Why not let (Forte) score? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

I have to think the real decision was made before the actual events ever took place, years ago, when a coach either did his own math (or had a number pusher help him) so when this situation came up he knew what he exactly what he was going to do. This wasn't a wing it decision made at soldier field on Sep 27, 2010. They practice and preach as such year round. They (the whole packer organization) knew they were not going to "let them score". Even though the fact that the resulting kick may even be a 98% chance, as a coach he has decided that the odds have a better chance of dropping from a 98% successful kick if in fact you do not let them score on 1st down with only 2 timeouts left. Here are the odds he favored in choosing to not "let them score" ("let them score", ugh, brutal words in coaching to here)2nd downSnap Ball (% possiblilty of penalty, % possibility of fumble)Receive Snap (% possibility of fumble, % possibility of one of 11 man bolting through line and making a stop in backfield moving kick back any* number of yardsHandoff to RB (% possibily of fumble, % chance a penalty could be happening anywhere here on the offense, tackle for a loss)RB Run (% possibilty of stripping the ball with the guys you have trained to 2 man gang strip all week in practice)2 timeouts, so they have to do it twice3rd DownRepeat all of the above4th Down Kick,comes down to a Kicker kicking a 98% or less field goal to win the game in the NFL in front of 55000 people. (its either going to remain at 98% success rate or its going to have decreased based on above, the odds will not increase)now wait, the kick isnt over.....Snap, Hold, Kick (bad snap, bad catch, bad hold, bad kick, penalty, block, miss (add to this the mental pressure))all of this being said I believe I understand why coaches make the decisions they make and sadly they do not help my fantasy team in some cases. I am not a Packer or a Bear fan and had no one going tonight and dont think the call was stupid (if i had buffalo's defense this does not hold too much water)I know i do or have thrown the word around that a coach is dumb, but i think this one is explainable.

You're giving these guys way, way too much credit.That sad thing is that for the millions of dollars on the line here, there's not a team out there that DOES have someone doing something like this. If they did, we would see a lot of the traditional decisions made in football be completely reversed by now. College coaches are catching on much faster than pro coaches, but 30 years from now I think we're going to see a completely different style of decision making in football that is more similar to what people with nothing on the line have been doing in videogames for the last 10 years. Someone just has to be the one to step up kickstart it. Bellicheck tried to on that 4th and 2 play last year, but it didn't work so naturally the "judge only from the result, not from the reason" crowd jumped down his throat and set the whole thing back a couple years.It's risk aversion. If there was nothing on the line and Mike McCarthy were playing a videogame, he would have let them score. But with his job on the line and millions of people watching, he's scared to make the decision that's not generally accepted based on tradition. We've seen this a million times over. The guys with more job security (Bellicheck in the NFL, and Saban, Meyer, etc in college football) take far more "risks" by playing the smart decision rather than the traditional one. It's only a matter of time before the number of successes that have come out of these risks (Urban would never have won his first NC without faking a punt on 4th and long from his own 20 yard line, something that up until that point was deemed absolutely insane) become too much to ignore.

Truth to this. A ton of what gets done by the majority of coaches that don't have that "untouchable" tag that Belichick has (and has earned) is done for job security. Nobody ever lost their job punting on 4th and long. But going for it might be the smart play. But it's risky and most of these guys are highly risk averse.You are right in that it may take time for the "conventional wisdom" to change.One way I always like to look at it, is from the perspective of the other team.If you're a Jets fan facing the Patriots and Brady has the ball on the Jets 40 and is facing 4th and 2, what do you hope he does?You hope he punts. You do not want him going for it there.If I were a Bears fan, the last thing in the world I would have wanted the Packers to do last night would be to let Forte score.I think that says a lot.J

 

[sjacksonfan]

this was kind of like watching Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels play a game of chess..........

It's like neither guy wanted to give their team the best chance to win the game. People forget Holmgren let the Broncos score in the SuperBowl and he wasn't lambasted for that decision even though he screwed the math up and GB could have used time outs, held Denver to a fg and gotten the ball back with a minute and half left or so only down 3. Bottom line is these guys aren't rocket scientists, they're football coaches. Last night was a perplexing display on both sides.

 

[jurb26]

I don't agree with letting a team score. You don't know what could happen when they try that FG. They could botch the snap. The snapper may snap it high, low or sideways leading to messed up timing. Hell, maybe you BLOCK the K like the other team just did to you earlier that game. The chances of any of those things happening are better than your chances of going 80 to 70 yds with less than a minute and no time outs IMO.

That kick took place from the two yard line, middle of the field. It was for all intents and purposes, an extra point.Robbie Gould is 179-180 on extra points in his career. Every single one of those kicks included a snap, a kick, and a team trying to block it. And yet, he made it 99.5% of the time.Green Bay ran their first goal to go play with 1:44 left on the clock, and one timeout.So basically what you're saying is that you believe the chance that one of the top 3 offenses in the NFL could get the ball via a kickoff and score a TD with 1:44 left on the clock and one timeout is less than a half of one percent?Cuh-razy.

GB had all game, or more specifically 58:16, to score all these points you seem to think are so easy to come by yet they managed only 17. You act as if the were a game of madden and they could score whenever they want. They tried to score all game long and only put up 17 points. @ the notion that players are trying just as hard to block extra points as they are to blocking game winning FGs.

Green Bay had nine drives and scored TDs on two of them. So a baseline for their success rate would be 22%, modified downwards by time factors, and upwards by the knowledge that they need a TD (they wouldn't kick a FG from the 7 yard line). Whether that comes out to 10%, 15%, or 20%, it's clearly way higher than the probability that they'll block a 19-yard FG.

On one of their TD drives they started with the ball on the 40 yd line thanks to a missed FG. How does that play into your equation? What starting field position are you using? Are they going 60 yds or are they going 80 yds? On GB's 1st scoring drive it took them 3:56 to score from only 60 yds out. On their 2nd scoring drive it took them 7:47 to score from 72 yds out. How exactly are you figuring these time parameters into your equation? So they scored on 2 of 9 possessions. Big deal. They didn't score on any possessions in less than 2:00 and you have no way of statistically validating your claim as the game was never played under those circumstances. You say there is a baseline of 22%. How is that exactly? None of the other drives GB had in this game were under the same parameters as what this mythical final drive would have been. You know, Chi also knows that GB MUST score a TD. You don't think that gives them an advantage over the previous drive in which GB scored 22% of the time on? The baseline you have laid out is meaningless.

 

[mjhorn]

Chicago was absolutely trying to score a TD at the end. They absolutely should have been also. I know some of you think they should have knealt on the ball to run out the clock and kick a FG as time ran out, but too much can go wrong on a FG attempt. There is a reason Lovie Smith (and not CalBear) coaches the Bears. In a tie game you play for the TD, not the FG. Ever watched an OT game where a team kicks the FG on third down??? Did you ever wonder why??? It's the same reason Lovie Smith made the CORRECT decision to go for the TD at the end of the game last night.

Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen? If so, you're completely wrong; teams who feel they're in easy field goal range in OT will kick on their first opportunity, after centering the ball. Happens all the time. Happened this weekend, actually (but Hartley missed the kick, which was on first down).But the OT situation isn't exactly analogous. The reason the Bears should have gone for a FG was the clock situation, not the score; taking two knees, they could avoid the risk of fumble, and score with almost no time left on the clock.

Here's what it comes down to: would you rather be up 20-17 with 8 seconds left, or 24-17 with a minute left?

The other reason they will kick on third down when they know they're in range is so that in the case of something like a botched snap etc, they can just fall on the ball and try again on 4th down. That, in my mind is what the Bears should have been looking to do last night.

 

[shredhead]

Chicago was absolutely trying to score a TD at the end. They absolutely should have been also. I know some of you think they should have knealt on the ball to run out the clock and kick a FG as time ran out, but too much can go wrong on a FG attempt. There is a reason Lovie Smith (and not CalBear) coaches the Bears. In a tie game you play for the TD, not the FG. Ever watched an OT game where a team kicks the FG on third down??? Did you ever wonder why??? It's the same reason Lovie Smith made the CORRECT decision to go for the TD at the end of the game last night.

Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen?

If so, you're completely wrong; teams who feel they're in easy field goal range in OT will kick on their first opportunity, after centering the ball. Happens all the time. Happened this weekend, actually (but Hartley missed the kick, which was on first down).But the OT situation isn't exactly analogous. The reason the Bears should have gone for a FG was the clock situation, not the score; taking two knees, they could avoid the risk of fumble, and score with almost no time left on the clock.

Here's what it comes down to: would you rather be up 20-17 with 8 seconds left, or 24-17 with a minute left?

No, I'm suggesting the exact opposite. Teams kick FG's on 3rd down (and 1st and 2nd as you suggested) in OT quite often. The reason for this is because many bad things can happen on a FG attempt (bad snap etc). Because of these bad things that can happen on FG attempts, Lovie Smith chose (and correctly in my opinion) to go for the TD instead of chancing a FG attempt. I see the argument to kneel on it and kick the FG (No chance of a fumble or anything that way) but I just think going for the TD is a better choice for the Bears in that situation.

 

[CalBear]

No, I'm suggesting the exact opposite. Teams kick FG's on 3rd down (and 1st and 2nd as you suggested) in OT quite often. The reason for this is because many bad things can happen on a FG attempt (bad snap etc). Because of these bad things that can happen on FG attempts, Lovie Smith chose (and correctly in my opinion) to go for the TD instead of chancing a FG attempt. I see the argument to kneel on it and kick the FG (No chance of a fumble or anything that way) but I just think going for the TD is a better choice for the Bears in that situation.

Teams kick on early downs because bad things can happen when you don't kick. If you're really worried about the risks of a FG attempt, why on earth would you kick it on first and 10 at the 11 yard line? Why not keep trying for the TD instead?

 

[jurb26]

No, I'm suggesting the exact opposite. Teams kick FG's on 3rd down (and 1st and 2nd as you suggested) in OT quite often. The reason for this is because many bad things can happen on a FG attempt (bad snap etc). Because of these bad things that can happen on FG attempts, Lovie Smith chose (and correctly in my opinion) to go for the TD instead of chancing a FG attempt. I see the argument to kneel on it and kick the FG (No chance of a fumble or anything that way) but I just think going for the TD is a better choice for the Bears in that situation.

Teams kick on early downs because bad things can happen when you don't kick. If you're really worried about the risks of a FG attempt, why on earth would you kick it on first and 10 at the 11 yard line? Why not keep trying for the TD instead?

It seems you are trying to be difficult here. It's a combination of both. Teams kick on 3rd down or 1st down or whatever down other than 4th down because the more plays you run the greater the chance of errors happening. More plays = more opportunity for a mistake. They also do it because bad things can happen if you attempt a kick. He listed all of those things pretty clearly above. You can still salvage a bad snap or muff by the holder by having the extra down(s). It's really not that complicated.

 

[FFdork]

I agree that GB should have let the Bears score. The odds of winning were long either way, but I'd rather have the ball with over a minute and Aaron Rogers than hope they screw up what amounts to an extra point.

On the flip side, I don't think it would have been dumb for Chicago to take the TD there, especially if the Pack tried to hand it to them. Yes, the FG is probably a 98% success rate, but being handed a TD is 100%. Then you're up 7 at home, you have all the momentum, GB would have had one or no timeouts depending on when they let you score, and was having a tough time with your pass rush. If you take a knee a couple times to run out the clock, have the holder pull a Romo, and then lose in OT that's the kind of hangover-inducing loss that could turn a season.

This is illogical. If it's right for GB to let Chicago score a TD, than it's wrong for Chicago to score a TD.

I disagree. This is football, not a philosophical proof. There is more than just cold logic to the decision.Both teams went with traditional thinking (GB: don't give up the score while hoping to make a miracle play, CHI: make a conservative effort to get 7, but take the 3 if it's not there after running clock). You can make arguments for and against the decisions that each team made, but I thought that Green Bay's choice was fairly clear.

On Chicago's side, we're really talking about a theoretical because Green Bay did not try to let them score, but my point was that there is a very valid reasoning to take a gimme 7 in that situation.

 

[Glatty]

I just read an article that sums it up nicely, I think.

Mike McCarthy missed an opportunity Monday night. With the score tied at 17 and 1:44 on the clock, the Bears managed to earn a 1st and goal from the 9. The Packers had only one timeout, so CHI could run nearly out the clock and kick a field goal if they chose. FGs from that range are successful about 94% of the time, and with the good conditions, it's probably even higher.

Had CHI scored a TD on 1st down, that puts GB down by 7 with 1:40 to go, which gives the average team about a 10% chance of winning. A FG attempt after 3 clock-burning runs, gives GB almost no chance to win. GB's only hope would be to prevent a TD on 3 straight downs and hope a FG misses.

Depending on which down a possible TD might occur, the Win Probability (WP) for trying to stop the score is less then 0.03. A FG misses 6% of the time, which could lead to a tie at best at the expiration of regulation time. Assuming a 50/50 chance in OT, that's 0.06 * 0.5 = 0.03.

By not allowing CHI to score the TD on 1st down, McCarthy cut his chances of winning from about 10% to about 3%. Neither prospect is very appealing, but every little bit matters.

 

[CalBear]

I disagree. This is football, not a philosophical proof. There is more than just cold logic to the decision.

Both teams went with traditional thinking (GB: don't give up the score while hoping to make a miracle play, CHI: make a conservative effort to get 7, but take the 3 if it's not there after running clock). You can make arguments for and against the decisions that each team made, but I thought that Green Bay's choice was fairly clear.

On Chicago's side, we're really talking about a theoretical because Green Bay did not try to let them score, but my point was that there is a very valid reasoning to take a gimme 7 in that situation.

If both teams want the same thing, one of them is wrong.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I just read an article that sums it up nicely, I think.

Mike McCarthy missed an opportunity Monday night. With the score tied at 17 and 1:44 on the clock, the Bears managed to earn a 1st and goal from the 9. The Packers had only one timeout, so CHI could run nearly out the clock and kick a field goal if they chose. FGs from that range are successful about 94% of the time, and with the good conditions, it's probably even higher.

Had CHI scored a TD on 1st down, that puts GB down by 7 with 1:40 to go, which gives the average team about a 10% chance of winning. A FG attempt after 3 clock-burning runs, gives GB almost no chance to win. GB's only hope would be to prevent a TD on 3 straight downs and hope a FG misses.

Depending on which down a possible TD might occur, the Win Probability (WP) for trying to stop the score is less then 0.03. A FG misses 6% of the time, which could lead to a tie at best at the expiration of regulation time. Assuming a 50/50 chance in OT, that's 0.06 * 0.5 = 0.03.

By not allowing CHI to score the TD on 1st down, McCarthy cut his chances of winning from about 10% to about 3%. Neither prospect is very appealing, but every little bit matters.

I like the way this is spelled out, but I am wondering about the bolded part and how they come up with this figure....and I have to believe GB's chances are higher than that of say TB.........whicj you would think HAS to figure into the decision and makes that 7% decline more of a 15% or something........

 

[Glatty]

I just read an article that sums it up nicely, I think.

Mike McCarthy missed an opportunity Monday night. With the score tied at 17 and 1:44 on the clock, the Bears managed to earn a 1st and goal from the 9. The Packers had only one timeout, so CHI could run nearly out the clock and kick a field goal if they chose. FGs from that range are successful about 94% of the time, and with the good conditions, it's probably even higher.

Had CHI scored a TD on 1st down, that puts GB down by 7 with 1:40 to go, which gives the average team about a 10% chance of winning. A FG attempt after 3 clock-burning runs, gives GB almost no chance to win. GB's only hope would be to prevent a TD on 3 straight downs and hope a FG misses.

Depending on which down a possible TD might occur, the Win Probability (WP) for trying to stop the score is less then 0.03. A FG misses 6% of the time, which could lead to a tie at best at the expiration of regulation time. Assuming a 50/50 chance in OT, that's 0.06 * 0.5 = 0.03.

By not allowing CHI to score the TD on 1st down, McCarthy cut his chances of winning from about 10% to about 3%. Neither prospect is very appealing, but every little bit matters.

I like the way this is spelled out, but I am wondering about the bolded part and how they come up with this figure....and I have to believe GB's chances are higher than that of say TB.........whicj you would think HAS to figure into the decision and makes that 7% decline more of a 15% or something........

Yeah, looking at stats from this article, it appears that, on average, there is about a 20% chance of a successful 80-yard TD drive with under 2-minutes to play. So McCarthy decreased his team's chances of winning by about 17%.Don't teams have guys up in the booth that have all these averages at their disposal? You gotta go with the odds. Definitely should have let Forte walk into the endzone.

 

[FFdork]

I disagree. This is football, not a philosophical proof. There is more than just cold logic to the decision.

Both teams went with traditional thinking (GB: don't give up the score while hoping to make a miracle play, CHI: make a conservative effort to get 7, but take the 3 if it's not there after running clock). You can make arguments for and against the decisions that each team made, but I thought that Green Bay's choice was fairly clear.

On Chicago's side, we're really talking about a theoretical because Green Bay did not try to let them score, but my point was that there is a very valid reasoning to take a gimme 7 in that situation.

If both teams want the same thing, one of them is wrong.

Well, if it's that cut and dried we probably don't need a long thread discussing it. McCarthy was 100% wrong and probably should be fired immediately. We can say this because it is possible to know with absolute certainty the outcome of the alternate decisions each team could have made at that point in the game. Oh, wait... No we can't. Thus it's interesting to discuss.All we really know is GB was 'wrong' in the sense that the decision to not give up the TD resulted in having no chance to win the game. Chicago was 'right' to do what they did because they won. Everything else is could have/should have (but fun to talk about).

 

[CalBear]

If both teams want the same thing, one of them is wrong.

Well, if it's that cut and dried we probably don't need a long thread discussing it. McCarthy was 100% wrong and probably should be fired immediately. We can say this because it is possible to know with absolute certainty the outcome of the alternate decisions each team could have made at that point in the game. Oh, wait... No we can't. Thus it's interesting to discuss.All we really know is GB was 'wrong' in the sense that the decision to not give up the TD resulted in having no chance to win the game. Chicago was 'right' to do what they did because they won. Everything else is could have/should have (but fun to talk about).

The bolded statement is true in all scenarios. It is impossible for a future result to benefit both teams equally, so if both teams are trying for the same result, one of them is certainly wrong. We can discuss whether Chicago scoring a TD would benefit Chicago or Green Bay more, but we can't say it benefits both of them.

 

[jurb26]

I just read an article that sums it up nicely, I think.

Mike McCarthy missed an opportunity Monday night. With the score tied at 17 and 1:44 on the clock, the Bears managed to earn a 1st and goal from the 9. The Packers had only one timeout, so CHI could run nearly out the clock and kick a field goal if they chose. FGs from that range are successful about 94% of the time, and with the good conditions, it's probably even higher.

Had CHI scored a TD on 1st down, that puts GB down by 7 with 1:40 to go, which gives the average team about a 10% chance of winning. A FG attempt after 3 clock-burning runs, gives GB almost no chance to win. GB's only hope would be to prevent a TD on 3 straight downs and hope a FG misses.

Depending on which down a possible TD might occur, the Win Probability (WP) for trying to stop the score is less then 0.03. A FG misses 6% of the time, which could lead to a tie at best at the expiration of regulation time. Assuming a 50/50 chance in OT, that's 0.06 * 0.5 = 0.03.

By not allowing CHI to score the TD on 1st down, McCarthy cut his chances of winning from about 10% to about 3%. Neither prospect is very appealing, but every little bit matters.

I like the way this is spelled out, but I am wondering about the bolded part and how they come up with this figure....and I have to believe GB's chances are higher than that of say TB.........whicj you would think HAS to figure into the decision and makes that 7% decline more of a 15% or something........

Yeah, looking at stats from this article, it appears that, on average, there is about a 20% chance of a successful 80-yard TD drive with under 2-minutes to play. So McCarthy decreased his team's chances of winning by about 17%.Don't teams have guys up in the booth that have all these averages at their disposal? You gotta go with the odds. Definitely should have let Forte walk into the endzone.

I don't see how this article provides any real help here. I may have missed it but I didn't see any mention of time outs in the article at all. A team with 0 time outs and 1:40 on the clock would have to have less probability of scoring a TD than a team with 3 time outs. Also, what about the fact that GB had only managed 17 points for the game? If they had scored 28 vs. the Bears D that would greatly change things, no? I mean the actual play of the game to that point has to count for something and so does the D they are facing.

 

[FFdork]

If both teams want the same thing, one of them is wrong.

Well, if it's that cut and dried we probably don't need a long thread discussing it. McCarthy was 100% wrong and probably should be fired immediately. We can say this because it is possible to know with absolute certainty the outcome of the alternate decisions each team could have made at that point in the game. Oh, wait... No we can't. Thus it's interesting to discuss.All we really know is GB was 'wrong' in the sense that the decision to not give up the TD resulted in having no chance to win the game. Chicago was 'right' to do what they did because they won. Everything else is could have/should have (but fun to talk about).

The bolded statement is true in all scenarios. It is impossible for a future result to benefit both teams equally, so if both teams are trying for the same result, one of them is certainly wrong. We can discuss whether Chicago scoring a TD would benefit Chicago or Green Bay more, but we can't say it benefits both of them.

GAAAHHHH! We're having one of those annoying arguments where both people are kind of saying the same thing. One more try and I'm done. I don't recall saying it would benefit both of the teams equally. It's my OPINION (and plenty of people throughout the sports world are saying I'm wrong) that conceding a TD benefited Green Bay more because it gave them the better chance to win. It's also my OPINION that it's hard for Chicago to take a knee in that scenario even though they understand what Green Bay is trying to do and there are perfectly good and understandable reasons to take the sure TD in that situation.

 

[destro]

GAAAHHHH! We're having one of those annoying arguments where both people are kind of saying the same thing.

No offense (honestly), but that's not what is happening here. Unless you think these teams have some goals other than winning the game, their goals are mutually exclusive, and therefore they cannot both want the same event to occur. Allowing the Bears to score early clearly most benefits the Packers, and therefore the Bears should not have wanted that to occur. It was a mistake on the Bears part to try to score, and it was a mistake on the Packers fault to prevent the Bears from scoring.It probably shouldn't be shocking, but I can't help but be surprised by how much confusion these kinds of decisions bring about...

 

[CalBear]

GAAAHHHH! We're having one of those annoying arguments where both people are kind of saying the same thing.

No offense (honestly), but that's not what is happening here. Unless you think these teams have some goals other than winning the game, their goals are mutually exclusive, and therefore they cannot both want the same event to occur. Allowing the Bears to score early clearly most benefits the Packers, and therefore the Bears should not have wanted that to occur. It was a mistake on the Bears part to try to score, and it was a mistake on the Packers fault to prevent the Bears from scoring.

I'm actually willing to entertain the notion that the Packers did the right thing (although I disagree). I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency in suggesting the Packers and Bears should both want the quick TD. Can't have it both ways.

 

[FFdork]

GAAAHHHH! We're having one of those annoying arguments where both people are kind of saying the same thing.

No offense (honestly), but that's not what is happening here. Unless you think these teams have some goals other than winning the game, their goals are mutually exclusive, and therefore they cannot both want the same event to occur. Allowing the Bears to score early clearly most benefits the Packers, and therefore the Bears should not have wanted that to occur. It was a mistake on the Bears part to try to score, and it was a mistake on the Packers fault to prevent the Bears from scoring.

I'm actually willing to entertain the notion that the Packers did the right thing (although I disagree). I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency in suggesting the Packers and Bears should both want the quick TD. Can't have it both ways.

I know I said I'd stop, but I can't resist. I never said they both should want a quick TD. I just said there are logical, valid reasons for the Bears to take the guaranteed TD if presented with that opportunity. The Bears had to score because last time I checked that's how you win a tied game. Ideally they do so that Green Bay has no chance to answer. However, when presented with the 100% chance of scoring a TD vs. the uncertainty of running 2-3 more plays and kicking a FG, I don't see how you argue it's absolutely wrong to take the 100% TD. You are arguing like the Bears have a 100% chance of scoring a TD with time left vs. a 100% chance of running 2-3 more plays and then kicking a FG with no time. If that's the case then, yes, you do the latter every time. However, each play has a non-zero probability of ending in catastrophe. When that much is on the line the odds creep up a little. So while I'm perfectly willing to concede that taking a knee a couple times and kicking a FG might be the best choice, I don't think taking the sure TD is a bad choice either.

 

[CalBear]

GAAAHHHH! We're having one of those annoying arguments where both people are kind of saying the same thing.

No offense (honestly), but that's not what is happening here. Unless you think these teams have some goals other than winning the game, their goals are mutually exclusive, and therefore they cannot both want the same event to occur. Allowing the Bears to score early clearly most benefits the Packers, and therefore the Bears should not have wanted that to occur. It was a mistake on the Bears part to try to score, and it was a mistake on the Packers fault to prevent the Bears from scoring.

I'm actually willing to entertain the notion that the Packers did the right thing (although I disagree). I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency in suggesting the Packers and Bears should both want the quick TD. Can't have it both ways.

I know I said I'd stop, but I can't resist. I never said they both should want a quick TD. I just said there are logical, valid reasons for the Bears to take the guaranteed TD if presented with that opportunity. The Bears had to score because last time I checked that's how you win a tied game. Ideally they do so that Green Bay has no chance to answer. However, when presented with the 100% chance of scoring a TD vs. the uncertainty of running 2-3 more plays and kicking a FG, I don't see how you argue it's absolutely wrong to take the 100% TD. You are arguing like the Bears have a 100% chance of scoring a TD with time left vs. a 100% chance of running 2-3 more plays and then kicking a FG with no time. If that's the case then, yes, you do the latter every time. However, each play has a non-zero probability of ending in catastrophe. When that much is on the line the odds creep up a little. So while I'm perfectly willing to concede that taking a knee a couple times and kicking a FG might be the best choice, I don't think taking the sure TD is a bad choice either.

What I am arguing in my last few posts is this:If you believe it's right for Chicago to score the TD, then it must necessarily be right for Green Bay to try to stop them from scoring the TD.

Personally, I don't believe it's right for Chicago to score the TD, for reasons I've already stated. That's an arguable point. It's not arguable that the TD can be good for both teams at the same time. It's either one or the other in terms of expected outcome. Both teams can rationalize their decision because humans are much better at rationalizing than we are at being rational, but if you're being rational, you have to choose the outcome which you think is better for you, and the other team should want the opposite outcome.

 

[Jimboozie]

McCarthy obviously had Hartley's missed FG fresh in his mind.

Either that, or his fantasy opponent had Forte going against him.