More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[RashanGary]

I tend to forget that the starting LG is new, and not Josh Sitton. That is a good thing.

It's making more sense now. I was surprised. I didn't realize how much they liked lane. That said, I never suspected Tt made some weird emotional random act of stupidity.

I do think they Packer brass probably believes in paying for 3 OL and going cheap on the other two. So I wasn't as surprised as most. I really did like Bahktiari. I also felt that with a good c and a good LT, the need for paying top dollar for a lg goes down.

I don't usually say I told ya so, and this isn't really to you or any one in particular, but I was fairly certain it wasn't any of the conspiracys people were toting here or in the paper. And I'm a big conspiracy theorist with the govt. I just saw no motivation for a GM to act out in same weird fit of stupid. I highly doubted that to the the case.

[pbmax]

MM on second half: Important to run football because defense played so many snaps.

How many snaps did they play in first half?

Helps more if you get first downs.

[Maxie the Taxi]

MM on second half: Important to run football because defense played so many snaps.

How many snaps did they play in first half?

Helps more if you get first downs.

Every time Stubby makes a statement like this he exposes his old school, two dimensional bias: run the ball, time moves off the clock; pass the ball, bad things happen.

[run pMc]

So the Packers had 4 possenssions in the second half including the kneeldown clock killer. Of the other 3 possessions, 1 got them a field goal, one drive stalled at midfield, and the other was a 3 and out that shouldn't have been if Trevor Davis doesn't flat out drop the ball. Detroit was playing keepaway with the ball.

I don't know that MM took his foot of the gas so much as he was trying to shorten the game and run the ball. He talked about not running it enough against MIN, so I don't have really have a problem, not when Lacy is averaging over 5ypc, with them running it with a big lead. Mixing in short passes is fine too. I do wish they could have stopped Stafford; he always seems to put up good numbers against the Packers. He did have to throw it 40+ times though and the Lions offense was pretty one dimensional. So it's the 3rd down and 4th down defense that bugs me more about the game.

Oh, and Josh Hawkins giving up a terrible TD, and Randall falling down (claiming OPI) on the other TD to Jones didn't help. The young'uns will learn. Randall didn't have the greatest day, but I think they played a fair amount of zone and the safety help wasn't always there. Not sure if that's on Hyde or Ha-Ha (I'd think Hyde; he doesn't have great speed).

[pbmax]

No doubt the D was short handed and did better than expected, but wilted in the second half. I can see wanting to protect them.

But if that is what you want, dump the no huddle, run the clock down to 2 each play and call your offense. The clock only stops if you are incomplete. And Rodgers was over 60% in that game. You go run heavy (and they ran a bunch of two TE until Cook got hurt) and play action pass and that number will go up. Its Rodgers for Pete's sake. Even when he is terrible he doesn't throw that many picks or incompletes.

If you don't go pass pass pass from spread formations, it will work well.

And I think M3 is headed there. His second half was not nearly as run heavy as some of his games. he threw four passes I did not expect. All I am asking. If Davis and the first Adams throws get caught, game isn't close.

[Bossman641]

The reason everyone is complaining about the second half drives is because they didn't pick convert third downs. After the FG drive to go up 34-17 in the third the drives went like this...

1st and 10 at GB 28
(12:27 - 4th) E.Lacy right tackle to GB 32 for 4 yards (A.Zettel; Z.Gooden)
2nd and 6 at GB 32
(11:47 - 4th) (No Huddle) E.Lacy left tackle to GB 46 for 14 yards (Z.Gooden, G.Quin)
1st and 10 at GB 46
(11:01 - 4th) E.Lacy right end to GB 48 for 2 yards (K.Hyder)
2nd and 8 at GB 48
(10:17 - 4th) A.Rodgers sacked ob at GB 48 for 0 yards (H.Ngata)
3rd and 8 at GB 48
(9:39 - 4th) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short middle to R.Cobb (Q.Diggs) [K.Van Noy]

1st and 10 at GB 26
(6:35 - 4th) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short left to T.Davis
2nd and 10 at GB 26
(6:31 - 4th) J.Starks up the middle to GB 25 for -1 yards (K.Van Noy; G.Quin)
3rd and 11 at GB 25
(5:49 - 4th) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short left to J.Starks pushed ob at GB 34 for 9 yards (R.Bush)

I don't really see that as overly conservative. On the first drive you are maybe quibbling about 1 play...the Lacy 1st and 10 run for 2 yards. Given that he had gained 18 yards on the previous 2 carries it's hard to disagree with that. On the ensuing drive, Rodgers threw to Davis on first down for what should have been a first...instead he dropped it.

[texaspackerbacker]

Two things in McCarthy's defense. First, the opposing defense will be taking more chances in the second half yesterday, so if he continues with the aggressive approach then the odds of a turnover or quick three-and-out go up, and when you're up 31-3 at half, the very last thing in the world you want to see is a quick pick-6 going the other way. Nothing gets the opponent who you've been stomping on all first half back in the game like a pick-6. Second, what McCarthy did in the second half yesterday has ramifications for the bigger picture. The Packer offense will be much more formidable if and when it gets to the point where it can impose its will on the defense, and the best way to do that is to run it down their throat. When it doesn't work it can be incredibly frustrating to watch, and can lead to the kind of excruciating second half we witnessed yesterday. But if, come December and January, this team can get to that point of being able to impose its will, we will all be much happier fans.

Do you seriously think the odds are significant even a little bit that Aaron Rodgers will throw interceptions if he basically continues to march? - uses play calling similar to the first half, which wasn't exactly pass-first as I would like to see it, but which was a major step in the right direction. The second half indeed was excruciating, but that was primarily because, as Maxi said, of McCarthy's damn stubbornness to run first and worse yet, his weird lack of trust for Aaron Rodgers not to give away the game. What QB in all of football avoids interceptions like Aaron Rodgers - even with the constant pass rush pressure on him?

[texaspackerbacker]

Teams seem to give us the slant. AR just needs to take it consistently.

I'd like to see the Packers hit more slants too, but I disagree that they were available. The lack of need for blitzing by opponents/getting a significant pass rush with just 3 or 4 allows them to jump those slants or have LBs in those short zones.

[vince]

Every time Stubby makes a statement like this he exposes his old school, two dimensional bias: run the ball, time moves off the clock; pass the ball, bad things happen.

Perhaps you might take a look at the 2nd half play-by-play that Bossman posted and see what actually happened. Stubby didn't espouse what you're accusing him of. He threw it on 1st, 2nd and 3rd down - every 3rd down in fact. The "old school, two dimensional bias" you're so anxious to ridicule as outdated and unrealistic is exactly what happened. That dropped pass by Davis on the first down throw with 6:35 to go was very significant.

If they run the ball in that situation it would have given them a lot more options on 2nd down particularly if they would have had even a modest gain. As it was with the clock stopped with the incomplete pass they had zero option but to run on 2nd and the Lions knew it. Three passes running zero time off the clock could have been completely disastrous in that situation.

3:34 to win the game up by 7 was tough enough. 4:40 forces at least another first down to win at a ton of time for Stafford to continue carving up the defense.

I know I know, if they'd just throw it they'd score and the game would be over already. They had just enough ball control to overcome the significant faults in that new school 3-D strategy. Davis just needs to catch it and all is good. They always catch it in new world 3-D - well hypothetically anyway, at least with Rodgers throwing it.

[vince]

MM on second half: Important to run football because defense played so many snaps.

How many snaps did they play in first half?

Helps more if you get first downs.

37 vs. 27 ToP was even more tilted against GB defense in the first half. It could be argued that a couple of GB's quick scores in the first half contributed to the defense getting exposed. The defense did that pretty well on its own I'd say, but it's easy to see the 2nd half concern.

..............1.................2...............3. ...............4................T
Snaps (ToP)
Det........18 (9:05)....19 (9:22)....12 (9:51)....21 (6:49)....70 (35:07)
GB.........12 (5:55)....15 (5:38).....9 (5:09).....16 (8:11)....52 (24:53)

In the 2nd half the Packers rushed for 5 first downs and passed for 1 on 11 runs and 10 passes up until the victory formations.

4 rushing and 2 passing if you want to count Rodgers' late scramble as a pass play, which would be more accurate.

4 of the pass plays were on 1st or 2nd down, and every third down play in the 2nd half up until the clock-killing drive was a pass.

Get first downs indeed. And protect your weary D that's lite on pass rush and defensive backfield leaders - and bleeding like a sieve. And keep the clock running.

[Pugger]

Every time Stubby makes a statement like this he exposes his old school, two dimensional bias: run the ball, time moves off the clock; pass the ball, bad things happen.

With a big lead and so many defensive starters missing I can understand MM's thinking. He didn't abandon the pass in the second half really. Both Davis and Cobb had drive killing drops. We never had that many offensive possessions in the second half either.

[pbmax]

vince, I am reading your quarter by quarter number of snaps as 37 versus 33 for the GB defense. Am I reading that wrong?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Perhaps you might take a look at the 2nd half play-by-play that Bossman posted and see what actually happened. Stubby didn't espouse what you're accusing him of. He threw it on 1st, 2nd and 3rd down - every 3rd down in fact. The "old school, two dimensional bias" you're so anxious to ridicule as outdated and unrealistic is exactly what happened. That dropped pass by Davis on the first down throw with 6:35 to go was very significant.

If they run the ball in that situation it would have given them a lot more options on 2nd down particularly if they would have had even a modest gain. As it was with the clock stopped with the incomplete pass they had zero option but to run on 2nd and the Lions knew it. Three passes running zero time off the clock could have been completely disastrous in that situation.

3:34 to win the game up by 7 was tough enough. 4:40 forces at least another first down to win at a ton of time for Stafford to continue carving up the defense.

I know I know, if they'd just throw it they'd score and the game would be over already. They had just enough ball control to overcome the significant faults in that new school 3-D strategy. Davis just needs to catch it and all is good. They always catch it in new world 3-D - well hypothetically anyway, at least with Rodgers throwing it.

First of all, my comment you posted was an observation of a bias that Stubby has demonstrated over 11 years. I think I could produce a whole bunch of specific examples to justify my point of view. I certainly am not arguing that Stubby acts on that bias in each and every specific case, last Sunday's game included.

Second of all, I am not arguing that Stubby should pass on any particular down all the time and that that would prove Stubby's bias does not exist. Nor am I arguing that he should pass all the time. Nor am I arguing that a rush-heavy offense (as we saw early in the second half Sunday) is necessarily always ill-advised. What I am arguing is that in today's game a bias for the run and against the pass in time-critical situations exists, that it is old school, that Stubby has it and, frankly, so do you. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. )

You demonstrate that bias when you write:

If they run the ball in that situation it would have given them a lot more options on 2nd down particularly if they would have had even a modest gain. As it was with the clock stopped with the incomplete pass they had zero option but to run on 2nd and the Lions knew it. Three passes running zero time off the clock could have been completely disastrous in that situation.

You say Stubby had "zero option" but to run the ball on 2nd. Why? Because, according to your bias, when you pass the ball bad things happen (an incomplete pass, a stopped clock and "disaster"). You say the Lions "knew" Stubby had to run the ball. I say they "knew" it because either they have the same old school bias against passing in that situation or they "knew" Stubby has that bias. I would think, with everyone expecting a run, a pass in this situation would have a higher chance to succeed. But Stubby does as expected, rushes the ball up the middle and Starks loses a yard. Then, on third down, Stubby does as expected again and passes to Starks who runs out of bounds after a 9 yard gain.

You contend passing incomplete on 2nd down would probably be "disastrous." I say if Arod would have thrown that 3rd down pass to Starks on 2nd down it would have resulted in 3rd and one, a very favorable position from which to make a 1st down (by the run, or, god forbid, another pass). Plus, if Starks stays in bounds, the clock keeps running. Hardly a disaster.

You contend "Davis just needs to catch it and all is good." True. But failure to execute is not a one-way street. You old school guys ( ) never take into account failure to execute on the part of the rushing game. With regard to Stubby's 2nd down play, I could just as well contend "the O-line just needs to block and Starks just needs to hit the hole and all is good."

Failure to execute is, IMO, a simple fact of life. It happens on pass plays, on rush plays and on onsides kick plays. As such, it shouldn't be used to justify one strategy to the exclusion of another.

After a failure to execute causes a disaster, a coach can either insist that the play would have succeeded if only the player would have executed, or the coach can go back and take critical look at the play called in the context of time, down and distance, and see if he really put his players in the best position to succeed.

[ThunderDan]

Every time Stubby makes a statement like this he exposes his old school, two dimensional bias: run the ball, time moves off the clock; pass the ball, bad things happen.

Maxie-

I think this is completely wrong regarding last weeks game. We threw the ball a lot in the 1st half and put up 31 points. Yet, even with all of that success we only possessed the ball for 11:31 in the first half because of our quick strikes. Our drives were 3:38, 1:44, :47, :59, 3:53 and :32. Detroit's scoring drives in the 3rd Q and start of the 4th Q were exact opposites - 6:37, 5:42. Those two drives represented more possession than the Packers had the whole 1st half.

[vince]

vince, I am reading your quarter by quarter number of snaps as 37 versus 33 for the GB defense. Am I reading that wrong?

Detroit o / gb d 37 1st half snaps 18+ 19

GB o / det d 27 12+ 15
ToP in parens ( ) by quarter

[Rutnstrut]

the more worrisome thing if starks is done, is why would he keep taking snaps from lacy, and why do we not have another RB on the roster?

and no, a WR in the backfield doesn't count, cause that never works

quit with the one series for one guy and another series for the other. this is probably eddys last year in green and gold, why not just use him as the bell cow and run him into the ground?

Because that's how stubby wants to do it. Big deal if it doesn't work, he'll do it his way.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Maxie-

I think this is completely wrong regarding last weeks game. We threw the ball a lot in the 1st half and put up 31 points. Yet, even with all of that success we only possessed the ball for 11:31 in the first half because of our quick strikes. Our drives were 3:38, 1:44, :47, :59, 3:53 and :32. Detroit's scoring drives in the 3rd Q and start of the 4th Q were exact opposites - 6:37, 5:42. Those two drives represented more possession than the Packers had the whole 1st half.

I don't disagree with you. See my post to Vince above. The comment you quote was not aimed at last weeks game, but at Stubby's body of work in general.

[hoosier]

Do you seriously think the odds are significant even a little bit that Aaron Rodgers will throw interceptions if he basically continues to march? - uses play calling similar to the first half, which wasn't exactly pass-first as I would like to see it, but which was a major step in the right direction. The second half indeed was excruciating, but that was primarily because, as Maxi said, of McCarthy's damn stubbornness to run first and worse yet, his weird lack of trust for Aaron Rodgers not to give away the game. What QB in all of football avoids interceptions like Aaron Rodgers - even with the constant pass rush pressure on him?

What made the second half hard to watch were things: the pass defense started hemorrhaging yards and the offense failed to convert a couple of third downs. The big difference that I saw in the play calling wasn't the run to pass ratio but the number of times Rodgers went deep--if I'm not mistaken he didn't have a single throw over 20 yards in the second half. So, after further reflection, I've decided that it's misleading to say that McCarthy the playcaller went into a hole in the second half. It may have felt that way, but that is because the offense as a whole became less efficient.

[vince]

What I am arguing is that in today's game a bias for the run and against the pass in time-critical situations exists, that it is old school, that Stubby has it and, frankly, so do you. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. )

That bias exists when teams are winning late in games because it best serves the goal of winning the game - or not losing whichever you prefer.

That's the crux of the disagreement so let's look at McCarthy's career record throughout his biased tenure. As you say it's his body of work, which has resulted in a record of 114-63-1 including postseason. As we know, few of his wins are of the come-from-behind variety - 10 or so. I know it's been posted here not too long ago and he has about a .333 record when there's a lead change in the 4th quarter. So that's in the neighborhood of 25 times his team has given up the lead in the 4th quarter due to his old school Stubbyness. I'm sure those numbers aren't right but they're close enough to look at. So that means his old school 2d outdated Stubbyville strategy has failed 25 times. Given the numbers which are admittedly estimates, he has NOT LOST with the lead in the 4th Quarter 104 times.

Are you suggesting that he adopted the old-school 2d philosophy in those 25 games, but changed his approach to new-school 3d in the 104 instances where it worked? Of course not - given your proclaimed 10-year overall body of Stubbyness. We all know he emphasizes the 4-minute drill to close out games all the time. He talks like it makes his stubby chubby!

Even for super tight-sphinctered McCarthy, old school has resulted in NOT LOSING 4 out of 5 times! Your argument that if he'd just gone new-school it would have been even higher just isn't plausible. Let's say we hypothetically shift half the losses to the win column if he would just get with the times according to Maxie. Assuming you're argument holds any water, that would push him into the echelon of Lombardi and Madden, well ahead of every coach in modern times including Bellichick by a longshot. I think McCarthy's pretty good, and very underrated, but I'd say it's a serious stretch to elevate him to the greatest of all-time status - regardless of school or how many dimensions he can visualize/process in that Stubby melon of his.

You old school guys ( ) never take into account failure to execute on the part of the rushing game. With regard to Stubby's 2nd down play, I could just as well contend "the O-line just needs to block and Starks just needs to hit the hole and all is good."

Failure to execute is, IMO, a simple fact of life. It happens on pass plays, on rush plays and on onsides kick plays. As such, it shouldn't be used to justify one strategy to the exclusion of another.

Actually I'd say it's the other way around. New schoolers don't consider impact of the 40% passing failures. And should a couple of those 40%ers get strung together, the damages magnify. This is the difference between your argument from your living room and that of the coaches at the pinnacle of the sport who you actually believe the game has passed by.

The basis of your argument is that all "failures" are equal - and you equate a no-gain running play late in the game with a game-changing on-side kick doink off the head?
Ignoring the game-changing magnitude of a successfully recovered on-side kick, there is a tremendous difference between "failing" on a pass play late in a game with the lead and "failing" on a running play in the same circumstance. One plays into the hand of the opponent by giving them added time when it fails and the other continues to shorten the game in spite of failure. One strategy entails a strategic benefit even in the event of failure. The other requires success or it imposes punitive damages - potentially of the immediate game changing variety.

If you don't want to accept the dominant logic overwhelmingly espoused by the foremost experts in the game - yesterday, today, tomorrow, or as long as the clock stops late in the game on errant throws, when guys drop balls, defenses retain the ball for their offenses on interceptions and/or score touchdowns on pick sixes when passes "fail", at least look at the actual results of 10 year's worth of Stub.

Those rules haven't changed yet as far as I know, passing era or not. But as you say the game has passed us old school 2d guys by so catch me up if that's wrong.

[pbmax]

Its not new school. No one denies that with 4 minutes left you are very likely to benefit from running even if it doesn't net you first downs. We have all seen it work. Especially when you are in a scenario, with remaining time and TOs, that will likely allow only 3 more possessions. Its easy to construct a scenario where you can deny a team the chance to get a second score to take the lead by virtue running time of the clock.

But McCarthy has repeatedly tilted toward the run long before the 4 minute mark. Which doesn't have that history behind it. There is a reason he named it his 4 minute offense.

Of course there is risk to passing (stopped clock and INT) just as there is for running (fumble). But the reward can be greater as well.

For the Packers specifically is that his course of action takes the ball out of his best offensive players hand. When he goes into that mode, the Defense can ignore the best offensive player in the league. And it puts the game into the hands of his least effective units in his tenure. This is the reason his 4th Quarter record was hideous prior to 2010 (when the O line and the run game were truly pathetic) and has improved to less terrible since.

McCarthy himself has embraced some of Burke's observations. He has truly engaged with the idea that the average NFL coach does not pass enough throughout the game (the article is a few years old) and is too conservative on 4th down especially from midfield in.

But he traditionally switches gears in the second half with a lead. There have been a few signs of him changing it up with play action this year. I hope it continues.