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

[vince]

Perhaps...it doesn't change the other proven fact that the run that lost 5 yards...which was also unsuccessful last week on a moronic 4th down attempt...needs to be taken away from Stubby because he can't use it properly.

That run that Spriggs whiffed on was unsuccessful in gaining yards. It was successful in keeping them within field goal range and it forced Dallas to use their second timeout which was most important.

Having only one timeout left on Dallas' final drive helped the defense out by making it risky to use the middle of the field without a timeout to spare besides the one they would need to keep in their back pocket to make sure they can stop the clock to get the field goal team on the field.

Dallas did use the middle of the field to drive rather quickly down the field. BUT that run which protected the opportunity for the go-ahead field goal ALSO helped the defense just enough by forcing Dak to spike the ball on the last first down rather than take the time out they needed to save, which wasted what turned out to be a very important down for them and allowed just enough time on the clock for the Packers to secure the win.

That's what we know. Some hypothetical alternative to that success is nothing but hot air.

[pbmax]

That run that Spriggs whiffed on was unsuccessful in gaining yards. It was successful in keeping them within field goal range and it forced Dallas to use their second timeout which was most important.
.

But it made the FG more difficult. It was already at the end of his effective range.

I like being aggressive here, especially facing another 50 yard FG. So I don't want him to kneel. But run-run-run in heavy packages invites the kind of loss of yardage that happened to the 4 minute offense in Seattle. This was a repeat. And even more predictable. The D is going to shoot gaps to make this happen.

Tactically, I understand. Lowest possible chance of turnover, still chance of gaining yards, drain the clock/TO. But when you telegraph your play AND you stink out loud in short yardage, you seriously lower any chance of yardage gained and increase the risk of losing yardage for your kicker.

You have to match the tactics to the opponent and to the game situation. The Packers have seen Crosby miss these long ones before. Its not a done deal from 50+ yards out and they do not have a lead to fall back on.

Trust your QB while calling a conservative, heavier run package. Don't pull the plug once you hit 50 yard FG range.

[Fritz]

But it made the FG more difficult. It was already at the end of his effective range.

I like being aggressive here, especially facing another 50 yard FG. So I don't want him to kneel. But run-run-run in heavy packages invites the kind of loss of yardage that happened to the 4 minute offense in Seattle. This was a repeat. And even more predictable. The D is going to shoot gaps to make this happen.

Tactically, I understand. Lowest possible chance of turnover, still chance of gaining yards, drain the clock/TO. But when you telegraph your play AND you stink out loud in short yardage, you seriously lower any chance of yardage gained and increase the risk of losing yardage for your kicker.

You have to match the tactics to the opponent and to the game situation. The Packers have seen Crosby miss these long ones before. Its not a done deal from 50+ yards out and they do not have a lead to fall back on.

Trust your QB while calling a conservative, heavier run package. Don't pull the plug once you hit 50 yard FG range.

What he say.

This is the best-articulated criticism I've seen of that second run call.

And is this the second time Jason Spriggs has missed a block on one of these types of runs in the last two weeks? That big, "this is it" moment?

[vince]

But it made the FG more difficult. It was already at the end of his effective range.

I like being aggressive here, especially facing another 50 yard FG. So I don't want him to kneel. But run-run-run in heavy packages invites the kind of loss of yardage that happened to the 4 minute offense in Seattle. This was a repeat. And even more predictable. The D is going to shoot gaps to make this happen.

Tactically, I understand. Lowest possible chance of turnover, still chance of gaining yards, drain the clock/TO. But when you telegraph your play AND you stink out loud in short yardage, you seriously lower any chance of yardage gained and increase the risk of losing yardage for your kicker.

You have to match the tactics to the opponent and to the game situation. The Packers have seen Crosby miss these long ones before. Its not a done deal from 50+ yards out and they do not have a lead to fall back on.

Trust your QB while calling a conservative, heavier run package. Don't pull the plug once you hit 50 yard FG range.

What you have to do is win the game. A 5-yard loss as a result of a complete whiff of a block still helped win that game. The way the game played out from there, an incompletion in that same circumstance may well have helped lose it. At minimum, it very likely would have eliminated the Packers final game-winning drive.

[bobblehead]

That run that Spriggs whiffed on was unsuccessful in gaining yards. It was successful in keeping them within field goal range and it forced Dallas to use their second timeout which was most important.

Having only one timeout left on Dallas' final drive helped the defense out by making it risky to use the middle of the field without a timeout to spare besides the one they would need to keep in their back pocket to make sure they can stop the clock to get the field goal team on the field.

Dallas did use the middle of the field to drive rather quickly down the field. BUT that run which protected the opportunity for the go-ahead field goal ALSO helped the defense just enough by forcing Dak to spike the ball on the last first down rather than take the time out they needed to save, which wasted what turned out to be a very important down for them and allowed just enough time on the clock for the Packers to secure the win.

That's what we know. Some hypothetical alternative to that success is nothing but hot air.

Kept us in FG range?? A 56 yarder is hardly the way I want to sew the game up. He owes Crosby a handy at minimum!

Edit:...I'm actually not done yet. Needed a 56 yard and 51 yard FG to be successful, and needed Rodgers to complete a ridiculous pass for a huge chunk of yards down the sideline. Did it work? Sure, but I guess you could say Pete Carroll was flawless in the NFCC against us because his team covered the onside kick.

[vince]

Kept us in FG range?? A 56 yarder is hardly the way I want to sew the game up. He owes Crosby a handy at minimum!

Edit:...I'm actually not done yet. Needed a 56 yard and 51 yard FG to be successful, and needed Rodgers to complete a ridiculous pass for a huge chunk of yards down the sideline. Did it work? Sure, but I guess you could say Pete Carroll was flawless in the NFCC against us because his team covered the onside kick.

Yes, Crosby nailed the field goals - all of them. Equally important to the successful conclusion of this game was the forcing of Dallas to use thier spare timeouts, which made possible the final game-winning drive and a huge playoff upset on the road.

The rest is all here in this thread bobble so I'm done using the reality of success to defend against one-sided fantasy scenarios. Sorry pal.

[pbmax]

In reality, I also acknowledge that we are arguing about a very fine line. McCarthy playing for FG probably is, overall, a maximizing win play under 3 minutes. Maybe even 4. Especially if that gives you a 4 point lead or greater.

We are talking about greater aggression on 2-4 play calls a game at most and the Packes usually have a big lead.

And no, to repeat, I don't want to change the coach. if there are 7 other coaching candidates who could do as well as McCarthy I would be surprised. Even more so if the Packers found him.