yeah but it will be tonight. Ill post full list but i havent figured out the whole tables thing. The top 10 is generally a list of good teams but there are a few surprises. NE and gb lead most often by a decent margin.Originally Posted by pbmax
yeah but it will be tonight. Ill post full list but i havent figured out the whole tables thing. The top 10 is generally a list of good teams but there are a few surprises. NE and gb lead most often by a decent margin.
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.
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.
This is exactly the case.
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.
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
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
I bet they feel so much better now.
Man, the NFL is a mess. A stinking pile of shit 💩 kind of mess.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Vince, I applaud your creative use of statistics to verify what my eyes have seen and my ears have heard over the last 10 years: Stubby is old school and a damned good head coach. Whether or not your statistics prove whether or not the "New School" passing strategy to get 1st downs and points in the fourth quarter is inferior to the Old School strategy of literally running down the clock, and whether or not Stubby would be the greatest coach in NFL history if he was "New School," IMO, is still an open question. But why beat this dead horse?
You write: "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?"
No, in fact, this is not the basis of my argument. All I said was that failure to execute is a "simple fact of life." Failures can happen anytime on any play and that they shouldn't be used to "justify one strategy to the exclusion of another." Yes, Davis dropped a 1st down pass. But that failure doesn't make passing again on 2nd down a foolish play.
On the play immediately prior Davis returned a punt 50 yards to the Lions' 30 yard line -- FG scoring position and a possible game clincher. Packer special teams penalties resulted in a minus 50 yards in field position and loss of scoring position. If the Packers had gone on to lose, which failure would have had "game-changing magnitude?" You can't control when and where a failure will occur, which is another reason, I would argue, that you shouldn't "sit on a lead."
Now, after all the discussion in this thread, maybe someone can explain to me what Stubby accomplished by running Starks into the teeth of eight Lions in the box on 2nd down with 6:31 to go in the game other than running 38 seconds off the clock and making 3rd down way more difficult to convert? If Arod can complete a 9 yard pass to Starks on 3rd down with the Lions defense playing back, why couldn't he have completed it on 2nd down? And wouldn't that have put the players in a better position to succeed on 3rd down?
One time Lombardi was disgusted with the team in practice and told them they were going to have to start with the basics. He held up a ball and said: "This is a football." McGee immediately called out, "Stop, coach, you're going too fast," and that gave everyone a laugh.
John Maxymuk, Packers By The Numbers
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.
More paranoid? Yes.
But concerns about the 4 minute offense starting too early came well before that. Rand was on the case by 2011.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I find this suspicious and probably overstated. The NFL usually defends PI by saying its a judgement call.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
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
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 08:22 PM.
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.
Sure looks like PI to me. Defender clearly has his arm around Davis's right arm.
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 09:17 PM.
Not true. You can't judge these guys as having a bad game when MM had them in prevent the win D the entire second half....counting possessions like a fat kid counts jelly beans. If not for Rodgers scramble.....
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote