Comments on: Should Mike Mularkey have gone for 2 against the Packers? http://www.footballperspective.com/should-mike-mularkey-have-gone-for-2-against-the-packers/ NFL History and Stats Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:42:16 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Jay http://www.footballperspective.com/should-mike-mularkey-have-gone-for-2-against-the-packers/#comment-2996 Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:42:16 +0000 http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=3873#comment-2996 One thing that is not mentioned in this article is the pressure late in the game that a team ahead by only one score (8 points) feels versus being ahead by two scores (9+ points). When a team is ahead by one score, I think the winning team inherently feels additional pressure to convert a 3rd down late in the game so not to give the ball back to the losing team. This additional pressure will likely lead to more aggressive play calling and a greater chance of turning the ball over. We have seen on numerous occassions where teams up by two scores late in the game play very conservatively (i.e three runs up the middle). So I think being within one score versus two late in the game can have an impact on how the game plays out..

Your thoughts?

]]> By: Richie http://www.footballperspective.com/should-mike-mularkey-have-gone-for-2-against-the-packers/#comment-2891 Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:32:33 +0000 http://www.footballperspective.com/?p=3873#comment-2891 Just like the Chan Gailey post, I think I would kick the PAT here. There’s still a lot of game to be played, and I like taking the sure point. They could be down 14-13, and the Packers kick two field goals in the 3rd quarter, so they are down 20-13. A TD+PAT ties the game.

The one caveat is that Jacksonville is not very good, so there’s a chance they will never be within scoring range again. So it might be wise to go for the tie there, and hope your defense can shut down GB the rest of the way. But again, there’s lots of game time left to hope that holds, and much more likely that the Packers’ offense wakes up.

]]>