More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

Like I said earlier - had MM gone for 2 and we didn't get it you guys would bitched about that. Mike went with the percentages and the tie to try and win it in OT. Who knew our ST and defense couldn't stop Fitzgerald and our offense yet again never saw the damn ball in OT. Besides - who here really thought if we had won that game would we have gone to Charlotte and beaten the Panthers the following week? Or beaten Denver in the SB? This is ancient history. It is way past time to move on from this, gentlemen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugger

Like I said earlier - had MM gone for 2 and we didn't get it you guys would bitched about that. Mike went with the percentages and the tie to try and win it in OT. Who knew our ST and defense couldn't stop Fitzgerald and our offense yet again never saw the damn ball in OT. Besides - who here really thought if we had won that game would we have gone to Charlotte and beaten the Panthers the following week? Or beaten Denver in the SB? This is ancient history. It is way past time to move on from this, gentlemen.

---

That's the lie. That wasn't the percentage play.

How does the offense, which cannot run a 2 pt play because Janis is injured, score in OT? Was Mr. Miyagi with Janis on the sideline and just needed time? Did McCarthy have a special OT touchdown play on the chart for 2 TE and 2 RB?

I would also like someone who believes McCarthy is correct to run more to protect his defense, defend sending the defense out there again to stop the best NFC offense of 2015?

It too TWO hail marys to climb back into the game. Who was going to deliver another in OT?

Quote:

---

NFL Coaches Are Getting Away With Crimes Against Middle-School Math | FiveThirtyEight
According to 538's math, the Packers would have had about a 48.8% chance of winning had they gone for two after the Aaron Rodgers-Jeff Janis hail mary, but just a 40.9% chance of winning if they tried for overtime. This isn't as significant as the Chiefs, who kicked a PAT to go down seven late in the game in New England, which as you'll see is about a 15% swing.

---

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/20...e-gone-for-two

I agree with Pugger. I've been here long enough to know the criticisms that would have followed had he gone for two and lost.
- why pin your season on a single play with your entire receiving corp on the sideline?
- it's dumb to go for two without the personnel that have practiced the two point offense.
- if you take the sure tie, anything can happen in OT, ST score, D score, doesn't have to be the offense.
- GB already had two interceptions, OT could have brought another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

I agree with Pugger. I've been here long enough to know the criticisms that would have followed had he gone for two and lost.
- why pin your season on a single play with your entire receiving corp on the sideline?
- it's dumb to go for two without the personnel that have practiced the two point offense.
- if you take the sure tie, anything can happen in OT, ST score, D score, doesn't have to be the offense.
- GB already had two interceptions, OT could have brought another.

---

Agree completely. Very good points.

Also, MM had to make this decision within... what? 15-20 seconds of the TD being scored?

If you just get told you don't have enough WRs to run your 2pt play and need to decide what to do within 20 seconds of course the smart thing is to just kick the extra point and live another down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcilite

Agree completely. Very good points.

Also, MM had to make this decision within... what? 15-20 seconds of the TD being scored?

If you just get told you don't have enough WRs to run your 2pt play and need to decide what to do within 20 seconds of course the smart thing is to just kick the extra point and live another down.

---

One has to wonder if he could have processed the fact that his set two point package wasn't available, decided on what plays to use instead, gotten the message out to the assistants to get the correct players on the field and communicated the play selection to Rodgers in the time allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

One has to wonder if he could have processed the fact that his set two point package wasn't available, decided on what plays to use instead, gotten the message out to the assistants to get the correct players on the field and communicated the play selection to Rodgers in the time allowed.

---

If Michael James Liam Daniel McCarthy's approach to game management includes making ALL the complex calculations between plays without a timeout, then he needs to be removed from the job immediately. This board is now taking an excuse made in the offseason and now ret-conning into a coaching philosophy.

Here is a partial list of things he knew before Janis got hurt.

1. His WR group was thin already. Adams got hurt versus Washington and was not expected to play (this was reported by Tuesday of the week prior to game). Jones was banged up from midseason on. Cobb got hurt in the first quarter and left the game. He played Abby and Janis for most of the game.

2. Having one 2 point play is so dumb, I refuse to believe its his actual approach. While I have disagreements about his methods, I don't think he is this short sighted. Did he have just one goal line play?

3. The ENTIRE GAME was within one score at all times. That makes 2 point conversions an important consideration during the entire game. Especially the entire fourth quarter when you are trailing by conventional scores (3 or 7 points) and have a sputtering offense.

4. McCarty had the 2 minute warning (right before the FG that made it a seven point game) prior to their last drive. Cardinals took a TO at 00:55 seconds remaining.

A coach with a compromised WR position and no depth, had ALL WEEK to prepare more than one 2 pt conversion play and failed to anticipate that this single point of failure was perhaps unwise. It literally should be a weekly part of his preparation that he has more than one go to play in case of emergency that involves multiple personnel groups. McCarthy is so keen on his prep that I cannot imagine he doesn't have this on his chart.

Janis being hurt means Janis might not be able to play the rest of the game. There is no benefit to extending the game in that case. This is the part that kills me. McCarthy doesn't have a full report on player health AFTER the game. But he knows Janis will come back after the PAT and a kickoff have passed?

His offense was putrid in that game. He knew this when the final drive started and he was down seven. At a minimum, he or someone on his staff has the entire drive (and this does not include the calculation that could have been run while the Cardinals were on their previous possession) to find a play.

Despite all the emotion, there is a point buried here, that if true, points to some of his short comings in game management.

If he really was all about that one play for a 2 point conversion, then Mike McCarthy as a coach is dependent entirely on the health of his squad to execute a game plan. Which means at the end of the game he could quite easily be lost without a path to turn to. And since he doesn't know how to take advantage of leverage except when in the lead, this would put him in a precarious position when behind late.

I don't believe he had only the one play. But I might believe that he had one play he liked much better than the others.

Stubby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

2. Having one 2 point play is so dumb, I refuse to believe its his actual approach. While I have disagreements about his methods, I don't think he is this short sighted. Did he have just one goal line play?

---

Who said he only had one play?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

Despite all the emotion, there is a point buried here, that if true, points to some of his short comings in game management.

If he really was all about that one play for a 2 point conversion, then Mike McCarthy as a coach is dependent entirely on the health of his squad to execute a game plan. Which means at the end of the game he could quite easily be lost without a path to turn to. And since he doesn't know how to take advantage of leverage except when in the lead, this would put him in a precarious position when behind late.

I don't believe he had only the one play. But I might believe that he had one play he liked much better than the others.

---

I was not happy with the decision to kick the EP because I felt that we had a kind of momentum that comes with 2 successful Hail Marys, but I feel certain that there would have been as much criticism on this board from people who couldn't believe that he went for two with Janis out of the game and no viable replacement.

They would have argued that our defense had kept us in the game to that point and we pinned all our hopes on one play with a beat up offense with no receivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

Who said he only had one play?

---

Its the implication of the entire explanation. That without Janis, there was no play he was willing to try, regardless of game situation or Janis' eventual health. He had a play he liked, that required 3 receivers. Once Janis was banged up, there was no other smart choice.

I strongly doubt its the case, but it is the excuse proffered.

But even if true, it poses the dilemma, what would the offense run if Janis was done for the game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beveaux1

I was not happy with the decision to kick the EP because I felt that we had a kind of momentum that comes with 2 successful Hail Marys, but I feel certain that there would have been as much criticism on this board from people who couldn't believe that he went for two with Janis out of the game and no viable replacement.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beveaux1

They would have argued that our defense had kept us in the game to that point and we pinned all our hopes on one play with a beat up offense with no receivers.

---

Of course he could be criticized. Comes with the territory. But it must be a question about what gives you the best chance to win as a team.

Bad offense from the 2.5 yard line > Bad offense from their own 20

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

Its the implication of the entire explanation. That without Janis, there was no play he was willing to try, regardless of game situation or Janis' eventual health. He had a play he liked, that required 3 receivers. Once Janis was banged up, there was no other smart choice.

I strongly doubt its the case, but it is the excuse proffered.

But even if true, it poses the dilemma, what would the offense run if Janis was done for the game?

---

You are over dramatizing the entire situation. So what if all of their preferred plays for this game were with a minimum of 3 WRs? How much time during the week should be dedicated to working on two point plays? The could have still had a bucket full of plays available with 3 or 4 WRs. That's what the team was prepared for. By this time he was probably even discounting Jones, as being not much more than a body on the field. Abbrederis, Rodgers and Perillo doesn't make the defense worry much about the pass, does it?

Who said Janis was done for the game? He said he knew Janis wasn't available for the two point play. Perhaps Janis was just being checked out and would have returned, but even if he didn't they would have had time to collect the team and proceed with a 2 TE offense.

The problem is, for that game, only certain players were ready to run onto the field for a two point attempt, depending on what was called. That didn't include formations with 2 WRs. Could they have run something else? Sure, but sidelines can be a bit chaotic and communicating that in the world of specialists and role-players that the NFL has become can take more than a few seconds.

That said, I wanted a two-point try just to get it over one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

One has to wonder if he could have processed the fact that his set two point package wasn't available, decided on what plays to use instead, gotten the message out to the assistants to get the correct players on the field and communicated the play selection to Rodgers in the time allowed.

---

Belichick could have processed all that, drawn up ten NEW plays with the players available and had time to spare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

You are over dramatizing the entire situation. So what if all of their preferred plays for this game were with a minimum of 3 WRs? How much time during the week should be dedicated to working on two point plays? The could have still had a bucket full of plays available with 3 or 4 WRs. That's what the team was prepared for. By this time he was probably even discounting Jones, as being not much more than a body on the field. Abbrederis, Rodgers and Perillo doesn't make the defense worry much about the pass, does it?

Who said Janis was done for the game? He said he knew Janis wasn't available for the two point play. Perhaps Janis was just being checked out and would have returned, but even if he didn't they would have had time to collect the team and proceed with a 2 TE offense.

The problem is, for that game, only certain players were ready to run onto the field for a two point attempt, depending on what was called. That didn't include formations with 2 WRs. Could they have run something else? Sure, but sidelines can be a bit chaotic and communicating that in the world of specialists and role-players that the NFL has become can take more than a few seconds.

That said, I wanted a two-point try just to get it over one way or the other.

---

On a team that has injury problems with WR, you cannot have all specialty plays be 3 wide. I don't think you would want that in any health scenario; what if the opposition sits on the pass all game? Seems simple enough. But that day they went into the game with 4 active. One of those four, as you point out, was busted up. And two of the others were players he was reluctant to trust. The math simply does not add up here.

Dramatic is McCarthy's claim that the one play he had ready for a 2 pointer was rendered null and void by Janis' injury. If he knew Janis was unavailable for the 2 pointer and had not yet gotten a prognosis on the rest of the game (which I agree is HIGHLY likely) then his decision to eschew a 2 pointer looks even more ill conceived. With 3 WRs, his offense could barely move the ball. With 2, how was he going to drive the length of the field?

How do you call a 2 point play? You call the personnel and formation on the sideline as always happens and you give the play to the QB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbmax

On a team that has injury problems with WR, you cannot have all specialty plays be 3 wide. I don't think you would want that in any health scenario; what if the opposition sits on the pass all game? Seems simple enough. But that day they went into the game with 4 active. One of those four, as you point out, was busted up. And two of the others were players he was reluctant to trust. The math simply does not add up here.

Dramatic is McCarthy's claim that the one play he had ready for a 2 pointer was rendered null and void by Janis' injury. If he knew Janis was unavailable for the 2 pointer and had not yet gotten a prognosis on the rest of the game (which I agree is HIGHLY likely) then his decision to eschew a 2 pointer looks even more ill conceived. With 3 WRs, his offense could barely move the ball. With 2, how was he going to drive the length of the field?

How do you call a 2 point play? You call the personnel and formation on the sideline as always happens and you give the play to the QB.

---

Read my last sentence in my above post. That game is ancient history. It's easy to second guess this crap in hindsight. Even if we won that game we would have been smoked in Carolina or killed in the SB. smh

They had two practices that week, I wouldn't expect a lot of time dedicated to practicing two point plays. With limited time, you can prepare limited options.

Heck, would Lacy have even been able to run that far? :-) He was probably still gassed from his long run early in the game when he had to work hard to find a defender to tackle him and put him out of his misery.

The more I think about it, with his available receivers being Abbrederis, Jones, Rodgers, Perillo and Backman; the TEs being less than average blockers, Bakhtiarri on a gimpy ankle, Sitton a bad back, Lang a shoulder some said he shouldn't have played with; they were probably screwed no matter what they would have called in the constricted area of a two point play.

It's funny here how so many people criticize MM kicking the extra point. In the game thread literally only one person said we should have gone for two before the OT coin toss occured. It's easy to second guess after we lose the toss, easier after we lose the game, and especially easy after 8 months of dwelling and analyzing everything. Mccarthy had 20 seconds to choose and he chose to tie. I still have no problem with it. Our goalline offense had been a mess, and if we fail we lose. It's hard to anticipate the worst possible outtcome would actually happen in OT.