Game 5: Pack at Dallas - 3:25 FOX

[Iheartfootball]

Psycho much?

Nah, I didn't need to do the whole namecalling thing so that's my bad. I just snap a little bit when people go into "yeah but we suck" mode right after an awesome game. It must be a miserable way to be a sports fan if that's where your mind defaults after a win like that.

Exactly. Was it a "perfect" win? Of course not. But I'll choose to enjoy it and let others throw frequent pity parties.

The sad thing is that I have to add to my ignore list. It's annoying to filter through the nonsense.

[Iheartfootball]

Adams talked to King from the Packers plane on the flight back to GB

“Did Travathan reach out?”

“He did. He hollered at me, and I talked to him. It made me feel better, knowing there was no intention on his part. He’s not a dirty guy. It was just kind of a dirty hit. That’s how the game goes sometimes. No bad blood. I moved past it.”

Maturity...The more you know...

Wish he could teach some to Randall.

[dools644]

I wonder if McCarthy will ever publicly say what made him go for 2 at that point in the game. I have loved McCarthy's play-calling this year and haven't had much negative to say about a man coaching a mash unit to 4-1, but that two point conversion attempt was just strange and the risk outweighed the reward by a lot.

Also, credit to McCarthy for sticking with the run, even late on that last drive he (or maybe Aaron) called a run play when everyone was expecting pass. Usually in the past someone like Jones has a couple of good runs and Aaron is still throwing on every down.....nice to see some balance.

They did the exact same thing in a game last year, I believe, exact same scenario, and I didn't get it then. I think it was against Atlanta. Not quite sure. I just remember the exact same scenario and call. The "book" must say go for 2, and the book is wrong.

The decision to go for 2 is a simple equation and was the right move IMO. What you're betting on is your chances of getting the 2 on O is higher than your chance to stop a 2pt conversion on D. Had the packers kicked the extra point then Dallas would have 100% went for 2 on their next TD to try to make it a 3 pt game. If the packers had got that 2pt conversion that takes that option away from Dallas when they score. Rodgers missed the pass but it was the right call with the way the O and D were playing.

This doesn't hold up. 29-24, Dallas goes for 2 and converts, 32-29. Kicking that EP still ensured that a FG extends the game. Kicking it also forces Dallas to go for 2. If it's 28-24 you have given them an easy FG advantage.

I don't think it's a simple equation at all. It's a situational decision and they made the wrong one.

[IrishRainbow]

Thank God for Aaron Jones as well, his runs were huge not only for our offense but also keeping our defense off the field.

On that 4th down toss to play to Jones in the 4th qtr, Aaron Jones and Ahman Green are probably the only 2 RBs on the Packer's roster in the past 15 years that make that play.

Exact name I thought of and I felt a little blasphemous doing so. It's early, but it's clear he's got that something that GB rbs have lacked since Batman.

[Ron Swanson]

Randall needs to grow up. Hoping that Joe Whitt gave him an earful after that dumb taunting penalty. We just can't afford to cut/trade the guy right now. Hopefully he can give us a great contract year performance next season and then give him the Mike McKenzie/Javon Walker boot the year after. Have zero confidence that he'll be motivated if/when he's paid.

[Profound23]

I agree Randall needs to grow up. That pick 6 was decent, the play he made on the next drive when Perry was off-sides was phenomenal.

[WeekapaugGroove]

They did the exact same thing in a game last year, I believe, exact same scenario, and I didn't get it then. I think it was against Atlanta. Not quite sure. I just remember the exact same scenario and call. The "book" must say go for 2, and the book is wrong.

The decision to go for 2 is a simple equation and was the right move IMO. What you're betting on is your chances of getting the 2 on O is higher than your chance to stop a 2pt conversion on D. Had the packers kicked the extra point then Dallas would have 100% went for 2 on their next TD to try to make it a 3 pt game. If the packers had got that 2pt conversion that takes that option away from Dallas when they score. Rodgers missed the pass but it was the right call with the way the O and D were playing.

This doesn't hold up. 29-24, Dallas goes for 2 and converts, 32-29. Kicking that EP still ensured that a FG extends the game. Kicking it also forces Dallas to go for 2. If it's 28-24 you have given them an easy FG advantage.

I don't think it's a simple equation at all. It's a situational decision and they made the wrong one.

I don't think you're getting my point; I'll break it down.

Randall scores and it's 28-24... if you kick (assuming you make it) it's 29-24 so if Dallas scores a TD to make it 30-29 they will go for 2 and if they get it it's 32-29. But now say the Packers do get that 2pt conversion then it's 30-24 and if Dallas scores they will 100% go for the EP to make it 31-30. In that scenario the Packers give themselves a chance to win with a FG. Hell by getting the 2pter there you're also giving yourself the slim hope you block or they miss the EP making it a tie game after that TD.

Again the question really is are you more confident that Packers can get a 2pt conversion on Dallas' D or more confident that the Packers D can stop a 2pt conversion. To me that's an easy answer. Just because they didn't succeed in getting the 2pt conversion doesn't mean it was the wrong call.

[dools644]

The decision to go for 2 is a simple equation and was the right move IMO. What you're betting on is your chances of getting the 2 on O is higher than your chance to stop a 2pt conversion on D. Had the packers kicked the extra point then Dallas would have 100% went for 2 on their next TD to try to make it a 3 pt game. If the packers had got that 2pt conversion that takes that option away from Dallas when they score. Rodgers missed the pass but it was the right call with the way the O and D were playing.

This doesn't hold up. 29-24, Dallas goes for 2 and converts, 32-29. Kicking that EP still ensured that a FG extends the game. Kicking it also forces Dallas to go for 2. If it's 28-24 you have given them an easy FG advantage.

I don't think it's a simple equation at all. It's a situational decision and they made the wrong one.

I don't think you're getting my point; I'll break it down.

Randall scores and it's 28-24... if you kick (assuming you make it) it's 29-24 so if Dallas scores a TD to make it 30-29 they will go for 2 and if they get it it's 32-29. But now say the Packers do get that 2pt conversion then it's 30-24 and if Dallas scores they will 100% go for the EP to make it 31-30. In that scenario the Packers give themselves a chance to win with a FG. Hell by getting the 2pter there you're also giving yourself the slim hope you block or they miss the EP making it a tie game after that TD.

Again the question really is are you more confident that Packers can get a 2pt conversion on Dallas' D or more confident that the Packers D can stop a 2pt conversion. To me that's an easy answer. Just because they didn't succeed in getting the 2pt conversion doesn't mean it was the wrong call.

I'm getting it fine, the problem is that the best case scenario isn't worth the risk. So you're up 6 and your crappy defense almost surely gives up a TD and you still lose by a point. Just kick it. That way you force their hand. If they make the 2, you can still tie it. If you stop it, you can still win the game on a FG.

I don't think the quality of the defense really matters on a 2-pt try. It's one play, a guy can drop a pass or you can get a good deflection or something on just one play. I have a lot more faith in the defense to stop a 2pt than I do for it to stop a TD drive.

[WeekapaugGroove]

This doesn't hold up. 29-24, Dallas goes for 2 and converts, 32-29. Kicking that EP still ensured that a FG extends the game. Kicking it also forces Dallas to go for 2. If it's 28-24 you have given them an easy FG advantage.

I don't think it's a simple equation at all. It's a situational decision and they made the wrong one.

I don't think you're getting my point; I'll break it down.

Randall scores and it's 28-24... if you kick (assuming you make it) it's 29-24 so if Dallas scores a TD to make it 30-29 they will go for 2 and if they get it it's 32-29. But now say the Packers do get that 2pt conversion then it's 30-24 and if Dallas scores they will 100% go for the EP to make it 31-30. In that scenario the Packers give themselves a chance to win with a FG. Hell by getting the 2pter there you're also giving yourself the slim hope you block or they miss the EP making it a tie game after that TD.

Again the question really is are you more confident that Packers can get a 2pt conversion on Dallas' D or more confident that the Packers D can stop a 2pt conversion. To me that's an easy answer. Just because they didn't succeed in getting the 2pt conversion doesn't mean it was the wrong call.

I'm getting it fine, the problem is that the best case scenario isn't worth the risk. So you're up 6 and your crappy defense almost surely gives up a TD and you still lose by a point. Just kick it. That way you force their hand. If they make the 2, you can still tie it. If you stop it, you can still win the game on a FG.

I don't think the quality of the defense really matters on a 2-pt try. It's one play, a guy can drop a pass or you can get a good deflection or something on just one play. I have a lot more faith in the defense to stop a 2pt than I do for it to stop a TD drive.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. By kicking you only leave yourself 1 way of not being down 3pts if the Cowboys score and that's them not getting a 2pt conversion. With either choice a TD and some type of conversion is going to give the Cowboys a lead. By getting the 2pt conversion you would have eliminated the possibility they go up 3 and as I mentioned you give yourself that second good outcome where they miss the extra point. To me the upside of making that 2pt conversion greatly outweighs the downside.

[dools644]

I don't think you're getting my point; I'll break it down.

Randall scores and it's 28-24... if you kick (assuming you make it) it's 29-24 so if Dallas scores a TD to make it 30-29 they will go for 2 and if they get it it's 32-29. But now say the Packers do get that 2pt conversion then it's 30-24 and if Dallas scores they will 100% go for the EP to make it 31-30. In that scenario the Packers give themselves a chance to win with a FG. Hell by getting the 2pter there you're also giving yourself the slim hope you block or they miss the EP making it a tie game after that TD.

Again the question really is are you more confident that Packers can get a 2pt conversion on Dallas' D or more confident that the Packers D can stop a 2pt conversion. To me that's an easy answer. Just because they didn't succeed in getting the 2pt conversion doesn't mean it was the wrong call.

I'm getting it fine, the problem is that the best case scenario isn't worth the risk. So you're up 6 and your crappy defense almost surely gives up a TD and you still lose by a point. Just kick it. That way you force their hand. If they make the 2, you can still tie it. If you stop it, you can still win the game on a FG.

I don't think the quality of the defense really matters on a 2-pt try. It's one play, a guy can drop a pass or you can get a good deflection or something on just one play. I have a lot more faith in the defense to stop a 2pt than I do for it to stop a TD drive.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. By kicking you only leave yourself 1 way of not being down 3pts if the Cowboys score and that's them not getting a 2pt conversion. With either choice a TD and some type of conversion is going to give the Cowboys a lead. By getting the 2pt conversion you would have eliminated the possibility they go up 3 and as I mentioned you give yourself that second good outcome where they miss the extra point. To me the upside of making that 2pt conversion greatly outweighs the downside.

I don't think you are wrong, I just don't think it's as open and shut as you make it seem. I'll admit I hadn't considered them going for 2 earlier, but I think there is a case for both.

However, I'll note this: If you guys are going to argue probabilities, then there is no argument against Dak taking a knee, because the probability of them scoring from the 1-inch line with all of their timeouts is probably about 98%. I'm not saying he should have taken a knee, but I don't think it should be dismissed as dumb because it's unorthodox.

There's way too much automatic decision making the NFL, namely there are way more punts on 4th down than there should be, probability-wise. There is always a chance of a fumble or penalty or something if he takes a knee, but if you are going to claim you're playing probabilities then that is essentially deciding to take a knee.

What you're really doing by not kneeling is removing the minute probability of a catastrophe but leaving the Packers a window.

[KidA24]

I agree Randall needs to grow up. That pick 6 was decent, the play he made on the next drive when Perry was off-sides was phenomenal.

Also, playing deep in the middle of the field, he had a 35 yard head start and let a WR run RIGHT BY HIM on the second to last play of the game.

[JimmyTheKid]

What a fun weekend of football...Rodgers is the GOAT (not that there was any doubt)...Davante is a bad man....I thought the defense played well overall... Dak made some incredible, drive extending, Favre-esque plays on 3rd down, tip your cap.

It was obvious that Jones > Williams after one half of football. After three halfs of football I think its safe to say that Jones > Montgomery. Despite all the injuries to the OLine, THIS is how a Rodgers-led offense should look with capable TE's and a solid RB. Get Bakhtiari back and start putting up video game numbers. Do I trust McCarthy to stick with Jones as the #1 RB when Montgomery is ready to roll? Of course not. But hoping for the best. Just leave it alone Mac!

[RRyder823]

The idea that Dallas egregiously mismanaged the clock is laughable. Never mind that they were less then a balls length away from being stopped on 4th down just a couple of plays earlier. You put it in the end zone when you get the chance. It really is as simple as that.

Take a knee at the one or a holding penalty or a goal line stand later, neither of which are impossibilitys, and it's one of the dumbest decisions in history.

Have people never watched a football game before?

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

[JimmyTheKid]

The idea that Dallas egregiously mismanaged the clock is laughable. Never mind that they were less then a balls length away from being stopped on 4th down just a couple of plays earlier. You put it in the end zone when you get the chance. It really is as simple as that.

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

I didn't watch any of the talking heads or spend any time on Twitter after the game. Was that a real gripe from people who should know better? When Aikman mentioned it in real time I face palmed.

[RRyder823]

The idea that Dallas egregiously mismanaged the clock is laughable. Never mind that they were less then a balls length away from being stopped on 4th down just a couple of plays earlier. You put it in the end zone when you get the chance. It really is as simple as that.

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

I didn't watch any of the talking heads or spend any time on Twitter after the game. Was that a real gripe from people who should know better? When Aikman mentioned it in real time I face palmed.

It is apparently. I was more or so referring to certain posters though

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

[dools644]

The idea that Dallas egregiously mismanaged the clock is laughable. Never mind that they were less then a balls length away from being stopped on 4th down just a couple of plays earlier. You put it in the end zone when you get the chance. It really is as simple as that.

Take a knee at the one or a holding penalty or a goal line stand later, neither of which are impossibilitys, and it's one of the dumbest decisions in history.

Have people never watched a football game before?

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

Nah. This is just sporks speak once again. If you are a man of statistics and probabilities, taking a knee is playing the percentages. Again, something isn't dumb because it's unorthodox. There are common practices in the NFL that statisticians have proved dumb time and time again, most egregious is that there are far too many punts.

I'm not necessarily advocating taking a knee. What I, and the talking heads are saying, and are correct in, is that the 2nd down pass was stupid. GB was showing absolutely no ability to stop Elliott at this point in the game. They should have been running until they had to pass. He most likely gets tackled trying to score, and ONE more play with a running clock takes a TD out of the equation for GB. It was a stupid call, made dumber when it fell incomplete and gave the Packers a clock-stopping present.

It's disingenuous to say they were a balls' length from getting stopped when it was a play designed to get a couple of feet. They hadn't stopped Zeke at all in the 2nd half.

Advocating scoring immediately because you might get a penalty or fumble is classic human psychology of playing to a fear that is far less likely to happen than just running it out and scoring. Again, not advocating that, but all you do by scoring is remove immediate disaster, but you leave GB a chance. The far higher percentage play is 4 runs from inside the 5 and eating up all the clock.

[Profound23]

I agree Randall needs to grow up. That pick 6 was decent, the play he made on the next drive when Perry was off-sides was phenomenal.

Also, playing deep in the middle of the field, he had a 35 yard head start and let a WR run RIGHT BY HIM on the second to last play of the game.

Yeah that was awful, even worse was the safety (HaHa) allowing it to happen after already getting beat deep early in the game on basically the same route by Dez.

Randall had more good plays than bad in yesterday's game and I hope he can build on that now while correcting obvious mistakes. Yesterday was the first time since his rookie year that I saw Randall actually playing the ball at the high point a few times. Seriously go back and look at when he broke up that pass the play Perry was offsides.....don't know if there is another corner on our team that can make that play.

[Profound23]

The idea that Dallas egregiously mismanaged the clock is laughable. Never mind that they were less then a balls length away from being stopped on 4th down just a couple of plays earlier. You put it in the end zone when you get the chance. It really is as simple as that.

Take a knee at the one or a holding penalty or a goal line stand later, neither of which are impossibilitys, and it's one of the dumbest decisions in history.

Have people never watched a football game before?

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

Nah. This is just sporks speak once again. If you are a man of statistics and probabilities, taking a knee is playing the percentages. Again, something isn't dumb because it's unorthodox. There are common practices in the NFL that statisticians have proved dumb time and time again, most egregious is that there are far too many punts.

I'm not necessarily advocating taking a knee. What I, and the talking heads are saying, and are correct in, is that the 2nd down pass was stupid. GB was showing absolutely no ability to stop Elliott at this point in the game. They should have been running until they had to pass. He most likely gets tackled trying to score, and ONE more play with a running clock takes a TD out of the equation for GB. It was a stupid call, made dumber when it fell incomplete and gave the Packers a clock-stopping present.

It's disingenuous to say they were a balls' length from getting stopped when it was a play designed to get a couple of feet. They hadn't stopped Zeke at all in the 2nd half.

Advocating scoring immediately because you might get a penalty or fumble is classic human psychology of playing to a fear that is far less likely to happen than just running it out and scoring. Again, not advocating that, but all you do by scoring is remove immediate disaster, but you leave GB a chance. The far higher percentage play is 4 runs from inside the 5 and eating up all the clock.

I understand both sides. Just think, we almost stuffed them on 4th and 1. If he tries to play the clock down to the final second and we stuff them on the final play (while I agree it is a low % we do that) .....Garrett is ran out of town today.

This isn't a shoot out in Madden, it is real life and you take the points and trust your defense.

[dools644]

Even that though, there's a difference between running it to zero, and running it one more time, just to make GB use its last timeout if nothing else. At the very least, you don't waste a down throwing a pass. It stops the clock if it doesn't work, and opens up all kind of unnecessary risk with sack fumbles, tipped passes, bobbles or picks.

Again, this "take the points, this isn't Madden" thing is just a thing people say but it has no basis in probability. No, it's not, it is real life, which is why it would make sense to play your percentages.

[dogswithbeesintheirmouths]

Randall still sucks. He was gifted a pick 6 and behaved like a complete ass. He did break up the pass on the free play, but he was beat and the ball was underthrown. He let Beasley run by him while playing prevent for what could have been a 40 yard gain. He is just another body at this point. I expect him to get benched and act like a s**thead again at some point later this season.