Big Mac

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/mike-mccarthy-should-get-plenty-of-blame-for-packers-loss-b99429413z1-289103671.html


A painfully passive plan from McCarthy was central to the unfathomable collapse. Given countless chances to dethrone the champs with one bold decision, he balked.... the head coach continued to tiptoe through the title game. As if CenturyLink were some minefield.

There were no deep balls against Seattle's single-high coverage even after Earl Thomas (shoulder) and Richard Sherman (elbow) suffered injuries. The "shot play" — a McCarthy staple when this Packers offense is humming — might've been accidentally deleted from the tablet. Green Bay dinked and dunked and tried to get Lacy his 20 carries in the second half. A "target," McCarthy said.

It was if McCarthy was a boxer perfectly OK throwing jabs and dancing around the ring for 12 rounds, hoping the cards broke his way in the end. One problem: He was facing Mike Tyson.

[mraynrand]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/mike-mccarthy-should-get-plenty-of-blame-for-packers-loss-b99429413z1-289103671.html

The plan was working to perfection through 55 minutes, so there was no feel for the need for a kill shot. The team mistakenly took the Burnett INT as the dagger, shut it down, and unfortunately, it takes 30 minutes to restart warp engines - you canna change the laws of physics - unless you have a vulcan on board.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The plan was working to perfection through 55 minutes

Yep, and that's a very good reason not to throw McCarthy, TT, Capers, Rodgers or the team under the bus. What they accomplished to that 55 minute point was impressive - going into Seattle and bullying the champ. Still, MM was too conservative, that was a flaw on top of his otherwise great game plan.

BTW, we are all saying 55 minutes, but wasn't the FG meltdown the real beginning of the end?

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

STOP! STOP! I can't take it any longer. Somebody please wake me from this nightmare. I mean, no fucking way the Packers lose the NFC Championship like this.

Oh, and please add 'He has a vagina' as one of the poll answers.

[mraynrand]

Yep, and that's a very good reason not to throw McCarthy, TT, Capers, Rodgers or the team under the bus. What they accomplished to that 55 minute point was impressive - going into Seattle and bullying the champ. Still, MM was too conservative, that was a flaw on top of his otherwise great game plan.

BTW, we are all saying 55 minutes, but wasn't the FG meltdown the real beginning of the end?

No, the fake FG was an act of desperation. If they mucked it up, they need two TDs and two conversions just to tie. If they kick the FG, they need two scores - a TD and FG to tie. Carroll gambled a bout there and Hawk played into his hands, regardless of what people say about Jones.

[denverYooper]

No, the fake FG was an act of desperation. If they mucked it up, they need two TDs and two conversions just to tie. If they kick the FG, they need two scores - a TD and FG to tie. Carroll gambled a bout there and Hawk played into his hands, regardless of what people say about Jones.

House was out there too, wasn't he?

[Teamcheez1]

They set the wheels in motion during the 55 minutes. It was because of what they did during the 55 minutes that enabled Seattle a chance with a little luck. Everybody emphasizes the last 5 minutes which had its share of awful mistakes, however we left the door open, and no matter how small that crack, it ended in a loss.

[denverYooper]

The plan was working to perfection through 55 minutes, so there was no feel for the need for a kill shot. The team mistakenly took the Burnett INT as the dagger, shut it down, and unfortunately, it takes 30 minutes to restart warp engines - you canna change the laws of physics - unless you have a vulcan on board.

Your point about their mindset is well taken. And if Burnett returns that farther, they probably get at least 3 more points and maybe get a more tangible dagger in hand.

ARRRRRGH!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Or if they use timeouts in final regulation drive - go for win instead of tie.

if if if

No killer instinct.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They set the wheels in motion during the 55 minutes. It was because of what they did during the 55 minutes that enabled Seattle a chance with a little luck.

I can't really blame Mac for taking the points down by goal line. Early in game. That's a very defensible call, even if I would have gone for it. But in context of whole game of risk avoidance, it sticks out.

[vince]

Or if they use timeouts in final regulation drive - go for win instead of tie.

if if if

No killer instinct.
They coulda used their timeouts in the last drive but that would only have placed more time on the clock when they were forced to kick the tying field goal on 4th down. They still had 19 seconds to get to the endzone but you going for it on 4th down and passing up the game-tying field goal would have been assinine.

[Teamcheez1]

I think what stick's out in Tyler's article is that he rhetorically asks how many times in a game can you expect to drive to within the 5 yard line against the Seattle defense in a game? After we kicked two FG's, the answer was "not again".

[Harlan Huckleby]

They still had 19 seconds to get to the endzone but you going for it on 4th down and passing up the game-tying field goal would have been assinine.

Yes, that would be assinine.

My point is they should have been playing for TD the whole drive.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No, the fake FG was an act of desperation. If they mucked it up, they need two TDs and two conversions just to tie. If they kick the FG, they need two scores - a TD and FG to tie. Carroll gambled a bout there and Hawk played into his hands, regardless of what people say about Jones.

I'm not saying the fake FG was decisive. Just saying it was the first crack in confidence of the would-be champs.

BTW, I agree with McGinn's comment here: Hawk's decision to let receiver run free was inexcusable. It wasn't a tough choice, it was easy decision and he choked.

[hoosier]

I'm not saying the fake FG was decisive. Just saying it was the first crack in confidence of the would-be champs.

BTW, I agree with McGinn's comment here: Hawk's decision to let receiver run free was inexcusable. It wasn't a tough choice, it was easy decision and he choked.

To me the real question is, what on earth was Slocum thinking when he choose to drop only one defender on that play? There is no reason to try to block a FG at that point. Play it safe, drop four guys and make them take the three or stuff their shit.

[Bossman641]

I can't fault MM for the game plan. For 55 minutes we weren't just beating Seattle, we were beating them up. It took a miracle for Seattle to win. If that game goes like 99% of games go in the last 5 minutes, MM and Capers would be getting accolades for their hard-nosed defense and playing smart and taking the points in a low-scoring game.

[Patler]

BTW, I agree with McGinn's comment here: Hawk's decision to let receiver run free was inexcusable. It wasn't a tough choice, it was easy decision and he choked.

I disagree 100%. If Hawk went with the receiver, he was conceding a 1st down to Ryan who would have kept running. No one was anywhere close. I'll take my chances with a punter being pressured while trying to throw to a tackle. That, and Hayward was only a stride or two from being there in time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I can't fault MM for the game plan. For 55 minutes we weren't just beating Seattle, we were beating them up. It took a miracle for Seattle to win. If that game goes like 99% of games go in the last 5 minutes, MM and Capers would be getting accolades for their hard-nosed defense and playing smart and taking the points in a low-scoring game.

This all very true. But still was a pucker job, win lose or draw.

[Patler]

To me the real question is, what on earth was Slocum thinking when he choose to drop only one defender on that play? There is no reason to try to block a FG at that point. Play it safe, drop four guys and make them take the three or stuff their shit.

Yup, its a long way to 17 counting by threes. A lot shorter counting by sevens.

[Fritz]

Agreed. I was screaming for them to look out for the fake.

Why the hell wouldn't you drop a few defenders and just give them the three?

[vince]

Yes, that would be assinine.

My point is they should have been playing for TD the whole drive.
What brings you to the conclusion they weren't?

[Harlan Huckleby]

What brings you to the conclusion they weren't?They let time tick down, kept souvenir timeouts into tunnel

[mraynrand]

They let time tick down, kept souvenir timeouts into tunnel

ya, they had 1st and ten, 35 yard line, 35 seconds, three time outs. I woulda run Starks and/or Lacy twice. Bet one of them would have busted one and then you have 1-3 tries for the end zone.

[Freak Out]

Ok....burn this house down. Can we just delete all these threads and start over?

[vince]

They let time tick down, kept souvenir timeouts into tunnel
What? They still had time to run more plays. It was more downs they didn't have. Timeouts don't get you that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What? They still had time to run more plays. It was more downs they didn't have. Timeouts don't get you that.

Not calling timeouts on drive means you are not even trying to play for endzone, you are satisfied to play for 3.

We can't replay game, it would have been totally different series with timeouts called and aggressive hurry-up. The point is we saw one more anal puckering.

[Bossman641]

Not calling timeouts on drive means you are not even trying to play for endzone, you are satisfied to play for 3.

We can't replay game, it would have been totally different series with timeouts called and aggressive hurry-up. The point is we saw one more anal puckering.


1st and 10 at GB 22 (1:19) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short left to J.Nelson to GB 37 for 15 yards (B.Maxwell).
1st and 10 at GB 37 (1:00) (No Huddle, Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short middle to R.Cobb to SEA 48 for 15 yards (E.Thomas).
1st and 10 at SEA 48 (:43) (No Huddle, Shotgun) A.Rodgers scrambles right end ran ob at SEA 36 for 12 yards.
1st and 10 at SEA 36 (:35) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to E.Lacy.
2nd and 10 at SEA 36 (:30) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to R.Rodgers.
3rd and 10 at SEA 36 (:26) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short left to J.Nelson to SEA 30 for 6 yards (R.Sherman) [L.Cohen].
Timeout #1 by GB at 00:19.
4th and 4 at SEA 30 (:19) M.Crosby 48 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-B.Goode, Holder-T.Masthay.

The only play I could see calling a timeout after was after the completion to Cobb, but I also understand the thought process behind keeping things rolling after back to back 15 yard completions. The killer was the incomplete pass to Lacy. A healthy Rodgers probably picks up 30 yards scrambling on those back to back plays and we would have been at the 20 with 3 TO and 30 seconds left.

[Pugger]

I can't really blame Mac for taking the points down by goal line. Early in game. That's a very defensible call, even if I would have gone for it. But in context of whole game of risk avoidance, it sticks out.

I didn't have a problem with taking the sure points early in the game. My biggest beef was not going after Richard Sherman after he injured his arm.

[Pugger]

I can't fault MM for the game plan. For 55 minutes we weren't just beating Seattle, we were beating them up. It took a miracle for Seattle to win. If that game goes like 99% of games go in the last 5 minutes, MM and Capers would be getting accolades for their hard-nosed defense and playing smart and taking the points in a low-scoring game.

I'm with ya there. Not many gave us a chance in hell of going in there and competing let alone have a good chance to win. Even tho things went south at the end we now know we can go in there and take it to arguably the best team in the league in that madhouse. If we can keep most of our productive veterans and plug a couple of holes 2015 should be a fun season. What the hell good is it for us to keep harping on that game and keep poking at an open wound? Nothing will change what happened. We gotta hope they learn from this mess and have it never happen again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The only play I could see calling a timeout after was after the completion to Cobb, but I also understand the thought process behind keeping things rolling after back to back 15 yard completions. The killer was the incomplete pass to Lacy. A healthy Rodgers probably picks up 30 yards scrambling on those back to back plays and we would have been at the 20 with 3 TO and 30 seconds left.

The Cobb completion should have been the first timeout taken. And from there, who knows how gamne plays out in our counter factual world. For sure you lost 20 seconds right there, and you aren't playing to end game with TD.

You make a very good case for McCarthy's conservative game management here. A good case can be made for all 40 of his conservative moves. You look at the whole body, and you see a play-scared tone, and the players picked up on that.

(Another bad moment, rushing 2 on Seattle's 3rd and 19 play following Matthews getting piled on. Why go into prevent when D is working all day?)

[pbmax]

How in God's green earth does more time help on 4th down?

[woodbuck27]

Yes, that would be assinine.

My point is they should have been playing for TD the whole drive.

You (you all) surely heard Mike McCarthy in his post game presser. He said some ho hum boring stuff. He was his usual dour 'Mr. Cliché' self.

When asked this question:

Among loss's where does this sit in your career?

Mike McCarthy's response:

"This was an excellent game to play in, this was a fun game to play in.... it was competitive you know...it was everything we thought it would be...ahh so .... none of them are easy."

"this was a fun game" Mike McCarthy

Comment:

He sure didn't look like he was having fun.

Then looking at it now I have to assume that's evidently how Mike McCarthy wanted to keep it. To keep it 'fun'.

Playing for the TD in the final drive and to win that game.... instead of the FG to tie and losing control in OT to the luck of a coin toss.

Wouldn't that (to play for a TD) have taken the fun out of that game? Wouldn't that be too sensible!?

His team (Our team...the Green Bay Packers) would have won it by driving for a TD !

My message to Mike McCarthy:

Screw the fun thing Mike...You play to win Mike McCarthy... not tie.

[Harlan Huckleby]

How in God's green earth does more time help on 4th down?

It doesn't and that is not point. You have an entirely different series when you are playing aggressively for TD rather than FG.

[pbmax]

With 19 seconds left at the 26 (assuming they got a first and called TO then), they have 2 TO to take 3 shots into the end zone, one of which can be in the field of play.

[King Friday]

No, the fake FG was an act of desperation. If they mucked it up, they need two TDs and two conversions just to tie. If they kick the FG, they need two scores - a TD and FG to tie. Carroll gambled a bout there and Hawk played into his hands, regardless of what people say about Jones.

So you haven't read any of the articles on the topic that it was a pre-planned play crafted around the incompetence of Slocum and his schemes?

[King Friday]

Nothing about that game was fun.

McCarthy is starting to greatly discredit himself.

Raise of hands...who thinks Vince Lombardi would've described that game as "fun"?

[pbmax]

So you haven't read any of the articles on the topic that it was a pre-planned play crafted around the incompetence of Slocum and his schemes?

Do they call it if ahead by 9 points?

[woodbuck27]

Or if they use timeouts in final regulation drive - go for win instead of tie.

if if if

No killer instinct.

Harlan didn't you get.... or aren't you taking the Green Bay Packer organization 'stupid pills' that were mailed to your address?

Please.

Smarten up and just simply cut these members a break; instead of applying more pressure for their 'damage control' program.

[King Friday]

Do they call it if ahead by 9 points?

Yes....because the additional 3 when up by 9 isn't very meaningful. At 9...it is barely a 2 score game. At 12, it is only modestly more of a 2 score game...as we found out on Sunday.

My point is that it was not pure desperation. It was pre-planned based on a deemed strategic weakness in Slocum's unit. If they were willing to call off the fake based on the positioning of Brad Jones, then they ran the fake PRECISELY because they thought it had an excellent chance of success.

[vince]

Not calling timeouts on drive means you are not even trying to play for endzone, you are satisfied to play for 3.

We can't replay game, it would have been totally different series with timeouts called and aggressive hurry-up. The point is we saw one more anal puckering.
Wow. My faith in the human race has just taken another hit. I wouldn't even know where to start with that. So much wrong in so few words.

[King Friday]

If anything, it was the extreme lack of mental toughness that led to this collapse.

Have you EVER heard this from McCarthy?

"I know we demand a lot and this isn't an easy place to play, and I'm not an easy guy to play for, but they have tried to respond. I give them a lot of credit for that."

“It’s a tough place to play. We demand a lot out of ourselves -- our coaches, our players. We don’t accept just an average performance, or not doing our best."

That is how Bill Belichick describes his approach to building a "tough" football team. My take is that McCarthy isn't anywhere near as demanding. At times, that can be a good thing, especially with veteran players who understand how to carry themselves. However, I feel that McCarthy might be a little TOO lenient at times, and it wears off on the rookies and kids. Hopefully, he will use this challenging loss to review how he approaches building "toughness" and take some steps to foster greater mental "toughness" in the years ahead.

[hoosier]

If anything, it was the extreme lack of mental toughness that led to this collapse.

Have you EVER heard this from McCarthy?

"I know we demand a lot and this isn't an easy place to play, and I'm not an easy guy to play for, but they have tried to respond. I give them a lot of credit for that."

“It’s a tough place to play. We demand a lot out of ourselves -- our coaches, our players. We don’t accept just an average performance, or not doing our best."

That is how Bill Belichick describes his approach to building a "tough" football team. My take is that McCarthy isn't anywhere near as demanding. At times, that can be a good thing, especially with veteran players who understand how to carry themselves. However, I feel that McCarthy might be a little TOO lenient at times, and it wears off on the rookies and kids. Hopefully, he will use this challenging loss to review how he approaches building "toughness" and take some steps to foster greater mental "toughness" in the years ahead.

I once knew a guy who decided that his nephews were not tough enough because sometimes they came home from school complaining that other kids were picking on them. Uncle told them to buck up and punch the bullies in the nose next time they bothered them. The kids didn't do it, and next time they came home crying he decided to take them on a hike across the Grand Canyon with no water in mid July. That'll toughen em up.

[Bossman641]

The Cobb completion should have been the first timeout taken. And from there, who knows how gamne plays out in our counter factual world. For sure you lost 20 seconds right there, and you aren't playing to end game with TD.

You make a very good case for McCarthy's conservative game management here. A good case can be made for all 40 of his conservative moves. You look at the whole body, and you see a play-scared tone, and the players picked up on that.

(Another bad moment, rushing 2 on Seattle's 3rd and 19 play following Matthews getting piled on. Why go into prevent when D is working all day?)

I see going on 4th down, surprise onside kicks, etc as aggressive moves that you make when you think your team is weaker and needs to steal a possession. MM didn't feel that way, and he shouldn't have given how the game was going.

We haven't been especially good on third and short in the red zone.

[pbmax]

Yes....because the additional 3 when up by 9 isn't very meaningful. At 9...it is barely a 2 score game. At 12, it is only modestly more of a 2 score game...as we found out on Sunday.

My point is that it was not pure desperation. It was pre-planned based on a deemed strategic weakness in Slocum's unit. If they were willing to call off the fake based on the positioning of Brad Jones, then they ran the fake PRECISELY because they thought it had an excellent chance of success.

They were down three scores. It was pure desperation.

Pre-planned off film yes. But that doesn't guarantee it gets called in a game. Coaching staffs prepare special plays for tight situations every week. But they don't call them if they don't have to. You don't see a hook and ladder every week, or team wide laterals. You save them so they are available when you are desperate, like the Seahawks were Sunday.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/289199881.html

LeRoy Butler and Tom Silverstein did awesome job of breaking down game. Some highlights:

MM's playcalling is defensible if you analyze each given call. But he is accountable for the whole team playing not to lose.

The theme for 2015 must be more aggression.

Hawk totally blew the fake field goal. But both Hawk and Bostick's blunders are symptomatic of lack of special teams coaching.

An overlooked failure is Kuhn falling short of goal line. Fault is with Tretter, he missed easy block. (My opinion: Tretter was big disapointment in 2014-15)

The failure to attack wounded Thomas & Sherman is not on MM so much as a team wide failure of communication.

Much excellent analysis of breakdowns in secondary on long completions.

[Patler]

The Cobb completion should have been the first timeout taken. And from there, who knows how gamne plays out in our counter factual world. For sure you lost 20 seconds right there, and you aren't playing to end game with TD.


How can the failure to call timeout there possibly have lost 20 seconds? That play and the play following it were only 17 seconds apart according to the play by play list. Since the play to Cobb itself had to have taken at least around 7 seconds or so (before TO could have been called), at best they might have gained 10 seconds by calling timeout. How would that have helped them on 4th down?

Following AR's run for the first down, the Packers were in absolutely fantastic position to go for the TD. First down on the 36, 35 seconds to play and three timeouts to use. They could run anything they wanted to for the next three downs at least. Runs, throws to any part of the field, etc.

Watching it again, the incompletion to Lacy was a killer. He had a step or two on two defenders, and it looked like he had a real good chance to get the first down. Had he been able to get out of bounds, they could have run at least three more plays for the TD, again including runs and throws to any part of the field. There would have been enough time to do that.

Getting within scoring distance having thee timeouts and enough time to use them all was actually quite impressive. I don't think they could have scripted it any better.

[Harlan Huckleby]

How can the failure to call timeout there possibly have lost 20 seconds? That play and the play following it were only 17 seconds apart according to the play by play list. Since the play to Cobb itself had to have taken at least around 7 seconds or so (before TO could have been called), at best they might have gained 10 seconds by calling timeout. How would that have helped them on 4th down?

You are missing forest for trees. The lack of aggression on that series was symptomatic of the whole day. You are counting seconds and assuming the same chain of events (plays) on the drive. No! Leroy Butler made emphatic point of Rodger's lack of aggression on that series.

[Patler]

You are missing forest for trees. The lack of aggression on that series was symptomatic of the whole day. You are counting seconds and assuming the same chain of events (plays) on the drive. No! Leroy Butler made emphatic point of Rodger's lack of aggression on that series.

Then, in my opinion, either Leroy Butler is an idiot, or he is a media personality simply trying to stir up controversy.

GB absolutely flew down the field, picking up three first downs in three plays, gaining 42 yards while using just 44 seconds of clock time.

You and Mr. Butler are the ones who are missing the forest for the trees. Getting to within FG range with all three timeouts available, and more than enough time on the clock to use them all while trying for the TD was absolutely aggressive.

[Patler]

Would it be better to use the timeouts early, then get within scoring distance and be limited in what plays you can run because you have no timeouts left?

Would it be better to use the timeouts early, then get within scoring distance and have to waste plays clocking the ball?

[mraynrand]

I thought they did a great job of saving the TOs, but then they couldn't convert two straight passes (after which they would have used two time outs). It was bad luck/execution. I would have liked to have seen a run or two tried from the 1st and 10 at the 35, because Seattle was defending the deep pass. The TOs weren't unused for a lack of aggressiveness.

[Patler]

I would have liked to have seen a run or two tried from the 1st and 10 at the 35, because Seattle was defending the deep pass.

Me too.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Would it be better to use the timeouts early, then get within scoring distance and be limited in what plays you can run because you have no timeouts left?

Forget early or late - they didn't use two timeouts at all! They were playing for FG, clenching again.


To change subject, I think Vince (and maybe you too) put too much emphasis on each individual play, justifying decisions. But there is a bigger arc, momentum. You don't want to minimize risk with every decision, not even close.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The TOs weren't unused for a lack of aggressiveness.

If they were going for TD, they call TO after Cobb pass.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Then, in my opinion, either Leroy Butler is an idiot, or he is a media personality simply trying to stir up controversy.

You've been wrong on much of your analysis of the game, Leroy Butler has forgotten more about football than you know.

[denverYooper]

You've been wrong on much of your analysis of the game, Leroy Butler has forgotten more about football than you know.

They didn't have the concussion protocol back in his day.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Butler & Silverstein are as sharp as they come.

I'm surprised Butler isn't coaching. Maybe he doesn't want to, or maybe he is boat rocker.

[woodbuck27]

You've been wrong on much of your analysis of the game, Leroy Butler has forgotten more about football than you know.

Leroy Butler isn't clouded by any form of Packer loyalty and/or Homerism.

He see's the game and calls from 'esteemed' experience.

[vince]

I think Butler & Silverstein are as sharp as they come.

I'm surprised Butler isn't coaching. Maybe he doesn't want to, or maybe he is boat rocker.
You're surprised. The coaching fraternity is not.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/baranczyk%20/2015/01/19/amid-tragedy-of-errors-burnett-slide-was-correct-play/22031847/

Eric Baranczyk has some interesting takes. He criticizes McCarthy for playing not to lose in last 5 minutes. But he thinks Burnett was OK to down ball.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You're surprised. The coaching fraternity is not.

What are your brothers saying?

[George Cumby]

I once knew a guy who decided that his nephews were not tough enough because sometimes they came home from school complaining that other kids were picking on them. Uncle told them to buck up and punch the bullies in the nose next time they bothered them. The kids didn't do it, and next time they came home crying he decided to take them on a hike across the Grand Canyon with no water in mid July. That'll toughen em up.

Did they live?

[Patler]

You've been wrong on much of your analysis of the game, Leroy Butler has forgotten more about football than you know.

I agree, he has; and maybe that's the problem. He has forgotten it, gravitating instead to the media personality type, trying to maintain an edge of controversy as many do. I think he makes some odd comments quite often, and saying the Packers were not aggressive enough in the last drive is one.

i am absolutely convinced that had they used their timeouts early, then gotten into a situation of having to clock the ball, or were limited to passing only and sideline plays with no way to stop the clock, he would have lambasted them for wasting their timeouts early, because that is what he does with some regularity, criticize rather than analyze. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much he knows about football. It's for the "show". Many in the media do it.

Does Butler know more about this particular game plan specifically, and game management generally than Aaron Rodgers does? More than MM does? Just because Butler said it, doesn't mean it's right. He can be absolutely wrong, too; just as he thinks AR and MM were.

The simple fact is this. The first three plays of the last drive worked beautifully. They chewed up yards like crazy to get within scoring range, with all their timeouts remaining and more than enough time to use them with their entire arsenal of plays in their game plan available to them to get the TD. If the Packers failed in the drive because their play was disorganized, I would agree they should have used timeouts to get settled. But, they executed more successfully in hurry up, and failed following clock stoppage for out of bounds and two incompletions.

[mraynrand]

If they were going for TD, they call TO after Cobb pass.

Stubby has never done it that way before. He always prefers the hurry up snap to using TOs. He always saves them for last, and often they end up with 1 or more left over. If they had completed to Lacy or R.Rodgers, they call TO. And then on the next play, if it stays inbounds, etc. The difference is that they din't convert on two straight passes, so they couldn't use the TOs - Too bad! ouch. But the sequence was totally consistent with what Stubby's done before.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Packers' use of timeouts on final drive is small issue, I did not choose to make a big deal out of it. It was mentioned as one of the many straws of cautious play that ultimately broke the camel's back.

You can go through each and every one of the 100 conservative moves the Packers made in that game and make a strong argument in favor of them. Heck, even a smart football guy like Erik Baranzyk sees Burnett's slide as prudent!

The point is that when you play an entire game with so much caution, the team loses confidence, the opposition is emboldened. Predators can smell fear.

[mraynrand]

I love LeRoy Butler - he has a lot of passion for football and was a great player. But he's not a great football mind, strategy-wise. He misses a decent amount of pretty obvious stuff.

[mraynrand]

The Packers' use of timeouts on final drive is small issue, I did not choose to make a big deal out of it. It was mentioned as one of the many straws of cautious play that ultimately broke the camel's back.

I don't think this fits. It wasn't cautious or incautious, it was just what the offense always does under Stubby. They run the clock, save their TOs and use them when they have to. They ran a great set of three plays and then didn't get the chance to use the TOs when they normally would have. Part of it was play selection, part execution, part bad luck. I wish they'd tried a run. I think Starks coulda busted on to get them in close for a few shots at the end zone. Maybe not risking a run could be called too cautious, but that's opinion and a minor quibble.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I love mraynrand. He's so passionate, so enthusiastic. A good chap. Just not the brightest bulb on the tree.

[Patler]

I think Butler & Silverstein are as sharp as they come.

I'm surprised Butler isn't coaching. Maybe he doesn't want to, or maybe he is boat rocker.

Actually, that is somewhat of an indictment against him, if I am remembering correctly. As I recall, early in his retirement, he desperately wanted to coach, talking about it quite often. I recall a story of him contacting the Packers and volunteering to come in for nothing to work with GB's young safeties. The Packers seemed totally disinterested. I recall him saying in an interview that he had some talks with other teams and might have something soon. Usually it is easy for players to get training camp times, coaching internships, etc. Nothing ever developed for Butler, even though he seemed to want it.

Odd, for a guy who was a great player, and worthy of the HOF, in my opinion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Butler has a thousand times more football sense than armchair generals Rand or Patler. He doesn't have the polish - he;s a Florida State man - but he's a ton smarter than these guys about football. Throw Vince on the know-it-all list.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Now, as Rev Reggie White might explain, Leroy may not have been gifted in the area of financial management.

http://www.wisn.com/news/former-packer-leroy-butler-looks-to-repair-his-image/24779336

[mraynrand]

I love mraynrand. He's so passionate, so enthusiastic. A good chap. Just not the brightest bulb on the tree.

I have my limitations. But since I care, you should take everything I write as gospel truth.

[Patler]

You've been wrong on much of your analysis of the game, .

Probably true, especially on the aspects when I agreed with you that they should have been more agressive in some situations. For example, like you I have said:

- While I was OK with the first FG, because it is important to get some points, the early lead, etc., on subsequent fourth and shorts I would like to have seen more agressiveness. (Probably not at midfield, however.)
- I still think Burnett should have run at least for a while. He was in no danger at all. He should have run at least enough to see if a clear lane opened. It looked like reaching the sideline would be no problem, and there he could step out to protect himself and the ball. Going down that soon made sense only if he didn't feel he had good control of the ball, which i acknowledge was wet and different for a guy not used to handling it. (Note, returing any interception has to feel quite odd for Burnett. :) )

As the game unfolded, it would be foolish to have thrown all caution to the wind, but I like to see teams take wins, not back into them. So yes, I think that generally more aggressiveness might have locked up the game earlier.

[hoosier]

Did they live?

One did.

[Patler]

At least I am willing to take stands agreeing with some of what they did and disagreeing with other things they did.
Monday morning QBs like HH just disagree with everything, because, after all, they lost.

[Harlan Huckleby]

At least I am willing to take stands agreeing with some of what they did and disagreeing with other things they did.
Monday morning QBs like HH just disagree with everything, because, after all, they lost.

I disagree with everything? I gave the Packers, Capers and MM plenty of credit. I was also criticizing the play-not-to-lose signs as they were happening, not in hindsight.

[Patler]

If they were going for TD, they call TO after Cobb pass.

Ya, and instead they hurriedly called another pass play, which seemed to have deep aspects to it because Rodgers waited for it to develop for a decent length of time, then picked up yet another first down and stopped the clock without having to waste a timeout.

Clearly they were going for the tie, because visiting teams always want to rely on overtime on the road, especially in a madhouse like Seattle.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ya, and instead they hurriedly called another pass play, which seemed to have deep aspects to it because Rodgers waited for it to develop for a decent length of time, then picked up yet another first down and stopped the clock without having to waste a timeout.

Clearly they were going for the tie, because visiting teams always want to rely on overtime on the road, especially in a madhouse like Seattle.

You won't let this go. The use of timeouts on the final drive is one small issue, it is one puckering among many.

Can't you just live with fact that I and some smart football experts disagree with you? If the Packers were attentive to saving time for shots into the endzone, they would have kept playbook open, used all timeouts. There was one play where Rodgers had a clear path to at least 15 yards, even hobbling. There was not enough aggression.

All of these situations are debatable, all 100 of them. My point is not that MM is wrong on all 100 situations, it's the overall tone he set with playing not to lose.

[Patler]

I gave the Packers, Capers and MM plenty of credit. I was also criticizing the play-not-to-lose signs as they were happening, not in hindsight.

If, in fact, you did; then we agree, because I did as well on all those things, but not the 1st FG, I want some points ASAP. That and the last drive, They were positioned perfectly to go for the win, just stopped executing after ARs scramble.

[Patler]

You won't let this go. The use of timeouts on the final drive is one small issue, it is one puckering among many.

Can't you just live with fact that I and some smart football experts disagree with you?

All of these situations are debatable, every last one of them.

No problem with that at all. Doesn't mean I have to agree with you and your experts.

By the way, why won't you let this go? Can't you live with the fact that I and a Super Bowl winning QB and a Super Bowl winning headcoach disagree with you and your media personalities about the final drive?

[Harlan Huckleby]

By the way, why won't you let this go? Can't you live with the fact that I and a Super Bowl winning QB and a Super Bowl winning headcoach disagree with you and your media personalities about the final drive?

You are saying that MM can do no wrong. You can use this argument against any and all criticisms. "Media personalities" like Wilde, Butler, Silverstein, McGinn, Baranzak are more knowledgable than you. I can understand MM's defensiveness, he's not going to publicly admit he did a massive flinch. Your dismissive attitude towards football analysts is the stupidity of arrogance.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If, in fact, you did; then we agree, because I did as well on all those things, but not the 1st FG, I want some points ASAP.

I didn't criticize MM for that decision. The "media personalities" - a.k.a. football analysts and journalists - are split 50-50 on those calls. The fans are split 50-50.

One more time: ALL of MM's decisions are defensible, he made no blunders that I am aware of. The problem is the tone he set with constant caution.

[Freak Out]

I didn't criticize MM for that decision. The "media personalities" - a.k.a. football analysts and journalists - are split 50-50 on those calls. The fans are split 50-50.

One more time: ALL of MM's decisions are defensible, he made no blunders that I am aware of. The problem is the tone he set with constant caution.

Couldn't he have challenged the first INT as a player was offside? Somewhere it was mentioned he could but I'm not sure. That was a huge play.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Couldn't he have challenged the first INT as a player was offside? Somewhere it was mentioned he could but I'm not sure. That was a huge play.

Can't you live with the fact that Patler and a Super Bowl winning QB and a Super Bowl winning headcoach disagree with you and your media personalities about that play?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist the cheap shot at Patler's knees.)

[woodbuck27]

Couldn't he have challenged the first INT as a player was offside? Somewhere it was mentioned he could but I'm not sure. That was a huge play.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/nfl-review-rules1.htm

Reviewable Plays in the NFL

Freak Out:

I believe the answer is ... NO.

[Patler]

I didn't criticize MM for that decision. The "media personalities" - a.k.a. football analysts and journalists - are split 50-50 on those calls. The fans are split 50-50.

One more time: ALL of MM's decisions are defensible, he made no blunders that I am aware of. The problem is the tone he set with constant caution.

and I have never disagreed with that. But the solution isn't to change all of those decisions, it's to change selective ones, because overall they were in a position to win, they just never put themselves in position to seal it away.

Not sure if I brought this up or not, I meant to. At the time of the interception, I wondered what message he was pounding home to the players all week long and what message he gave to them at halftime that caused his two defensive captains to be so timid in a play that could have delivered a coup de grace. Elite athletes are normally neither timid nor conservative. Some may say it was the "smart" thing to do, but stepping on your opponents throat (figuratively speaking) is pretty smart too.

[mraynrand]

and I have never disagreed with that. But the solution isn't to change all of those decisions, it's to change selective ones, because overall they were in a position to win, they just never put themselves in position to seal it away.

Not sure if I brought this up or not, I meant to. At the time of the interception, I wondered what message he was pounding home to the players all week long and what message he gave to them at halftime that caused his two defensive captains to be so timid in a play that could have delivered a coup de grace. Elite athletes are normally neither timid nor conservative. Some may say it was the "smart" thing to do, but stepping on your opponents throat (figuratively speaking) is pretty smart too.

One thing I am certain of is that in the same circumstances, a Ravens db would have done everything possible to take that football to the house, and the other Raven defenders would have been blocking the hell out of the offense all over the field.

[Patler]

One thing I am certain of is that in the same circumstances, a Ravens db would have done everything possible to take that football to the house, and the other Raven defenders would have been blocking the hell out of the offense all over the field.

We saw that from the Packers, too, a few years ago when Woodson was around. It seemed as if they looked at every interception as an opportunity to score and they did score quite a few.

[Rutnstrut]

One thing I am certain of is that in the same circumstances, a Ravens db would have done everything possible to take that football to the house, and the other Raven defenders would have been blocking the hell out of the offense all over the field.

But it probably was one of Peppers plays off, there is no way a game changing pick six is going to interrupt that.

[hoosier]

When I saw Burnett slide I wondered who was about to come into the screen that he could see and I couldn't. When it became clear there was no one around my thoughts quickly turned a shade darker: wasn't Burnett wasting an opportunity to put a 26-7 dagger in the Squawks? Of course I still had no idea then that there was a much, much darker space waiting up ahead. Then I started thinking about the 2010-11 championship game when Shields picked off Hanie to seal the game. Shields tried to run it back and he got to about midfield before he saw MM motioning for him to get down. He slid just before a Bear could hit him, and the ball popped loose but it was ruled DBC. I couldn't help but wonder if that close-call episode might have had some bearing on Burnett's decision to slide.

[Rutnstrut]

When I saw Burnett slide I wondered who was about to come into the screen that he could see and I couldn't. When it became clear there was no one around my thoughts quickly turned a shade darker: wasn't Burnett wasting an opportunity to put a 26-7 dagger in the Squawks? Of course I still had no idea then that there was a much, much darker space waiting up ahead. Then I started thinking about the 2010-11 championship game when Shields picked off Hanie to seal the game. Shields tried to run it back and he got to about midfield before he saw MM motioning for him to get down. He slid just before a Bear could hit him, and the ball popped loose but it was ruled DBC. I couldn't help but wonder if that close-call episode might have had some bearing on Burnett's decision to slide.

So stubby's style of chickenshit football has spread to the defense also?

[Patler]

But it probably was one of Peppers plays off, there is no way a game changing pick six is going to interrupt that.

he certainly was not looking to make a block for Burnett!

[hoosier]

So stubby's style of chickenshit football has spread to the defense also?

Yeah, wouldn't it have been nice to see Shields try to stick another one into the Bears after snuffing out their last gasp drive, and in the process end up coughing the ball up and giving them another chance? Then we could have watched a Bears-Steelers Superbowl!

But seriously, aren't you asking a question that has already been answered by some of MM's more persuasive detractors such as Harlan the Hound?

[mraynrand]

When I saw Burnett slide ... I started thinking about the 2010-11 championship game when Shields picked off Hanie...

I think you've captured what happened. After the Burnett INT, the Packers behaved just as though they had wrapped it up, like when Shields got the INT. It's like they totally believed that it had become a mere formality to run out the clock. It must have been the way their defense had been dominating the game that they just couldn't see the possibility of Seattle getting back in it. It seems to have instantly swept through the entire Packer team, like one of those viruses in a Zombie movie.

[denverYooper]

You've been wrong on much of your analysis of the game, Leroy Butler has forgotten more about football than you know.

leroy butler ‏@leap36 3m3 minutes ago
Your top 3 weed movies; up in smoke, half baked, how high,,, lol

[denverYooper]

McCarthy's younger brother died this morning:

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/01/21/brother-of-green-bay-packers-coach-mike-mccarthy-passes-away/#.VMA4gyGouOw.twitter

[Freak Out]

McCarthy's younger brother died this morning:

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/01/21/brother-of-green-bay-packers-coach-mike-mccarthy-passes-away/#.VMA4gyGouOw.twitter

Talk about a bad week. Sad.

[Carolina_Packer]

HH,

I liked MM's approach until I didn't. I couldn't answer the poll correctly because I thought he did both things. He wasn't doing the anal clench until things got close and adversity arrived on the scene.

My biggest point is, you can pick apart and analyze should Burnett have kept running, should MM have gone for TD's on the 1 yard line, etc. My point is, for those players and coaches who made the mistake of not doing your job, they probably cost the Packers the most.

Bostick did not do his job on the onside. If he does, we likely hold the ball and milk the clock, or at least make it a heck of a lot harder for Seattle to get the ball back with any kind of time to move down the field with the Packers leading by 5 still. If there is someone on what turned into the fake field goal to cover the tackle eligible who leaked out from the end of the line when Brad Jones gave up the edge. Contingency plan, much? They looked like they had never, ever thought about a team running a fake when the edge was given up. Do your job! When Ha Ha was having his momentary loss of concentration on the 2 pt. conversion where he inexplicably lost track of where Wilson was and the flight of his prayer that he threw from the far sideline. It's an elementary play if he's tracking the ball. Do your job! All of my examples are from special teams. Fire Slocum! That is all.

[Harlan Huckleby]

At halftime, I had MM penciled into the hall of fame, Capers had split the atom.

The team played so well, certainly MM & Capers did an awful lot right in preparation.

It was a sloppy game, but the heroes kicking butt.

[pbmax]

Clench is not the right way to look at this unless you think the clench is his preferred method of operating (to me this poll seems to suggest he panicked mid-game - I could be mistaken).

He has always gone four minute offense at least one possession prior to when I prefer to see it. But it has worked for him more often than not, I have no numbers to try to determine if it is optimal or not.

The Defensive picture is almost as easy to figure. McCarthy ALWAYS trusts his team to bounce back in tight situations. You need to be beating them up and down the field for more than a half before the game plan goes out the door. I almost guarantee he thought the D would get a stop on one of the two drives they would face no matter if Seattle had come back to life or not. Worked that way in Miami, the Dallas playoff game and he clearly expected it to versus Atlanta.

Now as to the question of pulling Burnett back into Cover 2 late in the game, I would love to know if that was Capers or M3. Because with a sputtering offense and a limping Rodgers, I can see eating clock as a wise choice. I am less happy on the D side of the ball.