McCarthy's Playcalling

[Fritz]

Wow. I just read the post-game pages of the game thread, and I am amazed at the criticism of McCarthy.

I thought that this was some of the best play-calling he's done all year, maybe ever. He mixed things up - the third down play calls were quite good, I thought. Jennings had a drop on the first drive that would've put the ball on the Philly 25 and of course James "Iron Hands" Jones dropped what looked like a touchdown pass. Those two plays alone cost the Packers at least six points.

My only disappointment was with the very end of the game play calling. After running on first down on that last possession, I really wanted a play action pass to get a first down. However, it is still hard to fault MM for running when Philly had no timeouts. So while I wish MM had been slightly more aggressive on that last drive, had he done so and had Arod thrown an incomplete, there's more time for Vick, so I get his logic.

I just thought MM really called a fine game tonight. Helped, of course, by the fact that he had a running game.

[gbgary]

he's getting better. he only sucked in the forth quarter.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Does this count as a close win even though it was 5 pts? I mean usually a close, gritty, gutty win only happens in 4 point games but wondering if we can make an exception in this case.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

he's getting better. he only sucked in the forth quarter.

I agree with this. I liked how we were sticking to the run early in the game, but I expected some creativity in the 4th.

[packerbacker1234]

Does this count as a close win even though it was 5 pts? I mean usually a close, gritty, gutty win only happens in 4 point games but wondering if we can make an exception in this case.

You would have to think it counts, simply because philly was driving and had us back on our heals, making us nervous Vick was going to come through. Than Williams wins his one on one in the endzone for the pick. It has to be considered a "close win" just given the fact it took a intereception to seal the game.

[Fritz]

So if MM goes for some passes late in the game and they fall incomplete and clock is stopped, giving Vick more time, then he's criticized for not being smart enough to run the ball when Starks was having such a good game. I don't get you guys sometimes.

[gbgary]

So if MM goes for some passes late in the game and they fall incomplete and clock is stopped, giving Vick more time, then he's criticized for not being smart enough to run the ball when Starks was having such a good game. I don't get you guys sometimes.


nothing should have changed in the forth quarter. he got run happy and this put too much pressure on the d.

[esoxx]

The second half of the game day thread proved people were either drunk by that point or already retarded.

[MJZiggy]

So if MM goes for some passes late in the game and they fall incomplete and clock is stopped, giving Vick more time, then he's criticized for not being smart enough to run the ball when Starks was having such a good game. I don't get you guys sometimes.

When your mind is already made up you only look for that which validates your already formed viewpoint. With some here, he will never be right.

[RashanGary]

I thought it was a great called game too. I loved AR's game too. He's never been a game manager really but today he managed the game masterfully. It will open other things up too. ATL is setting up nicely I think.

[Cheesehead Craig]

So if MM goes for some passes late in the game and they fall incomplete and clock is stopped, giving Vick more time, then he's criticized for not being smart enough to run the ball when Starks was having such a good game. I don't get you guys sometimes.

+1. Thought he did a great job.

[packerbacker1234]

nothing should have changed in the forth quarter. he got run happy and this put too much pressure on the d.

Nothing really did change. Rely on what got you to where you were in that game: Effectiveness running the ball, and defensive shut downs.

That is really what got us where we went, despite Rodgers playing so well. Sure, in what we ran for most th year it makes since to throw and it and try to score, but ask the packers how that has donefor them all season in tight games. Hasn't worked out too well. This time, it worked.

We won. We have a chance to beat atlanta next week. I'm not too upset about anything.

[gbgary]

Nothing really did change. Rely on what got you to where you were in that game: Effectiveness running the ball, and defensive shut downs.

That is really what got us where we went, despite Rodgers playing so well. Sure, in what we ran for most th year it makes since to throw and it and try to score, but ask the packers how that has donefor them all season in tight games. Hasn't worked out too well. This time, it worked.

We won. We have a chance to beat atlanta next week. I'm not too upset about anything.

you forgot about the three touchdown passes by rodgers. i'm not upset either but if that final ball had been caught for a touchdown i bet the tune would be very different.

[Joemailman]

Does this count as a close win even though it was 5 pts? I mean usually a close, gritty, gutty win only happens in 4 point games but wondering if we can make an exception in this case.

Nope, this was a blowout. Don't tell me you were nervous! :mrgreen:

[pbmax]

Does this count as a close win even though it was 5 pts? I mean usually a close, gritty, gutty win only happens in 4 point games but wondering if we can make an exception in this case.

Gritty, maybe. We will have to check with some lunch pail people on that. But it wasn't close, not when you win by 5 points going away.

[Scott Campbell]

Play calling can typically summed up like this:

All the ones that worked were great.
All the ones that didn't were sucky.

[HarveyWallbangers]

People bitch about the play calling too much.

[channtheman]

People bitch about the play calling too much.

In last weeks game against the Bears from the one yard line, I loved the play calling. I wouldn't have called a play action pass like the one that worked later in that game. I would have done all the stupid cute plays MM did. I especially liked the fake QB sneak lateral/pass to Jackson.

[vince]

I thought it was a great called game too.
So did Matt Bowen.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Game-notes-PackersEagles.html

McCarthy’s game plan: In my opinion, his best game plan of the season. Green Bay got back to balanced football and we saw some examples of a team that could line up in their Tank personnel (1 WR, 2 TE, 2 RB) and play physical at the line of scrimmage. This allows the Packers to take some stress off of QB Aaron Rodgers (3 TD passes), use their play action route schemes and put together long, time consuming drives that wear down defenses. The running game was the big concern I had for Green Bay heading into the playoffs, but with a game plan like this they can beat anyone in the NFC.

[packrulz]

M3 saw that Starks was in a groove so he kept feeding him the ball, I loved it, that wears down the D and keeps them off balance. I'm pretty sure Jennings, Jones, and DD all dropped passes, if they would've caught those, it would've been a blowout. Packers played fast and inspired, although the "prevent" defense at the end nearly cost them the game. The officiating was the worst I've seen all year, the holding call on Colledge was bogus, a Packer was speared in the head (no flag), and I don't know how the 2 pt conversion wasn't incomplete, even if they were correct they only marked the Eagles back 5 yards instead of 10?

[Fritz]

The dropped passes are a concern.

[wist43]

I agree that play calling overall was good, but this is the NFL... games are going to be tight, and mismanagement at the end of a game can cost you the game, and it nearly did this time.

Everybody gets caught up in the clock... forget the clock - to win the game you need to produce at least 3 1st downs. I don't mind running on 1st down, especially if the running game has been going well, but on 2nd and 3rd down, I'm putting that responsibility in the hands of my pro bowl QB. McCarthy got away with it on the 1st set of downs, but then basically punted on 2nd down after we picked up the initial 1st down.

He only gave his QB one shot at it, when the defense was expecting pass, and of course Rodgers was sacked... would much rather have seen a pass on 2nd down, when Philly was stacked for the run. If we go 2 incompletes, so what??? we're still handing them the same scenario regardless, i.e. the ball, and plenty of time on the clock. So the smart play is go for the 1st down thru the air on 2nd down - I would have spread the field and put the pressure on the defense; the conservative, play not to lose strategy is exactly what McCarthy did and it almost cost us the game.

[Tarlam!]

Excellent post, Wisty, IMO.

I didn't watch the game (fell asleep after the 1st 2 Packer possessions - oh, the shame of it), but yours is the first out of a couple of dozen posts I've read that chastize M3's 4th quarter calling and substantiates what was wrong. Thanks, mate!

[Pugger]

So if MM goes for some passes late in the game and they fall incomplete and clock is stopped, giving Vick more time, then he's criticized for not being smart enough to run the ball when Starks was having such a good game. I don't get you guys sometimes.

This.

[Pugger]

I thought it was a great called game too. I loved AR's game too. He's never been a game manager really but today he managed the game masterfully. It will open other things up too. ATL is setting up nicely I think.

What impressed me about Aaron yesterday was after his fumble and giving Philly a short field Rodgers orchestrated a wonderful 80 yard drive culminating with a TD to take the wind out of the Iggles' sails.

[Pugger]

I agree that play calling overall was good, but this is the NFL... games are going to be tight, and mismanagement at the end of a game can cost you the game, and it nearly did this time.

Everybody gets caught up in the clock... forget the clock - to win the game you need to produce at least 3 1st downs. I don't mind running on 1st down, especially if the running game has been going well, but on 2nd and 3rd down, I'm putting that responsibility in the hands of my pro bowl QB. McCarthy got away with it on the 1st set of downs, but then basically punted on 2nd down after we picked up the initial 1st down.

He only gave his QB one shot at it, when the defense was expecting pass, and of course Rodgers was sacked... would much rather have seen a pass on 2nd down, when Philly was stacked for the run. If we go 2 incompletes, so what??? we're still handing them the same scenario regardless, i.e. the ball, and plenty of time on the clock. So the smart play is go for the 1st down thru the air on 2nd down - I would have spread the field and put the pressure on the defense; the conservative, play not to lose strategy is exactly what McCarthy did and it almost cost us the game.

I agree, trying to run the ball on 2nd down with @4 minutes to go wasn't MM's finest hour yesterday. Then on 3rd down everyone knew we had to pass and Rodgers got sacked. Oh well, we won and that is ALL that really matters.

[Scott Campbell]

So if MM goes for some passes late in the game and they fall incomplete and clock is stopped, giving Vick more time, then he's criticized for not being smart enough to run the ball when Starks was having such a good game. I don't get you guys sometimes.


Play calling was fine in the 4th. They protected a lead, ran clock, and won the game.

I did not like not going all out to end the first half. We took one shot down field with the drop to Jones, but otherwise squandered a possession.

[Fritz]

I also have expressed my wish that on second and nine, MM would've gone play action and gotten a first down. However, I do understand that running the clock was important, too, and that throwing a pass is a risk in terms of giving the timeoutless Iggles a free timeout if the pass is incomplete.

Outside of that one specific situation, I think this was MM's finest hour as a playcaller.

[vince]

Play calling was fine in the 4th. They protected a lead, ran clock, and won the game.

I did not like not going all out to end the first half. We took one shot down field with the drop to Jones, but otherwise squandered a possession.
Agree. The defense was stellar all game. You run the clock and win the game in that circumstance. Another first down would have been great had the team executed better.

[mraynrand]

M3 saw that Starks was in a groove so he kept feeding him the ball, I loved it, that wears down the D and keeps them off balance. I'm pretty sure Jennings, Jones, and DD all dropped passes, if they would've caught those, it would've been a blowout. Packers played fast and inspired, although the "prevent" defense at the end nearly cost them the game. The officiating was the worst I've seen all year, the holding call on Colledge was bogus, a Packer was speared in the head (no flag), and I don't know how the 2 pt conversion wasn't incomplete, even if they were correct they only marked the Eagles back 5 yards instead of 10?


Playcalling was excellent. Gameplan couldn't have been better. Ran the ball at a defensive front that was protecting against the big pass. Ran the clock on long sustained drives and kept the ball away from Vick and the explosive Philly offense. good special teams (Deep kicks by both kickers, good coverage, one mistake)

Refs? They were OK. If you look closely, you will see they swallowed their flag on the Jackson TD, when Jones could have been called for holding, and they could have called something on Collins for the hit on MagnumPI. McCarthy was mostly flawless in this one, I thought. Capers was impressive too - 16 points - even giving them the ball on the 20? damn good D

[mraynrand]

P.S. The way McCarthy set the Philly D up for that pass to Jones at the end of the first half was a thing of beauty.

[mraynrand]

I agree that play calling overall was good, but this is the NFL... games are going to be tight, and mismanagement at the end of a game can cost you the game, and it nearly did this time.

Everybody gets caught up in the clock... forget the clock - to win the game you need to produce at least 3 1st downs. I don't mind running on 1st down, especially if the running game has been going well, but on 2nd and 3rd down, I'm putting that responsibility in the hands of my pro bowl QB. McCarthy got away with it on the 1st set of downs, but then basically punted on 2nd down after we picked up the initial 1st down.

He only gave his QB one shot at it, when the defense was expecting pass, and of course Rodgers was sacked... would much rather have seen a pass on 2nd down, when Philly was stacked for the run. If we go 2 incompletes, so what??? we're still handing them the same scenario regardless, i.e. the ball, and plenty of time on the clock. So the smart play is go for the 1st down thru the air on 2nd down - I would have spread the field and put the pressure on the defense; the conservative, play not to lose strategy is exactly what McCarthy did and it almost cost us the game.


That's a strongly argued position. The other way to look at it is if they don't complete passes, they don't force philly to use their last timeout, philly gets the ball back with enough time to be able to use their whole offense. With zero timeouts and less than 2 minutes, and a long field, philly really was forced to pass. And you have a defense out there that's played very well. That's the counter argument. That being said, I wold have liked to see some misdirection or play fake to a really safe pass on the second set of downs on the last drive. I suspect McCarthy got exited that his O-line was doing the job on the first set of downs, and put it on their shoulders. Well, they're just not good enough. Finally, consider this - McCarthy passes, the ball gets tipped and intercepted, giving Philly the ball at the Packer 30. How would that playcall ook today if Philly then scored on the short field?

[gbgary]

P.S. The way McCarthy set the Philly D up for that pass to Jones at the end of the first half was a thing of beauty.

agreed. could be wrong but wasn't that the only deep ball of the first half?

[mraynrand]

agreed. could be wrong but wasn't that the only deep ball of the first half?

There was an attempt to Nelson as well, I think

[pbmax]

I agree, trying to run the ball on 2nd down with @4 minutes to go wasn't MM's finest hour yesterday. Then on 3rd down everyone knew we had to pass and Rodgers got sacked. Oh well, we won and that is ALL that really matters.

Actually, if McCarthy is going to go with draining the clock strategy, then the mistake was passing on 3rd down. Run it again and drain another 45 seconds or a TO.

If you want another first down, then some misdirection was needed on 2nd or 3rd down. If I have a criticism of McCarthy, its that his clock management play calls seem to be thought out only on step at a time. Want to drain the clock? Run three times. Want another first in the 4 minute offense? Then two runs and play action. That is one reason I like the Starks/Johnson backfield. You send 'em both through the line on a play fake and both could be outlet receivers with a chance to get the first.

[pbmax]

I agree that play calling overall was good, but this is the NFL... games are going to be tight, and mismanagement at the end of a game can cost you the game, and it nearly did this time.

Everybody gets caught up in the clock... forget the clock - to win the game you need to produce at least 3 1st downs. I don't mind running on 1st down, especially if the running game has been going well, but on 2nd and 3rd down, I'm putting that responsibility in the hands of my pro bowl QB. McCarthy got away with it on the 1st set of downs, but then basically punted on 2nd down after we picked up the initial 1st down.

He only gave his QB one shot at it, when the defense was expecting pass, and of course Rodgers was sacked... would much rather have seen a pass on 2nd down, when Philly was stacked for the run. If we go 2 incompletes, so what??? we're still handing them the same scenario regardless, i.e. the ball, and plenty of time on the clock. So the smart play is go for the 1st down thru the air on 2nd down - I would have spread the field and put the pressure on the defense; the conservative, play not to lose strategy is exactly what McCarthy did and it almost cost us the game.

But its not the same scenario. It adds 40 seconds and let's them keep a TO.

But he has to decide: first down or drain clock? Three runs can drain 2 minutes off the game clock if there are no penalties. If that's what you want, then do it.

[mraynrand]

Actually, if McCarthy is going to go with draining the clock strategy, then the mistake was passing on 3rd down. Run it again and drain another 45 seconds or a TO.

I wondered at the time if Rodgers took the sack on purpose instead of throwing it away for exactly this reason.

[pbmax]

I wondered at the time if Rodgers took the sack on purpose instead of throwing it away for exactly this reason.

That could have been his instructions. But that is a difficult call for even the coolest QB. But he has shown he is willing to take punishment to avoid a bad throw, so he might be the one to pull it off.

[vince]

Want to drain the clock? Run three times. Want another first? Then two runs and play action.
He wants both. The 3rd down play action would obviously be an option, but the 2nd down run that created 3rd and long didn't give much credibility to play action at that point and limits options for reading the D as the QB turns his back to the defense for so long and restricts the number of receivers and likely the amount of field that can be used in 10+ yard routes off play action roll-out. It's about ball control at that point, and play action isn't the best ball-control pass play. The likelihood of incompletion or thow away stopping the clock is much higher in play action in that circumstance. The sack was in effect a run for a loss in that circumstance as it kept the clock running.

[gbgary]

getting a first down would have ensured a Packers win. giving the ball back to vick was the worst possible scenario and it nearly cost them the game. had the Packers kept trying to score (which they were doing pretty much at will,) instead of bogging themselves down, it wouldn't have gotten to that point.

[vince]

getting a first down would have ensured a Packers win. giving the ball back to vick was the worst possible scenario and it nearly cost them the game. had the Packers kept trying to score (which they were doing pretty much at will,) instead of bogging themselves down, it wouldn't have gotten to that point.
Wrong. There are many scenarios worse than punting in that situation. Even punting with another minute on the clock is far worse.

[Patler]

Actually, if McCarthy is going to go with draining the clock strategy, then the mistake was passing on 3rd down. Run it again and drain another 45 seconds or a TO.

The pass play resulting in the sack before the last punt? If he had run the ball on 3rd down, the two-minute warning would still have stopped the clock before the punt. It would not have changed anything if they didn't get the first down. The only thing that could have changed things would have been an incompletion rather than a sack before two minutes, which might have given the Eagles an extra 7 or 8 seconds, or so.

[pbmax]

He wants both. The 3rd down play action would obviously be an option, but the 2nd down run that created 3rd and long didn't give much credibility to play action at that point and limits options for reading the D as the QB turns his back to the defense for so long and restricts the number of receivers and likely the amount of field that can be used in 10+ yard routes off play action roll-out. It's about ball control at that point, and play action isn't the best ball-control pass play. The likelihood of incompletion or thow away stopping the clock is much higher in play action in that circumstance. The sack was in effect a run for a loss in that circumstance as it kept the clock running.

I gotcha vince. But what I meant was mix the play action in once with the two runs, somehwere, in the three plays. There is no logical reason to make it the third play unless you are breaking a tendency.

[vince]

OK then. Nevermind.:oops:

[pbmax]

The pass play resulting in the sack before the last punt? If he had run the ball on 3rd down, the two-minute warning would still have stopped the clock before the punt. It would not have changed anything if they didn't get the first down. The only thing that could have changed things would have been an incompletion rather than a sack before two minutes, which might have given the Eagles an extra 7 or 8 seconds, or so.

I am not saying it worked badly for the Packers. The sack and then the clock runoff were fine if that was the goal, same as a run. But trying to pass in that situation put everyone is the toughest spot if he was trying for the first. If he wanted the first, the use play action somewhere, not a shotgun pass on third and long.

[Scott Campbell]

getting a first down would have ensured a Packers win. giving the ball back to vick was the worst possible scenario and it nearly cost them the game. had the Packers kept trying to score (which they were doing pretty much at will,) instead of bogging themselves down, it wouldn't have gotten to that point.


Starks had been running the ball at will too. I like the playcalling.

I think you can make a far better case for them squandering that final possession of the first half.

[Patler]

I am not saying it worked badly for the Packers. The sack and then the clock runoff were fine if that was the goal, same as a run. But trying to pass in that situation put everyone is the toughest spot if he was trying for the first. If he wanted the first, the use play action somewhere, not a shotgun pass on third and long.

Sorry, I understood the following to be a criticism from you of MM's decision to pass instead of running on third down, and that you were suggesting that a run would have used up another 45 seconds:


Actually, if McCarthy is going to go with draining the clock strategy, then the mistake was passing on 3rd down. Run it again and drain another 45 seconds or a TO.

[mraynrand]

I think you can make a far better case for them squandering that final possession of the first half.

Sure, but I think you can let that go as an emotional mistake. Hey, these guys are people too, and when you set the D up like that and have the perfect play with the perfect execution, and Jones drops it, there's going to be an emotional fall out. I'll give 'em that one. (But I would have liked them to come back with the exact same play, maybe with Nelson out there....)

[mraynrand]

Sorry, I understood the following to be a criticism from you of MM's decision to pass instead of running on third down, and that you were suggesting that a run would have used up another 45 seconds:

It used up the 2 minute warning, taking that TO away from Philly. That's 45 seconds OR a TO.

[rbaloha1]

Starks had been running the ball at will too. I like the playcalling.

I think you can make a far better case for them squandering that final possession of the first half.

Agree the playcalling was excellent. IMO "squandering" the first half was justified. Jones just dropped the pass. Regroup at halftime with the lead.

[pbmax]

Sorry, I understood the following to be a criticism from you of MM's decision to pass instead of running on third down, and that you were suggesting that a run would have used up another 45 seconds:

Yes, it was poorly worded. I was thinking generally and typing specifically.

[rbaloha1]

Sure, but I think you can let that go as an emotional mistake. Hey, these guys are people too, and when you set the D up like that and have the perfect play with the perfect execution, and Jones drops it, there's going to be an emotional fall out. I'll give 'em that one. (But I would have liked them to come back with the exact same play, maybe with Nelson out there....)

MM made the correct decision to regroup at halftime.

[Freak Out]

Stop with all the bitching about the bitchers you bitches. :)

[Freak Out]

I thought a great game was called from both a offensive and defensive standpoint. Would I have called for a pass when a run was called once or twice? Maybe, but for the most part the coaches came up with the perfect game plan.

[Patler]

[QUOTE=mraynrand;564584]It used up the 2 minute warning, taking that TO away from Philly. That's 45 seconds OR a TO.

Run and don't get the 1st, pass complete and don't get the first, sack and don't get the first; none of those results change anything. The clock is topped for the two-minute warning, and the punt comes with 2:00 on the clock.

The only difference would have been an incomplete pass. The clock would have stopped after third down before the two minute warning. The punt would have carried it past two-minutes so the warning would have come with less than two minutes left on the same stoppage they had for change of possession. It would have given the Eagles a few more seconds, but not anything close to 45 seconds.

The play call on 3rd down made little difference in the time available to the Eagles for their last drive.

[mraynrand]

[QUOTE=pbmax;564547]


Run and don't get the 1st, pass complete and don't get the first, sack and don't get the first; none of those results change anything. The clock is topped for the two-minute warning, and the punt comes with 2:00 on the clock.

The only difference would have been an incomplete pass. The clock would have stopped after third down before the two minute warning. The punt would have carried it past two-minutes so the warning would have come with less than two minutes left on the same stoppage they had for change of possession. It would have given the Eagles a few more seconds, but not anything close to 45 seconds.

The play call on 3rd down made little difference in the time available to the Eagles for their last drive.


If there had been an incompletion anywhere in there, it probably would have given them an extra TO at the 2 minute warning. That's the risk with passing. That's the only point I'm trying to make there. I'm not certain the punt would have taken it to the two minute warning with an incompletion, but if so, you're right, the point is moot.

[mmmdk]

he's getting better. he only sucked in the forth quarter.

+ 1

[mmmdk]

I agree that play calling overall was good, but this is the NFL... games are going to be tight, and mismanagement at the end of a game can cost you the game, and it nearly did this time.

Everybody gets caught up in the clock... forget the clock - to win the game you need to produce at least 3 1st downs. I don't mind running on 1st down, especially if the running game has been going well, but on 2nd and 3rd down, I'm putting that responsibility in the hands of my pro bowl QB. McCarthy got away with it on the 1st set of downs, but then basically punted on 2nd down after we picked up the initial 1st down.

He only gave his QB one shot at it, when the defense was expecting pass, and of course Rodgers was sacked... would much rather have seen a pass on 2nd down, when Philly was stacked for the run. If we go 2 incompletes, so what??? we're still handing them the same scenario regardless, i.e. the ball, and plenty of time on the clock. So the smart play is go for the 1st down thru the air on 2nd down - I would have spread the field and put the pressure on the defense; the conservative, play not to lose strategy is exactly what McCarthy did and it almost cost us the game.

Awesome post - I pointed this out too in the game thread.

[Patler]

[QUOTE=Patler;564602]


If there had been an incompletion anywhere in there, it probably would have given them an extra TO at the 2 minute warning. That's the risk with passing. That's the only point I'm trying to make there. I'm not certain the punt would have taken it to the two minute warning with an incompletion, but if so, you're right, the point is moot.

I was only addressing the comment about running instead of passing on third down. Looking at the times in the gamebook, I am pretty sure the punt would have taken it to the two-minute warning, assuming it was kicked the same way that it was, such that the play took up 14 seconds, as it did.

What really would have screwed it up would have been an incomplete pass, then a punt out of bounds. That might have not made it to the two-minute warning.

[red]

Agree the playcalling was excellent. IMO "squandering" the first half was justified. Jones just dropped the pass. Regroup at halftime with the lead.

to me the mismanagement at the end of the first half started before we even got the ball. i think at the 2 minute warning it was 3rd and goal for the eagles. we stopped them. at that point IMO we should have used 1 of the 2 timouts we had left. they would have kicked the FG and we would have gotten the ball back with somewhere around 1:50 left. we have almost a full 2 miuntes to run the 2 minute drill and get into FG range at the very least.

instead we didn't take the timeout and we let 40 seconds or so run off the clock. by the time we got the ball back there was just over a minute left. then we ran the ball up the middle on first down and damn near gave me a stroke.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I thought the same thing as red did immediately, but after the Eagles kicked the FG I thought about it and I think it was the right move by McCarthy. Certainly, debatable. We were up 14-3. Nothing wrong with going into halftime up 14-3. The Eagles had the wind--which likely meant a touchback. If we call the timeout, the Eagles would have been in good position if they stopped us from getting a first. Ball inside our own 30 (at least), punting into the wind to Desean Jackson. McCarthy was conservative there, and I think it was the right move. They wouldn't have had to move far to get in FG range with the wind behind Akers.

[swede]

to me the mismanagement at the end of the first half started before we even got the ball. i think at the 2 minute warning it was 3rd and goal for the eagles. we stopped them. at that point IMO we should have used 1 of the 2 timouts we had left. they would have kicked the FG and we would have gotten the ball back with somewhere around 1:50 left. we have almost a full 2 miuntes to run the 2 minute drill and get into FG range at the very least.

instead we didn't take the timeout and we let 40 seconds or so run off the clock. by the time we got the ball back there was just over a minute left. then we ran the ball up the middle on first down and damn near gave me a stroke.

Yep. I was screaming also. He feels no need to collect points before the end of first halves. Sometimes you need those points at the end of the game.

At least he took a shot with JJ. That placated me somewhat.

[swede]

I thought the same thing as red did immediately, but after the Eagles kicked the FG I thought about it and I think it was the right move by McCarthy. Certainly, debatable. We were up 14-3. Nothing wrong with going into halftime up 14-3. The Eagles had the wind--which likely meant a touchback. If we call the timeout, the Eagles would have been in good position if they stopped us from getting a first. Ball inside our own 30 (at least), punting into the wind to Desean Jackson. McCarthy was conservative there, and I think it was the right move. They wouldn't have had to move far to get in FG range with the wind behind Akers.

Okay, this makes sense, and maybe Stubby is using a slide rule and an anemometer to make these judgements, but my God with this kind of caution you can't call yourself a tough guy from Pittsburgh.

[Scott Campbell]

to me the mismanagement at the end of the first half started before we even got the ball. i think at the 2 minute warning it was 3rd and goal for the eagles. we stopped them. at that point IMO we should have used 1 of the 2 timouts we had left. they would have kicked the FG and we would have gotten the ball back with somewhere around 1:50 left. we have almost a full 2 miuntes to run the 2 minute drill and get into FG range at the very least.

instead we didn't take the timeout and we let 40 seconds or so run off the clock. by the time we got the ball back there was just over a minute left. then we ran the ball up the middle on first down and damn near gave me a stroke.

Exactly. The entire possession was a cluster. I couldn't believe he didn't use that timeout. 17-3 or 21-3 would have made for a pretty demoralizing Eagles halftime. Take the kill shot. What's the point of having an explosive offense if you're not willing to light the fuse every once in a while.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't mind playing to protect a lead in the 4th quarter. But I don't see playing to protect a halftime lead.

[Joemailman]

He took his shot at a touchdown and had the perfect play called. It's not his fault James Jones dropped the ball. He probably figured kicking a field goal was improbable because he was going into the wind.

[denverYooper]

He took his shot at a touchdown and had the perfect play called. It's not his fault James Jones dropped the ball. He probably figured kicking a field goal was improbable because he was going into the wind.

Yup. Jones doesn't drop that ball and this conversation is much different.

[vince]

He took his shot at a touchdown and had the perfect play called. It's not his fault James Jones dropped the ball. He probably figured kicking a field goal was improbable because he was going into the wind.
I'll be listenign for McCarthy's response to the question he's sure to be asked about this, but I suspect this is exactly right. They weren't nearly as close as they seemed given the strong wind they were playing into. Plus, like Harvey said if you call timeout and throw incomplete on 3rd and have to punt - into the wind, to Jackson, you're playing with fire.
It was conservative, but understandable.

[mraynrand]

I don't mind playing to protect a lead in the 4th quarter. But I don't see playing to protect a halftime lead.

I would agree with you, except that this is not what Stubby did. he lulled that defense to sleep and took a shot, that should have been a TD. Stubby was playing to score and they should have gone in 21-3.

[red]

i can understand not wanting to punt back to jackson, but we were completely unstoppable in the first half, our offensive was killing them and our defensive was killer

we had all the momentum, our d just comes up with a huge stop, then they get on the board for the first time. that gave them life

i would have loved for use to slam the door back in their face at the point going into the half.

he took his one shot after that and jones fucked it all up, but at that point i got the feeling MM said to himself "well i tired" lets head to the locker room

heres a play recap of that last drive

we get the ball at 1:11 left in the half at the 20

1st down is a run by jackson for 5 yards, no timeout called, we have 2

22 seconds run off the clock

rodgers throws incomplete on 2nd down clock stops

on third and 5 rodgers hits quarless for 12 yards. we take our second timeout with 37 seconds left

1st down from the 37. this is the jones drop clock stops with 31 seconds left

play is late getting in which has been a problem with MM, delay of game, 5 yard penalty

2nd and 15 from the 32. pass to jackson for 11 yards NO TIMEOUT TAKEN. MM lets the clock run out

it would have been third and 4 with around 20-25 seconds left with us at our own 42

i'm sorry but i can not accept not trying for anything else at that point, at least keep trying. hard wind or not, at least try a long FG if you have to

[red]

on the flip side

philly got the ball at the end of the game on their own 34 with a 1:45 left

vick was throwing into our endzone with 44 seconds left from our 27

[gbgary]

Yup. Jones doesn't drop that ball and this conversation is much different.

had it gone for a td mm would have just shut things down even sooner. it still would have come down to philly trying to win it in the last seconds...or maybe even the Packers trying to win it. my point is that it never should have come to this. he should have kept his foot on the gas to the finish line.

[PA Pack Fan]

There is no excuse for the debacle right before the half. I can't think of one NFL coach who wouldv'e done the same thing. The playoffs is no time to be conservative.

[RashanGary]

I was OK with how the half ended. There were twenty some seconds left and our only chance was a prayer bomb. Jones Dropped our real shot.

[packer4life]

probably already asked, but why did MM switch the tackles?

[Joemailman]

probably already asked, but why did MM switch the tackles?

He just wanted to see if we were paying attention.

[retailguy]

He just wanted to see if we were paying attention.


probably already asked, but why did MM switch the tackles?

These are some of the things you'd just love to know the truth on.... I was laughing my ass off and was quite impressed that it worked.

I played OL in high school. Not sure I could've done that on the fly. Foot work is completely backwards. I was, and still am, impressed.

[gbgary]

I was OK with how the half ended. There were twenty some seconds left and our only chance was a prayer bomb. Jones Dropped our real shot.

i'm thinking we were pretty close to fg range and we still had a TO.

[Joemailman]

i'm thinking we were pretty close to fg ranger and we still had a TO.

Packers were at their own 32. They likely would have needed to be at about the Eagles 25 to try a field goal, considering they were going into the wind. So if by close you mean 40-45 yards away, then I guess they were pretty close.

[Jimx29]

M3 threw to many uncatchable passes. Other than that, he did OK.

[mmmdk]

Stubby will be Stubby; we're going to win the Super Bowl regardless.

[Joemailman]

probably already asked, but why did MM switch the tackles?


On at least one play Sunday, coach Mike McCarthy had offensive tackles Chad Clifton and Bryan Bulaga switch positions. McCarthy said the move was made for a particular run match-up he was looking for. He didn't say whether he would be doing it again. Packers RapidReports

The mystery is solved.

[retailguy]

The mystery is solved.

Rather unexciting.

I was hoping for something bizarre and mysterious.

[gbgary]

decoded!

[gbgary]

not to beat a dead horse (well...maybe a little), just watched the replay of the philly game on nfl network. i know they edit the game pretty good but can someone correct me if i'm wrong...from the brandon jackson td midway in the third quarter on, how many passes did AR attempt/complete? the replay showed one...a completion to driver...there was the sack of AR also. so that's it...2? in a quarter and a half? two three and outs and one seven and out?

[pbmax]

not to beat a dead horse (well...maybe a little), just watched the replay of the philly game on nfl network. i know they edit the game pretty good but can someone correct me if i'm wrong...from the brandon jackson td midway in the third quarter on, how many passes did AR attempt/complete? the replay showed one...a completion to driver...there was the sack of AR also. so that's it...2? in a quarter and a half? two three and outs and one seven and out?

It was three attempts, one in each drive. One complete, one incomplete and one sack. Starks got one first down and Rodgers got the other in those drives. Not counting the victory formation, those drives cost the Eagles 2 TOs and 2 minutes of clock on Drive 3 (4:02 to 2:00 minute warning), Drive 2 was 4:15 and Drive 1 was 1:35.

The one Rodgers' incompletion, if you can assume 45 seconds ticking off, basically allowed the last Vick throw to Cooper.

[Bretsky]

Stubby will be Stubby; we're going to win the Super Bowl regardless.



If Stubby beats Hoody it's time for you to start worshipping Stubby........lol

[Joemailman]

Stubby almost beat Hoody with Matt Flynn at QB. Maybe he deserves a little more respect...

[Bretsky]

Stubby has my respect and probably deserves more from most in here

There is only one Hoody

This week Hoody gets to use Mouthy as his Biatch

[MadtownPacker]

Stubby almost beat Hoody with Matt Flynn at QB. Maybe he deserves a little more respect...
I think everyone admits M3 is a good coach but I think some have the same problem I do. Basically, is he the James Jones of NFL head coaches? Does he do something great only to follow it up with something that maybe messes up the flow and makes you forget about the great thing he just did?

[Patler]

I think everyone admits M3 is a good coach but I think some have the same problem I do. Basically, is he the James Jones of NFL head coaches? Does he do something great only to follow it up with something that maybe messes up the flow and makes you forget about the great thing he just did?

VERY interesting comparison! "The James Jones of NFL head coaches!"

[gbgary]

It was three attempts, one in each drive. One complete, one incomplete and one sack. Starks got one first down and Rodgers got the other in those drives. Not counting the victory formation, those drives cost the Eagles 2 TOs and 2 minutes of clock on Drive 3 (4:02 to 2:00 minute warning), Drive 2 was 4:15 and Drive 1 was 1:35.

The one Rodgers' incompletion, if you can assume 45 seconds ticking off, basically allowed the last Vick throw to Cooper.


thanks! three possessions, thirteen plays (not counting punts), three pass attempts (which includes a sack), one first down, in a quarter and a half. worse than i thought. geesh! if we get a lead against atlanta and mm decides to stop trying to score again we're doomed. way too much pressure to put on the defense.

[mmmdk]

If Stubby beats Hoody it's time for you to start worshipping Stubby........lol

Stubby is much like Brett Favre...in crunch time; BF throws the pick & McCarthy screws up time management or what not. Great up until showdown. BF won a super bowl due to # 1 Packers defense and a ST guy called Desmond Howard. Stubby is in good hands with the 2010/11 Packers defense and ST ace Mashtay and Packers wins the super bowl come february 2011 ! :smile:

[wist43]

not to beat a dead horse (well...maybe a little), just watched the replay of the philly game on nfl network. i know they edit the game pretty good but can someone correct me if i'm wrong...from the brandon jackson td midway in the third quarter on, how many passes did AR attempt/complete? the replay showed one...a completion to driver...there was the sack of AR also. so that's it...2? in a quarter and a half? two three and outs and one seven and out?

As I made this point earlier... the play calling was good overall, but I agree that McCarthy puckers his ass when the pressure is on.

I haven't analyzed the play calling on the other possessions after Jackson's TD... that last possession was nearly disasterous for us though. If you go back and look at the game, we were a finger nail away from giving up a TD to Jackson with under 2 minutes to go... if Bishop (I believe) doesn't trip up Jackson he could go the distance. As I said in the earlier post - the goal on that last possession is to simply hang on to the ball; the best chance for that to happen is to spread the field, and pass on 2nd and 3rd down - McCarthy's way almost cost us the game, and if he continues to manage the ends of games like that, it will cost us.

[vince]

Playing ball control and running the clock with the lead does not equal puckering of the ass. It's how games are won. It's not new or unique fellas.

In general, teams score by passing and finish games off by protecting their lead by shortening the game and minimizing costly mistakes. It's a proven formula that has no relationship whatsoever to getting nervous under pressure. In fact, it likely relates to being more steadfast and confident under pressure than nervous. When you have a great defense, teams tend to do it to an even greater extent.

[Fritz]

"As I made this point earlier... the play calling was good overall, but I agree that McCarthy puckers his ass when the pressure is on."

- Wist

...Except when it's third and short and MM goes for the long bomb but then gets ripped for taking unnecessary risks.

[Smeefers]

I haven't had a problem with his play calling since the middle of the season or so. Sure, things don't work out every time, but when the season started off, he was calling some pretty dunce plays. Back then we were only throwing the ball to receivers who were at least 10 yards down the field. We'd try gimmicks like the end around. We'd hand the ball off to Kuhn 7 times in a row because he had one good play. We'd do things we weren't really good at, because IMO, McCarthy was trying to out coach the other guy. "They'll never see this coming! (maniacal laughter)"

That was my problem with his play calling, not running the ball when we have the lead to run down the clock. Would I like them to be more aggressive at the end of the half? Sure. Would I like to see him mix it up a bit more when we have the lead in the 4th quarter? Definitely. I see this things as smaller mistakes though that can be fixed with time an experience and in the end don't signify very much. Running the ball when you have the lead in the 4th is good in my opinion so it's hard for me to complain that we weren't going for a home-run.

[Pugger]

Fans don't have a problem with playcalling unless the players don't execute them.

[gbgary]

"As I made this point earlier... the play calling was good overall, but I agree that McCarthy puckers his ass when the pressure is on."

- Wist

...Except when it's third and short and MM goes for the long bomb but then gets ripped for taking unnecessary risks.

i only have a problem with the 3rd and 2 bomb when, we HAVE to get a first down when we're deep in our own territory, when we're trailing on the scoreboard and need to sustain a drive, when the defense have been on the field most of the game and another three-and-out is the last thing they need, etc. it's a low percentage drive killer.

[mraynrand]

"As I made this point earlier... the play calling was good overall, but I agree that McCarthy puckers his ass when the pressure is on."

- Wist

...Except when it's third and short and MM goes for the long bomb but then gets ripped for taking unnecessary risks.

Or fourth and short with a backup QB in there TO WIN THE GAME!!

McCarthy isn't tight - he's just a tad stubborn and a bit tubby; thus Stubby.

[vince]

i only have a problem with the 3rd and 2 bomb when, we HAVE to get a first down when we're deep in our own territory, when we're trailing on the scoreboard and need to sustain a drive, when the defense have been on the field most of the game and another three-and-out is the last thing they need, etc. it's a low percentage drive killer.
Is it lower percentage than running (when you haven't mounted a rushing attack) into 8 or 9 in the box and press coverage denying the quick short routes? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect McCarthy has a pretty educated and informed opinion on that.

[mraynrand]

Is it lower percentage than running (when you haven't mounted a rushing attack) into 8 or 9 in the box and press coverage denying the quick short routes? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect McCarthy has a pretty educated and informed opinion on that.

I bet Patler has stats on that.

[vince]

Also, the Packers are a top 10 team in 3rd down conversions. However McCarthy is handling them, he's doing a damn good job.

[gbgary]

Also, the Packers are a top 10 team in 3rd down conversions. However McCarthy is handling them, he's doing a damn good job.

agreed...but that's not exactly what we're talking about.

[vince]

Don't you think judging McCarthy as a playcaller by talking only about 3rd and 2 when McCarthy calls a play in which the players don't execute is a little myopic?

[denverYooper]

I just don't know about Mike Smith's playcalling either. I mean, he punted the ball back to Drew Brees near midfield with ~4 minutes in the Falcons-Saints game. He just puckered up and it cost them that game. Terrible.

[gbgary]

Don't you think judging McCarthy as a playcaller by talking only about 3rd and 2 when McCarthy calls a play in which the players don't execute is a little myopic?

i'm clearly not judging him on just that. the last quarter and a half of the philly game is an example. he tried to run the clock instead of trying to keep scoring (which we were pretty much doing at will) and it nearly led to a loss. he has his moments when he gets myopic.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I think he kept running the ball to sustain a long drive while burning clock and giving the defense a rest from chasing down vick.

[pbmax]

Playing ball control and running the clock with the lead does not equal puckering of the ass. It's how games are won. It's not new or unique fellas.

In general, teams score by passing and finish games off by protecting their lead by shortening the game and minimizing costly mistakes. It's a proven formula that has no relationship whatsoever to getting nervous under pressure. In fact, it likely relates to being more steadfast and confident under pressure than nervous. When you have a great defense, teams tend to do it to an even greater extent.

vince get out of my head.

[pbmax]

thanks! three possessions, thirteen plays (not counting punts), three pass attempts (which includes a sack), one first down, in a quarter and a half. worse than i thought. geesh! if we get a lead against atlanta and mm decides to stop trying to score again we're doomed. way too much pressure to put on the defense.

Two first downs (though 1 by passing). I agree, I think he should have gone full throttle for all possessions through the 3rd Quarter.

But let's face it, the Packer's owned TOP in the 3rd and were down only 50 seconds in the fourth. They were up overall in the game by 3-4 minutes.

And one late drive ended on Kuhn going for a 1 yard first down. While that was a running play, that was not exactly pulling in his horns. That is a successful play for the Packers in 3rd and short. The LB made a good play. And its possible Johnson missed a block or adjustment.

So while it is tempting to lump all the 2nd half offense to previous efforts with the lead, in the one sustained drive he got to work with, McCarthy's aggressiveness did not change. I think he was consciously running more in the last drive, prior to the victory formation.

[wist43]

Playing ball control and running the clock with the lead does not equal puckering of the ass. It's how games are won. It's not new or unique fellas.

In general, teams score by passing and finish games off by protecting their lead by shortening the game and minimizing costly mistakes. It's a proven formula that has no relationship whatsoever to getting nervous under pressure. In fact, it likely relates to being more steadfast and confident under pressure than nervous. When you have a great defense, teams tend to do it to an even greater extent.

For the 1983 Washington Redskins??? yes, let's run it twice and see if we can mash our way to a 3rd and 1; 2010 Green Bay Packers??? spread the field with 4 wide, and force the defense to defend it... 3 first downs, and we never even have to run the risk of Jackson popping free for 60 yds and 6 pts - which was an eyelash away from happening.

That is being aggressive; that is saying, "we have the ball, we control our own destiny as long as we keep the ball".

Yours and McCarthy's approach is the passive approach, i.e. "let's not take the chance of a sack/fumble/INT... we're okay with giving them the ball back". That's just nuts IMO. Why even entertain the idea of giving Vick, Jackson, Maclin, McCoy, Avant the ball back??? There are some serious play makers there... the percentage play, the smart play - is give your QB the greatest opportunity possible to connect in the short passing game and move the chains.

Yes our defense was playing well, but they have some the most dangerous playmakers in the League, and as I said... go back and look at the tape; Jackson had the ball in the open field and was literally inches away from stabbing us right in the heart. There is no way anyone can argue that being more aggressive by passing when we have the ball is not a higher percentage play than the predictability of run, run, pass/sack, punt - then hope the clock runs out, or they make a mistake.

I don't want to leave the game up to them making a mistake... if I have the ball, and the ability to salt the game away where the other team can never even touch it again... that's what I'm going to do. Focusing on the clock is just misguided IMO. Keep the ball, and the clock will drain out with your QB taking a knee :)

Maybe I've watched too many Belichick coached games... hate the guy, but at least he gets it. Best coach in the league at putting teams away.

[gbgary]

For the 1983 Washington Redskins??? yes, let's run it twice and see if we can mash our way to a 3rd and 1; 2010 Green Bay Packers??? spread the field with 4 wide, and force the defense to defend it... 3 first downs, and we never even have to run the risk of Jackson popping free for 60 yds and 6 pts - which was an eyelash away from happening.

That is being aggressive; that is saying, "we have the ball, we control our own destiny as long as we keep the ball".

Yours and McCarthy's approach is the passive approach, i.e. "let's not take the chance of a sack/fumble/INT... we're okay with giving them the ball back". That's just nuts IMO. Why even entertain the idea of giving Vick, Jackson, Maclin, McCoy, Avant the ball back??? There are some serious play makers there... the percentage play, the smart play - is give your QB the greatest opportunity possible to connect in the short passing game and move the chains.

Yes our defense was playing well, but they have some the most dangerous playmakers in the League, and as I said... go back and look at the tape; Jackson had the ball in the open field and was literally inches away from stabbing us right in the heart. There is no way anyone can argue that being more aggressive by passing when we have the ball is not a higher percentage play than the predictability of run, run, pass/sack, punt - then hope the clock runs out, or they make a mistake.

I don't want to leave the game up to them making a mistake... if I have the ball, and the ability to salt the game away where the other team can never even touch it again... that's what I'm going to do. Focusing on the clock is just misguided IMO. Keep the ball, and the clock will drain out with your QB taking a knee :)

Maybe I've watched too many Belichick coached games... hate the guy, but at least he gets it. Best coach in the league at putting teams away.

THIS!!

it should never have come down to that last philly possession.

[wist43]

Earlier in the 4th, go to 11:50 remaining.

It is 3rd and 3, and the Packers have spread the field with 4 wide, Kuhn in the backfield for blitz pick up... this is the formation I wanted to see McCarthy go with on that last possession.
The Eagles blitzed, and Rodgers had the ball out of his hands before the first Eagle could even get close to him... 11 yard gain to Driver.

The very next set of downs, the Packers ran it 3 times... on 3rd and 1, Kuhn was dropped for a 3 yd loss.

Understandable if not predictable outcomes for each scenario I would say...

[pbmax]

vince's approach was also Holmgren's approach. It doesn't matter if you are the 1983 Redskins or the 1999 Rams. Sometimes, you need to run the clock. Any pass has a 35% chance of being incomplete, which stops the clock. No team can score on every drive, so some thought must be given to reducing the number of possessions when you have a lead of more than one score in the 2nd half.

The optimal strategy may not be to run on ALL the plays because the defense can predict and adjust. But I find it hard to fault a 3rd and 1 run that has been as successful as any passing strategy on 3rd and short. For a demonstration of how a formation and a pass to Driver can also fail, see Rodgers sack on his last pass attempt. In this, at least he had the presence of mind not to throw it away. He ate the ball and kept the clock ticking.

[wist43]

Good grief!!! :)

Did you even read my post??? THE CLOCK DOESN'T MATTER!!

How else can I explain this??? If you go incomplete??? So what!!! You need 3 first downs - if you give them the ball back with time on the clock which is exactly what happened!!! Then what good did it do you to "run clock", when you still punted them the ball with 2 minutes left????

If we kill the clock with an incomplete, but then convert on 3rd down and keep the ball... we keep running clock and have a new set of downs. Do that 3 times and we win.

If we kill the clock with 2 incompletes, and still end up kicking them the ball... what's the difference if they have 2:00, or 2:45??? You've still failed to prevent them from getting the ball back with plenty of time.

I don't know how else to explain it??? The clock doesn't matter - what matters is moving the chains.

[get louder at lambeau]

If we kill the clock with 2 incompletes, and still end up kicking them the ball... what's the difference if they have 2:00, or 2:45??? You've still failed to prevent them from getting the ball back with plenty of time.

I don't know how else to explain it??? The clock doesn't matter - what matters is moving the chains.

If you think the clock doesn't matter, you must have missed the Packers @ New England.

[Fritz]

Wist, what the hell are you saying? "what's the difference if they have 2:00, or 2:45???" Well, the difference is about two plays - two more shots, two more chances for Vick to get the Eagles in the endzone. How can you say that doesn't matter?

Here's another problematic quote: "the percentage play, the smart play - is give your QB the greatest opportunity possible to connect in the short passing game and move the chains." This statement of yours assumes the Eagles are in a defense not specifically designed to choke off the run and the short pass. You assume that the Eagles' defensive alignement is such that short pass completion is somehow more certain than a three yard running gain. How do you know that? Did you see the slant Driver tried to run earlier? Where he couldn't get inside position on the defender and the pass fell incomplete (thus stopping the clock)?

Look, I'm on record as saying I wish MM had gone for a play-action on second and nine on the last possession. But I also understand the rationale behind MM's choice of running the ball. Can't you at least respect the logic of the thinking, and can you remember, too, that the Packers won the game?

[gbgary]

forget the last three minutes. think about the last quarter and a half. puting together scoring drives would have eaten up a lot more time than the three-and-out scenarios that occured and it would have put more distance between us and philly without puting pressure on the d and relying on some miracle play to save the game. driving and scoring would have made the freaking clock irrelevant.

[wist43]

Guys, the goal is to keep the ball... the clock is incidental. Get 1st downs and the clock will drain.

Really, in that context, what is the difference between 2:00 min and 2:45??? There is no difference if your goal was to prevent them from ever having the opportunity to stab you in heart.

In this strategic situation, the clock didn't matter when Holmgren was coaching, or Joe Gibbs was coaching, or now... what matters is moving the chains. If the best opportunity a team has to move the chains is run the ball, ala 1983 Redskins... then go ahead and play to your strength and run the ball. Our strength on offense is our passing game... play to that strength, and play to win, play to keep the ball, and I can live with the outcome good or bad.

Giving the other team the ball back in a 1 score game??? Forgive me, but I think that's a pretty bad idea :)

[Fritz]

Well nobody on the Packer sideline was thinking "hey, let's give them the ball back. That's a good idea!" What they were doing, I think, was weighing the risks and rewards of the possible plays that could be called, and studying the defense the Iggles were putting out there.

Starks had over a hundred yards. The run game had been effective. Incomplete passes stop the clock; quarterback strips and interceptions are risks that are more probable outcomes than a running back fumbling. It's easier to strip a QB trying to throw or intercept a pass on a deflection or jumped route than it is to cause a running back to fumble.

Do I wish MM had taken that risk on one play, on that second and nine on the last possession? Yes. But I also understand the reluctance to do so. I'm not going to accuse MM of "puckering" or going into a shell that cost the team the game. Which, by the way, it did not.

I wonder what this board would look like if MM had called for passes on the last couple of drives, and Rodgers had gotten intercepted or sacked and fumbled. Would gbgary being standing up for MM for having cojones, or would he be bitching at MM for taking unnecessary chances? You know, like throwing long on third and two.

[pbmax]

Good grief!!! :)

Did you even read my post??? THE CLOCK DOESN'T MATTER!!

How else can I explain this??? If you go incomplete??? So what!!! You need 3 first downs - if you give them the ball back with time on the clock which is exactly what happened!!! Then what good did it do you to "run clock", when you still punted them the ball with 2 minutes left????

If we kill the clock with an incomplete, but then convert on 3rd down and keep the ball... we keep running clock and have a new set of downs. Do that 3 times and we win.

If we kill the clock with 2 incompletes, and still end up kicking them the ball... what's the difference if they have 2:00, or 2:45??? You've still failed to prevent them from getting the ball back with plenty of time.

I don't know how else to explain it??? The clock doesn't matter - what matters is moving the chains.

Yes, I read your entire post. Both of them, including the first that said aggression was the key and that to run the ball and worry about the clock was to be willing to hand the ball back to the opposition. Your first post gave a detailed description of your philosophy and the second gave a specific example of how it would differ from McCarthy's call of Kuhn on 3rd and 1. I think aggression is meaningless in this context and that your strategy in general hands the ball back to the opposition more than an optimal strategy would.

To the first post I point out that some percentage (a significant percentage) of drives are always turned back over to the opposition without scoring. No amount of aggression or passing will prevent it. Passing lengthens games because the 35-40% of incompletes stop the clock. When you have the lead in the 2nd half, one of the last things you want to do is to increase the number of opposition possessions. Play calling should try to drain clock, running when success is possible and throwing high percentage routes. At some point you might need to break a tendency or exploit a coverage designed to stop this, but that shouldn't be the basis for the 2nd half offense with a lead. And we haven't even covered forcing the opposition to use its timeouts.

As for your second post and the specific matter of the Kuhn carry, I have two concerns. An additional 40 seconds is forever and would have allowed the Eagles to take whatever play and shot they wanted to from the 27. They could have gone for two first downs with runs or taken shots into the endzone. Had Vick not thrown an int, (as a result of Kuhn's run) they would have been forced to pass from the 27 and become somewhat predictable.

As for your point that the Eagles had enough time to almost score anyway (Jackson or Cooper with a better throw) I agree with you. But the Packers made two good plays to stop them. The Eagles were threatening, but my second point is that they were limited in what they could attempt to do. Under your scenario, they could have called any play and the Packers would have been forced to make even more plays while they threatened the endzone.

Put another way: the Packers almost gave up a score twice on that last drive. With 40 more seconds, they would have had 3 more shots to defend, minimum.

Lastly, your point about 3 first downs. The Eagles had two timeouts during the last two Packer possessions. If the Packers had passed more (and had a few incompletes), 3 first downs could easily have reduced the time on the clock by less than 2 minutes. So unless those three first downs produced a FG, that might have left the Packers more vulnerable than the two first downs they earned.

[pbmax]

And I do agree with wist that possession is vitally important. But no one scores on every possession. At some point you hand the ball back over. What conditions are presented to the opposition when they get it is largely determined by clock and field position. You cannot ignore either. You have to account for the possibility that you will lose possession. You cannot attack without regard and they have left yourself in a worse position if unsuccessful.

And that is where I think the criticism of McCarthy is valid. To have to call a pass in your own half of the field on 3rd and long is having boxed yourself in a corner. You have to have planned for this knowing how much time can be drained by 2 runs. If another first is vital (and I agree with wist in this drive it was) then you cannot wait to throw on 3rd and long. Play action once on either first or second makes much more sense.

[get louder at lambeau]

And that is where I think the criticism of McCarthy is valid. To have to call a pass in your own half of the field on 3rd and long is having boxed yourself in a corner. You have to have planned for this knowing how much time can be drained by 2 runs. If another first is vital (and I agree with wist in this drive it was) then you cannot wait to throw on 3rd and long. Play action once on either first or second makes much more sense.

I disagree. The Packers just got a first down by running the ball twice right before that, on the same drive. No one is bitching about that. Same exact thing. Two runs on 1st and 2nd down. No bitching. No second guessing.

The run worked all day. The passing game was full of drops and fumbles. They needed to run the clock, and they did. And they won. It worked. The Packers got Philly to use their 2nd and 3rd time outs with that possession, gained some yardage, and used up the two minute warning.

As a result, Philly came out with 5 straight passes and one of them got intercepted.

[gbgary]

again...it's about THE LAST QUARTER AND A HALF and scoring points like we had all game long. take philly out of the game instead of allowing them to get back in it and giving them a chance to win it in the end. now THAT was an unnecessary risk to take.

[pbmax]

I disagree. The Packers just got a first down by running the ball twice right before that, on the same drive. No one is bitching about that. Same exact thing. Two runs on 1st and 2nd down. No bitching. No second guessing.

The run worked all day. The passing game was full of drops and fumbles. They needed to run the clock, and they did. And they won. It worked. The Packers got Philly to use their 2nd and 3rd time outs with that possession, gained some yardage, and used up the two minute warning.

As a result, Philly came out with 5 straight passes and one of them got intercepted.

No quarrel that the running game was working. But run games don't get 4 yards each time, esp when the D knows its coming. At some point, you might need to pass. And it would be best if that pass was not in 3rd and long versus a blitz. Even if he play actioned it on 3rd down, it would have been a better idea.

To a certain degree we don't have a lot to work with in terms of seeing how he would have called the game with more plays. To assume he was in run every down mode is probably not fair. But he did it earlier in the season.

[get louder at lambeau]

again...it's about THE LAST QUARTER AND A HALF and scoring points like we had all game long. take philly out of the game instead of allowing them to get back in it and giving them a chance to win it in the end. now THAT was an unnecessary risk to take.

Because they ran the ball?

The scoring drives earlier in the game were FULL of runs and short passes to RBs.

The first TD drive started like this-
Inc. pass, RUN, RUN, RUN...

The second TD drive started like this-
RUN, RUN, RUN, short pass to FB, RUN...

The third one started like this-
RUN, RUN, RUN...

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think people bitch about playcalling too much.

[Packgator]

I think people bitch about playcalling too much.

+1

[wist43]

One of those late 2nd half possessions started at our own 3 yd line... not gonna open up the playbook there.

The only criticism I have is when we got the ball back at the 4:00 mark - the winning mindset is, "let's close this out, and play to win, i.e. keep the ball"... and that means throwing. I trust Rodgers, and as I said, if we go 2 incompletes and don't burn any clock, so what... we're giving them the ball back either way - either way, you still have to either force a turnover on defense, or stop them on downs.

My way, if successful... we control our own destiny and our defense never sees the field again - more importantly, their offense never sees the field again. You cannot argue with that logic... it is the #1 option for success in that situation. Are there other options??? of course, and McCarthy chose the wrong approach. As I said in another post, everybody hates Bill Belichick, but in this same situation... you know he's going to put the ball in Brady's hands, spread the field, and club you to death with Wes Welker, Danny Woodhead, and 1st downs - that is killer instinct, that is putting your opponent away.

[RashanGary]

The strength of our team is defense and our punter has had a hell of a month. He ran the clock out as much as he could and the way Starks was running, who knows, we could have had a first down anyway. He stuck with what was working even though it had gotten predictable at the end. He put the onus on the strongest part of our team (the defense) and like we expected (most of us anyway) they showed up with big plays by two of this years best defensive players. Game over and big credit to McCarthy. He put the time pressure on them and trusted his defense. MM has been calling big games this way for a while. The big diffrence this year is our defense is great so it will work.

[RashanGary]

Had this game been a 45-42 shootout where the last team with the ball was probably going to win, I would have lost it. But our defense was stopping them all game. Good approach IMO, even if it hadn't worked, I was saying I agreed with the approach and would have stuck to it.

[Smeefers]

One of those late 2nd half possessions started at our own 3 yd line... not gonna open up the playbook there.

The only criticism I have is when we got the ball back at the 4:00 mark - the winning mindset is, "let's close this out, and play to win, i.e. keep the ball"... and that means throwing. I trust Rodgers, and as I said, if we go 2 incompletes and don't burn any clock, so what... we're giving them the ball back either way - either way, you still have to either force a turnover on defense, or stop them on downs.

My way, if successful... we control our own destiny and our defense never sees the field again - more importantly, their offense never sees the field again. You cannot argue with that logic... it is the #1 option for success in that situation. Are there other options??? of course, and McCarthy chose the wrong approach. As I said in another post, everybody hates Bill Belichick, but in this same situation... you know he's going to put the ball in Brady's hands, spread the field, and club you to death with Wes Welker, Danny Woodhead, and 1st downs - that is killer instinct, that is putting your opponent away.

MM's way, if successfull... we control our own destiny and our defense never sees the field again. If it fails, it brings the clock down to the two minute warning. You're way if it fails though adds 45 seconds and the two minute warning . If Vick doesn't feel pressured, maybe he doesn't throw that pick. If he doesn't throw that pick, maybe he dinks and dunks until he gets in the endzone and we loose the game. And maybe, if my aunt had a pair a dangly parts, she'd be my uncle. I have a hard time seeing why you're so against the 3rd and 1 run call. It worked out in the end. We won, because they felt pressured and they ran out of time was running out and Vick made a mistake. I agree, many of MM's calls are suspect, I just think you're picking the wrong play to harp on. It's hard to argue against what ends up being a winning strategy.

[th87]

Had this game been a 45-42 shootout where the last team with the ball was probably going to win, I would have lost it. But our defense was stopping them all game. Good approach IMO, even if it hadn't worked, I was saying I agreed with the approach and would have stuck to it.

I disagree that the defense was stopping them all game. They were tiring out.

A huge drop by Avant ended the Eagles' promising drive after Jackson's TD. He was wide open at our 25. We really lucked out.

Their second drive got them all the way down to our 16. It was a huge play to stop them on 3rd and 1. They were very, very close to converting.

Their third drive was their TD drive.

They were marching pretty well down the field on their final drive. It took a huge play to end it.

That's why I was livid at the attempts to run clock early in the fourth. I felt it was riskier than playing it safe, because we weren't able to stop them by then. But on the other hand, they hadn't demonstrated the ability to stop us, so I thought we should've continued with play-calling variety.

[th87]

MM's way, if successfull... we control our own destiny and our defense never sees the field again. If it fails, it brings the clock down to the two minute warning. You're way if it fails though adds 45 seconds and the two minute warning . If Vick doesn't feel pressured, maybe he doesn't throw that pick. If he doesn't throw that pick, maybe he dinks and dunks until he gets in the endzone and we loose the game. And maybe, if my aunt had a pair a dangly parts, she'd be my uncle. I have a hard time seeing why you're so against the 3rd and 1 run call. It worked out in the end. We won, because they felt pressured and they ran out of time was running out and Vick made a mistake. I agree, many of MM's calls are suspect, I just think you're picking the wrong play to harp on. It's hard to argue against what ends up being a winning strategy.

I just don't think it is sustainable to rely on a huge defensive turnover to win a game. Especially given the fact that they were marching pretty much at will in the second half.

It took a WR drop, a close 1 yard-to-go stuff followed by a missed FG, and an interception to keep them from scoring. Is that something we can consistently rely on?

[gbgary]

I just don't think it is sustainable to rely on a huge defensive turnover to win a game. Especially given the fact that they were marching pretty much at will in the second half.

It took a WR drop, a close 1 yard-to-go stuff followed by a missed FG, and an interception to keep them from scoring. Is that something we can consistently rely on?

don't forget the shoestring tackle of jackson with nothing but the endzone in front of him.

[gbgary]

Because they ran the ball?

The scoring drives earlier in the game were FULL of runs and short passes to RBs.

The first TD drive started like this-
Inc. pass, RUN, RUN, RUN...

The second TD drive started like this-
RUN, RUN, RUN, short pass to FB, RUN...

The third one started like this-
RUN, RUN, RUN...

how many of those runs were on third down? just askin'.

[th87]

how many of those runs were on third down? just askin'.

Not only that, they weren't expecting run early on. But when the team very evidently went into clock mode, everyone expected run. That's the difference.

And I don't think the clock forced Vick to make that throw. There was plenty of time, especially given how easily they were moving it before that play.

We have one of the best offenses in the league facing a defense that had no answer. That's the girl MM brought. No need to stop dancing with her.

[wist43]

MM's way, if successfull... we control our own destiny and our defense never sees the field again. If it fails, it brings the clock down to the two minute warning. You're way if it fails though adds 45 seconds and the two minute warning . If Vick doesn't feel pressured, maybe he doesn't throw that pick. If he doesn't throw that pick, maybe he dinks and dunks until he gets in the endzone and we loose the game. And maybe, if my aunt had a pair a dangly parts, she'd be my uncle. I have a hard time seeing why you're so against the 3rd and 1 run call. It worked out in the end. We won, because they felt pressured and they ran out of time was running out and Vick made a mistake. I agree, many of MM's calls are suspect, I just think you're picking the wrong play to harp on. It's hard to argue against what ends up being a winning strategy.

There was no 3rd and 1 call in the final possession... the problem I have is with the call on 2nd down, and the formations on both of those 2nd downs. As I said, McCarthy got away with it on the 1st set of downs, but then of course we ended up punting on the 2nd set of downs.

What you guys don't seem to be grasping is that the #1 goal in that situation has to be, keep the ball!!!... punting them the ball with 3 minutes left, or 2 minutes left doesn't matter. Michael Vick, DeSean Jackson, Jeremy Maclin, et al... you don't think they have a legit shot at scoring the winning TD with the ball in good field position and 2 minutes??? I think you guys see the clock at 0:00, and forget how close we really came to losing that game.

The scenario that played out gave the Eagles every chance they could have hoped for, i.e. the ball, and plenty of time - and therein lies the problem.

There is no way to reasonably expect that the Packers are going to be able to run the ball for 2-3 consecutive 1st downs... and since that is the case, you're conceding the Eagles the ball, and relying on your defense. As I said, go back and look at the tape... Jackson almost scored from 60 yds out; they had the ball at the 27, with a 1st down, and still plenty of time; Vick wasn't pressured to make that throw into the end zone... he took a shot - when a TD beats you, the last thing you want is for Pro-bowl calibur QB to be taken one-on-one shots into your end zone.

If you guys can't see that obvious logic... I don't know what to tell ya :)

We won, but McCarthy played it wrong... he focused on the clock, the same as all of you guys sitting at home, and it almost cost us the game. That's not to say that my approach doesn't produce 2 incompletes and we punt it away anyway... but at least we would have pursued the correct strategic course.

[get louder at lambeau]

Not only that, they weren't expecting run early on. But when the team very evidently went into clock mode, everyone expected run. That's the difference.

And I don't think the clock forced Vick to make that throw. There was plenty of time, especially given how easily they were moving it before that play.

We have one of the best offenses in the league facing a defense that had no answer. That's the girl MM brought. No need to stop dancing with her.

You know WHY they expected the run? Because it's the strategically smart playcall in that situation. The Eagles WANT to force you to pass in that situation. It improves their odds of winning if you pass. That's reality. Especially when the run is working well, the QB has fumbled twice and receivers are dropping balls left and right in the cold.

And if you don't think the clock forced Vick into the INT throw, you must not have seen the Eagles' post-game interviews. His teammates were expecting him to spike the ball (because, ya know, the clock), but VIck hurriedly called all streaks and basically threw up a Hail Mary. That doesn't happen if there's more time on the clock.

[Pugger]

I think people bitch about playcalling too much.

They only bitch when the players fail to execute the called plays. :wink:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Funny. We're multiple. It does give opposing defenses several things to prep for.


As we noted Monday, the Packers utilized a three-back set on offense 20 times during the regular season, accounting for nearly 60 percent of the times it was used by all 32 NFL teams this season. Then, in Sunday's wild-card playoff victory over the Philadelphia Eagles, the Packers averaged 7.6 yards on the eight plays they ran out of that set.

So on one hand, the Packers have demonstrated an ability and willingness to use one of the oldest and most conservative formations in the game: the wishbone, or an inverted wishbone in some cases. But on the other hand, they have also used the high-octane, rarely-seen five-receiver set more than any NFL team as well.

(For those who have been asking, ESPN Stats & Information limits the definition of this set to occasions when five actual wide receivers are on the field, not when some of those split out are running backs or tight ends.)

The Packers used this spread formation 30 times during the regular season, employing special teams mainstay Brett Swain as the fifth receiver. The other 31 NFL teams combined to use it 16 times.

[mraynrand]

We won, but McCarthy played it wrong... he focused on the clock, the same as all of you guys sitting at home, and it almost cost us the game. That's not to say that my approach doesn't produce 2 incompletes and we punt it away anyway... but at least we would have pursued the correct strategic course.

You could say that McCarthy played it right, because it worked. I'm certain that his number one priority was to keep the ball, but number 1a was to run the clock and force Phily to use their timeouts, to force them into a situation where they had to become one dimensional. McCarthy certainly wanted to get 1, but if he couldn't he had to have 1a, right? People commented on the defense. The defense gave up one TD off a fumble at the 20, otherwise they gave up 9 points, 6 of which came on a desperation 4th and goal attempt. With the exception of one bad move by Jarret Bush, They essentially forced all field goals or FG attempts. McCarthy knew that and it was certainly part of his calculation. McCarthy did still try to keep the ball. Had the protection been better on the 3rd and 10, I'm sure Rodgers would have found someone. As it was, he correctly ate the ball. Overall, You disagree, and I understand your viewpoint. It has some merit. But even your guy Belichick had some classic F-ups when he tried to keep the ball (recall the classic 4th down play on his own side of the field at Indy). McCarthy may not have kept the ball, but he got 1a, he knew his defense, and he did win the game.

[mraynrand]

Funny. We're multiple. It does give opposing defenses several things to prep for.


McCarthy puts in the gameplan and calls the formations he thinks will expose the weaknesses of the defense across from him. I suspect the Packer's offense in ATL will look a lot different from what you saw in Philly.

[Patler]

The only criticism I have is when we got the ball back at the 4:00 mark - the winning mindset is, "let's close this out, and play to win, i.e. keep the ball"... and that means throwing. I trust Rodgers, and as I said, if we go 2 incompletes and don't burn any clock, so what... we're giving them the ball back either way - either way, you still have to either force a turnover on defense, or stop them on downs.

I simply can't believe that you see no difference between giving Philly the ball with less than two minutes on the clock and no timeouts left on the one hand, and giving it to them with 2:45 - 3:00 minutes on the clock, one timeout left (or maybe two) and the two minute warning to stop the clock. Philly could easily have run two or three plays before the two minute warning, then had a short field, two minutes and a timeout (or two) to do whatever they pleased.

Vick admitted that the interception was based on a poor decision by him, caused in part by his not wanting to waste time and a play by spiking the ball to stop the clock. In short, he was worried about having sufficient time and enough plays, and it forced him into a bad decision. Giving him more time and ways to stop the clock when needed, his decision making would likely have improved and the game ending interception may never have occurred.

[th87]

You could say that McCarthy played it right, because it worked. I'm certain that his number one priority was to keep the ball, but number 1a was to run the clock and force Phily to use their timeouts, to force them into a situation where they had to become one dimensional. McCarthy certainly wanted to get 1, but if he couldn't he had to have 1a, right? People commented on the defense. The defense gave up one TD off a fumble at the 20, otherwise they gave up 9 points, 6 of which came on a desperation 4th and goal attempt. With the exception of one bad move by Jarret Bush, They essentially forced all field goals or FG attempts. McCarthy knew that and it was certainly part of his calculation. McCarthy did still try to keep the ball. Had the protection been better on the 3rd and 10, I'm sure Rodgers would have found someone. As it was, he correctly ate the ball. Overall, You disagree, and I understand your viewpoint. It has some merit. But even your guy Belichick had some classic F-ups when he tried to keep the ball (recall the classic 4th down play on his own side of the field at Indy). McCarthy may not have kept the ball, but he got 1a, he knew his defense, and he did win the game.

The Eagles dropped a pass at our 25 that would have given them a first down. They got stopped again on our 16 on a very close 3rd and 1, and missed the FG. They scored a TD after that. And then the interception that was preceded by a very, very close tackle.

I thought the defense was pretty lucky in the second half. It took a dropped pass, a close stop, a missed FG, and an interception to escape with a win. I wouldn't want to bank on that to win every week.

[gbgary]

The Eagles dropped a pass at our 25 that would have given them a first down. They got stopped again on our 16 on a very close 3rd and 1, and missed the FG. They scored a TD after that. And then the interception that was preceded by a very, very close tackle.

I thought the defense was pretty lucky in the second half. It took a dropped pass, a close stop, a missed FG, and an interception to escape with a win. I wouldn't want to bank on that to win every week.

yup. it caught a ton of breaks...which wouldn't have been needed had we played to score all game long. it worked out in the end but why temp disaster like that?

[mraynrand]

The Eagles dropped a pass at our 25 that would have given them a first down. They got stopped again on our 16 on a very close 3rd and 1, and missed the FG. They scored a TD after that. And then the interception that was preceded by a very, very close tackle.

I thought the defense was pretty lucky in the second half. It took a dropped pass, a close stop, a missed FG, and an interception to escape with a win. I wouldn't want to bank on that to win every week.


Of course not. But the play of the defense is part of the calculation. McCarthy had to be banking on the ability of his defense to stop Philly in case he didn't get the first down. That allows him to also make sure that he's run the clock and run them out of TOs, including the 2 minute warning (forcing them to pass).

[th87]

I simply can't believe that you see no difference between giving Philly the ball with less than two minutes on the clock and no timeouts left on the one hand, and giving it to them with 2:45 - 3:00 minutes on the clock, one timeout left (or maybe two) and the two minute warning to stop the clock. Philly could easily have run two or three plays before the two minute warning, then had a short field, two minutes and a timeout (or two) to do whatever they pleased.

Vick admitted that the interception was based on a poor decision by him, caused in part by his not wanting to waste time and a play by spiking the ball to stop the clock. In short, he was worried about having sufficient time and enough plays, and it forced him into a bad decision. Giving him more time and ways to stop the clock when needed, his decision making would likely have improved and the game ending interception may never have occurred.

That's if we go three and out. I didn't see that as likely, as the Eagles had only stopped us on a dropped pass by Driver, followed by the fumble. Plus they were expecting us to run to attempt to run the clock. Deft use of play action would have been the bold, and in my opinion, right move.

I didn't think the Eagles were running out of time either. They were moving at will, and almost scored anyway. Just because Vick made a poor throw doesn't mean our move was tactically correct. We were fortunate, IMO.

[mraynrand]

yup. it caught a ton of breaks...which wouldn't have been needed had we played to score all game long. it worked out in the end but why temp disaster like that?

You could argue they made their own luck/breaks. Look, they stopped Philly's offense all day long. The same offense that scored 21 point in 7 minutes, and gave defenses fits all year long - give 'em some credit.

[mraynrand]

That's if we go three and out. I didn't see that as likely, as the Eagles had only stopped us on a dropped pass by Driver, followed by the fumble. Plus they were expecting us to run to attempt to run the clock. Deft use of play action would have been the bold, and in my opinion, right move.

I didn't think the Eagles were running out of time either. They were moving at will, and almost scored anyway. Just because Vick made a poor throw doesn't mean our move was tactically correct. We were fortunate, IMO.


Depends on why you believe he made a poor throw, doesn't it?

[th87]

Of course not. But the play of the defense is part of the calculation. McCarthy had to be banking on the ability of his defense to stop Philly in case he didn't get the first down. That allows him to also make sure that he's run the clock and run them out of TOs, including the 2 minute warning (forcing them to pass).

Indeed, he was banking on the defense to make a stop, but they hadn't really made one in the entire second half. It was enforced errors by the Eagles that largely did the stopping. Each of the drives ended considerably inside Packers territory.

[denverYooper]

You could argue they made their own luck/breaks. Look, they stopped Philly's offense all day long. The same offense that scored 21 point in 7 minutes, and gave defenses fits all year long - give 'em some credit.

This. The Eagles had to fight like hell for every point they got. Green Bay's defense is not getting lucky, it's choking opponents out until they are forced into a mistake. That last INT was set up by their play all game.

I thought they were getting "lucky" early in the year but as the season has gone on they've shown to be consistent and tough, making opponents work very hard to put points up. McCarthy has shown that he trusts them to win games and I can't fault him for that because they've been the most reliable unit on the team.

[mraynrand]

Indeed, he was banking on the defense to make a stop(1), but they hadn't really made one in the entire second half(2). (3)It was enforced errors by the Eagles that largely did the stopping. Each of the drives ended considerably inside Packers territory.


(1) He wasn't banking on it, it was part of his calculation - that the defense could likely keep Philly out of the endzone if the Packers couldn't hang onto the ball; the defense would have even a better chance of stopping Philly if Philly had less time and was forced to pass only.
(2) Sure they did.
(3)That depends on your POV - did the Eagles make unforced errors, or did the Packers defense force the errors?

[th87]

Depends on why you believe he made a poor throw, doesn't it?

I'm sure the time did play some factor on the decision to throw. However, I don't think it was a huge one. The Eagles had plenty of time, and had just completed passes of 28 and 11 yards. They were moving pretty well, and on the INT, there were others open.

I definitely don't think it factored in the throw itself though. It was just a poor throw.

[mraynrand]

I'm sure the time did play some factor on the decision to throw. However, I don't think it was a huge one. The Eagles had plenty of time, and had just completed passes of 28 and 11 yards. They were moving pretty well, and on the INT, there were others open.

I definitely don't think it factored in the throw itself though. It was just a poor throw.

OK, we disagree, and we know where we disagree.

[th87]

(1) He wasn't banking on it, it was part of his calculation - that the defense could likely keep Philly out of the endzone if the Packers couldn't hang onto the ball; the defense would have even a better chance of stopping Philly if Philly had less time and was forced to pass only.
(2) Sure they did.
(3)That depends on your POV - did the Eagles make unforced errors, or did the Packers defense force the errors?

The pass at the 25 hit Avant in the hands. That's unforced, I'd say.

The missed FG was also. Credit the defense for forcing them into a FG, but they had gotten to our 16.

The INT was a bad pass and a great play, so the edge goes to the defense here. But even this came deep in our territory.

If we were completely shutting them down, then fine. Play it safe. But they were moving the ball pretty effectively in the second half.

[HarveyWallbangers]

On a day like last Sunday, FGs were iffy propositions. Credit the defense even more for forcing FGs--because there was a good chance FGs longer than 30 yards were going to be missed.

[RashanGary]

Windy day, tough to pass.
Top 5 defense
Punter who is on a roll
RB who's been running hard
Time running out
Other team needs a TD. FG is nothing
Vick's running is partially neutralized because clock runs.


There are a lot of solid reasons to lean toward running the clock. It's the decision I would have made.


However, it did cross my mind that a PA pass would be pretty sweet on 1st down. 2nd down I was fully committed to running.

[gbgary]

You could argue they made their own luck/breaks. Look, they stopped Philly's offense all day long. The same offense that scored 21 point in 7 minutes, and gave defenses fits all year long - give 'em some credit.

i did! http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?21339-kuddos-go-to......

[mraynrand]

The pass at the 25 hit Avant in the hands. That's unforced, I'd say.

The missed FG was also. Credit the defense for forcing them into a FG, but they had gotten to our 16.

The INT was a bad pass and a great play, so the edge goes to the defense here. But even this came deep in our territory.

If we were completely shutting them down, then fine. Play it safe. But they were moving the ball pretty effectively in the second half.


I disagree that the Eagles largely stopped themselves. As to 'completely shutting them down' - well, if that were true, then you'd never need to pass again. The defense was effective so it was part of McCarthy's calculation. That's my view. I see where you differ. I think we're done here.:grin:

[get louder at lambeau]

As far as our defense stopping the Eagles or the Eagles stopping themselves, it is immaterial. Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

[th87]

I disagree that the Eagles largely stopped themselves. As to 'completely shutting them down' - well, if that were true, then you'd never need to pass again. The defense was effective so it was part of McCarthy's calculation. That's my view. I see where you differ. I think we're done here.:grin:

Sounds good!

[vince]

As far as our defense stopping the Eagles or the Eagles stopping themselves, it is immaterial. Six of one, a half dozen of the other.
That's a really good point. A big part of the Bears' defensive philosophy is to make the opposing offense stop themselves. They've been a pretty damn good defense when they can avoid big plays and just keep offenses in front of them.

[th87]

As far as our defense stopping the Eagles or the Eagles stopping themselves, it is immaterial. Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

Disagree. Is a person who guessed correctly on a multiple choice question the same as someone who knew the right answer?

Luck matters. And we got some major breaks in the second half, as I'd mentioned. To count on more to derail their drives wasn't, IMO, statistically sustainable.

[vince]

Disagree. Is a person who guessed correctly on a multiple choice question the same as someone who knew the right answer?

Luck matters. And we got some major breaks in the second half, as I'd mentioned. To count on more to derail their drives wasn't, IMO, statistically sustainable.
Luck has nothing to do with it nor does guessing on a test. Surely you don't think Vick flipped a coin in his head to decide whether to throw the ball to the end zone.

[th87]

Luck has nothing to do with it nor does guessing on a test. Surely you don't think Vick flipped a coin in his head to decide whether to throw the ball to the end zone.

Avant's drop was 100% luck. As was Akers' miss. It was luck that those drives ended there. To count on more to hold them off yet again is too much of a dice roll for me.

[wist43]

Of course not. But the play of the defense is part of the calculation. McCarthy had to be banking on the ability of his defense to stop Philly in case he didn't get the first down. That allows him to also make sure that he's run the clock and run them out of TOs, including the 2 minute warning (forcing them to pass).


Disagree. Is a person who guessed correctly on a multiple choice question the same as someone who knew the right answer?

Luck matters. And we got some major breaks in the second half, as I'd mentioned. To count on more to derail their drives wasn't, IMO, statistically sustainable.

Absolutely, I can't fathom why these guys can't see that the #1 best chance of victory is keeping the ball; and given the amount of time left, keeping the ball required a minimum of 2 first downs; that the odds of being able to run for 2 first downs are not good; and that the odds of converting 2 first downs thru the air are much better.

The only consideration given to the clock is the fact that it dictates "we need this many 1st downs to drain it".

Once you follow that chain of logic... you're passing on 2nd down. Vince, Ayn, Max, et al are arguing that other chains of logic are just as valid - no they are not.

The reason they are not as valid is b/c any scenario which diminishes your odds of converting the necessary number of 1st downs to ensure that you maintain possession of the ball, is an inferior position to take b/c it increases the odds that you will have to relinquish possession.

That is the bottom line - and it's logic that cannot be refuted.

[th87]

Absolutely, I can't fathom why these guys can't see that the #1 best chance of victory is keeping the ball; and given the amount of time left, keeping the ball required a minimum of 2 first downs; that the odds of being able to run for 2 first downs are not good; and that the odds of converting 2 first downs thru the air are much better.

The only consideration given to the clock is the fact that it dictates "we need this many 1st downs to drain it".

Once you follow that chain of logic... you're passing on 2nd down. Vince, Ayn, Max, et al are arguing that other chains of logic are just as valid - no they are not.

The reason they are not as valid is b/c any scenario which diminishes your odds of converting the necessary number of 1st downs to ensure that you maintain possession of the ball, is an inferior position to take b/c it increases the odds that you will have to relinquish possession.

That is the bottom line - and it's logic that cannot be refuted.

I think MM got caught in a best of both worlds scenario. Attempt to pick up the necessary first downs, and run it, to minimize time stoppage risks.

This philosophy is fine if and only if the defense had demonstrated a continued ability to stop their opponent. This was not the case with this past game.

[vince]

Avant's drop was 100% luck. As was Akers' miss. It was luck that those drives ended there. To count on more to hold them off yet again is too much of a dice roll for me.
I don't wnat to get bogged down in semantics, but luck had nothing to do with either of those events. Execution in the elements did. In the end, the Packers chose a course that enabled them to force the Eagles into a situation in which they weren't good enough to win the game and in which the Packers won. And those are the only facts in evidence. The rest is total speculation and assumptions that may or may not be valid.

[vince]

Absolutely, I can't fathom why these guys can't see that the #1 best chance of victory is keeping the ball; and given the amount of time left, keeping the ball required a minimum of 2 first downs; that the odds of being able to run for 2 first downs are not good; and that the odds of converting 2 first downs thru the air are much better.

The only consideration given to the clock is the fact that it dictates "we need this many 1st downs to drain it".

Once you follow that chain of logic... you're passing on 2nd down. Vince, Ayn, Max, et al are arguing that other chains of logic are just as valid - no they are not.

The reason they are not as valid is b/c any scenario which diminishes your odds of converting the necessary number of 1st downs to ensure that you maintain possession of the ball, is an inferior position to take b/c it increases the odds that you will have to relinquish possession.

That is the bottom line - and it's logic that cannot be refuted.
No one argues with the logic wist. It's your assumptions. The only reason they only needed two first downs to win is because they ran the ball, kept the clock running and forced the Eagles to burn their timeouts. If they pass the ball and throw incompletions, they would need 3 or maybe even 4 first downs to run the clock out. You are assuming that they will throw every pass complete and there will be no impcompletions or worse yet, an interception or catch and fumble, etc. Given those assumptions, how can you be wrong? Handing the ball off is the best way to protect possession of the ball.

[th87]

I don't wnat to get bogged down in semantics, but luck had nothing to do with either of those events. Execution in the elements did. In the end, the Packers chose a course that enabled them to force the Eagles into a situation in which they weren't good enough to win the game and in which the Packers won. And those are the only facts in evidence. The rest is total speculation and assumptions that may or may not be valid.

What defensive execution took place to cause the ball to hit Avant's hands and bounce off of them? He was wide open. What ST execution caused the miss of a chip shot FG?

This is like saying Freeman's MNF catch or the Immaculate Reception were products of execution. I would highly disagree with those assertions.

[packers11]

Even though I was one of the people that did not like the way the offensive play-calling was going late in the fourth qtr. I think MM has more faith in this defensive unit then any other he has seen under his belt @ GB... For this reason, I think he felt safe playing the field position "game", while giving the eagles very little time to reach our endzone...

The only thing that kind of bugs me is I knew how those last three plays where going to go... Run Run Pass... The only way we could have ended that game under those three plays is if Starks breaks one free (which they were stacking the box for the run) then on third and long your chances of getting a first down are very slim...

But in hindsight I can see why MM did what he did, but if it backfired and the Eagles won, I think many people on this forum (including me) would have been bashing him for awhile...

Defense wins championships... right??? :lol:

[vince]

What defensive execution took place to cause the ball to hit Avant's hands and bounce off of them? He was wide open. What ST execution caused the miss of a chip shot FG?

This is like saying Freeman's MNF catch or the Immaculate Reception were products of execution. I would highly disagree with those assertions.
It's about the other team's execution too. By forcing the opposition to execute perfectly, you're bound to win a lot of the time. See Bears D and Falcons. Again, you can call it luck if you want, but it's just semantics. I would say that nothing that happens on the field - other than the coin toss - has anything to do with luck.

[get louder at lambeau]

But in hindsight I can see why MM did what he did, but if it backfired and the Eagles won, I think many people on this forum (including me) would have been bashing him for awhile...

And if he play action passed on 2nd down and the Eagles won, many people on this forum would still be bashing him for a while.

They're even bashing him after a win. A third consecutive win. An 11th win this year. An upset playoff win on the road. They bashed him last year after the Packers set franchise records for points scored in a season and points scored in a playoff game. It's what they do.

[wist43]

No one argues with the logic wist. It's your assumptions. The only reason they only needed two first downs to win is because they ran the ball, kept the clock running and forced the Eagles to burn their timeouts. If they pass the ball and throw incompletions, they would need 3 or maybe even 4 first downs to run the clock out. You are assuming that they will throw every pass complete and there will be no impcompletions or worse yet, an interception or catch and fumble, etc. Given those assumptions, how can you be wrong? Handing the ball off is the best way to protect possession of the ball.

Vince, lol...

McCarthy did what you wanted and did not "protect possession of the ball"... you seem to be trying to butress your argument by citing the very failure I am criticizing as if it were a success :))

My preference would be to go complete on every attempt and burn clock of course, but it's not my primary goal... my primary goal is to keep the ball. I don't mind throwing, as I said, forget the clock... other than a turnover, the worst case scenario is we fail to pick up the necessary 1st downs, and we end up punting the ball away - which is exactly where your MO landed us anyway.

Plug the scenarios into a computer 1000 times each way??? of course my way would produce more wins... it would necessarily produce more wins b/c there would be considerbly more times where we would maintain possession of the ball, and the Eagles would never even get the opportunity on offense.

[vince]

Oh and wist, your assumption about Belicheck being the only guy that "gets it?" Turns out he doesn't get it either.


New England Patriots 2010 Passing/Rushing Splits by Quarter

Passing
BY QUARTER ATT COMP PCT YDS YDS/A YDS/G LONG TD TD% INT INT% SACK YDSL RATE
Quarter = 1 120 77 64.2 839 7.2 0 45 8 6.7 0 0 4 24 107.7
Quarter = 2 147 93 63.3 1061 7.7 0 59 10 6.8 0 0 10 66 109.4
Quarter = 3 128 90 70.3 1182 9.6 0 79 11 8.6 2 1.6 5 42 122.7
Quarter = 4 103 66 64.1 727 7.5 0 35 8 7.8 3 2.9 6 43 100.4
Overtime 9 5 55.6 38 4.2 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 66

Rushing
BY QUARTER ATT YDS YD/A LONG 20+ TD YDS/G FUM FUML 1DN
Quarter = 1 96 501 5.2 33 4 5 0 1 1 28
Quarter = 2 97 412 4.2 22 2 5 0 1 0 26
Quarter = 3 98 447 4.6 36 1 5 0 0 0 23
Quarter = 4 160 605 3.8 26 2 4 0 0 0 42
Overtime 3 8 2.7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

[billy_oliver880]

And if he play action passed on 2nd down and the Eagles won, many people on this forum would still be bashing him for a while.

They're even bashing him after a win. A third consecutive win. An 11th win this year. An upset playoff win on the road. They bashed him last year after the Packers set franchise records for points scored in a season and points scored in a playoff game. It's what they do.

My god we sound like bear fans.

[vince]

Vince, lol...

McCarthy did what you wanted and did not "protect possession of the ball"... you seem to be trying to butress your argument by citing the very failure I am criticizing as if it were a success :))
The only indisputable fact we know here is that it DID succeed. You can ignore the fact that the defense held up all day long, but it doesn't make it go away.

[get louder at lambeau]

Plug the scenarios into a computer 1000 times each way??? of course my way would produce more wins... it would necessarily produce more wins b/c there would be considerbly more times where we would maintain possession of the ball, and the Eagles would never even get the opportunity on offense.

Pretty sure you would lose that bet. If I thought there was a way to test it, I'd put money on it.

[wist43]

I give up :D

[Freak Out]

http://members.iinet.net.au/~jez/junk/Nuke5.jpg

[Fritz]

Here's another quote from you, Wist: "other than a turnover, the worst case scenario is we fail to pick up the necessary 1st downs, and we end up punting the ball away - which is exactly where your MO landed us anyway."

Okay, the problem with your logic is that it does not take into account the odds of an incompletion plus the odds of an interception vs. the odds of a no-gain on a running play plus the odds of a fumble, remembering to factor into the equation that a no-gain run keeps the clock moving while an incompletion stops the clock. And stopping the clock IS important, regardless of what you say. Or why else would a defensive team call a timeout when that team is behind?

Look at the website Cold, Hard Football Facts for an article on the dangers of interceptions. That article also makes a case that interceptions are more likely than fumbles.

[denverYooper]

And if he play action passed on 2nd down and the Eagles won, many people on this forum would still be bashing him for a while.

They're even bashing him after a win. A third consecutive win. An 11th win this year. An upset playoff win on the road. They bashed him last year after the Packers set franchise records for points scored in a season and points scored in a playoff game. It's what they do.

Wait, the Packers won?

[get louder at lambeau]

Here's another quote from you, Wist: "other than a turnover, the worst case scenario is we fail to pick up the necessary 1st downs, and we end up punting the ball away - which is exactly where your MO landed us anyway."

Okay, the problem with your logic is that it does not take into account the odds of an incompletion plus the odds of an interception vs. the odds of a no-gain on a running play plus the odds of a fumble, remembering to factor into the equation that a no-gain run keeps the clock moving while an incompletion stops the clock. And stopping the clock IS important, regardless of what you say. Or why else would a defensive team call a timeout when that team is behind?

Look at the website Cold, Hard Football Facts for an article on the dangers of interceptions. That article also makes a case that interceptions are more likely than fumbles.

Also, on a pass play you can have EITHER an INT or a fumble, so it's not one or the other. It's one possibility or both of them.

[Fritz]

As the Mad Hatter would say, "How true that is."

[Joemailman]

Wait, the Packers won?

Stop changing the subject, Stubby lover. Bold playcalling is the mark of a champion.

[Bossman641]

Stop changing the subject, Stubby lover. Bold playcalling is the mark of a champion.

Except when it's third down and is stopped. Then it is just idiotic and stupid and MM should have run the ball.

I have no problem relying on the defense to stop the other team from driving a long field. This isn't the 2008 defense that coughed up leads left and right.

[retailguy]

I think people bitch about playcalling too much.

I agree, and I also think that people defend the playcalling too much.

[Fritz]

This would be a nice place to end this thread.

[Joemailman]

I think people bitch about playcalling too much.


I agree, and I also think that people defend the playcalling too much.

So, what is the proper punishment for Fritz for starting this thread?

[swede]

Usually that picture of Dr. Laura kills a thread like Mike Vick on a runty Rotty.

[MJZiggy]

What defensive execution took place to cause the ball to hit Avant's hands and bounce off of them? He was wide open. What ST execution caused the miss of a chip shot FG?

This is like saying Freeman's MNF catch or the Immaculate Reception were products of execution. I would highly disagree with those assertions.

Had Avant been hammered lately? (I don't remember so it's a serious question. Was he imagining footsteps from getting knocked around?) The wind WAS a serious factor in the game and therefore forcing them into a field goal increased the likelihood of a miss and no points. Even if he makes one of the two he missed, we still win.

That said, I never like to back off on offense unless we're up by more than one score. I fully agree with and understand the concept of eating the clock, but I don't like the predictability of overly depending on the run at the end of the game when the other team's expecting it.

[MJZiggy]

You forgot sacks.

Why yes, yes I did read the post I just posted. Why?

[Bretsky]

I agree, and I also think that people defend the playcalling too much.


agree

[MadtownPacker]

You could argue they made their own luck/breaks. Look, they stopped Philly's offense all day long. The same offense that scored 21 point in 7 minutes, and gave defenses fits all year long - give 'em some credit.So youre saying the defense won it?

[HarveyWallbangers]

agree

The problem is that the people who complain about the play calling don't come on and say "geez, you know what, I would have gone with a play action pass on second down." They say "McCarthy's play calling sucks and we won despite him." Yes, there are bad play calls, but to say that McCarthy's play calling sucks is asinine.

[get louder at lambeau]

What Harvey said.

[th87]

I have no problem with his play calling in general. I even started a thread to question our expertise in calling the correct play against a 20 year veteran of the game.

So it is never specific plays I have issues with. It's just the change in mentality once we have a lead. MM becomes notoriously predictable, with the run, run, pass, punt drives. It has resulted in potential blowouts turning into sweat inducers.

We have a MVP type QB. Trust him. Why take the game out of his hands and give it to a unit that had been giving up long drives the entire second half?

[th87]

Also, trusting Rodgers to bring these games home would launch his leadership abilities into the stratosphere.

[Bretsky]

The problem is that the people who complain about the play calling don't come on and say "geez, you know what, I would have gone with a play action pass on second down." They say "McCarthy's play calling sucks and we won despite him." Yes, there are bad play calls, but to say that McCarthy's play calling sucks is asinine.


actually if my memory serves me right I did what you described above in the game thread last week.

I think MM is a very good playcaller and he's proven that season after season with the points his offenses put

[mraynrand]

So youre saying the defense won it?


Yes. and the offense too. Special teams also contributed.

[mmmdk]

I think people bitch about playcalling too much.

...people, maybe, but I don't bitch enough 'bout playcalling! :lol:

[retailguy]

The problem is that the people who complain about the play calling don't come on and say "geez, you know what, I would have gone with a play action pass on second down." They say "McCarthy's play calling sucks and we won despite him." Yes, there are bad play calls, but to say that McCarthy's play calling sucks is asinine.

People know now to avoid that trap. If they trot out what they think he should have done, instead of hearing why the person didn't think it would work, you get 30 posts criticizing the speculation or opinion with words like asinine.

[Fritz]

I think that mostly on this thread people have kept to the topic. Even though Wist and I don't exactly agree, for example, we've been trading reasons (with passion!) as to why the other person's play calling ideas aren't as what we think they should be. Wist thinks first downs trumps time off the clock; I think you've also got to consider relative risk when making run/pass decisions. We don't agree, but it's okay.

[Pugger]

It would have been ideal if we got a couple of first downs on that last drive and to me the reason why we didn't was the blocking/execution of the plays called that failed rather than the calls themselves.

[gbgary]

PERFECT!

Green Bay 48 atlanta 21

[Tarlam!]

/Thread

[Packgator]

to say that McCarthy's play calling sucks is asinine.

Asinine is putting it mildly.

[RashanGary]

James Starks has helped a lot. 3rd and 5 with Aaron Rodgers is a pretty good down for us.

[Tarlam!]

James Starks has helped a lot 3rd and 5 with Aaron Rodgers is a pretty good down for us.

Agreed. Starks has provided a real run threat and that has opened things up a tonne. Towards the end of this game, though, he was getting stuffed at the LOS. Should we be concerned?

[gbgary]

Agreed. Starks has provided a real run threat and that has opened things up a tonne. Towards the end of this game, though, he was getting stuffed at the LOS. Should we be concerned?

no...it happened early too. it's all about the blocking.

[HarveyWallbangers]

actually if my memory serves me right I did what you described above in the game thread last week.

I think MM is a very good playcaller and he's proven that season after season with the points his offenses put

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the many others--especially those in the game thread.

[Fritz]

Actually, I felt like, until the end of the game, Starks was hesitating more than he did against Philly. Against the Iggles he shot right through the line of scrimmage. Tonight, he seemed to hesitate and wait. Until that last drive.

[pbmax]

Actually, I felt like, until the end of the game, Starks was hesitating more than he did against Philly. Against the Iggles he shot right through the line of scrimmage. Tonight, he seemed to hesitate and wait. Until that last drive.

There was a lot of trash in the backfield this game. And I think he missed a couple of cutbacks he could have made as Atlanta was pursuing like crazy, esp. in the second half.

Starks had 26 carries for 66 yards or 2.6 ypc. Turner went 10 for 39 for 3.0 ypc. Once the game was in the QB's hands, Rodgers won out.

[bobblehead]

Agreed. Starks has provided a real run threat and that has opened things up a tonne. Towards the end of this game, though, he was getting stuffed at the LOS. Should we be concerned?

Not if MM continues to actually CALL 29 running plays a game to keep the 3rd downs manageable and the defenses honest. I have only had ONE complaint about MM's playcalling and I was very specific and clear as to why. Early this year (and every year) he would not trust the run, call 40 passes to 13-14 running plays and wonder why teams were teeing off on ARod.

I'll say it again so PB can shred me. You MUST be able to run the ball (even for 2.6 a carry) to win in the playoffs. When a team becomes one dimensional....well, you all saw the results when Atlanta fell too far behind. Normally I say you must run it effectively, but that was before I realized ARod is practically perfect.

[pbmax]

That is one advantage Starks has in spades over Jackson, at least according to my memory. He seems to have fewer negative runs. So even if two runs just get 2 yards, 3rd and 6 is not bad. But the Falcons were still teeing off, Starks or no. I think right now, he is having a bigger effect on LBs and play action.

[Smidgeon]

ESPN's NFC North Blogger, Kevin Seifert had this to say today about M3 when asked why M3 doesn't get the same recognition for his playcalling as Martz (emphasis mine):

"I think he has. I know I've tried to point out some of the creative things he's done. It's pretty impressive when a team can run the wishbone just as easily as a five WR set."

[Fritz]

It's not the wishbone. It's "The Bone." As in, "We're going to slam you with 'The Bone.' And you're going to like it."

[mraynrand]

It's not the wishbone. It's "The Bone." As in, "We're going to slam you with 'The Bone.' And you're going to like it."


It should be called the T-BONE!

As in "You can get a good look at a T bone by shoving your head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it"

[Bossman641]

Not if MM continues to actually CALL 29 running plays a game to keep the 3rd downs manageable and the defenses honest. I have only had ONE complaint about MM's playcalling and I was very specific and clear as to why. Early this year (and every year) he would not trust the run, call 40 passes to 13-14 running plays and wonder why teams were teeing off on ARod.

I'll say it again so PB can shred me. You MUST be able to run the ball (even for 2.6 a carry) to win in the playoffs. When a team becomes one dimensional....well, you all saw the results when Atlanta fell too far behind. Normally I say you must run it effectively, but that was before I realized ARod is practically perfect.

+1

I find it hard to complain about play calls that don't work. Giving up on the run too early was a tendency though and led to the defense not playing the run at all. Keep working the run MM!!

[gbgary]

had a moment in the 4th when he got stuck in the we must run mode (to move the clock) and had a three and out when an extended possession would have been nice. other than that called a great game. aggressive passing game, ran when a run wasn't obvious, even pulled a couple of surprises.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I was a bit perturbed by his playcalling in the second half, but none of it matters. It's all about results, and McCarthy has been to an NFC title game and Super Bowl in the last four years. Let's put a championship on his resume.

[Deputy Nutz]

He got very tight after Rodgers threw it to Urlacher. If the Packers would have settled for a field goal they would have iced the game going up 17-0. oops.

[pbmax]

They ran predominantly twice in the second half and went out quickly. One was the second drive of the 3rd Q. The other was late with four minutes left.

But even after Urlacher, McCarthy had at least two drives where he was throwing on 1st or 2nd. Two rolllouts that I remember during that time. I don't think tight covers it, but they weren't going deep. The blown FG was on Rodgers. He had protection and time and then started to dance and move. He should have eaten it. He has shown he is willing to do that during his career. Why he didn't then, when a FG was important, is puzzling.

My only complaint is that without Finley there is no one in the middle of the field they trust. Even Nelson't catch on the crossing route down to the one was WAY after he crossed the center of the field.

[vince]

Rodgers wasn't his usual self in the second half. I don't know if he got his bell rung or was just jumpy after being hit but he wasn't throwing the ball with authority. When they did move the ball in the second half, it seemed to be due to penalties by the Bears. The interception in the red zone was brutal - the kind that change games. From that point it seemed like Rodgers was either throwing it at people's feet or the Bears were able to confuse him and get the Packers offensive timing off kilter one way or another.

[wootah]

Rodgers wasn't his usual self in the second half.

I was under the same impression. But that hit from Peppers was absolutely brutal. I was surprised he was able to stay in the game, but it clearly affected him.

[wist43]

Many of his throws were low... I can only assume he took a hit/s somewhere and it affected him to whatever extent. Good news is we have to weeks to rest, get healthy, install the game plan, and get ready for the Steelers.

Did you see that stupid play the Steelers ran at the end of their game??? They actually passed it for a 1st down to run out the clock??? The won 100% of the time - that time :D

Capers worries me almost all the time b/c I don't trust him to stay aggressive and put an opponent away; and McCarthy worries me in close games b/c his MO is take the air out of it, and play to our greatest weakness, i.e. our running game.

Nonetheless, we're in the Superbowl again... couldn't be happier!!! Ugly wins are still wins :D

[pbmax]

Many of his throws were low... I can only assume he took a hit/s somewhere and it affected him to whatever extent. Good news is we have to weeks to rest, get healthy, install the game plan, and get ready for the Steelers.

Did you see that stupid play the Steelers ran at the end of their game??? They actually passed it for a 1st down to run out the clock??? The won 100% of the time - that time :D

Capers worries me almost all the time b/c I don't trust him to stay aggressive and put an opponent away; and McCarthy worries me in close games b/c his MO is take the air out of it, and play to our greatest weakness, i.e. our running game.

Nonetheless, we're in the Superbowl again... couldn't be happier!!! Ugly wins are still wins :D

The last pass was on third down. After they had run to force the Jets to call timeouts.

[mmmdk]

I was a bit perturbed by his playcalling in the second half, but none of it matters. It's all about results, and McCarthy has been to an NFC title game and Super Bowl in the last four years. Let's put a championship on his resume.

I can relate to this too!

[Merlin]

I made the prediction after last weeks win that if the game came down to McCarthty's play calling in the 2nd half, we very well could lose. He is too predictable, he thinks he has some kind of magic running game. The only time that works is when you pound the ball and tire out the defense. We don't run the ball enough for that to happen so unless the team we are playing is horrible against the run, it won't work - and surprisingly it has not. I don't understand how after all of this time, all of these years, he hasn't seen it yet.

Our best running threat late is Rodgers in the shotgun and scrambling for yards, dump off passes, easy completions.

[pbmax]

I made the prediction after last weeks win that if the game came down to McCarthty's play calling in the 2nd half, we very well could lose. He is too predictable, he thinks he has some kind of magic running game. The only time that works is when you pound the ball and tire out the defense. We don't run the ball enough for that to happen so unless the team we are playing is horrible against the run, it won't work - and surprisingly it has not. I don't understand how after all of this time, all of these years, he hasn't seen it yet.

Our best running threat late is Rodgers in the shotgun and scrambling for yards, dump off passes, easy completions.

I agree with you about the Rodgers run threat, but they had him in shotgun many times in the second half including some rollouts and he didn't have much going on.