Vic Ketchmab calls a spade a spade with fans who live in fantasy

[RashanGary]

http://m.packers.com/news/article/hes-the-best-passer-ive-ever-seen-738e5dc0-ce30-4124-a790-fe68481d13c0

Vic, it appears Ted knows what he is doing in free agency. I feel Peppers and Cook have been key to our winning streak. Do you think fans will now believe in draft and develop with a key signing now and again?

The savvy fans get it. They understand the nuances of the salary cap and roster turnover, and the devastating long-term impact a big free-agent contract gone bad can have on a team. The I-want-it-now fans will never get it because they lack appreciation for the total game. Their vision is narrow. They see only player-acquisition and play-calling.

[RashanGary]

It's so true. Some people only can see the shiny ball. They can't see the cost. It's like a mental block.

[vince]

It's amazing that the Packers get their greatest win since the Super Bowl and some fans still can't help but rip play-calling and player acquisition.

Since the Packers won the Super Bowl, they are the league's BEST team successfully finishing games with a fourth quarter lead - THE BEST.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=career&year_min=2011&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_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

McCarthy knows what he's doing finishing games. That's a proven fact.

[Guiness]

It's amazing that the Packers get their greatest win since the Super Bowl and some fans still can't help but rip play-calling and player acquisition.

Since the Packers won the Super Bowl, they are the league's BEST team successfully finishing games with a fourth quarter lead - THE BEST.

McCarthy knows what he's doing finishing games. That's a proven fact.

Shit though, couldn't he have done something else yesterday? I mean, we haven't heard from oldbutnotdeadyet, I can only assume he had a coronary!

[vince]

:p
A lot of fans (and some desperate GM's) over-react to stuff. McCarthy and Thompson do not.

[mmmdk]

This thread is the best, Jerry, the best! :bang: with a :wink:

[King Friday]

McCarthy knows what he's doing finishing games. That's a proven fact.

Perhaps...it doesn't change the other proven fact that the run that lost 5 yards...which was also unsuccessful last week on a moronic 4th down attempt...needs to be taken away from Stubby because he can't use it properly.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's amazing that the Packers get their greatest win since the Super Bowl and some fans still can't help but rip play-calling and player acquisition.

Since the Packers won the Super Bowl, they are the league's BEST team successfully finishing games with a fourth quarter lead - THE BEST.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=career&year_min=2011&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_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

McCarthy knows what he's doing finishing games. That's a proven fact.

And why exactly is that? AARON RODGERS! That one absolutely fantastic draft move - getting Rodgers - has made up for a huge amount of mediocrity and not maximizing things.

[Tony Oday]

Loved missing the Super BOWL and losing to the Seachickens, we don't need a vet ILB, a shutdown corner is totally overrated. TT is lucky he has AR.

[RashanGary]

Loved missing the Super BOWL and losing to the Seachickens, we don't need a vet ILB, a shutdown corner is totally overrated. TT is lucky he has AR.

No, you're lucky you have TT.

[smuggler]

Why not both? TT is a top10 GM. Probably top5. AR is top1.

[Carolina_Packer]

JH, nobody wants to see TT sign someone like a Jairus Byrd to stupid guaranteed money and get hamstrung by his injuries or pedestrian play. On the opposite side, all of your depth does not have to be college free agents. There are free agents that a GM can sprinkle on to their roster that will provide veteran depth and not a ton of guaranteed money. I think some fans would just like our GM to consider more players like this. They may not be an all-pro because those guys are getting a lot of guaranteed money, but they aren't necessarily green horns either. I do think it makes a difference when you sign a guy like that too.

I think there is a camp of people who appreciate what TT does and how he thinks ahead in terms of having a long-game for the salary cap and who the team wants to retain and how they will fit under the cap down the road. I'm sure there are a lot of moving pieces there. However, what we are learning from Jared Cook is that he can still play and the team has gotten a nice look at him. I think there may be other under-valued gems like this that can help in the short-term while having a chance to prove a more long-term worth to the team. If that takes a roster spot from a college free agent, well, a number of them churn and burn the bottom of the roster every year anyway.

[Bretsky]

JH, nobody wants to see TT sign someone like a Jairus Byrd to stupid guaranteed money and get hamstrung by his injuries or pedestrian play. On the opposite side, all of your depth does not have to be college free agents. There are free agents that a GM can sprinkle on to their roster that will provide veteran depth and not a ton of guaranteed money. I think some fans would just like our GM to consider more players like this. They may not be an all-pro because those guys are getting a lot of guaranteed money, but they aren't necessarily green horns either. I do think it makes a difference when you sign a guy like that too.

I think there is a camp of people who appreciate what TT does and how he thinks ahead in terms of having a long-game for the salary cap and who the team wants to retain and how they will fit under the cap down the road. I'm sure there are a lot of moving pieces there. However, what we are learning from Jared Cook is that he can still play and the team has gotten a nice look at him. I think there may be other under-valued gems like this that can help in the short-term while having a chance to prove a more long-term worth to the team. If that takes a roster spot from a college free agent, well, a number of them churn and burn the bottom of the roster every year anyway.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[vince]

Perhaps...it doesn't change the other proven fact that the run that lost 5 yards...which was also unsuccessful last week on a moronic 4th down attempt...needs to be taken away from Stubby because he can't use it properly.
That run that Spriggs whiffed on was unsuccessful in gaining yards. It was successful in keeping them within field goal range and it forced Dallas to use their second timeout which was most important.

Having only one timeout left on Dallas' final drive helped the defense out by making it risky to use the middle of the field without a timeout to spare besides the one they would need to keep in their back pocket to make sure they can stop the clock to get the field goal team on the field.

Dallas did use the middle of the field to drive rather quickly down the field. BUT that run which protected the opportunity for the go-ahead field goal ALSO helped the defense just enough by forcing Dak to spike the ball on the last first down rather than take the time out they needed to save, which wasted what turned out to be a very important down for them and allowed just enough time on the clock for the Packers to secure the win.

That's what we know. Some hypothetical alternative to that success is nothing but hot air.

[Fritz]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Bretsky, you might want tl reconsider that sig.

[pbmax]

That run that Spriggs whiffed on was unsuccessful in gaining yards. It was successful in keeping them within field goal range and it forced Dallas to use their second timeout which was most important.
.

But it made the FG more difficult. It was already at the end of his effective range.

I like being aggressive here, especially facing another 50 yard FG. So I don't want him to kneel. But run-run-run in heavy packages invites the kind of loss of yardage that happened to the 4 minute offense in Seattle. This was a repeat. And even more predictable. The D is going to shoot gaps to make this happen.

Tactically, I understand. Lowest possible chance of turnover, still chance of gaining yards, drain the clock/TO. But when you telegraph your play AND you stink out loud in short yardage, you seriously lower any chance of yardage gained and increase the risk of losing yardage for your kicker.

You have to match the tactics to the opponent and to the game situation. The Packers have seen Crosby miss these long ones before. Its not a done deal from 50+ yards out and they do not have a lead to fall back on.

Trust your QB while calling a conservative, heavier run package. Don't pull the plug once you hit 50 yard FG range.

[pbmax]

And another thing: this is Jason Garrett we are talking about. He is very conservative in game management.

The Seahawks and Patriots aren't going to clock the ball on first down.

[ThunderDan]

And another thing: this is Jason Garrett we are talking about. He is very conservative in game management.

The Seahawks and Patriots aren't going to clock the ball on first down.

Maybe, maybe not. Since the Seahawks and Pats weren't in the game we will never know. Let's leave it there.

[ThunderDan]

By releasing Sitton and playing Taylor and saving a ton in salary cap money the Packers now have the ability to pay Jared Cook. Thanks Ted!

[Fritz]

But it made the FG more difficult. It was already at the end of his effective range.

I like being aggressive here, especially facing another 50 yard FG. So I don't want him to kneel. But run-run-run in heavy packages invites the kind of loss of yardage that happened to the 4 minute offense in Seattle. This was a repeat. And even more predictable. The D is going to shoot gaps to make this happen.

Tactically, I understand. Lowest possible chance of turnover, still chance of gaining yards, drain the clock/TO. But when you telegraph your play AND you stink out loud in short yardage, you seriously lower any chance of yardage gained and increase the risk of losing yardage for your kicker.

You have to match the tactics to the opponent and to the game situation. The Packers have seen Crosby miss these long ones before. Its not a done deal from 50+ yards out and they do not have a lead to fall back on.

Trust your QB while calling a conservative, heavier run package. Don't pull the plug once you hit 50 yard FG range.


What he say.

This is the best-articulated criticism I've seen of that second run call.

And is this the second time Jason Spriggs has missed a block on one of these types of runs in the last two weeks? That big, "this is it" moment?

[texaspackerbacker]

The key question to ask is what would the Packers be like without Aaron Rodgers - or if he was merely a good QB instead of as great as he is? I'm not talking Cutler quality, but let's say maybe Eli Manning or Alex Smith, like that. My answer would be that looking down the rest of the roster, we'd have a pretty bad team - overall, worse that just about anybody else you can name. THAT tells the tale about Ted Thompson. Anybody disagree?

[ThunderDan]

I completely disagree. TT has shown he knows how to draft a QB when needed. MM has shown to be able to coach up QBs.

We wouldn't be nearly as good at QB but we would be stable. The organization and team are so important in the NFL. Stability and continuity are so important. Look at the 3 best franchises in the last 20 years. PITT, NE and GB have stayed the course and have been rewarded with above average to excellent play for a long stretch. You can say look at their QBs. But we have seen PITT and NE be able to pop QBs in and out of the lineup with success. We had Wallace and Tolzien losing for us but TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back.

[ThunderDan]

People on this forum were jokingly calling for ARod to be traded mid-year and play Hundley. I feel confident that Hundley could come in and hold the fort down (which means go 2-2 or 3-1) for a 4 game stretch if needed during the regular season. Looking forward to seeing his growth in next year's preseason.

[yetisnowman]

The key question to ask is what would the Packers be like without Aaron Rodgers - or if he was merely a good QB instead of as great as he is? I'm not talking Cutler quality, but let's say maybe Eli Manning or Alex Smith, like that. My answer would be that looking down the rest of the roster, we'd have a pretty bad team - overall, worse that just about anybody else you can name. THAT tells the tale about Ted Thompson. Anybody disagree?

We don't see eye to eye on much....but I agree 100% here. I think we might win 3 or 4 games with Eli on our roster. Our team is built on Aaron being dominant, precise, and winning the turnover battle. We are not a very talented team top to bottom. Look at the Giants this year. Eli was like 29th in QBR this season and they still won 11 games. Look what happens for stretches when Aaron plays mediocre-good...we lose a lot.

[texaspackerbacker]

So maybe we might come up to Browns or Bears quality? The Bears have been pretty stable.

Don't take it back just twenty years, as Favre did approximately what Rodgers does now in his era to keep the team near the top. Consider the 80s. I would suggest that's what we'd be like without Aaron Rodgers and with the present rest of the team.

[pbmax]

So maybe we might come up to Browns or Bears quality? The Bears have been pretty stable.

Don't take it back just twenty years, as Favre did approximately what Rodgers does now in his era to keep the team near the top. Consider the 80s. I would suggest that's what we'd be like without Aaron Rodgers and with the present rest of the team.

With a mediocre QB, the Packers would be much better than the Browns. And a step above the Bears even if you just swap QBs rather than spend the $20 million per year elsewhere.

But a more important point is what QB would Ted have drafted in first three rounds prior to Hundley without AR holding down the fort.

[vince]

But it made the FG more difficult. It was already at the end of his effective range.

I like being aggressive here, especially facing another 50 yard FG. So I don't want him to kneel. But run-run-run in heavy packages invites the kind of loss of yardage that happened to the 4 minute offense in Seattle. This was a repeat. And even more predictable. The D is going to shoot gaps to make this happen.

Tactically, I understand. Lowest possible chance of turnover, still chance of gaining yards, drain the clock/TO. But when you telegraph your play AND you stink out loud in short yardage, you seriously lower any chance of yardage gained and increase the risk of losing yardage for your kicker.

You have to match the tactics to the opponent and to the game situation. The Packers have seen Crosby miss these long ones before. Its not a done deal from 50+ yards out and they do not have a lead to fall back on.

Trust your QB while calling a conservative, heavier run package. Don't pull the plug once you hit 50 yard FG range.
What you have to do is win the game. A 5-yard loss as a result of a complete whiff of a block still helped win that game. The way the game played out from there, an incompletion in that same circumstance may well have helped lose it. At minimum, it very likely would have eliminated the Packers final game-winning drive.

[yetisnowman]

I completely disagree. TT has shown he knows how to draft a QB when needed. MM has shown to be able to coach up QBs.

We wouldn't be nearly as good at QB but we would be stable. The organization and team are so important in the NFL. Stability and continuity are so important. Look at the 3 best franchises in the last 20 years. PITT, NE and GB have stayed the course and have been rewarded with above average to excellent play for a long stretch. You can say look at their QBs. But we have seen PITT and NE be able to pop QBs in and out of the lineup with success. We had Wallace and Tolzien losing for us but TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back.

And again that speaks to the talent level difference. The Packers are 3-7-1 without Rodgers over the years. Pats without Brady are 14-6. That's no coincidence. You think we win more than a couple games with an entire season of Hundley at qb?

[vince]

This is all meaningless hypothetical conjecture. Ted did draft Rodgers.
If Ted Thompson had not drafted Rodgers, his entire situation would be different - and his approach regarding how he would have composed the team from there on would have been a reflection of that difference.

[texaspackerbacker]

If so, that QB is out there somewhere now. I certainly don't see another Aaron Rodgers or even close. Without him, we might not be Browns quality - this years team, but we very well might be Bears quality - consistently mediocre. Whether it's bad luck or whatever, with the exception of Rodgers and maybe Clay Matthews, Thompson hasn't drafted any top level players. Look around at other teams; Just about everybody - with a few lame exceptions - has drafted at least a few more than that. It's not even just about hating to sign high level free agents. It's about just barely getting by instead of maximizing things.

[vince]

If so, that QB is out there somewhere now. I certainly don't see another Aaron Rodgers or even close. Without him, we might not be Browns quality - this years team, but we very well might be Bears quality - consistently mediocre. Whether it's bad luck or whatever, with the exception of Rodgers and maybe Clay Matthews, Thompson hasn't drafted any top level players. Look around at other teams; Just about everybody - with a few lame exceptions - has drafted at least a few more than that. It's not even just about hating to sign high level free agents. It's about just barely getting by instead of maximizing things.
No, it's about maximizing things within the limitations of what the salary cap structure dictates. When you look at the sustained success of this team, suggesting that Ted hasn't done that, after making perhaps the single greatest draft pick in a generation, is staring squarely in the face of an opposite reality.

[pbmax]

And again that speaks to the talent level difference. The Packers are 3-7-1 without Rodgers over the years. Pats without Brady are 14-6. That's no coincidence. You think we win more than a couple games with an entire season of Hundley at qb?

Yes they would. McCathy has optimized his offense for Rodgers talents. He would need to adjust to Hundley, but they would eventually adjust. NE offense is built for more QBs.

The idea that the Packers are only Rodgers away from the Browns is exactly the kind of thinking that makes the Browns the Browns and the Packers the Packers.

[Cheesehead Craig]

We're the Browns without Rodgers? That's my vote for the most Preposterous Statement Of The Year. So laughable.

[vince]

Who cares how or where the players came from?

Going into this year 100% healthy, the Packers were Super Bowl favorites and widely believed to have one of, if not the deepest and most talented roster in the game. That depth has been put to the test at pretty much every position on defense, and it took Nelson and Cook the better part of the season to get healthy and contribute, going 6 deep down the running back depth chart, etc. but the Packers have a talented team. And they're most talented where it counts the most.
Thanks Ted!

[Joemailman]

If so, that QB is out there somewhere now. I certainly don't see another Aaron Rodgers or even close. Without him, we might not be Browns quality - this years team, but we very well might be Bears quality - consistently mediocre. Whether it's bad luck or whatever, with the exception of Rodgers and maybe Clay Matthews, Thompson hasn't drafted any top level players. Look around at other teams; Just about everybody - with a few lame exceptions - has drafted at least a few more than that. It's not even just about hating to sign high level free agents. It's about just barely getting by instead of maximizing things.

No top level players outside of Rodgers and Matthews? He's drafted the following Pro Bowl players:

Aaron Rodgers
Nick Collins
Greg Jennings
Jordy Nelson
Josh Sitton
B.J. Raji
Clay Matthews
T.J. Lang
Eddie Lacy
Ha Ha Clinton Dix

A few others who are close and/or may well make it:

Bryan Bulaga
Morgan Burnett
Randall Cobb
Mike Daniels
David Bakhtiari
Davante Adams

All this while drafting late almost every year because his teams are in the playoffs almost every year.

[vince]

Plus Woodson, Pickett, Grant, Peppers, Cook, Williams, Shields, through acquisition ....

[ThunderDan]

So maybe we might come up to Browns or Bears quality? The Bears have been pretty stable.

Don't take it back just twenty years, as Favre did approximately what Rodgers does now in his era to keep the team near the top. Consider the 80s. I would suggest that's what we'd be like without Aaron Rodgers and with the present rest of the team.

Have you watched the Bears lately? They had a few good years in a long stretch of mediocre. Lovie Smith kept the team in the discussion. They have been a tire fire ever since. They have 3 winning seasons in 10 years. They have won 14 games in the last 3 years.

[gbgary]

again...
draft and develope is fine...IF YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING! the Packers have had needs at certain spots for a long time and they've gone unaddressed for the most part. that's why a change in philosophy/gm is in order or, as i said earlier this year, there's a nuclear winter for the Packers in the not so distant future.

we're going to be drafting at the end of each round again this year, this team has needs that the draft alone CAN'T address, there will be positions opened by retirements and cuts, so FA must be taken advantage of.

did that breeze just change to coming from the north?

[hoosier]

I suspect Tex is thinking about the 2013 team that unexpectedly went belly up when Rodgers broke his collar bone. But McGinn jinxed that team by predicting preseason that it would hold up just fine if the unthinkable were to happen and Rodgers go down. He knows better than to do that with this team. Rather than talk about the roster as a whole, let's look at position units.

OL: clearly one of the best if not the best in pass blocking, and certainly at least adequate as run blockers. Check.
WR: much improved from a year ago thanks to return of Nelson, maturation of Adams and late season return to health of Cook. I would say that this unit is at least above average.
RB: with a healthy Lacy this still would have been a position without much depth because of Starks's sudden decline. Montgomery and Ripkowski are at least serviceable as running options, and the struggle to find a running back after Lacy went down had the salutary effect of forcing McCarthy to redesign the passing game in a way that continues to pay benefits.

DL: One productive vet (Daniels), another serviceable vet (Guion) and two rookies who show potential. The unit doesn't have good depth but they have four guys who can at least contribute something.
OLB: Two good starters and a bunch of projects. Depth is not a strength.
ILB: Two serviceable young starters, one decent sub and a strong safety. Depth is mediocre.
Secondary: When Shields went down and Randall and Rollins got hurt or regressed, Capers invented the amoeba defense starring Micah Hyde and a bunch of F.D. safeties nobody's ever heard of.
Special teams: the patience that TT showed with Crosby looks brilliant now, and Schum has been a pleasant surprise as punter and holder. (Has anyone noticed a single bad hold this year?)

Overall the talent level and depth of this team seem to be better than average.

[texaspackerbacker]

Have you watched the Bears lately? They had a few good years in a long stretch of mediocre. Lovie Smith kept the team in the discussion. They have been a tire fire ever since. They have 3 winning seasons in 10 years. They have won 14 games in the last 3 years.

hahahaha That's what I meant by stable - stable on a low level.

[Rutnstrut]

I have said it a million times. TT doesn't need to go nuts in FA and sign 10 guys and spend a ton of money. But when there are vital positions that need to be filled and players available... Some will argue that he hasn't used FA and they have gotten this far. That is AR and being lucky, one or both will eventually fail.

[denverYooper]

On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to 0.

[ThunderDan]

I have said it a million times. TT doesn't need to go nuts in FA and sign 10 guys and spend a ton of money. But when there are vital positions that need to be filled and players available... Some will argue that he hasn't used FA and they have gotten this far. That is AR and being lucky, one or both will eventually fail.

And yet with that, the luck and AR apparently is still running strong.

Maybe just maybe it isn't luck and AR. Maybe it is a well crafted plan and vision and a little lucky that ARod dropped in the draft but TT had the stones to draft him when you had an MVP, HOF QB as your starter.

[pbmax]

I suspect Tex is thinking about the 2013 team that unexpectedly went belly up when Rodgers broke his collar bone. But McGinn jinxed that team by predicting preseason that it would hold up just fine if the unthinkable were to happen and Rodgers go down. He knows better than to do that with this team. Rather than talk about the roster as a whole, let's look at position units.

OL: clearly one of the best if not the best in pass blocking, and certainly at least adequate as run blockers. Check.
WR: much improved from a year ago thanks to return of Nelson, maturation of Adams and late season return to health of Cook. I would say that this unit is at least above average.
RB: with a healthy Lacy this still would have been a position without much depth because of Starks's sudden decline. Montgomery and Ripkowski are at least serviceable as running options, and the struggle to find a running back after Lacy went down had the salutary effect of forcing McCarthy to redesign the passing game in a way that continues to pay benefits.

DL: One productive vet (Daniels), another serviceable vet (Guion) and two rookies who show potential. The unit doesn't have good depth but they have four guys who can at least contribute something.
OLB: Two good starters and a bunch of projects. Depth is not a strength.
ILB: Two serviceable young starters, one decent sub and a strong safety. Depth is mediocre.
Secondary: When Shields went down and Randall and Rollins got hurt or regressed, Capers invented the amoeba defense starring Micah Hyde and a bunch of F.D. safeties nobody's ever heard of.
Special teams: the patience that TT showed with Crosby looks brilliant now, and Schum has been a pleasant surprise as punter and holder. (Has anyone noticed a single bad hold this year?)

Overall the talent level and depth of this team seem to be better than average.

Given the QBs on the roster, it was beyond dumb.

But a lot of the games were competitive even with Frick and Frack at QB.

[pbmax]

On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to 0.

My replacement cyborg body and mind transference device beg to differ. However, given current laws, we won't be able to settle the bet until CY-pbmax posts in the 2030s.

[Cheesehead Craig]

My replacement cyborg body and mind transference device beg to differ. However, given current laws, we won't be able to settle the bet until CY-pbmax posts in the 2030s.

Why am I picturing the scene from Weird Science with the guys wearing bras on their heads?

[pbmax]

Why am I picturing the scene from Weird Science with the guys wearing bras on their heads?

Rumors started by jealous competitors. CY-pbmax is gendered male. Currently unsure if transference has any effect on sexual preference.

[3irty1]

JH, nobody wants to see TT sign someone like a Jairus Byrd to stupid guaranteed money and get hamstrung by his injuries or pedestrian play. On the opposite side, all of your depth does not have to be college free agents. There are free agents that a GM can sprinkle on to their roster that will provide veteran depth and not a ton of guaranteed money. I think some fans would just like our GM to consider more players like this. They may not be an all-pro because those guys are getting a lot of guaranteed money, but they aren't necessarily green horns either. I do think it makes a difference when you sign a guy like that too.

I think there is a camp of people who appreciate what TT does and how he thinks ahead in terms of having a long-game for the salary cap and who the team wants to retain and how they will fit under the cap down the road. I'm sure there are a lot of moving pieces there. However, what we are learning from Jared Cook is that he can still play and the team has gotten a nice look at him. I think there may be other under-valued gems like this that can help in the short-term while having a chance to prove a more long-term worth to the team. If that takes a roster spot from a college free agent, well, a number of them churn and burn the bottom of the roster every year anyway.

I'll call BS on this. Nobody wants the outcome of Jairus Byrd, but opening day of free agency this is exactly what the #neverTT crowd is howling for. A big cap casualty star from another team. When Ted grabs an unknown journeyman or a cut player like Peppers/Cook it seemingly does nothing to temper the tightwad ted criticism.

The very idea that Cook, a guy Ted signed and who proved to be under-valued, is indicative that there are even more under-valued gems to be discovered is based in what exactly? The value of any player is based on the interest of 32 GMs. To land an under-valued player at all you need to out perform other GMs. To speculate that there is a significant pool of Jared Cook level veteran difference makers that represent great value and a good fit seems like a fantasy but even given that such a pool exists to expect Ted to collect these under-valued veterans is to ask him to outperform all other GMs with regards to each one of them.

I think there is a form of mistaking correlation for causation here. Ted's infrequent attempts but consistent success in free agency does not mean free agents by nature are successful and this could be scaled up with more attempts. A criticism to be taken seriously would be one that dealt with opportunity costs. For instance an example of resigning of his own free agent who would have been better to cut loose in favor of another specific free agent.

[pbmax]

^ There is also the fact that no one remembers run of the mill FA busts. Except the ones Ted has signed (RIP Manuel, Chillar)

So everyone arguing for MORE of this only sees playoff teams with FAs contributing and wants more because Ted doesn't do it enough. No one looks at the rate of success for each of those teams with their signees or draft picks.


*Don't forget LeTroy Guion, who also doesn't count since he was a street free agent.

[Smidgeon]

I'll call BS on this. Nobody wants the outcome of Jairus Byrd, but opening day of free agency this is exactly what the #neverTT crowd is howling for. A big cap casualty star from another team. When Ted grabs an unknown journeyman or a cut player like Peppers/Cook it seemingly does nothing to temper the tightwad ted criticism.

The very idea that Cook, a guy Ted signed and who proved to be under-valued, is indicative that there are even more under-valued gems to be discovered is based in what exactly? The value of any player is based on the interest of 32 GMs. To land an under-valued player at all you need to out perform other GMs. To speculate that there is a significant pool of Jared Cook level veteran difference makers that represent great value and a good fit seems like a fantasy but even given that such a pool exists to expect Ted to collect these under-valued veterans is to ask him to outperform all other GMs with regards to each one of them.

I think there is a form of mistaking correlation for causation here. Ted's infrequent attempts but consistent success in free agency does not mean free agents by nature are successful and this could be scaled up with more attempts. A criticism to be taken seriously would be one that dealt with opportunity costs. For instance an example of resigning of his own free agent who would have been better to cut loose in favor of another specific free agent.

The is the most basic of premise when it comes to game theory as applied to auction scenarios. You identify how much an asset means to you. If you win the auction it means one thing: you valued the asset more than anyone else at the table. It also implies that because you won the asset, you overvalued it on average. Obviously that's the premise, but the asset can have a higher value than everyone anticipated---such as Cook with Rodgers throwing to him.

[pbmax]

The is the most basic of premise when it comes to game theory as applied to auction scenarios. You identify how much an asset means to you. If you win the auction it means one thing: you valued the asset more than anyone else at the table. It also implies that because you won the asset, you overvalued it on average. Obviously that's the premise, but the asset can have a higher value than everyone anticipated---such as Cook with Rodgers throwing to him.

In Cook's case he wanted to sign with an established QB and Rodgers was high on his list. So he helped limit the number of available bidders.

[vince]

I suspect Tex is thinking about the 2013 team that unexpectedly went belly up when Rodgers broke his collar bone. But McGinn jinxed that team by predicting preseason that it would hold up just fine if the unthinkable were to happen and Rodgers go down. He knows better than to do that with this team. Rather than talk about the roster as a whole, let's look at position units.

OL: clearly one of the best if not the best in pass blocking, and certainly at least adequate as run blockers. Check.
WR: much improved from a year ago thanks to return of Nelson, maturation of Adams and late season return to health of Cook. I would say that this unit is at least above average.
RB: with a healthy Lacy this still would have been a position without much depth because of Starks's sudden decline. Montgomery and Ripkowski are at least serviceable as running options, and the struggle to find a running back after Lacy went down had the salutary effect of forcing McCarthy to redesign the passing game in a way that continues to pay benefits.

DL: One productive vet (Daniels), another serviceable vet (Guion) and two rookies who show potential. The unit doesn't have good depth but they have four guys who can at least contribute something.
OLB: Two good starters and a bunch of projects. Depth is not a strength.
ILB: Two serviceable young starters, one decent sub and a strong safety. Depth is mediocre.
Secondary: When Shields went down and Randall and Rollins got hurt or regressed, Capers invented the amoeba defense starring Micah Hyde and a bunch of F.D. safeties nobody's ever heard of.
Special teams: the patience that TT showed with Crosby looks brilliant now, and Schum has been a pleasant surprise as punter and holder. (Has anyone noticed a single bad hold this year?)

Overall the talent level and depth of this team seem to be better than average.
1. You forgot one pretty important position.
2. If you objectively assess the depth and level of talent in similar fashion of all other teams in the league throughout their respective rosters and compare them to one another, I'm very confident "better than average" looks like a serious understatement.

[Upnorth]

Rumors started by jealous competitors. CY-pbmax is gendered male. Currently unsure if transference has any effect on sexual preference.

The bra's are an important part of the science. If you want male cyborg i believe you need a jock strap on your head and to think about hot guys, your call.

[texaspackerbacker]

1. You forgot one pretty important position.
2. If you objectively assess the depth and level of talent in similar fashion of all other teams in the league throughout their respective rosters and compare them to one another, I'm very confident "better than average" looks like a serious understatement.

Try serious overstatement.

[Upnorth]

I think Ted won free agency big time in 2015 year, and then snagged another in 2016. I count 2 probowl level talents in 2015 and one in 2016. Cobb, buluga and cook.


Er, wait, resigning your own free agents doesn't count, right?

Anyone can find fault if you look hard, but admiting your reaching because of a predetermined opinion is much harder to admit I guess.

One weakness I think Ted does have in player evaluation is pre existing injuries and their impact on a players future potential. From early on with Harrell to recently with Shields and concussion, he has made a few mistakes in this area.

[Upnorth]

Try serious overstatement.

My take on our positional ranking right now (after injuries) vrs the league for the season. This will handicap teds work as we are pretty beat up in a few areas.
QB - top 5
OL - top 5
Rb - top 15
WR - top 10
TE - Top 10
DL - top 15
ILB - top 25
OLB top 20
CB- Top 30 (maybe)
S - top 10 (assuming burnett plays, top 20 if not)
K- top 5
P - top 20
KR- top 15
PR - top 15
Gunner - Top 20

So out of the ten main position groupings, after injuries, we have 6 above average, 4 below average. My rankings are a combuination of who would I rather have and Football outsiders and pro football focus rankings.
To me, this means we are at the least, after injuries, still above average.

[Smeefers]

My favorite part about this discussion is the Aaron Rodgers angle. Some believe that Ted Thompson would act the exact same way if we did not have Aaron Rodgers. Do you really believe we'd have exactly this team, except Alex Smith would be our QB? Do you believe our coaches would call the same plays? Do you think we would prepare the same way?

There is no doubt that this team is built completely around Aaron Rodgers. Not only that, it's built around him playing at ridiculous levels.

We've been in the play offs the last 9 years. That in and of itself is success. Winning a super bowl is not something that anyone deserves. It's not something one player would make a difference on. The Patriots went 16-0 and still lost the thing. The Packers went 15-1 and got kicked out of the second round. Things like this happens to all but 1 team every year. Does that mean that there are 31 failures every year? Should 31 coaches be fired? Should 31 personnel guys be kicked because they didn't pick up that mysterious stranger who would of made the difference?

Do you know who won us the super bowl? Jarrett Bush. Let that sink in fellas.

Remember the San Diego Super Chargers and what has become of them since they decided Marty Schottenhiemer couldn't get them over the hump. We would become the laughing stock of the league if we dumped TT and MM. Exactly who do you think would be a replacement that was better? What coach out there has gotten his team to the play offs for nearly a decade straight?

Alright, I'm going back to lurking. Later.

[vince]

NFL Power Rankings 2016: Examining Super Bowl Favorites Following Preseason (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2661654-nfl-power-rankings-2016-examining-super-bowl-favorites-following-preseason) Packers #3

Preseason Power Rankings (http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17319873/nfl-2016-preseason-power-rankings-seattle-seahawks-arizona-cardinals-top-new-england-patriots-behind) Packers #4

PFF: Ranking the rosters of all 32 NFL teams - 2016 (https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4mu6ua/pff_ranking_the_rosters_of_all_32_nfl_teams/) Packers #2

Ranking the rosters of all 32 NFL teams - 2015 (http://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/13046017/seattle-seahawks-top-ranking-rosters-all-32-teams-nfl) Packers #2

Ranking the rosters of all 32 NFL teams - 2014 (http://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/13046017/seattle-seahawks-top-ranking-rosters-all-32-teams-nfl) Packers #8

NFL Power Rankings 2016: Early look at where teams stand as OTAs begin (http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/05/25/nfl-offseason-power-rankings-teams-analysis) Packers #8

NFL's most talented teams - 2015 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000493967/article/seahawks-jets-and-eagles-among-nfls-most-talented-teams) Packers #8

Ranking the Top 10 Most Talented Rosters in the NFL (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2643878-ranking-the-top-10-most-talented-rosters-in-the-nfl/page/6) Packers #6

Walter Football: NFL Power Rankings (http://walterfootball.com/nflpowerrankings.php) Packers #1


Ranking the 10 LEAST Talented Rosters in the NFL (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2645054-ranking-the-10-least-talented-rosters-in-the-nfl) Packers - conspicuously absent

[vince]

My favorite part about this discussion is the Aaron Rodgers angle. Some believe that Ted Thompson would act the exact same way if we did not have Aaron Rodgers. Do you really believe we'd have exactly this team, except Alex Smith would be our QB? Do you believe our coaches would call the same plays? Do you think we would prepare the same way?

There is no doubt that this team is built completely around Aaron Rodgers. Not only that, it's built around him playing at ridiculous levels.

We've been in the play offs the last 9 years. That in and of itself is success. Winning a super bowl is not something that anyone deserves. It's not something one player would make a difference on. The Patriots went 16-0 and still lost the thing. The Packers went 15-1 and got kicked out of the second round. Things like this happens to all but 1 team every year. Does that mean that there are 31 failures every year? Should 31 coaches be fired? Should 31 personnel guys be kicked because they didn't pick up that mysterious stranger who would of made the difference?

Do you know who won us the super bowl? Jarrett Bush. Let that sink in fellas.

Remember the San Diego Super Chargers and what has become of them since they decided Marty Schottenhiemer couldn't get them over the hump. We would become the laughing stock of the league if we dumped TT and MM. Exactly who do you think would be a replacement that was better? What coach out there has gotten his team to the play offs for nearly a decade straight?

Alright, I'm going back to lurking. Later.
Smeef for Pres. Just changing spots in the draft makes a huge difference. Guys like Ryan Shazier, C.J. Mosely and a whole bunch of other completely unknowable guys would be Packers if they drafted in different order each year. Who knows? The one thing we do know is that the team would look almost completely different had Thompson not drafted Rodgers. Hell, the whole Favre scenario gets turned completely upside-down.

Now we're entering twilight zone territory with irrelevant hypothetical speculation...

[hoosier]

1. You forgot one pretty important position.
2. If you objectively assess the depth and level of talent in similar fashion of all other teams in the league throughout their respective rosters and compare them to one another, I'm very confident "better than average" looks like a serious understatement.

I left that one position out because I figured the real disagreement is about whether Teddy has done "enough" in building a supporting roster, building around ARod. I don't follow other teams enough to know who's on what roster and whether or not they're any good. I can tell you that Seattle has a great secondary when healthy but had no idea whether or not anyone is prepared to step in if Thomas were to break his leg.

[pbmax]

Smeef for Pres. Just changing spots in the draft makes a huge difference. Guys like Ryan Shazier, C.J. Mosely and a whole bunch of other completely unknowable guys would be Packers if they drafted in different order each year. Who knows? The one thing we do know is that the team would look almost completely different had Thompson not drafted Rodgers. Hell, the whole Favre scenario gets turned completely upside-down.

Now we're entering twilight zone territory with irrelevant hypothetical speculation...

One thing about Ted's approach to coaching and Smeefers mention of Marty Schottenheimer.

Stability is a good thing, but inertia might be your enemy. If Marty had made methodical progress as a HC to overcome his conservative game management (and reflexive, abrupt and not well considered attempts to mix things up) he would likely have had more playoff success.

I am not sure how much of this is Ted, but McCarthy has changed things up and leaned new tricks. It has made him a better coach. This year, with a Defense on the fritz, he has even taken to valuing first downs well into his 4 minute offense.

Like the Steelers approach, keeping a good coach and making him a better one is the mark of a franchise that will continue to be successful.

[Carolina_Packer]

I'll call BS on this. Nobody wants the outcome of Jairus Byrd, but opening day of free agency this is exactly what the #neverTT crowd is howling for. A big cap casualty star from another team. When Ted grabs an unknown journeyman or a cut player like Peppers/Cook it seemingly does nothing to temper the tightwad ted criticism.

The very idea that Cook, a guy Ted signed and who proved to be under-valued, is indicative that there are even more under-valued gems to be discovered is based in what exactly? The value of any player is based on the interest of 32 GMs. To land an under-valued player at all you need to out perform other GMs. To speculate that there is a significant pool of Jared Cook level veteran difference makers that represent great value and a good fit seems like a fantasy but even given that such a pool exists to expect Ted to collect these under-valued veterans is to ask him to outperform all other GMs with regards to each one of them.

I think there is a form of mistaking correlation for causation here. Ted's infrequent attempts but consistent success in free agency does not mean free agents by nature are successful and this could be scaled up with more attempts. A criticism to be taken seriously would be one that dealt with opportunity costs. For instance an example of resigning of his own free agent who would have been better to cut loose in favor of another specific free agent.

I'm sure you are right that there are some on the board who would support a "day one of free agent, lots of guaranteed money" type of signing. I don't happen to be one of them. I mostly agree with the approach taken, and how could you not argue with the results overall since TT/MM have been in charge; many good points also made by Smeefers.

My point is that I would be in favor of looking for more veteran free agents to sprinkle into the mix; ones that do not come with a lot of guaranteed money, and could prove their fit with the team, and then be rewarded. I'm not saying I know from year to year if there are a pool of those types of players. I don't know whether TT and Co. considers guys who would fall into this category, who end up getting one year deals, and then prove their worth, ala Cook. Obviously there would only be certain positions you would go after, as well. For instance, Brandon Boykin signed with the Bears for basically one year at about the minimum, and we kept Demetri Goodson who has yet to show that he looks comfortable playing in the scheme. I'm not arguing for Boykin, I'm just saying if guys like him who have showed they can already play are available to provide depth instead of a guy like Demetri Goodson who has yet to have it click for him, why not have that be your depth instead? I'd feel much better putting a guy like Boykin in as an injury replacement. If guys like Boykin are available year to year and TT just shows little or no interest, then he'll never know if he can find someone to help make a difference. I would take my chances with a Brandon Boykin type (experience/reasonable money) vs. someone like Demetri Goodson who is clearly a project.

I also like the point that some guys would do better when joined with some of our existing talent and coaching staff.

[Fritz]

One thing about Ted's approach to coaching and Smeefers mention of Marty Schottenheimer.

Stability is a good thing, but inertia might be your enemy. If Marty had made methodical progress as a HC to overcome his conservative game management (and reflexive, abrupt and not well considered attempts to mix things up) he would likely have had more playoff success.

I am not sure how much of this is Ted, but McCarthy has changed things up and leaned new tricks. It has made him a better coach. This year, with a Defense on the fritz, he has even taken to valuing first downs well into his 4 minute offense.

Like the Steelers approach, keeping a good coach and making him a better one is the mark of a franchise that will continue to be successful.

This defense in not "on the fritz." It might be on The Fritz's mom, though.

I thought MM called a masterful game right up until that second run at the end, that loss of four. I wanted, very badly, for that to be a play fake and for Rodgers to hit a ten-yarder and keep the drive and the clock moving.

[pbmax]

This defense in not "on the fritz." It might be on The Fritz's mom, though.

I thought MM called a masterful game right up until that second run at the end, that loss of four. I wanted, very badly, for that to be a play fake and for Rodgers to hit a ten-yarder and keep the drive and the clock moving.

If he had hit a 3 yarder, would have made odds of winning game better. That one hurt.

[texaspackerbacker]

My take on our positional ranking right now (after injuries) vrs the league for the season. This will handicap teds work as we are pretty beat up in a few areas.
QB - top 5
OL - top 5
Rb - top 15
WR - top 10
TE - Top 10
DL - top 15
ILB - top 25
OLB top 20
CB- Top 30 (maybe)
S - top 10 (assuming burnett plays, top 20 if not)
K- top 5
P - top 20
KR- top 15
PR - top 15
Gunner - Top 20

So out of the ten main position groupings, after injuries, we have 6 above average, 4 below average. My rankings are a combuination of who would I rather have and Football outsiders and pro football focus rankings.
To me, this means we are at the least, after injuries, still above average.

That's a pretty fair assessment. I'd say you are a little to the good side at DL and a little to the low side on OLB but all in all, fairly close. That spells average or maybe slightly above. Furthermore, I would say the receivers and O Line are only as high as they are because of the way Aaron Rodgers plays.

[vince]

If he had hit a 3 yarder, would have made odds of winning game better. That one hurt.
That one did NOT hurt. It helped them WIN THE GAME.

A successful three-yard (or ten-yard) pass would also have helped, but carried the added cost of putting the Cowboys in FAR BETTER position to win the game if the pass were defended or dropped as Richard Rodgers had done just two plays earlier.

To assume a hypothetical pass play would have been successful as justification against the actual play that was successful despite losing yardage is ridiculous.

[vince]

How some people can watch the reality of overwhelming success but somehow rationalize failure in their mind is a real mystery to me - both in terms of coaching and general management.

As JH says in the thread title, "...fans who live in fantasy"

[pbmax]

That one did NOT hurt. It helped them WIN THE GAME.

A successful three-yard (or ten-yard) pass would also have helped, but carried the added cost of putting the Cowboys in FAR BETTER position to win the game if the pass were defended or dropped as Richard Rodgers had done just two plays earlier.

To assume a hypothetical pass play would have been successful as justification against the actual play that was successful despite losing yardage is ridiculous.

You are assuming a 56 yard FG attempt is a probable make. I think its about 50% for Mase this year. Its 56.7% for the League in 2016.

[pbmax]

How some people can watch the reality of overwhelming success but somehow rationalize failure in their mind is a real mystery to me - both in terms of coaching and general management.

As JH says in the thread title, "...fans who live in fantasy"

For his career, Mason Crosby is 28 of 54 from 50 and beyond. If you told McCarthy he was going to lose 5 yards at the 34 yard line, he would have changed the play.

That is 51.8 percent success.

[vince]

You are assuming a 56 yard FG attempt is a probably make. I think its about 50% for Mase this year. Its 56.7% for the League in 2016.
Obviously McCarthy would have preferred yard gainage over Spriggs' whiff. But that's fanboy after-the-fact second-guessing.

McCarthy's finger on the pulse of his team and confidence in his guy in this situation was well placed and correct. Indoor stadium, no wind, plenty of leg, very consistent year, brimming with confidence, etc., etc. Your lack thereof based on past percentages going back many years in a wide variety of situations proved to be wrong and out of touch. Maintaining you were right after the facts prove the opposite is very hard to understand - the height of stubbornness perhaps...

P.S. - perhaps it was just this kind of belief, confidence and overall approach from McCarthy had some role in inspiring Crosby's confidence and methodical success in nailing three consecutive clutch kicks from 50+. The stats you cite would indicate that being VERY unlikely but Crosby was, in fact, money - repeatedly - in that environment, time, and situation. Crosby did it of course, but his coach was absolutely right in believing he would.

[hoosier]

Obviously McCarthy would have preferred yard gainage over Spriggs' whiff. But that's fanboy after-the-fact second-guessing.

McCarthy's finger on the pulse of his team and confidence in his guy in this situation was well placed and correct. Indoor stadium, no wind, plenty of leg, very consistent year, brimming with confidence, etc., etc. Your lack thereof based on past percentages going back many years in a wide variety of situations proved to be wrong and out of touch. Maintaining you were right after the facts prove the opposite is very hard to understand - the height of stubbornness perhaps...

P.S. - perhaps it was just this kind of belief, confidence and overall approach from McCarthy had some role in inspiring Crosby's confidence and methodical success in nailing three consecutive clutch kicks from 50+. The stats you cite would indicate that being VERY unlikely but Crosby was, in fact, money - repeatedly - in that environment, time, and situation. Crosby did it of course, but his coach was absolutely right in believing he would.

One could just as easily say that you are thinking like a results merchant. Just because the end result was good doesn't mean that the chain of decisions that led up to it was the percentage play. In this particular case things worked out, but what would we be thinking if Dallas had marched down the field and scored a TD or if the game had gone to OT?

[pbmax]

I would not be happy about the D surrendering a TD, but I could understand the loss if the Packers did everything to drain clock and score points.

But getting to the edge of FG range and running wide with a front that telegraphs run is not my idea of efficient play calling. If it was the old U71 then it has a history of success and positive yards. The current Packers run wide at their own risk these days.

I actually think this was a ballsy call, because while I have not looked at the play again since the game, I bet if Spriggs had deflected that DE, the edge of the field was wide open except for a CB being blocked by a WR. With one more block, it might spring. But the downside was potentially huge.

I actually like the call much better from the 25, where a loss of a few yards probably doesn't affect the kick.

I guess my prescription then is run normal offense with passes even late when tied and on edge of FG range.

[vince]

One could just as easily say that you are thinking like a results merchant. Just because the end result was good doesn't mean that the chain of decisions that led up to it was the percentage play. In this particular case things worked out, but what would we be thinking if Dallas had marched down the field and scored a TD or if the game had gone to OT?
Thank you. Results are real - and what matters. Saying, "Had the results been different, I'd have been right. Therefore, I am right." is not based in reality.

The results McCarthy has achieved successfully finishing games at the world's highest level of this sport - more effective than every other play-caller in the last six years - are also real.

Yet people continue to insist that, "If he wasn't so effective, he'd be ineffective. Therefore, he sucks in those situations." or, "Man. He was ALMOST ineffective if I cherry-pick the two plays that didn't "work" (according to my definition) and divine some non-real greater success in those plays (or non-real subsequent failure "averted") with an alternative strategy. Therefore, he sucks - despite the fact that he's actually proven to be the league's most effective at driving the desired results in those situations."

Regarding your hypothetical failure scenario, hoosier, isn't it ironic that none of the Stubby Crew recognizes (I won't say "understands" because in most cases I know better) that - in reality - that's EXACTLY the scenario that McCarthy helped avoid with his approach in that situation?

It could have happened (but didn't thanks to the significant impact McCarthy's play selection actually had on offsetting those possibilities), therefore McCarthy doesn't know how to deal with that situation/can't "think on the fly" I believe he was characterized/etc., etc.

Or, "It happened in Seattle and I'll choose to ignore the other 110 similar situations which had a different result, therefore he's incompetent."

Surely people can see the futility in that kind of logic, no?

McCarthy's consistent success thinking on the fly, at times against "percentages" is, in reality, a significant strength and a foundation of this team's confidence, togetherness, momentum, achievement, etc. The actual results of this game - combined with his entire history of elite success - demonstrate that. That's reality and those are the results he takes to the bank - despite the second-guessing fantasy crew.

[vince]

I would not be happy about the D surrendering a TD, but I could understand the loss if the Packers did everything to drain clock and score points.

But getting to the edge of FG range and running wide with a front that telegraphs run is not my idea of efficient play calling. If it was the old U71 then it has a history of success and positive yards. The current Packers run wide at their own risk these days.

I actually think this was a ballsy call, because while I have not looked at the play again since the game, I bet if Spriggs had deflected that DE, the edge of the field was wide open except for a CB being blocked by a WR. With one more block, it might spring. But the downside was potentially huge.

I actually like the call much better from the 25, where a loss of a few yards probably doesn't affect the kick.

I guess my prescription then is run normal offense with passes even late when tied and on edge of FG range.
I won't speculate on the reason for your continued blind spot here PB, but the downside was mitigated by the play call despite the "downward" outcome of the individual play. The larger downside of attempting a pass play it in that situation can only be mitigated by refusing to acknowledge its existence.

Also, it can't be any more clear given the actual results that the loss of a few yards in that situation didn't "affect the kick" as your revisionism suggests.

[hoosier]

Spriggs's whiff was only part of what failed on that play. Taylor got driven into the backfield by McClain like he was on skates, and if Lawrence hadn't blown the play up then McClain might well have. Ripkowski also missed his block on Wilber. The way things develop, it really does look like most of the defense knows the play is going to the left.

https://s27.postimg.org/i0007awk3/image.png
https://s23.postimg.org/4y0mnc39n/image.png

[hoosier]

Results are real, yes, but because decisions do not have predetermined outcomes I think one needs to consider percentages when evaluating a given decision.

[Maxie the Taxi]

"Hindsight" drives a "Stubby woulda coulda shoulda" argument after a Packer loss.

"Actual Results" drive an "MM can do no wrong" argument after a Packer win.

:bang:

[hoosier]

"Hindsight" drives a "Stubby woulda coulda shoulda" argument after a Packer loss.

"Actual Results" drive an "MM can do no wrong" argument after a Packer win.

:bang:

Why don't you go ponder some graphs....

[vince]

Actual results should drive an "Mm achieved these results and here's why" analysis. Not an " if the results were different he would have screwed up" fantasy analysis.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Why don't you go ponder some graphs....I just thought you ought to know that you're interpreting those pictures above all wrong. LOL

[pbmax]

I won't speculate on the reason for your continued blind spot here PB, but the downside was mitigated by the play call despite the "downward" outcome of the individual play. The larger downside of attempting a pass play it in that situation can only be mitigated by refusing to acknowledge its existence.

Also, it can't be any more clear given the actual results that the loss of a few yards in that situation didn't "affect the kick" as your revisionism suggests.

This is why I prefer to look at this with numbers. With a 50-55% chance of a FG, I would love to know the relative risk of the choices between a 51 yard FD (kneeling), a 56 yard FG (run wide left) or a play action pass.

I think you have done a very good job of explicating the risk of a pass here. I think its easy to figure out a FG here is no sure thing and a 5 yard longer FG is a worse option. But this is only the risk side of the equation. We don't know the upside of a completion, the likelihood of it being made multiplied by its effect on the game situation.

[hoosier]

I just thought you ought to know that you're interpreting those pictures above all wrong. LOL

No doubt, I must be looking on the wrong side of that blue line.

[pbmax]

Actual results should drive an "Mm achieved these results and here's why" analysis. Not an " if the results were different he would have screwed up" fantasy analysis.

I believe the Packers roster is Top 5 in the League. I think McCarthy is Top 7 in coaching. I think both of these can be easily defended. You could easily argue Ted for Top 3 and M3 for Top 5, though you would get more resistance. But I think even consensus would grant that this combination in a franchise yields a team that should be Top 4 in overall performance. Any single year can go bad, but over the course of five years the team should outperform the vast majority of the League.

I have two critiques of McCarthy through observation. One, is his limiting of his own offensive options in a game to the game plan. Normally, this makes sense, as why risk running plays you have not practiced? However, in games where you zigged and the opponent zagged, your plan has to go out of the window. It goes mainly for offense, but has also happened to the defense. This is most obvious when facing a very good team (Seattle, Giants) but I think you can see it against lesser competition too (happens versus Schwartz and Lovie quite a bit). So while strength of the opponent affects this pattern, I don't think it causes it.

There are good reasons that he sticks to this plan and is called Stubby, in part, because of it. He has seen bad teams flail and try to throw everything at a wall in order to find something positive while in a panic. He has seen teams do this just to get the press of their backs. He doesn't want that, neither do I. By and large, this works for 90-95% of the games and gives his talent rich team the best way to leverage their talent. But matchups matter in the NFL, other teams are close to your talent level, and players have limitations in executing against there good players. Sometimes the best laid plan needs to be tossed in the trashcan. Best example of all time is the Fail Mary game.

Second critique is that he relies on single dimensional (this is likely the wrong mathematical convention, but I hope it makes itself clear) analysis about how to close out and win games. He knows that winning teams run more at the end of games. He knows that total attempts and APC don't matter as much as limiting possession and time later in a game. You can infer this from looking at lists of winning team traits and their late game performances.

But it ignores lost opportunity (in most cases, running means less scoring), lost field position, telegraphing the run and the odd fact that Capers D seems incapably of making a good team work hard during a 2 minute drive. They just don't play zone well, and surrender the boundary too often for clock stoppages.

Now I will be dead honest. The last time we ran numbers on this, I was surprised at the team's success in close games with leads. So it could be that playoff woes and easily memorable reg season losses have colored the second critique of McCarthy.

But they are much closer to average when they trail, not in the Top 5 at all. Even this is not a slam dunk as they are still better than average AND have very few games in which they trail (fewest aside from NE).

So I agree with his approach almost all of the time. But still think the approach in each situation can be improved. I would have a hard time telling you how to fix game planning. But I think end of game situations is more obvious.

I am not nitpicking about McCarthy's large body of success, I want modifications to it so that it works even better. NE level better.

[Maxie the Taxi]

No doubt, I must be looking on the wrong side of that blue line.Yes! Often what you don't see is far more important than what you do see. :idea:

[vince]

This is why I prefer to look at this with numbers. With a 50-55% chance of a FG, I would love to know the relative risk of the choices between a 51 yard FD (kneeling), a 56 yard FG (run wide left) or a play action pass.

I think you have done a very good job of explicating the risk of a pass here. I think its easy to figure out a FG here is no sure thing and a 5 yard longer FG is a worse option. But this is only the risk side of the equation. We don't know the upside of a completion, the likelihood of it being made multiplied by its effect on the game situation.
Just as a 5-yard (or more) longer field goal would be in the event of a blind-side sack on a pass play, the downside possibility of which you ignore in your hypothetical guaranteed-to-succeed alternative.

[hoosier]

Yes! Often what you don't see is far more important than what you do see. :idea:

Or, to paraphrase Poe, often what you don't see is sitting there right in front of your eyes. :!:

[Maxie the Taxi]

Or, to paraphrase Poe, often what you don't see is sitting there right in front of your eyes. :!:Or, to paraphrase Marx, either this horse is dead or my watch has stopped. :beat:

[vince]

.
I believe the Packers roster is Top 5 in the League. I think McCarthy is Top 7 in coaching. I think both of these can be easily defended. You could easily argue Ted for Top 3 and M3 for Top 5, though you would get more resistance. But I think even consensus would grant that this combination in a franchise yields a team that should be Top 4 in overall performance. Any single year can go bad, but over the course of five years the team should outperform the vast majority of the League.

As they have.

I have two critiques of McCarthy through observation. One, is his limiting of his own offensive options in a game to the game plan. Normally, this makes sense, as why risk running plays you have not practiced? However, in games where you zigged and the opponent zagged, your plan has to go out of the window. It goes mainly for offense, but has also happened to the defense. This is most obvious when facing a very good team (Seattle, Giants) but I think you can see it against lesser competition too (happens versus Schwartz and Lovie quite a bit). So while strength of the opponent affects this pattern, I don't think it causes it.

I don't buy this at all. What evidence do you have to assert that he limits his game plan, play selection and/or in-game adjustments more than other coaches? Assuming he does, how has that played out to the team's detriment when his results demonstrate that since 2011, the Packers have the 3rd best record vs. playoff teams in the league? That's 100% fantasyland IMO.

There are good reasons that he sticks to this plan and is called Stubby, in part, because of it. He has seen bad teams flail and try to throw everything at a wall in order to find something positive while in a panic. He has seen teams do this just to get the press of their backs. He doesn't want that, neither do I. By and large, this works for 90-95% of the games and gives his talent rich team the best way to leverage their talent. But matchups matter in the NFL, other teams are close to your talent level, and players have limitations in executing against there good players. Sometimes the best laid plan needs to be tossed in the trashcan. Best example of all time is the Fail Mary game.

Again, his teams are elite in performing against the league's best teams. You use a selection set of 1 game from 4 years ago as evidence supporting such a general conclusion today? Look no further than the Giants game 2 weeks ago to find evidence supporting the opposite conclusion.

Second critique is that he relies on single dimensional (this is likely the wrong mathematical convention, but I hope it makes itself clear) analysis about how to close out and win games. He knows that winning teams run more at the end of games. He knows that total attempts and APC don't matter as much as limiting possession and time later in a game. You can infer this from looking at lists of winning team traits and their late game performances.

But it ignores lost opportunity (in most cases, running means less scoring), lost field position, telegraphing the run and the odd fact that Capers D seems incapably of making a good team work hard during a 2 minute drive. They just don't play zone well, and surrender the boundary too often for clock stoppages.

You assert that he ignores the upside of higher risk/reward options late in games because he doesn't choose to use them in situations when you think he should?

McCarthy doesn't ignore any of that. He takes all of that into account, as well as a full assessment of other options that are higher risk/higher reward and considers how all three phases of the game come together/leverage each other to achieve a winning outcome. It's why he's one of, if not the best finishers in the game in spite of the historical weakness of his defense. He takes action to force the clock to run and/or force the opponent to spend their ability to stop the clock in order to protect his defense as much as possible. Your suggestion/belief that he should be higher risk/higher reward with leads late in games and doesn't properly consider such options is simply misguided. The outcomes from play-to-play are not always perfect, but whatever he's done has been more successful than every other coach/play-caller in the league over the last six years.

Now I will be dead honest. The last time we ran numbers on this, I was surprised at the team's success in close games with leads. So it could be that playoff woes and easily memorable reg season losses have colored the second critique of McCarthy.

But they are much closer to average when they trail, not in the Top 5 at all. Even this is not a slam dunk as they are still better than average AND have very few games in which they trail (fewest aside from NE).

The Packers are 6th best in the league in winning % when trailing going into the 4th quarter since 2011 - 1/1000th of a percentage point behind #5 Arizona - not anywhere remotely close to average but VERY close to Top 5.

So I agree with his approach almost all of the time. But still think the approach in each situation can be improved. I would have a hard time telling you how to fix game planning. But I think end of game situations is more obvious.

Game planning doesn't need to be "fixed" nor do end of game situations. Results indicate he's elite performing in both areas.

I am not nitpicking about McCarthy's large body of success, I want modifications to it so that it works even better. NE level better.

His end-of-game situational performance IS "NE level better". Since 2011, it's better than NE level (by a small margin). It's been the absolute best in the league. You really think if he'd just listen to your critique/advice he'd be perfect?

[pbmax]

.

I don't buy this at all. What evidence do you have to assert that he limits his game plan, play selection and/or in-game adjustments more than other coaches? Assuming he does, how has that played out to the team's detriment when his results demonstrate that since 2011, the Packers have the 3rd best record vs. playoff teams in the league? That's 100% fantasyland IMO.



On numerous occasions he has dumped on the idea of dumping his prep work and game plan for the week and calling things not on the play sheet when the offense is in a funk.

He has commented on this when failing to adjust to give Tackles help with chips on pass protection.

He has sheepishly admitted that he HAD to call plays they did not plan on during game situations they did not plan for. Specifically, recall the lack of a 2 point play versus the Cardinals because his one 2 point play he liked required 3 receivers and Janis was hurt.

Running an offense without the plan would be foolish indeed. With his talent advantage, he would be an idiot not to try to impose their will on other teams. However, there are times when your plan doesn't work and you must dump it. If you have fallen well behind (think Panthers in 2015) you need to do it before the 4th quarter.

This is a very admirable trait taken to an extreme.

[bobblehead]

It's amazing that the Packers get their greatest win since the Super Bowl and some fans still can't help but rip play-calling and player acquisition.

Since the Packers won the Super Bowl, they are the league's BEST team successfully finishing games with a fourth quarter lead - THE BEST.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=career&year_min=2011&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_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

McCarthy knows what he's doing finishing games. That's a proven fact.

I only questioned 2 play calls this game. Both the runs into the teeth of a D that was stacked to cause a loss and a 56 yard FG that my dead grandma knew were coming. I am overall a fan of MM and have defended him (to quote trump) "very bigly' in the past. The man likes to start counting possessions and playing a soft D too often. As for the stat...well, stats can be manipulated. And any stat showing you are good at something like winning with a lead and the best QB in the game can be misleading.

MM is a great game planner (when his head is in it...like week 8 to the end of the season). He is very good at developing players. He is very good at keeping his team on an even emotional keel. He is good at sticking with a player through a rough patch....he sucks at sticking with a bad player he likes.

[pbmax]

.
McCarthy doesn't ignore any of that. He takes all of that into account, as well as a full assessment of other options that are higher risk/higher reward and considers how all three phases of the game come together/leverage each other to achieve a winning outcome. It's why he's one of, if not the best finishers in the game in spite of the historical weakness of his defense.


He gets some blame for the defense first of all. He's not Assistant Head Coach for Offense.

But mainly he gets the blame for playing for late leads with FGs too often. Far too often he bleeds the clock, gets a FG and sees the opponent march in TD territory. It cannot be news to him that his Defense is capable of folding under those circumstances. Even if Ted and Dom have betrayed Mike the Offensive Playcaller, his job as McCarthy the Head Coach is to take that into account.

[pbmax]

In a way, that 2 point play in Arizona might crystalize the issue with McCarthy. If the play he needs isn't on the play sheet, he changes his game strategy.

That is ass backwards.

[bobblehead]

Why not both? TT is a top10 GM. Probably top5. AR is top1.

TT is absolutely top 5. He has spawned more successful GM's then anyone else in the NFL.

[bobblehead]

. However, what we are learning from Jared Cook is that he can still play and the team has gotten a nice look at him. I think there may be other under-valued gems like this that can help in the short-term while having a chance to prove a more long-term worth to the team. If that takes a roster spot from a college free agent, well, a number of them churn and burn the bottom of the roster every year anyway.

If it takes the spot of Gunther or Shields??

"Gems TT has signed"

Cook, Guion, Peppers are all very effective players TT has signed in recent years. Early on he signed Woodson and Pickett. I could go on with the Anthony Hargroves of the NFL. Early on TT whiffed with a lot of those types of guys and fans were all over him to sign marquee FA's instead of those crappy veterans.

I'm not good at the unrestricted college kids, but Tramon, Shields, Gunther, Allison, Elliot, Zombo all come to mind immediately as guys who were effective and a net benefit.

[bobblehead]

That run that Spriggs whiffed on was unsuccessful in gaining yards. It was successful in keeping them within field goal range and it forced Dallas to use their second timeout which was most important.

Having only one timeout left on Dallas' final drive helped the defense out by making it risky to use the middle of the field without a timeout to spare besides the one they would need to keep in their back pocket to make sure they can stop the clock to get the field goal team on the field.

Dallas did use the middle of the field to drive rather quickly down the field. BUT that run which protected the opportunity for the go-ahead field goal ALSO helped the defense just enough by forcing Dak to spike the ball on the last first down rather than take the time out they needed to save, which wasted what turned out to be a very important down for them and allowed just enough time on the clock for the Packers to secure the win.

That's what we know. Some hypothetical alternative to that success is nothing but hot air.

Kept us in FG range?? A 56 yarder is hardly the way I want to sew the game up. He owes Crosby a handy at minimum!

Edit:...I'm actually not done yet. Needed a 56 yard and 51 yard FG to be successful, and needed Rodgers to complete a ridiculous pass for a huge chunk of yards down the sideline. Did it work? Sure, but I guess you could say Pete Carroll was flawless in the NFCC against us because his team covered the onside kick.

[vince]

He gets some blame for the defense first of all. He's not Assistant Head Coach for Offense.

But mainly he gets the blame for playing for late leads with FGs too often. Far too often he bleeds the clock, gets a FG and sees the opponent march in TD territory. It cannot be news to him that his Defense is capable of folding under those circumstances. Even if Ted and Dom have betrayed Mike the Offensive Playcaller, his job as McCarthy the Head Coach is to take that into account.
I'm gonna stop because we're going in circles. Once again, your premise is wrong.

You don't blame success. The fact that you're defining success as finishing a game farther ahead in the score than you went into the 4th quarter doesn't make that definition hold for the rest of the universe. They count wins - not 4th quarter wins.

I can only state the reality that he's the single most effective coach/play-caller at successfully finishing games with a 4th quarter lead so many times before recognizing that you're deadset on ignoring that fact in order to maintain a position of second-guessing him by ignoring half of the risk/reward equation in your hypothetical scenarios and steadfastly arguing about why he's a failure in the very area in which he in fact has achieved the greatest success in the league.

[pbmax]

OK, going to put these in here and then parse them later.

In multiple seasons, from 2006 to 2016, only in games where team had a lead at some point in the game, requiring Points Differential <= 7, sorted by most games matching criteria. (http://pfref.com/tiny/RXz3n)
Packers 8th in win%

In multiple seasons, from 2006 to 2016, only in games where team trailed at some point in the game, requiring Points Differential <= 7, sorted by most games matching criteria (http://pfref.com/tiny/cqwRl)
Packers 8th in win%

In multiple seasons, from 2006 to 2016, requiring Points Differential <= 7, sorted by most games matching criteria (http://pfref.com/tiny/rNDdR)
Packers 4th in win%

In multiple seasons, from 2006 to 2016, only in games where team had a lead at some point in the game, only in games where team trailed at some point in the game, requiring Points Differential <= 7, sorted by most games matching criteria (http://pfref.com/tiny/fHWyz)
Packers 14th in win%

[bobblehead]

The key question to ask is what would the Packers be like without Aaron Rodgers - or if he was merely a good QB instead of as great as he is? I'm not talking Cutler quality, but let's say maybe Eli Manning or Alex Smith, like that. My answer would be that looking down the rest of the roster, we'd have a pretty bad team - overall, worse that just about anybody else you can name. THAT tells the tale about Ted Thompson. Anybody disagree?

WE also would have drafted several spots higher in every single round of every single draft the last 10 years. Anybody disagree?

And I would disagree at how bad we would be. Its completely unkown who we would have at QB, but I suspect with MM's ability to develop a QB it would be someone above average.

I'll also say take Brady from Belligenius or Ryan from quinn, or Rothlesburger from Tomlin, or any starting QB from any NFCC or AFCC team and see what happens.

[pbmax]

I'm gonna stop because we're going in circles. Once again, your premise is wrong.

You don't blame success. The fact that you're defining success as finishing a game farther ahead in the score than you went into the 4th quarter doesn't make that definition hold for the rest of the universe.

I can only state the reality that he's the single most effective coach/play-caller at successfully finishing games with a 4th quarter lead so many times before recognizing that you're deadset on ignoring that fact in order to maintain a position of second-guessing him by ignoring half of the risk/reward equation in your hypothetical scenarios and steadfastly arguing about why he's a failure in the very area in which he in fact has achieved the greatest success in the league.

Blame success? Most success includes some failures along the way. I am looking for ways to improve on that mix. I take it as a given only that improvement can be had. I do not believe I definitely know what should be done. For all I know, I might be barking up the wrong forest.

If its just a fourth quarter lead we are looking at, then the Packers are the 5th best at winning% with a 1 point lead (or more) at the end of the 3rd Quarter.

http://pfref.com/tiny/Tcj46

If I have interpreted your claim wrong, please send the link so I can look at the numbers. One word of caution with Pro Football Reference, while their links go to the right search and data, the search form itself is missing settings. So for instance each link I posted gives data from teams with a lead (or having been behind at one point) but the search form on the page does not indicate it.

[bobblehead]

If so, that QB is out there somewhere now. I certainly don't see another Aaron Rodgers or even close. Without him, we might not be Browns quality - this years team, but we very well might be Bears quality - consistently mediocre. Whether it's bad luck or whatever, with the exception of Rodgers and maybe Clay Matthews, Thompson hasn't drafted any top level players. Look around at other teams; Just about everybody - with a few lame exceptions - has drafted at least a few more than that. It's not even just about hating to sign high level free agents. It's about just barely getting by instead of maximizing things.

Lets play a game. You name the top notch player hoody has drafted and I will match him with TT. You're on the clock.

[Fritz]

He gets some blame for the defense first of all. He's not Assistant Head Coach for Offense.

But mainly he gets the blame for playing for late leads with FGs too often. Far too often he bleeds the clock, gets a FG and sees the opponent march in TD territory. It cannot be news to him that his Defense is capable of folding under those circumstances. Even if Ted and Dom have betrayed Mike the Offensive Playcaller, his job as McCarthy the Head Coach is to take that into account.


I know it's an "even if" statement, but I've been thinking about how many first-round picks TT has invested in this porous defense. There's Clay Matthews, Kenny Clark, Nick Perry, Datone Jones, Damarious Randall, and Ha-H Clinton Dix. That's six first round picks.

He seems to have spent the majority of his recent first round resources on defense. On offense, and I'm doing all this off the top of my head, there's Bulaga, Rodgers, and . . . ? Lots of second and third rounders, but the seemingly most valuable resource, the first rounder, has been spent primarily on defense. Thompson certainly has not shorted that side of the ball in terms of spending resources. As for results...

This leads me to think that maybe one way to make a transition to the next GM would be to allow Ted to choose only players on the offensive side of the ball, and let someone else - anyone else? - draft the defensive side.

I know injuries are an issue for this defense, but even before the onslaught, this wasn't a defense that appeared to be a unit of strength on this team. And now it's like watching that 2011 defense.

[vince]

Kept us in FG range?? A 56 yarder is hardly the way I want to sew the game up. He owes Crosby a handy at minimum!

Edit:...I'm actually not done yet. Needed a 56 yard and 51 yard FG to be successful, and needed Rodgers to complete a ridiculous pass for a huge chunk of yards down the sideline. Did it work? Sure, but I guess you could say Pete Carroll was flawless in the NFCC against us because his team covered the onside kick.Yes, Crosby nailed the field goals - all of them. Equally important to the successful conclusion of this game was the forcing of Dallas to use thier spare timeouts, which made possible the final game-winning drive and a huge playoff upset on the road.

The rest is all here in this thread bobble so I'm done using the reality of success to defend against one-sided fantasy scenarios. Sorry pal.

[pbmax]

I know it's an "even if" statement, but I've been thinking about how many first-round picks TT has invested in this porous defense. There's Clay Matthews, Kenny Clark, Nick Perry, Datone Jones, Damarious Randall, and Ha-H Clinton Dix. That's six first round picks.

He seems to have spent the majority of his recent first round resources on defense. On offense, and I'm doing all this off the top of my head, there's Bulaga, Rodgers, and . . . ? Lots of second and third rounders, but the seemingly most valuable resource, the first rounder, has been spent primarily on defense. Thompson certainly has not shorted that side of the ball in terms of spending resources. As for results...

This leads me to think that maybe one way to make a transition to the next GM would be to allow Ted to choose only players on the offensive side of the ball, and let someone else - anyone else? - draft the defensive side.

I know injuries are an issue for this defense, but even before the onslaught, this wasn't a defense that appeared to be a unit of strength on this team. And now it's like watching that 2011 defense.

In reality, this is what vince and I should be arguing about. The Defense should be better, you would think, given the attention given to it. But its always beat to hell.

We would need to run numbers on draft picks again. It always seems like the top picks go to D, but I bet its closer to even than we remember.

[bobblehead]

My replacement cyborg body and mind transference device beg to differ. However, given current laws, we won't be able to settle the bet until CY-pbmax posts in the 2030s.

And me...I've got tiger blood!

[pbmax]

In reality, I also acknowledge that we are arguing about a very fine line. McCarthy playing for FG probably is, overall, a maximizing win play under 3 minutes. Maybe even 4. Especially if that gives you a 4 point lead or greater.

We are talking about greater aggression on 2-4 play calls a game at most and the Packes usually have a big lead.

And no, to repeat, I don't want to change the coach. if there are 7 other coaching candidates who could do as well as McCarthy I would be surprised. Even more so if the Packers found him.

[bobblehead]

NFL Power Rankings 2016: Examining Super Bowl Favorites Following Preseason (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2661654-nfl-power-rankings-2016-examining-super-bowl-favorites-following-preseason) Packers #3

Preseason Power Rankings (http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17319873/nfl-2016-preseason-power-rankings-seattle-seahawks-arizona-cardinals-top-new-england-patriots-behind) Packers #4

PFF: Ranking the rosters of all 32 NFL teams - 2016 (https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/4mu6ua/pff_ranking_the_rosters_of_all_32_nfl_teams/) Packers #2

Ranking the rosters of all 32 NFL teams - 2015 (http://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/13046017/seattle-seahawks-top-ranking-rosters-all-32-teams-nfl) Packers #2

Ranking the rosters of all 32 NFL teams - 2014 (http://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/13046017/seattle-seahawks-top-ranking-rosters-all-32-teams-nfl) Packers #8

NFL Power Rankings 2016: Early look at where teams stand as OTAs begin (http://www.si.com/nfl/2016/05/25/nfl-offseason-power-rankings-teams-analysis) Packers #8

NFL's most talented teams - 2015 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000493967/article/seahawks-jets-and-eagles-among-nfls-most-talented-teams) Packers #8

Ranking the Top 10 Most Talented Rosters in the NFL (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2643878-ranking-the-top-10-most-talented-rosters-in-the-nfl/page/6) Packers #6

Walter Football: NFL Power Rankings (http://walterfootball.com/nflpowerrankings.php) Packers #1


Ranking the 10 LEAST Talented Rosters in the NFL (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2645054-ranking-the-10-least-talented-rosters-in-the-nfl) Packers - conspicuously absent

I see a pattern. Once we dumped Hawk we improved!!

[Fritz]

I just looked it up. Thompson has used nine first-round picks on defensive players, and three on offensive players. One year he traded back, so he had no first-round pick. He got some guy named Jordy Nelson in the second round.

[bobblehead]

That one did NOT hurt. It helped them WIN THE GAME.

A successful three-yard (or ten-yard) pass would also have helped, but carried the added cost of putting the Cowboys in FAR BETTER position to win the game if the pass were defended or dropped as Richard Rodgers had done just two plays earlier.

To assume a hypothetical pass play would have been successful as justification against the actual play that was successful despite losing yardage is ridiculous.

So, when he lined up for that 56 yarder you were just as confident as if it were a 49 yarder? Would you rather steph curry line up a shot from 15 feet or dunk it?

[bobblehead]

Obviously McCarthy would have preferred yard gainage over Spriggs' whiff. But that's fanboy after-the-fact second-guessing.
.

I disagree. When the entire NFL, kids at home, and millions watching around the world know you are going to run into the teeth of the D twice and then hope AR bails you out on 3rd and 14, its not second guessing. If we are in the exact same scenario v. atlanta and he calls a run, it will lose yards. Why? Because MM has been so predictable in that call for over a decade that guys line up to blow it up. Run a naked bootleg with cobb on the field and releasing just one out of 6 times on second down there and the success of the other 5 goes up immensely. Also, the odds of getting a first on that 1 of 6 is pretty good.

[bobblehead]

Thank you. Results are real - and what matters. Saying, "Had the results been different, I'd have been right. Therefore, I am right." is not based in reality.

.

I was at this party drunk in college and I grabbed this hot chic right between the legs, pushed her to the wall and kissed her. She went home with me. I made the right call....clearly...cuz I got laid.

[pbmax]

I disagree. When the entire NFL, kids at home, and millions watching around the world know you are going to run into the teeth of the D twice and then hope AR bails you out on 3rd and 14, its not second guessing. If we are in the exact same scenario v. atlanta and he calls a run, it will lose yards. Why? Because MM has been so predictable in that call for over a decade that guys line up to blow it up. Run a naked bootleg with cobb on the field and releasing just one out of 6 times on second down there and the success of the other 5 goes up immensely. Also, the odds of getting a first on that 1 of 6 is pretty good.

I do think he has adjusted this year. Much less 8 minute appearances of the 4 minute offense and he has passed more late in games.

But when they got into FG range you could just sense it happening. Not quite the same as Seattle as there was much less time, but still, he was going to run each down.

[Bossman641]

Mccarthy has already adjusted some. We've seen rodgers fake a hand off and run a bootleg 2-3 times now. Does anyone recall him doing that in the past? The one thing I'd like to see him do is use more misdirection when the defense is geared up for a run. He's used it on the bootleg and Janis end around. Fake a dive, sneak cook out from back side, and give rodgers a run/pass option.

[bobblehead]

I do think he has adjusted this year. Much less 8 minute appearances of the 4 minute offense and he has passed more late in games.

But when they got into FG range you could just sense it happening. Not quite the same as Seattle as there was much less time, but still, he was going to run each down.

Agreed. He is better. Thus I only criticized 2 plays. The D did not go into a shell to prevent the big play in the middle of the 3rd Q either. He is getting better. If he would just read our posts the sky is the limit!!

[Zool]

In reality, this is what vince and I should be arguing about. The Defense should be better, you would think, given the attention given to it. But its always beat to hell.

We would need to run numbers on draft picks again. It always seems like the top picks go to D, but I bet its closer to even than we remember.

I'll add Raji and Harrell to the D and Sherrod to the O

[Fritz]

I looked those numbers up. If you go back to Ted's first draft, he had nine first round picks on defense, and three on offense. The year he had two first-rounders, he took Raji and Matthews. The year he had no first rounder, having traded back, he took Jordy Nelson. His three first-round offensive players were Rodgers, Bulaga, and Sherrod.

[vince]

His three first-round offensive players were Rodgers, Bulaga, and Sherrod.
That first one should count as 10.

[pbmax]

That first one should count as 10.

Bulaga should get extra credit too. A less stubborn man may have hung it up a while ago. He's been gimpy all year.

[3irty1]

I think there are kind of two parts to unpack about those running plays. 1) Making the high percentage fieldgoal and favorable clock rundown plan A at the expense of a high percentage first down. 2) the specific play call given the stated goal of a plan A fieldgoal+clock rundown.

I wonder which McCarthy regrets more. 1 seems more defensible/falsifiable because as the game gets shorter and shorter the probabilities more useful. I think its clear that giving the ball to Rodgers is your best shot at a first down but that comes with downsides. I don't know (after accounting for the extent and likelyhood of the possible bad outcomes) whether a pair of incomplete passes that stop the clock or a pair of bad runs that eat clock but leave an even lower percentage field goal is the right move.

[pbmax]

I think there are kind of two parts to unpack about those running plays. 1) Making the high percentage fieldgoal and favorable clock rundown plan A at the expense of a high percentage first down. 2) the specific play call given the stated goal of a plan A fieldgoal+clock rundown.

I wonder which McCarthy regrets more. 1 seems more defensible/falsifiable because as the game gets shorter and shorter the probabilities more useful. I think its clear that giving the ball to Rodgers is your best shot at a first down but that comes with downsides. I don't know (after accounting for the extent and likelyhood of the possible bad outcomes) whether a pair of incomplete passes that stop the clock or a pair of bad runs that eat clock but leave an even lower percentage field goal is the right move.

A better move, regardless of your intention, is to keep a back in the backfield, get under center and let the defense choose whether they want to defend run or pass.

McCarthy likes to game plan to take advantage of his talent over the defense. He sees Seattle in Cover 1 or 3 playing single coverage outside and he wants to throw against it outside (so does Rodgers).

But then he discovers that Seattle knows this yet can shut you down because the talent is not a mismatch as it is against most teams. In fact, Earl Thomas and Sherman might be better at their jobs than your receivers are at theirs. At halftime he junks it and throw short in the middle and scores twice against a good D.

He throws out a heavy formation, or goes two TEs or inverted wishbone and expects to win a run. When the Defense completely commits to stopping that run, good luck. It can be done and you need to prepare for it to be done because there may come a time you need a short yardage win.

But that doesn't make it the best play call. You need to account for the D that you will see. McCarthy knows this because he gives Rodgers reads to get out of a bad play against a certain look. But he ignores it late and gets conservative.


EDIT: Changed this to just conservative in last sentence. He has broadened his approach until later in the game and there are more conservative offenses in this situation.

[bobblehead]

I'll add Raji and Harrell to the D and Sherrod to the O

Who are 3 guys whose careers were cut short by injury Alex?

[Smidgeon]

Who are 3 guys whose careers were cut short by injury Alex?

Raji, injury?

[Bossman641]

Raji, injury?

The year Raji was injured I believe he had some kind of epiphany about there being more to life than football.

[King Friday]

The year Raji was injured I believe he had some kind of epiphany about there being more to life than football.

Weed and Doritos probably do equate to more.

[Smidgeon]

The year Raji was injured I believe he had some kind of epiphany about there being more to life than football.

Still not Harrell or Sherrod territory. Not even the same ballpark.

[woodbuck27]

I completely disagree. TT has shown he knows how to draft a QB when needed. MM has shown to be able to coach up QBs.

We wouldn't be nearly as good at QB but we would be stable. The organization and team are so important in the NFL. Stability and continuity are so important. Look at the 3 best franchises in the last 20 years. PITT, NE and GB have stayed the course and have been rewarded with above average to excellent play for a long stretch. You can say look at their QBs. But we have seen PITT and NE be able to pop QBs in and out of the lineup with success. We had Wallace and Tolzien losing for us but TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back.


"...TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Flynn#Green_Bay_Packers

See the second time around with the Green Bay Packers ( November 12, 2013).

While Matt Flynn was 'plugging the hole' created by the loss of ARod; and just for the record:

the Green Bay Packers went 1W - 2L - 1T (OT).

[ThunderDan]

"...TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Flynn#Green_Bay_Packers

See the second time around with the Green Bay Packers ( November 12, 2013).

While Matt Flynn was 'plugging the hole' created by the loss of ARod; and just for the record:

the Green Bay Packers went 1W - 2L - 1T (OT).
And if you read the next post in the thread i said plugging the hole meant 2-2 or 3-1. So Flynn did half a game worse than what I said. Which was just enough to let us beat CHI in the last game of the year to make the playoffs on an amazing 4th quarter 4th down touchdown pass from ARod to Cobb.

[woodbuck27]

And if you read the next post in the thread i said plugging the hole meant 2-2 or 3-1. So Flynn did half a game worse than what I said. Which was just enough to let us beat CHI in the last game of the year to make the playoffs on an amazing 4th quarter 4th down touchdown pass from ARod to Cobb.

http://mpchristianity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/man-looking-through-binoculars-600x360.jpg

Ohh .... now I see ! :-)

[pbmax]

More numbers to break down later.

Any 3rd or 4th down, 2nd and 4th quarters, 2 yards or less to go (includes play calls largely affected by end of half or game):

http://pfref.com/tiny/o5ndh

Packers are 12/24 or 50%, 12 rush, 12 pass


Any 3rd or 4th, less than 2 yards, 1st and 3rd quarters (eliminates play calls affected by end of half or game):

http://pfref.com/tiny/mQRZB

Packers 17/27, 63%, 17 rush, 10 pass

To make the first number more meaningful, you would have to pull out plays with less than 4 minutes remaining. But 1st and 3rd Quarter numbers give a good idea of what should be possible.