One or two?

[GoPGo]

pessimistic of you... did you forget we are the chiz and 2 is better than 1???

And 1 is better than 0.

 

[GoPGo]

I didnt say we should go for 2 every time.... But unless there is a strategic reason not to. Then yes! Get some dang gumption to put some points on the board!!!

I will guarantee there will be a few coaches this year to take advantage of this. and true to form GB will start fashionably late AFTER we lose a big game to a team that went and got it...

How about when we lose a game by 1 point when we went for two and failed earlier in the game? Or does that scenario not figure into your logic on this? NO team is capable of getting 2 points consistently enough to strategically rely on it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

What set me off is when McCarthy simply says we will not change... we will still take the 1... That doesnt take any of this into consideration!!! Doesnt take the advantage (IMO) given to us, and leaves it for our competition... I do not like his decision...

I was disappointed as well when I read McCarthy's quote. While there's not a huge difference in expected points between kicking the extra point or going for two teams could selectively use it to their advantage. After he gave up playing calling I was expecting him to more open-minded about stuff lile that.

Since he’s been the HC (including his first crappy season), his teams have averaged finishing between #6 and #7 in the league in scoring by averaging about 28 ppg.

The Packers rank #3 in the league in total points scored since McCarthy took over in 2006. Hard to argue with his success.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

And 1 is better than 0.

100% of the time. I don't think a team that can put so many points on the board, like the Packers, needs to go for 2 after every TD. Failing on an EP conversion is also deflating to the O. There will be times, as there were before the rule change, when going for 2 makes more sense. But even that primarily applies to a team playing behind and usually in the 4th quarter. Over 90% of FGs from the 15 are successful anyway. Giving it a little more thought, it's hard to see how this rule change will make a significant difference in the way the game is played. IMO, of course.....

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I said it the day i read about the rule change. Only a couple coaches will take advantage of it right away. In 5 years the scales will tip, and GB will probabally be one of the last to change... 10 years everyone will be doing it.
2 pt conversion is the future... just like the pass game took over the run game, as being more important. Passing is more risky because you dont have your hands on the ball the entire time. but passing accounts for more yards per attempt, so we take the risk... right?

 

[adambr2]

I generally don't read too much into intangibles, but I do wonder if in a real life scenario that you just can't account for the loss in momentum that you have after a failed 2, vs just taking the 1 and kicking off feeling good about yourself. Is it possible that in the flow of the game, giving yourself a 95% chance of keeping the momentum vs. a less than 50% chance of keeping it outweighs the slim mathematic edge over time that you have with the 2?

This can't be accounted for statistically, so I hate to read too much into it, but after watching us lose the NFC Championship Game basically on one enormous momentum shift, I can't just ignore it.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

im more of an optimist I guess. I see the offense we have as being unstopable. and if we have a better chance at getting 2 than most teams... then we should take that advantage. a 32 yd FG isnt a gimme IMO. we have had kicks blocked in recent years. Crosby can hit a 70 yarder, and shank a 32. he's streaky you could say. all in all we have eddie Lacy, and other teams dont. I rest my case. take the advantage we have.

And you want to talk about momentum. Follow a TD with a 2. Put your foot on their throat. Thats adding pressure... pressure leads to mistakes.

 

[adambr2]

Let's assume that kicking a PAT now offers an expected .95 points per try (pretty conservative estimate, consider that these are all lined up straight between the hashmarks. All kicks from 30-35 in the middle of the field were converted at a 97.6% rate the last 2 seasons.) Going for 2 offers about .99 points per try. The .04 variation means about 25 TDs will need to be scored to make 1 point of difference. It's about a 2-3 point difference over the course of a season.

Given the risk to momentum that I had pointed out I can't see most coaches changing their ways to chase 2-3 more points per season. Coaches are generally risk averse. I don't think this rule will change coaches much yet, as the variation is just so small that on some teams depending on the goalline offense and kicker it'll actually swing the other way. If they were snapping from the 25, absolutely.

If we can find enough consistency to convert this at better than 50%, I'm all for it. However in recent history we have not had as much success as we should have going for 2.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

GB is a fine tuned offense. Rodgers and co have been together a long time. The offense is set. They should spend some more time on 2 point plays. they should spend more time on strategy and tricks for them 2 pt plays. and get that 50% 2pt average up... way up. I agree adambr2 .

I think the pressure put on opposing teams will be more valuable than the 3 or 4 points would seem. We start a game off 8-0 or even 16-0, and when a team like seattle comes back we have a better chance to hold them off... Lets admit it. we have a bad habbit of getting a lead early and letting off the throttle the 4th quarter. good teams always make a run for it and many catch up... when they never should... we need to not only get the one point advantage when we are pulling away. but we need to not stop in the 4th quarter. foot to the floor til the game is over. Seattle game is perfect example. And I bet with lynch, they will be going for 2 consistantly. playing the numbers...

 

[Sky King]

TJV is onto something. If the Packers again lead the league in scoring and MM plays the numbers game, the point differential in most wins may not really warrant going for two, except as practice for those close games when they may really need it. Then again, they would also be putting their tendencies on film.

As an aside, Leroy Hoard once said, "If you need one yard I'll get you three. "If you need 10 yards I'll get you three."

 

[GoPGo]

im more of an optimist I guess. I see the offense we have as being unstopable.

Back to reality, no offense is unstoppable, especially on a short field. We have converted 1 out of 9 attempts over the last 4 seasons. That's 0.11 points per attempt.

a 32 yd FG isnt a gimme IMO. we have had kicks blocked in recent years. Crosby can hit a 70 yarder, and shank a 32. he's streaky you could say.

Crosby has only missed on one FG under 40 yards in the past two seasons and that one was a blocked kick.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Back to reality, no offense is unstoppable, especially on a short field. We have converted 1 out of 9 attempts over the last 4 seasons. That's 0.11 points per attempt.

That´s absolutely terrible and by far the worst success rate in the entire league. Maybe the Packers should try to run the ball in these situations at least one.

Just as a side note, the Bears lead the league in that category over the last four years, converting 12-of-13.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I generally don't read too much into intangibles, but I do wonder if in a real life scenario that you just can't account for the loss in momentum that you have after a failed 2, vs just taking the 1 and kicking off feeling good about yourself. Is it possible that in the flow of the game, giving yourself a 95% chance of keeping the momentum vs. a less than 50% chance of keeping it outweighs the slim mathematic edge over time that you have with the 2?

This can't be accounted for statistically, so I hate to read too much into it, but after watching us lose the NFC Championship Game basically on one enormous momentum shift, I can't just ignore it.

I don´t think failing a two-point conversion (aside of late in the game when the score dictates to go for two) results in a huge negative swing of momentum.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

First, NFL coaches are, for the most, conservative and coach to lose by as few points as possible, not to win. There are exceptions to this but the majority of NFL coaches don't embrace change and denigrate new ideas until they're shoved down their throats.

Second, Peter King mentioned that if more teams don't go for two with the new extra point spot, then the owners are likely to move the kick further away until more two point conversions are attempted. The new spot was only approved for one year. Quote from the article:

If the new extra point doesn't motivate coaches to go for two more, look for the owners next offseason to vote to push the PAT back eight or 10 yards further so some drama is created in the touchdown conversion.
​

That being the case, coaches better start to at least practice and emphasize the two-point conversion more because the NFL is pushing for it to become a more prevalent play. Coaches that don't embrace it are going to be left behind as the NFL makes the two-point conversion the better choice.

Finally, the math from the center of the field on a 33-yard FG pushes the 2-pt conversion ahead of the PAT by probability but by so little that I doubt many coaches actually care. According to PFF, over the last 2 years NFL teams made 97.6% of 30-35 yard FG attempts from the center hashmark. That would put the expected points at 0.976. Two point conversions are a 50/50 proposition and Football Outsiders puts the expected points at 0.99. As I said, the difference is negligible so I wouldn't expect a big change unless a team has a really good goal line offense or a really terrible kicker.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

How about when we lose a game by 1 point when we went for two and failed earlier in the game? Or does that scenario not figure into your logic on this? NO team is capable of getting 2 points consistently enough to strategically rely on it.

Teams had better start doing that because Peter King said the NFL will keep changing the rules until the two-point conversion is more popular.

 

[TJV]

First, NFL coaches are, for the most, conservative and coach to lose by as few points as possible, not to win. There are exceptions to this but the majority of NFL coaches don't embrace change and denigrate new ideas until they're shoved down their throats.

Since what I bolded goes against human nature, I disagree. A HC can resist change and be conservative and still passionately coach to win, even if he fails. BTW, you present evidence in your post justifying resisting the change to attempt more 2 point conversions.

Teams had better start doing that because Peter King said the NFL will keep changing the rules until the two-point conversion is more popular.

I don't see the logic in this. If teams see a strategic advantage in continuing to kick PATs why would they do something they see as a disadvantage because of what might happen in the future?

If the NFL wants to encourage more 2 point conversions there are easy ways to accomplish that. Move the 2 point conversion to the 1 yard line. Or leave it where it is and just eliminate PAT kicks.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think teams will have to start doing 2 point conversions so they don't make the PAT more difficult. They're going to do what they think is best for them at the time. And teams practice goal line plays as part of normal procedure. I doubt less time would be spent on special teams and kickers, because holding, snapping and putting the ball in the air will always be important in this game in terms of FG's so I don't see it cutting into that time. I doubt they practice extra points in any way other than from a botched snap standpoint

 

[El Guapo]

Having an "unstoppable" offense is a farce of course. We get stopped all of the times by good teams. We are a big play team because of our weapons. We aren't, and haven't been for many years, a team that is adept at scoring from the 1. Our offense needs space and more often scores from much further out.

My overall sentiment about this rule change is that this isn't a big issue for the Packers. Defense continues to be the major issue. We score enough points to win games. The 2-point conversion will continue to be situational dictated by weather, personnel, and game conditions more than a chart or statistical analysis. I'm fine with McCarthy downplaying the importance of this rule change. It really shouldn't change the way that we play the game.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Since what I bolded goes against human nature, I disagree. A HC can resist change and be conservative and still passionately coach to win, even if he fails. BTW, you present evidence in this post justifying resisting the change to attempt more 2 point conversions. I don't see the logic in this. If teams see a strategic advantage in continuing to kick PATs why would they do something they see as a disadvantage because of what might happen in the future?

If the NFL wants to encourage more 2 point conversions there are easy ways to accomplish that. Move the 2 point conversion to the 1 yard line. Or leave it where it is and just eliminate PAT kicks.

The NFL is going to continue to make changes until the the 2pt conversion becomes more prevalent. That play will only become more prevalent when a large group of very conservative NFL coaches find it advantageous to do so. I don't know how they'll do it. Peter King said they might move the PAT another 10 yards away.

I mentioned getting used to trying for the 2pt conversion because the NFL wants it to be a play that is run more often. I think some poster mentioned that the Packers are something like 1 for 11 in situations similar to the 2pt conversion attempt. That will become a pretty big problem if the 2pt conversion becomes more important. How does it hurt to practice the play more often and try it in garbage time to get the team experience? I don't see why a coach wouldn't plan for the future when he has a team that should be winning by sizable margins in many games throughout the season. There's obviously a problem with the team if they're only 1 for 11 in those kinds of situations (and keep in mind, I'm taking another poster's word on that stat). Why not try and get that corrected?

 

[TJV]

Of course I’m in favor of the Packers practicing short-yardage situations - including those close to the goal line and becoming much better at them. But that’s not the idea I was disagreeing with. I disagree with the idea that, "teams had better start doing that (going for 2) because Peter King said the NFL will keep changing the rules until the two-point conversion is more popular". That doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Mondio]

. That will become a pretty big problem if the 2pt conversion becomes more important. How does it hurt to practice the play more often and try it in garbage time to get the team experience? I don't see why a coach wouldn't plan for the future when he has a team that should be winning by sizable margins in many games throughout the season. There's obviously a problem with the team if they're only 1 for 11 in those kinds of situations (and keep in mind, I'm taking another poster's word on that stat). Why not try and get that corrected?

I'd like to see the Packers get better at short yardage situations too, but at what expense? There is always a cost. I'm certain they work on it now, and for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to work well. Execution, needing more practice? Having the right players? play calls? poor call for the situation? I don't know, but I don't think they're going to take away practice time from the offense as a whole to work more on goal line situations. Or do they, and quit working on their between the 20 or 2 minute offensive drills? Is that going to yield a net positive for our team? or will there be a cost?

Do they take away time from the defense? Do they take time away from both since both offensive and defensive players are involved in the special team plays? does it become an offense only play?

I just don't think it's going to change much at all. The game and situation might and I suppose if it's a 45 yard extra point maybe it will change more, but FG's will always be important in this game, so I suspect they still won't take away kicking time to work on shortyardage stuff.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Back to reality, no offense is unstoppable, especially on a short field. We have converted 1 out of 9 attempts over the last 4 seasons. That's 0.11 points per attempt.

It's strange the Packers scored a TD on 15 of 25 plays (60%) from the 2-yard line pn regular downs over the same period.

While throwing for it on every two-point conversion the team ran the ball 12 times, scoring 7 TDs on regular downs.

 

[GoPGo]

It's strange the Packers scored a TD on 15 of 25 plays (60%) from the 2-yard line pn regular downs over the same period.

While throwing for it on every two-point conversion the team ran the ball 12 times, scoring 7 TDs on regular downs.

Surely someone has noticed this and they are aware of this by now? One would hope anyway.

 

[Packerlover]

Go for the extra point. That's a chip shot for Crosby..

NBC showed a stat yesterday during the Hall of fame game.. Kicker's had a 95% success rate with 35 yard field goals, so a 30 yard extra point should still be easy

 

[Ogsponge]

And 1 is better than 0.

Not when you lose by one