Correct analysis, except the Packers only had two timeouts at that point, so the Lions could have run the clock down to maybe 30 seconds after getting the first down. The stupid holding penalty a couple plays later messed up that plan a little.
The only mistake the Lions made was getting the yard and a half on 2nd down. Get a yard on 2nd down, another yard on 3rd down, and they could run out the clock. (Note - that would have been a stupid thing to do intentionally and I say it as a joke).
I’m sure the analytics nerds will come out eventually and validate this, but the risk/reward makes no sense at all. Certainly, IF YOU CONVERT, the Packers are out of time outs and you can seal the game. If you don’t convert the Packers get the ball before the 2-minute warning with one time out. That is a terrible outcome. If you simply accept the penalty and take the first down you’re guaranteed a worst-case scenario where the Packers get the ball with no timeouts inside the 2-minute warning. And you still have the chance to convert the first down anyways. When a thing goes according to plan people have a really tough time envisioning the counterfactual.
I guess, let’s think this through…
You accept the penalty and the clock stops. It’s now 1st and 10. You run, then they burn a timeout. You run a second time, they burn their second and last timeout. Now it’s 3rd and whatever, you run again, and you have the 2 minute warning stopping the clock.
Let’s say you didn’t get the first down and now after the break for the 2 minute warning you either have to go for it on 4th and whatever or punt. The clock will keep going, but you either gamble on picking up the first down and risk handing it back to them with good field position, or you punt it and they have to march down the field in less than 2 minutes with no timeouts, behind Rodgers.
Instead, you decline, and it’s 2nd and 1. And the clock is running down. Packers burn a timeout to stop the clock. Then you run, and even if you don’t get it, it’s likely 3rd and 1 or less, and they burn their last timeout. That still seems like a better situation than before.
Thinking about it more, the fact that it was 2nd and 1 and your primary goal is to burn time, not march down the field, declining the penalty makes more sense. That’s a conversion that is pretty trivial to make. And even if you don’t make it, you have another shot. This isn’t a 4th and 1 scenario.
Yes, you are correct. I misread the play-by-play.
But my point still stands. Running the extra play forces the Pack to burn a timeout.
It was second-and-1 before the penalty was declined. Detroit averaged over 4 yards per rush on the night. The stats would indicate that they will gain at least 1 yard on the next 3 rushes.
If it’s a matter of “take the 1st down and you very likely win the game,” then it’s a stupid call. But giving Rogers almost two minutes to drive downfield, even with no timeouts, is worth trying to avoid.
What would you say the odds are of Rogers driving for a TD with 2 minutes left against a young defense that has varied between looking tough and giving up big plays? I’d put it at 20-30%. On the other side, what are the chances the Lions can pick up 1 yard in three chances? I’d put that well over 90%.
Except that the ball was deep in Packer territory They had 4th and 1 at the 15 with 1:15 to play. They went for it, converted, and won the game. Had they not converted, GB would have had, say, 1:10 to drive the field for a TD.
If, instead, it was 1:55 to play, and Detroit did not convert the 4th down, GB would probably have had 1:50 to drive the field for a TD. Huge difference.
I’m not talking about what happened in the real game, I’m talking about in my hypothetical situation, where they accepted the neutral zone infraction penalty and had a fresh set of downs prior to the 2 minute warning, and Green Bay still had two timeouts.
When they faced an actual 4th-and-1 in the real game, yes they were deep in GB territory and even if they failed to convert, it would have taken a Hail Mary miracle. Because GB was down by 4 and needed a TD or they’d lose. Going for it was 100% the right call there.
I was pondering a situation where the Lions might have faced a 4th and whatever (let’s say 7) while still in their own territory, and with 2 minutes left to go. That would not have been good. Declining the penalty helped avoid that situation.
Now, looking at the way the game was going, I would wager they’d pick up the first down anyway, because their offense was running pretty well. But I still think that declining the penalty was the smarter move. (After I’d given it more thought and walked through the hypothetical scenarios.)
At the time, I was trying to math it out but getting distracted by the actual game and wondering if it would have been smarter to accept the penalty for the first down.
But yes, in hindsight, it makes a lot of sense to decline in that situation.
That’s partly why Dan Campbell is getting paid the big bucks and I’m not. But mainly, you know, the years and years of general football experience that don’t involve an armchair.
It’s not necessarily applicable to the specifics of this exact call, where the clock is the dominant concern, but in general 2nd-and-1 is preferable to 1st-and-10. If you have, say, 1st-and-10 on your own 30, then a 9 yard run is better than a 10 yard run; 2nd-and-1 from your 39 is better than 1st-and-10 from your 40.
I didn’t see anywhere where you were talking about a hypothetical situation. If you were, I obviously missed it.
But you are absolutely correct when you state:
I’m curious if the Packers did actually intentionally jump offsides to stop the clock. Although it makes logical sense to do it, I don’t know how they could have figured it out and got the “play” in from the sideline in that timeframe. Do any of the defensive players have a radio in their helmet like the QB?
Yes, there’s a defensive captain (usually a middle linebacker) that has a radio. It was almost certainly deliberate
Generally when I start a sentence with, “Let’s say you…” That means I’m proposing a hypothetical. 
My whole post was thinking through the potential consequences of either scenario (accepting or declining) and on walking through both of them, I concluded that my earlier assumption that declining was the bad call (that worked out anyway) was incorrect.
The clock was already stopped. GB had just called their first timeout.
Not to nitpick, but your sentence was
But certainly not a point on which to argue.
Apparently that wasn’t even the first penalty they committed on purpose as a strategy. This was earlier in the game (though I missed it):
But that wasn’t what he got flagged for. In response to smacking the ball away, someone pushed him and he smacked the person in the face, which drew a 15 yard penalty.
It looked like that was the first attempt to intentionally draw an offside penalty, but it went wrong.
Just some weird choices on defense for the Packers.
The Pack’s defensive coordinator, Joe Barry, was under fire all year for the defense’s poor performance. During their late-season winning streak, the defense played well, but yesterday’s game might have reinforced any thinking by management on dismissing Barry.
Douglas wasn’t trying to draw an offsides penalty. A timeout was already called, the play was dead. He was trying to prevent the kicker from getting a free practice kick. He was not trying to take an intentional penalty. Him being a stupid hot head was the problem. Seems to be an epidemic on this team.
Yeah, I wasn’t clear. By jumping offsides, the clock is stopped for the 1st down play. If the Lions picked up the yard for a 1st down, the clock is running until they run the next play.
Supporting your opinion - the Packers did the same thing two years ago in the NFC Championship game in almost exactly the same situation (2nd-and-1, near the 2 minute warning, down by 5). In that case, the Buccs accepted the penalty.
To be fair it happens a lot. DK Metcalf is a very talented WR, a huge asset to the Seattle team I root for, and also has a skill to tick off the cover guys and get them to lose their cool, and he draws penalties that way. But he’s a hothead himself and had to be restrained in yesterday’s game to avoid costly penalties (he has a personal ongoing beef with Jalen Ramsay). costly enough to risk the game itself.
But yeah, the Packers seem to have a bunch of those guys, particularly on defense.
I can’t remember who said it, but there is a quote in the NFL about how you can afford one knucklehead in the locker room, but you can’t have more than that. Because then they’ll reinforce each other’s behavior. Maybe Green Bay has that sort of issue.
Which, as a Packer fan, distresses me, if true.
Not entirely analogous, but in the mid ‘80s, when Forrest Gregg was the Packers’ coach, they had a bunch of players, particularly on their defense, who were knuckleheads, to say the least. Gregg valued “tough play,” but that translated to having a bunch of cheap-shot artists on the team. In that era, I was embarrassed to be a Packer fan.