Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

[Bretsky]

http://packers.scout.com/2/689793.html

A few comments from the mighty Harry

"I will get to the Redskins, but I feel I have to address what happened last weekend before I can move on. I know everyone knows that you normally don’t win many games when you turn the ball over and I accept that. Just like I know that there isn’t any player that has said, “You know what? This is a good time to fumble and hurt my team.” James Jones is a rookie that Mike McCarthy has used as the poster child of what not to do, and I understand getting on him, but do it behind closed doors. Don’t throw him under the bus. It’s like McCarthy is saying, ‘It’s because of your mistakes we lost,’ but there were many others that contributed to the loss. I guess that comes with being a rookie. Even though the Bears didn’t get any points out of either one of Jones’ fumbles, he got benched to prove some point.

At the same time when Charles Woodson fumbled you can see him smiling on the ground after he knew he coughed it up. I didn’t see him or Brett being called out after that bonehead interception. I know they are veterans but I say, ‘So what?’ Their mistakes were just as costly.

With all that said, the score was 20-20 with 14 minutes left in the game and the Packers didn’t answer the bell. They got so much involved in the turnovers and penalties that they forgot how to play, and Mike McCarthy seemed to lose focus. I have been praising his ability to make game-time adjustments and he didn’t, and that’s why they lost. Good teams, which is what the Packers are trying to be, don’t get caught up in feeling sorry for themselves because they realize it’s not what happens to them in the process of the game because things happen. There are fumbles, interceptions and penalties, but it’s how you handle adversity that really matters.

Sometimes as coaches it’s too easy to point fingers at what players did or didn’t do instead of looking in the mirror. When the score was 20-20 the Packers offense went three series with just three plays and out, and whose responsibility is that? Should the players call out the play-caller and say, ‘Didn’t we practice that all week? Didn’t you know what to expect? and Bench him for his mistakes.’ The last time I looked this is a team game and this week the Packers will need everyone playing at their best to win. You can’t do that if you are scared to make a mistake because as soon as you think that way you will."

[Tarlam!]

Good article, IMO. I must admit, it's got me thinking....

[Patler]

http://packers.scout.com/2/689793.html

A few comments from the mighty Harry

When the score was 20-20 the Packers offense went three series with just three plays and out, and whose responsibility is that? Should the players call out the play-caller and say, ‘Didn’t we practice that all week? Didn’t you know what to expect? and Bench him for his mistakes.’ The last time I looked this is a team game and this week the Packers will need everyone playing at their best to win. You can’t do that if you are scared to make a mistake because as soon as you think that way you will."

I agree with his criticism of benching Jones for as long as MM did. A couple series, the rest of the 1st half, maybe. But he should have been able to forget it and start fresh the second half.

But, the paragraph I quoted above seems to presume that if a play doesn't work, it's because it was the wrong play. It ignores the players' responsibilities to perform the plays called. Perhaps the calls were good and one or two players performed poorly each time, causing the plays to fail.

[Fred's Slacks]

I don't think its justified to rip into M3 for only getting on the rookie. M3 has shown that veteran's are not immune to criticism. He's ripped into the veterans when he feels they aren't showing focus. Jones' case was different than Favre's and Woodsen's. Jones made the exact same mistake on basically back to back plays. I agree that he shouldn't have been benched as long as he was, however the short ass chewing was not out of line.

[MJZiggy]

I thought what you wanted when dealing with mistakes was to learn from it, then forget it. How is he supposed to do either if M3 waits until halftime to chew Jones out. Firstly you're putting distance between the mistake and the consequence and letting him stew about it for the rest of the half and as a result, the learning is diminished AND he can't just forget about because it gets brought up again later. I agree, however, about not leaving him benched as long as he was. We needed him in the game.

[Patler]

I agree.

Chew him out immediately, if that is your style.
Bench him if you think it helps for a few series, maybe the rest of the half.
Approach him at half, ensure his head is together, tell him the past is the past and put him out in the first series of the second half.

[Bretsky]

http://packers.scout.com/2/689793.html

A few comments from the mighty Harry

When the score was 20-20 the Packers offense went three series with just three plays and out, and whose responsibility is that? Should the players call out the play-caller and say, ‘Didn’t we practice that all week? Didn’t you know what to expect? and Bench him for his mistakes.’ The last time I looked this is a team game and this week the Packers will need everyone playing at their best to win. You can’t do that if you are scared to make a mistake because as soon as you think that way you will."

I agree with his criticism of benching Jones for as long as MM did. A couple series, the rest of the 1st half, maybe. But he should have been able to forget it and start fresh the second half.

But, the paragraph I quoted above seems to presume that if a play doesn't work, it's because it was the wrong play. It ignores the players' responsibilities to perform the plays called. Perhaps the calls were good and one or two players performed poorly each time, causing the plays to fail.


On the other hand, if your strategey is not working, I read the article to imply you should modify it. MM seemed a bit stubborn in half two and that did us no favors. Of course one or two players performed poorly; it's called the OL run blocking in that half.

[MJZiggy]

I still think he changed his calling due to his own temper and if he did it for any other reason, I'd say ok, but if M3's temper caused us to lose that game, that would really piss me off.

[Bretsky]

ANOTHER INTERESTING PART OF THE ARTICLE

Before I talk about this week’s article I must clear the air about something. On Wednesday, PackerReport.com correspondent Steve Lawrence made a mistake in calling me out because he put my name on it so he must have wanted my attention, so he got it. He made it seem like I didn’t know what I was talking about, so of course I did some investigating to find out who the hell this guy was that was questioning my knowledge.
Like I have said time and time again I will put my knowledge up against anyone, so Mr. Lawrence I guess you want to play with the big boys, so let’s play. Tell us what you really know and where did you get all your experience from, or did you just watch TV thinking one day people will listen to you. And, yes, it’s true you don’t have to have played the game at the highest level to understand it. Many haven’t, but if you haven’t don’t call someone out that has played it, coached it and

[Bretsky]

As many as you know I do like MM, but to be honest I put him at blame for this loss just as much as anything else. Consider this.

I haven't heard him take any responsibility for his own mistakes.

He defended his playcalling by saying the Bears safties were in cover 2 so he had to run because they took away the pass. Teams do pass against Cover 2 all the time, and in reality the Bears were in cover two for some of the first half when Favre ripped through the Bears offense like we were playing the Cleveland Browns. In half two the Bears just tried to take away the slant more; there were other alternatives.

He didn't want his WR's to fumble any more catches and didn't want BF to throw any more INT's, so it was too much run run for most of the second half until the final drive.

Favre was nearly unstoppable in the first half; MM played scared instead of going for a knockout punch. You can beat the cover 2 with a passing game if you choose.

He was afraid to take chances, something you have to do to win. We need to re-establish the Lambeau dominance and Sunday would have went a long way toward doing that; Lovie is not 3-0 at Lambeau Field :o

Even with all those turnovers, penalties, breaks, we could have won and should have won. And after winning despite all those factors going against us, we'd be debating if we can take the next step to be a dominant NFC force....rather than being leery about facing a dangerous Redskin team tomorrow.

[Patler]

On the other hand, if your strategey is not working, I read the article to imply you should modify it. MM seemed a bit stubborn in half two and that did us no favors. Of course one or two players performed poorly; it's called the OL run blocking in that half.

I see absolutely no stubbornness in his second half play calling at all. Second half offensive plays from scrimmage:

1. p - 13 yds
2. r - 6 yds
3. r - 3 yds
4. r - (-3 yds) Most reports say it was there, except for a missed block by Coston.

At this point no reason to think the run game is dead.

5. r - 5 yds
6. r - 0 yds
7. pass intercepted

At this point, with the Bears in a defense you SHOULD be able to run against, the running game still shows it can get 5, 6 yards on a play. It's not being stoned by any means, but they seem to have botched two, while gaining 14 yards on three others. No reason to abandon the running game at this point.

8. r - 1 yd
9. r - 3 yds
10. r - 4 yds.

This series started at the 10 right after Favre's interception. No it did not get the first down you wanted, but again it didn't show the run game to be dead. One bad play, and two that showed you can gain yards running. These were the three plays made by Briggs, in which McCarthy said the guards missed their blocks.

At this point he has run the ball 8 times, and 5 of those plays good for 21 yards indicate you can pick up yardage on the ground. You just need to be as consistent in blocking as in the first half when runs went for 29, 8, 7, 5, 2 (TD), 3, 2, 2, 1, 10, 15, 3, 4 yards.

Thereafter he called a run on first down the next series, with two passes (incomplete) thereafter, 4 consecutive passes the next series, p, r (on 2nd and 4), p, p the next series and no runs thereafter.

The calls when made, with the field and game situations in mind, make sense. At no point did the running game look totally dead as it has earlier in the season.

[BallHawk]

Coaching alone never loses you a game. It can put you in a really bad position, but ultimately it's the players that need to execute. You could have Lombardi coaching a team, but if the team consists of Taco Wallace and Tim Couch how many games are you going to win?

I do largely put this loss on MM shoulders for numerous reasons, but in the end it was Favre who threw the boneheaded INT, Jones and CW that fumbled, and the defense that couldn't get it done.

[Bretsky]

[quote=Bretsky]

On the other hand, if your strategey is not working, I read the article to imply you should modify it. MM seemed a bit stubborn in half two and that did us no favors. Of course one or two players performed poorly; it's called the OL run blocking in that half.

I see absolutely no stubbornness in his second half play calling at all. Second half offensive plays from scrimmage:

1. p - 13 yds
2. r - 6 yds
3. r - 3 yds
4. r - (-3 yds) Most reports say it was there, except for a missed block by Coston.

Playcalling is about keeping defenses off balance. In half one we attacked. On second and four that was opportune to pass. MM's conservtivism right from the start here began the rythym killer

And I don't care about "most reports". Every play players can miss their blocks. MM called the plays trusting that the OL and Running game could be successful. He was wrong



At this point no reason to think the run game is dead.

5. r - 5 yds
6. r - 0 yds
7. pass intercepted

Yes, another predictable first two plays; kudos again for the predictability of protecting a lead. It put Favre in an obvious pass and Bears put on pressure, and Favre makes a bad mistake. 2nd and Five again was the time to pass, but MM was dedicating his team to the run.

At this point, with the Bears in a defense you SHOULD be able to run against, the running game still shows it can get 5, 6 yards on a play. It's not being stoned by any means, but they seem to have botched two, while gaining 14 yards on three others. No reason to abandon the running game at this point.

8. r - 1 yd
9. r - 3 yds
10. r - 4 yds.

TIME TO ADMIT FAILURE BY NOW AND SHOW SOME STONES. They should have been able to succeed the two previous series and failed. But hey, since our young and weak OL "should" be able to run, let's keep trying. Botching TWO out of FIVE running plays is an indicator what they are doing is not working. Two straight Three and outs would be another obvious indicator.

THAT PLAY CALL SERIES WAS SICK

This series started at the 10 right after Favre's interception. No it did not get the first down you wanted, but again it didn't show the run game to be dead. One bad play, and two that showed you can gain yards running. These were the three plays made by Briggs, in which McCarthy said the guards missed their blocks.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST DOWN PASS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE RUN GAME IS NOT STINKING UP THE JOINT HERE ? It is failing and I flet that watching the game. Three three and outs when you stubbornly try to do what Green Bay is weakest at.

At this point he has run the ball 8 times, and 5 of those plays good for 21 yards indicate you can pick up yardage on the ground. You just need to be as consistent in blocking as in the first half when runs went for 29, 8, 7, 5, 2 (TD), 3, 2, 2, 1, 10, 15, 3, 4 yards.

AT THIS POINT MM HAS ALREADY RUINED THE RYTHYM OF AN EFFECTIVE FIRST HALF OFFENSE. And five rushes for 21 yards and three botched rushes is failing this offense.

Thereafter he called a run on first down the next series, with two passes (incomplete) thereafter, 4 consecutive passes the next series, p, r (on 2nd and 4), p, p the next series and no runs thereafter.

The offense was way way way out of their game by now; MM should get a lot of the blame for taking a dominating offense in half one to a terrible offense in half two.

The calls when made, with the field and game situations in mind, make sense. At no point did the running game look totally dead as it has earlier in the season

We played the second half right into the Bears hands. MM called plays scared. It failed

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm on both sides of the fence. I don't think Jones allowing the ball to get punched out twice is any worse than Favre's interception. Defenders are going to make plays. On the other hand, I'm not going to second guess MM for benching him. That seems reasonable to me, even if I would have put him back in after a quarter.

Hey, now I'm on THREE sides of fences, didn't realize that was even possible!

[Patler]

Playcalling is about keeping defenses off balance. In half one we attacked. On second and four that was opportune to pass. MM's conservtivism right from the start here began the rythym killer

[/b]

My God, on the second and 4 play he had called seven consecutive pass plays leading up to it! Why was it so "opportune" to pass an 8th consecutive time???? At that point it is just as likely that the Bears were thinking pass, expecting that the Packers had reverted to their tendencies of the previous weeks.

[Patler]

5. r - 5 yds
6. r - 0 yds
7. pass intercepted

Yes, another predictable first two plays; kudos again for the predictability of protecting a lead. It put Favre in an obvious pass and Bears put on pressure, and Favre makes a bad mistake. 2nd and Five again was the time to pass, but MM was dedicating his team to the run.


Predictable based on what, their tendencies the previous 3 games? Absolutely not.

[Bretsky]

5. r - 5 yds
6. r - 0 yds
7. pass intercepted

Yes, another predictable first two plays; kudos again for the predictability of protecting a lead. It put Favre in an obvious pass and Bears put on pressure, and Favre makes a bad mistake. 2nd and Five again was the time to pass, but MM was dedicating his team to the run.


Predictable based on what, their tendencies the previous 3 games? Absolutely not.

Based on the previous drive after a dominating 1st half passing performance. MM was going conservative

[Patler]

8. r - 1 yd
9. r - 3 yds
10. r - 4 yds.

TIME TO ADMIT FAILURE BY NOW AND SHOW SOME STONES. They should have been able to succeed the two previous series and failed. But hey, since our young and weak OL "should" be able to run, let's keep trying. Botching TWO out of FIVE running plays is an indicator what they are doing is not working. Two straight Three and outs would be another obvious indicator.

THAT PLAY CALL SERIES WAS SICK

This series started at the 10 right after Favre's interception. No it did not get the first down you wanted, but again it didn't show the run game to be dead. One bad play, and two that showed you can gain yards running. These were the three plays made by Briggs, in which McCarthy said the guards missed their blocks.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST DOWN PASS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE RUN GAME IS NOT STINKING UP THE JOINT HERE ? It is failing and I flet that watching the game. Three three and outs when you stubbornly try to do what Green Bay is weakest at.



I didn't particularly like that series either, but it was just one series.

The running game was not stinking to that point. It had some ineffective plays and some effective ones, and more of the latter than the former. The running game was not any less effective than Favre's consecutive incompletions that ended one drive and his interception that ended another.

[Patler]

5. r - 5 yds
6. r - 0 yds
7. pass intercepted

Yes, another predictable first two plays; kudos again for the predictability of protecting a lead. It put Favre in an obvious pass and Bears put on pressure, and Favre makes a bad mistake. 2nd and Five again was the time to pass, but MM was dedicating his team to the run.


Predictable based on what, their tendencies the previous 3 games? Absolutely not.

Based on the previous drive after a dominating 1st half passing performance. MM was going conservative

What about the first half running performance that gained 103 yards on 13 carries?

[retailguy]

8. r - 1 yd
9. r - 3 yds
10. r - 4 yds.

TIME TO ADMIT FAILURE BY NOW AND SHOW SOME STONES. They should have been able to succeed the two previous series and failed. But hey, since our young and weak OL "should" be able to run, let's keep trying. Botching TWO out of FIVE running plays is an indicator what they are doing is not working. Two straight Three and outs would be another obvious indicator.

THAT PLAY CALL SERIES WAS SICK

This series started at the 10 right after Favre's interception. No it did not get the first down you wanted, but again it didn't show the run game to be dead. One bad play, and two that showed you can gain yards running. These were the three plays made by Briggs, in which McCarthy said the guards missed their blocks.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST DOWN PASS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE RUN GAME IS NOT STINKING UP THE JOINT HERE ? It is failing and I flet that watching the game. Three three and outs when you stubbornly try to do what Green Bay is weakest at.



I didn't particularly like that series either, but it was just one series.

The running game was not stinking to that point. It had some ineffective plays and some effective ones, and more of the latter than the former. The running game was not any less effective than Favre's consecutive incompletions that ended one drive and his interception that ended another.

What the statistics fail to show is that the momentum in that game was slowly, methodically switching to the Bears. The Bears defense was gaining confidence that it COULD shut down the Packers after many, many examples in the 1st half where it couldn't.

Once the momentum shifted, the Bears defense took over the game, and gave the Bears offense an opportunity to make enough little plays to win.

Statistics don't tell that story, but it was clear if you were watching the game.

I agree with Bretsky. Play calling, while not solely responsible had a BIG impact on this game. Bold plays were needed to take the momentum back. They didn't happen, and the momentum shifted as a result.

[RashanGary]

1. Turnovers
2. Penalties
3. ST's


Those are the top 3. Way way way way way down on the list is McCarthy's coaching decision. Had the Packers players not shot themselves in the foot over and over and over they would have won that game. McCarthy put them in position to win. Was he perfect? Nope, no coach ever is, but he did enough. Any time you have 4 TO's and 12 penalties, you have to blame the players first and foremost. With 2 turnovers and 8 penalties, the Packers win and the Bears look much less dominating, even in the 2nd half.

This is a VERY young team. We can expect 3 or 4 more of these throughout the season. McCarthy deserves some slack, the same way Thompson deserved slack coming into his situation.

[retailguy]

1. Turnovers
2. Penalties
3. ST's


Those are the top 3. Way way way way way down on the list is McCarthy's coaching decision. Had the Packers players not shot themselves in the foot over and over and over they would have won that game. McCarthy put them in position to win. Was he perfect? Nope, no coach ever is, but he did enough. Any time you have 4 TO's and 12 penalties, you have to blame the players first and foremost. With 2 turnovers and 8 penalties, the Packers win and the Bears look much less dominating, even in the 2nd half.

This is a VERY young team. We can expect 3 or 4 more of these throughout the season. McCarthy deserves some slack, the same way Thompson deserved slack coming into his situation.

Yes, at least 3 or 4 more.

What you seemingly forget, is it is the coaches job to help the team overcome the things you mentioned above. One of the many mechanisms that coaches can use is playcalling to get the momentum back. That didn't happen this week, and played a significant part in the seeming comedy of errors that we called the 2nd half.

[Patler]

I watched it too, and I think the huge momentum reversal was the interception, and one play for a TD. To start the third period, the Packers matched them FG for FG. No momentum change there. After the int and one play for a TD all of a sudden they were only down by 3.

Even so, the three runs and a punt following the TD looked OK, because the defense held and forced a punt by the Bears. The real clincher was the Woodson fumble.

It looked to me that the interception was the first momentum changer and the Woodson fumble was the finishing touch. Those two plays made them believe more than any running play or plays that didn't gain yardage.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harry is quite the egomaniac. Apparently, he's one of these guys that thinks you can only know the game if you played in the NFL. Football isn't that complicated.

[retailguy]

I watched it too, and I think the huge momentum reversal was the interception, and one play for a TD. To start the third period, the Packers matched them FG for FG. No momentum change there. After the int and one play for a TD all of a sudden they were only down by 3.

Even so, the three runs and a punt following the TD looked OK, because the defense held and forced a punt by the Bears. The real clincher was the Woodson fumble.

It looked to me that the interception was the first momentum changer and the Woodson fumble was the finishing touch. Those two plays made them believe more than any running play or plays that didn't gain yardage.

Patler, yes, those were the "big" events, I'd agree, but you're a statistics guy. Were the odds better to "swing the momentum back the other way", by continuing to run, or by moving to short passes that they'd had success with for the entire season?

Cover two has a clear weakness in the middle of the field, and we've got two tight ends, and Donald Driver who have track records at "performing" in the middle of the field. We have/had an abysmal run game, that had "limited" success this game but performed poorly in the 1st 4 games.

When you need to, most people revert to their strengths to win games. McCarthy didn't do that, and what he did do didn't seem to work.

Arguing that the run game was working seems foolish to me, when we lost the game, and deservedly should have. I agree, we had more success running the ball than we have had all season long, but is it not as if Jim Brown, or Walter Payton was in the backfield. We had a bunch of no name Joe's who were probably overachieving with a 4 ypc average.

The odds of swinging the momentum weren't high, and the end result kind of backs up that perspective.

[Patler]

I blame MM more for his kickoff strategy than for the 9 running plays he called in the second half.

Kicking away from Hester and having the Bears start at the 30, 35, 36 and 40 following the kickoffs seems like more of a flawed strategy than a couple running plays that maybe could have been passing plays instead.

Interesting how the Bears' did better and the Packers worse with each successive kickoff by GB.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harry is quite the egomaniac. Apparently, he's one of these guys that thinks you can only know the game if you played in the NFL. Football isn't that complicated.

Sydney is straight forward and very opinionated.

This makes him an egomaniac? He is not a uu-rah-rah packer fan, which is what many fans seem to expect from their sports writers.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harry is quite the egomaniac. Apparently, he's one of these guys that thinks you can only know the game if you played in the NFL. Football isn't that complicated.

Sydney is straight forward and very opinionated.

This makes him an egomaniac? He is not a uu-rah-rah packer fan, which is what many fans seem to expect from their sports writers.

Whatever you say, Harlan. Harry always has little comments in his articles about how he played the game, and how he knows the game. If you have to tell people how smart you are, you probably aren't as smart as you think you are. I could careless about whether he's negative or not. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[RashanGary]

I agree Patler. The Bears played the best half of their season, but the Packers did their part screwing up along the way. Tough game, but they happen throughout a season. If McCarthy had a history of screwing up I'd be more harsh. He's not Mike Sherman yet.

[esoxx]

I agree w/ Bretsky as well. For whatever reason, M3 got caught up in the run game and became too rigid in the 2nd half. Was it simply b/c the Bears were playing their safeties back? I would think more thought went into it than that. The Bears were daring the Packers to run and they obliged, to grotesque results.

The Packers run game was solid in the 1st half but never got back on track after Wynn left early and Morency seemed to wear down with the knee problem. M3 played to the weakest area of his entire team to try and beat a rugged Bears defense, depending on the running backs and the run blocking of the OL. That was foolish.

Favre has had the hot hand this season and had an outstanding 1st half. He went away from their main strength to a glaring weakness the 2nd half and the results were predictible.

M3 should stand up and take some heat as well. His comments after the game about how he isn't interested in being a no-back or one-back offense that's all pass seemed petulant and whiney. You play to your strengths, not your weakness, given the personnel you have at the time. If that means empty backfield or one-back, then so be it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[RashanGary]

M3 should stand up and take some heat as well. His comments after the game about how he isn't interested in being a no-back or one-back offense that's all pass seemed petulant and whiney. You play to your strengths, not your weakness, given the personnel you have at the time. If that means empty backfield or one-back, then so be it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I agree, but McCarthy's decisions weigh in far below the 4 turnovers and 12 penalties. You shouldn't expect the coach to have a perfect game, but you should expect less than 4 turnovers and 12 penalties. Very few teams win after losing the TO battle 4 to 1. That was the story of the game. It's way too easy to just blame the coach.

[esoxx]

M3 should stand up and take some heat as well. His comments after the game about how he isn't interested in being a no-back or one-back offense that's all pass seemed petulant and whiney. You play to your strengths, not your weakness, given the personnel you have at the time. If that means empty backfield or one-back, then so be it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I agree, but McCarthy's decisions weigh in far below the 4 turnovers and 12 penalties. You shouldn't expect the coach to have a perfect game, but you should expect less than 4 turnovers and 12 penalties. Very few teams win after losing the TO battle 4 to 1. That was the story of the game. It's way too easy to just blame the coach.

No where was I blaming just the coach. I've cited the TO's and penalties all week, of course they're a huge factore. I wrote that M3 should take "some" of the heat. That's actually part of his job, to deflect some blame and keep it off the players so they can keep their focus and not lose confidence, especailly for a young team.

Some of the run plays he called in the 2nd half actually would have worked well except for the fact the guards were missing the back side cuts and couldn't get out on Briggs. That's my point. The OL hasn't shown any consistency or reason to believe through the early part of the season in run blocking, so why go to the well so often? M3 simply became too rigid and it burned him. Hopefully he learned a lesson, which most young coaches that are successful will.

[Patler]

The Packers had 22 rushing plays. Among those 22 they had gains of 29, 8, 7, 5, 10, 15, 6, 5. Yards can be made against the Bears on the ground.

To start the second half, the Packers should have felt they could gain yards either on the ground or through the air. Both worked in the 1st half. After all, 100+ yards in a half is pretty darn good.

After gaining 100+ in the 1st half, the first running play of the 2nd half gained 6 yards, still good, 2nd gained 3 yards, 3rd they screwed up, 4th gained 5 yards. So after 4 running plays in the second half that gained 6, 3 (-3) and 5 yards should MM have felt they couldn't be successful running the ball? Of course not.

MM is faced with second and 5 at his own 15. He has run four running plays in the second half that gained 14 yards. He has two downs to get 5 yards. A time consuming drive with even just two first downs can re-establish your team and hopefully reverse field position. A run on second down is a good call. It keeps the clock running, might get the first down based on the success in the game so far in running the ball. Beside, 3rd and 5 is very makable, too. Gaining nothing there was not horrible, even an incompletion on 3rd down and a punt wouldn't have been so awful. The interception and a one play TD was horrible.

At this point, the Packers still had a 3 point lead, had had success running the ball, but a few breakdowns running as well. They had had success passing in the 1st half, and an absolute boneheaded play by Favre to put the Bears right back into it. Should MM have given up the running game completely?

Was he really wrong in call any of the running plays to that point? I don't think so.

He only called 4 more running plays the entire rest of the game. Just when was it that he should have quit running?

[RashanGary]

No where was I blaming just the coach. I've cited the TO's and penalties all week, of course they're a huge factore. I wrote that M3 should take "some" of the heat. That's actually part of his job, to deflect some blame and keep it off the players so they can keep their focus and not lose confidence, especailly for a young team.

Some of the run plays he called in the 2nd half actually would have worked well except for the fact the guards were missing the back side cuts and couldn't get out on Briggs. That's my point. The OL hasn't shown any consistency or reason to believe through the early part of the season in run blocking, so why go to the well so often? M3 simply became too rigid and it burned him. Hopefully he learned a lesson, which most young coaches that are successful will.

Yeah, we pretty much agree. Somehow the conversation turned from MM having a small had in the loss to MM costing the Packers the game. He wasn't perfect and he deserves some of the blame, but I still think the biggest factor was turnovers and penalties.

[Patler]

He wasn't perfect and he deserves some of the blame, but I still think the biggest factor was turnovers and penalties.

Aw come on! If MM had called the right plays they could have overcome 17 screw-ups (5 turnovers, 12 penalties) easily? After all, that's the coach's job! :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Bretsky]

Playcalling is about keeping defenses off balance. In half one we attacked. On second and four that was opportune to pass. MM's conservtivism right from the start here began the rythym killer

[/b]

My God, on the second and 4 play he had called seven consecutive pass plays leading up to it! Why was it so "opportune" to pass an 8th consecutive time???? At that point it is just as likely that the Bears were thinking pass, expecting that the Packers had reverted to their tendencies of the previous weeks.


Are you using the seven consecutive passes from the two minute offense in quarter two to support your point ?? That hardly seems fair

[Bretsky]

8. r - 1 yd
9. r - 3 yds
10. r - 4 yds.

TIME TO ADMIT FAILURE BY NOW AND SHOW SOME STONES. They should have been able to succeed the two previous series and failed. But hey, since our young and weak OL "should" be able to run, let's keep trying. Botching TWO out of FIVE running plays is an indicator what they are doing is not working. Two straight Three and outs would be another obvious indicator.

THAT PLAY CALL SERIES WAS SICK

This series started at the 10 right after Favre's interception. No it did not get the first down you wanted, but again it didn't show the run game to be dead. One bad play, and two that showed you can gain yards running. These were the three plays made by Briggs, in which McCarthy said the guards missed their blocks.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST DOWN PASS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE RUN GAME IS NOT STINKING UP THE JOINT HERE ? It is failing and I flet that watching the game. Three three and outs when you stubbornly try to do what Green Bay is weakest at.



I didn't particularly like that series either, but it was just one series.

The running game was not stinking to that point. It had some ineffective plays and some effective ones, and more of the latter than the former. The running game was not any less effective than Favre's consecutive incompletions that ended one drive and his interception that ended another.

I would say the running game stunk at that point. No runs for first downs. failed us a few drives in a row. You credit a four yard average among five carries and then just say the other three were botched plays. Why not look at the true average up to that point ? Because it was not good at all.

All this muck in half two never let the passing game get into a good rhythym. Two consecutive completions happen often; if MM had gave him a shot consecutive completions would have a heck of a lot more credit.

[Bretsky]

8. r - 1 yd
9. r - 3 yds
10. r - 4 yds.

TIME TO ADMIT FAILURE BY NOW AND SHOW SOME STONES. They should have been able to succeed the two previous series and failed. But hey, since our young and weak OL "should" be able to run, let's keep trying. Botching TWO out of FIVE running plays is an indicator what they are doing is not working. Two straight Three and outs would be another obvious indicator.

THAT PLAY CALL SERIES WAS SICK

This series started at the 10 right after Favre's interception. No it did not get the first down you wanted, but again it didn't show the run game to be dead. One bad play, and two that showed you can gain yards running. These were the three plays made by Briggs, in which McCarthy said the guards missed their blocks.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST DOWN PASS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE RUN GAME IS NOT STINKING UP THE JOINT HERE ? It is failing and I flet that watching the game. Three three and outs when you stubbornly try to do what Green Bay is weakest at.



I didn't particularly like that series either, but it was just one series.

The running game was not stinking to that point. It had some ineffective plays and some effective ones, and more of the latter than the former. The running game was not any less effective than Favre's consecutive incompletions that ended one drive and his interception that ended another.

What the statistics fail to show is that the momentum in that game was slowly, methodically switching to the Bears. The Bears defense was gaining confidence that it COULD shut down the Packers after many, many examples in the 1st half where it couldn't.

Once the momentum shifted, the Bears defense took over the game, and gave the Bears offense an opportunity to make enough little plays to win.

Statistics don't tell that story, but it was clear if you were watching the game.

I agree with Bretsky. Play calling, while not solely responsible had a BIG impact on this game. Bold plays were needed to take the momentum back. They didn't happen, and the momentum shifted as a result.


Exactly

[Bretsky]

1. Turnovers
2. Penalties
3. ST's


Those are the top 3. Way way way way way down on the list is McCarthy's coaching decision. Had the Packers players not shot themselves in the foot over and over and over they would have won that game. McCarthy put them in position to win. Was he perfect? Nope, no coach ever is, but he did enough. Any time you have 4 TO's and 12 penalties, you have to blame the players first and foremost. With 2 turnovers and 8 penalties, the Packers win and the Bears look much less dominating, even in the 2nd half.

This is a VERY young team. We can expect 3 or 4 more of these throughout the season. McCarthy deserves some slack, the same way Thompson deserved slack coming into his situation.


I'd agree that those were the first three factors. As many know I've defended MM in here quite a bit......including passing on 3rd/4th and one3 several times. I have no problem if he loses while going to his strength.

But MM is also not immune to criticism and even though he never publicly acknowledges his playcalling was a factor in the loss I hope he does realize it and learns from it.

[Patler]

Playcalling is about keeping defenses off balance. In half one we attacked. On second and four that was opportune to pass. MM's conservtivism right from the start here began the rythym killer

[/b]

My God, on the second and 4 play he had called seven consecutive pass plays leading up to it! Why was it so "opportune" to pass an 8th consecutive time???? At that point it is just as likely that the Bears were thinking pass, expecting that the Packers had reverted to their tendencies of the previous weeks.


Are you using the seven consecutive passes from the two minute offense in quarter two to support your point ?? That hardly seems fair

No, I thought you were referring to the second and four that occurred midway through the fourth quarter. That running play had been preceded by 7 consecutive passing plays: inc., 5yds to Franks, 1 to Wynn (replayed for holding), inc., inc., 3 yds to Morency, 6 yards to Franks. A few punts in between, but 7 consecutive passes.

In re-reading it I see you were referring to the 2nd and 4 from the Chicago 14, which had been preceded by a 13 yard pass and a 6 yard run. My fault.

I'm not sure even that one was a "bad" call. After gaining 100 yards rushing the first half and 6 yards on one carry in the second half, pounding the ball into the endzone after the Bears opening second half drive for a field goal could have been a real boost. Deception is good, but so is taking it to them and being successful. At that point it had been. In the first half, with 2nd and 7 they got the TD in two plays. He was probably looking for the same sort of redzone performance here.

[Bretsky]

At least this gives us something to debate about :lol:

I don't blame MM for this loss; but I do think the playcalling had a big factor in this loss.

Turnovers and penalites are blatantly obvious.
I'm on the fence with the special teams and kicking away from Hester.

But GB's offense never even remotely got into a rhythym in the second half.
I'm not of the view that this team will consistently run over four quarters unless we are playing a powder puff defense (maybe Detroit).

As I sat and watched the game I could feel it slipping away on offense; the Skin would be a good witness to that. My thoughts here were being expressed as I sat and watched the game.

After attacking in half one, we did little of that in half two.

Tomorrow will be interesting; now it's time to go down and feel the current pain of being a Badger fan.

[esoxx]

The Packers gained 19 yards rushing the 2nd half.

What was the argument again?

[RashanGary]

The Packers seem to be floundering without a run identity. Jags leaving might have hurt more than we know.

MM tried to run, run, run it against pass defenses with a lead. The Packers failed. Right now it's pretty clear to most of us that the Packers run offense sucks. They do have a great pass offense, a good defense and good ST's.

As a team and a coach, the Packers and MM are going to either have to get better at running the ball or stay away from it like they did in the first 4 games. The more optimal is to get better at the run and be a complete team. It doesn't look like the Packers are one of the elite, complete teams. MM might have to make do with what he has and replace some players (or a coach) next off season. Then again, they might get it right.

From here forth though, MM doesn't get a pass for (run, run, pass, punt) (run, run, pass, punt). He should be able to see it's not working. He's been very flexible to this point. He might have thought he had the run game all figured out when really it was the Bears not looking for it at all in the 1st half and the Packers doing good because they passed for four games to set up the run. He has an offensive identity that has been working. If he doesn't go back to that and he fails, I'm sure this will become a bigger issue. Right now, if it's a learning experience and I'm OK.

[Patler]

I would say the running game stunk at that point. No runs for first downs. failed us a few drives in a row. You credit a four yard average among five carries and then just say the other three were botched plays. Why not look at the true average up to that point ? Because it was not good at all.


To me there is a difference between running 5 getting no more than 2 or 3 yards on each play; and running 5 plays with 3 that pickup OK yardage and 2 that fail. In the one case you have had no success at all, in the other you have had success.

They gained over 100 yards rushing the first half. Second half goes: 6, 3, -3, 5 and 0. Because of the two plays, -3 and 0, you should abandon what gained over 100 yards the first half and 14 yards on the other 3 plays of the second half? That makes no sense at that point. That's like giving up on the passing game because of a couple interceptions.

MM has always said that the nature of his running offense is a bunch of small gains (with few losses) followed by a long one. It's not a 4 yards every time type running offense. That's why he talks about having to stick with it until the long one breaks, and it did in the 1st half with runs of 29, 10 and 15 yards. If they would have broken just one of those in the second half, things might have been different.

[Patler]

The Packers seem to be floundering without a run identity. Jags leaving might have hurt more than we know.



I don't think they had a run identity under Jagodzinski either. Before this season I questioned on here why they never really learned how to effectively run last year, poor players or poor coaching. They now have 29 games including preseason, and still don't do it well.

If you recall, there is supposed to be some big "secret" in how the scheme is taught to the linemen, to get the timing correct, and the guru (I've forgotten his name - old age you know!) was very guarded in who he showed and what they were allowed to take with them when they left. Supposedly Jagodzinski had learned the secret from I believe one year's exposure.

I'm not sure Jagodzinski learned the "secret" or was able to pass it on to others.

[esoxx]

Alex Gibbs.

This version is a mere shadow of that system. I suspect they will junk it this offseason.

[RashanGary]

They gained over 100 yards rushing the first half. Second half goes: 6, 3, -3, 5 and 0. Because of the two plays, -3 and 0, you should abandon what gained over 100 yards the first half and 14 yards on the other 3 plays of the second half? That makes no sense at that point. That's like giving up on the passing game because of a couple interceptions.
.

The Packers were the worst running team in the NFL after 4 games by a large margin. I think they still are by a smaller margin. That isn't a couple of bad luck plays. That is pretty consistant.

He might have thought that he could run the ball against Chicago after what happened in the first half, but what happened in the first half might never have happened at all if the Bears weren't so affraid of the pass.

Do you think the Packers should come out and try to run as often as they pass like they did in the first 4 series of the 2nd half?

MM has a slight excuse by thinking maybe he could do it after the 1st half, but I don't think that excuse will last much longer if he continues to bang his head against the wall going forward.

[Patler]

They gained over 100 yards rushing the first half. Second half goes: 6, 3, -3, 5 and 0. Because of the two plays, -3 and 0, you should abandon what gained over 100 yards the first half and 14 yards on the other 3 plays of the second half? That makes no sense at that point. That's like giving up on the passing game because of a couple interceptions.
.

The Packers were the worst running team in the NFL after 4 games by a large margin. I think they still are by a smaller margin. That isn't a couple of bad luck plays. That is pretty consistant.

He might have thought that he could run the ball against Chicago after what happened in the first half, but what happened in the first half might never have happened at all if the Bears weren't so affraid of the pass.

Do you think the Packers should come out and try to run as often as they pass like they did in the first 4 series of the 2nd half?

MM has a slight excuse by thinking maybe he could do it after the 1st half, but I don't think that excuse will last much longer if he continues to bang his head against the wall going forward.

But it's kind of "chicken or the egg" question too. He admitted a couple games he didn't even try to run the ball. The backs had only 14 carries against the Vikings, and only 11 against the Chargers.

You can't gain yards if you don't have carries; but....
You don't get carries if you don't gain the yards.

This is supposed to be a sort of "wear them out" running game. MM has always said the big gains should come at the end of the game, as 1 or 2 yard gains in the first half become 3 and 4 yard gains in the second half, and the 3-5 yard gains of the first half break for long runs in the second half.

He has always stressed the need for patience in a game for the running attack, but has never really shown any, either. Which leads me to believe he really has no confidence in their ability to run it correctly.

[RashanGary]

He has always stressed the need for patience in a game for the running attack, but has never really shown any, either. Which leads me to believe he really has no confidence in their ability to run it correctly.

I agree. He seemed to have thought maybe they had it figured out after the 1st half, but now it looks liek that was not the case. I'd say the logical approach is to continue to pass to set up the run and to come up with a better long term approach to fix the run game. The Packers are a pretty good team. They don't have to run the ball to win, but they will have to run the ball if they want to take the next step. Right now I think a coach should just do what you can to win, but in the long term, he's going to have to find a real solution to the problem.

[Bretsky]

They gained over 100 yards rushing the first half. Second half goes: 6, 3, -3, 5 and 0. Because of the two plays, -3 and 0, you should abandon what gained over 100 yards the first half and 14 yards on the other 3 plays of the second half? That makes no sense at that point. That's like giving up on the passing game because of a couple interceptions.
.

The Packers were the worst running team in the NFL after 4 games by a large margin. I think they still are by a smaller margin. That isn't a couple of bad luck plays. That is pretty consistant.

He might have thought that he could run the ball against Chicago after what happened in the first half, but what happened in the first half might never have happened at all if the Bears weren't so affraid of the pass.

Do you think the Packers should come out and try to run as often as they pass like they did in the first 4 series of the 2nd half?

MM has a slight excuse by thinking maybe he could do it after the 1st half, but I don't think that excuse will last much longer if he continues to bang his head against the wall going forward.

But it's kind of "chicken or the egg" question too. He admitted a couple games he didn't even try to run the ball. The backs had only 14 carries against the Vikings, and only 11 against the Chargers.

You can't gain yards if you don't have carries; but....
You don't get carries if you don't gain the yards.

This is supposed to be a sort of "wear them out" running game. MM has always said the big gains should come at the end of the game, as 1 or 2 yard gains in the first half become 3 and 4 yard gains in the second half, and the 3-5 yard gains of the first half break for long runs in the second half.

He has always stressed the need for patience in a game for the running attack, but has never really shown any, either. Which leads me to believe he really has no confidence in their ability to run it correctly.


I have a hard time thinking our OL is going to wear anybody down; if anything they may get worn down.

It was a good thing MM made no effort to run against SD and MN; I think he was surprised in his success against the Bears....just my gut

And then he started believing :shock:

[Patler]

I have a hard time thinking our OL is going to wear anybody down; if anything they may get worn down.


The "wearing down" is actually supposed to come from having cut the players time and time again. These big guys don't like being knocked down time and time again. :lol:
It is supposed to make them slower, less reactive to the plays.

[Rastak]

Harry is quite the egomaniac. Apparently, he's one of these guys that thinks you can only know the game if you played in the NFL. Football isn't that complicated.


Actually it is. I wish I understood half of what goes into player assignments, reads and how to formulate a game plan.

[Rastak]

At least this gives us something to debate about :lol:

I don't blame MM for this loss; but I do think the playcalling had a big factor in this loss.

Turnovers and penalites are blatantly obvious.
I'm on the fence with the special teams and kicking away from Hester.

But GB's offense never even remotely got into a rhythym in the second half.
I'm not of the view that this team will consistently run over four quarters unless we are playing a powder puff defense (maybe Detroit).

As I sat and watched the game I could feel it slipping away on offense; the Skin would be a good witness to that. My thoughts here were being expressed as I sat and watched the game.

After attacking in half one, we did little of that in half two.

Tomorrow will be interesting; now it's time to go down and feel the current pain of being a Badger fan.


Oh cry me a river! Try being a Gopher fan! :wink:

[RashanGary]

You know what was the most uninspiring thing that I heard all off season? I'm going to say it anyway :)


I remember after a preseason game, one of the lineman was asked about cutting. He said that it just creates a log jam and they were not going to do much cutting anymore.

It was absolutely baffling to me. The zone scheme has been successfull one way for a long, long time and now they are not going to run it that way because they think they have the asnwers. I acctually got pretty riled up at that point because I thought that they had no clue what they were doing.

[esoxx]

It was absolutely baffling to me. The zone scheme has been successfull one way for a long, long time and now they are not going to run it that way because they think they have the asnwers. I acctually got pretty riled up at that point because I thought that they had no clue what they were doing.

Agree totally. Either run it the Gibbs way or junk it. The key is really cutting on every run play to get those big boys on the ground. That's how you wear out a D-line (see Super Bowl XXXII).

Gibbs went to Atlanta and installed it. Jags learned under the Master.

They seem to be lost now. The fact that they couldn't get on Briggs and basically let him dominate speaks volumes.

[Maxie the Taxi]

This is a very interesting thread. After all is said and done, I tend to come down on the side against MM.

Relative to the rest of the league, the Bears are much better defending the run than the pass. The fact that our run game had the Bears on their heels in the first half of the game should have no bearing on what we should do during the second half.

As someone said, in the first half we had momentum (whatever that is). In the second half, the Bears had gained momenum. You don't gain momentum back by running the ball for 3 or 4 yards. What the Packers do best is pass and they should have stuck to it virtually exclusively in the second half.

In fact, I'll define momentum. I think it's the feeling that you get when you're playing to win rather than playing not to lose. The Bears had the Packers on their heels the 2nd half and we should have unleashed the strongest part of our offense -- the pass offense -- on every play in an attempt to score TD's and win rather than just wind down the clock and win.

That said, I agree playcalling wasn't the thing that beat us. Turnovers and penalties beat us. However, playcalling could have won it for us if we hadn't have saved our best asset for the last two minutes of play.

[gbgary]

I don't think its justified to rip into M3 for only getting on the rookie. M3 has shown that veteran's are not immune to criticism. He's ripped into the veterans when he feels they aren't showing focus. Jones' case was different than Favre's and Woodsen's. Jones made the exact same mistake on basically back to back plays. I agree that he shouldn't have been benched as long as he was, however the short ass chewing was not out of line.

I THINK IT'S JUSTIFIED TO RIP INTO MM!!! jj's mistakes were good plays made by the defense, not bad decision making like brett's throw or MACARTHY'S IDIOTIC IDEA TO BENCH JJ, AND HIS STUPID PLAY CALLING (run run run punt) IN THE SECOND HALF. i agree TOTALLY with mr. sydney.

[gbgary]

I remember after a preseason game, one of the lineman was asked about cutting. He said that it just creates a log jam and they were not going to do much cutting anymore.



if that's true then that's another reason MM needs his ass kicked. besides the loss of green (ted :\) no wonder the running game is looking so horrible compared to last year.