If you go for it and don’t convert you need a defensive stop and a TD. You kick the FG what do you need?...the exact same fucking thing — a defensive stop and a TD. To not even try to tie the game and risk not getting the ball back, and that doesn’t even account for the added stupidity of not even trying an onside kick, is ludicrously stupid decision making at the championship game level.
It wasn't as bad a decision as everyone's making it out to be. The odds of scoring the TD from that distance were low, and to tie it (where Brady could still win it in regulation), they also needed a 2 point conversion. Whereas kicking the field goal let them have a shot at getting the ball back and winning it in regulation, which they couldn't do if they went for it on 4th down and didn't get it. Overall, if you do the math, the decision didn't really change their (low) win probability, and some models even said they should kick the field goal.
the models don't account for the fact you are giving tom brady the ability to win by simply getting a 1st down compared to letting your MVP QB try to tie it up and force brady to have to put up points. he also could have tried for an onside kick as well.
That's true, and going for it probably was the best idea. But if was hardly the worst decision in football history. Rodgers was struggling in the red zone and Brady had already thrown 3 picks. Green Bays defense had served them well this season. Just not when it counted.
I mean to be fair 3 INTs or not how many times has brady come up clutch to win a big game? the chances of brady failing there are pretty much 0 and the chances of rodgers making a big play to win it against all odds is better then that
Actually they do because you can boost the probability of the Bucs picking up first downs and/or scoring to account for Brady. Also onside kicks almost never work these days because only the kicker can take a running start.
Let’s not forget the fact why they needed a 2pt conversion — the unnecessary 2pt conversion earlier in the game in an attempt to cut the lead to three instead of cutting it to 4 where a FG wouldn’t require a later 2 pt conversion. What are the odds of scoring a wining TD if you don’t have the ball and the opponent runs out the clock?
Missing the earlier 2 point conversion and the overall lack of redzone success is what likely factored into the decision to kick a FG at the end.
i know the onside kick chance is low but still worth the attempt in do or die. the bills pulled one off against the chiefs but too late obviously. laflaur did everything in his power to take control of the game out of the hands of his MVP QB. that'll never make sense.
pretty much 0. how many times has brady been clutch in the final minutes of the playoffs compared to times he failed to be clutch? he's won 6 SBs going to his 10th now. the only time I can remember him not pulling it off is against the giants and it's because his WR dropped a pass he was wide open on
If St. Brown didn't come down with a critical case of butterfingers, the Packers would have been down by 6 and could have gone for the win. I can't blame LaFleur for going for 2 and calling a perfect play only for his receiver to drop it. Zero but that's a bad question because it relies on hindsight being 20/20.
The odds of stopping Brady were much higher than those of recovering an onside kick. Going for it on 4th down would have been an acceptable decision but not trying an onside kick.
a loss =/= clutch for instance he was clutch against the 2nd loss in the giants but welker dropped the game winning pass
even if they did stop brady your looking at 1 time out and less then 2 mins from your own 30ish to score a TD. more then enough for rodgers but if you don't trust him to put it in from goal to go to tie it, doens't seem it makes sense to trust him to score on that drive. at the end of the day, not trusting your MVP QB to make the play and instead trusting your defense to stop tom brady seems like the wrong call every time. just like the seahawks passing it from 1st and goal at the 1 instead of running with lynch
No it’s not because the potential to never get the ball back is very real and has to be considered when making decision. I’m criticizing the decision; the result merely supports my criticism. what’s the odds of a defensive stop vs the opponent simply getting one first down and ending your season?
Then in that case, Brady wasn't particularly clutch the other day. Yeah he managed to run the clock out on the last drive, but he also threw 3 second half interceptions.
Sure, it has to be considered. But what about the potential to fail to score the TD? Or the potential to fail to score the 2 point conversion? Those are also things you have to consider, and in the end, the Packers were very likely to lose no matter what LaFleur did. I'm not saying LaFleur made the right decision, but taking all things into consideration and not having the power of hindsight, it wasn't the awful decision people are making it out to be.
