Vic Ketchmab calls a spade a spade with fans who live in fantasy

[vince]

I would not be happy about the D surrendering a TD, but I could understand the loss if the Packers did everything to drain clock and score points.

But getting to the edge of FG range and running wide with a front that telegraphs run is not my idea of efficient play calling. If it was the old U71 then it has a history of success and positive yards. The current Packers run wide at their own risk these days.

I actually think this was a ballsy call, because while I have not looked at the play again since the game, I bet if Spriggs had deflected that DE, the edge of the field was wide open except for a CB being blocked by a WR. With one more block, it might spring. But the downside was potentially huge.

I actually like the call much better from the 25, where a loss of a few yards probably doesn't affect the kick.

I guess my prescription then is run normal offense with passes even late when tied and on edge of FG range.

I won't speculate on the reason for your continued blind spot here PB, but the downside was mitigated by the play call despite the "downward" outcome of the individual play. The larger downside of attempting a pass play it in that situation can only be mitigated by refusing to acknowledge its existence.

Also, it can't be any more clear given the actual results that the loss of a few yards in that situation didn't "affect the kick" as your revisionism suggests.

[hoosier]

Results are real, yes, but because decisions do not have predetermined outcomes I think one needs to consider percentages when evaluating a given decision.

[pbmax]

I won't speculate on the reason for your continued blind spot here PB, but the downside was mitigated by the play call despite the "downward" outcome of the individual play. The larger downside of attempting a pass play it in that situation can only be mitigated by refusing to acknowledge its existence.

Also, it can't be any more clear given the actual results that the loss of a few yards in that situation didn't "affect the kick" as your revisionism suggests.

This is why I prefer to look at this with numbers. With a 50-55% chance of a FG, I would love to know the relative risk of the choices between a 51 yard FD (kneeling), a 56 yard FG (run wide left) or a play action pass.

I think you have done a very good job of explicating the risk of a pass here. I think its easy to figure out a FG here is no sure thing and a 5 yard longer FG is a worse option. But this is only the risk side of the equation. We don't know the upside of a completion, the likelihood of it being made multiplied by its effect on the game situation.

[vince]

This is why I prefer to look at this with numbers. With a 50-55% chance of a FG, I would love to know the relative risk of the choices between a 51 yard FD (kneeling), a 56 yard FG (run wide left) or a play action pass.

I think you have done a very good job of explicating the risk of a pass here. I think its easy to figure out a FG here is no sure thing and a 5 yard longer FG is a worse option. But this is only the risk side of the equation. We don't know the upside of a completion, the likelihood of it being made multiplied by its effect on the game situation.

Just as a 5-yard (or more) longer field goal would be in the event of a blind-side sack on a pass play, the downside possibility of which you ignore in your hypothetical guaranteed-to-succeed alternative.

[hoosier]

Spriggs's whiff was only part of what failed on that play. Taylor got driven into the backfield by McClain like he was on skates, and if Lawrence hadn't blown the play up then McClain might well have. Ripkowski also missed his block on Wilber. The way things develop, it really does look like most of the defense knows the play is going to the left.

[Maxie the Taxi]

"Hindsight" drives a "Stubby woulda coulda shoulda" argument after a Packer loss.

"Actual Results" drive an "MM can do no wrong" argument after a Packer win.

[hoosier]

"Hindsight" drives a "Stubby woulda coulda shoulda" argument after a Packer loss.

"Actual Results" drive an "MM can do no wrong" argument after a Packer win.

Why don't you go ponder some graphs....

[Maxie the Taxi]

Why don't you go ponder some graphs....

I just thought you ought to know that you're interpreting those pictures above all wrong. LOL

[hoosier]

I just thought you ought to know that you're interpreting those pictures above all wrong. LOL

No doubt, I must be looking on the wrong side of that blue line.

[Maxie the Taxi]

No doubt, I must be looking on the wrong side of that blue line.

Yes! Often what you don't see is far more important than what you do see.

[3irty1]

I think there are kind of two parts to unpack about those running plays. 1) Making the high percentage fieldgoal and favorable clock rundown plan A at the expense of a high percentage first down. 2) the specific play call given the stated goal of a plan A fieldgoal+clock rundown.

I wonder which McCarthy regrets more. 1 seems more defensible/falsifiable because as the game gets shorter and shorter the probabilities more useful. I think its clear that giving the ball to Rodgers is your best shot at a first down but that comes with downsides. I don't know (after accounting for the extent and likelyhood of the possible bad outcomes) whether a pair of incomplete passes that stop the clock or a pair of bad runs that eat clock but leave an even lower percentage field goal is the right move.

[pbmax]

I think there are kind of two parts to unpack about those running plays. 1) Making the high percentage fieldgoal and favorable clock rundown plan A at the expense of a high percentage first down. 2) the specific play call given the stated goal of a plan A fieldgoal+clock rundown.

I wonder which McCarthy regrets more. 1 seems more defensible/falsifiable because as the game gets shorter and shorter the probabilities more useful. I think its clear that giving the ball to Rodgers is your best shot at a first down but that comes with downsides. I don't know (after accounting for the extent and likelyhood of the possible bad outcomes) whether a pair of incomplete passes that stop the clock or a pair of bad runs that eat clock but leave an even lower percentage field goal is the right move.

A better move, regardless of your intention, is to keep a back in the backfield, get under center and let the defense choose whether they want to defend run or pass.

McCarthy likes to game plan to take advantage of his talent over the defense. He sees Seattle in Cover 1 or 3 playing single coverage outside and he wants to throw against it outside (so does Rodgers).

But then he discovers that Seattle knows this yet can shut you down because the talent is not a mismatch as it is against most teams. In fact, Earl Thomas and Sherman might be better at their jobs than your receivers are at theirs. At halftime he junks it and throw short in the middle and scores twice against a good D.

He throws out a heavy formation, or goes two TEs or inverted wishbone and expects to win a run. When the Defense completely commits to stopping that run, good luck. It can be done and you need to prepare for it to be done because there may come a time you need a short yardage win.

But that doesn't make it the best play call. You need to account for the D that you will see. McCarthy knows this because he gives Rodgers reads to get out of a bad play against a certain look. But he ignores it late and gets conservative.


EDIT: Changed this to just conservative in last sentence. He has broadened his approach until later in the game and there are more conservative offenses in this situation.

[vince]

Actual results should drive an "Mm achieved these results and here's why" analysis. Not an " if the results were different he would have screwed up" fantasy analysis.

[pbmax]

Actual results should drive an "Mm achieved these results and here's why" analysis. Not an " if the results were different he would have screwed up" fantasy analysis.

I believe the Packers roster is Top 5 in the League. I think McCarthy is Top 7 in coaching. I think both of these can be easily defended. You could easily argue Ted for Top 3 and M3 for Top 5, though you would get more resistance. But I think even consensus would grant that this combination in a franchise yields a team that should be Top 4 in overall performance. Any single year can go bad, but over the course of five years the team should outperform the vast majority of the League.

I have two critiques of McCarthy through observation. One, is his limiting of his own offensive options in a game to the game plan. Normally, this makes sense, as why risk running plays you have not practiced? However, in games where you zigged and the opponent zagged, your plan has to go out of the window. It goes mainly for offense, but has also happened to the defense. This is most obvious when facing a very good team (Seattle, Giants) but I think you can see it against lesser competition too (happens versus Schwartz and Lovie quite a bit). So while strength of the opponent affects this pattern, I don't think it causes it.

There are good reasons that he sticks to this plan and is called Stubby, in part, because of it. He has seen bad teams flail and try to throw everything at a wall in order to find something positive while in a panic. He has seen teams do this just to get the press of their backs. He doesn't want that, neither do I. By and large, this works for 90-95% of the games and gives his talent rich team the best way to leverage their talent. But matchups matter in the NFL, other teams are close to your talent level, and players have limitations in executing against there good players. Sometimes the best laid plan needs to be tossed in the trashcan. Best example of all time is the Fail Mary game.

Second critique is that he relies on single dimensional (this is likely the wrong mathematical convention, but I hope it makes itself clear) analysis about how to close out and win games. He knows that winning teams run more at the end of games. He knows that total attempts and APC don't matter as much as limiting possession and time later in a game. You can infer this from looking at lists of winning team traits and their late game performances.

But it ignores lost opportunity (in most cases, running means less scoring), lost field position, telegraphing the run and the odd fact that Capers D seems incapably of making a good team work hard during a 2 minute drive. They just don't play zone well, and surrender the boundary too often for clock stoppages.

Now I will be dead honest. The last time we ran numbers on this, I was surprised at the team's success in close games with leads. So it could be that playoff woes and easily memorable reg season losses have colored the second critique of McCarthy.

But they are much closer to average when they trail, not in the Top 5 at all. Even this is not a slam dunk as they are still better than average AND have very few games in which they trail (fewest aside from NE).

So I agree with his approach almost all of the time. But still think the approach in each situation can be improved. I would have a hard time telling you how to fix game planning. But I think end of game situations is more obvious.

I am not nitpicking about McCarthy's large body of success, I want modifications to it so that it works even better. NE level better.

[vince]

.

I believe the Packers roster is Top 5 in the League. I think McCarthy is Top 7 in coaching. I think both of these can be easily defended. You could easily argue Ted for Top 3 and M3 for Top 5, though you would get more resistance. But I think even consensus would grant that this combination in a franchise yields a team that should be Top 4 in overall performance. Any single year can go bad, but over the course of five years the team should outperform the vast majority of the League.

As they have.

I have two critiques of McCarthy through observation. One, is his limiting of his own offensive options in a game to the game plan. Normally, this makes sense, as why risk running plays you have not practiced? However, in games where you zigged and the opponent zagged, your plan has to go out of the window. It goes mainly for offense, but has also happened to the defense. This is most obvious when facing a very good team (Seattle, Giants) but I think you can see it against lesser competition too (happens versus Schwartz and Lovie quite a bit). So while strength of the opponent affects this pattern, I don't think it causes it.

I don't buy this at all. What evidence do you have to assert that he limits his game plan, play selection and/or in-game adjustments more than other coaches? Assuming he does, how has that played out to the team's detriment when his results demonstrate that since 2011, the Packers have the 3rd best record vs. playoff teams in the league? That's 100% fantasyland IMO.

There are good reasons that he sticks to this plan and is called Stubby, in part, because of it. He has seen bad teams flail and try to throw everything at a wall in order to find something positive while in a panic. He has seen teams do this just to get the press of their backs. He doesn't want that, neither do I. By and large, this works for 90-95% of the games and gives his talent rich team the best way to leverage their talent. But matchups matter in the NFL, other teams are close to your talent level, and players have limitations in executing against there good players. Sometimes the best laid plan needs to be tossed in the trashcan. Best example of all time is the Fail Mary game.

Again, his teams are elite in performing against the league's best teams. You use a selection set of 1 game from 4 years ago as evidence supporting such a general conclusion today? Look no further than the Giants game 2 weeks ago to find evidence supporting the opposite conclusion.

Second critique is that he relies on single dimensional (this is likely the wrong mathematical convention, but I hope it makes itself clear) analysis about how to close out and win games. He knows that winning teams run more at the end of games. He knows that total attempts and APC don't matter as much as limiting possession and time later in a game. You can infer this from looking at lists of winning team traits and their late game performances.

But it ignores lost opportunity (in most cases, running means less scoring), lost field position, telegraphing the run and the odd fact that Capers D seems incapably of making a good team work hard during a 2 minute drive. They just don't play zone well, and surrender the boundary too often for clock stoppages.

You assert that he ignores the upside of higher risk/reward options late in games because he doesn't choose to use them in situations when you think he should?

McCarthy doesn't ignore any of that. He takes all of that into account, as well as a full assessment of other options that are higher risk/higher reward and considers how all three phases of the game come together/leverage each other to achieve a winning outcome. It's why he's one of, if not the best finishers in the game in spite of the historical weakness of his defense. He takes action to force the clock to run and/or force the opponent to spend their ability to stop the clock in order to protect his defense as much as possible. Your suggestion/belief that he should be higher risk/higher reward with leads late in games and doesn't properly consider such options is simply misguided. The outcomes from play-to-play are not always perfect, but whatever he's done has been more successful than every other coach/play-caller in the league over the last six years.

Now I will be dead honest. The last time we ran numbers on this, I was surprised at the team's success in close games with leads. So it could be that playoff woes and easily memorable reg season losses have colored the second critique of McCarthy.

But they are much closer to average when they trail, not in the Top 5 at all. Even this is not a slam dunk as they are still better than average AND have very few games in which they trail (fewest aside from NE).

The Packers are 6th best in the league in winning % when trailing going into the 4th quarter since 2011 - 1/1000th of a percentage point behind #5 Arizona - not anywhere remotely close to average but VERY close to Top 5.

So I agree with his approach almost all of the time. But still think the approach in each situation can be improved. I would have a hard time telling you how to fix game planning. But I think end of game situations is more obvious.

Game planning doesn't need to be "fixed" nor do end of game situations. Results indicate he's elite performing in both areas.

I am not nitpicking about McCarthy's large body of success, I want modifications to it so that it works even better. NE level better.

His end-of-game situational performance IS "NE level better". Since 2011, it's better than NE level (by a small margin). It's been the absolute best in the league. You really think if he'd just listen to your critique/advice he'd be perfect?

[pbmax]

.

I don't buy this at all. What evidence do you have to assert that he limits his game plan, play selection and/or in-game adjustments more than other coaches? Assuming he does, how has that played out to the team's detriment when his results demonstrate that since 2011, the Packers have the 3rd best record vs. playoff teams in the league? That's 100% fantasyland IMO.

On numerous occasions he has dumped on the idea of dumping his prep work and game plan for the week and calling things not on the play sheet when the offense is in a funk.

He has commented on this when failing to adjust to give Tackles help with chips on pass protection.

He has sheepishly admitted that he HAD to call plays they did not plan on during game situations they did not plan for. Specifically, recall the lack of a 2 point play versus the Cardinals because his one 2 point play he liked required 3 receivers and Janis was hurt.

Running an offense without the plan would be foolish indeed. With his talent advantage, he would be an idiot not to try to impose their will on other teams. However, there are times when your plan doesn't work and you must dump it. If you have fallen well behind (think Panthers in 2015) you need to do it before the 4th quarter.

This is a very admirable trait taken to an extreme.

[pbmax]

.
McCarthy doesn't ignore any of that. He takes all of that into account, as well as a full assessment of other options that are higher risk/higher reward and considers how all three phases of the game come together/leverage each other to achieve a winning outcome. It's why he's one of, if not the best finishers in the game in spite of the historical weakness of his defense.

He gets some blame for the defense first of all. He's not Assistant Head Coach for Offense.

But mainly he gets the blame for playing for late leads with FGs too often. Far too often he bleeds the clock, gets a FG and sees the opponent march in TD territory. It cannot be news to him that his Defense is capable of folding under those circumstances. Even if Ted and Dom have betrayed Mike the Offensive Playcaller, his job as McCarthy the Head Coach is to take that into account.

[vince]

He gets some blame for the defense first of all. He's not Assistant Head Coach for Offense.

But mainly he gets the blame for playing for late leads with FGs too often. Far too often he bleeds the clock, gets a FG and sees the opponent march in TD territory. It cannot be news to him that his Defense is capable of folding under those circumstances. Even if Ted and Dom have betrayed Mike the Offensive Playcaller, his job as McCarthy the Head Coach is to take that into account.

I'm gonna stop because we're going in circles. Once again, your premise is wrong.

You don't blame success. The fact that you're defining success as finishing a game farther ahead in the score than you went into the 4th quarter doesn't make that definition hold for the rest of the universe. They count wins - not 4th quarter wins.

I can only state the reality that he's the single most effective coach/play-caller at successfully finishing games with a 4th quarter lead so many times before recognizing that you're deadset on ignoring that fact in order to maintain a position of second-guessing him by ignoring half of the risk/reward equation in your hypothetical scenarios and steadfastly arguing about why he's a failure in the very area in which he in fact has achieved the greatest success in the league.

[Fritz]

He gets some blame for the defense first of all. He's not Assistant Head Coach for Offense.

But mainly he gets the blame for playing for late leads with FGs too often. Far too often he bleeds the clock, gets a FG and sees the opponent march in TD territory. It cannot be news to him that his Defense is capable of folding under those circumstances. Even if Ted and Dom have betrayed Mike the Offensive Playcaller, his job as McCarthy the Head Coach is to take that into account.

I know it's an "even if" statement, but I've been thinking about how many first-round picks TT has invested in this porous defense. There's Clay Matthews, Kenny Clark, Nick Perry, Datone Jones, Damarious Randall, and Ha-H Clinton Dix. That's six first round picks.

He seems to have spent the majority of his recent first round resources on defense. On offense, and I'm doing all this off the top of my head, there's Bulaga, Rodgers, and . . . ? Lots of second and third rounders, but the seemingly most valuable resource, the first rounder, has been spent primarily on defense. Thompson certainly has not shorted that side of the ball in terms of spending resources. As for results...

This leads me to think that maybe one way to make a transition to the next GM would be to allow Ted to choose only players on the offensive side of the ball, and let someone else - anyone else? - draft the defensive side.

I know injuries are an issue for this defense, but even before the onslaught, this wasn't a defense that appeared to be a unit of strength on this team. And now it's like watching that 2011 defense.

[pbmax]

In a way, that 2 point play in Arizona might crystalize the issue with McCarthy. If the play he needs isn't on the play sheet, he changes his game strategy.

That is ass backwards.