More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[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Regardless of one's opinions of his 2nd Half and/or 4th Quarter approach when leading, whether arguments are that it's outdated, evolving but still not good enough, needs to change, too conservative, no longer effective for today's game, etc.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.

[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.

[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....!!

[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.

[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.

[hoosier]

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.

On this particular Sunday I did not notice much of a difference in play calling until they got the ball with 6:40 left in the 4th. At that point they ran on first down, got nothing, and then ran again on second. Until that point, however, the only time they called consecutive running plays was on the first drive of the second half, and those runs were successful--in fact they were the only time they move the ball consistently in the second half! So I don't see where McCarthy got too conservative with his play calling. What happened was that the passing game failed to produce first downs.

[pbmax]

On this particular Sunday I did not notice much of a difference in play calling until they got the ball with 6:40 left in the 4th. At that point they ran on first down, got nothing, and then ran again on second. Until that point, however, the only time they called consecutive running plays was on the first drive of the second half, and those runs were successful--in fact they were the only time they move the ball consistently in the second half! So I don't see where McCarthy got too conservative with his play calling. What happened was that the passing game failed to produce first downs.

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.

[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.

[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.....

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[vince]

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.

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.

[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]

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.

Can you post the Top 10 for the 4th quarter lead?

[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.