Interesting McCarthy Stat

[ThunderDan]

It took an extraordinary set of circumstances to get beat in Seattle, and the Packers D had a hand in letting them convert. Not saying D is blameless. But you do lose some battles, its inevitable.

McCarthy possessed the power to limit possessions by gaining first downs. He chose the Schottenheimer method of run-run-run to maximize the guaranteed clock or TO run off and ignored probabilities. Any play action had a better than 70% chance of succeeding because the Seahawks were all in on stopping the run. Not to mention that their safety and CB were beaten up.

I am not blaming execution or play calling alone, I am also calling out horrendous 4 minute offense and clock management.

I can't agree that the Packers out-played the Cardinals except Packers D versus Cardinals O. Packers D was the only reason the game was in reach. The offense spent no time in Cardinals territory. When they got back down there, you take the opportunity. I agree hindsight in 20/20, but its a sound strategy regardless if your offense is anemic.

The Packer D in OT is another matter that should be addressed. I want to say it has failed uniformly and across the board. But that is just anger at the content of my own post speaking.

Except the Cardinals decided not to do the run-run-run method and it almost cost them the game. If GB went for 2 or won in OT, Arians is getting his butt chewed up and down for throwing away time to try for the 1st down.

[pbmax]

Except the Cardinals decided not to do the run-run-run method and it almost cost them the game. If GB went for 2 or won in OT, Arians is getting his butt chewed up and down for throwing away time to try for the 1st down.

Sure. But that is hindsight and its unhelpful unless you have enough plays to look at the probabilities of possible outcomes. If the Packers were guarding against the run, that was a good call.

I don't remember the Packer D on that play. But I do remember the Seattle D lined up to stop the run entirely. Running three times without even the threat of a pass was just dumb. You are literally ceding a possession to them in exchange for clock. The Seahawks needed possessions more than they needed the time/TO that he was able to subtract.

[ThunderDan]

Sure. But that is hindsight and its unhelpful unless you have enough plays to look at the probabilities of possible outcomes. If the Packers were guarding against the run, that was a good call.

I don't remember the Packer D on that play. But I do remember the Seattle D lined up to stop the run entirely. Running three times without even the threat of a pass was just dumb. You are literally ceding a possession to them in exchange for clock. The Seahawks needed possessions more than they needed the time/TO that he was able to subtract.

Seattle needed both time and possessions that late in the game. If Bostick doesn't fuck up it is game over. It was OK from the Packers point of view to give an extra possession. Bostick gave them the extra extra possession them need. Plus the fucking 2 point conversion fiasco that should have never happened.

So in summary, the Packers gave Seattle an extra possession and 2 points more than they should have using the run-run-run method correctly as they did.

[hoosier]

Seattle needed both time and possessions that late in the game. If Bostick doesn't fuck up it is game over. It was OK from the Packers point of view to give an extra possession. Bostick gave them the extra extra possession them need. Plus the fucking 2 point conversion fiasco that should have never happened.

So in summary, the Packers gave Seattle an extra possession and 2 points more than they should have using the run-run-run method correctly as they did.

Good, keep it up! Now do you have some material for the San Fran wildcard loss? We need to distract PB and keep his mind from wandering into forbidden territory.

[pbmax]

Seattle needed both time and possessions that late in the game. If Bostick doesn't fuck up it is game over. It was OK from the Packers point of view to give an extra possession. Bostick gave them the extra extra possession them need. Plus the fucking 2 point conversion fiasco that should have never happened.

So in summary, the Packers gave Seattle an extra possession and 2 points more than they should have using the run-run-run method correctly as they did.

When you are down multiple scores, you need more possessions more than you need more time. In a one possession game, then time and possession are much more equal.

McCarthy used an offensive strategy that by design gave them more possessions in exchange for less clock. Its a great end of game strategy. A terrible 8-, 6-, or 4-minute offensive strategy.

[ThunderDan]

When you are down multiple scores, you need more possessions more than you need more time. In a one possession game, then time and possession are much more equal.

McCarthy used an offensive strategy that by design gave them more possessions in exchange for less clock. Its a great end of game strategy. A terrible 8-, 6-, or 4-minute offensive strategy.

I respectfully disagree on this. Literally, everything had to go wrong the last 7 minutes of the game for SEA to win and it did. To me that game was the 1 in 10,000 that you lose not the 9,999 that we should have won.

[pbmax]

I respectfully disagree on this. Literally, everything had to go wrong the last 7 minutes of the game for SEA to win and it did. To me that game was the 1 in 10,000 that you lose not the 9,999 that we should have won.

OK, ignore the Seattle disaster. How many other times has McCarthy and the 4 minute offense (usually employed weirdly from 4-8 minutes left, employing run-run-pass) allowed a multiple score lead to dwindle to a single score AND the team that was behind has possession at end of game?

The charge that he takes his foot off the gas has evidence behind it.

[ThunderDan]

OK, ignore the Seattle disaster. How many other times has McCarthy and the 4 minute offense (usually employed weirdly from 4-8 minutes left, employing run-run-pass) allowed a multiple score lead to dwindle to a single score AND the team that was behind has possession at end of game?

The charge that he takes his foot off the gas has evidence behind it.

I am not sure how many times he has or hasn't. It seems like a lot recently. There was the stretch where we couldn't win a close game but won 20+ games in a row by the 5 point margin and a Super Bowl.

I think with last year's offensive struggles certainly made it feel that way a lot.

[ThunderDan]

Sure. But that is hindsight and its unhelpful unless you have enough plays to look at the probabilities of possible outcomes. If the Packers were guarding against the run, that was a good call.

I don't remember the Packer D on that play. But I do remember the Seattle D lined up to stop the run entirely. Running three times without even the threat of a pass was just dumb. You are literally ceding a possession to them in exchange for clock. The Seahawks needed possessions more than they needed the time/TO that he was able to subtract.

DP