MM's Dallas Gameplan Sucked?

[Fritz]

I have a friend who believes that MM's offensive gameplan played right to the Cowboys' strengths. He believes MM did not run enough, spread formations too much for passing, and so played into Dallas's pass-rushing ability. The friend points out that the Packers' rushing average was pretty decent, yet MM seemed to be unwilling to commit to the run.

What do you think? Is this loss on McCarthy? Are we seeing a pattern of a coach who is afraid to use the run when he needs to use the run? (See Giants game last winter.)

[ahaha]

I think the defensive game plan was good. Try to take away Owens and Witton, and hope the front 7 can limit the run and get decent pressure on Romo. For all the success Barber had, it didn't lead to that many points in the first half. By the end of the 3rd, the D was tired, had multiple injuries to the secondary, and they burned us with a few big plays.
The spread on offense wasn't too bad in the first half. They moved the ball, just couldn't get it in the red zone. The offense really lost steam in the second half when they were down to only 3 healthy receivers.

[pbmax]

Your friend needs to read the recent McCarthy thread and the gameday thread where the Rats agree the problem was the gameplan, but it was too much running, not too little running :lol:

I agree to a degree with your friend that more running might have helped, but in the fourth quarter and behind by two scores tends to reduce the opportunity to run so as to save the clock. 21 runs out of 64 total plays isn't balanced, but 15 of those passes came late and down by two scores.

I think the gameplan is an easy out when looking to assign blame for a loss. The fact is that we didn't pass block as well as we can and it seemed Rodgers struggled when we had to keep extra blockers in. The fewer receivers in a route, the harder he seemed to work to find an open receiver.

The only gameplan question I have is the multiple receiver set in shotgun, where the TE and RB are kept in to block. What went wrong with the 3 receiver routes?

[Zool]

I think its amazing that a HC is a genius when the team wins and a moron when the team loses. Gotta have players execute and out-guess the coaches on the other side constantly during the game.

[sharpe1027]

Running the ball is all about sustaining drives. You can't establish the run if you can't convert 3rd downs. GB was 4-14 on 3rd downs. Call it game plan or execution. Either way, IMO, that was the problem.

[mraynrand]

In his evaluation of the Packers, McGinn was critical of the predictability of the offense. Two backs - run, four wideouts - pass. I suspect that some of this is to keep things relatively simple for Rodgers. Let's be honest - Rodgers is playing GREAT, great for a guy just starting his first three games. But he's not going to see every damn thing out there and be able to adjust right away. So MM has to bring him along without getting him killed or losing his confidence. So that means a bit more vanilla, a bit more predictability, at least in the short term.

[pbmax]

That is a critique I can believe in. And it will get better as Rodgers gets more experience.


In his evaluation of the Packers, McGinn was critical of the predictability of the offense. Two backs - run, four wideouts - pass. I suspect that some of this is to keep things relatively simple for Rodgers. Let's be honest - Rodgers is playing GREAT, great for a guy just starting his first three games. But he's not going to see every damn thing out there and be able to adjust right away. So MM has to bring him along without getting him killed or losing his confidence. So that means a bit more vanilla, a bit more predictability, at least in the short term.

[mmmdk]

That is a critique I can believe in. And it will get better as Rodgers gets more experience.


In his evaluation of the Packers, McGinn was critical of the predictability of the offense. Two backs - run, four wideouts - pass. I suspect that some of this is to keep things relatively simple for Rodgers. Let's be honest - Rodgers is playing GREAT, great for a guy just starting his first three games. But he's not going to see every damn thing out there and be able to adjust right away. So MM has to bring him along without getting him killed or losing his confidence. So that means a bit more vanilla, a bit more predictability, at least in the short term.

This is a good read; I think you're both right.

[Pugger]

We were handicaped offensively on Sunday with only 3 WRs and 3 RBs healthy, especially in the second half. If you deploy one of these fellas to help block and Dallas has 6 DBs back there it ain't easy trying to pass. We had a few decent runs there but just not enough of them. :?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Here is a revolutionary thought: The Cowboys are just plain better than us. They have better talent, more experienced talent, and are gonna beat us 7 out of 10 times.

[texaspackerbacker]

Here's something even more revolutionary. I agree with Tyrone.

[mmmdk]

Here is a revolutionary thought: The Cowboys are just plain better than us. They have better talent, more experienced talent, and are gonna beat us 7 out of 10 times.

Yup...7 out of 10 Cowgirls...so we could win 3 in row right? 8-)

[pbmax]

And the apocalypse starts in 3...... 2...... 1......


Cue the demons!

[mmmdk]

And the apocalypse starts in 3...... 2...... 1......


Cue the demons!

Is it now?

Don't you say: 3...... 2...... 1......NOW or GO!?

Palin might be a demon so the demons could be here already - just a thought.

[MadtownPacker]

I agree to a degree with your friend that more running might have helped, but in the fourth quarter and behind by two scores tends to reduce the opportunity to run so as to save the clock. 21 runs out of 64 total plays isn't balanced, but 15 of those passes came late and down by two scores.Fritz buddy is saying what I did in that M3 thread I made. I didnt even check the stats but if youre saying 64 plays minus 15 late game passes = about 21 runs and 28 passes early. What is the break down if you just do the fist half?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Here is a revolutionary thought: The Cowboys are just plain better than us. They have better talent, more experienced talent, and are gonna beat us 7 out of 10 times.

Yup...7 out of 10 Cowgirls...so we could win 3 in row right? 8-)

Anything is possible, but if you want to take solace in us winning 3 in a row, i'd find it much more depressing to lose 7 in a row.

[pbmax]

I agree to a degree with your friend that more running might have helped, but in the fourth quarter and behind by two scores tends to reduce the opportunity to run so as to save the clock. 21 runs out of 64 total plays isn't balanced, but 15 of those passes came late and down by two scores.Fritz buddy is saying what I did in that M3 thread I made. I didnt even check the stats but if youre saying 64 plays minus 15 late game passes = about 21 runs and 28 passes early. What is the break down if you just do the fist half?
Fritz's friend said we needed to run more. Your thread mentioned running too much on 1st and 2nd down. So I don't see the similarity, but to answer the question:

1st Half: 23 plays, 13 pass, 8 run, 2 punts

2nd Half: 42 plays, 26 pass, 13 run, 3 punts

The simple answer is not that we ran too much or passed too little, we didn't make enough first downs. And that is depressing considering that against a very good D line, we ran the ball fine. So the number of third and astronomical downs was low, and usually caused by penalty.

[MJZiggy]

That is a critique I can believe in. And it will get better as Rodgers gets more experience.


In his evaluation of the Packers, McGinn was critical of the predictability of the offense. Two backs - run, four wideouts - pass. I suspect that some of this is to keep things relatively simple for Rodgers. Let's be honest - Rodgers is playing GREAT, great for a guy just starting his first three games. But he's not going to see every damn thing out there and be able to adjust right away. So MM has to bring him along without getting him killed or losing his confidence. So that means a bit more vanilla, a bit more predictability, at least in the short term.

The other problem is that your best runningback is playing through a hammy right now. M3 isn't gonna overuse him and Jackson, while improving, still isn't as slippery as Grant.

[oregonpackfan]

Here's something even more revolutionary. I agree with Tyrone.

Dang! Texas and Tyrone agree on something? Next thing you know they will go shopping together at the mall. :lol:

Actually, I agree with both posters. The Cowboys at game 3 were superior to the Packers in almost every aspect of the game--Oline, Dline, secondary, running backs, etc.

[SnakeLH2006]

That is a critique I can believe in. And it will get better as Rodgers gets more experience.


In his evaluation of the Packers, McGinn was critical of the predictability of the offense. Two backs - run, four wideouts - pass. I suspect that some of this is to keep things relatively simple for Rodgers. Let's be honest - Rodgers is playing GREAT, great for a guy just starting his first three games. But he's not going to see every damn thing out there and be able to adjust right away. So MM has to bring him along without getting him killed or losing his confidence. So that means a bit more vanilla, a bit more predictability, at least in the short term.

The other problem is that your best runningback is playing through a hammy right now. M3 isn't gonna overuse him and Jackson, while improving, still isn't as slippery as Grant.

Wasn't M3 raving about Lumpy last week, yet why doesn't he get some carries. Grant at 60% is worthless as he has not proven he can be effective when banged up. Until he heals, get him off the field.

[SnakeLH2006]

Direct reply to topic: yep.

[theeaterofshades]

[quote="MJZiggy"][quote=pbmax]
Wasn't M3 raving about Lumpy last week, yet why doesn't he get some carries. Grant at 60% is worthless as he has not proven he can be effective when banged up. Until he heals, get him off the field.

I think Lumpy had a hammy problem which is why he didn't get carries

[pbmax]

Wasn't M3 raving about Lumpy last week, yet why doesn't he get some carries. Grant at 60% is worthless as he has not proven he can be effective when banged up. Until he heals, get him off the field.



I think Lumpy had a hammy problem which is why he didn't get carries
Hey, don't make me start to complain about being misquoted in my own forum! :shock: