THE SPIKE THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED

[Bretsky]

Maybe I'm breaking things down too much here, but did anybody else take note of the First and 10 Spike Green Bay chose to do with just under a minute left on the 11 yard line on that last drive and wonder why ?

I was at the game; the Rams defense seemed to be off balance and in need of a break; I've also had the theory that with a veteran QB, if the offense has the ability to keep things moving swiftly that results in a greater advantage to the offense as opposed to the defense.

Favre had plenty of time to bring the group up and get a play in and stay in the hurry up offense. I believe he looked over to MM for confirmation to spike the ball, but I'm not positive.

I'd have liked to see them call a play from the sidelines and stay in the hurry up offense.

Again the Rams seemed tired and off balance at the point; we let them regroup and Leonard Little found the energy to knock that dam ball out.

I didn't like that sequence

B

[chewy-bacca]

the fake spike would have been awesome! thats what I was looking for.

[Patler]

Maybe I'm breaking things down too much here, but did anybody else take note of the First and 10 Spike Green Bay chose to do with just under a minute left on the 11 yard line on that last drive and wonder why ?

I was at the game; the Rams defense seemed to be off balance and in need of a break; I've also had the theory that with a veteran QB, if the offense has the ability to keep things moving swiftly that results in a greater advantage to the offense as opposed to the defense.

Favre had plenty of time to bring the group up and get a play in and stay in the hurry up offense. I believe he looked over to MM for confirmation to spike the ball, but I'm not positive.

I'd have liked to see them call a play from the sidelines and stay in the hurry up offense.

Again the Rams seemed tired and off balance at the point; we let them regroup and Leonard Little found the energy to knock that dam ball out.

I didn't like that sequence

B

Initially I did not like it, but as I thought it through, I decided that it was the right thing to do.

You have two rookie guards, a center who is not greatly experienced, a rookie WR, a third receiver who has been there 4 weeks, a fullback (if he was in the game) playing his second game, a RB (either one) without a lot of game experience in the NFL. It was important that everyone was on the same page. Stopping the clock to allow everyone to collect themselves one last time was the right thing to do with an inexperienced offense.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I liked the spike. Get the team collected and on the same page. They had the FG there, and there was no need to rush a play through. Had Favre ran a pass play and there was a mixup in the WR route and he threw a pick, everyone would have said he should have spiked the ball to get the team set.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This is a pro football team. If they can't line-up and toss a pass into the endzone, something is wrong. There was time to run 4 more plays, absolutely no justification to lose a play by spiking in that situation. A pass out of the endzone is as good as a spike, and maybe somebody springs open.

[Bretsky]

I guess the reason I really didn't like the spike is it gave the Rams, and especially their DL, time to regroup and catch their wind. I was at the game and they looked tired and for the most part were not getting a lot of pressure on Favre at the end.

[Partial]

Real question - Do we think that was Favre decision or M3s?

[chewy-bacca]

Plus, they all have play info on the arm, they couldnt send in 2 plays in a row before the spike?

I know its a young team and staff.....maybe next season they can do that. It just seems like they wanna work that no huddle and that was the perfect spot.

[Patler]

This is a pro football team. If they can't line-up and toss a pass into the endzone, something is wrong. There was time to run 4 more plays, absolutely no justification to lose a play by spiking in that situation. A pass out of the endzone is as good as a spike, and maybe somebody springs open.

What you worry about is the team not getting set, not knowing the play, missing a protection or read, running wrong routes and getting the team pushed back by penalty or a sack, or causing an interception because the receiver ran one route when Favre expected another.

The offensive team of 3 or 4 years ago would probably have had no problem running a play. They were well experienced in Sherman's offense and the pro game. Yesterday, there were simply too many neophytes to the NFL and/or the Packers. besides, the offense is new to everyone..

[Patler]

Besides, if they didn't get everyone set, Tauscher might not have been ready for one last effort from Leonard Little, Tony Moll may have been late picking up a stunting DT, Favre could have been hit and fumbled....oh...wait.....NEVER MIND! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[Harlan Huckleby]

What you worry about is the team not getting set, not knowing the play, missing a protection or read, running wrong routes and getting the team pushed back by penalty or a sack,

All you need to worry about is the first point: getting set. It's obviously a passing situation, the offensive linemen just need to pass block for a minimal time. Favre just throws the ball out of endzone if any unpleasant scenerios develop.

[chewy-bacca]

Besides, if they didn't get everyone set, Tauscher might not have been ready for one last effort from Leonard Little, Tony Moll may have been late picking up a stunting DT, Favre could have been hit and fumbled....oh...wait.....NEVER MIND! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

and thats the bottom line! :lol:

[Patler]

What you worry about is the team not getting set, not knowing the play, missing a protection or read, running wrong routes and getting the team pushed back by penalty or a sack,

All you need to worry about is the first point: getting set. It's obviously a passing situation, the offensive linemen just need to pass block for a minimal time. Favre just throws the ball out of endzone if any unpleasant scenerios develop.

What you aren't recognizing is that the QB may release the ball before he realizes the receiver and he weren't on the same page. While its not rocket science, todays pro game is not as simple as you make it out to be.

The previous play had been second and 2 from the 20. They probably had one or 2 plays called before that one to use incase 2nd down hadn't picked up the first down. These were probably plays designed to get the first down and get out of bounds. I doubt they were TD shots for 3rd and 2 or 4th and 2 from the 20. What they wanted to call from the 11 was possibly quite different, and they may have even wanted one or two different players. Big bodied TEs are good in close, less so from the 20.

The Packers should still have had two decent chances for a TD, with everyone knowing exactly what they were doing on both plays.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What you aren't recognizing is that the QB may release the ball before he realizes the receiver and he weren't on the same page. While its not rocket science, todays pro game is not as simple as you make it out to be.

This is an arguement to never run a no-huddle offense. "It's too hard."


The Packers should still have had two decent chances for a TD, with everyone knowing exactly what they were doing on both plays.

They would have STILL had those two decent chances, with clock stopped, if they had first thrown a ball safely out of endzone. And they wouldn't have needed those chances if they caught a break with an open receiver.

[MadtownPacker]

Well after seeing it all playout I have to agree that a fake spike would have been this best way to go. Momentum was on the Packs side and the Rams where not stopping anyone.

[Patler]

What you aren't recognizing is that the QB may release the ball before he realizes the receiver and he weren't on the same page. While its not rocket science, todays pro game is not as simple as you make it out to be.

This is an arguement to never run a no-huddle offense. "It's too hard."


Of course its not. This was a crucial time. They had time and downs to try and make sure everyone was thinking the same. But this was it, their last chance. Spiking was the smart thing to do. As somone else pointed out, if the next play had occured exactly as it did, with Favre fumbling, everyone would have sreamed that they had a down to waste, they could have spiked the ball to make sure everyone knew what they were doing, the fumble wouldn't have happened, etc. etc.


But no point in beating this dead horse any further. You will not convince me that it was wrong, nor will I convince you that it was correct.

[OS PA]

Did anybody else notice that about 3 seconds after he fumbled Favre was driven to the ground pretty hard? Is this still considered roughing the quarterback? Or do you have every right to tackle the person who fumbled?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Of course its not. This was a crucial time. They had time and downs to try and make sure everyone was thinking the same. But this was it, their last chance. Spiking was the smart thing to do. As somone else pointed out, if the next play had occured exactly as it did, with Favre fumbling, everyone would have sreamed that they had a down to waste, they could have spiked the ball to make sure everyone knew what they were doing, the fumble wouldn't have happened, etc. etc.

what you are missing is that throwing the ball out of the endzone is equivalent to spiking.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I didn't agree with the spike. I said so during the game. However, it had ZERO affect on the outcome of the game. I wouldn't have spiked it, but it's not really something I'd get too upset about either way.

[Harlan Huckleby]

However, it had ZERO affect on the outcome of the game.

Well, we can't know this, maybe a pass in endzone instead of into turf would have been a touchdown.

I'm ragging on this point because it is an old pet peeve of mine. Spiking only makes logical sense when there are less than 30 seconds on the clock, and there may not be time to run 4 plays anyway. The team has to get set whether the play is a spike or an audible pass. The risk of the QB failing to throw the ball away is small, especially with a decent QB, compared to the reward of an extra scoring opportunity.

[Patler]

Of course its not. This was a crucial time. They had time and downs to try and make sure everyone was thinking the same. But this was it, their last chance. Spiking was the smart thing to do. As somone else pointed out, if the next play had occured exactly as it did, with Favre fumbling, everyone would have sreamed that they had a down to waste, they could have spiked the ball to make sure everyone knew what they were doing, the fumble wouldn't have happened, etc. etc.

what you are missing is that throwing the ball out of the endzone is equivalent to spiking.


IF, IF, IF he throws it out of the endzone. That only happens if Favre actually sees the play will fail. Few plays end that way, and even fewer when Favre is the QB.

On the other hand, if Favre expects a "zig", thinks it might be open, and throws it for a hoped for TD; but the receiver thinks he was supposed to "zag" on the play the resulting interception ends the game. Favre will have released the ball before he realizes the player screwed up. It happens all the time.

When you still have two downs to run plays on from the 10 yard line and plenty of time in which to do it, in my opinion, it is never a mistake with a young offensive team to give them a chance to get their heads collected.

[MadtownPacker]

Talking about spiking the ball is kinda bad considering how much time they had left. Thats is something that has nagged me about all 5 games.

Yesterday the O was showing no urgency to move the ball when they where down 10. Maybe its due to the youth on the Oline and the young/new WRs but they really need to get it in gear in the 4th.

[Harlan Huckleby]

IF, IF, IF he throws it out of the endzone. That only happens if Favre actually sees the play will fail. Few plays end that way, and even fewer when Favre is the QB.

On the other hand, if Favre expects a "zig", thinks it might be open, and throws it for a hoped for TD; but the receiver thinks he was supposed


The risk of something bad happening is present on any play. And in this case, the QB acts with "throw ball away first" mentality, so risk is actually lower than on most plays.

Again, reward is an extra scoring opportunity. I expect most people will go for this risk/reward.



When you still have two downs to run plays on from the 10 yard line and plenty of time in which to do it, in my opinion, it is never a mistake with a young offensive team to give them a chance to get their heads collected.

This is a constant. They get clock stopped, collect themselves, whether it is through a spike or pass out of endzone.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Talking about spiking the ball is kinda bad considering how much time they had left. Thats is something that has nagged me about all 5 games.

Yesterday the O was showing no urgency to move the ball when they where down 10. Maybe its due to the youth on the Oline and the young/new WRs but they really need to get it in gear in the 4th.
There was over 8 minutes left in the game and the Packers were driving. They did things right and got the defense thinking short passes and Favre hit them for a deep TD. They were being successful in moving the ball and had a nice drive. I'll take a successful drive in a TD over a no-huddle failure that was done just to placate the masses into thinking the Pack are urgently trying to win.

[SkinBasket]

Did anybody else notice that about 3 seconds after he fumbled Favre was driven to the ground pretty hard? Is this still considered roughing the quarterback? Or do you have every right to tackle the person who fumbled?

I didn't notice that, but at that point, he's just another player. Gotta keep your eyes open til the whistle blows. Just ask Clifton. Cheap? Yes. Against the rules? No.

[Patler]

I no longer trust Favre to make cool decisions under the heat of battle with little time remaining and the game in the balance. Mostly he has failed in those situation the last three seasons. I certainly don't expect three rookies and three player who weren't even on the roster for the first game to do any better.

It only takes one play to score a TD. I would rather run my first attempt at it as a play from a huddle, with everyone knowing what it is than risk a paniced deciasion by those players that results in never running a play in a collected manner.

heck, they couldn't even get it right taking their time. The chances of it blowing up in their face in a hurry up was even greater.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm ragging on this point because it is an old pet peeve of mine. Spiking only makes logical sense when there are less than 30 seconds on the clock, and there may not be time to run 4 plays anyway. The team has to get set whether the play is a spike or an audible pass. The risk of the QB failing to throw the ball away is small, especially with a decent QB, compared to the reward of an extra scoring opportunity.

What makes you think they would have gotten four plays off? There was 44 seconds, but we had no timeouts. Sure, we oculd have gotten four incompletions off, but one completed pass inbounds and short of the goalline would have run off half that time. Maybe McCarthy didn't want to the team to feel rushed on an important play like that. Let them huddle and all get on the same page. Didn't work, but I think that's a valid argument. I wouldn't have spiked the ball, but it's not a big issue IMHO. Nothing to really second guess the coach on anyways.

[Freak Out]

I would have run a play instead of spiking the ball at that moment...spike it on the next play if you make a completion or run the ball short of the goal line and then take a shot at the endzone or kick the field goal. They had time to set and run a play and the Rams D was tired. But there were many other "mistakes" that were made throughout the day that had a bigger impact than the spike.

[Bretsky]

I didn't agree with the spike. I said so during the game. However, it had ZERO affect on the outcome of the game. I wouldn't have spiked it, but it's not really something I'd get too upset about either way.

I can't prove it either way, but I'm not sure I'd categorize it as zero impact.

Leonard Little was very very tired out there; I think I read he had to get fluids after the game. We gave him a breather and he's the guy who knocked the ball out of Favre's hands. Maybe ? he needed that breather to get there.

But that's not my real argument for not spiking. We let the defense get organized; if MM sends in the play to Favre and we move swiftly in the no huddle the offense would in all probablity be be more prepared than the defense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

But that's not my real argument for not spiking. We let the defense get organized; if MM sends in the play to Favre and we move swiftly in the no huddle the offense would in all probablity be be more prepared than the defense.

But the counter argument is that you might run a play instead of spiking the ball, and guys might not be on the same page. Look at how many times we've messed up the quick hike this year--when we had people in bad personnel groupings. I think we messed up again in that situation in this game. We have a young OL, young RB that needs to handle a blitz, and a young WR. Sometimes it might be best to huddle up and make sure everybody is on the same page. I'm sure Little wasn't the only guy on the field that was gassed. Hell, the OL and Favre might have been needed a breather just as much as Little.

[Fritz]

To Spike or not To Spike: that is the question.

Spike, I say, Spike. No, wait, I like the fake spike better. That's the kind of sh_t Favre would like too, I think. Kind of like when he hands it off then pretends to throw it.

I didn't even get to follow the game on the computer. Dang. I wish they'd have won. One touchdown there and the whole team's outlook would have changed - and maybe ours, too.

[red]

i said in the game thread, that i thought the team should have had a play already in mind for that situation, and they should have taken a quick safe shot at the endzone. at worst you lose maybe 4 or 5 seconds, at best you score. if you catch them on their heals they don't have time to regroup and send the pressure

i would have liked 3 safe shots at the endzone, then a FG attempt. we could have gotten all those in as long as we just took shots at the endzone

i also very much agree with mad, and made a point about what he said in the game thread too. this team shows absolutely zero urgncey at the end of halfs and games. we got the ball back with 2:45 left and on 2 short plays we let 34 seconds run off the clock, and 41 seconds. from 1:52 to 1:11 we didn't run a play, and it threw us into panic mode, and mistakes were made. they did the same thing at the end of the first half, and instead of having a chance for a td on 3rd down from the rans 14, favre has to spike the ball with just a few seconds left to stop the clock so they could kick a fg. there should have been enough time to take one more shot at the endzone

not acceptable in my book, although i will accept the notion that some of the problem might be the young team. but they've all gone through this before

[Bretsky]

i said in the game thread, that i thought the team should have had a play already in mind for that situation, and they should have taken a quick safe shot at the endzone. at worst you lose maybe 4 or 5 seconds, at best you score. if you catch them on their heals they don't have time to regroup and send the pressure

i would have liked 3 safe shots at the endzone, then a FG attempt. we could have gotten all those in as long as we just took shots at the endzone

i also very much agree with mad, and made a point about what he said in the game thread too. this team shows absolutely zero urgncey at the end of halfs and games. we got the ball back with 2:45 left and on 2 short plays we let 34 seconds run off the clock, and 41 seconds. from 1:52 to 1:11 we didn't run a play, and it threw us into panic mode, and mistakes were made. they did the same thing at the end of the first half, and instead of having a chance for a td on 3rd down from the rans 14, favre has to spike the ball with just a few seconds left to stop the clock so they could kick a fg. there should have been enough time to take one more shot at the endzone

not acceptable in my book, although i will accept the notion that some of the problem might be the young team. but they've all gone through this before

Red,

Being at the game, we had several ornry fans about the end of the first half clock management. I had flashbacks to the very thing I criticized Sherman very harshly for last year.

I didn't fault them as bad in the 4th quarter, but clock management at the end of half one was horrid.

[Fritz]

From what I understand the coaches chose to take three long shots down the field and then had to hurry to settle for a FG? Is that what happened?

If so, that sounds plain dumb. Shermanesque, as it were.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense to spike when there is more than 30 seconds on the clock. Better to keep pressure on the defense - throw ball in endzone or to sidelines. You can always spike later if you get caught inbounds AND clock winds below 30 seconds.

[Patler]

I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense to spike when there is more than 30 seconds on the clock. Better to keep pressure on the defense - throw ball in endzone or to sidelines. You can always spike later if you get caught inbounds AND clock winds below 30 seconds.

Well, if you ignore all the factors that make a decision to spike the ball a good decision, of course you "can't think of any scenario".

[MJZiggy]

Coach said that they spiked the ball because there were two different plays to choose from in that situation and one of them was a run so they had to change personnel on the field and if they did that in the hurryup without stopping the clock, then they'd get a penalty like they did last time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I can't think of any scenario where it makes sense to spike when there is more than 30 seconds on the clock. Better to keep pressure on the defense - throw ball in endzone or to sidelines. You can always spike later if you get caught inbounds AND clock winds below 30 seconds.

Well, if you ignore all the factors that make a decision to spike the ball a good decision, of course you "can't think of any scenario".

There aren't many factors. With a spike, you trade a play for about 8 to 12 seconds on the clock, the time it takes to call an audible and throw the ball out of bounds, if nobody is open.

The chance of a penalty in executing a spike is not so different than attempting a play.

Most of the advantages of a spike can be had by throwing the ball away, so they shouldn't be included in the argument.

Well, if a team is poorly coached, perhaps they are incapable of running a hurry-up offense in a pressure situation. In that case I'll grant you a spike may be necessary.

I came up with the 30-second cutoff for spikes because that is the time needed to run 4 passing plays. What is your cutoff? Would you spike the ball with 2 minutes left?

[MJZiggy]

Please read my above post. If he doesn't spike he gets a penalty and you are yelling at him for it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Please read my above post. If he doesn't spike he gets a penalty and you are yelling at him for it.

The explanation didn't make any sense to me. IF they have 11 men on field set to run a spike, they can also run an audible. Perhaps we have a case of poor coaching & preparation.

Spiking is a crutch that only rarely makes sense. Teams should prepare to function without spiking, keep two or three simple plays downfield available as an alternative to the spike.

If you are within 30 seconds, you don't have time to run all the plays available to you anyway - go ahead and spike.

[MJZiggy]

The can run an audible, but wanted to run the ball which required different personnel than were on the field, they needed an RB and FB instead of wideouts or something, but if they trade out personnel in the hurry up they get a flag.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The can run an audible, but wanted to run the ball which required different personnel than were on the field, they needed an RB and FB instead of wideouts or something, but if they trade out personnel in the hurry up they get a flag.

Well DON'T run the ball. Audible to a pass in the endzone, that's better than just throwing away a play, even if you don't get to use your preferred play.

I guess we just chalk this up to poor preparation and communication. They weren't able to make the most of a situation.

[Patler]

I guess we just chalk this up to poor preparation and communication. They weren't able to make the most of a situation.

I prefer to chalk it up to you taking a far too simplistic approach to the situation at hand, including the situation BEFORE the last play, the multiple plays that were probably called in the huddle at that time with the goal of getting a 1st down, not the touchdown, the personnel on the field, the experience and familiarity (or lack thereof) for about half the offense and most of the skilled players, etc.

I can see an argument for running a play and not spiking, but I certainly can't call spiking "wrong" and I think it was preferable myself.

[wist43]

I'm late to this debate... but, Bretsky is right - Get to the line, call a play, and run it... no need to worry about the clock.

IN THAT SITUATION, THE CLOCK IS NOT A FACTOR - except to consider how much time you may end up leaving your opponent. You're already in FG range for the tie... all that is left to do now is pump it into the endzone 3 times.

I didn't get the end of the game on tape... so I have been able to look very closely at the protection; but, it seems to me to be a no-brainer, that you max protect on all 3 pass attempts into the endzone - especially with a dangerous pass rusher like Little flying about.

What makes the situation worse, is that they had time to come up with that play call and protection b/c they wasted a down by killing the clock.

Not good clock management, not good game management.

[Patler]

Naw, spiking was perfectly fine when you have six players, a FB, a RB, two WRs and two guards with a combined experience level of 21 games in GB. Three in their 5th Packer game, two in their second (assuming Morency was in on the passing play, as he had been earlier) and one (Robinson) in his fourth packer game. Even if Herron was in the ball game, his experience is virtually nill.

But, if you insist on not "wasting" a play, rather than go no huddle, I would go with a quick huddle, so at least everyone would be clear on what would happen, Then go no huddle on the second play if for some reason the clock wasn't stopped by the first play.

[red]

to me, you only spike the ball with like 4 or 5 seconds left, and you have to stop the clock to bring on the FG unit

and you DO NOT run the f'ing ball in that situation, why the hell would he even thing that? it takes a good 15 to 20 seconds to get everyone unpilled and lined back up, minimum.

IMO, you go up and run 3 quick pass plays into the endzone, making sure not to take a damn sack. and if you do get sacked and theres only a few seconds left, THEN you spike the ball and kick the fg

[Harlan Huckleby]

When you get near the end of a close game, scoring opportunities are precious. To throw one of those limited opportunities away by spiking is inexcusable. Argument that a team is too inexperienced or disorganized to line-up and run an audible is defeatest.

(Only exception is if there is not enough time available to use all your available downs anyway.)

[Bretsky]

Naw, spiking was perfectly fine when you have six players, a FB, a RB, two WRs and two guards with a combined experience level of 21 games in GB. Three in their 5th Packer game, two in their second (assuming Morency was in on the passing play, as he had been earlier) and one (Robinson) in his fourth packer game. Even if Herron was in the ball game, his experience is virtually nill.

But, if you insist on not "wasting" a play, rather than go no huddle, I would go with a quick huddle, so at least everyone would be clear on what would happen, Then go no huddle on the second play if for some reason the clock wasn't stopped by the first play.

I know you keep throwing out our youth as a reason that we might not be mentally prepared enough not succeed at this, and maybe it's the right reasoning. But I'd like to think these guys are smart enough to be able to do this w/o the mental errors. They do have a hurry up offense that they should have practiced all week in place and I want to believe these guys are well coached enough so they won't make a mental error in this situation.

So I go back to the physical part; gives you an extra play and MORE importantly I thought the Rams DL was really winded so we don't let them get that extra beather to rush the passer. And we don't let them regroup with their coaches while MM calls a winner play and we score. One can dream.

B

[MJZiggy]

Actually, B, you make a very good point. Our guys may be very young, but the number of mental errors (at least in the form of line penalties, etc.) seems to be way down from the last couple of years.