Packers decision to kick field goal late - can anyone explain it?

Donate To GopherHole
MNVCGUY

MNVCGUY

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
18,819
Reaction score
19,082
Points
113
I know this isn't 100% Gopher related but it does involve the fate of some Gopher alum in the game and I was trying to fathom the melt down that would have happened here had Fleck done the same thing.

For the life of me I can't understand why the Packers, down 8 late in the game, would go for a field goal to cut the lead from 8 to 5 when they had the ball 4th and goal from the 8.

As I see it the situation could have played out these ways and the option they picked to me feels like the worst option of the bunch.

Option 1 - what they did - You kick the field goal and cut the lead to 5. Then you have to stop the other team, get the ball back with almost no time on the clock and no timeouts and manage to score the winning TD. Oh and that team has friggin Tom Brady at QB so the QB is unlikely to make a mental mistake to help you out which shockingly he didn't and you never saw the ball again.

Option 2 - You go for it with the following outcomes
A - You get the TD and 2 Point, game is tied and you just have to keep them from scoring to force OT or possibly get the ball back to setup a game winning field goal opportunity.

B - You get the TD but miss the 2 pt. Meaning you need to stop them, get the ball back and try to get in position for a game winning Field Goal (far easier then needing a TD)

C - You fail on 4th down giving Tampa the ball inside the 10. You have to stop them but if you do they will be punting from deep in their end giving you the ball back in good field position still needing to score a TD.

If Fleck had kicked the field goal there he would have been destroyed on this board for the decision. I can't imagine Packer fans are real thrilled right now with the decision their guy made. There must be some high brow analytics somewhere that say that was the best option but I can't image why. Haven't looked for any post game comments from their coach yet but I am sure he is going to get a lot of second guessing.

On the bright side - Packers lost and two Gopher rookies will have a chance to try and go out and win the Super Bowl in a few weeks. So all in all a good day (feel a little bad for Kamal but he is the only Packer I feel bad for).
 

It was a bad move. LaFleur should know that his offense is the money maker. You gamble with them rather than gamble on the defense. Even if they wouldn't have converted on 4th....they still would have had a shot to get the ball back.
 

LaFleur thought they wouldn’t get it:

Which means he thought they had a better chance of making a field goal, getting the ball back, then scoring a touchdown compared to

Scoring a touchdown and making the 2 point conversion



horrible miscalculation


Maybe a thinkable thing if they were down 6 and a second field goal would tie it. Down 7 or 8 just stupid
 

Some guy said:
LaFleur thought they wouldn’t get it:

Which means he thought they had a better chance of making a field goal, getting the ball back, then scoring a touchdown compared to

Scoring a touchdown and making the 2 point conversion



horrible miscalculation


Maybe a thinkable thing if they were down 6 and a second field goal would tie it. Down 7 or 8 just stupid
Click to expand...

I mean I guess you can't blame him for thinking they wouldn't get it. I mean it isn't like he has a future HOF QB and one of the best receivers in the NFL on his offense.......
 

Hehehhe! LaFleur CRIED UNCLE is why. 🙃
 



Horrible decision. I nearly fell out of my chair when the field goal unit was sent out.
If they don’t convert 4th and goal, they still have TB pinned deep, with their timeouts and a chance at a short field for their offense in the final minute. By kicking the field goal, they still would need a TD on a likely long drive.
 


Its one of those weird things. According to the final score, TB won the game with the TD early in the 3rd quarter after the fumble. I would have gone for the TD, more because I've seen my teams never get the ball back. He made a choice though. And the PI call could have been let go, only because a lot already had, but it was truly a penalty. So who knows. But in the sense that they could have tied as opposed to being down 8 vs 5. I'd have gone...
 



Terrible call. Even if they get the ball back they have under 2 minutes and still have to score a TD.
Rodgers should have run it on 3rd down, even if he didn’t make the TD he’d probably be close to the goal line for a makeable 4th and goal.
 

I too was saying WTF? Happy tho rooting for the Gopher guys.
It was stated by percentages ... the chart...they had a half a percent better chance to win kicking the field goal at like 10% vs 9.5%. Who made the chart? I agree with the logic in the thread. Go for it. Gives you two chances if you stop them...gotta stop em to win any way it goes...even if tied.
 

First mistake was going for two earlier in the game. More teams I believe screw that one up in the pros. They needed later then to make a two point conversion due to the fact that they missed on a two point conversion earlier.

Agreed that they should have gone for the touchdown.

Furthermore, yes Fleck has been crucified for any decision whether it be calling a timeout, going for it on 4th down, punting. Sometimes rightfully perhaps and other times no. Regardless I believe some guys get to bent out of shape over some decisions.
 

#2Gopher said:
First mistake was going for two earlier in the game. More teams I believe screw that one up in the pros.
Click to expand...
Correct. Zimmer made the same mistake against Seattle this season and it cost him the game. Of course, as a Viking hater, I loved it.
I hope AWJ’s injury doesn’t keep him out of the Super Bowl.
 




It also wasn't the reason they lost. Only 6pts off 3 Brady INTs is why they lost.
 

I wish I could find the tweet, but one analyst said the data supported the call. Higher win percentage with the field goal and defensive stop.

Of course, that doesn't take into account who you're playing. Felt like the wrong call at the time and still does.

It's the conference championship - be aggressive. Fortune favors the bold (I'd write this in Latin, but I don't know Latin).
 

It's one of those times you realize it's decisions like that in the playoffs that separates Belichick from a LaFluer.
 

GopherVotary said:
Correct. Zimmer made the same mistake against Seattle this season and it cost him the game. Of course, as a Viking hater, I loved it.
I hope AWJ’s injury doesn’t keep him out of the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...
With how many times Zimmer's been burned by a kicker missing, I'm surprised that he doesn't go for 2 every time.
 

KFAN was saying this morning it was a 2.5% greater chance of winning by kicking the field goal if you went by the numbers. But I would assume those numbers are some sort of average for the entire league. You have to consider you have an above average offense and above average quarterback, so maybe for that situation kicking the field goal isn't smart.

Oh well, I loved the result!!!
 

Hate the Packers but I don't think the call was that misguided. They had already struggled in goal to goal situation throughout the game and couldn't have felt great about their chances.

The thing to remember is even had they scored and gotten the two point conversation, you would still be playing to hope the GOAT QB doesn't drive for a game winning field goal with all his timeouts (not a high value bet) or hope for overtime (basically 50/50 proposition).

Cutting the deficit to five, and then hoping your defense can get a stop with all of your timeouts remaining was in my opinion the correct play. That way if you get the ball back you can win the game with a touchdown. No 50/50 overtime coin flip.

The Tampa returner going down in front of the 2 minute warning was a terrible decision. It gave Green Bay and extra timeout and could have been a disaster. Luckily, Tampa flipped that mistake and threw on 1st down. Too many teams just run the ball up the middle in front of two minute warning. The clock is going to stop regardless so might as well go for yardage and throw.

The Packers purposely jumping offsides on 2nd and 1 was likewise brilliant. Tampa should have declined. Resetting the downs without having to burn a timeout was Green Bay's only play. Bucs gave them a lifeline by allowing it.
 

#2Gopher said:
First mistake was going for two earlier in the game. More teams I believe screw that one up in the pros. They needed later then to make a two point conversion due to the fact that they missed on a two point conversion earlier.
Click to expand...
Disagree with this take. The analytics actually support going for two earlier and here is why.

If you are successful the first time, you are down just 6 points. A touchdown and extra point gives you the lead.

If you don't get it the first time, you still have a chance to tie the game later with a touchdown and successful two point conversation.

The old school thinking was always just keep yourself alive and taking the safe point. This has flipped some by both the PAT try getting moved back (no longer an absolute lock) and the new school "knowledge is power" mantra. Knowing what you need to do -- earlier in the game -- is key to making the winning decisions. That way you can still make adjustments to your strategy. Once the clock closes in on zero, your choices get made for you.
 

Frankly I’d love to see this mythical “chart” they’re all using because there’s no way in hell it can accurate across the league. It would need to be updated to opponent (a higher rated Qb gives you the ball back less in that situation) and updated based on time left in game (if they only need one first down to ice it versus 6 minutes left, it’s a very different situation) as well as field position (pinning them at the 8 is way different than at the 30, but those are both conceivable distances to consider going for it vs FG). Further then when this chart was created is important. The game has changed drastically over the last several years and so data from decades ago, if being at all applied, is relatively useless.
in all, it was a bad call when youhave a HOF QB and you can pin them deep (where teams are far more likely to play conservative) with that along time left. Using the chart to try justify it is silly and he’s rightfully going to be crucified for it
 

WinLoseOrTy said:
Disagree with this take. The analytics actually support going for two earlier and here is why.

If you are successful the first time, you are down just 6 points. A touchdown and extra point gives you the lead.

If you don't get it the first time, you still have a chance to tie the game later with a touchdown and successful two point conversation.

The old school thinking was always just keep yourself alive and taking the safe point. This has flipped some by both the PAT try getting moved back (no longer an absolute lock) and the new school "knowledge is power" mantra. Knowing what you need to do -- earlier in the game -- is key to making the winning decisions. That way you can still make adjustments to your strategy. Once the clock closes in on zero, your choices get made for you.
Click to expand...

The only issue I have with the analytics for a lot of these situations is they're analytics about the league as a whole overall. That might not account for 'man we're struggling to make X play today' and so forth. Maybe the league can make that play much of the time ... but that depends on who you're facing and / you on that day.

Having said all that ... they have Rogers ..
 

One line of chatter from that game that is really getting to me is the pass interference call on the Tyler Johnson play shouldn't have been called because the refs were letting stuff go earlier in the game. I'd be more upset about missed calls than one that was called correctly, if I were Packer fans. In any level of football... it is an easy call when a defender grabs and pulls a receiver by the jersey. Its an obvious easy call. The first replay, from the side, didn't show the pull really well but the second replay from the end zone was obvious. And it also makes sense that the ref deep downfield made the call because he had that same view of the obvious garment pull. Johnson's tshirt was pulled back at least two feet and it clearly slowed him down. Obvious pass interference call.

You can't suggest rules should change IN GAME from game to game by saying they shouldn't have called that penalty because some similar infractions were missed earlier in the game.
 

Schnauzer said:
One line of chatter from that game that is really getting to me is the pass interference call on the Tyler Johnson play shouldn't have been called because the refs were letting stuff go earlier in the game. I'd be more upset about missed calls than one that was called correctly, if I were Packer fans. In any level of football... it is an easy call when a defender grabs and pulls a receiver by the jersey. Its an obvious easy call. The first replay, from the side, didn't show the pull really well but the second replay from the end zone was obvious. And it also makes sense that the ref deep downfield made the call because he had that same view of the obvious garment pull. Johnson's tshirt was pulled back at least two feet and it clearly slowed him down. Obvious pass interference call.

You can't suggest rules should change IN GAME from game to game by saying they shouldn't have called that penalty because some similar infractions were missed earlier in the game.
Click to expand...
100% that wasn't a mere small push off or a short grab of a receiver. It was a crystal clear interference with full evidence.
 

goldengophers said:
100% that wasn't a mere small push off or a short grab of a receiver. It was a crystal clear interference with full evidence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fans love to use the argument that the refs are calling the game different in key situations which I don't buy at all. If that same play happened earlier in the game where there was a crystal clear pulling of the shirt by the DB I would bet that same ref with a straight on view of it would have made the call. I mean you can clearly see TJ's shirt being pulled by the DB and that ref would have been looking right at it.

Absolutely the right call.
 

Bad call more because of the field position imo. Don't make it...still have Tampa pinned back on their own goal line. Better chance to get the ball back with good field position.
 

The ghost of the Minnesota Vikings possessed the Green Bay coach, leading to an inevitable heartbreaking loss. :devilish:
 

WinLoseOrTy said:
Hate the Packers but I don't think the call was that misguided. They had already struggled in goal to goal situation throughout the game and couldn't have felt great about their chances.

The thing to remember is even had they scored and gotten the two point conversation, you would still be playing to hope the GOAT QB doesn't drive for a game winning field goal with all his timeouts (not a high value bet) or hope for overtime (basically 50/50 proposition).

Cutting the deficit to five, and then hoping your defense can get a stop with all of your timeouts remaining was in my opinion the correct play. That way if you get the ball back you can win the game with a touchdown. No 50/50 overtime coin flip.

The Tampa returner going down in front of the 2 minute warning was a terrible decision. It gave Green Bay and extra timeout and could have been a disaster. Luckily, Tampa flipped that mistake and threw on 1st down. Too many teams just run the ball up the middle in front of two minute warning. The clock is going to stop regardless so might as well go for yardage and throw.

The Packers purposely jumping offsides on 2nd and 1 was likewise brilliant. Tampa should have declined. Resetting the downs without having to burn a timeout was Green Bay's only play. Bucs gave them a lifeline by allowing it.
Click to expand...

I can kind of understand this line of thinking but still feel like it was misguided during the game. Brady had struggled in the second half so him leading a game winning drive wasn't a sure thing. On the flip side I would put strong odds on his ability to run out the clock.

If the field goal eliminates your need for a TD it makes perfect sense but to me your odds of getting that needed TD are far better from the 8 than relying on getting the ball back with limited time on the clock needing to cover a big chunk of yards.
 

WinLoseOrTy said:
Disagree with this take. The analytics actually support going for two earlier and here is why.

If you are successful the first time, you are down just 6 points. A touchdown and extra point gives you the lead.

If you don't get it the first time, you still have a chance to tie the game later with a touchdown and successful two point conversation.

The old school thinking was always just keep yourself alive and taking the safe point. This has flipped some by both the PAT try getting moved back (no longer an absolute lock) and the new school "knowledge is power" mantra. Knowing what you need to do -- earlier in the game -- is key to making the winning decisions. That way you can still make adjustments to your strategy. Once the clock closes in on zero, your choices get made for you.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Overplayed to say they “chased points”
Analytics would say you should actually always go for 2 if your kicker is bad enough. Say 27/30 on extra points for the year.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom