More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[vince]

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?

Old school/new school is completely irrelevant terminology and accurately describes nothing with respect to the question at hand, but I get that you're equating old school with ineffective running strategy, an overemphasis (by your opinion) on the game clock, and going "conservative" which you understand to be self-definingly negative. By your perspective, old school is no longer relevant in today's game that emphasizes passing. You've loaded the term so heavily in the negative that it can't possibly be effective.

Taking this definition and your identification of McCarthy with these negative traits, I've researched the reality of the situation, and it turns out that there are extensive, incontrovertable facts about the reality of McCarthy's level of effectiveness in closing games iwth the lead -without regard to any labels applied. Once the negative labels are applied, the facts of the situation prove the negative connotations to be not merely inappropriate but completely and entirely wrong.

I've seen zero evidence, much less a hint of factual results, that even suggest that "New school" approach carries any level of success in closing out leads whatsoever. Your "proof" I'm assuming is your mind's reference to 1 ihighly emotional failure of the "old school" approach. No matter how emotional, one lone exception in the face of 10 times as many proof points doesn't disprove the rule. "Man it felt like it could have failed if the opponent wouldn't have run out of time" doesn't disprove the rule. "if this hypothetical would have happened it would have failed" doesn't disprove the rule. "Man they almost lost." doesn't disprove the rule. "I tell you what if there would have been a fifth quarter in that game, the Packers would have been beat by 2 touchdowns" doesn't disprove the rule. "They blew them out in the first half. McCarthy took his foot off the gas and they ALMOST lost." doesn't disprove the rule. "It worked in the first half" doesn't disprove the rule.

The second half becomes increasingly different situation than the first have as the end of the game nears. That factor, combined with how the point differential is working for or against you and other trends (defensive energy for example comes to mind) potentially change the "winning" strategy. Denying the wisdom of whether and how the "winning" strategy might change as the game ending nears flies directly in the face of two facts. 1) It's pretty much universally accepted that McCarthy changes his approach based on point differential and time remaining, and 2) McCarthy has a 10 year proven track record of elite level success when leading and as the time remaining gets increasingly closer to the end than the beginning.

Your opinion to your "open question" has no basis whatsoever at this point, while you characterize the successful strategy as stupid, out-dated and irrelevant there is extensive and overwhelming factual results over the last 10 years and including the present that prove both its relevance and effectiveness.

Doesn't that at least give you some pause? The approach you're deeming as wrong is in fact, highly successful, while the approach you're deeming as correct has no evidence of success whatsoever, at least that's been offered here. I'd love to see it. I'd say any objective observer would either do more than pause or try to find some evidence of its relevance to the conversation much less limited positive results.

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.
...
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."

It could be argued that throwing on first down was indeed foolish. However, the punitive negative impact of the incompletion on first down (as compared to a run for no gain) absolutely impacts the wisdom of passing again on 2nd down. McCarthy can't control the success or failure of any play as we agree, but his failure to control the negative impact of failure a second time after failing to take that control the play prior would indeed by a foolish decision.

The fact that a coach has very limited control of when and where a failure will occur (he can draw on experience to estimate its chances of happening and to what extent) is EXACTLY the reason they do control what they can - and that is the IMPACT of failure if/when it occurs - late in games with the lead are the instances where doing so is most successful - and failing to do so carries the greatest risk. By minimizing the potential impacts of failure through risk averse decisions, coaches can help position their team to close the game successfully, not in spite of the uncrontrollable factors but by minimizing their negative impacts to the goal of winning the game.