he didn't have a good overall game. no doubt about that. but still would you really bet against brady getting a 1st down to seal the game? if Micheal jordan was having an off game you still give him the ball for the game winning shot. Even if we take brady out of it, rodgers was league MVP and playing great. there is no reason to not let him try and tie the game up. the FG did nothing of value. you still were gonna reply on rodgers to score a TD regardless even if the defense made a stop.
You would have to bet against Brady regardless because even if you tied it, Brady could still win it in regulation. And the field goal was useful because if the Packers could get the ball back, they'd be able to win it with a touchdown instead of needing a touchdown and a 2 point conversion just to send it into overtime.
it was a shitty situation regardless. but sometimes you choose the lesser of 2 evils. the odds were stacked against them but that 3 points wasn't gonna help them at that point. had they not whiffed on the 2pt conversion earlier then the FG made sense because it makes it a 3 point game but even then i'm still going all in on rodgers making play
they were for sure, but crazy things happen in the NFL and unlikely outcomes happen. putting the game on your MVP QB is the reason you pay them 30+ million a season
If you fail to score the TD you are in the same position as kicking the FG — you need a defensive stop and a TD. if you fail to get the 2pt conversion you are in the same position as kicking the FG — needing a defensive stop, but then you only need a FG not a TD. your questions are proving my point. Thank you.
Except if you get the field goal, scoring a touchdown on your next possession wins you the game. Whereas if you go for the touchdown and fail, you need a touchdown and 2 point conversion on your next possession just to force overtime. Do you not realize that?
Of course I do. If you are arguing from the position of what decision created a scenario in which they could win in regulation, rather than simply settling for OT, do you realize that even if they missed the 2 point conversion all they would need is a FG, not a TD, to win in regulation had they gone for the TD and gotten it? seems a strange fact to overlook when arguing about what scenario could lead to a win in regulation rather than playing for OT. Unless you are attempting to argue needing a TD to win is a better situation to be in rather than needing a FG to win? That's a ludicrous argument if so. And if not, you are back to the very basic dynamics of the situation, that there were four possible outcomes, and one eliminated the need for a defensive step to get the ball back at all to avoid a loss (of course they still would have needed to prevent a score but we are talking the impact of the decision on the offense not the defense), and the three other possible outcomes all led to the exact same need -- a defensive stop, and two required a defensive stop and a TD. whether the TD led to a tie or OT at the end of regulation is irrelevant -- not a single coach would lament forcing OT at the end of a game they were losing. Best case scenario -- TD and 2 pt conversion and go to OT Second best scenario -- TD, miss the 2 pt conversion, get the defensive stop and kick a FG to win. Both of these options are better than what he chose. Your scenario is clearly the third best option and I dare you to argue it is better than only needing to kick a FG at the end: Third best scenario -- Kick a FG, get a defensive stop and need a TD to win. Fourth best scenario -- Miss the TD attempt, get a defensive stop, score a TD and get the 2 pt conversion. In the bottom three options a defensive stop is necessary so once you accept the situation requires a defensive stop, the question is what offensive decision maximizes your offensive options. Having two shots at the TD is better than one shot, and that can only be accomplished by going for it and not kicking the FG. Going for the TD created two possible tie scenario and one possible win in regulation scenario. Going for the FG created one possible win in regulation scenario and no possibility to tie scenarios. It's absolute nonsense arguing that one option to win is better than two options to tie and one option to win.
You're also not factoring in that if you don't score a touchdown you're saving about 20 or so yards in field position by getting the ball back at about the 40 with no timeouts (assuming a stop) versus getting the ball back at the 20ish or worse. They would've had the Buccaneers at the 8 versus the 25 or better. Also - the player on the opposite side has to be considering and the offense you're facing. The best clutch performer in NFL history was getting that first down if he had to run his 85 year old body to the first down marker.
I'm not getting into the weeds of this because I don't have time to do the math, and if I were to do it, I'd want to do it right. But people have done the math, and while I'd probably have gone for it if I were LaFleur, it wasn't that awful of a decision like, say, Vrabel punting on 4th and 2 against the Ravens.
That's if you try to apply analytics to a game that is built on emotion and momentum more than any other sport. There's a time a place for analytics in football. But feel still rules. It's not like baseball where you obviously shift to a pull hitter or basketball where you shoot more three's than long-range two's. The percentages are irrelevant considering there was only one game in that situation with those exact rosters. Analytics told Frank Reich to go try to punch that ball in for a touchdown against the Bills in a game his team was absolutely dominating. And it cost them overtime at the very least.
The problem with using emotion and momentum is that those elements are subjective enough that someone could easily argue that given Brady's second half struggles, LaFleur made the right decision to kick the field goal.
I guess. It needs to be blended on logic and neither should rule. But I guarantee if my grandmother was watching the game start to finish she would've known Brady was not giving that ball back. Same with the best mathematical geniuses the world has to offer.
I agree, I'm the aggressive type anyway, so I would have gone for it. But I'm seeing LaFleur getting destroyed everywhere for his decision when relative to some of the stuff other coaches have done and not gotten anywhere near that level of heat, his decision wasn't that bad.
It wouldn't get skewered as bad if it was Jameis Winston vs. Kirk Cousins. It looks worse because you take the game out of your Hall of Famer quarterbacks hands and puts it into the hands of the GOAT. What's getting overlooked is both the terrible playcalling and terrible vision in the red zone that Rodgers had. I've mentioned a couple times that he had Lazard for a walk in touchdown in the first half when he stared down Adams on third down. They also only tried one rub route that got tipped that was run to the boundary. Adams only had a yard before the sidelines and needed three to get in. Should've used him as a decoy and fed Tonyan to the corner or something like that. I believe LaFleur was criticized for some red zone play calls last year as well in some regular season games.
It doesn’t require stats to know a decision that creates three different ways to win or tie is better than a decision that creates only one way to win. But statistically they are all independent events and their outcomes are not dictated by past outcomes of similar nature.
Devils advocate, because LaFleur's decision was utter stupidity, but the Packers defense was able to generate 3 turnovers in 7 plays off of Brady. Rodgers was able to generate 0 points from those turnovers. Seems like LaFleur was trusting the defense more to score off a turnover and win than he was trusting Rodgers to score on that 4th down and then make the 2pt conversion to tie.
Perhaps, but the defense would have had to make a stop regardless, and the offense would have to score a TD regardless, so he couldn’t avoid having to score. And if he was concerned about his offense’s ability to score TD’s, it doesn’t make sense to reduce the amount of attempts they have to score a TD from 2 to 1.
Unless the defense scored themselves. I'm not saying it's a sound thought process but it might explain the decision in a panicky in-the-moment kind of way.
As I recall they did stop Brady when on he threw incomplete on 3rd and 8 - but there was a holding penalty that gave them the first down. Brady didn't do some magic the get the 1st down. A penalty did.
