More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[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.

[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.

[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...