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.....
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
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.
Last edited by vince; 09-29-2016 at 07:22 PM.
First half: 18 passes (9.4 aypa), 7 runs (~5.9 ypc), 11 first downs
TOP: 18:27 for Packers D, 11:33 Packers O
Points: 31
Second half: 6 passes (~5.17 apya), 17 rushes (~4.8), that includes 5 Rodgers rushes for 22 which were passes in most cases. 6 first downs
TOP: 16:40 PackD, 13:20 PackO
Points: 3
* aypa = adjusted yards per attempt (adjusted here means minus sacks and would include penalty for ints)
Changes to second half game plan garnered 1:47 of help to the D and 3 whole points. I contend that he could have helped the D by more by scoring more and putting the game out of reach.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Sure, scoring more would have definitively put the game out of reach, no question. But what I don't see yet is why you think the play calling stopped emphasizing scoring, and what would have been different about the play calling if scoring had been the priority. GB had four drives in the second half. The first, which ended in a field goal, petered out after one bad run, an incomplete pass (Rodgers was pressured and threw it away), then a long QB run wiped out by the holding penalty. On the second drive, they picked up one first down (two good runs) and then it fizzled out with a 2 yard run, a sack and an incomplete pass. The third and fourth drives, we know what happened. What I see in the first three drives of the second half is not a pronounced shift in play calling strategy from points to clock killing but increased inefficiency, and primarily in the passing attack. Rodgers was 3-6 for 31 yards in the second half, and failed to convert a single third down through the air (team converted 1 of 4 tries in second half, and Rodgers was 0 for 2 passing). That to me is the biggest difference between first half and second half, and it almost singlehandedly explains why GB stopped scoring points: the offense couldn't convert third downs in the second half while the defense couldn't get off the field. Everything else is secondary, so to speak.
17 rushes. 10 passes in the second half. I don't know how I can put it more plain than that.
McCarthy copped to it post-game. He ran more to protect the D. He didn't protect it much.
The more you rush versus pass, the less you score. Rodgers was less effective in the 2nd half and there were two drops at least. He also had eight fewer attempts.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
You are focusing on the run/pass balance (the 17/10 ratio is skewed by the QB scrambles), but my point is that the real problem was with offensive inefficiency, inability to sustain drives. When they were racking up the points in the first half it was because they were moving the ball consistently. The bad throw, throwaways under duress and drop were as much to blame for that if not more than the running; even in reasonable down & distance opportunities they were not effective. In fact, when they were able to get first downs in the second half it was on the ground.
I looked at the run/pass play ratio as well PB and I believe you're inadvertently including a field goal, 2 punts and 3 kneel-down victory formation plays as running plays. The presumption that running the ball more precluded the Packers from scoring more in the 2nd half doesn't hold in this case, but for the sake of accuracy the ratio was 11-10. Obviously the 3 kicking plays don't count as runs, and the kneel-downs after the Lions were unable to get the ball back or stop the clock would be misleading to include. It does offer a perspective that coaches espouse more than many fans though.
At the very end of the game when the Packers were in complete control of the score, ball and clock, no one would suggest they should call a pass play under any circumstance at that point. Even handing the ball off would be considered universally stupid. A voluntary 2 yard "loss" and minimizing the chances of loss of possession at that point dominate the "winning" decision criteria. Risk appetite approaches zero as clock, ball and score control approaches 100%. No one would likely argue that.
From those extreme positions on their respective sliding scales then, risk appetite slides up from zero as clock ball and score control slide down. A lot of things impact control of those factors as we know, but McCarthy has proven to have his pulse on the interworking of those factors. He's not perfect. No one is. But he's pretty much proven to be as it gets through exeptional results at the highest level. I'm extremely confident he's forgotten through all his years experience with these situations more than any of us can hope to know. We get uptight and uncertain as games ebb and flow and things sometimes aren't pretty - while McCarthy banks successes closing out games at elite rates.
Last edited by vince; 09-29-2016 at 08:17 PM.
No there is not. The Packers are more likely to close a game with a lead in the 4th than at half. The range of 3.7% among the teams in the top 10 is very small difference - all of which close 9 of 10 games with 4th q lead. If your intent is to hang on to preconceived notions in the face of overwhelmingly controverting facts by insisting that anything less than perfection is substandard or suggest that the practical difference in any game occurrence between 91% likelihood and 87% than there's really nothing else to say about that. It's less than 4 games in 100. It would likely take 3 seasons for the difference to be 1 game between ranks 1 and 9.
Right. Scoring more is a result too often confused with intent. And the result that counts more than scoring is winning. Style points appease us fans and we clearly over emphasize them but they're only part of the equation to winning a game.
What isn't getting addressed in this debate is why the bad Rodgers (or bad pass offense) reared its head again in the second half. We all figured the first half had put that thing to bed.
I think Rodgers has a tendency to get more conservative in his decision making along with coach. He held ball more, iwas more willing to run or take sack, slow down tempo, etc. Defense played more soft zone to keep guys in front but that intent had some holes in execution. There were a couple drives by Detroit that drained a lot of clock.
Right. Long periods on the bench watching the Lions march up and down the field, followed by drives that end quickly because of mistakes (holding, errant throw to Cobb, bad drop by Davis), creates a frustratingly vicious circle. The long intervals between offensive series seems to compound the inefficiencies on offense. If they really want to put the opponent away when they're down, the defense has to figure out how to get off the field.
These aren't too tough to decipher but PB it'd would be great if you could properly format these tables and repost.
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 St. Louis Rams / Los Angeles 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
Team Comparison to McCarthy-led Packers - Win/Loss Results when Leading at start of 4th Q
Ranked by W-L%
Rk Tm From To W L T W-L%▼ Count
1 New England Patriots 2006 2016 112 11 0 0.911 123
2 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2016 84 10 0 0.894 94
3 New Orleans Saints 2006 2016 84 10 0 0.894 94
4 Atlanta Falcons 2006 2016 67 8 0 0.893 75
5 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2016 86 11 0 0.887 97
6 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2016 92 12 0 0.885 104
7 New York Jets 2006 2016 66 9 0 0.880 75
8 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2016 64 9 0 0.877 73
9 Green Bay Packers 2006 2016 97 14 0 0.874 111
10 Denver Broncos 2006 2016 79 14 0 0.849 93
11 Carolina Panthers 2006 2016 74 13 1 0.847 88
12 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2016 67 12 1 0.844 80
13 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2016 78 15 0 0.839 93
14 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2016 78 15 0 0.839 93
15 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2016 72 14 0 0.837 86
16 New York Giants 2006 2016 70 14 0 0.833 84
17 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2016 68 14 1 0.825 83
18 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2016 55 12 0 0.821 67
19 Houston Texans 2006 2016 63 14 0 0.818 77
20 Tennessee Titans 2006 2015 53 13 0 0.803 66
21 Chicago Bears 2006 2016 63 16 0 0.797 79
22 San Diego Chargers 2006 2016 75 20 0 0.789 95
23 Oakland Raiders 2006 2016 40 11 0 0.784 51
24 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 43 12 0 0.782 55
25 Buffalo Bills 2006 2016 46 13 0 0.780 59
26 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2016 65 19 0 0.774 84
27 Miami Dolphins 2006 2016 53 18 0 0.746 71
28 St. Louis Rams / Los Angeles Rams 2006 2016 43 15 1 0.737 59
29 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2016 41 15 0 0.732 56
30 Washington Redskins 2006 2016 46 24 0 0.657 70
31 Detroit Lions 2006 2016 39 22 0 0.639 61
32 Cleveland Browns 2006 2016 38 22 0 0.633 60
Total 2006 2016 2101 451 4 .823 2556
The presence of the Falcons in that 4th Quarter lead list is hurting my brain.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Yeah there's obviously a correlation between winning in any scenario and successfully closing games with the lead, so a coaching staff's player development effectiveness, weekly preparation, and a host of other important coaching skills impact hide themselves in a coach's game management decisions. In general, I think game management has a relatively small impact on a coaches ultimate success relative to the preponderance of other skills a coach needs. Most fans tend to focus on that component to the exclusion of the others in their judgments of coaches. The aspect where game management does have a bigger impact is closing games with the lead though.
The Falcons had a decent run for a stretch the last decade.