Interesting McCarthy Stat

[HarveyWallbangers]

I was looking at McCarthy's bio, and found an interesting stat. The only NFC team he has a losing record against is the San Francisco 49ers at 3-4. There are some teams that he's .500 against and/or hasn't played that often, but I thought it was an interesting stat.

[vince]

McCarthy strives for consistency from his players and he's a model of it himself. They seem poised for a big year.

[pbmax]

There is one consistency I wish he would abandon.

Scott Kacsmar ‏@FO_ScottKacsmar Aug 11
Sample table from Arizona chapter of FOA 2016: Arians is off the charts

Buy FOA here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/store


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpnO1vgWYAAuzuZ.jpg:large

[hoosier]

Well, you can't have everything. And lately, in games that really matter, it has been the defense that has collapsed last and loudest. Maybe that is what you get when you annually field the youngest team in the league.

[pbmax]

Well, you can't have everything. And lately, in games that really matter, it has been the defense that has collapsed last and loudest. Maybe that is what you get when you annually field the youngest team in the league.

There has been no shortage of late game breakdowns by the defense, that is true. But I fault the offense much, much more for most of the recent ones. Going back at least to the 49er playoff game at Lambeau.

The defense kept the team in the game at home versus the 49ers, at Seattle in the NFCCG and at Arizona. In the first a finally healthy team still had not solved the 49er defense for the third game in a row, in the second McCarthy gave the Seahawks three additional possessions (Bostick gifted them a fourth). In Arizona, he should have tried a 2 point conversion in a one point game that his offense sniffed the red zone twice and was, except for two gifts of hail marys, completely ineffective.

There are other numerous examples. So I give Capers credit for improvement, but McCarthy is going backward. His late game management has never been strong, but his unit isn't dominating like it did.

[hoosier]

The offense has to take its share of the blame, sure, but is it really McCarthy and his play calling in each case?

Arizona: In hindsight I agree, going for two was the right call. But in the heat of the moment I saw things differently: the Packers had outplayed a superior opponent for much of the game (if Shields holds on in the red zone they basically have the game won), they've just scored and they have all the momentum. Kick the PAT and go to overtime seemed like a reasonable call.

Seattle: I agree MM got conservative in his play calling, and I would have liked to see him go after Sherman at least once to test him. But if the defense doesn't give up two quick scores or if Bostick does his job, the game is over and MM's conservatism looks very smart.

San Fran: the offense was very disappointing. But was it play calling or execution?

The common denominator in Packer playoff losses since 2010 has been that Rodgers and the offense hasn't been able to duplicate its 2010 roll. How much of that is MM and how much is Rodgers and/or leaky pass protection?

[Pugger]

In the last 2 playoff loses Rodgers never sees the ball in OT...

[pbmax]

It took an extraordinary set of circumstances to get beat in Seattle, and the Packers D had a hand in letting them convert. Not saying D is blameless. But you do lose some battles, its inevitable.

McCarthy possessed the power to limit possessions by gaining first downs. He chose the Schottenheimer method of run-run-run to maximize the guaranteed clock or TO run off and ignored probabilities. Any play action had a better than 70% chance of succeeding because the Seahawks were all in on stopping the run. Not to mention that their safety and CB were beaten up.

I am not blaming execution or play calling alone, I am also calling out horrendous 4 minute offense and clock management.

I can't agree that the Packers out-played the Cardinals except Packers D versus Cardinals O. Packers D was the only reason the game was in reach. The offense spent no time in Cardinals territory. When they got back down there, you take the opportunity. I agree hindsight in 20/20, but its a sound strategy regardless if your offense is anemic.

The Packer D in OT is another matter that should be addressed. I want to say it has failed uniformly and across the board. But that is just anger at the content of my own post speaking.

[Patler]

That loss in Seattle hasn't gotten any easier to accept, has it?

[hoosier]

I still have not mustered up the courage or masochism to watch it again.

[ThunderDan]

It took an extraordinary set of circumstances to get beat in Seattle, and the Packers D had a hand in letting them convert. Not saying D is blameless. But you do lose some battles, its inevitable.

McCarthy possessed the power to limit possessions by gaining first downs. He chose the Schottenheimer method of run-run-run to maximize the guaranteed clock or TO run off and ignored probabilities. Any play action had a better than 70% chance of succeeding because the Seahawks were all in on stopping the run. Not to mention that their safety and CB were beaten up.

I am not blaming execution or play calling alone, I am also calling out horrendous 4 minute offense and clock management.

I can't agree that the Packers out-played the Cardinals except Packers D versus Cardinals O. Packers D was the only reason the game was in reach. The offense spent no time in Cardinals territory. When they got back down there, you take the opportunity. I agree hindsight in 20/20, but its a sound strategy regardless if your offense is anemic.

The Packer D in OT is another matter that should be addressed. I want to say it has failed uniformly and across the board. But that is just anger at the content of my own post speaking.

Except the Cardinals decided not to do the run-run-run method and it almost cost them the game. If GB went for 2 or won in OT, Arians is getting his butt chewed up and down for throwing away time to try for the 1st down.

[pbmax]

Except the Cardinals decided not to do the run-run-run method and it almost cost them the game. If GB went for 2 or won in OT, Arians is getting his butt chewed up and down for throwing away time to try for the 1st down.

Sure. But that is hindsight and its unhelpful unless you have enough plays to look at the probabilities of possible outcomes. If the Packers were guarding against the run, that was a good call.

I don't remember the Packer D on that play. But I do remember the Seattle D lined up to stop the run entirely. Running three times without even the threat of a pass was just dumb. You are literally ceding a possession to them in exchange for clock. The Seahawks needed possessions more than they needed the time/TO that he was able to subtract.

[ThunderDan]

Sure. But that is hindsight and its unhelpful unless you have enough plays to look at the probabilities of possible outcomes. If the Packers were guarding against the run, that was a good call.

I don't remember the Packer D on that play. But I do remember the Seattle D lined up to stop the run entirely. Running three times without even the threat of a pass was just dumb. You are literally ceding a possession to them in exchange for clock. The Seahawks needed possessions more than they needed the time/TO that he was able to subtract.

Seattle needed both time and possessions that late in the game. If Bostick doesn't fuck up it is game over. It was OK from the Packers point of view to give an extra possession. Bostick gave them the extra extra possession them need. Plus the fucking 2 point conversion fiasco that should have never happened.

So in summary, the Packers gave Seattle an extra possession and 2 points more than they should have using the run-run-run method correctly as they did.

[ThunderDan]

Sure. But that is hindsight and its unhelpful unless you have enough plays to look at the probabilities of possible outcomes. If the Packers were guarding against the run, that was a good call.

I don't remember the Packer D on that play. But I do remember the Seattle D lined up to stop the run entirely. Running three times without even the threat of a pass was just dumb. You are literally ceding a possession to them in exchange for clock. The Seahawks needed possessions more than they needed the time/TO that he was able to subtract.

DP

[hoosier]

Seattle needed both time and possessions that late in the game. If Bostick doesn't fuck up it is game over. It was OK from the Packers point of view to give an extra possession. Bostick gave them the extra extra possession them need. Plus the fucking 2 point conversion fiasco that should have never happened.

So in summary, the Packers gave Seattle an extra possession and 2 points more than they should have using the run-run-run method correctly as they did.

Good, keep it up! Now do you have some material for the San Fran wildcard loss? We need to distract PB and keep his mind from wandering into forbidden territory.

[pbmax]

Seattle needed both time and possessions that late in the game. If Bostick doesn't fuck up it is game over. It was OK from the Packers point of view to give an extra possession. Bostick gave them the extra extra possession them need. Plus the fucking 2 point conversion fiasco that should have never happened.

So in summary, the Packers gave Seattle an extra possession and 2 points more than they should have using the run-run-run method correctly as they did.

When you are down multiple scores, you need more possessions more than you need more time. In a one possession game, then time and possession are much more equal.

McCarthy used an offensive strategy that by design gave them more possessions in exchange for less clock. Its a great end of game strategy. A terrible 8-, 6-, or 4-minute offensive strategy.

[ThunderDan]

When you are down multiple scores, you need more possessions more than you need more time. In a one possession game, then time and possession are much more equal.

McCarthy used an offensive strategy that by design gave them more possessions in exchange for less clock. Its a great end of game strategy. A terrible 8-, 6-, or 4-minute offensive strategy.

I respectfully disagree on this. Literally, everything had to go wrong the last 7 minutes of the game for SEA to win and it did. To me that game was the 1 in 10,000 that you lose not the 9,999 that we should have won.

[pbmax]

I respectfully disagree on this. Literally, everything had to go wrong the last 7 minutes of the game for SEA to win and it did. To me that game was the 1 in 10,000 that you lose not the 9,999 that we should have won.

OK, ignore the Seattle disaster. How many other times has McCarthy and the 4 minute offense (usually employed weirdly from 4-8 minutes left, employing run-run-pass) allowed a multiple score lead to dwindle to a single score AND the team that was behind has possession at end of game?

The charge that he takes his foot off the gas has evidence behind it.

[ThunderDan]

OK, ignore the Seattle disaster. How many other times has McCarthy and the 4 minute offense (usually employed weirdly from 4-8 minutes left, employing run-run-pass) allowed a multiple score lead to dwindle to a single score AND the team that was behind has possession at end of game?

The charge that he takes his foot off the gas has evidence behind it.

I am not sure how many times he has or hasn't. It seems like a lot recently. There was the stretch where we couldn't win a close game but won 20+ games in a row by the 5 point margin and a Super Bowl.

I think with last year's offensive struggles certainly made it feel that way a lot.

[pbmax]

The big wins and the regular season record are all good signs. The horrible record in close games tells a story about specific situations.

[vince]

The big wins and the regular season record are all good signs. The horrible record in close games tells a story about specific situations.
This is true but they count all four quarters when they add up wins and losses.

Arians is off to a great start. Bellichek and McCarthy have been doing it better than anyone else for a decade and beyond.

Here's as telling and as legitimate of a story about the same situations...

McCarthy's teams, when they lose, have a strong history of them being close games where the opponent has been forced to come back to beat them at the very end of the game. Far higher percentages of Arians' and other coaches losses have come in situations where they didn't pose a strong threat (didn't hold the lead) to win late in the game.

Good teams (coaches) win more than their competitors. When they win, they tend to win soundly, but when they do lose, they still have put themselves in position to win late in the game a high percentage of the time.

McCarthy is 45 out of 55 (.818) in forcing the opposition to win highly contested games.
Arians is only 8 out of 19 (.421)

Some day Bruce might catch McCarthy and Bellichek. He's put four good years together. Six more years of winning - along with at least a Super Bowl win - and he'll be right there. So far his playoff record is 1-2, and as Dan said they almost gave that one away.

[pbmax]

Arians numbers here will come down. Its obvious even good coaches struggle to get to .500.

So the percentage difference between great (.500) and McCarthy (.331) is not huge. But Mike has a big sample size here. He would need a 12 game reversal to get to even.

Its an artificial construct, so there are many types of game represented here. Some wins were likely the defense and the 4 minute offense letting the opponent back in the game before the offense closed it out. Some losses were probably blowouts the Packers were able get close in the end.

But I see this as a specific example of inflexibility. Teams that are bad have a lot of comebacks because they are behind a lot and they can score high in this chart if the offense is better than the D. In the Packers case, the offense is maximized already and has no further answers late in a game. Elway could always junk Reeves offense in a 2 minute drill. Marino would simply put the ball in a place the defense couldn't defend. I don't know how the Patriots do it.