Jump to content

Pettine's Gone, but Outpost is Back

MacReady

By MacReady
in Green Bay Packers

 Share

Recommended Posts

squire12

squire12

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, mikebpackfan said:

Maybe, but it takes into account a lot of things the fans don’t. Such as even if we tie it, TB gets a full two minutes where they just have to get a field goal to win. With the way our run defense was playing, I like our odds much better of stopping the run on three plays than trying to stopping a few short passes down the field. 
 

ETA:  I absolutely hate the amount of hate this decision is getting. It really wasn’t like going for it and getting it was an automatic win not even taking into account the super low odds of scoring a TD and 2 point conversion. 

Having to stop TB was going to be needed regardless of whether GB kicked the FG or went for the TD.  

Scenarios

1.  Kick FG.  Now down 5 points.   GB needs to stop TB and drive for a TD.  1:40 seconds and no timeouts.  starting from roughly the GB 25 yard line (TB punting from own 37, punter had averaged 40 yards on 2 kicks for the game)  1 chance to win/Tie

2.  Go for TD and fail.  Now down 8 points.   GB needs to stop TB and drive for a TD.   1:40 seconds and no timeouts.  starting from roughly the GB 25 yard line (TB punting from own 37, punter had averaged 40 yards on 2 kicks for the game)  2 chances to win/Tie

3.  Go for TD and score but miss the 2pt.  now down 2 points.  GB needs to stop TB and drive for a FG.   1:40 seconds and no timeouts.  starting from roughly the GB 25 yard line (TB punting from own 37, punter had averaged 40 yards on 2 kicks for the game)  2 chances to win/Tie

4.  Go for TD and score but convert  the 2pt.  now TIE game.  GB needs to stop TB.  doing so gives the opportunity to drive for a game winning FG.    2 chances to win/Tie

 

Sure the decision to kick the FG vs get the TD changes what TB does with their possession.  I just feel that giving yourself a 1st chance to tie the game by going for the TD, while the after effect was still having to stop TB in all scenarios.  That was going to be the case regardless of the choice made to kick the FG or not.  BUT kicking the FG provided only 1 chance to tie/win the game vs leaving the door open for 2 chances.    I think 2 chances being better than 1 matters in this situation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikebpackfan

mikebpackfan

Posted
Posted

You keep equating Win with Tie. It’s not the same. All the Tie options only get us to OT, now we’ve done whatever miracle it took to get there and we still have to win in OT. With the FG, now you are just gonna win or lose in regulation.  One bad Back Judge call away from it being the right decision.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, mikebpackfan said:

You keep equating Win with Tie. It’s not the same. All the Tie options only get us to OT, now we’ve done whatever miracle it took to get there and we still have to win in OT. With the FG, now you are just gonna win or lose in regulation.  One bad Back Judge call away from it being the right decision.  
 

Correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
squire12

squire12

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, mikebpackfan said:

You keep equating Win with Tie. It’s not the same. All the Tie options only get us to OT, now we’ve done whatever miracle it took to get there and we still have to win in OT. With the FG, now you are just gonna win or lose in regulation.  One bad Back Judge call away from it being the right decision.  
 

Getting to OT with the way the GB defense and the comeback was a viable situation.  Getting a tie was path to victory as well.    Discounting it as a path seems self limiting

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikebpackfan

mikebpackfan

Posted
Posted
Just now, squire12 said:

Getting to OT with the way the GB defense and the comeback was a viable situation.  Getting a tie was path to victory as well.    Discounting it as a path seems self limiting

It is a path, but not a sure thing. 
 

im not saying it was necessarily the right decision. I wasn’t thrilled with it. 
 

But, I’m just irritated by every one saying it was a HORRIBLE decision. It was defensible. I get why he did it. It nearly worked out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leader

Leader

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, mikebpackfan said:

It is a path, but not a sure thing. I'm not saying it was necessarily the right decision. I wasn’t thrilled with it. But, I’m just irritated by every one saying it was a HORRIBLE decision. It was defensible. I get why he did it. It nearly worked out. 

Correct. Take away that flag (on an uncatchable pass) GB has 1.4mins and 1 TO to drive for the *winning* score. To take the lead. 

Then - they go for 2 and try to extend the lead to 3pts.

Then - they deal with TPA on whatever time (if any) is left over.

Then - they get ready for Tampa :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
40Year Pack Fan

40Year Pack Fan

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, mikebpackfan said:

It is a path, but not a sure thing. 
 

im not saying it was necessarily the right decision. I wasn’t thrilled with it. 
 

But, I’m just irritated by every one saying it was a HORRIBLE decision. It was defensible. I get why he did it. It nearly worked out. 

You have to give your best player the opportunity to tie the game in regulation....Losing by eight is no different than losing by five....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Striker

Striker

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, mikebpackfan said:

It is a path, but not a sure thing. 
 

im not saying it was necessarily the right decision. I wasn’t thrilled with it. 
 

But, I’m just irritated by every one saying it was a HORRIBLE decision. It was defensible. I get why he did it. It nearly worked out. 

This whole "IT WAS TEH WORST COACHING BLUNDER EVER" narrative is just wild. It was essentially a push. There's a decent number of things that MLF did this season that were frustrating. This was not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
squire12

squire12

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Striker said:

 

I wish Rodgers would have pressed to the endzone and pylon and allowed the WR in that deep corner a chance to work back to him with the single coverage vs forcing the throw inside into double coverage.  I don't think Rodgers would have scored as the DL pursuing was JPP and very well would have tracked him down.  

It likely does change the process in the FG vs TD decision.  

Frustrating that it seems like Rodgers felt like GB would go for it on 4th down, and it seems like MLF felt otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
squire12

squire12

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, mikebpackfan said:

It is a path, but not a sure thing. 
 

im not saying it was necessarily the right decision. I wasn’t thrilled with it. 
 

But, I’m just irritated by every one saying it was a HORRIBLE decision. It was defensible. I get why he did it. It nearly worked out. 

I don't necessarily think it was a horrible decision.  I personally would have gone for it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...