More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[pbmax]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtOY_CIUEAA2D8X.jpg:large

[pbmax]

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 8m8 minutes ago
McCarthy: Excellent home opener win today. Excited for our football team to get first division win, first home win.

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 7m7 minutes ago
McCarthy: Proud of these guys. We improved today as a football team. #DETvsGB

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 5m5 minutes ago
McCarthy on offense: Execution. Thought our players did excellent job throughout the week. They were dialed in. Lot of explosive plays.

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 2m2 minutes ago
McCarthy: I thought Eddie (Lacy) had a nice game. Running downhill, getting his shoulders square & getting clean looks. #DETvsGB

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 1m1 minute ago
McCarthy: Jordy (Nelson) played well. Took advantage of his opportunities. He had a nice day. #DETvsGB

[pbmax]

I read on Twitter that everyone hurt came back in. I think that report was obviously wrong for Cook.

But Martinez and Randall did come back after leaving the field.

[Bossman641]

Hyde, Randall, and the rest of the secondary had awful games

[pbmax]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtOdx3VW8AAOrxz.jpg:large

[pbmax]

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 2m2 minutes ago
Aaron Rodgers: It's a good win for us. Division opponent. Nice to be back home after several weeks on the road.

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 46s47 seconds ago
Rodgers: Jordy & I connected. Whenever we're doing that it kind of opens things up for the offense. #DETvsGB

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 27m27 minutes ago
Rodgers on #Packers offense: I care about winning. We need to harness that feeling we had in the first half & keep doing that stuff.

Green Bay Packers ‏@packers 25m25 minutes ago
Rodgers on Week 4 bye: Not a big fan of it, but it comes at a good time for us health-wise.

[pittstang5]

I read on Twitter that everyone hurt came back in. I think that report was obviously wrong for Cook.

But Martinez and Randall did come back after leaving the field.

Randall should have stayed in the Locker room

[Pugger]

IMO the reason Detroit stayed in the game was because the Lions took advantage of our extremely thin D line, no CM3 and 2 starting DBs out.

[denverYooper]

Frontrunning is back and it feels so good.

[Rutnstrut]

IMO the reason Detroit stayed in the game was because the Lions took advantage of our extremely thin D line, no CM3 and 2 starting DBs out.

It also helped them that stubby took his foot of the gas, yet again.

[Fritz]

Is this a thing that happens to all NFL teams? Is it human nature to relax, or is it the prevent defense and the conservative playcalling?

I get, to some extent, backing off on defense so you don't get burned for a quick touchdown. But wait, didn't that happen anyway? It wasn't until the end of the game, when Dom went back to a more aggressive defense and MM let Rodgers throw that slant to Adams, that they salted it away.

That second half kinda took some of the joy out of that game.

[arcilite]

It also helped them that stubby took his foot of the gas, yet again.

This is just wrong.

Detroit was eating up possession in the second half with long sustained drives (due to Packers thin D).

We had one drive stall for a FG due to a holding penalty.

One drive end due to a drop by Cobb

Another drive basically end due to a Trevor Davis drop

In the above drives McCarthy called excellent plays, I believe. You want to run the clock out and put the team in manageable 3rd down distances. That was achieved but the players did not execute as well as they should have.

On the final drive Lacy made some great runs to end the game.

Now please explain to us how the foot was taken off the gas? Should we throw every single play and eat up only 20 seconds off the clock on a drive? Then we will be reading posts from you about how the play calling sucks and McCarthy didn't feed Lacy who had a great day?

[Fritz]

Dang, Arclite. All that factual recounting. You're messing me up, man.

[arcilite]

Sorry.

Would hate to get in the way of a good 'Fire McCarthy' narrative

[Guiness]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtOdx3VW8AAOrxz.jpg:large

The turnover is in the wrong column, the only one of the game was Randall's INT/Strip.

[red]

This is just wrong.

Detroit was eating up possession in the second half with long sustained drives (due to Packers thin D).

We had one drive stall for a FG due to a holding penalty.

One drive end due to a drop by Cobb

Another drive basically end due to a Trevor Davis drop

In the above drives McCarthy called excellent plays, I believe. You want to run the clock out and put the team in manageable 3rd down distances. That was achieved but the players did not execute as well as they should have.

On the final drive Lacy made some great runs to end the game.

Now please explain to us how the foot was taken off the gas? Should we throw every single play and eat up only 20 seconds off the clock on a drive? Then we will be reading posts from you about how the play calling sucks and McCarthy didn't feed Lacy who had a great day?

but we didn't eat time off the clock, and they destroyed us in the TOP battle

not to mention we saw a-rod going back to looking for the deep balls too many times

sure you could sit there and blame the lack of offense in the second half on 3 plays. but the fact is, we came out with a different game plan both on offense and defense in the second half.

why stop what was working so well in the first half?

[red]

a rod was 3-6 for 31 yards in the second half.

does that look anywhere close to the same type of output we had in the first half?

you have to have balance on offense. i think we called 9 pass plays the whole half

and we called somewhere around 12 or 13 runs (not counting kneel downs and qb scrambles or sacks)

so we did go run heavy in the second

[Fritz]

Sorry.

Would hate to get in the way of a good 'Fire McCarthy' narrative

I don't want to see McCarthy fired. If he got fired, he'd have a new job in about two minutes.

I just want to bitch.

Though I am happy they won, and in the big picture, honestly, it's a win without a bunch of starters, and you could say the team just let down.

But that baseless bitching sure was fun.

[Fritz]

Okay, double post, but I don't care. Here's what Jeff Seidel of the Detroit Free Press wrote after the game:


"The Packers were tougher. They were smarter. And they were better coached, jumping out to a 31-3 lead."

Wow. Tough? Smart? Well-coached?

Maybe we're all too inside our heads. Or maybe the Lions just suck really bad. I don't know.

[red]

I don't want to see McCarthy fired. If he got fired, he'd have a new job in about two minutes.



and i call that mike sherman syndrome

both of the last 2 mikes are very similar IMO, both did next to nothing as far as coaching was concerned, both just rode HOF QB's to success

many packer fans couldn't believe we could get rid of such a winning coach as sherman. he did jack squat after leaving green bay BTW

hell, if a lot of packer fans had their way, sherman would probably still be the head coach. and the sad thing is, we probably would have won just as many super bowls in that timeframe

[pbmax]

This is just wrong.

Detroit was eating up possession in the second half with long sustained drives (due to Packers thin D).

We had one drive stall for a FG due to a holding penalty.

One drive end due to a drop by Cobb

Another drive basically end due to a Trevor Davis drop

In the above drives McCarthy called excellent plays, I believe. You want to run the clock out and put the team in manageable 3rd down distances. That was achieved but the players did not execute as well as they should have.

On the final drive Lacy made some great runs to end the game.

Now please explain to us how the foot was taken off the gas? Should we throw every single play and eat up only 20 seconds off the clock on a drive? Then we will be reading posts from you about how the play calling sucks and McCarthy didn't feed Lacy who had a great day?

Lacy had 17 carries. 6 in the first half when they forgot about the running the football more and had four straight scoring drives. In the second half, they gave him 11 carries and had one scoring drive. On their sole scoring drive, they gave him the ball 5 times, threw twice and had Rodgers scramble twice.

EDIT: Most likely, that's four called pass plays.

It was a good drive killed by a penalty. But that happens more often when you run.

My evidence of foot off the gas is first downs by half: 1-8-2 (run-pass-penalty) for a total of 11 in the first half. Second half? 1-5-0 for six total.

The offense disappeared on the scoreboard, field position and first downs when they ran more. The defense needed more help than just bleeding time.

[red]

Lacy had 17 carries. 6 in the first half when they forgot about the running the football more and had four straight scoring drives. In the second half, they gave him 11 carries and had one scoring drive. On their sole scoring drive, they gave him the ball 5 times, threw twice and had Rodgers scramble twice.

It was a good drive killed by a penalty. But that happens more often when you run.

My evidence of foot off the gas is first downs by half: 1-8-2 (run-pass-penalty) for a total of 11 in the first half. Second half? 1-5-0 for six total.

The offense disappeared on the scoreboard, field position and first downs when they ran more. The defense needed more help than just bleeding time.

haven't we seen the defense come out decent at the start of seasons before, only to be run down by the time the playoffs get him. losing the TOP battle by as much as we did today will to that to a defense over the course of the season, and games

[pbmax]

haven't we seen the defense come out decent at the start of seasons before, only to be run down by the time the playoffs get him. losing the TOP battle by as much as we did today will to that to a defense over the course of the season, and games

I am not a huge believer in TOP over the season causing an issue.

In a game, if its hugely one-sided? Yes.

But its more comfort and the ability to call ALL your offense and ALL your defense. If you are playing a style to bleed slowly, it becomes easier to take advantage of the defense. Same with the O. Nothing easier to defend or substitute for than run-run-pass.

[pbmax]

Ripkowski also did not return. That might explain some of the weirdness in the second half and the reappearance of that toss play.

M3 did not have more details.

Randall was ill before and during the game.

[TravisWilliams23]

Ripkowski also did not return. That might explain some of the weirdness in the second half and the reappearance of that toss play.

M3 did not have more details.

Randall was ill before and during the game.

Kinda made me a little sick watching him. :grin:

[King Friday]

The offense disappeared on the scoreboard, field position and first downs when they ran more. The defense needed more help than just bleeding time.

I think I agree more with max and red that the offense became too conservative in the second half, which is certainly a trait of McCarthy when he gets a big lead. That isn't necessarily a trait that will doom your team, but it isn't one that is going to help your team either. With the Packer defense today basically trying to hold itself together with duct tape and band-aids, the offense needed to be more aggressive and score as many points as possible.

While the Lions certainly played better in the 2nd half and made sure we weren't going to score 31 additional, the fact that we only got a field goal in the second half and couldn't really put the dagger into a very hapless Lions team is concerning. I'm not lighting a pitchfork on fire and storming the Packer front offices on Monday, but there is a certain level of accountability that needs to happen...McCarthy should stand up and admit that he and the team need to work on this issue.

[Joemailman]

Jared Cook had his foot in a walking boot and exited the locker room on crutches. Ripkowski has a back.

[red]

I think I agree more with max and red that the offense became too conservative in the second half, which is certainly a trait of McCarthy when he gets a big lead. That isn't necessarily a trait that will doom your team, but it isn't one that is going to help your team either. With the Packer defense today basically trying to hold itself together with duct tape and band-aids, the offense needed to be more aggressive and score as many points as possible.

While the Lions certainly played better in the 2nd half and made sure we weren't going to score 31 additional, the fact that we only got a field goal in the second half and couldn't really put the dagger into a very hapless Lions team is concerning. I'm not lighting a pitchfork on fire and storming the Packer front offices on Monday, but there is a certain level of accountability that needs to happen...McCarthy should stand up and admit that he and the team need to work on this issue.

except in nfc championship games of course

[ThunderDan]

Not sure what to think after the game. I just finished watching it on tape after having to miss the game live.

I am not sure how you can complain about the O in the 2nd half. I think we only had 4 possessions in the 2nd half. We scored on 1, punted twice and run out the last 4 minutes of the game without giving Det a chance to tie the game.

If I remember correctly we had 10 total possessions. We scored on 6, punted 2, run 2 plays to finish the 1st half, and ran out the last 4 minutes of the 2nd half sealing the game making sure DET never had the ball when they were only behind by 1 score or less.

The 2nd half "struggles" occurred because DET had some sustained long scoring drives.

[ThunderDan]

Just was looking at the box score on NFL.com. Two other notes, Packer offense had 1 three and out the whole game. ARod had 205 yards passing.

[red]

Just was looking at the box score on NFL.com. Two other notes, Packer offense had 1 three and out the whole game. ARod had 205 yards passing.

yes, and he had 174 of those at halftime

so 31 yards on 4 drives in the second half

[Rutnstrut]

Not sure what to think after the game. I just finished watching it on tape after having to miss the game live.

I am not sure how you can complain about the O in the 2nd half. I think we only had 4 possessions in the 2nd half. We scored on 1, punted twice and run out the last 4 minutes of the game without giving Det a chance to tie the game.

If I remember correctly we had 10 total possessions. We scored on 6, punted 2, run 2 plays to finish the 1st half, and ran out the last 4 minutes of the 2nd half sealing the game making sure DET never had the ball when they were only behind by 1 score or less.

The 2nd half "struggles" occurred because DET had some sustained long scoring drives.

It's easy to complain. Had they been playing a decent team. Stubby's foot of the gas approach would have been a losing one.

[Joemailman]

Lacy had 17 carries. 6 in the first half when they forgot about the running the football more and had four straight scoring drives. In the second half, they gave him 11 carries and had one scoring drive. On their sole scoring drive, they gave him the ball 5 times, threw twice and had Rodgers scramble twice.

EDIT: Most likely, that's four called pass plays.

It was a good drive killed by a penalty. But that happens more often when you run.

My evidence of foot off the gas is first downs by half: 1-8-2 (run-pass-penalty) for a total of 11 in the first half. Second half? 1-5-0 for six total.

The offense disappeared on the scoreboard, field position and first downs when they ran more. The defense needed more help than just bleeding time.

It was a good drive killed by a penalty on an attempted pass play. The fact that Rodgers had to twice pull the ball down and run on that drive might indicate that the Lions and had made some defensive adjustments, and what had worked so splendidly in the 1st half wasn't working as well now.

The main difference between 1-8-2 and 1-5-0 may have been the fact that the Lions had some long scoring drives in the second half. I understand the frustration people have. But I wonder how many coaches with a 21 point half time lead and a defense minus 5 starters wouldn't have tried to run the ball.

[ThunderDan]

So I went through the play calls in the 2nd half for the Packers. We ran 28 total plays. 3 were punts and field goals and the last 3 were kneel downs by ARod.

That leaves 22 "real" plays in the 2nd half. We ran 12 times and passed 10 if you count ARod's scrambles as pass plays. So we had 55/45 run/pass mix not as unbalanced as many here felt.

[ThunderDan]

We ran 30 plays in the 1st half. 1 FG, 21 passes and 8 runs. First half mix 28/72 run/pass mix.

This is probably why the 2nd half seemed so run heavy.

TOP by half

11:33 - 13:20 total 24:53.

[Maxie the Taxi]

The start of the second half had a definite, different feel to it than the start of the 1st half. The emphasis at the beginning of the 1st half was an aggressive passing attack. Pass first to set up the run, Tex would say.

At the start of the second half the emphasis was on Lacy pounding the pill. We were leading 31-10 at half-time, so Stubby coming out with a conservative plan to run more in the second half (take his foot off the gas) is kind of conventional wisdom. I didn't mind it.

But when Detroit started moving the ball/scoring and the running game stalled due to zero rushing yardage on 1st down and penalties, I felt we should have gone back to the aggressive passing attack, especially in the 4th quarter and especially at the end of the game.

Like someone said (pbmax, I think) it isn't a sound plan to rely on Arod to scramble on third down for 10 yards for a much needed 1st down in those situations.

[ThunderDan]

On our 12 "real" runs in the 2nd half we gained 60 yards. That averages to 5 ypc.

[King Friday]

So I went through the play calls in the 2nd half for the Packers. We ran 28 total plays. 3 were punts and field goals and the last 3 were kneel downs by ARod.

That leaves 22 "real" plays in the 2nd half. We ran 12 times and passed 10 if you count ARod's scrambles as pass plays. So we had 55/45 run/pass mix not as unbalanced as many here felt.

Not sure on anyone else, but I'm not really talking about the run/pass mix. I'm talking about the aggressiveness of the play calling. You can call 100% pass plays and still be a conservative offense. You can run the ball 75% of the time and still be an aggressive offense.

You don't want to become PREDICTABLE. Out of 10 first down plays in the 2nd half, we ran on 7 of them. 2 of the 3 passes were out of the shotgun formation. So, in general, the defense knew that if we weren't in shotgun, we were running it. That is too predictable for me in a game that had not yet been decided. McCarthy seemed to call the offense in the second half as if it were decided...something he has done before, occasionally to the detriment of the team.

I'm fine with 7 of 10 plays being run plays...if the pass plays look the same at the line of scrimmage and are keeping the defense honest. Run a couple play action plays and go for the dagger, if you will. But the Packer offense mostly went in to a shell, hoping to run off enough time to hold on for the win.

[Maxie the Taxi]

On our 12 "real" runs in the 2nd half we gained 60 yards. That averages to 5 ypc.Averages don't really matter much. Situations matter. When you run on 1st down, or first and second down and gain no yards or 2 yards in a "must get a 1st down situation," you are then forced to throw the ball on third down (maybe even 2nd down) and everyone knows it.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Not sure on anyone else, but I'm not really talking about the run/pass mix. I'm talking about the aggressiveness of the play calling. You can call 100% pass plays and still be a conservative offense. You can run the ball 75% of the time and still be an aggressive offense.

You don't want to become PREDICTABLE. Out of 10 first down plays in the 2nd half, we ran on 7 of them. 2 of the 3 passes were out of the shotgun formation. So, in general, the defense knew that if we weren't in shotgun, we were running it. That is too predictable for me in a game that had not yet been decided. McCarthy seemed to call the offense in the second half as if it were decided...something he has done before, occasionally to the detriment of the team.I pretty much agree. I think Stubby thought the game was well in hand (heck, I did too), so he came out conservative instead of aggressive in the second half. When the Lions started to move the ball and score, Stubby was taken by surprise...I was too. Maybe it's tough to go aggressive for a half, dial it back and then try to dial it up again when the situation gets tense.

[pbmax]

I pretty much agree. I think Stubby thought the game was well in hand (heck, I did too), so he came out conservative instead of aggressive in the second half. When the Lions started to move the ball and score, Stubby was taken by surprise...I was too. Maybe it's tough to go aggressive for a half, dial it back and then try to dial it up again when the situation gets tense.

He has gotten slightly less stubborn. After Rodgers darted for a first on 3rd and long. He came right back with a play action throw.

He is still very early with the switch in play calling.

[pbmax]

I think my jinxing powers have retreated as Stafford wasn't disabled by Perry at all today.

So I feel more confident in noting that I haven't had much cause to be mad at Lane Taylor save for one penalty I think. Anyone else?

[Patler]

... I haven't had much cause to be mad at Lane Taylor save for one penalty I think. Anyone else?

I tend to forget that the starting LG is new, and not Josh Sitton. That is a good thing.

[Smidgeon]

Hyde, Randall, and the rest of the secondary had awful games

The Packers secondary usually has a terrible game against Stafford.

[Smidgeon]

Just finished watching on Game Pass. Here are my thoughts:

Charles Davis may know a lot about football, but he knows nothing about broadcasting and got several facts wrong. My football IQ got worse listening to him. Makes me miss Madden who had a gift for saying things simply enough they sounded dumb but were actually teaching you about the game.

Nick Perry earned consistent double teams by the fourth quarter. He and Daniels were consistently keyed in on by the Lions O-line. I know we discussed Perry vs Neal ad nauseum, but I think there's no doubt Perry was the better choice.

I think James Starks is done. He's been a good change of pace back since 2010, but I think he's pretty much given everything he can with nothing left.

Blood and Guts--aka Blake and Jake--don't really strike me as star power guys. I don't look at them like they have a chance to be anywhere near special. In fact, they both play like they're eminently replaceable. BUT (and that's a big but) they are always in the right spot, making the right tackle, at the right time. No broken plays, no missteps, no mental errors. They're the epitome of a "lunch pail linebacker" who just shows up every day and gets the job done. I think we'll forget about them for a long time, except when we consciously remind ourselves "hey, they STILL haven't screwed up".

Damarius Randall will be fine. He's still young. Shields was supposed to be Man #1 back there. But without Shields, without Burnett, Randall is being asked to be Man #1. I think he'll get there one day. But right now, I just hope it doesn't wreck his confidence. He had another bad game, but I don't think he's a bad player.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Just finished watching on Game Pass. Here are my thoughts:

Charles Davis may know a lot about football, but he knows nothing about broadcasting and got several facts wrong. My football IQ got worse listening to him. Makes me miss Madden who had a gift for saying things simply enough they sounded dumb but were actually teaching you about the game.

Nick Perry earned consistent double teams by the fourth quarter. He and Daniels were consistently keyed in on by the Lions O-line. I know we discussed Perry vs Neal ad nauseum, but I think there's no doubt Perry was the better choice.

I think James Starks is done. He's been a good change of pace back since 2010, but I think he's pretty much given everything he can with nothing left.

Blood and Guts--aka Blake and Jake--don't really strike me as star power guys. I don't look at them like they have a chance to be anywhere near special. In fact, they both play like they're eminently replaceable. BUT (and that's a big but) they are always in the right spot, making the right tackle, at the right time. No broken plays, no missteps, no mental errors. They're the epitome of a "lunch pail linebacker" who just shows up every day and gets the job done. I think we'll forget about them for a long time, except when we consciously remind ourselves "hey, they STILL haven't screwed up".

Damarius Randall will be fine. He's still young. Shields was supposed to be Man #1 back there. But without Shields, without Burnett, Randall is being asked to be Man #1. I think he'll get there one day. But right now, I just hope it doesn't wreck his confidence. He had another bad game, but I don't think he's a bad player.

I agree with most of this. Perry might be defensive MVP so far. I like Jon and Ponch. They are playing well. The won't be Navarro Bowman, but you can win with those two guys. Starks might be done. Same with Peppers. Makes me wish we had signed Spiller to give us an element of speed. Randall will bounce back, but I'm really hoping Shields makes it back and stays healthy for the rest of the year. I haven't heard much about Lane Taylor. That's a good thing. Ha Ha has been a bit of a disappointment the last two games, but some of it might be that these secondary guys haven't played enough with each other (so many young guys playing) that it will take some time for them to get on the same page.

[hoosier]

The start of the second half had a definite, different feel to it than the start of the 1st half. The emphasis at the beginning of the 1st half was an aggressive passing attack. Pass first to set up the run, Tex would say.

At the start of the second half the emphasis was on Lacy pounding the pill. We were leading 31-10 at half-time, so Stubby coming out with a conservative plan to run more in the second half (take his foot off the gas) is kind of conventional wisdom. I didn't mind it.

But when Detroit started moving the ball/scoring and the running game stalled due to zero rushing yardage on 1st down and penalties, I felt we should have gone back to the aggressive passing attack, especially in the 4th quarter and especially at the end of the game.

Like someone said (pbmax, I think) it isn't a sound plan to rely on Arod to scramble on third down for 10 yards for a much needed 1st down in those situations.

It's not just play calling you're talking about, it's momentum. Hard to turn it off and on again.

[texaspackerbacker]

The start of the second half had a definite, different feel to it than the start of the 1st half. The emphasis at the beginning of the 1st half was an aggressive passing attack. Pass first to set up the run, Tex would say.

At the start of the second half the emphasis was on Lacy pounding the pill. We were leading 31-10 at half-time, so Stubby coming out with a conservative plan to run more in the second half (take his foot off the gas) is kind of conventional wisdom. I didn't mind it.

But when Detroit started moving the ball/scoring and the running game stalled due to zero rushing yardage on 1st down and penalties, I felt we should have gone back to the aggressive passing attack, especially in the 4th quarter and especially at the end of the game.

Like someone said (pbmax, I think) it isn't a sound plan to rely on Arod to scramble on third down for 10 yards for a much needed 1st down in those situations.

Uh, I did kinda mind it - reverting to old run-first shit and floundering offensively. It's like, incredibly, he doesn't trust Aaron Rodgers to avoid interceptions. Going 3 and out or close to it with his "conservative" approach (I HATE use of the word "conservative" to mean hyper-cautious) is NOT playing it safe. You can lose a game a helluva lot easier that way than putting the ball in Rodgers' hands.

A word about that other post: I'm getting kinda negative about Randall. Rollins plays better in man coverage, and Gunter plays better yet. Hell, the rookie Hawkins (other than his colossal touchdown-giving blunder) seemed to have better instincts and athleticism than Randall. All three of those others do. Randall looks like he's a step slow and he doesn't realize it.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Uh, I did kinda mind it - reverting to old run-first shit and floundering offensively. It's like, incredibly, he doesn't trust Aaron Rodgers to avoid interceptions. Going 3 and out or close to it with his "conservative" approach (I HATE use of the word "conservative" to mean hyper-cautious) is NOT playing it safe. You can lose a game a helluva lot easier that way than putting the ball in Rodgers' hands.

A word about that other post: I'm getting kinda negative about Randall. Rollins plays better in man coverage, and Gunter plays better yet. Hell, the rookie Hawkins (other than his colossal touchdown-giving blunder) seemed to have better instincts and athleticism than Randall. All three of those others do. Randall looks like he's a step slow and he doesn't realize it.I basically agree with you. I generally don't like Stubby's conservative strategy to preserve a win by pounding the pill, mainly on the grounds of what hoosier said: you risk losing that scoring momentum.

But Stubby's never gonna change. He's old school Steelers. He WANTS his team to be able to control the game by pounding the rock. He's said it countless times over the years.

The problem is IMO the game has changed. You CAN'T control the game by pounding the rock anymore. It's now a pass-first league. Even the rules favor the passing game. Few games are truly out of reach no matter how far behind you are. And Stubby kinda understands this too because when he needs points he reverts back to passing like there's no tomorrow.

So he's caught in a kind of contradiction: his instinct to control the game by rushing vs the reality that you score points (and convert third and long) by passing. IMO that's why, in so many of these games (and end of game, crunch time scenarios), Stubby's approach seems schizophrenic.

[hoosier]

I basically agree with you. I generally don't like Stubby's conservative strategy to preserve a win by pounding the pill, mainly on the grounds of what hoosier said: you risk losing that scoring momentum.

But Stubby's never gonna change. He's old school Steelers. He WANTS his team to be able to control the game by pounding the rock. He's said it countless times over the years.

The problem is IMO the game has changed. You CAN'T control the game by pounding the rock anymore. It's now a pass-first league. Even the rules favor the passing game. Few games are truly out of reach no matter how far behind you are. And Stubby kinda understands this too because when he needs points he reverts back to passing like there's no tomorrow.

So he's caught in a kind of contradiction: his instinct to control the game by rushing vs the reality that you score points (and convert third and long) by passing. IMO that's why, in so many of these games (and end of game, crunch time scenarios), Stubby's approach seems schizophrenic.

Two things in McCarthy's defense. First, the opposing defense will be taking more chances in the second half yesterday, so if he continues with the aggressive approach then the odds of a turnover or quick three-and-out go up, and when you're up 31-3 at half, the very last thing in the world you want to see is a quick pick-6 going the other way. Nothing gets the opponent who you've been stomping on all first half back in the game like a pick-6. Second, what McCarthy did in the second half yesterday has ramifications for the bigger picture. The Packer offense will be much more formidable if and when it gets to the point where it can impose its will on the defense, and the best way to do that is to run it down their throat. When it doesn't work it can be incredibly frustrating to watch, and can lead to the kind of excruciating second half we witnessed yesterday. But if, come December and January, this team can get to that point of being able to impose its will, we will all be much happier fans.

[beveaux1]

Two things in McCarthy's defense. First, the opposing defense will be taking more chances in the second half yesterday, so if he continues with the aggressive approach then the odds of a turnover or quick three-and-out go up, and when you're up 31-3 at half, the very last thing in the world you want to see is a quick pick-6 going the other way. Nothing gets the opponent who you've been stomping on all first half back in the game like a pick-6. Second, what McCarthy did in the second half yesterday has ramifications for the bigger picture. The Packer offense will be much more formidable if and when it gets to the point where it can impose its will on the defense, and the best way to do that is to run it down their throat. When it doesn't work it can be incredibly frustrating to watch, and can lead to the kind of excruciating second half we witnessed yesterday. But if, come December and January, this team can get to that point of being able to impose its will, we will all be much happier fans.

I'm pretty sure that MM is not as concerned with the interception as he is with keeping the clock moving. We had the ball three times in the 2nd half not counting our last "end the game" drive. We scored on one of the drives and punted twice. One three and out when we started the drive with an incomplete pass. Heck, the Lions only had the ball 5 times in the 2nd half. The problem was that our defense allowed them to trade time off the clock for TDs and the Lions converted four of those drives into 24 points. If I have a 3 TD lead at halftime the clock is my friend.

I understand the philosophy, but when the defense can't get a stop, it makes it tough on the fans.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think James Starks is done. He's been a good change of pace back since 2010, but I think he's pretty much given everything he can with nothing left.

Ya, he looks like a guy playing in an NFL alumni charity game. I was happy when Starks was resigned since I am a JS sniffer. But next came a sinking feeling, I wondered whether Starks had anything left, and I feared that TT had a stroke.

[pbmax]

Pete Dougherty ‏@PeteDougherty 42m42 minutes ago
Also, @BobMcGinn identifies an unsung hero who was key to the Packers' win over Detroit http://pck.rs/2dbnRYo via @PGpackersnews

HINT: Its Nick Perry.

Do they think we don't watch the game? Its not like Perry was doing well dealing with an influence block. He was pressuring the QB. He was mentioned on the broadcast. He was a first round pick.

[red]

the more worrisome thing if starks is done, is why would he keep taking snaps from lacy, and why do we not have another RB on the roster?

and no, a WR in the backfield doesn't count, cause that never works

quit with the one series for one guy and another series for the other. this is probably eddys last year in green and gold, why not just use him as the bell cow and run him into the ground?

[RashanGary]

Nick Perry, Daniels and Matthews give us an elite pass rushing trio!
We need shields back
Can't wait for Pennel and Guion to be back in the fold. Clark is ok, but will benefit by having lower snaps his rookie year
Having Nelson back is a big deal
young Lacy didn't remind me of Bettis, but now he does. I'm a big lacy fan right now
Teams seem to give us the slant. AR just needs to take it consistently.
OL looks good, three weeks in a row.
I never thought I'd say it, but I miss Burnett. He helps glue it all together

The Packers look good. Let's go another three or four weeks, hope for some health breaks and see if we evolve into a contender.
Nothing (besides shields possibly being done for his career) makes me think we're not poised for a run.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nothing (besides shields possibly being done for his career) makes me think we're not poised for a run.

me too

[Fritz]

Nick Perry, Daniels and Matthews give us an elite pass rushing trio!
We need shields back
Can't wait for Pennel and Guion to be back in the fold. Clark is ok, but will benefit by having lower snaps his rookie year
Having Nelson back is a big deal
young Lacy didn't remind me of Bettis, but now he does. I'm a big lacy fan right now
Teams seem to give us the slant. AR just needs to take it consistently.
OL looks good, three weeks in a row.
I never thought I'd say it, but I miss Burnett. He helps glue it all together

The Packers look good. Let's go another three or four weeks, hope for some health breaks and see if we evolve into a contender.
Nothing (besides shields possibly being done for his career) makes me think we're not poised for a run.

This is a good point. Often we think teams either are or aren't contenders in a given year, but teams evolve - or devolve - during the year. So it's early. Though if Rodgers and the offense had looked douchy again, it would have been difficult to imagine them growing or getting out of that at all.

[hoosier]

Pete Dougherty ‏@PeteDougherty 42m42 minutes ago
Also, @BobMcGinn identifies an unsung hero who was key to the Packers' win over Detroit http://pck.rs/2dbnRYo via @PGpackersnews

HINT: Its Nick Perry.

Do they think we don't watch the game? Its not like Perry was doing well dealing with an influence block. He was pressuring the QB. He was mentioned on the broadcast. He was a first round pick.

Fuckdoggle!!!

[Maxie the Taxi]

Two things in McCarthy's defense. First, the opposing defense will be taking more chances in the second half yesterday, so if he continues with the aggressive approach then the odds of a turnover or quick three-and-out go up, and when you're up 31-3 at half, the very last thing in the world you want to see is a quick pick-6 going the other way. Nothing gets the opponent who you've been stomping on all first half back in the game like a pick-6. Second, what McCarthy did in the second half yesterday has ramifications for the bigger picture. The Packer offense will be much more formidable if and when it gets to the point where it can impose its will on the defense, and the best way to do that is to run it down their throat. When it doesn't work it can be incredibly frustrating to watch, and can lead to the kind of excruciating second half we witnessed yesterday. But if, come December and January, this team can get to that point of being able to impose its will, we will all be much happier fans.From now on you are not hoosier to me. You are Stubby II. :-)

[Pugger]

Nick Perry, Daniels and Matthews give us an elite pass rushing trio!
We need shields back
Can't wait for Pennel and Guion to be back in the fold. Clark is ok, but will benefit by having lower snaps his rookie year
Having Nelson back is a big deal
young Lacy didn't remind me of Bettis, but now he does. I'm a big lacy fan right now
Teams seem to give us the slant. AR just needs to take it consistently.
OL looks good, three weeks in a row.
I never thought I'd say it, but I miss Burnett. He helps glue it all together

The Packers look good. Let's go another three or four weeks, hope for some health breaks and see if we evolve into a contender.
Nothing (besides shields possibly being done for his career) makes me think we're not poised for a run.

GMTA

[RashanGary]

I tend to forget that the starting LG is new, and not Josh Sitton. That is a good thing.

It's making more sense now. I was surprised. I didn't realize how much they liked lane. That said, I never suspected Tt made some weird emotional random act of stupidity.

I do think they Packer brass probably believes in paying for 3 OL and going cheap on the other two. So I wasn't as surprised as most. I really did like Bahktiari. I also felt that with a good c and a good LT, the need for paying top dollar for a lg goes down.

I don't usually say I told ya so, and this isn't really to you or any one in particular, but I was fairly certain it wasn't any of the conspiracys people were toting here or in the paper. And I'm a big conspiracy theorist with the govt. I just saw no motivation for a GM to act out in same weird fit of stupid. I highly doubted that to the the case.

[pbmax]

MM on second half: Important to run football because defense played so many snaps.

How many snaps did they play in first half?

Helps more if you get first downs.

[Maxie the Taxi]

MM on second half: Important to run football because defense played so many snaps.

How many snaps did they play in first half?

Helps more if you get first downs.Every time Stubby makes a statement like this he exposes his old school, two dimensional bias: run the ball, time moves off the clock; pass the ball, bad things happen.

[run pMc]

So the Packers had 4 possenssions in the second half including the kneeldown clock killer. Of the other 3 possessions, 1 got them a field goal, one drive stalled at midfield, and the other was a 3 and out that shouldn't have been if Trevor Davis doesn't flat out drop the ball. Detroit was playing keepaway with the ball.

I don't know that MM took his foot of the gas so much as he was trying to shorten the game and run the ball. He talked about not running it enough against MIN, so I don't have really have a problem, not when Lacy is averaging over 5ypc, with them running it with a big lead. Mixing in short passes is fine too. I do wish they could have stopped Stafford; he always seems to put up good numbers against the Packers. He did have to throw it 40+ times though and the Lions offense was pretty one dimensional. So it's the 3rd down and 4th down defense that bugs me more about the game.

Oh, and Josh Hawkins giving up a terrible TD, and Randall falling down (claiming OPI) on the other TD to Jones didn't help. The young'uns will learn. Randall didn't have the greatest day, but I think they played a fair amount of zone and the safety help wasn't always there. Not sure if that's on Hyde or Ha-Ha (I'd think Hyde; he doesn't have great speed).

[pbmax]

No doubt the D was short handed and did better than expected, but wilted in the second half. I can see wanting to protect them.

But if that is what you want, dump the no huddle, run the clock down to 2 each play and call your offense. The clock only stops if you are incomplete. And Rodgers was over 60% in that game. You go run heavy (and they ran a bunch of two TE until Cook got hurt) and play action pass and that number will go up. Its Rodgers for Pete's sake. Even when he is terrible he doesn't throw that many picks or incompletes.

If you don't go pass pass pass from spread formations, it will work well.

And I think M3 is headed there. His second half was not nearly as run heavy as some of his games. he threw four passes I did not expect. All I am asking. If Davis and the first Adams throws get caught, game isn't close.

[Bossman641]

The reason everyone is complaining about the second half drives is because they didn't pick convert third downs. After the FG drive to go up 34-17 in the third the drives went like this...

1st and 10 at GB 28
(12:27 - 4th) E.Lacy right tackle to GB 32 for 4 yards (A.Zettel; Z.Gooden)
2nd and 6 at GB 32
(11:47 - 4th) (No Huddle) E.Lacy left tackle to GB 46 for 14 yards (Z.Gooden, G.Quin)
1st and 10 at GB 46
(11:01 - 4th) E.Lacy right end to GB 48 for 2 yards (K.Hyder)
2nd and 8 at GB 48
(10:17 - 4th) A.Rodgers sacked ob at GB 48 for 0 yards (H.Ngata)
3rd and 8 at GB 48
(9:39 - 4th) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short middle to R.Cobb (Q.Diggs) [K.Van Noy]

1st and 10 at GB 26
(6:35 - 4th) A.Rodgers pass incomplete short left to T.Davis
2nd and 10 at GB 26
(6:31 - 4th) J.Starks up the middle to GB 25 for -1 yards (K.Van Noy; G.Quin)
3rd and 11 at GB 25
(5:49 - 4th) (Shotgun) A.Rodgers pass short left to J.Starks pushed ob at GB 34 for 9 yards (R.Bush)

I don't really see that as overly conservative. On the first drive you are maybe quibbling about 1 play...the Lacy 1st and 10 run for 2 yards. Given that he had gained 18 yards on the previous 2 carries it's hard to disagree with that. On the ensuing drive, Rodgers threw to Davis on first down for what should have been a first...instead he dropped it.

[texaspackerbacker]

Two things in McCarthy's defense. First, the opposing defense will be taking more chances in the second half yesterday, so if he continues with the aggressive approach then the odds of a turnover or quick three-and-out go up, and when you're up 31-3 at half, the very last thing in the world you want to see is a quick pick-6 going the other way. Nothing gets the opponent who you've been stomping on all first half back in the game like a pick-6. Second, what McCarthy did in the second half yesterday has ramifications for the bigger picture. The Packer offense will be much more formidable if and when it gets to the point where it can impose its will on the defense, and the best way to do that is to run it down their throat. When it doesn't work it can be incredibly frustrating to watch, and can lead to the kind of excruciating second half we witnessed yesterday. But if, come December and January, this team can get to that point of being able to impose its will, we will all be much happier fans.

Do you seriously think the odds are significant even a little bit that Aaron Rodgers will throw interceptions if he basically continues to march? - uses play calling similar to the first half, which wasn't exactly pass-first as I would like to see it, but which was a major step in the right direction. The second half indeed was excruciating, but that was primarily because, as Maxi said, of McCarthy's damn stubbornness to run first and worse yet, his weird lack of trust for Aaron Rodgers not to give away the game. What QB in all of football avoids interceptions like Aaron Rodgers - even with the constant pass rush pressure on him?

[texaspackerbacker]

Teams seem to give us the slant. AR just needs to take it consistently.


I'd like to see the Packers hit more slants too, but I disagree that they were available. The lack of need for blitzing by opponents/getting a significant pass rush with just 3 or 4 allows them to jump those slants or have LBs in those short zones.

[vince]

Every time Stubby makes a statement like this he exposes his old school, two dimensional bias: run the ball, time moves off the clock; pass the ball, bad things happen.Perhaps you might take a look at the 2nd half play-by-play that Bossman posted and see what actually happened. Stubby didn't espouse what you're accusing him of. He threw it on 1st, 2nd and 3rd down - every 3rd down in fact. The "old school, two dimensional bias" you're so anxious to ridicule as outdated and unrealistic is exactly what happened. That dropped pass by Davis on the first down throw with 6:35 to go was very significant.

If they run the ball in that situation it would have given them a lot more options on 2nd down particularly if they would have had even a modest gain. As it was with the clock stopped with the incomplete pass they had zero option but to run on 2nd and the Lions knew it. Three passes running zero time off the clock could have been completely disastrous in that situation.

3:34 to win the game up by 7 was tough enough. 4:40 forces at least another first down to win at a ton of time for Stafford to continue carving up the defense.

I know I know, if they'd just throw it they'd score and the game would be over already. They had just enough ball control to overcome the significant faults in that new school 3-D strategy. Davis just needs to catch it and all is good. They always catch it in new world 3-D - well hypothetically anyway, at least with Rodgers throwing it.

[vince]

MM on second half: Important to run football because defense played so many snaps.

How many snaps did they play in first half?

Helps more if you get first downs.
37 vs. 27 ToP was even more tilted against GB defense in the first half. It could be argued that a couple of GB's quick scores in the first half contributed to the defense getting exposed. The defense did that pretty well on its own I'd say, but it's easy to see the 2nd half concern.

..............1.................2...............3. ...............4................T
Snaps (ToP)
Det........18 (9:05)....19 (9:22)....12 (9:51)....21 (6:49)....70 (35:07)
GB.........12 (5:55)....15 (5:38).....9 (5:09).....16 (8:11)....52 (24:53)

In the 2nd half the Packers rushed for 5 first downs and passed for 1 on 11 runs and 10 passes up until the victory formations.

4 rushing and 2 passing if you want to count Rodgers' late scramble as a pass play, which would be more accurate.

4 of the pass plays were on 1st or 2nd down, and every third down play in the 2nd half up until the clock-killing drive was a pass.

Get first downs indeed. And protect your weary D that's lite on pass rush and defensive backfield leaders - and bleeding like a sieve. And keep the clock running.

[Pugger]

Every time Stubby makes a statement like this he exposes his old school, two dimensional bias: run the ball, time moves off the clock; pass the ball, bad things happen.

With a big lead and so many defensive starters missing I can understand MM's thinking. He didn't abandon the pass in the second half really. Both Davis and Cobb had drive killing drops. We never had that many offensive possessions in the second half either.

[pbmax]

vince, I am reading your quarter by quarter number of snaps as 37 versus 33 for the GB defense. Am I reading that wrong?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Perhaps you might take a look at the 2nd half play-by-play that Bossman posted and see what actually happened. Stubby didn't espouse what you're accusing him of. He threw it on 1st, 2nd and 3rd down - every 3rd down in fact. The "old school, two dimensional bias" you're so anxious to ridicule as outdated and unrealistic is exactly what happened. That dropped pass by Davis on the first down throw with 6:35 to go was very significant.

If they run the ball in that situation it would have given them a lot more options on 2nd down particularly if they would have had even a modest gain. As it was with the clock stopped with the incomplete pass they had zero option but to run on 2nd and the Lions knew it. Three passes running zero time off the clock could have been completely disastrous in that situation.

3:34 to win the game up by 7 was tough enough. 4:40 forces at least another first down to win at a ton of time for Stafford to continue carving up the defense.

I know I know, if they'd just throw it they'd score and the game would be over already. They had just enough ball control to overcome the significant faults in that new school 3-D strategy. Davis just needs to catch it and all is good. They always catch it in new world 3-D - well hypothetically anyway, at least with Rodgers throwing it.First of all, my comment you posted was an observation of a bias that Stubby has demonstrated over 11 years. I think I could produce a whole bunch of specific examples to justify my point of view. I certainly am not arguing that Stubby acts on that bias in each and every specific case, last Sunday's game included.

Second of all, I am not arguing that Stubby should pass on any particular down all the time and that that would prove Stubby's bias does not exist. Nor am I arguing that he should pass all the time. Nor am I arguing that a rush-heavy offense (as we saw early in the second half Sunday) is necessarily always ill-advised. What I am arguing is that in today's game a bias for the run and against the pass in time-critical situations exists, that it is old school, that Stubby has it and, frankly, so do you. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. :-) )

You demonstrate that bias when you write:

If they run the ball in that situation it would have given them a lot more options on 2nd down particularly if they would have had even a modest gain. As it was with the clock stopped with the incomplete pass they had zero option but to run on 2nd and the Lions knew it. Three passes running zero time off the clock could have been completely disastrous in that situation.

You say Stubby had "zero option" but to run the ball on 2nd. Why? Because, according to your bias, when you pass the ball bad things happen (an incomplete pass, a stopped clock and "disaster"). You say the Lions "knew" Stubby had to run the ball. I say they "knew" it because either they have the same old school bias against passing in that situation or they "knew" Stubby has that bias. I would think, with everyone expecting a run, a pass in this situation would have a higher chance to succeed. But Stubby does as expected, rushes the ball up the middle and Starks loses a yard. Then, on third down, Stubby does as expected again and passes to Starks who runs out of bounds after a 9 yard gain.

You contend passing incomplete on 2nd down would probably be "disastrous." I say if Arod would have thrown that 3rd down pass to Starks on 2nd down it would have resulted in 3rd and one, a very favorable position from which to make a 1st down (by the run, or, god forbid, another pass). Plus, if Starks stays in bounds, the clock keeps running. Hardly a disaster.

You contend "Davis just needs to catch it and all is good." True. But failure to execute is not a one-way street. You old school guys ( :-) ) never take into account failure to execute on the part of the rushing game. With regard to Stubby's 2nd down play, I could just as well contend "the O-line just needs to block and Starks just needs to hit the hole and all is good."

Failure to execute is, IMO, a simple fact of life. It happens on pass plays, on rush plays and on onsides kick plays. As such, it shouldn't be used to justify one strategy to the exclusion of another.

After a failure to execute causes a disaster, a coach can either insist that the play would have succeeded if only the player would have executed, or the coach can go back and take critical look at the play called in the context of time, down and distance, and see if he really put his players in the best position to succeed.

[ThunderDan]

Every time Stubby makes a statement like this he exposes his old school, two dimensional bias: run the ball, time moves off the clock; pass the ball, bad things happen.

Maxie-

I think this is completely wrong regarding last weeks game. We threw the ball a lot in the 1st half and put up 31 points. Yet, even with all of that success we only possessed the ball for 11:31 in the first half because of our quick strikes. Our drives were 3:38, 1:44, :47, :59, 3:53 and :32. Detroit's scoring drives in the 3rd Q and start of the 4th Q were exact opposites - 6:37, 5:42. Those two drives represented more possession than the Packers had the whole 1st half.

[vince]

vince, I am reading your quarter by quarter number of snaps as 37 versus 33 for the GB defense. Am I reading that wrong?
Detroit o / gb d 37 1st half snaps 18+ 19

GB o / det d 27 12+ 15
ToP in parens ( ) by quarter

[Rutnstrut]

the more worrisome thing if starks is done, is why would he keep taking snaps from lacy, and why do we not have another RB on the roster?

and no, a WR in the backfield doesn't count, cause that never works

quit with the one series for one guy and another series for the other. this is probably eddys last year in green and gold, why not just use him as the bell cow and run him into the ground?

Because that's how stubby wants to do it. Big deal if it doesn't work, he'll do it his way.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Maxie-

I think this is completely wrong regarding last weeks game. We threw the ball a lot in the 1st half and put up 31 points. Yet, even with all of that success we only possessed the ball for 11:31 in the first half because of our quick strikes. Our drives were 3:38, 1:44, :47, :59, 3:53 and :32. Detroit's scoring drives in the 3rd Q and start of the 4th Q were exact opposites - 6:37, 5:42. Those two drives represented more possession than the Packers had the whole 1st half.I don't disagree with you. See my post to Vince above. The comment you quote was not aimed at last weeks game, but at Stubby's body of work in general.

[hoosier]

Do you seriously think the odds are significant even a little bit that Aaron Rodgers will throw interceptions if he basically continues to march? - uses play calling similar to the first half, which wasn't exactly pass-first as I would like to see it, but which was a major step in the right direction. The second half indeed was excruciating, but that was primarily because, as Maxi said, of McCarthy's damn stubbornness to run first and worse yet, his weird lack of trust for Aaron Rodgers not to give away the game. What QB in all of football avoids interceptions like Aaron Rodgers - even with the constant pass rush pressure on him?

What made the second half hard to watch were things: the pass defense started hemorrhaging yards and the offense failed to convert a couple of third downs. The big difference that I saw in the play calling wasn't the run to pass ratio but the number of times Rodgers went deep--if I'm not mistaken he didn't have a single throw over 20 yards in the second half. So, after further reflection, I've decided that it's misleading to say that McCarthy the playcaller went into a hole in the second half. It may have felt that way, but that is because the offense as a whole became less efficient.

[vince]

What I am arguing is that in today's game a bias for the run and against the pass in time-critical situations exists, that it is old school, that Stubby has it and, frankly, so do you. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. :-) )

That bias exists when teams are winning late in games because it best serves the goal of winning the game - or not losing whichever you prefer.

That's the crux of the disagreement so let's look at McCarthy's career record throughout his biased tenure. As you say it's his body of work, which has resulted in a record of 114-63-1 including postseason. As we know, few of his wins are of the come-from-behind variety - 10 or so. I know it's been posted here not too long ago and he has about a .333 record when there's a lead change in the 4th quarter. So that's in the neighborhood of 25 times his team has given up the lead in the 4th quarter due to his old school Stubbyness. I'm sure those numbers aren't right but they're close enough to look at. So that means his old school 2d outdated Stubbyville strategy has failed 25 times. Given the numbers which are admittedly estimates, he has NOT LOST with the lead in the 4th Quarter 104 times.

Are you suggesting that he adopted the old-school 2d philosophy in those 25 games, but changed his approach to new-school 3d in the 104 instances where it worked? Of course not - given your proclaimed 10-year overall body of Stubbyness. We all know he emphasizes the 4-minute drill to close out games all the time. He talks like it makes his stubby chubby!

Even for super tight-sphinctered McCarthy, old school has resulted in NOT LOSING 4 out of 5 times! Your argument that if he'd just gone new-school it would have been even higher just isn't plausible. Let's say we hypothetically shift half the losses to the win column if he would just get with the times according to Maxie. Assuming you're argument holds any water, that would push him into the echelon of Lombardi and Madden, well ahead of every coach in modern times including Bellichick by a longshot. I think McCarthy's pretty good, and very underrated, but I'd say it's a serious stretch to elevate him to the greatest of all-time status - regardless of school or how many dimensions he can visualize/process in that Stubby melon of his.


You old school guys ( :-) ) never take into account failure to execute on the part of the rushing game. With regard to Stubby's 2nd down play, I could just as well contend "the O-line just needs to block and Starks just needs to hit the hole and all is good."

Failure to execute is, IMO, a simple fact of life. It happens on pass plays, on rush plays and on onsides kick plays. As such, it shouldn't be used to justify one strategy to the exclusion of another.Actually I'd say it's the other way around. New schoolers don't consider impact of the 40% passing failures. And should a couple of those 40%ers get strung together, the damages magnify. This is the difference between your argument from your living room and that of the coaches at the pinnacle of the sport who you actually believe the game has passed by.

The basis of your argument is that all "failures" are equal - and you equate a no-gain running play late in the game with a game-changing on-side kick doink off the head?
Ignoring the game-changing magnitude of a successfully recovered on-side kick, there is a tremendous difference between "failing" on a pass play late in a game with the lead and "failing" on a running play in the same circumstance. One plays into the hand of the opponent by giving them added time when it fails and the other continues to shorten the game in spite of failure. One strategy entails a strategic benefit even in the event of failure. The other requires success or it imposes punitive damages - potentially of the immediate game changing variety.

If you don't want to accept the dominant logic overwhelmingly espoused by the foremost experts in the game - yesterday, today, tomorrow, or as long as the clock stops late in the game on errant throws, when guys drop balls, defenses retain the ball for their offenses on interceptions and/or score touchdowns on pick sixes when passes "fail", at least look at the actual results of 10 year's worth of Stub.

Those rules haven't changed yet as far as I know, passing era or not. But as you say the game has passed us old school 2d guys by so catch me up if that's wrong.

[pbmax]

Its not new school. No one denies that with 4 minutes left you are very likely to benefit from running even if it doesn't net you first downs. We have all seen it work. Especially when you are in a scenario, with remaining time and TOs, that will likely allow only 3 more possessions. Its easy to construct a scenario where you can deny a team the chance to get a second score to take the lead by virtue running time of the clock.

But McCarthy has repeatedly tilted toward the run long before the 4 minute mark. Which doesn't have that history behind it. There is a reason he named it his 4 minute offense.

Of course there is risk to passing (stopped clock and INT) just as there is for running (fumble). But the reward can be greater as well.

For the Packers specifically is that his course of action takes the ball out of his best offensive players hand. When he goes into that mode, the Defense can ignore the best offensive player in the league. And it puts the game into the hands of his least effective units in his tenure. This is the reason his 4th Quarter record was hideous prior to 2010 (when the O line and the run game were truly pathetic) and has improved to less terrible since.

McCarthy himself has embraced some of Burke's observations. He has truly engaged with the idea that the average NFL coach does not pass enough throughout the game (the article is a few years old) and is too conservative on 4th down especially from midfield in.

But he traditionally switches gears in the second half with a lead. There have been a few signs of him changing it up with play action this year. I hope it continues.

[vince]

During McCarthy's tenure from 2006-Present from Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=career&year_min=2006&year_max=2016&game_type=E&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&temperature_gtlt=lt&team_conf_id=All+Conferences&team_div_id=All+Divisions&opp_conf_id=All+Conferences&opp_div_id=All+Divisions&team_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&team_def_align=Any+Alignment&opp_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&opp_def_align=Any+Alignment&c1stat=score_diff_thru_2&c1comp=gt&c1val=1&c2stat=choose&c2comp=gt&c3stat=choose&c3comp=gt&c4stat=choose&c4comp=gt&c5comp=choose&c5gtlt=lt&c6mult=1.0&c6comp=choose&order_by=pass_td)

Entering 4th Quarter with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 97-14 .874
League Average - .823
2nd Most Successes, 15th Fewest Failures - 9th Best Success Rate

Entering 2nd Half with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 94-14 .870
League Average - .760
2nd Most Successes, 3rd Fewest Failures - 2nd Best Success Rate

That's pretty amazing. McCarthy is roundly criticized for failing to make adjustments at halftime, getting out-coached in the 2nd half, going too conservative too early, etc., etc.

* Only 1 team has more successes or a better success rate winning games when leading at halftime, AND
* Only 2 teams have fewer failures when leading at halftime.

That bears repeating - The Packers have gone into halftime with the lead - and won those games more often than all but 1 team - and at the same time have failed in those situations fewer times than all but 2. Those 2 teams have had 29 (Broncos) and 36 (Bears) fewer opportunities to fail in that time.
__________________________________________________ _

Regardless of one's opinions of his 2nd Half and/or 4th Quarter approach when leading, whether arguments are that it's outdated, evolving but still not good enough, needs to change, too conservative, no longer effective for today's game, etc. - the assertion that McCarthy has mismanaged these situations to the detriment of team success is not just factually wrong but staggeringly wrong. I had no idea he was THAT good at closing the deal.

If he "switches gears" in games with the lead, whether it's in the 3rd Quarter or 4th (I agree he does), then Packer fans should understand that his approach has been highly successful. Successes and success rate when leading at the half jump from highly successful to absolutely elite.

[Carolina_Packer]

I know running out the clock on offense is called the 4 minute drill. In a similar, but separate fashion, is this what the defense is trying to do?

I'm sure the D is never trying to let the opponent score, but perhaps the way they choose to defend an opponent when the Packers have a big lead says to keep everything in front of them (hopefully no big plays), so while it seems like a bloodletting by 5-10 yard chunks of short routes by the opposing offense, it keeps the clock going on completions, and if you want to take several minutes to matriculate the ball down the field, that saves wear and tear on my offensive players, and while you might score, we are not giving you any more than we are willing to let you have. We are looking at the play clock and counting potential possessions remaining in the game. Even if we let you score a few touchdowns and look like you are catching up, we figure it's going to take time off the clock for you to do that, and the remainder of the time we will run out on offense.

Do I understand the philosophy correctly?

Is it a philosophy that says, it's a long season, so let's play hard, but play smart and only worry about the final score, but not style points if we happen to shut out an opponent? I'm sure it takes more energy and possible risk to players health to play hard enough to shut down an opponent from the defensive side of the ball. I'm not saying the Packers D will always have that kind of control, but with a big lead, that might become the philosophy. It makes the D look soft in the 2nd half, but if it preserves some health and runs out the clock, and doesn't scare fans half to death, it's a workable philosophy.

[Patler]

During McCarthy's tenure from 2006-Present from Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=career&year_min=2006&year_max=2016&game_type=E&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&temperature_gtlt=lt&team_conf_id=All+Conferences&team_div_id=All+Divisions&opp_conf_id=All+Conferences&opp_div_id=All+Divisions&team_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&team_def_align=Any+Alignment&opp_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&opp_def_align=Any+Alignment&c1stat=score_diff_thru_2&c1comp=gt&c1val=1&c2stat=choose&c2comp=gt&c3stat=choose&c3comp=gt&c4stat=choose&c4comp=gt&c5comp=choose&c5gtlt=lt&c6mult=1.0&c6comp=choose&order_by=pass_td)

Entering 4th Quarter with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 97-14 .874
League Average - .823
2nd Most Successes, 15th Fewest Failures - 9th Best Success Rate

Entering 2nd Half with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 94-14 .870
League Average - .760
2nd Most Successes, 3rd Fewest Failures - 2nd Best Success Rate

That's pretty amazing. McCarthy is roundly criticized for failing to make adjustments at halftime, getting out-coached in the 2nd half, going too conservative too early, etc., etc.

* Only 1 team has more successes or a better success rate winning games when leading at halftime, AND
* Only 2 teams have fewer failures when leading at halftime.

That bears repeating - The Packers have gone into halftime with the lead - and won those games more often than all but 1 team - and at the same time have failed in those situations fewer times than all but 2. Those 2 teams have had 29 (Broncos) and 36 (Bears) fewer opportunities to fail in that time.
__________________________________________________ _

Regardless of one's opinions of his 2nd Half and/or 4th Quarter approach when leading, whether arguments are that it's outdated, evolving but still not good enough, needs to change, too conservative, no longer effective for today's game, etc. - the assertion that McCarthy has mismanaged these situations to the detriment of team success is not just factually wrong but staggeringly wrong. I had no idea he was THAT good at closing the deal.

If he "switches gears" in games with the lead, whether it's in the 3rd Quarter or 4th (I agree he does), then Packer fans should understand that his approach has been highly successful. Successes and success rate when leading at the half jump from highly successful to absolutely elite.

Quite interesting. When you think about it, most of our discussions have been because he "almost gave it away". not because they actually did lose. Fans, of course, want to say a first half drubbing continue into the second half, but in all pro sports it is seldom that a period of total domination last for an entire contest. The differences between teams, especially in the NFL, is not that great. Perhaps a more calculated (conservative?) approach really does enhance the chances of winning. Maybe MM really DOES know what he is doing/ Who would have thought....!!

[pbmax]

Those numbers, like his overall numbers, are very, very good.

However, as high as those percentages are, shouldn't they even be higher for the 4th quarter lead?

And don't the virtually identical numbers suggest that the team is not increasing its chance for success in the 4th Quarter? They go from 2nd most successful (lead at half) to 9th most successful (lead to start the 4th).

As with his job, I don't think McCarthy should be replaced based on these career numbers, but I think it does point to an ineffectual strategy late. Those 14 losses seem to be the indicator that gives you the 15th most failures (a number that is influenced by his long tenure and many leads). But the success rate does drop between halftime and the fourth quarter.

[pbmax]

I know running out the clock on offense is called the 4 minute drill. In a similar, but separate fashion, is this what the defense is trying to do?

I'm sure the D is never trying to let the opponent score, but perhaps the way they choose to defend an opponent when the Packers have a big lead says to keep everything in front of them (hopefully no big plays), so while it seems like a bloodletting by 5-10 yard chunks of short routes by the opposing offense, it keeps the clock going on completions, and if you want to take several minutes to matriculate the ball down the field, that saves wear and tear on my offensive players, and while you might score, we are not giving you any more than we are willing to let you have. We are looking at the play clock and counting potential possessions remaining in the game. Even if we let you score a few touchdowns and look like you are catching up, we figure it's going to take time off the clock for you to do that, and the remainder of the time we will run out on offense.

Do I understand the philosophy correctly?

Is it a philosophy that says, it's a long season, so let's play hard, but play smart and only worry about the final score, but not style points if we happen to shut out an opponent? I'm sure it takes more energy and possible risk to players health to play hard enough to shut down an opponent from the defensive side of the ball. I'm not saying the Packers D will always have that kind of control, but with a big lead, that might become the philosophy. It makes the D look soft in the 2nd half, but if it preserves some health and runs out the clock, and doesn't scare fans half to death, it's a workable philosophy.

I think that is a fair restatement for the D. However, the Packers don't necessarily retreat into zone to keep everything in front of them. They tend to use zone to mix up coverages, but prefer man to man under most circumstances.

[hoosier]

Its not new school. No one denies that with 4 minutes left you are very likely to benefit from running even if it doesn't net you first downs. We have all seen it work. Especially when you are in a scenario, with remaining time and TOs, that will likely allow only 3 more possessions. Its easy to construct a scenario where you can deny a team the chance to get a second score to take the lead by virtue running time of the clock.

But McCarthy has repeatedly tilted toward the run long before the 4 minute mark. Which doesn't have that history behind it. There is a reason he named it his 4 minute offense.

Of course there is risk to passing (stopped clock and INT) just as there is for running (fumble). But the reward can be greater as well.

For the Packers specifically is that his course of action takes the ball out of his best offensive players hand. When he goes into that mode, the Defense can ignore the best offensive player in the league. And it puts the game into the hands of his least effective units in his tenure. This is the reason his 4th Quarter record was hideous prior to 2010 (when the O line and the run game were truly pathetic) and has improved to less terrible since.

McCarthy himself has embraced some of Burke's observations. He has truly engaged with the idea that the average NFL coach does not pass enough throughout the game (the article is a few years old) and is too conservative on 4th down especially from midfield in.

But he traditionally switches gears in the second half with a lead. There have been a few signs of him changing it up with play action this year. I hope it continues.

On this particular Sunday I did not notice much of a difference in play calling until they got the ball with 6:40 left in the 4th. At that point they ran on first down, got nothing, and then ran again on second. Until that point, however, the only time they called consecutive running plays was on the first drive of the second half, and those runs were successful--in fact they were the only time they move the ball consistently in the second half! So I don't see where McCarthy got too conservative with his play calling. What happened was that the passing game failed to produce first downs.

[pbmax]

On this particular Sunday I did not notice much of a difference in play calling until they got the ball with 6:40 left in the 4th. At that point they ran on first down, got nothing, and then ran again on second. Until that point, however, the only time they called consecutive running plays was on the first drive of the second half, and those runs were successful--in fact they were the only time they move the ball consistently in the second half! So I don't see where McCarthy got too conservative with his play calling. What happened was that the passing game failed to produce first downs.

They ran more the entire half. But I agree, he mixed in more pass than usual before 6:40. My fear is that 6:40 is still too early with a two score lead, but I would settle for it if it meant he kept passing until that point.

And by passing, I do not mean run-run-pass.

[vince]

Those numbers, like his overall numbers, are very, very good.

However, as high as those percentages are, shouldn't they even be higher for the 4th quarter lead?

And don't the virtually identical numbers suggest that the team is not increasing its chance for success in the 4th Quarter? They go from 2nd most successful (lead at half) to 9th most successful (lead to start the 4th).

As with his job, I don't think McCarthy should be replaced based on these career numbers, but I think it does point to an ineffectual strategy late. Those 14 losses seem to be the indicator that gives you the 15th most failures (a number that is influenced by his long tenure and many leads). But the success rate does drop between halftime and the fourth quarter.
He's been successful in the 4th q at a higher rate than 23 of the other 31 teams. I see no justification for characterizing that position relative to his peers as "ineffectual" at all. Top 10 is a pretty strong tier to be in on about any NFL measure I'd say. I'd call that position, with the added context of the other rankings together as highly successful.

[Pugger]

Those numbers, like his overall numbers, are very, very good.

However, as high as those percentages are, shouldn't they even be higher for the 4th quarter lead?

And don't the virtually identical numbers suggest that the team is not increasing its chance for success in the 4th Quarter? They go from 2nd most successful (lead at half) to 9th most successful (lead to start the 4th).

As with his job, I don't think McCarthy should be replaced based on these career numbers, but I think it does point to an ineffectual strategy late. Those 14 losses seem to be the indicator that gives you the 15th most failures (a number that is influenced by his long tenure and many leads). But the success rate does drop between halftime and the fourth quarter.

I wonder if we as fans are paranoid because of what happened in that playoff game in Seattle in 2014? Whenever we have a nice lead and our opponent begins to creep back in the game we have visions of that nightmare happening again.

[George Cumby]

I wonder if we as fans are paranoid because of what happened in that playoff game in Seattle in 2014? Whenever we have a nice lead and our opponent begins to creep back in the game we have visions of that nightmare happening again.

Probably in part. But fans, by definition, are unreasonable so our expectations are often out of line with reality.

Something to keep in mind is this: the Packer's last Super Bowl season, do you remember the close calls? Win or loss? Probably not. What matters is they got the win over Detroit. Should they win the whole enchilada, none of us will remember this game by the end of 2017.....

[pbmax]

He's been successful in the 4th q at a higher rate than 23 of the other 31 teams. I see no justification for characterizing that position relative to his peers as "ineffectual" at all. Top 10 is a pretty strong tier to be in on about any NFL measure I'd say. I'd call that position, with the added context of the other rankings together as highly successful.

My suspicion is that the Patriots and a couple other perennial contenders are both higher in Top 10 for the 4th Quarter.

If you want to finish the job and win the Super Bowl, Top 10 might not be enough.

[hoosier]

They ran more the entire half. But I agree, he mixed in more pass than usual before 6:40. My fear is that 6:40 is still too early with a two score lead, but I would settle for it if it meant he kept passing until that point.

And by passing, I do not mean run-run-pass.

So we're looking at the drive that started with 6:40 or whatever left in the 4th (actually 6:35) and the final, clock-killing drive. On the second to last drive they held the ball for 1:30. That drive started with an incomplete pass (the Davis drop), then a bad run play by Starks, then the dump off to Starks where he got tackled short of the first down. That drive doesn't fit the 4-minute model; if there is a primary cause for its failure it was the drop.

After Detroit's next TD, Packers got the ball back with 3:34. After two runs by Lacy netted two yards, Rodgers picked up the first with his feet. Then he hit Adams on the slant for nine, and Lacy converted on second down. Then victory formation.

I'm just trying to understand the criticism: what part of this reflects going into a four-minute shell too early?

[Pugger]

So we're looking at the drive that started with 6:40 or whatever left in the 4th (actually 6:35) and the final, clock-killing drive. On the second to last drive they held the ball for 1:30. That drive started with an incomplete pass (the Davis drop), then a bad run play by Starks, then the dump off to Starks where he got tackled short of the first down. That drive doesn't fit the 4-minute model; if there is a primary cause for its failure it was the drop.

After Detroit's next TD, Packers got the ball back with 3:34. After two runs by Lacy netted two yards, Rodgers picked up the first with his feet. Then he hit Adams on the slant for nine, and Lacy converted on second down. Then victory formation.

I'm just trying to understand the criticism: what part of this reflects going into a four-minute shell too early?

I'm wondering too...

[vince]

My suspicion is that the Patriots and a couple other perennial contenders are both higher in Top 10 for the 4th Quarter.

If you want to finish the job and win the Super Bowl, Top 10 might not be enough.Highly unlikely. Perhaps you're not interpreting this properly. This is not a metric of the odds of beating the pats. It's a measure of winning games with the lead at half or 4th q. The fact that the top 1 team wins 3.7% more often when they lead in the 4th has nothing whatever to say about which team might conceivably have the lead in a hypothetical match-up. The reality is that both have proven to close out 9 of 10 games if able to get in that position.

[pbmax]

First half: 18 passes (9.4 aypa), 7 runs (~5.9 ypc), 11 first downs
TOP: 18:27 for Packers D, 11:33 Packers O
Points: 31

Second half: 6 passes (~5.17 apya), 17 rushes (~4.8), that includes 5 Rodgers rushes for 22 which were passes in most cases. 6 first downs
TOP: 16:40 PackD, 13:20 PackO
Points: 3

* aypa = adjusted yards per attempt (adjusted here means minus sacks and would include penalty for ints)

Changes to second half game plan garnered 1:47 of help to the D and 3 whole points. I contend that he could have helped the D by more by scoring more and putting the game out of reach.

[pbmax]

Highly unlikely. Perhaps you're not interpreting this properly. This is not a metric of the odds of beating the pats. It's a measure of winning games with the lead at half or 4th q. The fact that the top 1 team wins 3.7% more often when they lead in the 4th has nothing whatever to say about which team might conceivably have the lead in a hypothetical match-up. The reality is that both have proven to close out 9 of 10 games if able to get in that position.

I am saying there is clearly a loss of effectiveness in the 4th quarter as illustrated by the results and ranks. And that can be improved. I suspect several other playoff contenders are ahead of them, not that they necessarily would beat them.

[vince]

I am saying there is clearly a loss of effectiveness in the 4th quarter as illustrated by the results and ranks. And that can be improved. I suspect several other playoff contenders are ahead of them, not that they necessarily would beat them.
No there is not. The Packers are more likely to close a game with a lead in the 4th than at half. The range of 3.7% among the teams in the top 10 is very small difference - all of which close 9 of 10 games with 4th q lead. If your intent is to hang on to preconceived notions in the face of overwhelmingly controverting facts by insisting that anything less than perfection is substandard or suggest that the practical difference in any game occurrence between 91% likelihood and 87% than there's really nothing else to say about that. It's less than 4 games in 100. It would likely take 3 seasons for the difference to be 1 game between ranks 1 and 9.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think that is a fair restatement for the D. However, the Packers don't necessarily retreat into zone to keep everything in front of them. They tend to use zone to mix up coverages, but prefer man to man under most circumstances.

If they keep giving up big plays or consistently can't cover man to man and give up big chunks of yards (see Stefon Diggs, and Marvin Jones the last two weeks), should they go more zone, assuming they can still stop the run and bring an adequate pass rush?

I'm sure it's frustrating for those on defense who do their job well in run stopping and pass rush, only to have the secondary be leaky. Does it seem to you that the front seven has performed well enough with run stopping and pressure to expect that the DB's can cover long enough to be effective?

[pbmax]

No there is not. The Packers are more likely to close a game with a lead in the 4th than at half. The range of 3.7% among the teams in the top 10 is very small difference - all of which close 9 of 10 games with 4th q lead. If your intent is to hang on to preconceived notions in the face of overwhelmingly controverting facts by insisting that anything less than perfection is substandard or suggest that the practical difference in any game occurrence between 91% likelihood and 87% than there's really nothing else to say about that. It's less than 4 games in 100. It would likely take 3 seasons for the difference to be 1 game between ranks 1 and 9.

Can you post the Top 10 for the 4th quarter lead?

[pbmax]

If they keep giving up big plays or consistently can't cover man to man and give up big chunks of yards (see Stefon Diggs, and Marvin Jones the last two weeks), should they go more zone, assuming they can still stop the run and bring an adequate pass rush?

I'm sure it's frustrating for those on defense who do their job well in run stopping and pass rush, only to have the secondary be leaky. Does it seem to you that the front seven has performed well enough with run stopping and pressure to expect that the DB's can cover long enough to be effective?

They did need more pass rush versus Detroit, but big plays have been a problem in each game. Burnett getting healthy will help. Matthews and Jones coming back in will too.

[vince]

Can you post the Top 10 for the 4th quarter lead?yeah but it will be tonight. Ill post full list but i havent figured out the whole tables thing. The top 10 is generally a list of good teams but there are a few surprises. NE and gb lead most often by a decent margin.

[hoosier]

First half: 18 passes (9.4 aypa), 7 runs (~5.9 ypc), 11 first downs
TOP: 18:27 for Packers D, 11:33 Packers O
Points: 31

Second half: 6 passes (~5.17 apya), 17 rushes (~4.8), that includes 5 Rodgers rushes for 22 which were passes in most cases. 6 first downs
TOP: 16:40 PackD, 13:20 PackO
Points: 3

* aypa = adjusted yards per attempt (adjusted here means minus sacks and would include penalty for ints)

Changes to second half game plan garnered 1:47 of help to the D and 3 whole points. I contend that he could have helped the D by more by scoring more and putting the game out of reach.

Sure, scoring more would have definitively put the game out of reach, no question. But what I don't see yet is why you think the play calling stopped emphasizing scoring, and what would have been different about the play calling if scoring had been the priority. GB had four drives in the second half. The first, which ended in a field goal, petered out after one bad run, an incomplete pass (Rodgers was pressured and threw it away), then a long QB run wiped out by the holding penalty. On the second drive, they picked up one first down (two good runs) and then it fizzled out with a 2 yard run, a sack and an incomplete pass. The third and fourth drives, we know what happened. What I see in the first three drives of the second half is not a pronounced shift in play calling strategy from points to clock killing but increased inefficiency, and primarily in the passing attack. Rodgers was 3-6 for 31 yards in the second half, and failed to convert a single third down through the air (team converted 1 of 4 tries in second half, and Rodgers was 0 for 2 passing). That to me is the biggest difference between first half and second half, and it almost singlehandedly explains why GB stopped scoring points: the offense couldn't convert third downs in the second half while the defense couldn't get off the field. Everything else is secondary, so to speak.

[vince]

Right. Scoring more is a result too often confused with intent. And the result that counts more than scoring is winning. Style points appease us fans and we clearly over emphasize them but they're only part of the equation to winning a game.

[hoosier]

What isn't getting addressed in this debate is why the bad Rodgers (or bad pass offense) reared its head again in the second half. We all figured the first half had put that thing to bed.

[vince]

What isn't getting addressed in this debate is why the bad Rodgers (or bad pass offense) reared its head again in the second half. We all figured the first half had put that thing to bed.I think Rodgers has a tendency to get more conservative in his decision making along with coach. He held ball more, iwas more willing to run or take sack, slow down tempo, etc. Defense played more soft zone to keep guys in front but that intent had some holes in execution. There were a couple drives by Detroit that drained a lot of clock.

[beveaux1]

I wonder if we as fans are paranoid because of what happened in that playoff game in Seattle in 2014? Whenever we have a nice lead and our opponent begins to creep back in the game we have visions of that nightmare happening again.

This is exactly the case.

[hoosier]

I think Rodgers has a tendency to get more conservative in his decision making along with coach. He held ball more, iwas more willing to run or take sack, slow down tempo, etc. Defense played more soft zone to keep guys in front but that intent had some holes in execution. There were a couple drives by Detroit that drained a lot of clock.

Right. Long periods on the bench watching the Lions march up and down the field, followed by drives that end quickly because of mistakes (holding, errant throw to Cobb, bad drop by Davis), creates a frustratingly vicious circle. The long intervals between offensive series seems to compound the inefficiencies on offense. If they really want to put the opponent away when they're down, the defense has to figure out how to get off the field.

[Guiness]

Lions are claiming they got an apology from the NFL and the 66 yard PI call was incorrect.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17669824/detroit-lions-cb-nevin-lawson-says-nfl-told-team-refs-erred-66-yard-penalty

[Fritz]

Lions are claiming they got an apology from the NFL and the 66 yard PI call was incorrect.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17669824/detroit-lions-cb-nevin-lawson-says-nfl-told-team-refs-erred-66-yard-penalty

I bet they feel so much better now.

Man, the NFL is a mess. A stinking pile of shit 💩 kind of mess.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Those rules haven't changed yet as far as I know, passing era or not. But as you say the game has passed us old school 2d guys by so catch me up if that's wrong.Vince, I applaud your creative use of statistics to verify what my eyes have seen and my ears have heard over the last 10 years: Stubby is old school and a damned good head coach. Whether or not your statistics prove whether or not the "New School" passing strategy to get 1st downs and points in the fourth quarter is inferior to the Old School strategy of literally running down the clock, and whether or not Stubby would be the greatest coach in NFL history if he was "New School," IMO, is still an open question. But why beat this dead horse?

You write: "The basis of your argument is that all 'failures' are equal - and you equate a no-gain running play late in the game with a game-changing on-side kick doink off the head?"

No, in fact, this is not the basis of my argument. All I said was that failure to execute is a "simple fact of life." Failures can happen anytime on any play and that they shouldn't be used to "justify one strategy to the exclusion of another." Yes, Davis dropped a 1st down pass. But that failure doesn't make passing again on 2nd down a foolish play.

On the play immediately prior Davis returned a punt 50 yards to the Lions' 30 yard line -- FG scoring position and a possible game clincher. Packer special teams penalties resulted in a minus 50 yards in field position and loss of scoring position. If the Packers had gone on to lose, which failure would have had "game-changing magnitude?" You can't control when and where a failure will occur, which is another reason, I would argue, that you shouldn't "sit on a lead."

Now, after all the discussion in this thread, maybe someone can explain to me what Stubby accomplished by running Starks into the teeth of eight Lions in the box on 2nd down with 6:31 to go in the game other than running 38 seconds off the clock and making 3rd down way more difficult to convert? If Arod can complete a 9 yard pass to Starks on 3rd down with the Lions defense playing back, why couldn't he have completed it on 2nd down? And wouldn't that have put the players in a better position to succeed on 3rd down?

[pbmax]

Sure, scoring more would have definitively put the game out of reach, no question. But what I don't see yet is why you think the play calling stopped emphasizing scoring, and what would have been different about the play calling if scoring had been the priority. GB had four drives in the second half. The first, which ended in a field goal, petered out after one bad run, an incomplete pass (Rodgers was pressured and threw it away), then a long QB run wiped out by the holding penalty. On the second drive, they picked up one first down (two good runs) and then it fizzled out with a 2 yard run, a sack and an incomplete pass. The third and fourth drives, we know what happened. What I see in the first three drives of the second half is not a pronounced shift in play calling strategy from points to clock killing but increased inefficiency, and primarily in the passing attack. Rodgers was 3-6 for 31 yards in the second half, and failed to convert a single third down through the air (team converted 1 of 4 tries in second half, and Rodgers was 0 for 2 passing). That to me is the biggest difference between first half and second half, and it almost singlehandedly explains why GB stopped scoring points: the offense couldn't convert third downs in the second half while the defense couldn't get off the field. Everything else is secondary, so to speak.

17 rushes. 10 passes in the second half. I don't know how I can put it more plain than that.

McCarthy copped to it post-game. He ran more to protect the D. He didn't protect it much.

The more you rush versus pass, the less you score. Rodgers was less effective in the 2nd half and there were two drops at least. He also had eight fewer attempts.

[pbmax]

I wonder if we as fans are paranoid because of what happened in that playoff game in Seattle in 2014? Whenever we have a nice lead and our opponent begins to creep back in the game we have visions of that nightmare happening again.


This is exactly the case.

More paranoid? Yes.

But concerns about the 4 minute offense starting too early came well before that. Rand was on the case by 2011.

[pbmax]

Lions are claiming they got an apology from the NFL and the 66 yard PI call was incorrect.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17669824/detroit-lions-cb-nevin-lawson-says-nfl-told-team-refs-erred-66-yard-penalty

I find this suspicious and probably overstated. The NFL usually defends PI by saying its a judgement call.

[vince]

These aren't too tough to decipher but PB it'd would be great if you could properly format these tables and repost.

Team Comparison to McCarthy-led Packers - Win/Loss Results when Leading at the Half

Ranked by W-L%

Rk Tm From To W L T W-L%▼ Count
1 New England Patriots 2006 2016 109 16 0 0.872 125
2 Green Bay Packers 2006 2016 94 14 0 0.870 108
3 Denver Broncos 2006 2016 68 11 0 0.861 79
4 New Orleans Saints 2006 2016 81 14 0 0.853 95
5 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2016 82 16 0 0.837 98
6 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2016 72 14 0 0.837 86
7 Chicago Bears 2006 2016 60 12 0 0.833 72
8 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2016 82 17 0 0.828 99
9 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2016 79 17 0 0.823 96
10 New York Giants 2006 2016 69 16 0 0.812 85
11 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2015 77 18 0 0.811 95
12 New York Jets 2006 2016 59 14 0 0.808 73
13 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2016 61 15 0 0.803 76
14 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2016 56 14 0 0.800 70
15 Atlanta Falcons 2006 2016 62 17 0 0.785 79
16 Houston Texans 2006 2016 58 18 0 0.763 76
17 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2016 58 19 0 0.753 77
18 Buffalo Bills 2006 2016 46 16 0 0.742 62
19 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2016 55 20 0 0.733 75
20 San Diego Chargers 2006 2016 65 24 0 0.730 89
21 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 40 15 0 0.727 55
22 Carolina Panthers 2006 2016 63 24 0 0.724 87
23 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2016 53 20 1 0.723 74
24 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2015 61 23 2 0.721 86
25 Tennessee Titans 2006 2016 45 22 0 0.672 67
26 Miami Dolphins 2006 2015 42 22 0 0.656 64
27 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2016 38 21 0 0.644 59
28 St. Louis Rams / Los Angeles Rams 2006 2016 41 27 1 0.601 69
29 Detroit Lions 2006 2016 35 27 0 0.565 62
30 Oakland Raiders 2006 2016 31 24 0 0.564 55
31 Cleveland Browns 2006 2016 36 28 0 0.563 64
32 Washington Redskins 2006 2015 35 29 0 0.547 64
Total 2006 2016 1913 604 4 .760 2521


Team Comparison to McCarthy-led Packers - Win/Loss Results when Leading at start of 4th Q

Ranked by W-L%

Rk Tm From To W L T W-L%▼ Count
1 New England Patriots 2006 2016 112 11 0 0.911 123
2 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2016 84 10 0 0.894 94
3 New Orleans Saints 2006 2016 84 10 0 0.894 94
4 Atlanta Falcons 2006 2016 67 8 0 0.893 75
5 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2016 86 11 0 0.887 97
6 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2016 92 12 0 0.885 104
7 New York Jets 2006 2016 66 9 0 0.880 75
8 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2016 64 9 0 0.877 73
9 Green Bay Packers 2006 2016 97 14 0 0.874 111
10 Denver Broncos 2006 2016 79 14 0 0.849 93
11 Carolina Panthers 2006 2016 74 13 1 0.847 88
12 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2016 67 12 1 0.844 80
13 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2016 78 15 0 0.839 93
14 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2016 78 15 0 0.839 93
15 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2016 72 14 0 0.837 86
16 New York Giants 2006 2016 70 14 0 0.833 84
17 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2016 68 14 1 0.825 83
18 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2016 55 12 0 0.821 67
19 Houston Texans 2006 2016 63 14 0 0.818 77
20 Tennessee Titans 2006 2015 53 13 0 0.803 66
21 Chicago Bears 2006 2016 63 16 0 0.797 79
22 San Diego Chargers 2006 2016 75 20 0 0.789 95
23 Oakland Raiders 2006 2016 40 11 0 0.784 51
24 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 43 12 0 0.782 55
25 Buffalo Bills 2006 2016 46 13 0 0.780 59
26 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2016 65 19 0 0.774 84
27 Miami Dolphins 2006 2016 53 18 0 0.746 71
28 St. Louis Rams / Los Angeles Rams 2006 2016 43 15 1 0.737 59
29 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2016 41 15 0 0.732 56
30 Washington Redskins 2006 2016 46 24 0 0.657 70
31 Detroit Lions 2006 2016 39 22 0 0.639 61
32 Cleveland Browns 2006 2016 38 22 0 0.633 60
Total 2006 2016 2101 451 4 .823 2556

[vince]

More paranoid? Yes.

But concerns about the 4 minute offense starting too early came well before that. Rand was on the case by 2011.Those concerns are unfounded - assuming your criteria is finish success rate and not style points.

McCarthy was 86% successful from 2006-2011 closing out 4th Q leads so he's improved his overall success rate 1% in the last 4 years.

He's 90% (37-4) since 2012 in 41 opportunities.

When you're talking about a pretty consistent average of 10ish chances a year, he's been 9 of 10 throughout.

[hoosier]

17 rushes. 10 passes in the second half. I don't know how I can put it more plain than that.

McCarthy copped to it post-game. He ran more to protect the D. He didn't protect it much.

The more you rush versus pass, the less you score. Rodgers was less effective in the 2nd half and there were two drops at least. He also had eight fewer attempts.

You are focusing on the run/pass balance (the 17/10 ratio is skewed by the QB scrambles), but my point is that the real problem was with offensive inefficiency, inability to sustain drives. When they were racking up the points in the first half it was because they were moving the ball consistently. The bad throw, throwaways under duress and drop were as much to blame for that if not more than the running; even in reasonable down & distance opportunities they were not effective. In fact, when they were able to get first downs in the second half it was on the ground.

[hoosier]

Lions are claiming they got an apology from the NFL and the 66 yard PI call was incorrect.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17669824/detroit-lions-cb-nevin-lawson-says-nfl-told-team-refs-erred-66-yard-penalty

Sure looks like PI to me. Defender clearly has his arm around Davis's right arm. https://s17.postimg.org/b1bl1i74v/image.png

[vince]

You are focusing on the run/pass balance (the 17/10 ratio is skewed by the QB scrambles), but my point is that the real problem was with offensive inefficiency, inability to sustain drives. When they were racking up the points in the first half it was because they were moving the ball consistently. The bad throw, throwaways under duress and drop were as much to blame for that if not more than the running; even in reasonable down & distance opportunities they were not effective. In fact, when they were able to get first downs in the second half it was on the ground.
I looked at the run/pass play ratio as well PB and I believe you're inadvertently including a field goal, 2 punts and 3 kneel-down victory formation plays as running plays. The presumption that running the ball more precluded the Packers from scoring more in the 2nd half doesn't hold in this case, but for the sake of accuracy the ratio was 11-10. Obviously the 3 kicking plays don't count as runs, and the kneel-downs after the Lions were unable to get the ball back or stop the clock would be misleading to include. It does offer a perspective that coaches espouse more than many fans though.

At the very end of the game when the Packers were in complete control of the score, ball and clock, no one would suggest they should call a pass play under any circumstance at that point. Even handing the ball off would be considered universally stupid. A voluntary 2 yard "loss" and minimizing the chances of loss of possession at that point dominate the "winning" decision criteria. Risk appetite approaches zero as clock, ball and score control approaches 100%. No one would likely argue that.

From those extreme positions on their respective sliding scales then, risk appetite slides up from zero as clock ball and score control slide down. A lot of things impact control of those factors as we know, but McCarthy has proven to have his pulse on the interworking of those factors. He's not perfect. No one is. But he's pretty much proven to be as it gets through exeptional results at the highest level. I'm extremely confident he's forgotten through all his years experience with these situations more than any of us can hope to know. We get uptight and uncertain as games ebb and flow and things sometimes aren't pretty - while McCarthy banks successes closing out games at elite rates.

[bobblehead]

Hyde, Randall, and the rest of the secondary had awful games

Not true. You can't judge these guys as having a bad game when MM had them in prevent the win D the entire second half....counting possessions like a fat kid counts jelly beans. If not for Rodgers scramble.....

[vince]

5 running plays and 4 passing plays in the 3rd Q drive.

7 running plays and 6 passing plays in the 4th Q drives up to the 3 victory formations.

Plus a field goal and 2 punts. I'm counting play intent so QB scrambles or sacks indicate intent to pass.

[pbmax]

The presence of the Falcons in that 4th Quarter lead list is hurting my brain.

[pbmax]

5 running plays and 4 passing plays in the 3rd Q drive.

7 running plays and 6 passing plays in the 4th Q drives up to the 3 victory formations.

Plus a field goal and 2 punts. I'm counting play intent so QB scrambles or sacks indicate intent to pass.

12 run to 10 pass is still more run than the first half.

But one game result isn't going to make anyone's case. This was not even the best example of the tendency we are complaining about. Until the last drive, the run game was more effective than passing in the 2nd half.

I will admit that evidence of my complaint is hard to find in that 4th quarter lead chart. The percentage difference between NE and GB is as scant as vince predicted it would be.

I do wonder how it looks for top competition and playoffs.

[pbmax]

4th Quarter Leads




Rk Tm From To W L T W-L%▼ Count
1 New England Patriots 2006 2016 109 16 0 0.872 125
2 Green Bay Packers 2006 2016 94 14 0 0.870 108
3 Denver Broncos 2006 2016 68 11 0 0.861 79
4 New Orleans Saints 2006 2016 81 14 0 0.853 95
5 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2016 82 16 0 0.837 98
6 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2016 72 14 0 0.837 86
7 Chicago Bears 2006 2016 60 12 0 0.833 72
8 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2016 82 17 0 0.828 99
9 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2016 79 17 0 0.823 96
10 New York Giants 2006 2016 69 16 0 0.812 85
11 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2015 77 18 0 0.811 95
12 New York Jets 2006 2016 59 14 0 0.808 73
13 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2016 61 15 0 0.803 76
14 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2016 56 14 0 0.800 70
15 Atlanta Falcons 2006 2016 62 17 0 0.785 79
16 Houston Texans 2006 2016 58 18 0 0.763 76
17 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2016 58 19 0 0.753 77
18 Buffalo Bills 2006 2016 46 16 0 0.742 62
19 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2016 55 20 0 0.733 75
20 San Diego Chargers 2006 2016 65 24 0 0.730 89
21 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 40 15 0 0.727 55
22 Carolina Panthers 2006 2016 63 24 0 0.724 87
23 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2016 53 20 1 0.723 74
24 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2015 61 23 2 0.721 86
25 Tennessee Titans 2006 2016 45 22 0 0.672 67
26 Miami Dolphins 2006 2015 42 22 0 0.656 64
27 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2016 38 21 0 0.644 59
28 ?????? Rams 2006 2016 41 27 1 0.601 69
29 Detroit Lions 2006 2016 35 27 0 0.565 62
30 Oakland Raiders 2006 2016 31 24 0 0.564 55
31 Cleveland Browns 2006 2016 36 28 0 0.563 64
32 Washington Redskins 2006 2015 35 29 0 0.547 64
Total 2006 2016 1913 604 4 .760 2521

[pbmax]

Team Comparison to McCarthy-led Packers - Win/Loss Results when Leading at the Half

Ranked by W-L%


Rk Tm From To W L T W-L%▼ Count
1 New England Patriots 2006 2016 109 16 0 0.872 125
2 Green Bay Packers 2006 2016 94 14 0 0.870 108
3 Denver Broncos 2006 2016 68 11 0 0.861 79
4 New Orleans Saints 2006 2016 81 14 0 0.853 95
5 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2016 82 16 0 0.837 98
6 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2016 72 14 0 0.837 86
7 Chicago Bears 2006 2016 60 12 0 0.833 72
8 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2016 82 17 0 0.828 99
9 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2016 79 17 0 0.823 96
10 New York Giants 2006 2016 69 16 0 0.812 85
11 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2015 77 18 0 0.811 95
12 New York Jets 2006 2016 59 14 0 0.808 73
13 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2016 61 15 0 0.803 76
14 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2016 56 14 0 0.800 70
15 Atlanta Falcons 2006 2016 62 17 0 0.785 79
16 Houston Texans 2006 2016 58 18 0 0.763 76
17 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2016 58 19 0 0.753 77
18 Buffalo Bills 2006 2016 46 16 0 0.742 62
19 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2016 55 20 0 0.733 75
20 San Diego Chargers 2006 2016 65 24 0 0.730 89
21 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 40 15 0 0.727 55
22 Carolina Panthers 2006 2016 63 24 0 0.724 87
23 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2016 53 20 1 0.723 74
24 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2015 61 23 2 0.721 86
25 Tennessee Titans 2006 2016 45 22 0 0.672 67
26 Miami Dolphins 2006 2015 42 22 0 0.656 64
27 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2016 38 21 0 0.644 59
28 ?????????? Rams 2006 2016 41 27 1 0.601 69
29 Detroit Lions 2006 2016 35 27 0 0.565 62
30 Oakland Raiders 2006 2016 31 24 0 0.564 55
31 Cleveland Browns 2006 2016 36 28 0 0.563 64
32 Washington Redskins 2006 2015 35 29 0 0.547 64
Total 2006 2016 1913 604 4 .760 2521

[pbmax]

vince, can you post the link or the Game Finder settings you used to get those lists? Having trouble duplicating.

[vince]

Whether or not your statistics prove whether or not the "New School" passing strategy to get 1st downs and points in the fourth quarter is inferior to the Old School strategy of literally running down the clock, and whether or not Stubby would be the greatest coach in NFL history if he was "New School," IMO, is still an open question. But why beat this dead horse?
Old school/new school is completely irrelevant terminology and accurately describes nothing with respect to the question at hand, but I get that you're equating old school with ineffective running strategy, an overemphasis (by your opinion) on the game clock, and going "conservative" which you understand to be self-definingly negative. By your perspective, old school is no longer relevant in today's game that emphasizes passing. You've loaded the term so heavily in the negative that it can't possibly be effective.

Taking this definition and your identification of McCarthy with these negative traits, I've researched the reality of the situation, and it turns out that there are extensive, incontrovertable facts about the reality of McCarthy's level of effectiveness in closing games iwth the lead -without regard to any labels applied. Once the negative labels are applied, the facts of the situation prove the negative connotations to be not merely inappropriate but completely and entirely wrong.

I've seen zero evidence, much less a hint of factual results, that even suggest that "New school" approach carries any level of success in closing out leads whatsoever. Your "proof" I'm assuming is your mind's reference to 1 ihighly emotional failure of the "old school" approach. No matter how emotional, one lone exception in the face of 10 times as many proof points doesn't disprove the rule. "Man it felt like it could have failed if the opponent wouldn't have run out of time" doesn't disprove the rule. "if this hypothetical would have happened it would have failed" doesn't disprove the rule. "Man they almost lost." doesn't disprove the rule. "I tell you what if there would have been a fifth quarter in that game, the Packers would have been beat by 2 touchdowns" doesn't disprove the rule. "They blew them out in the first half. McCarthy took his foot off the gas and they ALMOST lost." doesn't disprove the rule. "It worked in the first half" doesn't disprove the rule.

The second half becomes increasingly different situation than the first have as the end of the game nears. That factor, combined with how the point differential is working for or against you and other trends (defensive energy for example comes to mind) potentially change the "winning" strategy. Denying the wisdom of whether and how the "winning" strategy might change as the game ending nears flies directly in the face of two facts. 1) It's pretty much universally accepted that McCarthy changes his approach based on point differential and time remaining, and 2) McCarthy has a 10 year proven track record of elite level success when leading and as the time remaining gets increasingly closer to the end than the beginning.

Your opinion to your "open question" has no basis whatsoever at this point, while you characterize the successful strategy as stupid, out-dated and irrelevant there is extensive and overwhelming factual results over the last 10 years and including the present that prove both its relevance and effectiveness.

Doesn't that at least give you some pause? The approach you're deeming as wrong is in fact, highly successful, while the approach you're deeming as correct has no evidence of success whatsoever, at least that's been offered here. I'd love to see it. I'd say any objective observer would either do more than pause or try to find some evidence of its relevance to the conversation much less limited positive results.


Failures can happen anytime on any play and that they shouldn't be used to "justify one strategy to the exclusion of another." Yes, Davis dropped a 1st down pass. But that failure doesn't make passing again on 2nd down a foolish play.
...
If the Packers had gone on to lose, which failure would have had "game-changing magnitude?" You can't control when and where a failure will occur, which is another reason, I would argue, that you shouldn't "sit on a lead."
It could be argued that throwing on first down was indeed foolish. However, the punitive negative impact of the incompletion on first down (as compared to a run for no gain) absolutely impacts the wisdom of passing again on 2nd down. McCarthy can't control the success or failure of any play as we agree, but his failure to control the negative impact of failure a second time after failing to take that control the play prior would indeed by a foolish decision.

The fact that a coach has very limited control of when and where a failure will occur (he can draw on experience to estimate its chances of happening and to what extent) is EXACTLY the reason they do control what they can - and that is the IMPACT of failure if/when it occurs - late in games with the lead are the instances where doing so is most successful - and failing to do so carries the greatest risk. By minimizing the potential impacts of failure through risk averse decisions, coaches can help position their team to close the game successfully, not in spite of the uncrontrollable factors but by minimizing their negative impacts to the goal of winning the game.

[vince]

vince, can you post the link or the Game Finder settings you used to get those lists? Having trouble duplicating.
Total games toggle at the top and at the bottom of the selection set of the first Additional Criteria are the "Halftime score margin" and "Score margin after 3 q" for each query, each set to greater than or equal to 1 obviously. The others like year range, all teams etc. I'm sure you'll find obvious.

Description reads:
Current search:
In multiple seasons, from 2006 to 2016, requiring Score margin after 3 Qtrs >= 1, sorted by most games matching criteria

[vince]

The presence of the Falcons in that 4th Quarter lead list is hurting my brain.Yeah there's obviously a correlation between winning in any scenario and successfully closing games with the lead, so a coaching staff's player development effectiveness, weekly preparation, and a host of other important coaching skills impact hide themselves in a coach's game management decisions. In general, I think game management has a relatively small impact on a coaches ultimate success relative to the preponderance of other skills a coach needs. Most fans tend to focus on that component to the exclusion of the others in their judgments of coaches. The aspect where game management does have a bigger impact is closing games with the lead though.

The Falcons had a decent run for a stretch the last decade.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Taking this definition and your identification of McCarthy with these negative traits, I've researched the reality of the situation, and it turns out that there are extensive, incontrovertable facts about the reality of McCarthy's level of effectiveness in closing games iwth the lead...

You see, that's where I disagree with you. The stats that you provide prove nothing relative to the "reality of McCarthy's level of effectiveness." I see McCarthy's name no where in the stat tables you provide. The tables compare team winning percentages; they say nothing about how or why those percentages are as they are. Stats do not conclude. YOU conclude based on the assumption YOU bring to the table, namely that Head Coaching strategy and game management is directly and solely responsible for the team winning percentages listed.

In fact, any number of factors could be responsible for the stats. Head Coaching strategy and game management is only one factor. Another might be a great offense and superior excellence in the QB position. Another might be overall excellence of players at all positions. Another might be consistently effective performance by the defense. In fact, one could just as easily conclude from the data that Dom Capers is as much responsible for the Packers' won/loss percentage in the stats as McCarthy.

Moreover, it is possible the Packers may have scored high in these won/loss results despite iffy Head Coaching offensive strategy and game management in the second half and 4th quarter. You cannot prove otherwise by reference alone to the statistics you provide.



The fact that a coach has very limited control of when and where a failure will occur (he can draw on experience to estimate its chances of happening and to what extent) is EXACTLY the reason they do control what they can - and that is the IMPACT of failure if/when it occurs - late in games with the lead are the instances where doing so is most successful - and failing to do so carries the greatest risk. By minimizing the potential impacts of failure through risk averse decisions, coaches can help position their team to close the game successfully, not in spite of the uncrontrollable factors but by minimizing their negative impacts to the goal of winning the game.The truth is that a coach is not simply a risk manager. Yes, each and every play in a football game carries "x" amount of risk of "bad things" happening (lost yards, fumbles, penalties, interceptions, etc.) which the coach must assess and consider based on his knowledge and experience. But each and every play also carries "y" amount of reward potential for "good things" happening (yards gained, field position, scoring position, 1st down gained, time off the clock, etc.) which the coach must assess and weigh against the risk.

How the coach chooses to weigh risk against reward potential tells us whether he is "conservative" or "aggressive," "old school" or "new school" or however we want to describe it. Stubby has proved time and time again that he is, generally speaking, old school conservative.

[pbmax]

Well, we may have to give Vince and pugger (and Beveraux?) a medal because if you take vince's search and make some changes, its clear we are talking about less than a handful of games where the situations we describe here make a difference.

If you look at just playoff games, there are 2 games you might remember:



Rk Tm From To W L T W-L% Count
1 Denver Broncos 2011 2015 5 0 0 1.000 5 Ind. Games
2 Arizona Cardinals 2008 2009 4 0 0 1.000 4 Ind. Games
3 New Orleans Saints 2006 2013 4 0 0 1.000 4 Ind. Games
4 New York Giants 2007 2011 4 0 0 1.000 4 Ind. Games
5 Carolina Panthers 2014 2015 3 0 0 1.000 3 Ind. Games
6 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2008 3 0 0 1.000 3 Ind. Games
7 Chicago Bears 2006 2010 2 0 0 1.000 2 Ind. Games
8 Houston Texans 2011 2012 2 0 0 1.000 2 Ind. Games
9 New York Jets 2009 2010 2 0 0 1.000 2 Ind. Games
10 Jacksonville Jaguars 2007 2007 1 0 0 1.000 1 Ind. Games
11 Baltimore Ravens 2008 2014 8 1 0 0.889 9 Ind. Games
12 Pittsburgh Steelers 2008 2015 5 1 0 0.833 6 Ind. Games
13 Green Bay Packers 2007 2015 7 2 0 0.778 9 Ind. Games
14 New England Patriots 2006 2015 8 3 0 0.727 11 Ind. Games
15 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2014 5 2 0 0.714 7 Ind. Games
16 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2014 7 3 0 0.700 10 Ind. Games
17 San Francisco 49ers 2011 2013 4 2 0 0.667 6 Ind. Games
18 San Diego Chargers 2006 2013 3 2 0 0.600 5 Ind. Games
19 Atlanta Falcons 2012 2012 1 1 0 0.500 2 Ind. Games
20 Kansas City Chiefs 2013 2015 1 1 0 0.500 2 Ind. Games
21 Minnesota Vikings 2009 2015 1 1 0 0.500 2 Ind. Games
22 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2014 1 3 0 0.250 4 Ind. Games
23 Detroit Lions 2014 2014 0 1 0 0.000 1 Ind. Games
24 Washington Redskins 2012 2012 0 1 0 0.000 1 Ind. Games
Total 2006 2015 81 24 0 .771 105


Provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.sports-reference.com/sharing.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool): View Original Table (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=career&year_min=2006&year_max=2016&game_type=P&playoff_round=&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&game_day_of_week=&game_month=&game_time=&time_zone=&game_location=&surface=&roof=&stadium_id=&temperature_gtlt=lt&temperature=&game_result=&overtime=&league_id=&team_id=&team_conf_id=All+Conferences&team_div_id=All+Divisions&opp_id=&opp_conf_id=All+Conferences&opp_div_id=All+Divisions&team_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&team_def_align=Any+Alignment&opp_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&opp_def_align=Any+Alignment&conference_game=&division_game=&tm_is_playoff=&tm_is_winning=&opp_is_winning=&tm_scored_first=&tm_led=&tm_trailed=&tm_won_toss=&c1stat=score_diff_thru_3&c1comp=gt&c1val=1&c2stat=choose&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=choose&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=choose&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5comp=choose&c5gtlt=lt&c6mult=1.0&c6comp=choose&order_by=pass_td&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool#results)
Generated 9/30/2016.

The Packers list is this:


Pass Marg
Rk Tm Year Date Time LTime Opp Week G# Day Result OT Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int Sk Yds Q1 Q2 Q3
1 GNB 2007 2008-01-12 4:33 3:33 SEA 19 17 Sat W 42-20 18 23 78.3 173 3 0 1 0 0 11 15
2 GNB 2010 2011-01-09 4:40 4:40 PHI 18 17 Sun W 21-16 18 27 66.7 171 3 0 2 9 7 11 11
3 GNB 2010 2011-01-15 8:15 8:15 ATL 19 18 Sat W 48-21 31 36 86.1 346 3 0 2 20 -7 14 28
4 GNB 2010 2011-02-06 6:34 5:34 N PIT 21 20 Sun W 31-25 24 39 61.5 288 3 0 3 16 14 11 4
5 GNB 2015 2016-01-10 4:42 4:42 WAS 18 17 Sun W 35-18 21 36 58.3 205 2 0 1 5 -5 6 6
6 GNB 2015 2016-01-16 8:15 6:15 ARI 19 18 Sat L 20-26 OT 24 44 54.5 251 2 1 1 10 -7 -1 3
7 GNB 2012 2013-01-05 8:09 7:09 MIN 18 17 Sat W 24-10 23 33 69.7 250 1 0 3 24 4 14 21
8 GNB 2014 2015-01-18 3:06 12:06 SEA 20 18 Sun L 22-28 OT 19 34 55.9 171 1 2 1 7 13 16 9
9 GNB 2010 2011-01-23 3:05 2:05 CHI 20 19 Sun W 21-14 17 30 56.7 236 0 2 1 8 7 14 14


Provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.sports-reference.com/sharing.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool): View Original Table (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=game&year_min=2006&year_max=2016&game_type=P&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&temperature_gtlt=lt&team_conf_id=All%20Conferences&team_div_id=All%20Divisions&opp_conf_id=All%20Conferences&opp_div_id=All%20Divisions&team_off_scheme=Any%20Scheme&team_def_align=Any%20Alignment&opp_off_scheme=Any%20Scheme&opp_def_align=Any%20Alignment&c1stat=score_diff_thru_3&c1comp=gt&c1val=1&c2stat=choose&c2comp=gt&c3stat=choose&c3comp=gt&c4stat=choose&c4comp=gt&c5comp=choose&c5gtlt=lt&c6mult=1.0&c6comp=choose&order_by=pass_td&team_id=gnb&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool#results)
Generated 9/30/2016.

[pbmax]

So 13th ranked win% in playoffs (77.8). Doesn't look tremendous, but there are 10 undefeated with much more limited experience (Packers tied for third most playoff games with lead after 3rd Q, Broncos are undefeated but have 5 games under these conditions).

Patriots have 11, Colts 10, Packers and Balt have 9 games.

[pbmax]

So what about good teams? Same criteria against playoff bound teams:




Rk Tm From To W L T W-L% Count
1 New Orleans Saints 2006 2014 24 4 0 0.857 28 Ind. Games
2 New England Patriots 2006 2015 34 7 0 0.829 41 Ind. Games
3 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2015 24 5 0 0.828 29 Ind. Games
4 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2015 27 6 0 0.818 33 Ind. Games
5 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2015 16 4 0 0.800 20 Ind. Games
6 New York Jets 2006 2015 16 4 0 0.800 20 Ind. Games
7 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2015 27 7 0 0.794 34 Ind. Games
8 Green Bay Packers 2006 2015 29 8 0 0.784 37 Ind. Games
9 Denver Broncos 2006 2015 25 7 0 0.781 32 Ind. Games
10 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2015 21 6 0 0.778 27 Ind. Games
11 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2015 18 5 1 0.771 24 Ind. Games
12 Atlanta Falcons 2007 2015 12 4 0 0.750 16 Ind. Games
13 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 12 4 0 0.750 16 Ind. Games
14 Carolina Panthers 2006 2015 21 7 1 0.741 29 Ind. Games
15 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2015 18 7 0 0.720 25 Ind. Games
16 New York Giants 2006 2015 17 7 0 0.708 24 Ind. Games
17 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2015 15 6 1 0.705 22 Ind. Games
18 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2015 11 5 0 0.688 16 Ind. Games
19 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2015 11 5 0 0.688 16 Ind. Games
20 Miami Dolphins 2006 2015 13 6 0 0.684 19 Ind. Games
21 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2015 17 8 0 0.680 25 Ind. Games
22 St. Louis Rams 2006 2015 10 5 1 0.656 16 Ind. Games
23 Chicago Bears 2006 2015 18 11 0 0.621 29 Ind. Games
24 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2014 13 8 0 0.619 21 Ind. Games
25 Houston Texans 2006 2014 13 8 0 0.619 21 Ind. Games
26 San Diego Chargers 2006 2014 15 10 0 0.600 25 Ind. Games
27 Washington Redskins 2006 2013 10 8 0 0.556 18 Ind. Games
28 Oakland Raiders 2006 2015 6 5 0 0.545 11 Ind. Games
29 Buffalo Bills 2006 2015 7 6 0 0.538 13 Ind. Games
30 Tennessee Titans 2006 2014 7 7 0 0.500 14 Ind. Games
31 Cleveland Browns 2006 2014 7 11 0 0.389 18 Ind. Games
32 Detroit Lions 2006 2015 6 14 0 0.300 20 Ind. Games
Total 2006 2015 520 215 4 .706 739


Provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.sports-reference.com/sharing.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool): View Original Table (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=career&year_min=2006&year_max=2016&game_type=E&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&temperature_gtlt=lt&team_conf_id=All+Conferences&team_div_id=All+Divisions&opp_conf_id=All+Conferences&opp_div_id=All+Divisions&team_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&team_def_align=Any+Alignment&opp_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&opp_def_align=Any+Alignment&opp_is_playoff=1&c1stat=score_diff_thru_3&c1comp=gt&c1val=1&c2stat=choose&c2comp=gt&c3stat=choose&c3comp=gt&c4stat=choose&c4comp=gt&c5comp=choose&c5gtlt=lt&c6mult=1.0&c6comp=choose&order_by=pass_td&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool#results)
Generated 9/30/2016.

[pbmax]

Very similar to overall numbers when leading after 3 quarters. If you use the best win percentage recorded (Saints), if its all game management, you get 2 more wins.

[pbmax]

OK, different question, what about trailing at 3 Quarters?




Rk Tm From To W L T W-L% Count
1 Cleveland Browns 2006 2015 3 48 0 0.059 51 Ind. Games
2 New York Giants 2006 2015 9 40 0 0.184 49 Ind. Games
3 St. Louis Rams 2006 2015 2 47 0 0.041 49 Ind. Games
4 Houston Texans 2006 2015 6 42 0 0.125 48 Ind. Games
5 Oakland Raiders 2006 2015 3 45 0 0.063 48 Ind. Games
6 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2015 3 45 0 0.063 48 Ind. Games
7 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 2 45 0 0.043 47 Ind. Games
8 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2015 4 41 1 0.098 46 Ind. Games
9 Tennessee Titans 2006 2015 6 40 0 0.130 46 Ind. Games
10 Atlanta Falcons 2006 2015 5 40 0 0.111 45 Ind. Games
11 Buffalo Bills 2006 2015 3 42 0 0.067 45 Ind. Games
12 Detroit Lions 2006 2015 2 42 0 0.045 44 Ind. Games
13 Chicago Bears 2006 2015 5 37 0 0.119 42 Ind. Games
14 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2015 1 41 0 0.024 42 Ind. Games
15 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2015 3 38 0 0.073 41 Ind. Games
16 Carolina Panthers 2006 2015 3 35 0 0.079 38 Ind. Games
17 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2015 3 35 0 0.079 38 Ind. Games
18 Denver Broncos 2006 2015 6 31 0 0.162 37 Ind. Games
19 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2015 1 36 0 0.027 37 Ind. Games
20 San Diego Chargers 2006 2015 5 32 0 0.135 37 Ind. Games
21 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2015 8 29 0 0.216 37 Ind. Games
22 Miami Dolphins 2006 2015 4 32 0 0.111 36 Ind. Games
23 New York Jets 2006 2015 2 34 0 0.056 36 Ind. Games
24 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2015 3 33 0 0.083 36 Ind. Games
25 Washington Redskins 2006 2015 3 33 0 0.083 36 Ind. Games
26 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2015 5 30 0 0.143 35 Ind. Games
27 New Orleans Saints 2006 2015 4 31 0 0.114 35 Ind. Games
28 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2015 1 32 0 0.030 33 Ind. Games
29 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2015 7 25 0 0.219 32 Ind. Games
30 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2015 5 27 0 0.156 32 Ind. Games
31 Green Bay Packers 2006 2015 4 26 0 0.133 30 Ind. Games
32 New England Patriots 2006 2015 8 20 0 0.286 28 Ind. Games
Total 2006 2015 129 1154 1 .101 1284


Provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com (http://www.sports-reference.com/sharing.html?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool): View Original Table (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=career&year_min=2006&year_max=2016&game_type=E&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&temperature_gtlt=lt&team_conf_id=All+Conferences&team_div_id=All+Divisions&opp_conf_id=All+Conferences&opp_div_id=All+Divisions&team_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&team_def_align=Any+Alignment&opp_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&opp_def_align=Any+Alignment&opp_is_playoff=1&c1stat=score_diff_thru_3&c1comp=lt&c1val=-1&c2stat=choose&c2comp=gt&c3stat=choose&c3comp=gt&c4stat=choose&c4comp=gt&c5comp=choose&c5gtlt=lt&c6mult=1.0&c6comp=choose&order_by=pass_td&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool#results)
Generated 9/30/2016.

[pbmax]

You can see they don't trail often (this is all games (reg season and playoffs included) against playoff qualifiers).

At 30 games when behind, they are 2nd ranked behind Patriots (28 versus 30 games meet criteria).

Their win percentage of these games is 9th. In this case, with a modest amount of games, being the best at this scenario would give you four more wins.

[pbmax]

Quick takeaway?

1. We probably overestimate the conservative end of game scenario for its impact on wins. I still maintain it exists and costs them games, but the number overall is less than 5.

2. Playoff leads lead me back to the Seattle game. The Cardinal game featured an ineffectual Packer Offense. It still should have featured a 2 point conversion.

I do think the Packers could increase their success with a more efficient late game strategy. But the difference is not huge. In the playoffs though, one more win is big deal.

3. Packers, given talent elsewhere, not a particularly good comeback team. But difference is still modest.

[arcilite]

Quick takeaway?

1. We probably overestimate the conservative end of game scenario for its impact on wins. I still maintain it exists and costs them games, but the number overall is less than 5.

2. Playoff leads lead me back to the Seattle game. The Cardinal game featured an ineffectual Packer Offense. It still should have featured a 2 point conversion.

I do think the Packers could increase their success with a more efficient late game strategy. But the difference is not huge. In the playoffs though, one more win is big deal.

3. Packers, given talent elsewhere, not a particularly good comeback team. But difference is still modest.

In regards to the 2 point conversion is has been revealed that Janis was actually hurt on the hail mary and would have been unable to go on a 2pt play. That left GB with only 2 WRs. McCarthy said that he had no two point conversion plays in the playbook based out of a 2WR set

[hoosier]

Hard to believe he couldn't have swapped in a short yardage play with two TEs and two WRs. Roll Rodgers right with the weak-side TE going that way and then he has multiple options. Whatever, we now know with utmost certainty that overtime in postseason is instant death for the Packers.

[Rutnstrut]

Hard to believe he couldn't have swapped in a short yardage play with two TEs and two WRs. Roll Rodgers right with the weak-side TE going that way and then he has multiple options. Whatever, we now know with utmost certainty that overtime in postseason is instant death for the Packers.

Stubby don't think on the fly.

[pbmax]

In regards to the 2 point conversion is has been revealed that Janis was actually hurt on the hail mary and would have been unable to go on a 2pt play. That left GB with only 2 WRs. McCarthy said that he had no two point conversion plays in the playbook based out of a 2WR set

Yeah, I get he didn't have his preferred plays. But injuries happen, the WR corp was already banged up and you need an emergency list.

Its just malpractice not to have it. His offense had not sniffed the red zone much at all. It was the best scoring chance they were likely to get.

[Pugger]

Like I said earlier - had MM gone for 2 and we didn't get it you guys would bitched about that. Mike went with the percentages and the tie to try and win it in OT. Who knew our ST and defense couldn't stop Fitzgerald and our offense yet again never saw the damn ball in OT. Besides - who here really thought if we had won that game would we have gone to Charlotte and beaten the Panthers the following week? Or beaten Denver in the SB? This is ancient history. It is way past time to move on from this, gentlemen.

[pbmax]

Like I said earlier - had MM gone for 2 and we didn't get it you guys would bitched about that. Mike went with the percentages and the tie to try and win it in OT. Who knew our ST and defense couldn't stop Fitzgerald and our offense yet again never saw the damn ball in OT. Besides - who here really thought if we had won that game would we have gone to Charlotte and beaten the Panthers the following week? Or beaten Denver in the SB? This is ancient history. It is way past time to move on from this, gentlemen.

That's the lie. That wasn't the percentage play.

How does the offense, which cannot run a 2 pt play because Janis is injured, score in OT? Was Mr. Miyagi with Janis on the sideline and just needed time? Did McCarthy have a special OT touchdown play on the chart for 2 TE and 2 RB?

I would also like someone who believes McCarthy is correct to run more to protect his defense, defend sending the defense out there again to stop the best NFC offense of 2015?

It too TWO hail marys to climb back into the game. Who was going to deliver another in OT?

[pbmax]

NFL Coaches Are Getting Away With Crimes Against Middle-School Math | FiveThirtyEight
According to 538's math, the Packers would have had about a 48.8% chance of winning had they gone for two after the Aaron Rodgers-Jeff Janis hail mary, but just a 40.9% chance of winning if they tried for overtime. This isn't as significant as the Chiefs, who kicked a PAT to go down seven late in the game in New England, which as you'll see is about a 15% swing.

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2016/1/21/10805606/cheese-curds-1-21-win-probabilities-say-packers-should-have-gone-for-two

[Patler]

I agree with Pugger. I've been here long enough to know the criticisms that would have followed had he gone for two and lost.
- why pin your season on a single play with your entire receiving corp on the sideline?
- it's dumb to go for two without the personnel that have practiced the two point offense.
- if you take the sure tie, anything can happen in OT, ST score, D score, doesn't have to be the offense.
- GB already had two interceptions, OT could have brought another.

[arcilite]

I agree with Pugger. I've been here long enough to know the criticisms that would have followed had he gone for two and lost.
- why pin your season on a single play with your entire receiving corp on the sideline?
- it's dumb to go for two without the personnel that have practiced the two point offense.
- if you take the sure tie, anything can happen in OT, ST score, D score, doesn't have to be the offense.
- GB already had two interceptions, OT could have brought another.

Agree completely. Very good points.

Also, MM had to make this decision within... what? 15-20 seconds of the TD being scored?

If you just get told you don't have enough WRs to run your 2pt play and need to decide what to do within 20 seconds of course the smart thing is to just kick the extra point and live another down.

[Patler]

Agree completely. Very good points.

Also, MM had to make this decision within... what? 15-20 seconds of the TD being scored?

If you just get told you don't have enough WRs to run your 2pt play and need to decide what to do within 20 seconds of course the smart thing is to just kick the extra point and live another down.

One has to wonder if he could have processed the fact that his set two point package wasn't available, decided on what plays to use instead, gotten the message out to the assistants to get the correct players on the field and communicated the play selection to Rodgers in the time allowed.

[pbmax]

One has to wonder if he could have processed the fact that his set two point package wasn't available, decided on what plays to use instead, gotten the message out to the assistants to get the correct players on the field and communicated the play selection to Rodgers in the time allowed.

If Michael James Liam Daniel McCarthy's approach to game management includes making ALL the complex calculations between plays without a timeout, then he needs to be removed from the job immediately. This board is now taking an excuse made in the offseason and now ret-conning into a coaching philosophy.

Here is a partial list of things he knew before Janis got hurt.

1. His WR group was thin already. Adams got hurt versus Washington and was not expected to play (this was reported by Tuesday of the week prior to game). Jones was banged up from midseason on. Cobb got hurt in the first quarter and left the game. He played Abby and Janis for most of the game.

2. Having one 2 point play is so dumb, I refuse to believe its his actual approach. While I have disagreements about his methods, I don't think he is this short sighted. Did he have just one goal line play?

3. The ENTIRE GAME was within one score at all times. That makes 2 point conversions an important consideration during the entire game. Especially the entire fourth quarter when you are trailing by conventional scores (3 or 7 points) and have a sputtering offense.

4. McCarty had the 2 minute warning (right before the FG that made it a seven point game) prior to their last drive. Cardinals took a TO at 00:55 seconds remaining.

A coach with a compromised WR position and no depth, had ALL WEEK to prepare more than one 2 pt conversion play and failed to anticipate that this single point of failure was perhaps unwise. It literally should be a weekly part of his preparation that he has more than one go to play in case of emergency that involves multiple personnel groups. McCarthy is so keen on his prep that I cannot imagine he doesn't have this on his chart.

Janis being hurt means Janis might not be able to play the rest of the game. There is no benefit to extending the game in that case. This is the part that kills me. McCarthy doesn't have a full report on player health AFTER the game. But he knows Janis will come back after the PAT and a kickoff have passed?

His offense was putrid in that game. He knew this when the final drive started and he was down seven. At a minimum, he or someone on his staff has the entire drive (and this does not include the calculation that could have been run while the Cardinals were on their previous possession) to find a play.

[pbmax]

Despite all the emotion, there is a point buried here, that if true, points to some of his short comings in game management.

If he really was all about that one play for a 2 point conversion, then Mike McCarthy as a coach is dependent entirely on the health of his squad to execute a game plan. Which means at the end of the game he could quite easily be lost without a path to turn to. And since he doesn't know how to take advantage of leverage except when in the lead, this would put him in a precarious position when behind late.

I don't believe he had only the one play. But I might believe that he had one play he liked much better than the others.

[esoxx]

Stubby

[Patler]

2. Having one 2 point play is so dumb, I refuse to believe its his actual approach. While I have disagreements about his methods, I don't think he is this short sighted. Did he have just one goal line play?


Who said he only had one play?

[beveaux1]

Despite all the emotion, there is a point buried here, that if true, points to some of his short comings in game management.

If he really was all about that one play for a 2 point conversion, then Mike McCarthy as a coach is dependent entirely on the health of his squad to execute a game plan. Which means at the end of the game he could quite easily be lost without a path to turn to. And since he doesn't know how to take advantage of leverage except when in the lead, this would put him in a precarious position when behind late.

I don't believe he had only the one play. But I might believe that he had one play he liked much better than the others.

I was not happy with the decision to kick the EP because I felt that we had a kind of momentum that comes with 2 successful Hail Marys, but I feel certain that there would have been as much criticism on this board from people who couldn't believe that he went for two with Janis out of the game and no viable replacement.

[beveaux1]

They would have argued that our defense had kept us in the game to that point and we pinned all our hopes on one play with a beat up offense with no receivers.

[pbmax]

Who said he only had one play?

Its the implication of the entire explanation. That without Janis, there was no play he was willing to try, regardless of game situation or Janis' eventual health. He had a play he liked, that required 3 receivers. Once Janis was banged up, there was no other smart choice.

I strongly doubt its the case, but it is the excuse proffered.

But even if true, it poses the dilemma, what would the offense run if Janis was done for the game?

[pbmax]

I was not happy with the decision to kick the EP because I felt that we had a kind of momentum that comes with 2 successful Hail Marys, but I feel certain that there would have been as much criticism on this board from people who couldn't believe that he went for two with Janis out of the game and no viable replacement.


They would have argued that our defense had kept us in the game to that point and we pinned all our hopes on one play with a beat up offense with no receivers.

Of course he could be criticized. Comes with the territory. But it must be a question about what gives you the best chance to win as a team.

Bad offense from the 2.5 yard line > Bad offense from their own 20

[Patler]

Its the implication of the entire explanation. That without Janis, there was no play he was willing to try, regardless of game situation or Janis' eventual health. He had a play he liked, that required 3 receivers. Once Janis was banged up, there was no other smart choice.

I strongly doubt its the case, but it is the excuse proffered.

But even if true, it poses the dilemma, what would the offense run if Janis was done for the game?

You are over dramatizing the entire situation. So what if all of their preferred plays for this game were with a minimum of 3 WRs? How much time during the week should be dedicated to working on two point plays? The could have still had a bucket full of plays available with 3 or 4 WRs. That's what the team was prepared for. By this time he was probably even discounting Jones, as being not much more than a body on the field. Abbrederis, Rodgers and Perillo doesn't make the defense worry much about the pass, does it?

Who said Janis was done for the game? He said he knew Janis wasn't available for the two point play. Perhaps Janis was just being checked out and would have returned, but even if he didn't they would have had time to collect the team and proceed with a 2 TE offense.

The problem is, for that game, only certain players were ready to run onto the field for a two point attempt, depending on what was called. That didn't include formations with 2 WRs. Could they have run something else? Sure, but sidelines can be a bit chaotic and communicating that in the world of specialists and role-players that the NFL has become can take more than a few seconds.

That said, I wanted a two-point try just to get it over one way or the other.

[Rutnstrut]

One has to wonder if he could have processed the fact that his set two point package wasn't available, decided on what plays to use instead, gotten the message out to the assistants to get the correct players on the field and communicated the play selection to Rodgers in the time allowed.

Belichick could have processed all that, drawn up ten NEW plays with the players available and had time to spare.

[pbmax]

You are over dramatizing the entire situation. So what if all of their preferred plays for this game were with a minimum of 3 WRs? How much time during the week should be dedicated to working on two point plays? The could have still had a bucket full of plays available with 3 or 4 WRs. That's what the team was prepared for. By this time he was probably even discounting Jones, as being not much more than a body on the field. Abbrederis, Rodgers and Perillo doesn't make the defense worry much about the pass, does it?

Who said Janis was done for the game? He said he knew Janis wasn't available for the two point play. Perhaps Janis was just being checked out and would have returned, but even if he didn't they would have had time to collect the team and proceed with a 2 TE offense.

The problem is, for that game, only certain players were ready to run onto the field for a two point attempt, depending on what was called. That didn't include formations with 2 WRs. Could they have run something else? Sure, but sidelines can be a bit chaotic and communicating that in the world of specialists and role-players that the NFL has become can take more than a few seconds.

That said, I wanted a two-point try just to get it over one way or the other.

On a team that has injury problems with WR, you cannot have all specialty plays be 3 wide. I don't think you would want that in any health scenario; what if the opposition sits on the pass all game? Seems simple enough. But that day they went into the game with 4 active. One of those four, as you point out, was busted up. And two of the others were players he was reluctant to trust. The math simply does not add up here.

Dramatic is McCarthy's claim that the one play he had ready for a 2 pointer was rendered null and void by Janis' injury. If he knew Janis was unavailable for the 2 pointer and had not yet gotten a prognosis on the rest of the game (which I agree is HIGHLY likely) then his decision to eschew a 2 pointer looks even more ill conceived. With 3 WRs, his offense could barely move the ball. With 2, how was he going to drive the length of the field?

How do you call a 2 point play? You call the personnel and formation on the sideline as always happens and you give the play to the QB.

[Pugger]

On a team that has injury problems with WR, you cannot have all specialty plays be 3 wide. I don't think you would want that in any health scenario; what if the opposition sits on the pass all game? Seems simple enough. But that day they went into the game with 4 active. One of those four, as you point out, was busted up. And two of the others were players he was reluctant to trust. The math simply does not add up here.

Dramatic is McCarthy's claim that the one play he had ready for a 2 pointer was rendered null and void by Janis' injury. If he knew Janis was unavailable for the 2 pointer and had not yet gotten a prognosis on the rest of the game (which I agree is HIGHLY likely) then his decision to eschew a 2 pointer looks even more ill conceived. With 3 WRs, his offense could barely move the ball. With 2, how was he going to drive the length of the field?

How do you call a 2 point play? You call the personnel and formation on the sideline as always happens and you give the play to the QB.

Read my last sentence in my above post. That game is ancient history. It's easy to second guess this crap in hindsight. Even if we won that game we would have been smoked in Carolina or killed in the SB. smh

[Patler]

They had two practices that week, I wouldn't expect a lot of time dedicated to practicing two point plays. With limited time, you can prepare limited options.

Heck, would Lacy have even been able to run that far? :-) He was probably still gassed from his long run early in the game when he had to work hard to find a defender to tackle him and put him out of his misery.

The more I think about it, with his available receivers being Abbrederis, Jones, Rodgers, Perillo and Backman; the TEs being less than average blockers, Bakhtiarri on a gimpy ankle, Sitton a bad back, Lang a shoulder some said he shouldn't have played with; they were probably screwed no matter what they would have called in the constricted area of a two point play.

[yetisnowman]

It's funny here how so many people criticize MM kicking the extra point. In the game thread literally only one person said we should have gone for two before the OT coin toss occured. It's easy to second guess after we lose the toss, easier after we lose the game, and especially easy after 8 months of dwelling and analyzing everything. Mccarthy had 20 seconds to choose and he chose to tie. I still have no problem with it. Our goalline offense had been a mess, and if we fail we lose. It's hard to anticipate the worst possible outtcome would actually happen in OT.

[esoxx]

Stubby

[pbmax]

Every argument about how limited the offense was makes the decision less defensible, not more. Score from the 2.5 yard line. Or score from your own 20.

During the game day thread no one got exercised because as fans it was stunning to get the game tied. Everyone was happy the team still had a shot in a game that they were outplayed for large stretches (Defense was magnificent except for OT). That is not the coaches job, to be impressed with a tie game. The coaches job is to win. And the 2 point conversion was the best opportunity.

[Patler]

Every argument about how limited the offense was makes the decision less defensible, not more. Score from the 2.5 yard line. Or score from your own 20.

During the game day thread no one got exercised because as fans it was stunning to get the game tied. Everyone was happy the team still had a shot in a game that they were outplayed for large stretches (Defense was magnificent except for OT). That is not the coaches job, to be impressed with a tie game. The coaches job is to win. And the 2 point conversion was the best opportunity.

You know there is a big difference between an offense being able to score from the red zone, let alone from inside the 5, and being able to move the ball from farther out. Beside, they wouldn't necessarily have had to score a TD to win. A FG could have been enough. The offense wouldn't necessarily have had to do much, maybe even nothing. Another interception, a fumble recovery, a kick or punt return could have put them in position for a winning FG even if it didn't outright score itself. A defensive stand leading to a punt followed by a first down or two and a FG could have won the game.

There is absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that the game was unwinnable in OT just because there wasn't confidence in the offense for a two point attempt.

[pbmax]

You know there is a big difference between an offense being able to score from the red zone, let alone from inside the 5, and being able to move the ball from farther out. Beside, they wouldn't necessarily have had to score a TD to win. A FG could have been enough. The offense wouldn't necessarily have had to do much, maybe even nothing. Another interception, a fumble recovery, a kick or punt return could have put them in position for a winning FG even if it didn't outright score itself. A defensive stand leading to a punt followed by a first down or two and a FG could have won the game.

There is absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that the game was unwinnable in OT just because there wasn't confidence in the offense for a two point attempt.

We are talking about probabilities, not certainties. They might have been able to drive 45 yards to FG range. If they saw the ball again, if the Cardinals didn't score a TD, if the Cards turned it over, if the Packers could beat their 38.6 yards per drive in the game. Incidentally, before the Janis dual hail marys, that figure was 33.3 yards.

But none of that is as likely as scoring from the 2.5 yard line.

[yetisnowman]

There was 5-10 minutes between the extra point and OT. Plenty of time for you and others to profess how clearly they should have gone for 2 and the win. You can say that have us the best chance at a win, but what play would you have drawn up? Jammed up on the goalline I would say our limited personnel was much more glaring. He probably didn't trust a play and thought there were many different ways we could win in OT, and he didn't want to lose the game right after that miracle play. I'd say AZ winning the toss AND scoring a TD on their first posession was far less likely than us failing in the 2pt attempt. Remember he had 20 seconds to make a decision. Pretty logical that he didn't want to lose right there.

[pbmax]

There was 5-10 minutes between the extra point and OT. Plenty of time for you and others to profess how clearly they should have gone for 2 and the win. You can say that have us the best chance at a win, but what play would you have drawn up? Jammed up on the goalline I would say our limited personnel was much more glaring. He probably didn't trust a play and thought there were many different ways we could win in OT, and he didn't want to lose the game right after that miracle play. I'd say AZ winning the toss AND scoring a TD on their first posession was far less likely than us failing in the 2pt attempt. Remember he had 20 seconds to make a decision. Pretty logical that he didn't want to lose right there.

Choosing when to lose seems like a bad framework to make a decision. How about he chooses the way most likely to achieve a win? Hoping the fates are kind is a poor strategy. Even if you think the teams were even in this game, adding time to a beleaguered offense is not a good option.

I confess I was among a group that did not protest the decision during the game. But I don't do the research beforehand AND I did not know that the one play McCarthy might have been willing to call was made impossible by another injury to a WR. I found that out 3 months later. You seem to want to label me a hypocrite and that is fine. But the responsibility to be prepared for this scenario is the coach's, not mine.

I am also not the team president. I would have been more than happy if the XP was good and the Packers got the ball back and scored. But that doesn't make the decision making process any better. It obscures what clearly was a flawed process. Good teams and coaches learn from this, I am uncertain if the Packers will.

What play would I have dialed up? I would have started the discussion during the drive, including the TO before the FG at the two minute warning. If there was no other 2 point play on the list, I go to short yardage plays. And if it were me, I run play action from a heavy set. But I am not the coach, and I did not fail to prepare. I do know that the lack of options would happen again.

[Patler]

We are talking about probabilities, not certainties. They might have been able to drive 45 yards to FG range. If they saw the ball again, if the Cardinals didn't score a TD, if the Cards turned it over, if the Packers could beat their 38.6 yards per drive in the game. Incidentally, before the Janis dual hail marys, that figure was 33.3 yards.

But none of that is as likely as scoring from the 2.5 yard line.

I disagree with your conclusion given the conditions at the time.

[Maxie the Taxi]

It's funny here how so many people criticize MM kicking the extra point. In the game thread literally only one person said we should have gone for two before the OT coin toss occured. It's easy to second guess after we lose the toss, easier after we lose the game, and especially easy after 8 months of dwelling and analyzing everything. Mccarthy had 20 seconds to choose and he chose to tie. I still have no problem with it. Our goalline offense had been a mess, and if we fail we lose. It's hard to anticipate the worst possible outtcome would actually happen in OT.Me and my big mouth. http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?28516-OFFICIAL-Packers-vs-Cardinals-PLAYOFFS-Thread&p=871595&viewfull=1#post871595

[pbmax]

Quite the potty mouth I was. Don't remember if I was mad at the team, the commentators or your guys :lol: