4th and Goal @ the 8 (~2 minutes remain)

[Scott4Pack]

I'm looking and looking at that decision by the Packers to pull the offense and insert Crosby to kick a FG on the 4th and 8 situation.

1. A TD must be scored if the Packers can pull off the comeback.
2. The Bucs lead the Pack by 8 points (equivalent to a TD and a 2-point PAT).
3. Packers have failed on three attempts for TD from the 8.
4. No matter what, the Packer D must stop the Bucs after that series, either to get the ball back to the offense or to seal the regular time and go to OT.

First, I'll say that I thought that MLF coached one heck of a game. But I think he messed up on this one. He had the ball, with one more play, in the hands of the league MVP. If the ball ever would get back in the hands of our O, there was no guarantee that we'd get anyplace close to the EZ again. I just think that MLF is going to kick himself over this call for years to come, or at least until he finally wins a SB. He literally took the ball away from his best player on the last play.

I gotta say that this is a classic time to determine to live or die by your MVP. I would've gone for it.

It's easy to look back at it now and say this or that should've been done. I wasn't on the sideline. I just think you need to trust the guys who got you where you are now and at that moment, that is Aaron and the O. Live or die by it.

Please discuss. Thanks.

[lupedafiasco]

Like many have said already and I agree after some time to think it over. The most aggressive move IMO is to take the three and pull for your defense that has been terrific most of the 2nd half to give you a chance.

And to be honest he was right if it wasn’t for King being just so bad. First play out of it they pass for 5 yards but King gets pushed back for another 4 yards and can’t make the tackle. They give the automatic first to preserve time. Then later as we all know King again gets beat badly and holds for PI. If King doesn’t put on one of the worst defensive performances in the history of playoff football we win that game a lot to a little I think.

[RingoCStarrQB]

It was a team (including coaching staff) induced sequence of mental and physical miscues that led to that ridiculous decision to kick the field goal at that point in the game (4th and goal (~ 2 minutes remaining).

McFleur (I mean LaFleur) should not have gone for the 2 point conversion earlier in the game.
Pettine had the wrong defense called on the last play of the 2nd quarter.
Rodgers should have ran the ball on the 3rd down play before the controversial field goal (he had a wide open lane to at least get closer to the goal line).
Officiating crew blew 2 interference calls against who ever was covering Lazard.

LaFleur's decision to kick the field goal at the end of the 4th quarter was not the right decision.

Systemic issues have resulted in a 1 - 5 record with Aaron Rodgers at QB in NFC Championship Games. Defense wins championships and Turnovers win games. Last Sunday the Packers won the overall turnover battle, but again didn't have the defense to stop the opposing team's offense. And the Packers offense didn't capitalize on the defense's turnovers. Injuries to Bakh and Jones were major factors contributing to a less than stellar offensive performance. Game shouldn't have come down to a miracle 4th quarter drive anyway.

Green Bay Packers --> Still 13-TIME NFL CHAMPIONS.

[Scott4Pack]

Like many have said already and I agree after some time to think it over. The most aggressive move IMO is to take the three and pull for your defense that has been terrific most of the 2nd half to give you a chance.

And to be honest he was right if it wasn’t for King being just so bad. First play out of it they pass for 5 yards but King gets pushed back for another 4 yards and can’t make the tackle. They give the automatic first to preserve time. Then later as we all know King again gets beat badly and holds for PI. If King doesn’t put on one of the worst defensive performances in the history of playoff football we win that game a lot to a little I think.

That "most aggressive move" in taking the 3 is a move to settle for 3, in my mind. Now if our D were considered the strong point of the team at that moment, then I could see what you're saying and agree with it. I do think a person can make a case that the D was playing well overall at that point. But I don't think they were doing much better, if any better at all, than our offense to that point.
:-)

[salmar80]

I don't think there was a big difference in win probability, if any, whether we went for it or kicked it. So I don't think this was a call that LaFleur deserves a ton of flak on.

In ANY case we needed a D stop. The only difference is that had we both scored on the 4th down AND made the 2-pointer, we would not have needed as quick of a D stop.

I'm not gonna make a mountain out of this molehill.

[go pak go]

Like many have said already and I agree after some time to think it over. The most aggressive move IMO is to take the three and pull for your defense that has been terrific most of the 2nd half to give you a chance.

And to be honest he was right if it wasn’t for King being just so bad. First play out of it they pass for 5 yards but King gets pushed back for another 4 yards and can’t make the tackle. They give the automatic first to preserve time. Then later as we all know King again gets beat badly and holds for PI. If King doesn’t put on one of the worst defensive performances in the history of playoff football we win that game a lot to a little I think.

I agree about King.

I think he is quickly becoming my most hated Packers player of all time. We have had our share of DB's sh*tting the bed in big moments but I believe King just topped all of it.

[BF004]

Ben Baldwin says go for it.

I trust him and his models over any other

[Pckfn23]

Ben Baldwin says go for it.

I trust him and his models over any other

So a 33% chance of actually converting the 4th and goal from the 8. Then say a 50% chance of making the 2 point. So a 16.5% chance of making both. I think that really needs to come into play to, not just scoring. The model might be right on chance of scoring the TD, but without 2 point, it is all for naught.

I wish we would have gone for it, but I don't have enough of an issue with the FG to get worked up over it.

[williewasgreat]

I was speechless for a while after kicking the FG at the end of the game. Here are the scenarios as I see them:
1. You still needed a TD after making the FG.
2. Even if you don't score on 4th down the Bucs are at their own 8 yard line or there abouts.
3. If you score and don't make the 2 pt conversion, you only need a FG to take the lead.
4. You score the TD and 2 pt. conversion. Tie game.

Each scenario requires the defense to stop the Bucs, however, #4 doesn't require getting the ball back immediately to extend the game. The first three require an immediate stop by the defense to have any chance at all. The fact that our defense was better in the second half would not outweigh their history of having difficulty getting 3 and outs this year (and the year before, and the year before, etc,.). Also, with certain players being very weak links made our defense very vulnerable to certain types of plays, which Brady had taken great advantage of during the game.

Another huge concept to me is that I don't feel you play conservative when you are behind late in a championship game. You must be aggressive and go for the gold, as they say. You can't wait and hope the game comes to you, you have to take the game yourself. I would so much rather lose the game knowing I tried to aggressively win it, than lose it knowing I didn't take the chance I had to win it when I actually had that chance. I work in the world of statistics and sometimes stats and probability are not the way to go. Attitude and heart play a huge role in football.

[NCF]

I liked a lot of things about going for it. You immediately know your scenarios. You either convert and tie it with a 2, convert and fail the two, or fail to convert. What I liked best is that in the fail scenario where we for sure need the ball back, they start on the 8 yard line instead of kicking off with our garbage coverage team. I didn't like it at the time and after a few days I still don't like it. I understand the why of it, but I still would have went the other way.

[Labrev]

It was a sound decision, but still the wrong one, IMO.

As mentioned, King was getting abused all day long and -- more importantly -- you are betting against one of the best to ever play picking up 1 first down. And even if you succeeded, there would have been so little time to actually do anything -- no better opportunity than 4th and goal from 8 yards out. Rodgers also ended up not getting the ball back. I rather lose the game not passing up an opportunity to let our HOF QB tie it up, 2-pt or no.

Apart from that, playoff games are a time to be bold, not chicken'&%$@.

Conversely, going for 2 earlier was not sound, yet I am much less incensed about the decision than at Q for dropping it. Good call or not, it worked... minus one guy not doing their job.

[Yoop]

tough to lay blame on this one, thing is ya have to get the ball back in time to score 6, and Brady had the weapons to get a first down, I would have kicked the FG, and asked for a blessing from the football gods to recover a on side kick, if the gods said no freaking way where getting involved, ( you never tell how the gods feel) In that case I would have went for it on 4th down

[German_Panzer]

No matter what MLF decides the odds are maybe 10% of us succeeding and that means 90% of losing anyway. I mean we couldn't move the chain after our D! gave us two INT's! Why would we suddenly drive over the field to score a TD?

[Pugger]

Perhaps MLF kicked the FG there was because he messed up earlier in the game by going for 2 when he didn't have to. Missing that 2 point conversion forced us to chase those points the rest of the way. Even if we score a TD there (either AR running it in or going for it on 4th down) we still had to get in the end zone again - just to tie the damn game! And there still would have been some time left for the Bucs to move it into FG range and attempt a game winning FG with no time left on the clock.

[Pckfn23]

Just remember that when we kicked off the Bucs started on the 17 yard line.

[NCF]

Just remember that when we kicked off the Bucs started on the 17 yard line.

A small miracle.

[Ghost_Lombardi]

You don't chase points early. It should have been a 7 rather than 8 pt margin.

Kicking the FG requires getting the ball back and then scoring a TD.

Going for it leads to a tie, being down 1 and then needing a stop and FG, or the Bucs having the ball at the 8 yard line, needing a stop to get the ball back.

Absolutely nothing was gained by kicking the FG.

Terrible decision.

[Pckfn23]

The defense had to stop the Bucs in some fashion regardless of what ever happened. If we kick the field goal, we needed a defensive stop before time ran out. If we went for it and scored the TD, but not the 2 Pt conversion we needed a defensive stop before time ran out. If we didn't score the TD, we needed a stop before time ran out. If we scored the TD and converted the 2pt conversion to tie the game, we needed a defensive stop to keep them out of FG range.

Chasing points in the 3rd quarter was the ultimate bad decision.

[APB]

So a 33% chance of actually converting the 4th and goal from the 8. Then say a 50% chance of making the 2 point. So a 16.5% chance of making both. I think that really needs to come into play to, not just scoring. The model might be right on chance of scoring the TD, but without 2 point, it is all for naught.

All for naught? I disagree.

If they go for it, get the TD and fail the 2 pt conversion they are in the same boat in needing a defensive stop but they'll only need a FG for the win. That's a significant scenario change.

The FG, at that moment, was essentially a "tread water" decision. There wasn't much of anything to gain. They still needed a defensive stop and still needed a TD to win. Hell, had they gone for the TD and failed, they'd have needed the exact same thing (plus a 2 pt conversion, obviously).

What Ghost said:

Going for it leads to a tie, being down 2* and then needing a stop and FG, or the Bucs having the ball at the 8 yard line, needing a stop to get the ball back.

Absolutely nothing was gained by kicking the FG.

[Pckfn23]

It is all for naught if you keep the lack of a defensive stop the same. That is what I was getting after.

Going for 3 there allowed us to score a TD for the win. No 2 pt. No XP. A TD without the 2 pt. required a defensive stop with enough time to get into FG range.

As I said above. A defensive stop was required in some fashion, regardless.

Again, I would have gone for it, but I don't think it is as "egregious" as some are making it out to be that we kicked it.