More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[pbmax]

Those numbers, like his overall numbers, are very, very good.

However, as high as those percentages are, shouldn't they even be higher for the 4th quarter lead?

And don't the virtually identical numbers suggest that the team is not increasing its chance for success in the 4th Quarter? They go from 2nd most successful (lead at half) to 9th most successful (lead to start the 4th).

As with his job, I don't think McCarthy should be replaced based on these career numbers, but I think it does point to an ineffectual strategy late. Those 14 losses seem to be the indicator that gives you the 15th most failures (a number that is influenced by his long tenure and many leads). But the success rate does drop between halftime and the fourth quarter.

[vince]

Those numbers, like his overall numbers, are very, very good.

However, as high as those percentages are, shouldn't they even be higher for the 4th quarter lead?

And don't the virtually identical numbers suggest that the team is not increasing its chance for success in the 4th Quarter? They go from 2nd most successful (lead at half) to 9th most successful (lead to start the 4th).

As with his job, I don't think McCarthy should be replaced based on these career numbers, but I think it does point to an ineffectual strategy late. Those 14 losses seem to be the indicator that gives you the 15th most failures (a number that is influenced by his long tenure and many leads). But the success rate does drop between halftime and the fourth quarter.

He's been successful in the 4th q at a higher rate than 23 of the other 31 teams. I see no justification for characterizing that position relative to his peers as "ineffectual" at all. Top 10 is a pretty strong tier to be in on about any NFL measure I'd say. I'd call that position, with the added context of the other rankings together as highly successful.

[pbmax]

He's been successful in the 4th q at a higher rate than 23 of the other 31 teams. I see no justification for characterizing that position relative to his peers as "ineffectual" at all. Top 10 is a pretty strong tier to be in on about any NFL measure I'd say. I'd call that position, with the added context of the other rankings together as highly successful.

My suspicion is that the Patriots and a couple other perennial contenders are both higher in Top 10 for the 4th Quarter.

If you want to finish the job and win the Super Bowl, Top 10 might not be enough.

[vince]

My suspicion is that the Patriots and a couple other perennial contenders are both higher in Top 10 for the 4th Quarter.

If you want to finish the job and win the Super Bowl, Top 10 might not be enough.

Highly unlikely. Perhaps you're not interpreting this properly. This is not a metric of the odds of beating the pats. It's a measure of winning games with the lead at half or 4th q. The fact that the top 1 team wins 3.7% more often when they lead in the 4th has nothing whatever to say about which team might conceivably have the lead in a hypothetical match-up. The reality is that both have proven to close out 9 of 10 games if able to get in that position.

[pbmax]

Highly unlikely. Perhaps you're not interpreting this properly. This is not a metric of the odds of beating the pats. It's a measure of winning games with the lead at half or 4th q. The fact that the top 1 team wins 3.7% more often when they lead in the 4th has nothing whatever to say about which team might conceivably have the lead in a hypothetical match-up. The reality is that both have proven to close out 9 of 10 games if able to get in that position.

I am saying there is clearly a loss of effectiveness in the 4th quarter as illustrated by the results and ranks. And that can be improved. I suspect several other playoff contenders are ahead of them, not that they necessarily would beat them.

[Pugger]

Those numbers, like his overall numbers, are very, very good.

However, as high as those percentages are, shouldn't they even be higher for the 4th quarter lead?

And don't the virtually identical numbers suggest that the team is not increasing its chance for success in the 4th Quarter? They go from 2nd most successful (lead at half) to 9th most successful (lead to start the 4th).

As with his job, I don't think McCarthy should be replaced based on these career numbers, but I think it does point to an ineffectual strategy late. Those 14 losses seem to be the indicator that gives you the 15th most failures (a number that is influenced by his long tenure and many leads). But the success rate does drop between halftime and the fourth quarter.

I wonder if we as fans are paranoid because of what happened in that playoff game in Seattle in 2014? Whenever we have a nice lead and our opponent begins to creep back in the game we have visions of that nightmare happening again.

[George Cumby]

I wonder if we as fans are paranoid because of what happened in that playoff game in Seattle in 2014? Whenever we have a nice lead and our opponent begins to creep back in the game we have visions of that nightmare happening again.

Probably in part. But fans, by definition, are unreasonable so our expectations are often out of line with reality.

Something to keep in mind is this: the Packer's last Super Bowl season, do you remember the close calls? Win or loss? Probably not. What matters is they got the win over Detroit. Should they win the whole enchilada, none of us will remember this game by the end of 2017.....

[beveaux1]

I wonder if we as fans are paranoid because of what happened in that playoff game in Seattle in 2014? Whenever we have a nice lead and our opponent begins to creep back in the game we have visions of that nightmare happening again.

This is exactly the case.

[pbmax]

I wonder if we as fans are paranoid because of what happened in that playoff game in Seattle in 2014? Whenever we have a nice lead and our opponent begins to creep back in the game we have visions of that nightmare happening again.

This is exactly the case.

More paranoid? Yes.

But concerns about the 4 minute offense starting too early came well before that. Rand was on the case by 2011.

[vince]

More paranoid? Yes.

But concerns about the 4 minute offense starting too early came well before that. Rand was on the case by 2011.

Those concerns are unfounded - assuming your criteria is finish success rate and not style points.

McCarthy was 86% successful from 2006-2011 closing out 4th Q leads so he's improved his overall success rate 1% in the last 4 years.

He's 90% (37-4) since 2012 in 41 opportunities.

When you're talking about a pretty consistent average of 10ish chances a year, he's been 9 of 10 throughout.