Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Divisional Round, 1/16/15:
Down by one with no time left on the clock the Packers chose to kick the XP and play for a tie rather than go for two points and the win.

As it turned out the Packers played for the tie and lost in overtime without ever touching the ball.

Should they instead have tried for the win outright?

Would you have considered going for it (ala Tom Osborn)?

JuggernautJ wrote:Divisional Round, 1/16/15:
Down by one with no time left on the clock the Packers chose to kick the XP and play for a tie rather than go for two points and the win.

As it turned out the Packers played for the tie and lost in overtime without ever touching the ball.

Should they instead have tried for the win outright?

Would you have considered going for it (ala Tom Osborn)?

From my perspective, kicking the XP was the far better decision for GB rather than going for two.

In regards to Tom Osborne, whose circumstances were very different (i.e., no OT and a tie most likely yields a national title) going for it, always stuck me, as a poor decision---used his heart and not his head. I realize most people tend to agree with Osborne's decision to go for it.

Given the way they had been playing, their prospects for converting from the 2 yard line would have been pretty bleak.

Now, if they could have tried the convert with the ball on the 45....

I think they made the right decision. I've thought about scenarios like this before and I think it comes down to how well the offense has been performing in that part of the game and the circumstances that got them there. If it were a methodical 10+ play drive which results in a TD with a potential go ahead 2-pointer it might be wise to go for it since your offense is probably on a roll and the opposing D might be a bit tired. After a hail mary TD like the Rodgers to Janis play, I say go for the extra point.