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

[pbmax]

Smeef for Pres. Just changing spots in the draft makes a huge difference. Guys like Ryan Shazier, C.J. Mosely and a whole bunch of other completely unknowable guys would be Packers if they drafted in different order each year. Who knows? The one thing we do know is that the team would look almost completely different had Thompson not drafted Rodgers. Hell, the whole Favre scenario gets turned completely upside-down.

Now we're entering twilight zone territory with irrelevant hypothetical speculation...

One thing about Ted's approach to coaching and Smeefers mention of Marty Schottenheimer.

Stability is a good thing, but inertia might be your enemy. If Marty had made methodical progress as a HC to overcome his conservative game management (and reflexive, abrupt and not well considered attempts to mix things up) he would likely have had more playoff success.

I am not sure how much of this is Ted, but McCarthy has changed things up and leaned new tricks. It has made him a better coach. This year, with a Defense on the fritz, he has even taken to valuing first downs well into his 4 minute offense.

Like the Steelers approach, keeping a good coach and making him a better one is the mark of a franchise that will continue to be successful.

[Carolina_Packer]

I'll call BS on this. Nobody wants the outcome of Jairus Byrd, but opening day of free agency this is exactly what the #neverTT crowd is howling for. A big cap casualty star from another team. When Ted grabs an unknown journeyman or a cut player like Peppers/Cook it seemingly does nothing to temper the tightwad ted criticism.

The very idea that Cook, a guy Ted signed and who proved to be under-valued, is indicative that there are even more under-valued gems to be discovered is based in what exactly? The value of any player is based on the interest of 32 GMs. To land an under-valued player at all you need to out perform other GMs. To speculate that there is a significant pool of Jared Cook level veteran difference makers that represent great value and a good fit seems like a fantasy but even given that such a pool exists to expect Ted to collect these under-valued veterans is to ask him to outperform all other GMs with regards to each one of them.

I think there is a form of mistaking correlation for causation here. Ted's infrequent attempts but consistent success in free agency does not mean free agents by nature are successful and this could be scaled up with more attempts. A criticism to be taken seriously would be one that dealt with opportunity costs. For instance an example of resigning of his own free agent who would have been better to cut loose in favor of another specific free agent.

I'm sure you are right that there are some on the board who would support a "day one of free agent, lots of guaranteed money" type of signing. I don't happen to be one of them. I mostly agree with the approach taken, and how could you not argue with the results overall since TT/MM have been in charge; many good points also made by Smeefers.

My point is that I would be in favor of looking for more veteran free agents to sprinkle into the mix; ones that do not come with a lot of guaranteed money, and could prove their fit with the team, and then be rewarded. I'm not saying I know from year to year if there are a pool of those types of players. I don't know whether TT and Co. considers guys who would fall into this category, who end up getting one year deals, and then prove their worth, ala Cook. Obviously there would only be certain positions you would go after, as well. For instance, Brandon Boykin signed with the Bears for basically one year at about the minimum, and we kept Demetri Goodson who has yet to show that he looks comfortable playing in the scheme. I'm not arguing for Boykin, I'm just saying if guys like him who have showed they can already play are available to provide depth instead of a guy like Demetri Goodson who has yet to have it click for him, why not have that be your depth instead? I'd feel much better putting a guy like Boykin in as an injury replacement. If guys like Boykin are available year to year and TT just shows little or no interest, then he'll never know if he can find someone to help make a difference. I would take my chances with a Brandon Boykin type (experience/reasonable money) vs. someone like Demetri Goodson who is clearly a project.

I also like the point that some guys would do better when joined with some of our existing talent and coaching staff.

[Fritz]

One thing about Ted's approach to coaching and Smeefers mention of Marty Schottenheimer.

Stability is a good thing, but inertia might be your enemy. If Marty had made methodical progress as a HC to overcome his conservative game management (and reflexive, abrupt and not well considered attempts to mix things up) he would likely have had more playoff success.

I am not sure how much of this is Ted, but McCarthy has changed things up and leaned new tricks. It has made him a better coach. This year, with a Defense on the fritz, he has even taken to valuing first downs well into his 4 minute offense.

Like the Steelers approach, keeping a good coach and making him a better one is the mark of a franchise that will continue to be successful.

This defense in not "on the fritz." It might be on The Fritz's mom, though.

I thought MM called a masterful game right up until that second run at the end, that loss of four. I wanted, very badly, for that to be a play fake and for Rodgers to hit a ten-yarder and keep the drive and the clock moving.

[pbmax]

This defense in not "on the fritz." It might be on The Fritz's mom, though.

I thought MM called a masterful game right up until that second run at the end, that loss of four. I wanted, very badly, for that to be a play fake and for Rodgers to hit a ten-yarder and keep the drive and the clock moving.

If he had hit a 3 yarder, would have made odds of winning game better. That one hurt.

[texaspackerbacker]

My take on our positional ranking right now (after injuries) vrs the league for the season. This will handicap teds work as we are pretty beat up in a few areas.
QB - top 5
OL - top 5
Rb - top 15
WR - top 10
TE - Top 10
DL - top 15
ILB - top 25
OLB top 20
CB- Top 30 (maybe)
S - top 10 (assuming burnett plays, top 20 if not)
K- top 5
P - top 20
KR- top 15
PR - top 15
Gunner - Top 20

So out of the ten main position groupings, after injuries, we have 6 above average, 4 below average. My rankings are a combuination of who would I rather have and Football outsiders and pro football focus rankings.
To me, this means we are at the least, after injuries, still above average.

That's a pretty fair assessment. I'd say you are a little to the good side at DL and a little to the low side on OLB but all in all, fairly close. That spells average or maybe slightly above. Furthermore, I would say the receivers and O Line are only as high as they are because of the way Aaron Rodgers plays.

[vince]

If he had hit a 3 yarder, would have made odds of winning game better. That one hurt.

That one did NOT hurt. It helped them WIN THE GAME.

A successful three-yard (or ten-yard) pass would also have helped, but carried the added cost of putting the Cowboys in FAR BETTER position to win the game if the pass were defended or dropped as Richard Rodgers had done just two plays earlier.

To assume a hypothetical pass play would have been successful as justification against the actual play that was successful despite losing yardage is ridiculous.

[vince]

How some people can watch the reality of overwhelming success but somehow rationalize failure in their mind is a real mystery to me - both in terms of coaching and general management.

As JH says in the thread title, "...fans who live in fantasy"

[pbmax]

That one did NOT hurt. It helped them WIN THE GAME.

A successful three-yard (or ten-yard) pass would also have helped, but carried the added cost of putting the Cowboys in FAR BETTER position to win the game if the pass were defended or dropped as Richard Rodgers had done just two plays earlier.

To assume a hypothetical pass play would have been successful as justification against the actual play that was successful despite losing yardage is ridiculous.

You are assuming a 56 yard FG attempt is a probable make. I think its about 50% for Mase this year. Its 56.7% for the League in 2016.

[pbmax]

How some people can watch the reality of overwhelming success but somehow rationalize failure in their mind is a real mystery to me - both in terms of coaching and general management.

As JH says in the thread title, "...fans who live in fantasy"

For his career, Mason Crosby is 28 of 54 from 50 and beyond. If you told McCarthy he was going to lose 5 yards at the 34 yard line, he would have changed the play.

That is 51.8 percent success.

[vince]

You are assuming a 56 yard FG attempt is a probably make. I think its about 50% for Mase this year. Its 56.7% for the League in 2016.

Obviously McCarthy would have preferred yard gainage over Spriggs' whiff. But that's fanboy after-the-fact second-guessing.

McCarthy's finger on the pulse of his team and confidence in his guy in this situation was well placed and correct. Indoor stadium, no wind, plenty of leg, very consistent year, brimming with confidence, etc., etc. Your lack thereof based on past percentages going back many years in a wide variety of situations proved to be wrong and out of touch. Maintaining you were right after the facts prove the opposite is very hard to understand - the height of stubbornness perhaps...

P.S. - perhaps it was just this kind of belief, confidence and overall approach from McCarthy had some role in inspiring Crosby's confidence and methodical success in nailing three consecutive clutch kicks from 50+. The stats you cite would indicate that being VERY unlikely but Crosby was, in fact, money - repeatedly - in that environment, time, and situation. Crosby did it of course, but his coach was absolutely right in believing he would.

[hoosier]

Obviously McCarthy would have preferred yard gainage over Spriggs' whiff. But that's fanboy after-the-fact second-guessing.

McCarthy's finger on the pulse of his team and confidence in his guy in this situation was well placed and correct. Indoor stadium, no wind, plenty of leg, very consistent year, brimming with confidence, etc., etc. Your lack thereof based on past percentages going back many years in a wide variety of situations proved to be wrong and out of touch. Maintaining you were right after the facts prove the opposite is very hard to understand - the height of stubbornness perhaps...

P.S. - perhaps it was just this kind of belief, confidence and overall approach from McCarthy had some role in inspiring Crosby's confidence and methodical success in nailing three consecutive clutch kicks from 50+. The stats you cite would indicate that being VERY unlikely but Crosby was, in fact, money - repeatedly - in that environment, time, and situation. Crosby did it of course, but his coach was absolutely right in believing he would.

One could just as easily say that you are thinking like a results merchant. Just because the end result was good doesn't mean that the chain of decisions that led up to it was the percentage play. In this particular case things worked out, but what would we be thinking if Dallas had marched down the field and scored a TD or if the game had gone to OT?

[pbmax]

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.

[vince]

One could just as easily say that you are thinking like a results merchant. Just because the end result was good doesn't mean that the chain of decisions that led up to it was the percentage play. In this particular case things worked out, but what would we be thinking if Dallas had marched down the field and scored a TD or if the game had gone to OT?

Thank you. Results are real - and what matters. Saying, "Had the results been different, I'd have been right. Therefore, I am right." is not based in reality.

The results McCarthy has achieved successfully finishing games at the world's highest level of this sport - more effective than every other play-caller in the last six years - are also real.

Yet people continue to insist that, "If he wasn't so effective, he'd be ineffective. Therefore, he sucks in those situations." or, "Man. He was ALMOST ineffective if I cherry-pick the two plays that didn't "work" (according to my definition) and divine some non-real greater success in those plays (or non-real subsequent failure "averted") with an alternative strategy. Therefore, he sucks - despite the fact that he's actually proven to be the league's most effective at driving the desired results in those situations."

Regarding your hypothetical failure scenario, hoosier, isn't it ironic that none of the Stubby Crew recognizes (I won't say "understands" because in most cases I know better) that - in reality - that's EXACTLY the scenario that McCarthy helped avoid with his approach in that situation?

It could have happened (but didn't thanks to the significant impact McCarthy's play selection actually had on offsetting those possibilities), therefore McCarthy doesn't know how to deal with that situation/can't "think on the fly" I believe he was characterized/etc., etc.

Or, "It happened in Seattle and I'll choose to ignore the other 110 similar situations which had a different result, therefore he's incompetent."

Surely people can see the futility in that kind of logic, no?

McCarthy's consistent success thinking on the fly, at times against "percentages" is, in reality, a significant strength and a foundation of this team's confidence, togetherness, momentum, achievement, etc. The actual results of this game - combined with his entire history of elite success - demonstrate that. That's reality and those are the results he takes to the bank - despite the second-guessing fantasy crew.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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....

[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.

[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