More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[hoosier]

They ran more the entire half. But I agree, he mixed in more pass than usual before 6:40. My fear is that 6:40 is still too early with a two score lead, but I would settle for it if it meant he kept passing until that point.

And by passing, I do not mean run-run-pass.

So we're looking at the drive that started with 6:40 or whatever left in the 4th (actually 6:35) and the final, clock-killing drive. On the second to last drive they held the ball for 1:30. That drive started with an incomplete pass (the Davis drop), then a bad run play by Starks, then the dump off to Starks where he got tackled short of the first down. That drive doesn't fit the 4-minute model; if there is a primary cause for its failure it was the drop.

After Detroit's next TD, Packers got the ball back with 3:34. After two runs by Lacy netted two yards, Rodgers picked up the first with his feet. Then he hit Adams on the slant for nine, and Lacy converted on second down. Then victory formation.

I'm just trying to understand the criticism: what part of this reflects going into a four-minute shell too early?

[Pugger]

So we're looking at the drive that started with 6:40 or whatever left in the 4th (actually 6:35) and the final, clock-killing drive. On the second to last drive they held the ball for 1:30. That drive started with an incomplete pass (the Davis drop), then a bad run play by Starks, then the dump off to Starks where he got tackled short of the first down. That drive doesn't fit the 4-minute model; if there is a primary cause for its failure it was the drop.

After Detroit's next TD, Packers got the ball back with 3:34. After two runs by Lacy netted two yards, Rodgers picked up the first with his feet. Then he hit Adams on the slant for nine, and Lacy converted on second down. Then victory formation.

I'm just trying to understand the criticism: what part of this reflects going into a four-minute shell too early?

I'm wondering too...

[vince]

During McCarthy's tenure from 2006-Present from Pro-Football-Reference.com

Entering 4th Quarter with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 97-14 .874
League Average - .823
2nd Most Successes, 15th Fewest Failures - 9th Best Success Rate

Entering 2nd Half with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 94-14 .870
League Average - .760
2nd Most Successes, 3rd Fewest Failures - 2nd Best Success Rate

That's pretty amazing. McCarthy is roundly criticized for failing to make adjustments at halftime, getting out-coached in the 2nd half, going too conservative too early, etc., etc.

* Only 1 team has more successes or a better success rate winning games when leading at halftime, AND
* Only 2 teams have fewer failures when leading at halftime.

That bears repeating - The Packers have gone into halftime with the lead - and won those games more often than all but 1 team - and at the same time have failed in those situations fewer times than all but 2. Those 2 teams have had 29 (Broncos) and 36 (Bears) fewer opportunities to fail in that time.
__________________________________________________ _

Regardless of one's opinions of his 2nd Half and/or 4th Quarter approach when leading, whether arguments are that it's outdated, evolving but still not good enough, needs to change, too conservative, no longer effective for today's game, etc. - the assertion that McCarthy has mismanaged these situations to the detriment of team success is not just factually wrong but staggeringly wrong. I had no idea he was THAT good at closing the deal.

If he "switches gears" in games with the lead, whether it's in the 3rd Quarter or 4th (I agree he does), then Packer fans should understand that his approach has been highly successful. Successes and success rate when leading at the half jump from highly successful to absolutely elite.

[Patler]

During McCarthy's tenure from 2006-Present from Pro-Football-Reference.com

Entering 4th Quarter with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 97-14 .874
League Average - .823
2nd Most Successes, 15th Fewest Failures - 9th Best Success Rate

Entering 2nd Half with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 94-14 .870
League Average - .760
2nd Most Successes, 3rd Fewest Failures - 2nd Best Success Rate

That's pretty amazing. McCarthy is roundly criticized for failing to make adjustments at halftime, getting out-coached in the 2nd half, going too conservative too early, etc., etc.

* Only 1 team has more successes or a better success rate winning games when leading at halftime, AND
* Only 2 teams have fewer failures when leading at halftime.

That bears repeating - The Packers have gone into halftime with the lead - and won those games more often than all but 1 team - and at the same time have failed in those situations fewer times than all but 2. Those 2 teams have had 29 (Broncos) and 36 (Bears) fewer opportunities to fail in that time.
__________________________________________________ _

Regardless of one's opinions of his 2nd Half and/or 4th Quarter approach when leading, whether arguments are that it's outdated, evolving but still not good enough, needs to change, too conservative, no longer effective for today's game, etc. - the assertion that McCarthy has mismanaged these situations to the detriment of team success is not just factually wrong but staggeringly wrong. I had no idea he was THAT good at closing the deal.

If he "switches gears" in games with the lead, whether it's in the 3rd Quarter or 4th (I agree he does), then Packer fans should understand that his approach has been highly successful. Successes and success rate when leading at the half jump from highly successful to absolutely elite.

Quite interesting. When you think about it, most of our discussions have been because he "almost gave it away". not because they actually did lose. Fans, of course, want to say a first half drubbing continue into the second half, but in all pro sports it is seldom that a period of total domination last for an entire contest. The differences between teams, especially in the NFL, is not that great. Perhaps a more calculated (conservative?) approach really does enhance the chances of winning. Maybe MM really DOES know what he is doing/ Who would have thought....!!

[Guiness]

Lions are claiming they got an apology from the NFL and the 66 yard PI call was incorrect.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...6-yard-penalty

[Fritz]

Lions are claiming they got an apology from the NFL and the 66 yard PI call was incorrect.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...6-yard-penalty

I bet they feel so much better now.

Man, the NFL is a mess. A stinking pile of shit 💩 kind of mess.

[pbmax]

Lions are claiming they got an apology from the NFL and the 66 yard PI call was incorrect.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...6-yard-penalty

I find this suspicious and probably overstated. The NFL usually defends PI by saying its a judgement call.

[hoosier]

Lions are claiming they got an apology from the NFL and the 66 yard PI call was incorrect.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...6-yard-penalty

Sure looks like PI to me. Defender clearly has his arm around Davis's right arm.

[vince]

5 running plays and 4 passing plays in the 3rd Q drive.

7 running plays and 6 passing plays in the 4th Q drives up to the 3 victory formations.

Plus a field goal and 2 punts. I'm counting play intent so QB scrambles or sacks indicate intent to pass.

[pbmax]

5 running plays and 4 passing plays in the 3rd Q drive.

7 running plays and 6 passing plays in the 4th Q drives up to the 3 victory formations.

Plus a field goal and 2 punts. I'm counting play intent so QB scrambles or sacks indicate intent to pass.

12 run to 10 pass is still more run than the first half.

But one game result isn't going to make anyone's case. This was not even the best example of the tendency we are complaining about. Until the last drive, the run game was more effective than passing in the 2nd half.

I will admit that evidence of my complaint is hard to find in that 4th quarter lead chart. The percentage difference between NE and GB is as scant as vince predicted it would be.

I do wonder how it looks for top competition and playoffs.

[pbmax]

Team Comparison to McCarthy-led Packers - Win/Loss Results when Leading at the Half

Ranked by W-L%

Rk	Tm			From	To	W	L	T	W-L%▼	Count	
1	New England Patriots	2006	2016	109	16	0	0.872	125
2	Green Bay Packers	2006	2016	94	14	0	0.870	108
3	Denver Broncos		2006	2016	68	11	0	0.861	79	
4	New Orleans Saints	2006	2016	81	14	0	0.853	95
5	Pittsburgh Steelers	2006	2016	82	16	0	0.837	98
6	Seattle Seahawks	2006	2016	72	14	0	0.837	86
7	Chicago Bears		2006	2016	60	12	0	0.833	72	
8	Baltimore Ravens	2006	2016	82	17	0	0.828	99
9	Philadelphia Eagles	2006	2016	79	17	0	0.823	96
10	New York Giants		2006	2016	69	16	0	0.812	85
11	Indianapolis Colts	2006	2015	77	18	0	0.811	95
12	New York Jets		2006	2016	59	14	0	0.808	73	
13	San Francisco 49ers	2006	2016	61	15	0	0.803	76
14	Arizona Cardinals	2006	2016	56	14	0	0.800	70
15	Atlanta Falcons		2006	2016	62	17	0	0.785	79	
16	Houston Texans		2006	2016	58	18	0	0.763	76
17	Dallas Cowboys		2006	2016	58	19	0	0.753	77
18	Buffalo Bills		2006	2016	46	16	0	0.742	62
19	Kansas City Chiefs	2006	2016	55	20	0	0.733	75
20	San Diego Chargers	2006	2016	65	24	0	0.730	89
21	Jacksonville Jaguars	2006	2015	40	15	0	0.727	55
22	Carolina Panthers	2006	2016	63	24	0	0.724	87
23	Minnesota Vikings	2006	2016	53	20	1	0.723	74
24	Cincinnati Bengals	2006	2015	61	23	2	0.721	86
25	Tennessee Titans	2006	2016	45	22	0	0.672	67
26	Miami Dolphins		2006	2015	42	22	0	0.656	64	
27	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	2006	2016	38	21	0	0.644	59
28	?????????? Rams		2006	2016	41	27	1	0.601	69	
29	Detroit Lions		2006	2016	35	27	0	0.565	62	
30	Oakland Raiders		2006	2016	31	24	0	0.564	55	
31	Cleveland Browns	2006	2016	36	28	0	0.563	64
32	Washington Redskins	2006	2015	35	29	0	0.547	64
Total				2006	2016	1913	604	4	.760	2521

[Carolina_Packer]

I know running out the clock on offense is called the 4 minute drill. In a similar, but separate fashion, is this what the defense is trying to do?

I'm sure the D is never trying to let the opponent score, but perhaps the way they choose to defend an opponent when the Packers have a big lead says to keep everything in front of them (hopefully no big plays), so while it seems like a bloodletting by 5-10 yard chunks of short routes by the opposing offense, it keeps the clock going on completions, and if you want to take several minutes to matriculate the ball down the field, that saves wear and tear on my offensive players, and while you might score, we are not giving you any more than we are willing to let you have. We are looking at the play clock and counting potential possessions remaining in the game. Even if we let you score a few touchdowns and look like you are catching up, we figure it's going to take time off the clock for you to do that, and the remainder of the time we will run out on offense.

Do I understand the philosophy correctly?

Is it a philosophy that says, it's a long season, so let's play hard, but play smart and only worry about the final score, but not style points if we happen to shut out an opponent? I'm sure it takes more energy and possible risk to players health to play hard enough to shut down an opponent from the defensive side of the ball. I'm not saying the Packers D will always have that kind of control, but with a big lead, that might become the philosophy. It makes the D look soft in the 2nd half, but if it preserves some health and runs out the clock, and doesn't scare fans half to death, it's a workable philosophy.

[pbmax]

I know running out the clock on offense is called the 4 minute drill. In a similar, but separate fashion, is this what the defense is trying to do?

I'm sure the D is never trying to let the opponent score, but perhaps the way they choose to defend an opponent when the Packers have a big lead says to keep everything in front of them (hopefully no big plays), so while it seems like a bloodletting by 5-10 yard chunks of short routes by the opposing offense, it keeps the clock going on completions, and if you want to take several minutes to matriculate the ball down the field, that saves wear and tear on my offensive players, and while you might score, we are not giving you any more than we are willing to let you have. We are looking at the play clock and counting potential possessions remaining in the game. Even if we let you score a few touchdowns and look like you are catching up, we figure it's going to take time off the clock for you to do that, and the remainder of the time we will run out on offense.

Do I understand the philosophy correctly?

Is it a philosophy that says, it's a long season, so let's play hard, but play smart and only worry about the final score, but not style points if we happen to shut out an opponent? I'm sure it takes more energy and possible risk to players health to play hard enough to shut down an opponent from the defensive side of the ball. I'm not saying the Packers D will always have that kind of control, but with a big lead, that might become the philosophy. It makes the D look soft in the 2nd half, but if it preserves some health and runs out the clock, and doesn't scare fans half to death, it's a workable philosophy.

I think that is a fair restatement for the D. However, the Packers don't necessarily retreat into zone to keep everything in front of them. They tend to use zone to mix up coverages, but prefer man to man under most circumstances.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think that is a fair restatement for the D. However, the Packers don't necessarily retreat into zone to keep everything in front of them. They tend to use zone to mix up coverages, but prefer man to man under most circumstances.

If they keep giving up big plays or consistently can't cover man to man and give up big chunks of yards (see Stefon Diggs, and Marvin Jones the last two weeks), should they go more zone, assuming they can still stop the run and bring an adequate pass rush?

I'm sure it's frustrating for those on defense who do their job well in run stopping and pass rush, only to have the secondary be leaky. Does it seem to you that the front seven has performed well enough with run stopping and pressure to expect that the DB's can cover long enough to be effective?

[pbmax]

If they keep giving up big plays or consistently can't cover man to man and give up big chunks of yards (see Stefon Diggs, and Marvin Jones the last two weeks), should they go more zone, assuming they can still stop the run and bring an adequate pass rush?

I'm sure it's frustrating for those on defense who do their job well in run stopping and pass rush, only to have the secondary be leaky. Does it seem to you that the front seven has performed well enough with run stopping and pressure to expect that the DB's can cover long enough to be effective?

They did need more pass rush versus Detroit, but big plays have been a problem in each game. Burnett getting healthy will help. Matthews and Jones coming back in will too.

[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.