Questions about McCarthy and packers offensive gameplans

[packers04]

Hey ive been thinking about something the last couple weeks and i want you guys to tell me if im on to something here or if im way off base.

in my opinion, theres two different ways to make up offensive gameplans when preparing for a game.

i think one approach is to, do what your team is good at. do what your team does well basically and to hell with who is on the other side of the ball.

i believe the other school of thought is to see what the opponent's defense likes to do and see what their biggest weaknesses are, and formulate a plan to best beat that defense.

approach number 2 is what i believe mccarthy most prescribes to, belicheck is another one that is very well known for this.
i think the downside of second approach is, sometimes you get inconsistency within games like we have seen this year because your players are sometimes doing what they may not be great at. for instance, lets say against the saints, film has shown that if you run out of a 3 or 4 WR set, you should be able to get a lot of yards. but for arguments sake, lets say the packers do not do this well, dont practice it much at all, and its not part of their regular game plan. This is where inconsistency on gameday may rear its head.

now mind you, i am not saying one approach is better than the other approach and that people who prescribe to the first approach do not scout the other team and dont look for its weaknesses im just pointing out differences between the two philosophies.
i guess in conclusion, do you agree at all, and do you think this has affected the packers in any games in the past couple years?
all right im done rambling. thanks .

[Gunakor]

Hey ive been thinking about something the last couple weeks and i want you guys to tell me if im on to something here or if im way off base.

in my opinion, theres two different ways to make up offensive gameplans when preparing for a game.

i think one approach is to, do what your team is good at. do what your team does well basically and to hell with who is on the other side of the ball.

i believe the other school of thought is to see what the opponent's defense likes to do and see what their biggest weaknesses are, and formulate a plan to best beat that defense.

approach number 2 is what i believe mccarthy most prescribes to, belicheck is another one that is very well known for this.
i think the downside of second approach is, sometimes you get inconsistency within games like we have seen this year because your players are sometimes doing what they may not be great at. for instance, lets say against the saints, film has shown that if you run out of a 3 or 4 WR set, you should be able to get a lot of yards. but for arguments sake, lets say the packers do not do this well, dont practice it much at all, and its not part of their regular game plan. This is where inconsistency on gameday may rear its head.

now mind you, i am not saying one approach is better than the other approach and that people who prescribe to the first approach do not scout the other team and dont look for its weaknesses im just pointing out differences between the two philosophies.
i guess in conclusion, do you agree at all, and do you think this has affected the packers in any games in the past couple years?
all right im done rambling. thanks .

I would agree with you, until the Packers ran the ball all over the Bears a couple days ago. The Bears were one of if not the best run defenses in the NFL. The gameplan seemed to be to run at them early and often, which certainly isn't playing to the Bears weakness. Oddly enough, it wasn't really playing to our strength so far this season either. I don't think it really followed either of your scenarios. I think creating a gameplan is more a chess match, where each team formulates a gameplan based on what they think the other is going to do rather than necessarily what they are best at. MM knew that Chicago had a stellar rush defense, but figured that Lovie would concentrate on stopping the pass early in the game. He guessed right, and ran Grant right at them. That's how MM beat Lovie from a coaching standpoint.

[cheesner]

Hey ive been thinking about something the last couple weeks and i want you guys to tell me if im on to something here or if im way off base.

in my opinion, theres two different ways to make up offensive gameplans when preparing for a game.

i think one approach is to, do what your team is good at. do what your team does well basically and to hell with who is on the other side of the ball.

i believe the other school of thought is to see what the opponent's defense likes to do and see what their biggest weaknesses are, and formulate a plan to best beat that defense.

approach number 2 is what i believe mccarthy most prescribes to, belicheck is another one that is very well known for this.
i think the downside of second approach is, sometimes you get inconsistency within games like we have seen this year because your players are sometimes doing what they may not be great at. for instance, lets say against the saints, film has shown that if you run out of a 3 or 4 WR set, you should be able to get a lot of yards. but for arguments sake, lets say the packers do not do this well, dont practice it much at all, and its not part of their regular game plan. This is where inconsistency on gameday may rear its head.

now mind you, i am not saying one approach is better than the other approach and that people who prescribe to the first approach do not scout the other team and dont look for its weaknesses im just pointing out differences between the two philosophies.
i guess in conclusion, do you agree at all, and do you think this has affected the packers in any games in the past couple years?
all right im done rambling. thanks .

I would agree with you, until the Packers ran the ball all over the Bears a couple days ago. The Bears were one of if not the best run defenses in the NFL. The gameplan seemed to be to run at them early and often, which certainly isn't playing to the Bears weakness. Oddly enough, it wasn't really playing to our strength so far this season either. I don't think it really followed either of your scenarios. I think creating a gameplan is more a chess match, where each team formulates a gameplan based on what they think the other is going to do rather than necessarily what they are best at. MM knew that Chicago had a stellar rush defense, but figured that Lovie would concentrate on stopping the pass early in the game. He guessed right, and ran Grant right at them. That's how MM beat Lovie from a coaching standpoint.
I think all coaches go with No. 2 to some degree or another. A coach who doesn't review game film of an opponent and look for opportunities will probably be looking for a new job quickly. The NFL is far to competitive to sacrafice any possible advantage.

It was surprising what the Packers did to the Bears as far as running the ball goes. There must have been some things that they saw on tape that led them to believe they could be successful.

[Patler]

It was surprising what the Packers did to the Bears as far as running the ball goes. There must have been some things that they saw on tape that led them to believe they could be successful.

I had to laugh at McCarthy's post game interview on WTMJ. Larry McCarren asked what made him think they could run on the Bears and if he was surprised they ran so well against one of the top-rated rushing defenses. McCarthy's reply was that they game plan by looking at film for a reason, instead of just coming in, looking at the statistical performances, and selecting plays based on that.

[boiga]

The others have a point, Mobb. Good coaching is the ability to match your strengths against the observed weaknesses of the opponent.

Here's a Chicagoland POV of how we managed to take down the Bears run D.
The Bears could not stop Ryan Grant with their 7-man front in their Cover 2 look, thus Chicago employed a variation of Cover 3 and Cover 1, bringing Brown down to play the flat or cover the Tight End man-to-man on the strong side. How did the Packers respond? Easy, weak side runs, away from the eight defender, and right at the corners-who were so easily pushed downfield by the Green Bay receivers that there was no "edge" to the defense. A corner's job against a run is to beat the wide receiver in front of him (which usually takes nothing more than aggressive play in this league) and turn the play back inside to the defensive pursuit. Yesterday, Vasher was blocked 10 yards downfield, gave a weak attempt at tackling Grant, and saw Corey Graham come into the game, who, responded by giving up a huge run to Grant because he was being worked 15-yards downfield. http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1284087,bears-bowen-111808.article


So M3 saw that the Bears CBs could be manhandled on film and arranged run plays to isolate them against a blocking Packer receiver. Jordy and the others are great blocking receivers who pushed their CB's into the endzone allowing for some big yardage.

It's not one or the other, M3 used our strengths to isolate the Bears weaknesses. It was just good coaching. [/quote]

[Noodle]

Agree, boiga. A real strength of this team is downfield blocking by the receivers. DD digs it, and his attitude has spread among his comrades. Nelson isn't big, but he really knows how to front a CB and keep him on his heels by driving, driving, driving.

That's a Big 12 man for you, folks.

[KYPack]

Agree, boiga. A real strength of this team is downfield blocking by the receivers. DD digs it, and his attitude has spread among his comrades. Nelson isn't big, but he really knows how to front a CB and keep him on his heels by driving, driving, driving.

That's a Big 12 man for you, folks.

Nelson is 6'3", 215 - 220.

He was drafted to give a us a big, fast WR.

Yer right, DD is the heart & soul of that group.

He is one for real tough guy and the other guys feed off him and his play.

Big 12?

What's with that shit?

[gbgary]

What should be the gameplan for New Orleans?

more of the same. the back-to-basics approach worked great. AR had time, the offense kept the ball for long periods allowing the D to stay fresh, and everyone gained confidence. if they go back to wide-open, no protection, empty backfield shit then MM needs fired. AR and the defense will not survive it.

[Noodle]

KY -- dang, Jordy dosen't look no 220, that's bigger (heavier) than TO, but I'm sure he would never be guilty of weight inflation.

And you gotta have love for the Big 12 -- bar none the best conference in college football, and home of some of the most storied programs (Texas, OK, NE) in the nation.

They know how to run and hit in the Big 12. You should check it out sometime.

[Partial]

KY -- dang, Jordy dosen't look no 220, that's bigger (heavier) than TO, but I'm sure he would never be guilty of weight inflation.

And you gotta have love for the Big 12 -- bar none the best conference in college football, and home of some of the most storied programs (Texas, OK, NE) in the nation.

They know how to run and hit in the Big 12. You should check it out sometime.

Don't necessarily agree with the conference argument :D There isn't any football like SEC football!!!

I doubt Jordy's 220, and I doubt TO is only 220. TO is thick front to back and shoulder to shoulder. Jordy doesn't look nearly as thick in either direction.

[packers04]

give nelson a offseason or two of strength training, this guy is gonna be a beast, u can tell he has so much more room to grow on that frame of his.

[Freak Out]

KY -- dang, Jordy dosen't look no 220, that's bigger (heavier) than TO, but I'm sure he would never be guilty of weight inflation.

And you gotta have love for the Big 12 -- bar none the best conference in college football, and home of some of the most storied programs (Texas, OK, NE) in the nation.

They know how to run and hit in the Big 12. You should check it out sometime.

Don't necessarily agree with the conference argument :D There isn't any football like SEC football!!!

I doubt Jordy's 220, and I doubt TO is only 220. TO is thick front to back and shoulder to shoulder. Jordy doesn't look nearly as thick in either direction.

Nelson is growing a beard though and that will always make you bigger and tougher. :)

M3 and the staff did their job and saw a way to attack the opposition and the squads did theirs and executed.....the Bears.

[KYPack]

KY -- dang, Jordy dosen't look no 220, that's bigger (heavier) than TO, but I'm sure he would never be guilty of weight inflation.

And you gotta have love for the Big 12 -- bar none the best conference in college football, and home of some of the most storied programs (Texas, OK, NE) in the nation.

They know how to run and hit in the Big 12. You should check it out sometime.

Actually, Noodle, you win.

Because you made me look. It up, that is.

I did Nelson's stats from memory when he was drafted. Now, I figure I better look it up for real. Nelson and TO are almost the exact same size. Nelson 6'3" 217, TO 6'3" 218. Owens is a nut job & all, but he keeps himself in some sick shape. There isn't an ounce of fat on the guy and he works out like a crazy man.

Nelson may really turn out to be a big thing. He's having a solid rookie year.

Big 12?

Yeah, that conference is having a big year. I really think it's SEC #1, Big 10 #2 and Big 12 #3, most years. Top to bottom the SEC has studs and speed even on it's lower teams. The Big 10 has big mean lineman all the way thru, but the SEC gets the flyers.

This is a Big 12 year so far, and may wind up the greatest year in it's history, which is really saying something.

[Pugger]

I think the best game plan is for a team to do what they do best and tell your opponent to try and stop us. When the guys play like they did against the bares not many teams can stop us. Its a wonder what happens when you block and tackle well, isn't it? :wink: Yes, you game plan to try to take advantage of the your opponents' weaknesses but you should concentrate on YOUR strengths first and foremost.

[Fritz]

The others have a point, Mobb. Good coaching is the ability to match your strengths against the observed weaknesses of the opponent.

Here's a Chicagoland POV of how we managed to take down the Bears run D.
The Bears could not stop Ryan Grant with their 7-man front in their Cover 2 look, thus Chicago employed a variation of Cover 3 and Cover 1, bringing Brown down to play the flat or cover the Tight End man-to-man on the strong side. How did the Packers respond? Easy, weak side runs, away from the eight defender, and right at the corners-who were so easily pushed downfield by the Green Bay receivers that there was no "edge" to the defense. A corner's job against a run is to beat the wide receiver in front of him (which usually takes nothing more than aggressive play in this league) and turn the play back inside to the defensive pursuit. Yesterday, Vasher was blocked 10 yards downfield, gave a weak attempt at tackling Grant, and saw Corey Graham come into the game, who, responded by giving up a huge run to Grant because he was being worked 15-yards downfield. http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1284087,bears-bowen-111808.article


So M3 saw that the Bears CBs could be manhandled on film and arranged run plays to isolate them against a blocking Packer receiver. Jordy and the others are great blocking receivers who pushed their CB's into the endzone allowing for some big yardage.

It's not one or the other, M3 used our strengths to isolate the Bears weaknesses. It was just good coaching. [/quote]

Aha - a light bulb just went on for me. How cool. Here's the thing: this might - I say might - also explain why James Jones was active for this game. I thought I'd read somewhere that he was a pretty good blocker. Thus it makes sense for him to be in the game, blocking the corners.

As for Packer04, he does have a point. Some guy named Lombardi made a living running the plays his teams were good at, and daring the other side to stop it. There is something to be said for doing what you do well. And there is also a legitimate point of view that says you play to the opponents' weaknesses. Thus, both are possibilities.

[boiga]

Aha - a light bulb just went on for me. How cool. Here's the thing: this might - I say might - also explain why James Jones was active for this game. I thought I'd read somewhere that he was a pretty good blocker. Thus it makes sense for him to be in the game, blocking the corners

I don't really think that had much to do with Jones. Ruvell is generally the better down field blocker and he was inactive against the Bears. McCarthy simply thought that Jones needed more opportunities to prove he can he can contribute and stay healthy.