Is McCarthy smarter than a 3rd grader?

[King Friday]

I'm struggling to determine whether or not McCarthy's absolutely moronic coaching decision to go for it on 4th down on his side of the field early in the 3rd quarter when up by only one score was one of the 5 dumbest decisions ever made in playoff football.

I'm leaning toward yes...but maybe I'm forgetting a few really horrific ones.

[smuggler]

Passing into a 8-man coverage when you have Beast Mode RIGHT THERE is the dumbest, but it was a pretty dumb moment.

[Maxie the Taxi]

It was bad enough he made the decision to go for it. But then I figured he had some really great play up his sleeve, like an Arod bootleg or a Starr-esque downfield pass. Nope, ran it off tackle. That's when I started hollering at the TV.

[smuggler]

I figured they were going for the offsides and would just have taken the delay of game penalty. Not too happy two plays later.

[vince]

Bad decision but it was an aggressive one. It was an aggressive grab at establishing control of the game at a time he felt they could grab the bull by the horns.

It turned out that they were able to establish it once and for all the next time they got it - and never looked back.

[RashanGary]

The players respond well to aggression. I don't know how bad it was. I liked it.

[Bossman641]

Packers were up 14-6 at the time and outscored giants 24-7 the text of the way. Gave offense confidence

[vince]

Taylor got beat like a drum there which stuffed the play right up. There's a lot you can say about Taylor's game but normally road grading would be his strength.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Next time Stubby feels aggressive on fourth and one I hope he's closer to the opponents end zone than his own. lol

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm coming around to the pro-McCarthy point of view. The colossally stupid thing of going for it on 4th down, I'd be a hypocrite to criticize, as I woulda done the same stupid thing. Doing it with a predictable run against a top flight D, all I can say is I've complained a few times this season when they passed with 1 or 2 yards to go.

Somebody - McCarthy or whoever - figured out that whatever the Giants were doing, they were leaving the middle of the field wide open. The Packers, of course, exploited it big time. They also figured out that the Giants were vulnerable to quick hitter type runs - Michael's nice gashes. They found a way to win without Nelson; They keep working new guys into the offense with fairly seamless transition, etc. All in all, I'd call it good coaching - along with superb execution by Aaron Rodgers and a bunch of others.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm coming around to the pro-McCarthy point of view. The colossally stupid thing of going for it on 4th down, I'd be a hypocrite to criticize, as I woulda done the same stupid thing. Doing it with a predictable run against a top flight D, all I can say is I've complained a few times this season when they passed with 1 or 2 yards to go.

Somebody - McCarthy or whoever - figured out that whatever the Giants were doing, they were leaving the middle of the field wide open. The Packers, of course, exploited it big time. They also figured out that the Giants were vulnerable to quick hitter type runs - Michael's nice gashes. They found a way to win without Nelson; They keep working new guys into the offense with fairly seamless transition, etc. All in all, I'd call it good coaching - along with superb execution by Aaron Rodgers and a bunch of others.Tex, you're old enough to remember Starr's patented long passes downfield on third and one or fourth and one. That actually went through my mind as they were lining up for that play today.

[vince]

So now he's too aggressive. I thought his problem was being too conservative.

Being aggressive or conservative depends on game situations. Sometimes, when you don't have control of a game, you have to grab it. Other times, when you have it, you have to keep it. With this team we all know those grabs and keeps have to come from the offense. You can't exactly sit back and wait for the defense to assert its dominance.

[Maxie the Taxi]

So now he's too aggressive. I thought his problem was being too conservative.

Being aggressive or conservative depends on game situations. Sometimes, when you don't have control of a game, you have to grab it. Other times, when you have it, you have to keep it. With this team we all know those grabs and keeps have to come from the offense. You can't exactly sit back and wait for the defense to assert its dominance.hehe Don't get me started, Vince. It's past my bed time.:lol:

[vince]

I'm coming around to the pro-McCarthy point of view. The colossally stupid thing of going for it on 4th down, I'd be a hypocrite to criticize, as I woulda done the same stupid thing. Doing it with a predictable run against a top flight D, all I can say is I've complained a few times this season when they passed with 1 or 2 yards to go.

Somebody - McCarthy or whoever - figured out that whatever the Giants were doing, they were leaving the middle of the field wide open. The Packers, of course, exploited it big time. They also figured out that the Giants were vulnerable to quick hitter type runs - Michael's nice gashes. They found a way to win without Nelson; They keep working new guys into the offense with fairly seamless transition, etc. All in all, I'd call it good coaching - along with superb execution by Aaron Rodgers and a bunch of others.
Thank you tex. I was about to comment about how often I've heard the Stubby Crew bitch and moan about throwing deep on 3rd and short - when it doesn't work. As is always the case - until your post - what works is ignored and what doesn't is dumb coaching.

[denverYooper]

Bad decision but it was an aggressive one. It was an aggressive grab at establishing control of the game at a time he felt they could grab the bull by the horns.

It turned out that they were able to establish it once and for all the next time they got it - and never looked back.

I hated the decision too because of situation, identity and opponent. But mostly I hated it it because of the result. The optics were terrible for about 3 minutes of game time.

But then his team responded and they rolled the rest of the way. For as much as we've gotten on M3 for his management in trying to protect a lead, I think this was him putting the pedal down. They spun out that time, but the mentality won out.

They also kept throwing the ball in the 4th quarter when they were protecting the lead.

[beveaux1]

I hated the decision too because of situation, identity and opponent. But mostly I hated it it because of the result. The optics were terrible for about 3 minutes of game time.

But then his team responded and they rolled the rest of the way. For as much as we've gotten on M3 for his management in trying to protect a lead, I think this was him putting the pedal down. They spun out that time, but the mentality won out.

They also kept throwing the ball in the 4th quarter when they were protecting the lead.

A very aggressive game plan on offense was what this team needed. Don't be surprised if they're just as aggressive next week.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, you're old enough to remember Starr's patented long passes downfield on third and one or fourth and one. That actually went through my mind as they were lining up for that play today.

I definitely remember those well. Something about today's D, though, you just can't catch them completely selling out for the run like when Starr would hit Dale, etc. Maybe it's because so many teams routinely use short passes on 3rd and 1 or 2.

Vince, I hear ya, but I'm not as annoyed by going for broke with a long one than I am with damn fade patterns in the end zone, possibly my least favorite play in the book - unless it is the other team doing it.

[King Friday]

I have no problem with being aggressive when the situation gives you a clear reward for the risk. However, in this case, I don't think the reward justified the risk. Being aggressive wasn't going to get you anything. If you make it, you are still 30+ yards out of field goal range. It wasn't going to be some kind of death blow or dagger to the Giants' chances. Meanwhile, failure allowed for the Giants to have at least a CHANCE at getting mojo back that was absolutely RIPPED from them on the hail mary.

Fortunately, Aaron Rodgers is playing so out of his mind right now, it didn't matter. However, that doesn't excuse the absolute stupidity of that decision.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It was bad enough he made the decision to go for it. But then I figured he had some really great play up his sleeve, like an Arod bootleg

I have to say I thought the bootleg run/pass option was the perfect play too. But maybe Stubby was trying to trick them by calling the worst possible play - catch them off guard.

[vince]

Well they just ran that play last week on 4th and 1. Opponents do chart that stuff. I'd say he was thinking that Monty has consistently shown the ability to gain yards after contact and would be both strong and slippery enough to get the 4 inches even if there was some penetration. One guy blew up Taylor right in the hole and Rip the Polish Hammer didn't have much punch today. He got stood up and pushed into the hole too.

[Pugger]

Next time Stubby feels aggressive on fourth and one I hope he's closer to the opponents end zone than his own. lol

Exactly! We haven't been able to run on this team all game long and he decides to go for it THERE? Of course a couple of plays later NJ scores a TD. He should have punted it away. If we had lost this game because of that boneheaded move everyone would be up in arms.

[Pugger]

I hated the decision too because of situation, identity and opponent. But mostly I hated it it because of the result. The optics were terrible for about 3 minutes of game time.

But then his team responded and they rolled the rest of the way. For as much as we've gotten on M3 for his management in trying to protect a lead, I think this was him putting the pedal down. They spun out that time, but the mentality won out.

They also kept throwing the ball in the 4th quarter when they were protecting the lead.

I would have been pissed even if it worked because it was a foolish move. Why give your opponent that field position when you have the lead? I like Mac and think he's a good coach but sometimes he does the damnedest inane stuff in these games.

[Pugger]

I have no problem with being aggressive when the situation gives you a clear reward for the risk. However, in this case, I don't think the reward justified the risk. Being aggressive wasn't going to get you anything. If you make it, you are still 30+ yards out of field goal range. It wasn't going to be some kind of death blow or dagger to the Giants' chances. Meanwhile, failure allowed for the Giants to have at least a CHANCE at getting mojo back that was absolutely RIPPED from them on the hail mary.

Fortunately, Aaron Rodgers is playing so out of his mind right now, it didn't matter. However, that doesn't excuse the absolute stupidity of that decision.

Thank you expressing this better than I did. :worship:

[Rutnstrut]

As I have said for awhile, they win despite stubby not because of him.

[vince]

Mike McCarthy set tone for Packers' turnaround (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000771904/article/mike-mccarthy-set-tone-for-packers-turnaround)

McCarthy, however, decided to put it on the line -- literally.

"It's playoff football, and we appreciate that mentality, man" left tackle David Bakhtiari told me afterward. "It's a testament to him -- he's showing that he's got our back, and we've got his back, too. I don't want him not to call our number next time. We need to hold up our end."

Rodgers, too, has been pleased with his coach's recent pattern of aggressive decision-making. "It's different," he said. Asked if he had any theories as to why that was so, the quarterback replied, "I don't know. I just know it's different, and I like it."

Though the failed handoff to Montgomery would turn out to be a risky move he would come to rue, McCarthy had his reasons. He and his assistants had made a slew of halftime adjustments that helped get receivers in space and softened up the Giants' pressure schemes, and he believed it was time to seize the moment.

"To be honest with you, I felt like the game was getting ready to change," he explained. "I felt like we could change the game there. I had two calls there (on fourth down), and I wish I would've gone with the second one. It was a solid play call, but they... but hey, he had a better defense called than I had a play called."

When the Giants scored two plays later, the pressure seemed to have shifted back to the Packers. Their rebuttal was swift and severe. The Pack needed just four plays to reach the end zone, with Rodgers finding Cobb in space for a 30-yard score, and ended their next three drives with a field goal, touchdown and touchdown, respectively.

[texaspackerbacker]

As I have said for awhile, they win despite stubby not because of him.

hahahaha That's my line, although the bottom line is, they are winning. We have a lot more consistency and a lot less controversy than just about any other team around. I give McCarthy and his low key approach some credit for that. As for the game planning and play calling, it is what it is. It's hard to argue with success - on a good day at least.

[Fritz]

It was bad enough he made the decision to go for it. But then I figured he had some really great play up his sleeve, like an Arod bootleg or a Starr-esque downfield pass. Nope, ran it off tackle. That's when I started hollering at the TV.


I was actually okay with him going for it - it was so un-Schottenheimer-like.

But I agree with Maxie about the call itself. Did he really have to try to go all macho right there?

[mission]

For as much as we've gotten on M3 for his management in trying to protect a lead, I think this was him putting the pedal down. They spun out that time, but the mentality won out.

They also kept throwing the ball in the 4th quarter when they were protecting the lead.

Two weeks in a row actually! This has been my biggest issue with MM, but if he's finally got it figured out -- why it took so long, who knows?? -- then I feel a lot better about this team moving forward. Finishing the last two games strong is a good sign as it's never really been part of this teams' makeup.

[Patler]

We have continuously lambasted MM for being too conservative in what could be defining moments in a game, and, yes, this has included punting in 4th and very short situations regardless of field position. We have criticized him for taking fieldgoals in 4th and inches situations.

So now we criticize him for being too aggressive,...........just because it didn't work????

[George Cumby]

I wanted him to go for it. I envisioned a QB sneak and thought it might turn the game when they blew it.

Note the quote above where he says the Giants had a better defense called than his play call, no throwing players under the bus there.....

[pbmax]

Next time Stubby feels aggressive on fourth and one I hope he's closer to the opponents end zone than his own. lol

I would have loved to see the bootleg or that zone read that Rodgers ran later. Anything other than a Dive.

[pbmax]

So now he's too aggressive. I thought his problem was being too conservative.

Being aggressive or conservative depends on game situations. Sometimes, when you don't have control of a game, you have to grab it. Other times, when you have it, you have to keep it. With this team we all know those grabs and keeps have to come from the offense. You can't exactly sit back and wait for the defense to assert its dominance.

Except in specific game situations, I love aggression in an offense. But I just didn't see that play work for the Packers last night versus that opponent. They seemed to run better to their right.

I am also not sure Monty is your short yardage back. He's patient, but that was a quick hit play (maybe it shouldn't have been). Ripper ran into Lang his last short yardage carry and Michael tends to head for daylight at too high a rate of speed for short yardage.

If you are going to run it, I almost want Kerridge in there with Ripper.

[pbmax]

Well they just ran that play last week on 4th and 1. Opponents do chart that stuff. I'd say he was thinking that Monty has consistently shown the ability to gain yards after contact and would be both strong and slippery enough to get the 4 inches even if there was some penetration. One guy blew up Taylor right in the hole and Rip the Polish Hammer didn't have much punch today. He got stood up and pushed into the hole too.

There should have been a cutback to his right but Spriggs missed the cutoff block from his TE position. A six man line really tips things off, you can't miss blocks from it.

[Cheesehead Craig]

So if he gets blasted for the 4th down call, shouldn't he get praised as well for calling the offense that got 38 points vs an elite defense? But wait, according to some, it's simply just all Rodgers and nothing to do with MM. :roll:

My vote is yes, he's smarter than a 3rd grader.

[pbmax]

A question about the strategy.

Do you like this call versus the Giants more than if it was versus the Cowboys in same game situation?

[mmmdk]

Paul the octopus could call plays for Green Bays offense and we'd be alright!

[Maxie the Taxi]

A question about the strategy.

Do you like this call versus the Giants more than if it was versus the Cowboys in same game situation?I can't believe Stubby makes that decision at Texas Stadium. The other pertinent question is: At what yard line do you not employ that aggressive strategy? For instance, if the ball was on our 25 yard line yesterday with inches to go in the same game situation, do you call it?

Look. I took the title of this thread as sarcasm. Of course, Stubby is smart, damn smart. As I've said consistently, he's one of the best coaches in the NFL. He is the best at motivating players when the team's back is against the wall IMO. But he has demonstrated that he does have more brain farts than normal and he is sometimes too stubbornly committed to imposing his will upon the opponent. Hence his affectionate nickname.

I am more than pleased with Stubby's newfound aggressive playcalling in the last 8 minutes of games and even during the game. Vince's post above kind of proves that the players appreciate it as well. So who am I to judge? Usually I don't post much during the playoffs. This is TT's and Stubby's team to take it as far as they can THEIR WAY.

So all I have to say and probably all I should say at this time of the year is:

Go Pack Go!

[Fritz]

Again, I'm okay with going for it - I like the aggressiveness. But the Jints were clogging the middle up anyway. I wanted the Rodgers bootleg, with option to run or pass.

[MadScientist]

I have no problem with going for it in that situation. The play call wasn't great and the execution was worse.

[vince]

Except in specific game situations, I love aggression in an offense. But I just didn't see that play work for the Packers last night versus that opponent. They seemed to run better to their right.

I am also not sure Monty is your short yardage back. He's patient, but that was a quick hit play (maybe it shouldn't have been). Ripper ran into Lang his last short yardage carry and Michael tends to head for daylight at too high a rate of speed for short yardage.

If you are going to run it, I almost want Kerridge in there with Ripper.
Yeah I actually didn't want him to go for it in that situation. I do like the aggressiveness it took to do it though, and I'm not going to overreact to a ballsy move that didn't work but didn't impact the outcome either. I did like his reasoning from the article. He's confident and believes in his guys, and that belief ultimately paid off big. I can get behind that. I also would have preferred the ball in Rodgers hands with a run/dump off option but again I'm not going to overreact to a nonevent.

[pbmax]

Went back and read Game Book. Play was later than I thought, 6 minutes left in 3rd. M3 had no idea his offense would come to life at that point. But Defense had righted the ship.

Was on the Packers 37. The Packers had scored first TD on short field. Drive 80 yards for second. Field position was everything at that point.

I like aggressiveness, especially when leverage is on your side. I still vote no to the decision and the call.

Glad it fired up the troops, but I suspect that is the glow of winning the game.

[vince]

M3 had no idea his offense would come to life at that point.
It was a belief. Obviously no guarantees about the future, but I think he really has his finger on the pulse of his team. And there's no denying the game changed significantly with their next possession in exactly the way he indicated he thought it was about to.

Though the failed handoff to Montgomery would turn out to be a risky move he would come to rue, McCarthy had his reasons. He and his assistants had made a slew of halftime adjustments that helped get receivers in space and softened up the Giants' pressure schemes, and he believed it was time to seize the moment.

"To be honest with you, I felt like the game was getting ready to change," he explained. "I felt like we could change the game there.
I should add that he did man up and admit that he felt he made a mistake.

"Oh, I was pissed off," McCarthy admitted. "Totally. That's just the way I'm wired. I feel responsible when things don't go well. I mean, my job's to orchestrate and keep our guys in healthy plays and create flow and rhythm for Aaron. That's the way I believe play-calling should operate. But there was too much risk there. I screwed it up."

[pbmax]

It was a belief. Obviously no guarantees about the future, but I think he really has his finger on the pulse of his team. And there's no denying the game changed significantly with their next possession in exactly the way he indicated he thought it was about to.

I should add that he did man up and admit that he felt he made a mistake.

Glad about the changes at half. Was he saying his plan was the screwup or the 4th down call?

[vince]

If you're going to give him credit for the winning streak, there's also some blame to spread for the losing streak, but the way he led the turnaround was inspiring. Can you imagine old school coaches after a four-game losing streak?

If you want to crush him for his failings, you also have to give McCarthy his props for weathering adversity and keeping his players engaged and faithful. When I caught up with him in Nashville on Nov. 12, a day before the Packers would drop to 4-5 with a 47-25 defeat to the Tennessee Titans, he had every reason to succumb to the notion, at least in confidence, that this would probably not be the Packers' year.

Instead, he conceded nothing. And after returning home from the following week's defeat in Washington, with his players expecting to confront him at his most surly and shrill, McCarthy went counterintuitive and helped turn around a season.

"He honestly set the tone for us the day after the Washington game," Pro Bowl guard T.J. Lang recalled following Sunday night's victory. "Being a player, I was kind of surprised by the way he approached it. You come off four straight losses and you come in with your tail tucked between your legs, expecting to be bitched out by your head coach.

"Instead, he came in and calmly said, 'Hey guys -- let's get to work. We've got a lot of things to fix.' He stayed positive, and it really set the tone. We understand that coaches get down, too, especially when they hear people say they're all getting fired and stuff like that. He did a really good job of keeping the room together and tuning out the noise."
There was a lot of external heat at that time, and it didn't affect him in the least.

This one was also interesting to me. I think a lot of us have noticed a trend toward keeping the ball in Rodgers' hands more (as opposed to run-run-run-punt) when finishing games with 2nd half leads, particular small leads.


Following the Packers' devastating defeat to the Seahawks in the 2014 NFC Championship Game, which featured a stunning fourth-quarter collapse, McCarthy did his share of soul-searching. In the wake of the sudden death of his brother, Joe, McCarthy decided to give up his role as the Pack's offensive play-caller, only to reclaim it when the team struggled late in the 2015 season.

He thought about Joe before Sunday's game ("I always do, especially this time of year," he told me), and he also thought about the rough patches he experienced professionally this past October and November -- but when it came time to coach, he was bold and unfettered and determined to get after it, consequences be damned. And if the sports fans of America weren't cool with that -- well, McCarthy was at peace with his approach.

"Why is America so tough on me?" McCarthy repeated just before leaving his private locker room. "I don't know. I think it's because I don't have a Twitter account."
Every coach makes mistakes obviously, but I'm convinced he has no fear of failure or the pressures that come with his position. He's really good at keeping the right perspective as a respected leader of men. God, Family and the Green Bay Packers in that order as some famous coach said.

So while play calls and game decisions will be second-guessed until the cows come home. The greatest coaches lead, teach and genuinely inspire greatness through the common cause bigger and more important than any of the individuals. They use artificial means like fear, rah rah speeches, fist pumping and authoritative demands based on organizational structure at times but know those tactics are ultimately unsustainable motivators. Getting people to really buy in to the team with everything they have to give, as this team clearly has, requires strength of character that he possesses in spades.

Just my observations/opinion on him.

[texaspackerbacker]

McCarthy obviously is not stupid. He must have seen some tendency or whatever that caused him to call that play. The most significant thing I read here was that Spriggs apparently missed a block that would have enabled a cut back. That's Montgomery's thing - to hit the pile and bounce the other way, and it has worked great for the Packers since he has been a RB. Undoubtedly McCarthy wishes he had a do over, either to call something else or have the play executed better or just punt. We won the game anyway; McCarthy and the team will learn from situation; Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger; Get over it, people.

[pbmax]

Other thing to remember about the 4th down call. The second touchdown was a 80 yard drive where they ran out of time, had no timeouts left and had to Hail Mary it.

So I get wanting to give the offense a jump start. Just maybe not your own 37.

[Maxie the Taxi]

McCarthy obviously is not stupid. He must have seen some tendency or whatever that caused him to call that play. The most significant thing I read here was that Spriggs apparently missed a block that would have enabled a cut back. That's Montgomery's thing - to hit the pile and bounce the other way, and it has worked great for the Packers since he has been a RB. Undoubtedly McCarthy wishes he had a do over, either to call something else or have the play executed better or just punt. We won the game anyway; McCarthy and the team will learn from situation; Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger; Get over it, people.+1

[vince]

Glad about the changes at half. Was he saying his plan was the screwup or the 4th down call?
He regrets the fourth down call. His job, he said, is to put his players in positon to succeed, and that didn't happen there. A big part of his comment is throwing himself in front of his guys when the daggers fly. This team may not win it all, but they're ready to go to all in for/with him.

[Maxie the Taxi]

He regrets the fourth down call. His job, he said, is to put his players in positon to succeed, and that didn't happen there. A big part of his comment is throwing himself in front of his guys when the daggers fly. This team is ready to go to all in for/with him and they WILL win it all.FIFY :glug:

[gbgary]

I definitely remember those well. Something about today's D, though, you just can't catch them completely selling out for the run like when Starr would hit Dale, etc. Maybe it's because so many teams routinely use short passes on 3rd and 1 or 2.

Vince, I hear ya, but I'm not as annoyed by going for broke with a long one than I am with damn fade patterns in the end zone, possibly my least favorite play in the book - unless it is the other team doing it.

we don't have Hornung and Taylor back there either. it turned out to be a bad play call but not necessarily a bad decision. could have made it trying another play...perhaps the Rodgers bootleg to run/pass, a bull-rush sneak. who knows. it ended up not making a difference so it CAN'T be the stupidest playoff call ever.

[vince]

FIFY :glug:
You da man Maxie! I'm trying but I don't see how they can match up to Atlanta. They're the best in the league exactly where the Packers are the worst, their defense has been trending strong lately - and they're on a serious roll too. League's leading sacker on a D playing far better than GB's, and far more serious weapons on O than Green Bay's increasingly bandaged-together squad of positional converts (TMo), street FA pickups (CMike), and late season PS call-ups (GMo).

[pbmax]

vince's quotes are from here I believe (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000771904/article/mike-mccarthy-set-tone-for-packers-turnaround), and they include this quote from Mark Murphy about Stubby:


"That was nonsense," Murphy told me, referring to the midseason talk that McCarthy could be fired after the season. "We've been through rough patches before, and we've always bounced back. Though, I have to admit, this one's a pretty remarkable turnaround."

[vince]

McCarthy obviously is not stupid.
Don't tell red, rutnstrut or King Friday that.:smack:

[vince]

vince's quotes are from here I believe (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000771904/article/mike-mccarthy-set-tone-for-packers-turnaround), and they include this quote from Mark Murphy about Stubby:It's linked in one of my posts above... Sorry I didn't re-post the link.

[pbmax]

It's linked in one of my posts above... Sorry I didn't re-post the link.

Yeah I just missed it and found the quotes in one of the tabs I opened through Nagler's roundup at JSO.

[Freak Out]

It was a stupid call. I'm not sure what the debate is all about? lol Up to that point I don't remember the GB OL getting any push on the Giants and they were on the Packer side of the field. If you are going to go for it AT LEAST give Rodgers the option of a pass or keeper.

[vince]

I'd say the debate's about whether it was one of the stupidest calls in the history of the world and grounds for immediate firing or a stupid call that turned out to be meaningless and/or might have had some intangible benefit for team chemistry.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm trying but I don't see how they can match up to Atlanta.The bigger they are, the harder they fall. :-)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eb2C6pdHgU

[gbgary]

the ht adjustment mirrored last weeks game...short, quick, take what they give you. the result was the same as last week too. victory!

[Freak Out]

I'd say the debate's about whether it was one of the stupidest calls in the history of the world and grounds for immediate firing or a stupid call that turned out to be meaningless and/or might have had some intangible benefit for team chemistry.

It's just one of those M3 headscratchers. Not a grounds for firing in and of itself but a WTF moment.

[vince]

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. :-)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eb2C6pdHgU
Classic scene! I'm starting to believe... I think I'm gonna watch me some Rocky!

[pbmax]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPJPFnesV4

[Pugger]

We have continuously lambasted MM for being too conservative in what could be defining moments in a game, and, yes, this has included punting in 4th and very short situations regardless of field position. We have criticized him for taking fieldgoals in 4th and inches situations.

So now we criticize him for being too aggressive,...........just because it didn't work????

No, my beef was where we were on the field. I just think it is fool-hearty to try to convert a 4th and short on our side the field when we were having issues running the ball. Why give them that kind of field position when we have the lead in case it doesn't work?

[Pugger]

the ht adjustment mirrored last weeks game...short, quick, take what they give you. the result was the same as last week too. victory!

Perhaps they should start doing that right off the bat?

[Patler]

No, my beef was where we were on the field. I just think it is fool-hearty to try to convert a 4th and short on our side the field when we were having issues running the ball. Why give them that kind of field position when we have the lead in case it doesn't work?

Had been having trouble running, but in that drive they had 27 yards on four carries, and Ripkowski would have had the first on third down if not for the face mask penalty (my opinion). I think that is what McCarthy was talking about when he said it felt like the game was changing, and he thought he could take control.

[vince]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPJPFnesV4
Shortcut that for pre-game!


Dom Cape is gonna pull off the stunner! The league's worst pass defense takes a pounding from the MVP.... but Dom Cape keeps takin' it. and Bringin' it... and then dazzles and confuses with a 4th quarter zone blitz pick 6 for the Championship!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctl9I6O5OkI
"We love ya Dom!"

Dom with Belt in hand, "eh...eh...and.. and I love yous too!"

[pbmax]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhlPAj38rHc

[vince]

They can't possibly lose!!!!!!

[pbmax]

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/audibles/2017/audibles-line-wild-card-round


Aaron Schatz: Honestly, running plays do normally convert more than passing plays in short yardage. I don't really have a huge problem with Green Bay's play calling there, especially the Aaron Ripkowski handoff. Yes, I probably would have let Rodgers throw one -- on a bootleg where he also could have scrambled for the yard if it was open. But it's not a huge mistake. The run-blocking just wasn't good enough.

Actually... hmmm, Packers were 30th in short-yardage conversions looking at our offensive line stats. So maybe I do have a problem with that play calling.

It's OK, Packers get it back in just a couple plays on the next drive. Randall Cobb beat Trevin Wade in man coverage and sauntered into the end zone. Wade's only in because of the DRC injury.

[vince]

Packers get it back in just a couple plays on the next drive. Randall Cobb beat Trevin Wade in man coverage and sauntered into the end zone. Wade's only in because of the DRC injury.
Hey, smart playcall. Must have been an audible.

And he sauntered. That should be a penalty.

[hoosier]

I have no problem with the decision. It looked bad only because the Packers execution was so poor or the Giants so good. I understand the argument that it was a bad decision given these specific circumstances, but the other argument is also strong, that going for it sends a signal to the team that will continue to pay off down the road regardless of what happens on that particular play. So there are good arguments on both sides. The tiebreaker for me is that advanced metrics, which are admittedly context-blind, unambiguously state that going for it on 4th and 1 from your own 40 is the right call.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2618/3688516023_07450826e5_o.png

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/game-strategy/120-4th-down-study

[pbmax]

Part of the context advanced metrics misses is that the Packers are uniformly terrible this year at short yardage.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I have no problem with the decision. It looked bad only because the Packers execution was so poor or the Giants so good. I understand the argument that it was a bad decision given these specific circumstances, but the other argument is also strong, that going for it sends a signal to the team that will continue to pay off down the road regardless of what happens on that particular play. So there are good arguments on both sides. The tiebreaker for me is that advanced metrics, which are admittedly context-blind, unambiguously state that going for it on 4th and 1 from your own 40 is the right call.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2618/3688516023_07450826e5_o.png

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/game-strategy/120-4th-down-studyYou're reading the graph wrong, sonny. lol

[hoosier]

Part of the context advanced metrics misses is that the Packers are uniformly terrible this year at short yardage.

Only when they try to run the ball.

[hoosier]

You're reading the graph wrong, sonny. lol

Says you.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Says you.No, I'm serious. The 40 yards is "Distance to the End Zone." So it's from the opponent's 40, not your own.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2618/3688516023_07450826e5_o.png

I didn't read the link, but on the face of it this graph makes no sense. It says you should go for it on 4th and one deep in your own territory. You should go for it on 4th and 2 from your own 15 yard line.

The general shape of the graph looks correct, but it seems shifted up. Or approved by a lunatic coach.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I didn't read the link, but on the face of it this graph makes no sense. It says you should go for it on 4th and one deep in your own territory. You should go for it on 4th and 2 from your own 15 yard line.

The general shape of the graph looks correct, but it seems shifted up. Or approved by a lunatic coach.You're reading the graph wrong too. Must be the new math they're teaching you kids nowadays.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No, I'm serious. The 40 yards is "Distance to the End Zone." So it's from the opponent's 40, not your own.

yes, you caught hoosier with his pants down.

but there's more funny business with this graph. Perhaps it's a plot (pun intended) to influence Stubby. Don't trust it, Mike!

[Harlan Huckleby]

You're reading the graph wrong too. Must be the new math they're teaching you kids nowadays.

That does seem likely. But I don't see error in my ways.

[Maxie the Taxi]

yes, you caught hoosier with his pants down.

but there's more funny business with this graph. Perhaps it's a plot (pun intended) to influence Stubby. Don't trust it, Mike!Stubby just showed a poster-sized image of that graph at his press conference. He's reading it wrong too. hahahaha

[Joemailman]

I'd say the debate's about whether it was one of the stupidest calls in the history of the world and grounds for immediate firing or a stupid call that turned out to be meaningless and/or might have had some intangible benefit for team chemistry.

I disagreed with the call. But the Packers outscored the Giants 24-7 the rest of the way. Thus, I have come to the shocking conclusion that perhaps MM has a better sense of the team than I do.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Stubby just showed a poster-sized image of that graph at his press conference. He's reading it wrong too. hahahaha

The mystery deepens. I was the smartest one in my family, and I can't figure out how to read that graph "right." According to your reading, where on the field does it recommend to go for it on 4th and one?

Take your time. We need to get this right,

[gbgary]

Perhaps they should start doing that right off the bat?

it's a no brainer imo. it will cause the big play to open up really...and it'll keep the cowboy o off the field.

ball control will be the key to this next game. whoever does it best will win.

[Maxie the Taxi]

The mystery deepens. I was the smartest one in my family, and I can't figure out how to read that graph "right." According to your reading, where on the field does it recommend to go for it on 4th and one?

Take your time. We need to get this right,I Googled it and I found this quote from a guy that seems to understand the graph. Hope it helps.


It says you should go for it on 4th and one deep in your own territory. You should go for it on 4th and 2 from your own 15 yard line.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Doh! Why didn't I think to use the googler?

[pbmax]

Only when they try to run the ball.

Yes.

[pbmax]

The mystery deepens. I was the smartest one in my family, and I can't figure out how to read that graph "right." According to your reading, where on the field does it recommend to go for it on 4th and one?

Take your time. We need to get this right,

Its says your odds of increasing your chance to win are best if ALWAYS go for it on 4th and 2 or less, with the following exceptions:

1. Between 71 and 78 yards to go (your own 22-29) there is evidence it will hurt your chances. This might be a glitch in the data as its not apparent to me what hurts here that doesn't at both slightly longer and shorter distances to their end zone.

2. Inside the 10, but not inside the 5 its a 50/50 call because you can get a normal punt off.

3. Inside the 5, you are going to get a weaker punt, so going for it helps your overall odds.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Its says your odds of increasing your chance to win are best if ALWAYS go for it on 4th and 2 or less, with the following exceptions:

1. Between 71 and 78 yards to go (your own 22-29) there is evidence it will hurt your chances. This might be a glitch in the data as its not apparent to me what hurts here that doesn't at both slightly longer and shorter distances to their end zone.

2. Inside the 10, but not inside the 5 its a 50/50 call because you can get a normal punt off.

3. Inside the 5, you are going to get a weaker punt, so going for it helps your overall odds.Harlan, aren't you glad you asked?:-)

[Harlan Huckleby]

I wouldn't be the smartest one in my family if pbmax were in it.

But I actually did read the graph right, I just couldn't believe my own lying eyes.

How many coaches actually follow those recommendations? Or put another way, how many coaches could keep their jobs following those recommendations?

BTW, I like those recommendations. I also would kick onsides about a quarter of the time.

[woodbuck27]

Bad decision but it was an aggressive one. It was an aggressive grab at establishing control of the game at a time he felt they could grab the bull by the horns.

It turned out that they were able to establish it once and for all the next time they got it - and never looked back.

A bad decision (period).

[hoosier]

No, I'm serious. The 40 yards is "Distance to the End Zone." So it's from the opponent's 40, not your own.

Correct, but I was looking at the 60 yards from end zone column. These advanced metrics say go for it on 4th-and-3 or less.

[smuggler]

Maxie is confused about the graph. It pretty much always says to go for it on 4th and 1.

The zones in that graph represent the decision you make. The plotted point for 1 yard to go for the first and 60 yards to your opponents end zone falls within the Go For It zone.

[Pugger]

If we would have lost that game every one of you who say you didn't have a problem with would have been calling for Mac's head on a platter for going for it on that side of the field losing whatever momentum we had.

[Fritz]

Well...we're fans!

If they lose to the Cowboys, or to anyone else this season, there are sure to be calls for someone's head. Or everyone's head.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Well...we're fans!

If they lose to the Cowboys, or to anyone else this season, there are sure to be calls for someone's head. Or everyone's head.

Did someone say we're all getting head?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Maxie is confused about the graph. It pretty much always says to go for it on 4th and 1.

The zones in that graph represent the decision you make. The plotted point for 1 yard to go for the first and 60 yards to your opponents end zone falls within the Go For It zone.Yes, I must confess that the graph went over my head. :idea: My apologies to Hoosier, Harlan and smuggler. :oops: If Stubby understands and believes in that graph crap, well then he needs a new nickname. :sad:

[hoosier]

Maxie is confused about the graph. It pretty much always says to go for it on 4th and 1.

The zones in that graph represent the decision you make. The plotted point for 1 yard to go for the first and 60 yards to your opponents end zone falls within the Go For It zone.

Shhh....Don't let a confused man know he's confused.

[pbmax]

Theory #173 about McCarthy's odd offense versus man coverage

All those plays, including Adams touchdown in the first half last week, feature receivers versus man coverage running a route and then coming to a stop. Not just routes that have a designed stop, like a comeback or hitch, but everyone.

I might be wrong about this, but I remember one tenet of modern passing is that you always want to be extend your routes against the man coverage, even if you are changing direction or making a move, because eventually you will come free. Especially true of deep routes (post, corner, go) and crossing routes.

Against a zone its not as clear, as sometimes you move through one zone window to another and give the QB a better lane to throw, but other routes are better if the WR sits in the open gap.

Are the Packers coming to a stop after they know Rodgers has not thrown to them in order to look at the QB and figure out how to improvise?

I say the answer is unequivocally yes.

But is this the design of the play versus man coverage?

[texaspackerbacker]

It's part of the scramble drill. The guy covering you stops too. Then you make a quick move and leave him in the dust, and hopefully the QB throws it before the cover guy can catch up. It's sorta a reset from the way the play starts at the line of scrimmage. You see it in the end zone plays all the time; You see it in Road Runner cartoons all the time. Beep Beep!

[woodbuck27]

I Googled it and I found this quote from a guy that seems to understand the graph. Hope it helps.

Yes ..when there is less than 2 minutes remaining in the game and your team must score.

[hoosier]

Yes ..when there is less than 2 minutes remaining in the game and your team must score.

You've been listening to too much Michael Robinson https://www.nfl.com/now/10103061-7033-0000-0066-8867321fdf8e

[woodbuck27]

I am one of the most criticle Packer fans here and Mike McCarthy.

He simply put can do some really bone headed things. Often he clearly is stubborn to what is happening or slow to adjust.

Of course like we all might I hope that he will grow but Mike McCarthy is what he is and you can count on this. When you need to count on him the most he will let you down.

When Jordy Nelson was possibly removed from action for the remainder of the playoffs; and immediately after he was assaulted on the field:

a) What was Mike McCarthys reaction?

b) Did MM call out the Officiating ...demonstrate how pissed off he was?

What did you see happen specifically in terms of Mike McCarthy's reaction to his best WR being mugged and assaulted on the field?

Was what you saw typically the reaction you would desire from the Head Coach of the team you support as a fan?

[Fritz]

I am one of the most criticle Packer fans here and Mike McCarthy.

He simply put can do some really bone headed things. Often he clearly is stubborn to what is happening or slow to adjust.

Of course like we all might I hope that he will grow but Mike McCarthy is what he is and you can count on this. When you need to count on him the most he will let you down.

When Jordy Nelson was possibly removed from action very possibly for the remainder of the playoffs; and immediately after Jordy Nelson was assaulted on the field.

What was Mike McCarthys reaction? Did he call out the Officiating ...demonstrate how pissed off he was?

What did you see happen specifically in terms of Mike McCarthy's reaction to his best WR being mugged and assaulted on the field?



The Packers won 38 - 13, Woody.

[woodbuck27]

The Packers won 38 - 13, Woody.

That was then (or the Final Score in the Giants game).

In terms of Jordy Nelson we are discussing the immediate reaction to his injury; the possible impact of that on the Packers future in these playoffs.

[hoosier]

I am one of the most criticle Packer fans here and Mike McCarthy.

He simply put can do some really bone headed things. Often he clearly is stubborn to what is happening or slow to adjust.

Of course like we all might I hope that he will grow but Mike McCarthy is what he is and you can count on this. When you need to count on him the most he will let you down.

When Jordy Nelson was possibly removed from action for the remainder of the playoffs; and immediately after he was assaulted on the field:

a) What was Mike McCarthys reaction?

b) Did MM call out the Officiating ...demonstrate how pissed off he was?

What did you see happen specifically in terms of Mike McCarthy's reaction to his best WR being mugged and assaulted on the field?

Was what you saw typically the reaction you would desire from the Head Coach of the team you support as a fan?

So you were hoping for what? That he would react like a 3rd grader?

[woodbuck27]

So you were hoping for what? That he would react like a 3rd grader?

I expected him to react as if he had a pulse. Question Ed Hochuli and the fact there was no flag !

On what other Pro Team would we see the Head Coach's balls sucked up inside of his body the way MM's were after Jordy was so abused and no flag. Was MM frozen at that time?

Seriously MM's awareness here as in many other cases has to be questioned.

[Patler]

I expected him to react as if he had a pulse. Question Ed Hochuli and the fact there was no flag !

On what other Pro Team would we see the Head Coach's balls sucked up inside of his body the way MM's were after Jordy was so abused and no flag. Was MM frozen at that time?

Seriously MM's awareness here as in many other cases has to be questioned.

I wonder if MM, or any of the coaches were aware of the helmet use? I wonder if they were able to see it as anything other than a hard hit on a player who had gotten into a vulnerable position?

[Pugger]

I'm sure Mac and the other coaches weren't too pleased when they saw the tape afterwards. I'm still waiting to hear if Goodell is gonna fine Hall.

[King Friday]

To me, the decision comes down to the situation and risk/reward. Looking at a stupid analytics chart doesn't answer the question...because the no situation of 4th and 1 is exactly the same as another. Momentum is a large part of the game of football, and you can't measure it with analytics. That is what separates the truly great coaches from the "meh".

1. The Packers were the home team, and already held the momentum advantage. If the Packers were the road team, or the team looking to establish momentum, then I can understand the more aggressive philosophy to try to take control of the game. In this instance, there was NO NEED to give the Giants a chance to get back into the game. Punt the fucking ball and force the Giants offense to go 80 yards against our defense...which to that point had been playing well, considering we owned an 8 point lead and the edge in momentum.

2. The Giants were statistically one of the best NFL defenses against short yardage/goal line plays. Your decision played into their strength. The choice to convert with a running play makes it even more ridiculous, because the Packer running game is also one of the worst in the NFL. So now we are choosing to use our weakest weapon against one of their strongest. If we put the ball in Rodgers' hands, I have slightly more respect for the choice, although it would still be the wrong move.

3. I still have yet to see anyone arguing in favor of the decision effectively prove that the reward of obtaining the 1st down was worth the risk of missing it. Claiming that decision was what caused the offense to suddenly become a juggernaut in the 2nd half is ridiculous. Aaron Rodgers is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and probably 7th reason why the offense exploded. If a stupid, aggressive decision is all we need to get the offense going, then we should simply forget kickoffs and go on-side kick every time. We should score 100 points every game.

[smuggler]

#2 and #3 are the best points

[woodbuck27]

I'm sure Mac and the other coaches weren't too pleased when they saw the tape afterwards. I'm still waiting to hear if Goodell is gonna fine Hall.

Yea ..... the NFL is slow on this one. I cannot understand why that is the case?

[woodbuck27]

To me, the decision comes down to the situation and risk/reward. Looking at a stupid analytics chart doesn't answer the question...because the no situation of 4th and 1 is exactly the same as another. Momentum is a large part of the game of football, and you can't measure it with analytics. That is what separates the truly great coaches from the "meh".

1. The Packers were the home team, and already held the momentum advantage. If the Packers were the road team, or the team looking to establish momentum, then I can understand the more aggressive philosophy to try to take control of the game. In this instance, there was NO NEED to give the Giants a chance to get back into the game. Punt the fucking ball and force the Giants offense to go 80 yards against our defense...which to that point had been playing well, considering we owned an 8 point lead and the edge in momentum.

2. The Giants were statistically one of the best NFL defenses against short yardage/goal line plays. Your decision played into their strength. The choice to convert with a running play makes it even more ridiculous, because the Packer running game is also one of the worst in the NFL. So now we are choosing to use our weakest weapon against one of their strongest. If we put the ball in Rodgers' hands, I have slightly more respect for the choice, although it would still be the wrong move.

3. I still have yet to see anyone arguing in favor of the decision effectively prove that the reward of obtaining the 1st down was worth the risk of missing it. Claiming that decision was what caused the offense to suddenly become a juggernaut in the 2nd half is ridiculous. Aaron Rodgers is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and probably 7th reason why the offense exploded. If a stupid, aggressive decision is all we need to get the offense going, then we should simply forget kickoffs and go on-side kick every time. We should score 100 points every game.

An incredible effort in analysis to back up the obvious:

MM's decision to go for it on 4th and 1 given all the games circumstances was simply a bad decision.

[pbmax]

I do think analytics can prove that passing has a slightly better chance of winning short yardage than running.

Packers are a better passing team than running team.

The fact that they run in this situation much more often than pass is why Stubby is nicknamed Stubby.

[Fritz]

I do think analytics can prove that passing has a slightly better chance of winning short yardage than running.

Packers are a better passing team than running team.

The fact that they run in this situation much more often than pass is why Stubby is nicknamed Stubby.


That's not what his wife says.

[Pugger]

To me, the decision comes down to the situation and risk/reward. Looking at a stupid analytics chart doesn't answer the question...because the no situation of 4th and 1 is exactly the same as another. Momentum is a large part of the game of football, and you can't measure it with analytics. That is what separates the truly great coaches from the "meh".

1. The Packers were the home team, and already held the momentum advantage. If the Packers were the road team, or the team looking to establish momentum, then I can understand the more aggressive philosophy to try to take control of the game. In this instance, there was NO NEED to give the Giants a chance to get back into the game. Punt the fucking ball and force the Giants offense to go 80 yards against our defense...which to that point had been playing well, considering we owned an 8 point lead and the edge in momentum.

2. The Giants were statistically one of the best NFL defenses against short yardage/goal line plays. Your decision played into their strength. The choice to convert with a running play makes it even more ridiculous, because the Packer running game is also one of the worst in the NFL. So now we are choosing to use our weakest weapon against one of their strongest. If we put the ball in Rodgers' hands, I have slightly more respect for the choice, although it would still be the wrong move.

3. I still have yet to see anyone arguing in favor of the decision effectively prove that the reward of obtaining the 1st down was worth the risk of missing it. Claiming that decision was what caused the offense to suddenly become a juggernaut in the 2nd half is ridiculous. Aaron Rodgers is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and probably 7th reason why the offense exploded. If a stupid, aggressive decision is all we need to get the offense going, then we should simply forget kickoffs and go on-side kick every time. We should score 100 points every game.

Excellent post. The only reason nobody is bitching about it now is because we won the game. It was a moronic move in every sense. Mac did say in a later PC he screwed up there. I hope he doesn't do anything this stupid again on Sunday.