Okay FB Fans, You're Green Bay...

[All4SU]

Do you go for two at the end of regulation? Or take your chances in OT?

 

[Libero2]

Do you go for two at the end of regulation? Or take your chances in OT?

Given you just pulled two miracles out of your a$$ you take your chances in OT.

 

[rrlbees]

OT

 

[KaiserUEO]

No question...OT.

 

[xc84]

Heads or tails?

 

[skurey]

Given you just pulled two miracles out of your a$$ you take your chances in OT.

The first part contradicts the second part. They were lucky to be in the position they were in. Arizona was the better team. That's why you take a shot from 2 yards away to steal the win.

 

[dasher]

Do you go for two at the end of regulation? Or take your chances in OT?

No one with any coaching experience would go for 2 there. You have a 50/50 shot at the coin flip. You have Rodgers. What would be the point of going for it? Your chances of getting it are no where near 50/50.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'd respect the crap out of anybody that goes for 2 in that spot, but I don't think sending it to OT is a bad decision.

 

[690West]

No one with any coaching experience would go for 2 there. You have a 50/50 shot at the coin flip. You have Rodgers. What would be the point of going for it? Your chances of getting it are no where near 50/50.

Very surprised a successful poker player is getting this wrong. You're correct, you have Aaron Rodgers. So you have a better than 50/50 to get 2 yards. Going for it there is +EV. But coaches are meatheads and would never do it.

 

[dasher]

Very surprised a successful poker player is getting this wrong. You're correct, you have Aaron Rodgers. So you have a better than 50/50 to get 2 yards. Going for it there is +EV. But coaches are meatheads and would never do it.

We disagree.

 

[Toga]

Tom Osborne says kick the extra point.

 

[Chris02M]

with rodgers top 3wr options out you are screwed either way

 

[OrlandoCuse]

GB was 71% on 2pt conversions on the year.

However, that doesn't take into account the situations when the attempt was made. I'd argue that it's much easier to convert a 2 pt attempt when you're down by 10 late in the 4th quarter in week 3 than it is down 1 with no time left in the playoffs.

It also doesn't take into account the "career risk" the head coach is taking if he makes that call to go for 2. There's no risk of losing his job if he goes for one. Leaves himself open for possible job loss if they go for two and don't get it. If they do get it there's very little upside for the coach because he still has to go on and win the Super Bowl to be beyond reproach (see Belichick).

 

[690West]

We disagree.

From the article below:

"If the Packers do go to overtime, they're going to be underdogs. The Cardinals were seven-point favorites heading into the contest; after taking out the vig, the implied odds from the Vegas money line suggested that the Packers had a 26 percent chance of winning the game. Green Bay had certainly played better than they had during Arizona's regular-season blowout in the previous matchup, but they had lost Randall Cobb and needed two Hail Mary completions to tie the game.

It's almost always better for the underdog to try to turn the game into a shorter contest. Taken to an extreme, if you're playing Steph Curry one-on-one and you start with the ball, it's better to play to one than 11, because you might fire off a jumper and get lucky, but you're not going to hit 11 shots over Steph without giving him the ball.

Even an aggressive estimate would suggest that the Packers had, say, a 40 percent chance of winning the game if it went into overtime. Factor in the aforementioned possibility of a missed Crosby extra point and you're down to a 39 percent shot if you kick the extra point. The chances of the Packers converting their two-pointer are almost definitely better than 39 percent. The league has converted 48.1 percent of its attempts over the past three years, with the Packers going 5-for-9. Give the Cardinals credit for a tough defense and take into consideration that the Packers don't have a great running game. You're still going to find it difficult to come up with a scenario in which the chances of winning the game heading into overtime are better than converting a two-pointer.

And if you really want, pretend for a moment that the percentages are tied. There's also the small matter of the M-word. If you believe that momentum is a meaningful concept in terms of how teams win and lose football games -- and I am admittedly skeptical -- why would you ever let the game slip into overtime? Having knocked the Cardinals onto the ropes with one of the more stunning sequences in playoff history and with a minute to figure out which play you wanted to run while referees reviewed the touchdown, why wouldn't McCarthy think that his chances of winning the game were better with one immediate play?

All things weren't equal, and that included Arizona's coaching advantage. McCarthy played it safe yet again, and it ended up costing his team another postseason in the prime of the 32-year-old Rodgers' career. He coached to put off losing as long as possible. Arians coached to win, and while it raised some eyebrows and nearly cost his team the victory, he made far more defensible decisions than his counterpart.

McCarthy's choice was safer and attracted far less attention, but that doesn't make his decision the correct one. Instead of going by the book, McCarthy could take a page out of Arians'. A lot of coaches should."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-bruce-arians-got-win-mike-mccarthy-learn-nfl

 

[690West]

GB was 71% on 2pt conversions on the year.

However, that doesn't take into account the situations when the attempt was made. I'd argue that it's much easier to convert a 2 pt attempt when you're down by 10 late in the 4th quarter in week 3 than it is down 1 with no time left in the playoffs.

It also doesn't take into account the "career risk" the head coach is taking if he makes that call to go for 2. There's no risk of losing his job if he goes for one. Leaves himself open for possible job loss if they go for two and don't get it. If they do get it there's very little upside for the coach because he still has to go on and win the Super Bowl to be beyond reproach (see Belichick).

You hit the nail on the head with the "career risk" comment. Coaches make incorrect probability decisions all the time based on this. You kind of can't blame them I guess.

 

[dasher]

From the article below:

"If the Packers do go to overtime, they're going to be underdogs. The Cardinals were seven-point favorites heading into the contest; after taking out the vig, the implied odds from the Vegas money line suggested that the Packers had a 26 percent chance of winning the game. Green Bay had certainly played better than they had during Arizona's regular-season blowout in the previous matchup, but they had lost Randall Cobb and needed two Hail Mary completions to tie the game.

It's almost always better for the underdog to try to turn the game into a shorter contest. Taken to an extreme, if you're playing Steph Curry one-on-one and you start with the ball, it's better to play to one than 11, because you might fire off a jumper and get lucky, but you're not going to hit 11 shots over Steph without giving him the ball.

Even an aggressive estimate would suggest that the Packers had, say, a 40 percent chance of winning the game if it went into overtime. Factor in the aforementioned possibility of a missed Crosby extra point and you're down to a 39 percent shot if you kick the extra point. The chances of the Packers converting their two-pointer are almost definitely better than 39 percent. The league has converted 48.1 percent of its attempts over the past three years, with the Packers going 5-for-9. Give the Cardinals credit for a tough defense and take into consideration that the Packers don't have a great running game. You're still going to find it difficult to come up with a scenario in which the chances of winning the game heading into overtime are better than converting a two-pointer.

And if you really want, pretend for a moment that the percentages are tied. There's also the small matter of the M-word. If you believe that momentum is a meaningful concept in terms of how teams win and lose football games -- and I am admittedly skeptical -- why would you ever let the game slip into overtime? Having knocked the Cardinals onto the ropes with one of the more stunning sequences in playoff history and with a minute to figure out which play you wanted to run while referees reviewed the touchdown, why wouldn't McCarthy think that his chances of winning the game were better with one immediate play?

All things weren't equal, and that included Arizona's coaching advantage. McCarthy played it safe yet again, and it ended up costing his team another postseason in the prime of the 32-year-old Rodgers' career. He coached to put off losing as long as possible. Arians coached to win, and while it raised some eyebrows and nearly cost his team the victory, he made far more defensible decisions than his counterpart.

McCarthy's choice was safer and attracted far less attention, but that doesn't make his decision the correct one. Instead of going by the book, McCarthy could take a page out of Arians'. A lot of coaches should."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...-bruce-arians-got-win-mike-mccarthy-learn-nfl

Arians blitzed and gave the packers a much better chance at the Hail Mary because of it. You aren't going to sack Rodgers there. He isn't waiting for someone to come open. Plus his moronic pass earlier that saved Green bay 30 seconds. I wouldn't be taking his advice about anything.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'm just glad the Cardinals won so that Arians isn't getting blasted for being over aggressive.

 

[690West]

Arians blitzed and gave the packers a much better chance at the Hail Mary because of it. You aren't going to sack Rodgers there. He isn't waiting for someone to come open. Plus his moronic pass earlier that saved Green bay 30 seconds. I wouldn't be taking his advice about anything.

From an "Art of War" standpoint, I liked the blitz. Small sample size(read: one play) made it seem like a poor choice.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

You hit the nail on the head with the "career risk" comment. Coaches make incorrect probability decisions all the time based on this. You kind of can't blame them I guess.

Nate Silver breaks career risk moments down very well in his book The Signal and the Noise, in the context of proactively raising alarms for investment risk. I'm trying to remember the scenarios. I believe they were similar to the following:

1) if you forecast a potential risk/downturn against your company's current strategy and you raise the alarm there's two potential outcomes a) the market actually crashes and you look like a hero but are unlikely to gain financially from the outcome or b) the market doesn't crash and you get fired for bad forecasting
2) you forecast a potential risk and you don't say anything a) the market crashes and you lose your job with some kind of decent compensation package or b) you don't say anything and the market doesn't crash and you're in the same position

 

[Millhouse]

OT is a coin flip, Rodgers from the two is better than a coin flip by a smidge, says my gut

 

[cuseincincy]

No one with any coaching experience would go for 2 there. You have a 50/50 shot at the coin flip. You have Rodgers. What would be the point of going for it? Your chances of getting it are no where near 50/50.

I wouldn't say "no one." There are a few out there that wouldn't surprise me going for it. Arians, Tomlin come to mind. That's why they are tough to coach against because they are not predictable. Do you extend the game and hope you are able to come out on top or...do you say this is it one play for the game and the ball is on the 2 yard line. Would you rather be on offense or defense in that situation? I'd say give me the ball.

 

[dasher]

I wouldn't say "no one." There are a few out there that wouldn't surprise me going for it. Arians, Tomlin come to mind. That's why they are tough to coach against because they are not predictable. Do you extend the game and hope you are able to come out on top or...do you say this is it one play for the game and the ball is on the 2 yard line. Would you rather be on offense or defense in that situation? I'd say give me the ball.

you say you want one play to decide the game when you don't have to.

 

[skurey]

you say you want one play to decide the game when you don't have to.

And that leads to the poker analogy. You're playing heads up against a pro. Would you say you have a better chance beating him over a 1 hand sample or a larger sample?

 

[dasher]

And that leads to the poker analogy. You're playing heads up against a pro. Would you say you have a better chance beating him over a 1 hand sample or a larger sample?

So you think a professional football team that is playoff good is close to the same analogy? It's not close. Green Bay is not outclassed by Arizona

 

[skurey]

So you think a professional football team that is playoff good is close to the same analogy? It's not close. Green Bay is not outclassed by Arizona

Yeah the 7.5 point spread says otherwise.