Fuel to the fire.

[Upnorth]

Seems I've read this here before.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/09/aaron-rodgers-green-bay-packers-mike-mccarthy-nfl-head-coaches

[red]

yeah, but when i say, i'm just an ignorant asshole

i've read 3 articles this week talking about the same issue

looks like people are starting to see the truth about our awesome HC

[pbmax]

This guy is the culture beat writer for that site!?

Regardless, I agree, they should have gone for it. Not to mention run some kinda pass instead of 3 straight running plays.

[hoosier]

If they go for it and don't get it, Jax only needs fg to win on that last drive. Then what would USA Today be saying?

[Pugger]

Any play is a bad play when the players don't execute it.

[Patler]

yeah, but when i say, i'm just an ignorant asshole


Don't take it too hard, Red. We think you are an ignorant asshole for a lot more reasons than just that! :)

[Patler]

Not to mention run some kinda pass instead of 3 straight running plays.

You have to blame Rodgers for at least the third down call. The OL even still thought it was the passing play, and blocked it that way, while Rodgers had switched to the running play.

[3irty1]

This guy is the culture beat writer for that site!?

Regardless, I agree, they should have gone for it. Not to mention run some kinda pass instead of 3 straight running plays.

Pretty sure that last one was an audible.

These criticisms about playing not to lose carry more weight for me in the playoffs than they do in the regular season, much less right now where a big part of the offense is setting the table in terms of what film teams will see. To me the most compelling argument for going for it was that Rodgers clearly wanted to.

McCarthy's nads drop when the odds get longer. He does more than his fair share of surprise onside kicks, has made it clear through his play calling that there is never a situation where he won't go deep, we've all seen him gamble a bit with the challenge flag, etc. I think what people often mistake as "playing not to lose" is a genuine overestimation of his team. He won't bet big on a splashy decision because he thinks his team's superior talent and preparation are an advantage more likely to overcome the chaotic luck of football through strategic decisions that make for a lower-variance game with ample opportunities to be superior. No better example than the recent trip to OT in the playoffs.

Strategically this is clearly a problem if your coach reliably overestimates your team since this is functionally equivalent to underestimating your opponent. As a fan it drives me crazy when I perceive we're lucky to even have a chance to win yet we don't take it in hopes of having more than one chance to win later. I can see how there could be intangible benefits to cultivating that team culture though.

[gbgary]

If they go for it and don't get it, Jax only needs fg to win on that last drive.

wouldn't have had a problem with going for it, was actually hoping we would, but the fg IS the smart move.

[Clayish]

MM didn't call a good game. The back to back to back run calls on the goal line was laughable, and the Packers last drive (3 and out) wasn't a good look either. There was one play call where they wanted Eddie to run to the outside that made me so mad.

He's frustrating.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Are we sure Arod was vocal about wanting to go for the TD, or was he vocal about the miscommunication (the OLine pass blocking on a run play)?

In any event, I put more weight on the decision to run on the first three downs from the six than I do on the decision not to go for the TD on 4th down. Yes, a very aggressive coach might have gone for the TD, but Stubby is a conservative coach though he insists he's not. See the article "McCarthy: 'I'm not a conservative coach.'" (http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/09/08/mccarthy-m-not-conservative-coach/90065398/)

Whether McCarthy is motivated by an overestimation of his team or by an overriding core, old school belief in a dominant run game, I don't know. Actually McCarthy "pounded the pill" seven out of eight times on that drive from the Jacksonville 48 yard line. Yes, Lacy broke a 28 yard run on one of those rushing plays, but rushing yards are and have been extremely hard to get for the GB offense at or near the goal line. In the goal line situation in question I don't know if even John Kuhn's presence in the backfield would have helped.

I think McCarthy's core philosophy is rushing the football early and when he feels the game is in hand. He uses it to set up the other part of his core philosophy, the big-play pass downfield. The problem is at the end of the game on the goal line, the big-play pass downfield is impossible. So he's left with his favorite: the rushing game.

McCarthy just never impressed me as a guy who felt comfortable with a dink-and-dunk-down-the-field passing game. When he needs two yards, he's more comfortable rushing for them than passing. At the end of a game when he needs to kill the clock AND get a first down, he most always relies on the run game, most especially opting for the run over the pass when two yards or less are needed for that crucial, clock-killing 1st down.

Lately, his running game hasn't been up to the challenge, but McCarthy sticks with it. Either, as 3irty1 says, because he overestimates its ability or because he's not willing to take the risks inherent in the passing game, i.e., a game-changing interception. The latter is the very definition of a conservative coach IMO.

But does this strategy make sense when your QB is risk-averse Arod, who hasn't thrown a pick 6 in ages and rarely throws a pick period and can scramble with the best of them?

I, for one, would rather McCarthy use the pass to set up the run game, which would mean more dink-and-dunk offense. I tend to think the more you use the passing game in crucial short yardage situations in the middle of the field, the more confident you get in it and the more options you'll have at the goal line and in getting that crucial, time-killing first down.

But that's just me.

[Fritz]

Are we sure Arod was vocal about wanting to go for the TD, or was he vocal about the miscommunication (the OLine pass blocking on a run play)?

In any event, I put more weight on the decision to run on the first three downs from the six than I do on the decision not to go for the TD on 4th down. Yes, a very aggressive coach might have gone for the TD, but Stubby is a conservative coach though he insists he's not. See the article "McCarthy: 'I'm not a conservative coach.'" (http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2016/09/08/mccarthy-m-not-conservative-coach/90065398/)

Whether McCarthy is motivated by an overestimation of his team or by an overriding core, old school belief in a dominant run game, I don't know. Actually McCarthy "pounded the pill" seven out of eight times on that drive from the Jacksonville 48 yard line. Yes, Lacy broke a 28 yard run on one of those rushing plays, but rushing yards are and have been extremely hard to get for the GB offense at or near the goal line. In the goal line situation in question I don't know if even John Kuhn's presence in the backfield would have helped.

I think McCarthy's core philosophy is rushing the football early and when he feels the game is in hand. He uses it to set up the other part of his core philosophy, the big-play pass downfield. The problem is at the end of the game on the goal line, the big-play pass downfield is impossible. So he's left with his favorite: the rushing game.

McCarthy just never impressed me as a guy who felt comfortable with a dink-and-dunk-down-the-field passing game. When he needs two yards, he's more comfortable rushing for them than passing. At the end of a game when he needs to kill the clock AND get a first down, he most always relies on the run game, most especially opting for the run over the pass when two yards or less are needed for that crucial, clock-killing 1st down.

Lately, his running game hasn't been up to the challenge, but McCarthy sticks with it. Either, as 3irty1 says, because he overestimates its ability or because he's not willing to take the risks inherent in the passing game, i.e., a game-changing interception. The latter is the very definition of a conservative coach IMO.

But does this strategy make sense when your QB is risk-averse Arod, who hasn't thrown a pick 6 in ages and rarely throws a pick period and can scramble with the best of them?

I, for one, would rather McCarthy use the pass to set up the run game, which would mean more dink-and-dunk offense. I tend to think the more you use the passing game in crucial short yardage situations in the middle of the field, the more confident you get in it and the more options you'll have at the goal line and in getting that crucial, time-killing first down.

But that's just me.


I enjoyed the article you gave the link to, Maxie, in part because in it McCarthy addresses some of the specific criticisms that have been leveled at his supposedly conservative play calling. For example, in the Arizona game, when we were all screaming for him to go for two, he had what he called (I think) the perfect play - one they'd practiced and held for just such an occasion. But when Janis banged his head on the TD hail mary catch, they didn't have enough receivers to run the damn thing. And in the Seattle game, early on, McCarthy went for field goals twice. The second time, he basically said "hey, watch the film - we couldn't get Michael Bennett blocked, period, for three downs - why would I try again when nobody could stop the guy? The risk was too big."

I think he has his reasons, and they don't have to do with his gonads.

[texaspackerbacker]

I suppose we shouldn't criticize too much, as they did win, but damn! McCarthy is downright annoying at times in his play calling - making it close and stressful when it doesn't need to be. I would say the same thing on a personnel scale for Ted Thompson. Aaron Rodgers is just so good that a ton of mistakes/shortcomings get masked. It just pisses me off so much when they stubbornly go with a run first mentality instead of setting up the run with the pass. I don't fault him for kicking the field goal, and while I just hate the three straight runs, there apparently is something to the miscommunication thing - it looked like Rodgers coulda run it in easily if the interior linemen had gotten the message.

It sure would be nice to maximize things - sometimes anyway.

[Pugger]

I enjoyed the article you gave the link to, Maxie, in part because in it McCarthy addresses some of the specific criticisms that have been leveled at his supposedly conservative play calling. For example, in the Arizona game, when we were all screaming for him to go for two, he had what he called (I think) the perfect play - one they'd practiced and held for just such an occasion. But when Janis banged his head on the TD hail mary catch, they didn't have enough receivers to run the damn thing. And in the Seattle game, early on, McCarthy went for field goals twice. The second time, he basically said "hey, watch the film - we couldn't get Michael Bennett blocked, period, for three downs - why would I try again when nobody could stop the guy? The risk was too big."

I think he has his reasons, and they don't have to do with his gonads.

I was disappointed we couldn't score but I agree with Mike early in the Seattle game. We couldn't QB sneak it in - Aaron was playing on only one good leg - so you take the sure points on the road. We also got screwed in the first half when Aaron threw a pick when he felt the chickens were offsides and decided to go for broke but the chickens were never called for that. I sometimes think had Rodgers been 100% we would have won that game without going into OT.

[vince]

I think what people often mistake as "playing not to lose" is a genuine overestimation of his team. He won't bet big on a splashy decision because he thinks his team's superior talent and preparation are an advantage more likely to overcome the chaotic luck of football through strategic decisions that make for a lower-variance game with ample opportunities to be superior.That's quite a load to take in 31 and I agree with it. In most cases though, I'd say his estimation of his team relative to the opponent is correct. It hasn't always worked to perfection (NFC Championship at Seattle being the glaring exception) but, like last week, they've won a bunch more than they've lost.

It's more exciting for us fanboys to go for it on 4th down late in the game up by 4, but kicking the field goal at that point is the absolute right call IMO - "conservative" "playing not to lose" or whatever we want to call if from our couch/bar stool.

Regardless of how fans or reporters want to differentiate it - not losing is the same as winning just as not winning is the same as losing. Teams taking chances/not "playing not to lose" results in not winning far more than winning, and not taking chances/"playing not to lose" results in not losing far more than losing.

McCarthy has not lost more than anyone but Bellichek over the last decade due to skill and preparation - not desperation, taking chances, aggressiveness, "playing to win" or whatever we want to call it to spin the perspective. That's just football. Teams that are ahead do things to shorten the game while teams that are behind try to lengthen it. We all know which end of that spectrum the Packers have been on far more often than not under McCarthy's tenure.

[Pugger]

That's quite a load to take in 31 and I agree with it. In most cases though, I'd say his estimation of his team relative to the opponent is correct. It hasn't always worked to perfection (NFC Championship at Seattle being the glaring exception) but, like last week, they've won a bunch more than they've lost.

It's more exciting for us fanboys to go for it on 4th down late in the game up by 4, but kicking the field goal at that point is the absolute right call IMO - "conservative" "playing not to lose" or whatever we want to call if from our couch/bar stool.

Regardless of how fans or reporters want to differentiate it - not losing is the same as winning just as not winning is the same as losing. Teams taking chances/not "playing not to lose" results in not winning far more than winning, and not taking chances/"playing not to lose" results in not losing far more than losing.

McCarthy has not lost more than anyone but Bellichek over the last decade due to skill and preparation - not desperation, taking chances, aggressiveness, "playing to win" or whatever we want to call it to spin the perspective. That's just football. Teams that are ahead do things to shorten the game while teams that are behind try to lengthen it. We all know which end of that spectrum the Packers have been on more often than not under McCarthy's tenure.

Yup, had we gone for it instead of going for the FG and failed and then we lose in OT we'll all be screaming for McCarthy's head.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I enjoyed the article you gave the link to, Maxie, in part because in it McCarthy addresses some of the specific criticisms that have been leveled at his supposedly conservative play calling. For example, in the Arizona game, when we were all screaming for him to go for two, he had what he called (I think) the perfect play - one they'd practiced and held for just such an occasion. But when Janis banged his head on the TD hail mary catch, they didn't have enough receivers to run the damn thing. And in the Seattle game, early on, McCarthy went for field goals twice. The second time, he basically said "hey, watch the film - we couldn't get Michael Bennett blocked, period, for three downs - why would I try again when nobody could stop the guy? The risk was too big."

I think he has his reasons, and they don't have to do with his gonads.As I said, it's a stubborn allegiance to the run game, whether it's working or not. Has nothing to do with gonads.

I don't want to rehash the examples in the articles except to say it's kind of revealing to me that McCarthy says he only had two receivers and "the Packers hadn’t practiced any two-point conversion plays with fewer than three receivers." I find this typical of Stubby.

First of all, why limit himself to selecting plays he's practiced for "two point conversion plays?" Haven't the Packers practiced -- or have in their playbook -- any pass plays designed for a two yard pickup? Or goal-line pass plays -- or short yardage pass plays -- utilizing RB's or TE's? If so, that is just, plain incompetent.

Second of all, so he kicks the extra point...doesn't he realize he's going to have to play possibly a whole quarter of sudden death with only two receivers (and no short yardage pass plays?). Is he planning on pounding the pill every down of Sudden Death, or throwing it deep downfield? He has no pass plays for short yardage, or RB's or TE's?

[Pugger]

Janis would have come back in after the kick off had we won the toss or if the defense could have tackled Fitzgerald in OT.

[pbmax]

Not being able to block Bennett is no excuse. Do you just fold your tent and go home? Belichick would double team the towel boy if he thought he was beating them. You must have a scheme for guy who cannot be controlled.

Yet this take also renders even more impotent the idea of running Lacy three times into the line to milk clock at the end of the game. He admits here he has no plan or hope of getting a first down.

This is creeping Schottenheimer-ism. Its not good. Its ungood. Its Bear-like.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Yup, had we gone for it instead of going for the FG and failed and then we lose in OT we'll all be screaming for McCarthy's head.This is an argument? What if we missed the FG? We'd all be screaming for Crosby's head. So what does that prove?

[Travbrew]

MM didn't call a good game. The back to back to back run calls on the goal line was laughable, and the Packers last drive (3 and out) wasn't a good look either. There was one play call where they wanted Eddie to run to the outside that made me so mad.

He's frustrating.

Yeah, that one chapped my ass. 2nd and two, shotgun formation and you pitch out to Lacy? WTF? I got so mad after the 2-3 yd loss on that play. Yeah, it was executed poorly, but I still feel the play call was moronic...I would have rather seen play action or a run between the tackles with Aaron under center. That set up a longer 3rd down than we were able to get and kept the jags in the game.

[pbmax]

If they go for it and don't get it, Jax only needs fg to win on that last drive. Then what would USA Today be saying?

How terrible is the Packer D to allow a 70 yard drive to win at the end.

The odds don't just justify it. They endorse it.

This isn't about making a splash, its about putting your team in the best possible position to win. Scoring a TD is a great choice. Defending from the 2 is a good backup position.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Janis would have come back in after the kick off had we won the toss or if the defense could have tackled Fitzgerald in OT.So McCarthy was counting on winning the game offensively in OT with three WR's, one of whom had a bad back?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Regardless of how fans or reporters want to differentiate it - not losing is the same as winning just as not winning is the same as losing. Teams taking chances/not "playing not to lose" results in not winning far more than winning, and not taking chances/"playing not to lose" results in not losing far more than losing.

Well said. :?: :lol:

[pbmax]

Pretty sure that last one was an audible.

These criticisms about playing not to lose carry more weight for me in the playoffs than they do in the regular season, much less right now where a big part of the offense is setting the table in terms of what film teams will see. To me the most compelling argument for going for it was that Rodgers clearly wanted to.

McCarthy's nads drop when the odds get longer. He does more than his fair share of surprise onside kicks, has made it clear through his play calling that there is never a situation where he won't go deep, we've all seen him gamble a bit with the challenge flag, etc. I think what people often mistake as "playing not to lose" is a genuine overestimation of his team. He won't bet big on a splashy decision because he thinks his team's superior talent and preparation are an advantage more likely to overcome the chaotic luck of football through strategic decisions that make for a lower-variance game with ample opportunities to be superior. No better example than the recent trip to OT in the playoffs.

Strategically this is clearly a problem if your coach reliably overestimates your team since this is functionally equivalent to underestimating your opponent. As a fan it drives me crazy when I perceive we're lucky to even have a chance to win yet we don't take it in hopes of having more than one chance to win later. I can see how there could be intangible benefits to cultivating that team culture though.

The challenge thing is his view of the low cost of a timeout. Look at the TOs the offense burns through just operating under the no huddle. When was the last time the Packers has 3 TOs at the end of a game?

Surprise onside kicks are great. When was the last surprise kick in the 4th quarter when the game was within one score? He pulls that stuff in non-stressful situations.

I agree that his superior team/low variance approach isn't all that problematic in the regular season. But if it was truly an informed and considered approach* it would change versus superior opponents like he sees in the playoffs.

His play calling is fantastic. His game situation management is terrible. But terrible is baseline for the League. Belichick isn't the best because he is lucky.

I do agree that he is much much better when he realizes his team is at a disadvantage. Two of his best games were versus that frightening Viking defense with Williams and the other Star Caps defendant prior to their protracted legal education.

He does not adjust when the odds are close. He seems comfortable taking cues from research, but he obviously hasn't gotten into Win Probability or Expected Points. Hell the NYTimes fourth down bot could help. In tight games he follows the script and hoary coaching wisdom and is preyed upon by teams being more aggressive with their chances.


* rather than based on something more solid than "teams that runs the ball more than pass in the 4th quarter win the game 82% of the time". I sincerely believe that is the level of his understanding of numbers in the game. His comments about running with a lead late do not fill me with confidence.

Do you remember when McCarthy was dancing around about the terrible run game after Jeff Jagodinski left? One year he said he had to have a certain number of attempts to keep the defense honest. The next year he wanted the average up. The year after that he said it would be stupid to have a predetermined number of reps. There is no hint of a studied approach. He is just defending the approach on the field without rationale.

[pbmax]

And having one Go***mned 2 point play that is WR dependent in a year where they were ALL BANGED UP is the height of stupidity.

I don't even think Mike believes that one. He is just selling it to the press and public.

[pbmax]

Playing not to lose is allowing your opponent back into the game. It is surrendering every advantage you had in the previous 3 quarters. Not losing being the same as winning only are equivalent with 0:00 on the clock.

If you were clearly the worse team, then shutting down and playing a 4 corners offense is understandable. But the Packers owned that Seattle team until they decided to bleed clock. And block a FG.

[pbmax]

So McCarthy was counting on winning the game offensively in OT with three WR's, one of whom had a bad back?

Exactly. If he actually thought through the scenario, he would understand that the problem of the 2 point conversion is only amplified by OT. Which is why you need more than one go to 2 point play.

[pbmax]

Not being able to block Bennett is no excuse. Do you just fold your tent and go home? Belichick would double team the towel boy if he thought he was beating them. You must have a scheme for guy who cannot be controlled.

See if you can spot the logical fallacy in viewing Michael Bennett as unblockable given the following circumstances:


Both times, Bennett beat guard Lane Taylor, brought onto the end of the line as an extra blocker in the Packers’ goal-line offense. The Packers also ran away from Bennett on both plays, perhaps out of necessity. Their fourth-and-goal play could have been too predictable.

Why on God's green earth are you designing a heavy lineman formation and play where Michael Bennet is being single blocked by your 6th best lineman?

[Maxie the Taxi]

The challenge thing is his view of the low cost of a timeout. Look at the TOs the offense burns through just operating under the no huddle. When was the last time the Packers has 3 TOs at the end of a game?

Surprise onside kicks are great. When was the last surprise kick in the 4th quarter when the game was within one score? He pulls that stuff in non-stressful situations.

I agree that his superior team/low variance approach isn't all that problematic in the regular season. But if it was truly an informed and considered approach* it would change versus superior opponents like he sees in the playoffs.

His play calling is fantastic. His game situation management is terrible. But terrible is baseline for the League. Belichick isn't the best because he is lucky.

I do agree that he is much much better when he realizes his team is at a disadvantage. Two of his best games were versus that frightening Viking defense with Williams and the other Star Caps defendant prior to their protracted legal education.

He does not adjust when the odds are close. He seems comfortable taking cues from research, but he obviously hasn't gotten into Win Probability or Expected Points. Hell the NYTimes fourth down bot could help. In tight games he follows the script and hoary coaching wisdom and is preyed upon by teams being more aggressive with their chances.


* rather than based on something more solid than "teams that runs the ball more than pass in the 4th quarter win the game 82% of the time". I sincerely believe that is the level of his understanding of numbers in the game. His comments about running with a lead late do not fill me with confidence.

Do you remember when McCarthy was dancing around about the terrible run game after Jeff Jagodinski left? One year he said he had to have a certain number of attempts to keep the defense honest. The next year he wanted the average up. The year after that he said it would be stupid to have a predetermined number of reps. There is no hint of a studied approach. He is just defending the approach on the field without rationale.Hear! Hear!

What about the Time Out Stubby called after Jacksonville's 1st down play with 3:00 minutes to go in the 1st half? What was that? Overconfidence? Stubby being aggressive? :huh:

[pbmax]

Hear! Hear!

What about the Time Out Stubby called after Jacksonville's 1st down play with 3:00 minutes to go in the 1st half? What was that? Overconfidence? Stubby being aggressive? :huh:

I don't mind the idea. I just don't get doing it (when its not the end of game) on first down.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I don't mind the idea. I just don't get doing it (when its not the end of game) on first down.Well, it stopped the clock for Bortles and it made scoring against the clock at the end of the half that much more difficult for Arod. I had never seen that before.

Edit: I think that was a clear case of being overconfident in the defense.

[yetisnowman]

It's probably not true, but the last time I remember the packers having 3 time outs at the end of the game was the NFCCG in Seattle. I remember they got to Seattle's 30 with all 3 timeouts and 30 seconds left. Alas....
One of my main issues with MM, is the scatterbrained look to our no huddle. For such an experienced coach and qb combo, why are there so many hiccups and discombobulation? Normally I'm less critical of his play calling than most, but last year I thought was his worst...and last weekend was very weak in a few critical spots.

[vince]

Making an argument that the coach with the second most wins and third highest winning percentage over the last decade doesn't know how to win has no basis in the fist place.

[hoosier]

How terrible is the Packer D to allow a 70 yard drive to win at the end.

The odds don't just justify it. They endorse it.

This isn't about making a splash, its about putting your team in the best possible position to win. Scoring a TD is a great choice. Defending from the 2 is a good backup position.

Not sure what point you're making in the second line. The goal line situation happened with about 12:00 left in the fourth, right? Go for the TD on fourth down and make it, you're kicking off up 31-20. Fail and you're up 24-20 and Jax has the ball on their own 2 (or own 5 if Lacy tries to run wide again....). Of course the decision depends a lot on the game situation, on what's been happening up until that point, and on how confident you feel in your short yardage offense and your defense. But generally speaking, kicking the field goal in that situation is a reasonable decision, not overly conservative.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Making an argument that the coach with the second most wins and third highest winning percentage over the last decade doesn't know how to win has no basis in the fist place.

There are 7 current Head Coaches in the NFL with a higher winning percentage in the Playoffs than McCarthy (8-7, .533). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_head_coaches_by_p layoff_record

By my count McCarthy ranks #48 on the list of all-time playoff coaches winning percentage. Coaches with a similar number of playoff games coached that have a better winning percentage than McCarthy are:

Vince Lombardi (9-1, .900)

Tom Flores (8-3, .727)

Bill Walsh (10-4, .714)

Joe Gibbs (17-7, .708)

Bill Belichick (23-10, .697)

Jimmy Johnson (19-4, .692)

Chuck Noll (16-8, .667)

George Siefert (10-5, .667)

John Harbaugh (10-5, .667)

Tom Coughlin (12-7, .632)

Pete Carroll (9-6, .600)

Sean Payton (6-4, .600)

Bill Parcells (11-8, .579)

Marv Levy (11-8, .579)

Bill Cowher (12-9, .571)

Mike Shanahan (8-6, .571)

John Madden (9-7, .563)

Tom Landry (20-16, .556)

Dan Reeves (11-9, .550)

Dick Vermeil (6-5, .545)

Mike Tomlin (6-5, .545)

Mike Holmgren (13-11, .542)

Mike McCarthy (8-7, .533)


McCarthy may have a better regular season won/loss percentage than most of these guys, but his playoff record is way worse.

Amazingly, McCarthy and Belichick have virtually the same regular season won/loss percentage*, but their playoff won-loss percentage is miles apart.

As I've posted before...



There is so much to like about McCarthy. He's stubborn and anal about a lot of the right things. He's organized. He's prepared. He is loyal to his players and gets the most out of them. He's a steady hand on the tiller. He's logical and deliberate. All of these traits lead to success over the long haul, but they sometimes make it difficult for Stubby to think out of the box when required.

I'm not criticizing McCarthy for his regular season consistency. As I think pb said, his conservative style lends itself to winning in the regular season. I'm criticizing his tactics and strategy in specific scenarios when all the chips are on the line.

Neither am I trying to be argumentative. I'm just commenting on what I see. If I'm seeing wrong, then mea culpa.

McCarthy is an offensive coach. His offense didn't win the game Sunday. His defense did. I don't have statistics, but it seems to me McCarthy's style puts the onus on the defense to save the day more often than his offense takes pressure off the defense by padding a lead or playing aggressive offense, especially at the end of the game.

Edit: Added footnote * http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/

[Carolina_Packer]

This guy is the culture beat writer for that site!?

Regardless, I agree, they should have gone for it. Not to mention run some kinda pass instead of 3 straight running plays.

Those three straight run plays looked unimaginative. Do you know if they had Ripkowski in on any of those three runs? Once you establish or show run in that sequence, how about play action and dump it to Cook or Cobb in the end zone?

When I read that article, all I could think of is NFC Championship game against Seattle, playing not to lose. And who could forget last year when we could have won the divisional game in AZ. I know it would have been very controversial and if he didn't make the two point conversion, he would have been roasted by some, but it certainly would have been his chance to salt the game away with control of the ball.

It's funny how aggressive he can be sometimes until he gets in the red area, especially goal to go.

[pbmax]

Making an argument that the coach with the second most wins and third highest winning percentage over the last decade doesn't know how to win has no basis in the fist place.

I am not saying he isn't a quality coach, I think he is. But he doesn't do well in close games when game management really comes into play. Its a trend that has been playing out for quite a long time now.

[pbmax]

Not sure what point you're making in the second line. The goal line situation happened with about 12:00 left in the fourth, right? Go for the TD on fourth down and make it, you're kicking off up 31-20. Fail and you're up 24-20 and Jax has the ball on their own 2 (or own 5 if Lacy tries to run wide again....). Of course the decision depends a lot on the game situation, on what's been happening up until that point, and on how confident you feel in your short yardage offense and your defense. But generally speaking, kicking the field goal in that situation is a reasonable decision, not overly conservative.

The second line was just emphasis. Being so close to the end zone is a huge leverage point. Settling for a FG with multiple drives left in the game is surrendering points.

You stand a good chance of scoring. You stand a good chance of stopping the next Jags drive if you don't score, in fact you have another excellent shot at a FG on your next drive if you back a team up to their goal line.

[3irty1]

I agree that his superior team/low variance approach isn't all that problematic in the regular season. But if it was truly an informed and considered approach* it would change versus superior opponents like he sees in the playoffs.

His play calling is fantastic. His game situation management is terrible. But terrible is baseline for the League. Belichick isn't the best because he is lucky.

I do agree that he is much much better when he realizes his team is at a disadvantage. Two of his best games were versus that frightening Viking defense with Williams and the other Star Caps defendant prior to their protracted legal education.

He does not adjust when the odds are close. He seems comfortable taking cues from research, but he obviously hasn't gotten into Win Probability or Expected Points. Hell the NYTimes fourth down bot could help. In tight games he follows the script and hoary coaching wisdom and is preyed upon by teams being more aggressive with their chances.


* rather than based on something more solid than "teams that runs the ball more than pass in the 4th quarter win the game 82% of the time". I sincerely believe that is the level of his understanding of numbers in the game. His comments about running with a lead late do not fill me with confidence.

Do you remember when McCarthy was dancing around about the terrible run game after Jeff Jagodinski left? One year he said he had to have a certain number of attempts to keep the defense honest. The next year he wanted the average up. The year after that he said it would be stupid to have a predetermined number of reps. There is no hint of a studied approach. He is just defending the approach on the field without rationale.

I think "defending the approach on the field without rationale" is exactly what press conferences are for. I don't see it even remotely as an indictment that his approach is anything less than informed or thoughtful. Why would his approach necessarily change in the playoffs? Most of the time I've heard "We're nobody's underdog" its been in January. The opponents might be better, but if he still heavily favors his Packers then the dynamic informing his decisions is the same. As for the research he has, I can't say for sure but I'd be surprised if the Packer analytics were heavily dependent on historical data in order to come up with models for win prob. or expected points. The issue with football analytics like that is that the game changes so fast you're virtually always breaking new ground and historical models are biased against just that. Informing decisions on that style of model in the NFL is a bit like me telling you "If you want to stay alive just do what you usually do" while you're in the middle of a gunfight. I'd guess McCarthy is thinking about specific modes of success and failure rather than percentages like we might as spectators.

There's also to consider that when we play an opponent that appears more aggressive than MM that this is causal. MM is rarely going for an upset whereas most of his opponents are. They should rightfully be more aggressive and sometimes they'll beat MM because of that aggression. Then we as fans wrongly assume that coach is an aggressive coach all the time.

My entire criticism is that he's incredulous to his teams disadvantage until its often too late. But as I said, there may be some benefit to the culture. The implicit premise to approaching each game as a favorite is that the Packers biggest rival is the Packers and they control their own destiny each and every week. To make a winning tradition I think you might need to believe that even if its not true.

[esoxx]

By my count McCarthy ranks #48 on the list of all-time playoff coaches winning percentage.

If only Stubby had a competent QB in those playoff games. He can only do so much.

[ThunderDan]

Well said. :?: :lol:

It was like Yogi Berra was here at Packerrats.

[vince]

There are 7 current Head Coaches in the NFL with a higher winning percentage in the Playoffs than McCarthy (8-7, .533). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_head_coaches_by_p layoff_record

By my count McCarthy ranks #48 on the list of all-time playoff coaches winning percentage. Coaches with a similar number of playoff games coached that have a better winning percentage than McCarthy are:

Vince Lombardi (9-1, .900)

Tom Flores (8-3, .727)

Bill Walsh (10-4, .714)

Joe Gibbs (17-7, .708)

Bill Belichick (23-10, .697)

Jimmy Johnson (19-4, .692)

Chuck Noll (16-8, .667)

George Siefert (10-5, .667)

John Harbaugh (10-5, .667)

Tom Coughlin (12-7, .632)

Pete Carroll (9-6, .600)

Sean Payton (6-4, .600)

Bill Parcells (11-8, .579)

Marv Levy (11-8, .579)

Bill Cowher (12-9, .571)

Mike Shanahan (8-6, .571)

John Madden (9-7, .563)

Tom Landry (20-16, .556)

Dan Reeves (11-9, .550)

Dick Vermeil (6-5, .545)

Mike Tomlin (6-5, .545)

Mike Holmgren (13-11, .542)

Mike McCarthy (8-7, .533)


McCarthy may have a better regular season won/loss percentage than most of these guys, but his playoff record is way worse.

Amazingly, McCarthy and Belichick have virtually the same regular season won/loss percentage*, but their playoff won-loss percentage is miles apart.

As I've posted before...



I'm not criticizing McCarthy for his regular season consistency. As I think pb said, his conservative style lends itself to winning in the regular season. I'm criticizing his tactics and strategy in specific scenarios when all the chips are on the line.

Neither am I trying to be argumentative. I'm just commenting on what I see. If I'm seeing wrong, then mea culpa.

McCarthy is an offensive coach. His offense didn't win the game Sunday. His defense did. I don't have statistics, but it seems to me McCarthy's style puts the onus on the defense to save the day more often than his offense takes pressure off the defense by padding a lead or playing aggressive offense, especially at the end of the game.

Edit: Added footnote * http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/
So now we want to count only the games where they play the ever-changing de facto best teams in the league AFTER proving to be one of the top winners in the league. Very small sample size amid the highest possible standard for even the most tenured coaches.

Setting that aside, he has not lost more than he's lost and he has a not-lost World Championship to go with that winning record against the highest possible standards. And he's not done - maybe far from it.

I'm going to at least wait until he's unsuccessful before making arguments about why he's unsuccessful, manufacturing subsets of scenarios where he is, or even better yet, making up scenarios that could have been unsuccessful had they not in fact been successful. You guys can carry on til your heart's content.

He wins and he knows how to win more than not win - regular seasons, playoffs, or Super Bowls. Those are indisputable facts.

[ThunderDan]

Well, it stopped the clock for Bortles and it made scoring against the clock at the end of the half that much more difficult for Arod. I had never seen that before.

Edit: I think that was a clear case of being overconfident in the defense.

Of course it saved 40 seconds so ARod had more time with 1 less TO. Also, we scored a TD in the leftovers the Jags left us.

[Fritz]

Pretty soon we're going to need a "Fire Mike McCarthy" thread.

I blame Kurt Schottenheimer, personally. And Mike Stock.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Of course it saved 40 seconds so ARod had more time with 1 less TO. Also, we scored a TD in the leftovers the Jags left us.Yup. True. So you think that was McCarthy's strategy? Or do you think he anticipated stopping the Jags for a three and out, using the Two Minute Warning?

[red]

Don't take it too hard, Red. We think you are an ignorant asshole for a lot more reasons than just that! :)

At least year honest, even if you are wrong about everything most of the time

[ThunderDan]

Yup. True. So you think that was McCarthy's strategy? Or do you think he anticipated stopping the Jags for a three and out, using the Two Minute Warning?

No, I don't. I think he was hoping to force the Jags to punt.

[Pugger]

So McCarthy was counting on winning the game offensively in OT with three WR's, one of whom had a bad back?

If Janis couldn't play right after that big TD catch why would MM go for 2? If we went for 2 and failed everyone would be screaming for Mike's head on a platter.

[pbmax]

I think "defending the approach on the field without rationale" is exactly what press conferences are for. I don't see it even remotely as an indictment that his approach is anything less than informed or thoughtful. Why would his approach necessarily change in the playoffs? Most of the time I've heard "We're nobody's underdog" its been in January. The opponents might be better, but if he still heavily favors his Packers then the dynamic informing his decisions is the same. As for the research he has, I can't say for sure but I'd be surprised if the Packer analytics were heavily dependent on historical data in order to come up with models for win prob. or expected points. The issue with football analytics like that is that the game changes so fast you're virtually always breaking new ground and historical models are biased against just that. Informing decisions on that style of model in the NFL is a bit like me telling you "If you want to stay alive just do what you usually do" while you're in the middle of a gunfight. I'd guess McCarthy is thinking about specific modes of success and failure rather than percentages like we might as spectators.

There's also to consider that when we play an opponent that appears more aggressive than MM that this is causal. MM is rarely going for an upset whereas most of his opponents are. They should rightfully be more aggressive and sometimes they'll beat MM because of that aggression. Then we as fans wrongly assume that coach is an aggressive coach all the time.

My entire criticism is that he's incredulous to his teams disadvantage until its often too late. But as I said, there may be some benefit to the culture. The implicit premise to approaching each game as a favorite is that the Packers biggest rival is the Packers and they control their own destiny each and every week. To make a winning tradition I think you might need to believe that even if its not true.

I take the public comments lightly, but while McCarthy might believe in boring by design, he is not as close mouthed as Belichick and he has given clues to much of his thinking over the years. But he has never betrayed his understanding of late game situations and his run game beyond bleeding time. Normal game situations he seems to value winning in the trenches and reducing pressure on his pass game. But none of that speak to specific game situations. What we have are increasing tempo on offense (more plays for O), deferring choice to 2nd half, TOs to get a possession before halftime, and his comments about the 4 minute offense. And those are worrisome.

But not as worrisome as his performance. You mention that McCarthy operates from a better team/low variance perspective most of the time for game planning (often wise) and seems to continue to believe that in crucial situations. Understandable. Except, as you post, he has wildly underestimated his team's deficiencies during games. How many times has he trotted his bleeding defense back out to defend a less than TD lead when he could have been more aggressive on offense? Until last year, from 2011-2014, his D let him down multiple times. And that doesn't get into 2006-2008, when it was worse.

We know he sees these things. He has twice asked Capers to change the defensive focus. He came to realize there were shortcomings in his offense when they struggled (relatively speaking, they aren't the Rams) versus San Fran and Seattle. He changed that offense.

But his game management is stuck in Schottenheimer mode. Willing to take a big risk during the game, but in close quarters unwilling to buck conventional wisdom even when the numbers back you up. And despite a lack of direct evidence, I thoroughly believe there is a disconnect between his pretty advanced game planning and his late game situations. Because he routinely takes his best advantage (passing) out of the mix too early. Low variance writ large is wise. Its not a wise play calling rubric.

And the admission that he had one perfect 2 point play for the Cardinals game but he was out of receivers is a blunder. How can you have one play, how can you count on your most beat up unit to man that play? And why the hell are you making a decision in a highly leveraged situation based on how much you like the one play? That is the cart before the horse. You have a 50% chance to win in a game you have mostly trailed in, on the road, with no offense to speak of. The odds of a better chance coming along were vanishing. And your defense had saved your bacon. McCarthy's answer was to ask them to do it again. Because he had prepared only ONE play.

Now, one of the best things in the Jax game was the play action pass when he went to the 4 minute offense. That's very good. Doubly so because it was on the road against a team he could rightly consider a poorer unit than his own. He pressed his advantage late. I hope it continues.

[denverYooper]

I am not saying he isn't a quality coach, I think he is. But he doesn't do well in close games when game management really comes into play. Its a trend that has been playing out for quite a long time now.

Within the last week, Bill Barnwell noted multiple coaches who were good HCs despite the fact that they were poor game managers: M3, Mike Tomlin, Andy Reid, and Pete Carroll were all on that list.

I thought the Carroll callout was interesting but the other 2 along with M3 get a lot of attention for their game management mishaps.

[Upnorth]

Within the last week, Bill Barnwell noted multiple coaches who were good HCs despite the fact that they were poor game managers: M3, Mike Tomlin, Andy Reid, and Pete Carroll were all on that list.

I thought the Carroll callout was interesting but the other 2 along with M3 get a lot of attention for their game management mishaps.

The stupidest coaching mistake I saw this weekend in the end of a close game was when BB waited 25 seconds to call the timeout prior to the Arizona fg attempt. if ari made the 47 yarder NE would have desperately needed the 25 seconds. I have not seen anyone criticize his mistake yet.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The stupidest coaching mistake I saw this weekend in the end of a close game was when BB waited 25 seconds to call the timeout prior to the Arizona fg attempt. if ari made the 47 yarder NE would have desperately needed the 25 seconds. I have not seen anyone criticize his mistake yet.

True

[pbmax]

The stupidest coaching mistake I saw this weekend in the end of a close game was when BB waited 25 seconds to call the timeout prior to the Arizona fg attempt. if ari made the 47 yarder NE would have desperately needed the 25 seconds. I have not seen anyone criticize his mistake yet.

Everyone is deferential, but its been covered.

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/belichick-explains-why-he-waited-call-timeout-final-minute-vs-cardinals

http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2016/09/bill_belichick_explains_curiou.html

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4795697/bill-belichick-probably-should-have-called-timeout-quicker-at-end-of-game

Here is Billy explaining why he waited:

http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2016/09/12/bill-belichick-on-dh-admits-to-2-mistakes-he-made-in-win-over-cardinals/

But even if you buy the logic, why give the Cardinals extra time to get their ducks in a row for a 4th and 5 offensive play? Once the FG hits the field you should call it. Though at that point the Cardinals can change their mind.

[Maxie the Taxi]

It could have been worse. Belichick could have waited another 19 seconds and called one of those bush league "icing" time-outs. :oops:

[Pugger]

The stupidest coaching mistake I saw this weekend in the end of a close game was when BB waited 25 seconds to call the timeout prior to the Arizona fg attempt. if ari made the 47 yarder NE would have desperately needed the 25 seconds. I have not seen anyone criticize his mistake yet.

Probably because AZ's kicker missed the FG. :???: