4th and 1

[packers11]

is this madden? just saying...

[packers11]

I had a huge rant written out but I don't like posting while emotions are still high... I'm surprised no one else is making a bigger deal out of that last drive...

[gbgary]

they've done this for several years. need a short high percentage pass for a first down and they go deep. it's maddening.

[Packers4Glory]

just like every short yardage situation this yr. dumb-ass play calling and/or decisions.

[mmmdk]

I had a huge rant written out but I don't like posting while emotions are still high... I'm surprised no one else is making a bigger deal out of that last drive...

Wise choice.

I think some sort of reality is sinking in.

[Cheesehead Craig]

That kind of play is just too damn common with MM. It's been infuriating for the whole season and I think we're just more numb to it now.

[rbaloha1]

Wise choice.

I think some sort of reality is sinking in.

Yes, the Packers are not going to the playoffs and MM needs to be fired. Retain Capers.

[Teamcheez1]

It's hard to take anything good from this game. We couldn't beat a 2-10 Lions team with their 3rd string QB. What is MM's record in close games now?

[Packers4Glory]

Yes, the Packers are not going to the playoffs and MM needs to be fired. Retain Capers.

as head coach?

[rbaloha1]

as head coach?

Unsure.

[mmmdk]

It's hard to take anything good from this game. We couldn't beat a 2-10 Lions team with their 3rd string QB. What is MM's record in close games now?

I posted the stats on close games on the old packerrats site; McCarthy is below .400 in close games including play offs.

[Tony Oday]

I liked the play...the ball is one foot shorter and we win the game.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

If the game is close just know packer fans that another stomach-turing loss is on the way. Thats why they say good team win close games. There is a reason why we never win close games, its not just bad luck. Either get rid of MM or hire a OC. Let him focus on game management and stop calling plays b/c he obviously can't do both.

[rbaloha1]

I posted the stats on close games on the old packerrats site; McCarthy is below .400 in close games including play offs.

Good stat. Clearly MM is not the coach to lead the Packers to the Super Bowl. MM's strength is mentoring qbs not calling plays in critical times.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Good stat. Clearly MM is not the coach to lead the Packers to the Super Bowl. MM's strength is mentoring qbs not calling plays in critical times.

+1. Good QB coach. Bad HC.

[retailguy]

+1. Good QB coach. Bad HC.


Good stat. Clearly MM is not the coach to lead the Packers to the Super Bowl. MM's strength is mentoring qbs not calling plays in critical times.

McCarthy is not going anywhere. We got what we got.

The best hope we have is that he is forced to give up playcalling duties, but that's not likely either..

[rbaloha1]

McCarthy is not going anywhere. We got what we got.

The best hope we have is that he is forced to give up playcalling duties, but that's not likely either..

What happens if the Packers end-up 8-8?

[MJZiggy]

I liked the play...the ball is one foot shorter and we win the game.

I loved the play on third down. On fourth, a nice dumpoff to get a couple yards and we're still in the game.

[retailguy]

What happens if the Packers end-up 8-8?

Nothing. Maybe we get a few new assistants or McCarthy gives playcalling to someone else, but there has been too many injuries for a change to be made, even if they lose out non-competitively.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

THe play I hated the most was the run on 2nd and 1. I mean how many failed attempts do you need before you should understand that we can't run the ball. We were moving the ball very well in the air that drive and that play just messed everything up. Should have just kept passing.

[retailguy]

THe play I hated the most was the run on 2nd and 1. I mean how many failed attempts do you need before you should understand that we can't run the ball. We were moving the ball very well in the air that drive and that play just messed everything up. Should have just kept passing.

While we didn't run well today, we can run the ball. McCarthy stubbornly has moved from the run game in a few instances where it worked. I personally believe he is under utilizing Kuhn. I was also disappointed that Starks only got six carries.

But you cannot ignore the impact that Suh had on the game today. It was impossible to run inside with the penetration he got on Wells. It was pathetic. Wells worst game in over a year. The short yardage play book was unusable today.

[channtheman]

That kind of play is just too damn common with MM. It's been infuriating for the whole season and I think we're just more numb to it now.

Pretty much. All you hear is "we want to be in 3rd and short" yet all we get is the big bomb that you could throw an ANY down. Just hope we can win our last 2 games and get some luck with the other potential playoff teams in the NFC. We will lose to NE.

[Noodle]

I loved the play on third down. On fourth, a nice dumpoff to get a couple yards and we're still in the game.

This is wisdom.

So Zigs, what are you doing next week? Hows about being MM's play-calling assistant?

[OS PA]

I loved the play on third down. On fourth, a nice dumpoff to get a couple yards and we're still in the game.

Exactly. I don't understand the decision at all. McCarthy said that on a 4th and 1 he called a played that had a decent chance at resulting in a big play. I wonder what the stats sheet says the odds are on scoring a touchdown from 30 yards out on 4th and 1. Would you rather have a decent shot at scoring on 4th and 1 or have 4 more shots at scoring if you pick up the first down? Just dumb.

[Patler]

One would think that somewhere in the 500 page game plan the Packers had for the Lions there was a high percentage play that would net the yard that was needed.

[wpony]

I was so mad i have not talked to anyone or anything since MM called that play . I would not even had been for it had arod still been on the field.all we need was one yard to keep the chains moving.TT should be so angry right now at MM at this weeks meeting he threw the whole seas om away in that one play .
our only chance after arod went down was to knock Stanton silly the rest of the game but MM just is to vanilla to do anything :(

[LEWCWA]

I understand the frustration watching that ball fall incomplete, but i loved the call. I'm sure there were short routes on the play to pick up the yard, but Jennings was one on one and wide open. Flynn didn't do his job. If he puts the ball in the right place touchdown Packers steal one. He made the right read, just didn't execute.

[Scott Campbell]

I liked the play...the ball is one foot shorter and we win the game.


The really bizarre part of that play call was that they had just used a timeout. So if complete, they would have scored immediately and left a ton of time on the clock for Detroit.

[Scott Campbell]

I understand the frustration watching that ball fall incomplete, but i loved the call. I'm sure there were short routes on the play to pick up the yard, but Jennings was one on one and wide open. Flynn didn't do his job. If he puts the ball in the right place touchdown Packers steal one. He made the right read, just didn't execute.


That's a low percentage 4th and 1 throw no matter who is throwing it.

[Pugger]

If the play works MM is a genius. The reason we lost the game is turnovers. We turned the ball over 3 times when we were in a position to score. You can't do that against any team in this league and expect to win. End of story.

[Patler]

If the play works MM is a genius. The reason we lost the game is turnovers. We turned the ball over 3 times when we were in a position to score. You can't do that against any team in this league and expect to win. End of story.

Not sure if he looks like a genius, or just fortunate.

[mmmdk]

If the play works MM is a genius. The reason we lost the game is turnovers. We turned the ball over 3 times when we were in a position to score. You can't do that against any team in this league and expect to win. End of story.

Sure, I see your point, but stop with the "genius" tag on McCarthy - who'd crown him that?

[Pugger]

Not sure if he looks like a genius, or just fortunate.

I was being slightly sarcastic. That call on 4th and 1 wasn't his best by any stretch but the biggest reason we lost in my mind is turnovers over MM's playcalling.

[pbmax]

The Packers, especially on that turf, could not control the line of scrimmage and could not run. See previous runs in that drive on 2nd and short and 3rd and short. A 3rd string LG and a LT and RT who were struggling.

So that means pass and the Lions know it. The Lions are either going to blitz the house or play short coverage. They played coverage and left the intermediate and deep wide open. You can keep banging your head against the strength of the defense and throw into multiple defenders with the backup quarterback or you can give him a wide open wide receiver. The play worked as designed, the player didn't.

Is it wise to trust that QB? There was no other choice, no matter what patterns you call. He needed to make a throw. Either threaded through coverage or deep.

The problem with McCarthy's game planning is that it is dependent on the identified weakness of the defense. When the defense either covers up that weakness (Atlanta) or your players cannot execute the necessary plays (Lions), there is no backup plan this year. Formerly, Grant was often the backup plan. Finley would have been that backup plan this year.

You can win with that one dimensional offense, but not with a poorly performing O line and the backup QB. So much for being a turf team.

The game was lost long before that play. And it was lost for the same reasons that meant that play call might have been the best idea.

[retailguy]

I was being slightly sarcastic. That call on 4th and 1 wasn't his best by any stretch but the biggest reason we lost in my mind is turnovers over MM's playcalling.

I have a different take on this. When your players aren't executing well on the field, and you can't run the ball because your OL can't play well, it is up to YOU as the playcaller to put your team in a position where they are successful by calling plays that they can execute. McCarthy's playcalling did not do that. I see this loss as completely on him, as I do any member of the OL.

[Pugger]

If your O line is stinking out the joint what can a playcaller do? I will put the loss on MM for keeping a crappy O line coach who can't get these gentlemen to run block worth a damn but not on MM's playcalling.

[Patler]

The Packers, especially on that turf, could not control the line of scrimmage and could not run. See previous runs in that drive on 2nd and short and 3rd and short. A 3rd string LG and a LT and RT who were struggling.

So that means pass and the Lions know it. The Lions are either going to blitz the house or play short coverage. They played coverage and left the intermediate and deep wide open. You can keep banging your head against the strength of the defense and throw into multiple defenders with the backup quarterback or you can give him a wide open wide receiver. The play worked as designed, the player didn't.

Is it wise to trust that QB? There was no other choice, no matter what patterns you call. He needed to make a throw. Either threaded through coverage or deep.

The problem with McCarthy's game planning is that it is dependent on the identified weakness of the defense. When the defense either covers up that weakness (Atlanta) or your players cannot execute the necessary plays (Lions), there is no backup plan this year. Formerly, Grant was often the backup plan. Finley would have been that backup plan this year.

You can win with that one dimensional offense, but not with a poorly performing O line and the backup QB. So much for being a turf team.

The game was lost long before that play. And it was lost for the same reasons that meant that play call might have been the best idea.

I agree that the game was lost long before the final play on offense. However, in their vast game plan for this game, I can't believe that the best call for the single most critical play in the game, when they needed just a single yard in a last ditch effort, was a play that required their back-up QB to complete a pass that would have to travel about 40 yards in the air.

[pbmax]

I agree that the game was lost long before the final play on offense. However, in their vast game plan for this game, I can't believe that the best call for the single most critical play in the game, when they needed just a single yard in a last ditch effort, was a play that required their back-up QB to complete a pass that would have to travel about 40 yards in the air.

You would think so, but the overwhelming evidence so far this season is that they do not. At lease not one he is willing to call. Unlike last year after the Tampa Bay game, I have not yet had a sense that M3 has figured out what his players can do well.

[Patler]

You would think so, but the overwhelming evidence so far this season is that they do not. At lease not one he is willing to call. Unlike last year after the Tampa Bay game, I have not yet had a sense that M3 has figured out what his players can do well.

Geeze, I just posted almost the identical thing in another thread at the same time! Great minds, PB...great minds! :lol:

[mmmdk]

Geeze, I just posted almost the identical thing in another thread at the same time! Great minds, PB...great minds! :lol:

You both hit the nail ! :worship:

[retailguy]

If your O line is stinking out the joint what can a playcaller do? I will put the loss on MM for keeping a crappy O line coach who can't get these gentlemen to run block worth a damn but not on MM's playcalling.

Plenty of plays that are designed for "quick outs", before any rusher could get to the QB. screens are just one example. But we don't do those anymore. We just dare them to get there. And they do.

[3irty1]

Conventional wisdom would imply that a 40 yard pass on 4th and 1 with what could be your season on the line is a poor play call and that's exactly why it should have worked. I have a much bigger issue, conceptually, with a few of the other play calls.

[mmmdk]

Conventional wisdom would imply that a 40 yard pass on 4th and 1 with what could be your season on the line is a poor play call and that's exactly why it should have worked. I have a much bigger issue, conceptually, with a few of the other play calls.

I hated the call 'cos it was Flynn at the helm but you're making sense nonetheless.
I think Payton or the Tuna would dared the same thing but the Packers had Mr. Not-Even-Mr-August at QB and that makes it a big no-no call.

[3irty1]

With Tom Brady back there, teams might not move both safeties all the way up making it easier to convert for the single yard. MM obviously had faith in Flynn--possibly more evidence that MM is loyal to a fault. That throw by Flynn was kind of close but not that close. Who else thinks we'll be drafting a QB this offseason?

[pbmax]

Plenty of plays that are designed for "quick outs", before any rusher could get to the QB. screens are just one example. But we don't do those anymore. We just dare them to get there. And they do.

They ran several screens. But it can't be the only option.

[pbmax]

Geeze, I just posted almost the identical thing in another thread at the same time! Great minds, PB...great minds! :lol:

I almost get the sense that all the preseason prep for the first four games works against him if the offense does not unfold as expected.

[Patler]

Conventional wisdom would imply that a 40 yard pass on 4th and 1 with what could be your season on the line is a poor play call and that's exactly why it should have worked. I have a much bigger issue, conceptually, with a few of the other play calls.

The problem I have with it is that it ignores the probability of completing that long of a pass, even if the other team is fooled. It's like playing for the 52 yard field goal. You are putting your game in the hands of a play with only a 50-50 chance of succeeding. QBs simply don't routinely connect on throws that long at a very high percentage.

That's fine if your only goal is to fool the other team. Good teams win also by executing better than the other team with basic plays designed to get minimal yardage.

[Patler]

I almost get the sense that all the preseason prep for the first four games works against him if the offense does not unfold as expected.

In previous years he has used the bye week to retool his offense, and historically they have played very well after the bye. This was only one game, so I guess we need to see how they rebound next week.

[bobblehead]

they've done this for several years. need a short high percentage pass for a first down and they go deep. it's maddening.

We also maddeningly drive it into the D and fail...and throw high percentage passes for a first down. If you never take advantage of a D leaving your guys single covered on the edge in 3rd/4th and short they will continue to stack the middle and take away the "high percentage" plays, thus making them not so high percentage.

[3irty1]

The problem I have with it is that it ignores the probability of completing that long of a pass, even if the other team is fooled. It's like playing for the 52 yard field goal. You are putting your game in the hands of a play with only a 50-50 chance of succeeding. QBs simply don't routinely connect on throws that long at a very high percentage.

That's fine if your only goal is to fool the other team. Good teams win also by executing better than the other team with basic plays designed to get minimal yardage.

We are definitely a finesse football team which is the likely source of most of the fans frustrations (including me). We don't seem to do anything well without fooling the other team. All I'm saying is that part of me respects MM for keeping literally the entire playbook open. Its an overall offensive mindset that forces your opposition to defend against everything, all the time which is usually impossible.

I also think that Packer fans underestimate just how hard it is to take that one yard whenever you want it. Only a few teams with elite power running games can do this. Unfortunately the Packers are only a few years removed from having such a power running game. I'm with you though that sucking at it is no reason not to try it. Otherwise what is the purpose for having Quinn Johnson and Dimitri Nance on the roster? Surely not their stellar special teams play.

[bobblehead]

I posted the stats on close games on the old packerrats site; McCarthy is below .400 in close games including play offs.

Statistical lies. What is his record in "non close" games?? I would argue that he never gets blown out, but often blows the other team out.

[sharpe1027]

The problem I have with it is that it ignores the probability of completing that long of a pass, even if the other team is fooled. It's like playing for the 52 yard field goal. You are putting your game in the hands of a play with only a 50-50 chance of succeeding. QBs simply don't routinely connect on throws that long at a very high percentage.

That's fine if your only goal is to fool the other team. Good teams win also by executing better than the other team with basic plays designed to get minimal yardage.

I posted this in the other thread, but now that you give the long bomb a chance a 50-50, I think it is even more relevant:

To be fair, the best way to assess the percentages would be to compare the percentage of the Packers getting a TD in both situations, not just whether or not they convert the 4th down. What's their percentage chance of converting a 4th and 1? 50%? Next, what is there percentage chance of scoring a TD with a first down on the 30 yard line with under 2 minutes and 2 timeouts , your back QB and having only scored 3 points the entire game? A generous 50%? IDK about the accuracy of those percentages, but they would comes out to only 25% chance. The odds of completing a 30 yard pass with the Jennings match-up? I'd say it is probably close to 25%.

[Patler]

I also think that Packer fans underestimate just how hard it is to take that one yard whenever you want it. Only a few teams with elite power running games can do this. Unfortunately the Packers are only a few years removed from having such a power running game. I'm with you though that sucking at it is no reason not to try it. Otherwise what is the purpose for having Quinn Johnson and Dimitri Nance on the roster? Surely not their stellar special teams play.

But it doesn't have to be a run. It can be a higher percentage throw than a 40 yard toss.

[Patler]

To be fair, the best way to assess the percentages would be to compare the percentage of the Packers getting a TD in both situations, not just whether or not they convert the 4th down. What's their percentage chance of converting a 4th and 1? 50%? Next, what is there percentage chance of scoring a TD with a first down on the 30 yard line with under 2 minutes and 2 timeouts , your back QB and having only scored 3 points the entire game? A generous 50%? IDK about the accuracy of those percentages, but they would comes out to only 25% chance. The odds of completing a 30 yard pass with the Jennings match-up? I'd say it is probably close to 25%.

I have no idea what the percentage is on a 40 yard throw, I just threw 50-50 out there to show that chances aren't so great and to compare to the 50+ fieldgoal attempt we discussed. That is about 53%. I suspect for a 40 yard throw it is actually less than 50%.

However, assuming you do something "safe" to get the first down, and get another to get into the red zone, the Packers last year were highly successful at scoring TDs from the redzone. Not so high this year. But I would still like to see Flynn have 4 chances to complete a 20 yard throw for a TD rather than 1 chance at 30-40 yards to end the game.

Heck, I would sooner see them get the first down at the 30, then have four opportunities to throw deep, rather than just one of the same length before turning it over on downs.

[sharpe1027]

Intuitively, I would have agreed with you; however, I think the bomb may have been just as statistically successful at getting a TD as trying for short yardage on 4th, regardless of what my gut tells me. They scored 3 points all game, had their backup QB in and had limited time.

I assume that your four opportunities is somewhat tongue in cheek since there is almost no chance at Detroit leaving Jennings to run straight down the field with man coverage and no deep help on any of those four opportunities.

[Patler]

I assume that your four opportunities is somewhat tongue in cheek since there is almost no chance at Detroit leaving Jennings to run straight down the field with man coverage and no deep help on any of those four opportunities.

Only partly. If they give a lot of attention to Jennings, there should be guys with single coverage in intermediate areas, like the crossing route in which Driver was open and Flynn missed him high. If deep isn't open, pickup another 5-15.

[mmmdk]

Statistical lies. What is his record in "non close" games?? I would argue that he never gets blown out, but often blows the other team out.

No!

Stats don't lie; they are often manipulated. Pretty hard to manipulate a win-loss column unless you believe in various excuses for the losses and not even Stubby would fall that low.

[bobblehead]

No!

Stats don't lie; they are often manipulated. Pretty hard to manipulate a win-loss column unless you believe in various excuses for the losses and not even Stubby would fall that low.

Yes, they often lie. Statistically there is a correlation between the NFC winning the superbowl and the stock market increasing. Does that mean you should invest the nest egg on that statistic? No, if they move the superbowl to December 1st you will find your statistic to suddenly fail in a big way.

[bobblehead]

Only partly. If they give a lot of attention to Jennings, there should be guys with single coverage in intermediate areas, like the crossing route in which Driver was open and Flynn missed him high. If deep isn't open, pickup another 5-15.

But patler....on THAT play they left Jennings single covered and attacking that was the right play. And now you are arguing that they should have passed it into the teeth of the defense.

[LEWCWA]

That's a low percentage 4th and 1 throw no matter who is throwing it.

I don't think that is a low percentage throw. Any QB getting payed should be able to hit that pass virtually everytime. Jennings was wide open, he just needed to get the ball to him easy pitch and catch.

[Patler]

But patler....on THAT play they left Jennings single covered and attacking that was the right play. And now you are arguing that they should have passed it into the teeth of the defense.

My response was not about THAT play. It was with respect to the theoretical four attempts they might have had if they picked up a first down on 4th and 1. Sharpe mentioned that in any following plays Jennings wasn't likely to be as unattended as he was on THAT play. My response was that if he was doubled in those other theoretical situations, another receiver would be less attended, and Flynn could have gone to one of them.

My complaint isn't that Jennings was the wrong option on THAT play, my complaint is that THAT play was the one called with the game on the line and 4th down. A 40 yard throw is not a gimme, but that is what THAT play required. It's like MM settling for the 52 yard FG to win a game in MN, when he had plenty of time to get closer.

[Pugger]

My response was not about THAT play. It was with respect to the theoretical four attempts they might have had if they picked up a first down on 4th and 1. Sharpe mentioned that in any following plays Jennings wasn't likely to be as unattended as he was on THAT play. My response was that if he was doubled in those other theoretical situations, another receiver would be less attended, and Flynn could have gone to one of them.

My complaint isn't that Jennings was the wrong option on THAT play, my complaint is that THAT play was the one called with the game on the line and 4th down. A 40 yard throw is not a gimme, but that is what THAT play required. It's like MM settling for the 52 yard FG to win a game in MN, when he had plenty of time to get closer.

So was it a lousy play call or lousy execution? If Flynn and Jennings connect we are all in here singing their praises. But they didn't so MM sucks at playcalling.

[Patler]

So was it a lousy play call or lousy execution? If Flynn and Jennings connect we are all in here singing their praises. But they didn't so MM sucks at playcalling.

I think my opinion about the play call should be clear, as I have said:

- I think it was a bad call regardless of the result, because it was a low percentage play to start out with.
- I likened it to him playing safe, running three conservative plays with 2 minutes remaining, and settling for a 52 yard FG attempt to win against MN in 2008. Both were low percentage calls.
- I even said that had the play succeeded, it wouldn't make MM a genius, just lucky.

The situation was that there was time left and the Packers had timeouts. They had one play to get one yard, and then have four more plays. MM dials up a play requiring his backup QB to complete a pass going about 40 yards in the air. I would have much preferred a safer play for a first down to get four attempts to score where incompletions didn't end your hope after three of those plays.

MM went with an "all-in" gamble. He was going to get it all, or lose. He bet the game on a single play that had a low percentage chance to be successful. Was it poor execution? Is missing a 52 yard FG poor execution? Is flipping "heads" poor execution when you called "tails"?

[th87]

I disagree that it was a lower percentage play than a safe pass. The Lions stacked the line completely and were likely anticipating pass. Any safe pass would have been well covered, requiring an accurate dart. Do you really trust Flynn with that? All of his passes took forever to get to the receivers. And the line wasn't holding up to allow for the intermediate routes to develop either. Schwartz dared us to do just what we did.

This was the right call. Any NFL QB should be able to hit a 30 yarder to a wide open receiver. This one's on Flynn.

[sheepshead]

I agree. It was the wrong call, at the wrong time against the wrong opponent. At this point in the season and against the Detroit Lions, MM shouldn't have to pull much out of his playbook. He did need to keep the odds in his favor as this may have been the most costly loss of the season.

[Fritz]

I didn't mind the call, really. For one, when the teams lined up it was clear that Jennings had one on one coverage - no safety was in the area. Secondly, it was also clear to me that this offense was continually misfiring - especially the offensive line. Thus, even if the majority of posters here got that short, safe pass for a first down, there was no real indication that the Pack could put the ball in the end zone, especially as the Packers got near the goal line.The Lions' base defense was working so well they didn't need to blitz to get constant pressure on the QB. You should've seen what it looked like when Flynn had the Packers down on the Lions' nine yard line earlier, when he threw that deadly interception. Because the Packers were on the nine, the Lions were able to put defenders all over the damn end zone. There was no where for Flynn to throw.

So when it was 4th and 1 later, I liked the call. It was the best coverage the Pack was going to get, and while it was a difficult throw, it was, to me, no more difficult than if the Pack had marched down the field and gotten to the ten yard line or something, because then Flynn would've had to thread a throw between defenders while the Lions front mauled the Pack's offensive line.

And finally, I got to watch Flynn warm up before the game, and he was whistling 40 yard throws effortlessly. He has a better arm than I thought he did.

[th87]

My beef was with the 2nd down play. Their d line was dominating, so giving the ball to an indecisive runner wasn't the best idea. Especially since he'd have to get past Suh.

[Patler]

I disagree that it was a lower percentage play than a safe pass. The Lions stacked the line completely and were likely anticipating pass. Any safe pass would have been well covered, requiring an accurate dart. Do you really trust Flynn with that? All of his passes took forever to get to the receivers. And the line wasn't holding up to allow for the intermediate routes to develop either. Schwartz dared us to do just what we did.

This was the right call. Any NFL QB should be able to hit a 30 yarder to a wide open receiver. This one's on Flynn.

I trust Flynn to complete something in the 0-15 yard range more than to complete a pass that covered 40 yards in the air. Heck, NFL QBs only complete 55-65% of all passes, including the short ones. Longer ones are less certain than the overall percentage.
Jennings was open, but not like there was room for a throw-it-up-and-let-him-wait-for-it pass. It had to be quite accurate. Favre used to miss those routinely.

[pbmax]

We are definitely a finesse football team which is the likely source of most of the fans frustrations (including me). We don't seem to do anything well without fooling the other team. All I'm saying is that part of me respects MM for keeping literally the entire playbook open. Its an overall offensive mindset that forces your opposition to defend against everything, all the time which is usually impossible.

Not to be pedantic 3irty1 (I understand your point about not having one physically dominant area of the offense), but I don't think the Packers are trying to fool anyone. They throw out every formation and personnel grouping not looking to deceive, but to force a certain defensive look or coverage. And then the QB, if its a pass, is expected to find the single-coverage by pre-snap read or through target progression.

But if I am a defensive coordinator, I look to force them to the most unfavorable target in that progression (hence Cover 2 when there is not threat to the running game). On 3rd and short, that means the Go route is open. If you can hit it, then you cannot be stopped. But not even Rodgers is hitting enough right now.

[th87]

The 0-15 range would have been covered pretty well, IMO. There was no threat to run, so they didn't have to think about that. So all focus would be on short coverage and they'd aggressively jump the routes. I wouldn't trust Flynn to stick it into a tight window like that.

55-65% includes good coverage. Vasher has already proven that he can't cover Jennings, so if he got a good release, he was going to be wide open. An easier shot than forcing it into coverage. An open 3 pointer compared to a heavily contested layup. He missed the open 3.

[th87]

Also, Flynn has proven he can make that throw consistently. He'd already had a long one to Jennings, and the fake punt against the Queens. MM clearly had enough confidence to go there.

[Patler]

An open 3 pointer compared to a heavily contested layup. He missed the open 3.

Yup, and open 3's are routinely missed, too; just like 50 yard field goals.
If your best opportunity to pick up 1 yard is to have your QB throw it 40 yards in the air, there is something wrong with your game plan.

[bobblehead]

My response was not about THAT play. It was with respect to the theoretical four attempts they might have had if they picked up a first down on 4th and 1. Sharpe mentioned that in any following plays Jennings wasn't likely to be as unattended as he was on THAT play. My response was that if he was doubled in those other theoretical situations, another receiver would be less attended, and Flynn could have gone to one of them.

My complaint isn't that Jennings was the wrong option on THAT play, my complaint is that THAT play was the one called with the game on the line and 4th down. A 40 yard throw is not a gimme, but that is what THAT play required. It's like MM settling for the 52 yard FG to win a game in MN, when he had plenty of time to get closer.

Never is the play called for ONE player to get the ball. A play was called, and based on the defense, Jennings was maybe the first option. MM didn't call the play as you are portraying it, Flynn made a read and went with it. I have no problem with the call or the read, simply the execution.

[bobblehead]

I disagree that it was a lower percentage play than a safe pass. The Lions stacked the line completely and were likely anticipating pass. Any safe pass would have been well covered, requiring an accurate dart. Do you really trust Flynn with that? All of his passes took forever to get to the receivers. And the line wasn't holding up to allow for the intermediate routes to develop either. Schwartz dared us to do just what we did.

This was the right call. Any NFL QB should be able to hit a 30 yarder to a wide open receiver. This one's on Flynn.

See what you have done Patler? You have me and th87 agreeing. You are a great uniter.

[bobblehead]

I agree. It was the wrong call, at the wrong time against the wrong opponent. At this point in the season and against the Detroit Lions, MM shouldn't have to pull much out of his playbook. He did need to keep the odds in his favor as this may have been the most costly loss of the season.

We got 3 points all game!! What makes you think the "odds" would have been in our favor with a 3 yard pickup? What makes you think the odds of getting a TD would have been better with a first down than the deep pass? You are right in that we should have had the game comfortably in hand at that point but we did not.

If you all want to bitch, bitch about our inability to run the ball the entire game, and then simply giving up on calling the run when your D was doing well and it was a close game (that we were winning most of the time).

[Patler]

Never is the play called for ONE player to get the ball. A play was called, and based on the defense, Jennings was maybe the first option. MM didn't call the play as you are portraying it, Flynn made a read and went with it. I have no problem with the call or the read, simply the execution.

Who ever said a play is called for one player to get the ball? But there are expectations and a progression involved in every play. MM even admitted that he called the play he did expecting to get the one on one match-up for Jennings. It was the throw he was hoping for. It was why he called what he did. It played out exactly the way he wanted it to. He wanted an all or nothing shot with Flynn throwing to Jennings in the endzone. He said as much.

[sharpe1027]

After calming down from the loss, I have no problem with the play call. While there was likely a higher percentage chance of getting the 1st down than completing the 30 yard throw, I think the 30 yard throw was the best chance of getting a TD. They haven't had a good short yard play all year. They scored 3 points all game. Flynn already threw a INT in the endzone when there was zero pressure in terms of down, distance and time. I think it a far more likely outcome is that even after they might get the first down, they end up with a sack that effectively ruins their chances.

There is a natural tendency to want the safer option in the short term, even if it is the lower percentage overall. IMO, I would take exactly what Pater said and flip it on its head (No disrespect meant Patler): I liken going for the short yardage/first down to running three conservative plays with 2 minutes remaining, and settling for a 52 yard FG attempt to win against MN in 2008. Both were low percentage calls that played it safe in the short term for a lower overall percent chance.

[sheepshead]

Yup, and open 3's are routinely missed, too; just like 50 yard field goals.
If your best opportunity to pick up 1 yard is to have your QB throw it 40 yards in the air, there is something wrong with your game plan.

I was thinking about the same analogy. Pool shot too--lots of green in between. The percentages go down with every yard. More can go wrong.

[Patler]

Except that by getting a first down you then give yourself four more opportunities (absent a turnover) to complete something to get you a TD. I would rather have more opportunities than putting it all on a single play when I don't have to. They had time, they had timeouts. They used neither the time nor the timeouts available to them, instead risking the entire outcome on that one single play.

The Packers pride themselves on their 4 or 5 receivers. You can't double them all. If Jennings was doubled, someone else would not be. They are all capable of taking it the distance. It didn't have to come down to a single deep play to Jennings yet.

[th87]

Haha, bobblehead, I agree with most of your points. Regarding football. :-)

I just don't think the "safe" pass would've been safe at all, given the circumstances. An open 3 is better than taking it to the hole against Dwight Howard. And how about an obstructed pool shot versus a longer open one?

And for the record, I despised settling for the 52 yard FG. But this is an entirely different circumstance. A 3 yard pass was not a given in this case.

[3irty1]

More I think about it the more I don't mind the call. You have to also consider that even if you convert 4th and 1, you must still go 30 yards and score a touchdown. Going for the killshot against a favorable defense has the potential to win the game outright. Its unlikely that on one of the remaining plays of the game we'd see a less contested matchup than the one on one Jennings had.

That's why I don't hate it. What I love about it is the message it sends to future defensive coordinators. 4th and 1, 50 seconds left, division game with playoff importance, backup QB--There isn't a situation you can come up with where McCarthy won't try to land a haymaker to the face so you better keep your gloves up. My guess is that next time the slant, quick out, or outside run is a little easier to complete. Worth it? Definitely not but at least its something.

[3irty1]

Except that by getting a first down you then give yourself four more opportunities (absent a turnover) to complete something to get you a TD. I would rather have more opportunities than putting it all on a single play when I don't have to. They had time, they had timeouts. They used neither the time nor the timeouts available to them, instead risking the entire outcome on that one single play.

The Packers pride themselves on their 4 or 5 receivers. You can't double them all. If Jennings was doubled, someone else would not be. They are all capable of taking it the distance. It didn't have to come down to a single deep play to Jennings yet.

Our best short yardage formation is probably the 5 wide set. Did anyone recall even seeing that formation with Flynn? I wonder McCarthy is comfortable with him in that situation.

[sharpe1027]

A higher # of opportunities does not guarantee a higher rate of success. Structuring the argument as one play vs. many plays is a misleading statement and doesn't address the factors that weigh against going for the short yardage. Going for a short pass "risked" not getting the short yardage (I'd argue almost as high a risk as the long pass play). Further, it risked getting the short yardage and then not making a first down. It risked getting the short yardage and then having a turnover. It risked getting the short yardage and running out of time. They were both risks. Given the success rate of the offense on the day, the time remaining, the yardage necessary and other factors, I'm far from convinced that trying to get short yardage was a better risk.

[denverYooper]

I didn't mind the call, really. For one, when the teams lined up it was clear that Jennings had one on one coverage - no safety was in the area. Secondly, it was also clear to me that this offense was continually misfiring - especially the offensive line. Thus, even if the majority of posters here got that short, safe pass for a first down, there was no real indication that the Pack could put the ball in the end zone, especially as the Packers got near the goal line.The Lions' base defense was working so well they didn't need to blitz to get constant pressure on the QB. You should've seen what it looked like when Flynn had the Packers down on the Lions' nine yard line earlier, when he threw that deadly interception. Because the Packers were on the nine, the Lions were able to put defenders all over the damn end zone. There was no where for Flynn to throw.

So when it was 4th and 1 later, I liked the call. It was the best coverage the Pack was going to get, and while it was a difficult throw, it was, to me, no more difficult than if the Pack had marched down the field and gotten to the ten yard line or something, because then Flynn would've had to thread a throw between defenders while the Lions front mauled the Pack's offensive line.

And finally, I got to watch Flynn warm up before the game, and he was whistling 40 yard throws effortlessly. He has a better arm than I thought he did.

Yeah, that didn't work out so well the first time they tried to throw it in from thereabouts.

[Sparkey]

MM is fine and I did not see anything wrong with the play call. He was open. The game was lost because the players did not perform.

IMO, the Packers need to can Campen and Philbein and scrap the whole o-line blocking scheme they utilize. How many years has it been where they would get better after they have played in the scheme for a while ? Its not happening and I blame the blocking scheme more than the players.

[Freak Out]

IMO, the Packers need to can Campen and Philbein and scrap the whole o-line blocking scheme they utilize. How many years has it been where they would get better after they have played in the scheme for a while ? Its not happening and I blame the blocking scheme more than the players.

There needs to be a change....and some new blood on the line. There should be some pretty good (?) FA OL available for TT to woo and I think that needs to happen this year. How many years are they going to make the franchise run for his fucking life back there?