Jets (by mistake) this year and it didn't work. So sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The point being you have to take factor in what is currently going on in the game.

I believe you can't just go by prior percentages, unless there is a huge difference like if one option is 70% or better. But with the home team winning 54% of overtime games is not enough justification on its own to automatically say they should have gone for 2. The coach has to consider all the factors that have taken place in the current game, and not base it just on past history. If that was the case, then why have a coach since all decisions can be based on what has a better chance of succeeding? They could just have a computer spit out which play has had the highest percentage of succeeding in the past based on down and distance and always go with that. Pretty ridiculous, right?

 

[Un4GivN]

If that was the case, then why have a coach since all decisions can be based on what has a better chance of succeeding? They could just have a computer spit out which play has had the highest percentage of succeeding in the past based on down and distance and always go with that. Pretty ridiculous, right?

Ummm... you know to coach. Like run practice, call plays, make sure people are working hard, get the right players in, make gameplans?

So confused by this statement.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Ummm... you know to coach. Like run practice, call plays, make sure people are working hard, get the right players in, make gameplans?

So confused by this statement.

Ok, let me clarify for you. Why do you need a coach to make a decision about what play to run or to make a decision about going for 2 or overtime?

 

[Un4GivN]

Ok, let me clarify for you. Why do you need a coach to make a decision about what play to run or to make a decision about going for 2 or overtime?

Because in any sort of group environment you need someone to make the final call... Good or bad.

Ultimately it goes back to him. How he came to that conclusion is irrelevant. He's the leader.

Just because you make a wise choice once in 60 minute game by probability doesn't lessen the need for a coach.

 

[RepStar15]

Since were being so hypothetical already, lets say Mike McCarthy did go for 2. He gets it. Is he hero?
Let say Mike McCarthy did go for 2. Its batted down in the end zone. Is he stupid for not going for the sure kick into OT?

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Because in any sort of group environment you need someone to make the final call... Good or bad.

Ultimately it goes back to him. How he came to that conclusion is irrelevant. He's the leader.

Just because you make a wise choice once in 60 minute game by probability doesn't lessen the need for a coach.

Exactly my point - no one can say McCarthy should have gone for 2 just because the odds were slightly in favor of the home team winning in overtime. You have a coach to make those decisions based on the flow of the game.

 

[Un4GivN]

Exactly my point - no one can say McCarthy should have gone for 2 just because the odds were slightly in favor of the home team winning in overtime. You have a coach to make those decisions based on the flow of the game.

OMG, im done...

Simple concepts going over peoples heads.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Since were being so hypothetical already, lets say Mike McCarthy did go for 2. He gets it. Is he hero?
Let say Mike McCarthy did go for 2. Its batted down in the end zone. Is he stupid for not going for the sure kick into OT?

There is no doubt in my mind that the fans would have been crucified him if he went for 2 and didn't make it. On the other hand, if he makes it, the fans would have expected it and it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

 

[Un4GivN]

Since were being so hypothetical already, lets say Mike McCarthy did go for 2. He gets it. Is he hero?
Let say Mike McCarthy did go for 2. Its batted down in the end zone. Is he stupid for not going for the sure kick into OT?

No, because he made the logical better choice. When you are playing Blackjack you hit on 11 or double. Just because you do and you get a five and lose the hand doesn't mean you made the wrong choice. You made the right choice it didn't turn out in your favor. But the odds were with you.

If you stay on 11, and get lucky and the dealer bust, doesnt mean you made the right choice. There is a certain likelyhood that will happen.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

OMG, im done...

Simple concepts going over peoples heads.

Please, fill me in, what simple concept am I missing?

My only point is that you can't base the decision on going for 2 solely on past percentages.

 

[Un4GivN]

The odds are ALWAYS better in this scenario...

Game flow doesn't make you more likely to succeed. Its the same players. Just because your defense is playing well doesn't mean they will stop them again. The chances are they will score on their average given enough time.

So to believe that after a hail-mary, with a tired defense, that is just been struck by the implausible, somehow favors slowing the game down and giving that control back even when the odds of continuing it are against you. I am completely boggled by this argument.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

The odds are ALWAYS better in this scenario...

Game flow doesn't make you more likely to succeed. Its the same players. Just because your defense is playing well doesn't mean they will stop them again. The chances are they will score on their average given enough time.

So to believe that after a hail-mary, with a tired defense, that is just been struck by the implausible, somehow favors slowing the game down and giving that control back even when the odds of continuing it are against you. I am completely boggled by this argument.

I have never disagreed that odds were slightly better. But just because the odds are slightly better doesn't always dictate the decision. Can we agree on that?

 

[RepStar15]

No, because he made the logical better choice. When you are playing Blackjack you hit on 11 or double. Just because you do and you get a five and lose the hand doesn't mean you made the wrong choice. You made the right choice it didn't turn out in your favor. But the odds were with you.

If you stay on 11, and get lucky and the dealer bust, doesnt mean you made the right choice. There is a certain likelyhood that will happen.

Blackjack is not comparable to football. Probability statistics are important in Poker and Blackjack, not football. It is situational. It was Packers vs. Arizona in a division championship game. There are no stats that can relate to that specific football game. The situation was that the Packers got lucky on two big plays at the end of the game and unlucky on a tipped ball in our end zone on the play prior. The situation was that the defense had kept the Packers offense in the game. Every time the offense stepped onto the field, fans had to hold their breath. The situation was that they were TERRIBLE in the red zone. It makes absolutely no sense to put a struggling offense on the field for a 2 point conversion to avoid OT all together. The same offense that has done nothing but struggle since Week7.

You can argue they should have gone for 2 earlier in the game, but they didn't. They had no possible way of knowing how the game would end. We can sit back and wish they went for 2 because it gives you hope, but its not a practical coaching call for that situation.

 

[Un4GivN]

Blackjack is not comparable to football. Probability statistics are important in Poker and Blackjack, not football. It is situational. It was Packers vs. Arizona in a division championship game. There are no stats that can relate to that specific football game. The situation was that the Packers got lucky on two big plays at the end of the game and unlucky on a tipped ball in our end zone on the play prior. The situation was that the defense had kept the Packers offense in the game. Every time the offense stepped onto the field, fans had to hold their breath. The situation was that they were TERRIBLE in the red zone. It makes absolutely no sense to put a struggling offense on the field for a 2 point conversion to avoid OT all together. The same offense that has done nothing but struggle since Week7.

You can argue they should have gone for 2 earlier in the game, but they didn't. They had no possible way of knowing how the game would end. We can sit back and wish they went for 2 because it gives you hope, but its not a practical coaching call for that situation.

They actually are oddly enough... Especially in a one play scenario. Also how do you think vegas sets odds then. Dumb luck? Or you think they use stats to determine the outcome of the game? Do you think vegas losses more than they win? Probably not or they would stop it. Probability is probability no matter the sport. Football isn't some "special snowflake" it works into odds just the same as everything else.

How do you think the Packers determine what plays to call? I would guess its based off of the probability of their success. So please don't try to tell me Football can't relate to probability just because you don't understand how it could be.

This is how I know you know nothing... The Packers have a better redzone conversion percentage than they do 2 pt conversion percentage. And TWICE the conversion percentage for touchdowns alone in the redzone then they do of scoring ANY TYPE OF POINTS on a long field.

You don't know what you are talking about man... You're just trying to throw useless statements out there with nothing to back it up.

You are wrong on all accounts. PERIOD.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

They actually are oddly enough... Especially in a one play scenario. Also how do you think vegas sets odds then. Dumb luck? Or you think they use stats to determine the outcome of the game?

They may use stats to some degree to initially set the odds, but the odds are eventually determined by how much money is bet on each team, stats don't really mater. If one team is getting more money bet on them, then the line/odds change to try and get the same amount of money bet on each team.

 

[Un4GivN]

They may use stats to some degree to initially set the odds, but the odds are eventually determined by how much money is bet on each team, stats don't really mater. If one team is getting more money bet on them, then the line/odds change to try and get the same amount of money bet on each team.

Which usually means they made a mistake thus why they determine the odds... If that was the case you could fix the odds by better large amounts of money on one side to get them to move it, then bet even larger amounts once they do.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Which usually means they made a mistake thus why they determine the odds... If that was the case you could fix the odds by better large amounts of money on one side to get them to move it, then bet even larger amounts once they do.

They will not move the odds if they believe they are correct. No matter how much money is bet.

You obviously have no clue how Vegas odds work. They make the odds so they don't lose money regardless of who wins. If too much money is bet on one team and they don't move the odds, then they can lose money if the wrong team wins. Vegas never loses money on football games.

Here is some text from an article about how Vegas odds are set/moved.

Oddsmakers don't try to predict the outcome of the game when setting point spreads. If a team is favored by seven points, that doesn't mean that the oddsmaker necessarily thinks it will win by seven points. The oddsmaker's goal when setting the line is to keep an equal number of bets on both sides of the game. The betting public's perception of the game can be as important as the actual comparison of the two teams.

Why do oddsmakers try to keep the action even on both sides of a bet? A bookie's worst fear is being "sided." This happens when many bets come in on one side of a game. If that side turns out to be the winning side, the bookie will lose a lot of money. Ideally, half the bettors lose, and their money goes to pay off the other half, who won, with the bookie taking the vig.

Oddsmakers are so intent on keeping the action even that they actually move the line in response to betting patterns. If too many bets are coming in for the underdog, then that team might have been given too many points, so the line is moved.

 

[Claymaker]

So asking the 'struggling offense' to drive 80 yards to score a TD is somehow better then asking them to go 2 yards?

It's blame shifting on McCarthy's part. He can blame Crosby if he misses the kick, he can blame the defense/special teams for giving up a score, he can blame lousy overtime rules. He did the same thing last year vs Seattle. Kicking it 4 times on 4th and short, settling for 50 yard field goal instead at the end of regulation, etc. if they go for it and fail he has to take the blame, which of course he doesn't want.

One thing is for sure, I don't want to hear anyone complain about the overtime format when they knew the rules going in and still thought it was a better play than going for 2.