The presence of the Falcons in that 4th Quarter lead list is hurting my brain.
Printable View
The presence of the Falcons in that 4th Quarter lead list is hurting my brain.
12 run to 10 pass is still more run than the first half.
But one game result isn't going to make anyone's case. This was not even the best example of the tendency we are complaining about. Until the last drive, the run game was more effective than passing in the 2nd half.
I will admit that evidence of my complaint is hard to find in that 4th quarter lead chart. The percentage difference between NE and GB is as scant as vince predicted it would be.
I do wonder how it looks for top competition and playoffs.
4th Quarter Leads
Code:
Rk Tm From To W L T W-L%▼ Count
1 New England Patriots 2006 2016 109 16 0 0.872 125
2 Green Bay Packers 2006 2016 94 14 0 0.870 108
3 Denver Broncos 2006 2016 68 11 0 0.861 79
4 New Orleans Saints 2006 2016 81 14 0 0.853 95
5 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2016 82 16 0 0.837 98
6 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2016 72 14 0 0.837 86
7 Chicago Bears 2006 2016 60 12 0 0.833 72
8 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2016 82 17 0 0.828 99
9 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2016 79 17 0 0.823 96
10 New York Giants 2006 2016 69 16 0 0.812 85
11 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2015 77 18 0 0.811 95
12 New York Jets 2006 2016 59 14 0 0.808 73
13 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2016 61 15 0 0.803 76
14 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2016 56 14 0 0.800 70
15 Atlanta Falcons 2006 2016 62 17 0 0.785 79
16 Houston Texans 2006 2016 58 18 0 0.763 76
17 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2016 58 19 0 0.753 77
18 Buffalo Bills 2006 2016 46 16 0 0.742 62
19 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2016 55 20 0 0.733 75
20 San Diego Chargers 2006 2016 65 24 0 0.730 89
21 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 40 15 0 0.727 55
22 Carolina Panthers 2006 2016 63 24 0 0.724 87
23 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2016 53 20 1 0.723 74
24 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2015 61 23 2 0.721 86
25 Tennessee Titans 2006 2016 45 22 0 0.672 67
26 Miami Dolphins 2006 2015 42 22 0 0.656 64
27 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2016 38 21 0 0.644 59
28 ?????? Rams 2006 2016 41 27 1 0.601 69
29 Detroit Lions 2006 2016 35 27 0 0.565 62
30 Oakland Raiders 2006 2016 31 24 0 0.564 55
31 Cleveland Browns 2006 2016 36 28 0 0.563 64
32 Washington Redskins 2006 2015 35 29 0 0.547 64
Total 2006 2016 1913 604 4 .760 2521
Team Comparison to McCarthy-led Packers - Win/Loss Results when Leading at the Half
Ranked by W-L%
Code:Rk Tm From To W L T W-L%▼ Count
1 New England Patriots 2006 2016 109 16 0 0.872 125
2 Green Bay Packers 2006 2016 94 14 0 0.870 108
3 Denver Broncos 2006 2016 68 11 0 0.861 79
4 New Orleans Saints 2006 2016 81 14 0 0.853 95
5 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2016 82 16 0 0.837 98
6 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2016 72 14 0 0.837 86
7 Chicago Bears 2006 2016 60 12 0 0.833 72
8 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2016 82 17 0 0.828 99
9 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2016 79 17 0 0.823 96
10 New York Giants 2006 2016 69 16 0 0.812 85
11 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2015 77 18 0 0.811 95
12 New York Jets 2006 2016 59 14 0 0.808 73
13 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2016 61 15 0 0.803 76
14 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2016 56 14 0 0.800 70
15 Atlanta Falcons 2006 2016 62 17 0 0.785 79
16 Houston Texans 2006 2016 58 18 0 0.763 76
17 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2016 58 19 0 0.753 77
18 Buffalo Bills 2006 2016 46 16 0 0.742 62
19 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2016 55 20 0 0.733 75
20 San Diego Chargers 2006 2016 65 24 0 0.730 89
21 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 40 15 0 0.727 55
22 Carolina Panthers 2006 2016 63 24 0 0.724 87
23 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2016 53 20 1 0.723 74
24 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2015 61 23 2 0.721 86
25 Tennessee Titans 2006 2016 45 22 0 0.672 67
26 Miami Dolphins 2006 2015 42 22 0 0.656 64
27 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2016 38 21 0 0.644 59
28 ?????????? Rams 2006 2016 41 27 1 0.601 69
29 Detroit Lions 2006 2016 35 27 0 0.565 62
30 Oakland Raiders 2006 2016 31 24 0 0.564 55
31 Cleveland Browns 2006 2016 36 28 0 0.563 64
32 Washington Redskins 2006 2015 35 29 0 0.547 64
Total 2006 2016 1913 604 4 .760 2521
vince, can you post the link or the Game Finder settings you used to get those lists? Having trouble duplicating.
Old school/new school is completely irrelevant terminology and accurately describes nothing with respect to the question at hand, but I get that you're equating old school with ineffective running strategy, an overemphasis (by your opinion) on the game clock, and going "conservative" which you understand to be self-definingly negative. By your perspective, old school is no longer relevant in today's game that emphasizes passing. You've loaded the term so heavily in the negative that it can't possibly be effective.
Taking this definition and your identification of McCarthy with these negative traits, I've researched the reality of the situation, and it turns out that there are extensive, incontrovertable facts about the reality of McCarthy's level of effectiveness in closing games iwth the lead -without regard to any labels applied. Once the negative labels are applied, the facts of the situation prove the negative connotations to be not merely inappropriate but completely and entirely wrong.
I've seen zero evidence, much less a hint of factual results, that even suggest that "New school" approach carries any level of success in closing out leads whatsoever. Your "proof" I'm assuming is your mind's reference to 1 ihighly emotional failure of the "old school" approach. No matter how emotional, one lone exception in the face of 10 times as many proof points doesn't disprove the rule. "Man it felt like it could have failed if the opponent wouldn't have run out of time" doesn't disprove the rule. "if this hypothetical would have happened it would have failed" doesn't disprove the rule. "Man they almost lost." doesn't disprove the rule. "I tell you what if there would have been a fifth quarter in that game, the Packers would have been beat by 2 touchdowns" doesn't disprove the rule. "They blew them out in the first half. McCarthy took his foot off the gas and they ALMOST lost." doesn't disprove the rule. "It worked in the first half" doesn't disprove the rule.
The second half becomes increasingly different situation than the first have as the end of the game nears. That factor, combined with how the point differential is working for or against you and other trends (defensive energy for example comes to mind) potentially change the "winning" strategy. Denying the wisdom of whether and how the "winning" strategy might change as the game ending nears flies directly in the face of two facts. 1) It's pretty much universally accepted that McCarthy changes his approach based on point differential and time remaining, and 2) McCarthy has a 10 year proven track record of elite level success when leading and as the time remaining gets increasingly closer to the end than the beginning.
Your opinion to your "open question" has no basis whatsoever at this point, while you characterize the successful strategy as stupid, out-dated and irrelevant there is extensive and overwhelming factual results over the last 10 years and including the present that prove both its relevance and effectiveness.
Doesn't that at least give you some pause? The approach you're deeming as wrong is in fact, highly successful, while the approach you're deeming as correct has no evidence of success whatsoever, at least that's been offered here. I'd love to see it. I'd say any objective observer would either do more than pause or try to find some evidence of its relevance to the conversation much less limited positive results.
It could be argued that throwing on first down was indeed foolish. However, the punitive negative impact of the incompletion on first down (as compared to a run for no gain) absolutely impacts the wisdom of passing again on 2nd down. McCarthy can't control the success or failure of any play as we agree, but his failure to control the negative impact of failure a second time after failing to take that control the play prior would indeed by a foolish decision.
The fact that a coach has very limited control of when and where a failure will occur (he can draw on experience to estimate its chances of happening and to what extent) is EXACTLY the reason they do control what they can - and that is the IMPACT of failure if/when it occurs - late in games with the lead are the instances where doing so is most successful - and failing to do so carries the greatest risk. By minimizing the potential impacts of failure through risk averse decisions, coaches can help position their team to close the game successfully, not in spite of the uncrontrollable factors but by minimizing their negative impacts to the goal of winning the game.
Total games toggle at the top and at the bottom of the selection set of the first Additional Criteria are the "Halftime score margin" and "Score margin after 3 q" for each query, each set to greater than or equal to 1 obviously. The others like year range, all teams etc. I'm sure you'll find obvious.
Description reads:
Current search:
In multiple seasons, from 2006 to 2016, requiring Score margin after 3 Qtrs >= 1, sorted by most games matching criteria
Yeah there's obviously a correlation between winning in any scenario and successfully closing games with the lead, so a coaching staff's player development effectiveness, weekly preparation, and a host of other important coaching skills impact hide themselves in a coach's game management decisions. In general, I think game management has a relatively small impact on a coaches ultimate success relative to the preponderance of other skills a coach needs. Most fans tend to focus on that component to the exclusion of the others in their judgments of coaches. The aspect where game management does have a bigger impact is closing games with the lead though.
The Falcons had a decent run for a stretch the last decade.
You see, that's where I disagree with you. The stats that you provide prove nothing relative to the "reality of McCarthy's level of effectiveness." I see McCarthy's name no where in the stat tables you provide. The tables compare team winning percentages; they say nothing about how or why those percentages are as they are. Stats do not conclude. YOU conclude based on the assumption YOU bring to the table, namely that Head Coaching strategy and game management is directly and solely responsible for the team winning percentages listed.
In fact, any number of factors could be responsible for the stats. Head Coaching strategy and game management is only one factor. Another might be a great offense and superior excellence in the QB position. Another might be overall excellence of players at all positions. Another might be consistently effective performance by the defense. In fact, one could just as easily conclude from the data that Dom Capers is as much responsible for the Packers' won/loss percentage in the stats as McCarthy.
Moreover, it is possible the Packers may have scored high in these won/loss results despite iffy Head Coaching offensive strategy and game management in the second half and 4th quarter. You cannot prove otherwise by reference alone to the statistics you provide.
The truth is that a coach is not simply a risk manager. Yes, each and every play in a football game carries "x" amount of risk of "bad things" happening (lost yards, fumbles, penalties, interceptions, etc.) which the coach must assess and consider based on his knowledge and experience. But each and every play also carries "y" amount of reward potential for "good things" happening (yards gained, field position, scoring position, 1st down gained, time off the clock, etc.) which the coach must assess and weigh against the risk.
How the coach chooses to weigh risk against reward potential tells us whether he is "conservative" or "aggressive," "old school" or "new school" or however we want to describe it. Stubby has proved time and time again that he is, generally speaking, old school conservative.
Well, we may have to give Vince and pugger (and Beveraux?) a medal because if you take vince's search and make some changes, its clear we are talking about less than a handful of games where the situations we describe here make a difference.
If you look at just playoff games, there are 2 games you might remember:
Provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com: View Original TableCode:
Rk Tm From To W L T W-L% Count
1 Denver Broncos 2011 2015 5 0 0 1.000 5 Ind. Games
2 Arizona Cardinals 2008 2009 4 0 0 1.000 4 Ind. Games
3 New Orleans Saints 2006 2013 4 0 0 1.000 4 Ind. Games
4 New York Giants 2007 2011 4 0 0 1.000 4 Ind. Games
5 Carolina Panthers 2014 2015 3 0 0 1.000 3 Ind. Games
6 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2008 3 0 0 1.000 3 Ind. Games
7 Chicago Bears 2006 2010 2 0 0 1.000 2 Ind. Games
8 Houston Texans 2011 2012 2 0 0 1.000 2 Ind. Games
9 New York Jets 2009 2010 2 0 0 1.000 2 Ind. Games
10 Jacksonville Jaguars 2007 2007 1 0 0 1.000 1 Ind. Games
11 Baltimore Ravens 2008 2014 8 1 0 0.889 9 Ind. Games
12 Pittsburgh Steelers 2008 2015 5 1 0 0.833 6 Ind. Games
13 Green Bay Packers 2007 2015 7 2 0 0.778 9 Ind. Games
14 New England Patriots 2006 2015 8 3 0 0.727 11 Ind. Games
15 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2014 5 2 0 0.714 7 Ind. Games
16 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2014 7 3 0 0.700 10 Ind. Games
17 San Francisco 49ers 2011 2013 4 2 0 0.667 6 Ind. Games
18 San Diego Chargers 2006 2013 3 2 0 0.600 5 Ind. Games
19 Atlanta Falcons 2012 2012 1 1 0 0.500 2 Ind. Games
20 Kansas City Chiefs 2013 2015 1 1 0 0.500 2 Ind. Games
21 Minnesota Vikings 2009 2015 1 1 0 0.500 2 Ind. Games
22 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2014 1 3 0 0.250 4 Ind. Games
23 Detroit Lions 2014 2014 0 1 0 0.000 1 Ind. Games
24 Washington Redskins 2012 2012 0 1 0 0.000 1 Ind. Games
Total 2006 2015 81 24 0 .771 105
Generated 9/30/2016.
The Packers list is this:
Provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com: View Original TableCode:
Pass Marg
Rk Tm Year Date Time LTime Opp Week G# Day Result OT Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int Sk Yds Q1 Q2 Q3
1 GNB 2007 2008-01-12 4:33 3:33 SEA 19 17 Sat W 42-20 18 23 78.3 173 3 0 1 0 0 11 15
2 GNB 2010 2011-01-09 4:40 4:40 PHI 18 17 Sun W 21-16 18 27 66.7 171 3 0 2 9 7 11 11
3 GNB 2010 2011-01-15 8:15 8:15 ATL 19 18 Sat W 48-21 31 36 86.1 346 3 0 2 20 -7 14 28
4 GNB 2010 2011-02-06 6:34 5:34 N PIT 21 20 Sun W 31-25 24 39 61.5 288 3 0 3 16 14 11 4
5 GNB 2015 2016-01-10 4:42 4:42 WAS 18 17 Sun W 35-18 21 36 58.3 205 2 0 1 5 -5 6 6
6 GNB 2015 2016-01-16 8:15 6:15 ARI 19 18 Sat L 20-26 OT 24 44 54.5 251 2 1 1 10 -7 -1 3
7 GNB 2012 2013-01-05 8:09 7:09 MIN 18 17 Sat W 24-10 23 33 69.7 250 1 0 3 24 4 14 21
8 GNB 2014 2015-01-18 3:06 12:06 SEA 20 18 Sun L 22-28 OT 19 34 55.9 171 1 2 1 7 13 16 9
9 GNB 2010 2011-01-23 3:05 2:05 CHI 20 19 Sun W 21-14 17 30 56.7 236 0 2 1 8 7 14 14
Generated 9/30/2016.
So 13th ranked win% in playoffs (77.8). Doesn't look tremendous, but there are 10 undefeated with much more limited experience (Packers tied for third most playoff games with lead after 3rd Q, Broncos are undefeated but have 5 games under these conditions).
Patriots have 11, Colts 10, Packers and Balt have 9 games.
So what about good teams? Same criteria against playoff bound teams:
Provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com: View Original TableCode:
Rk Tm From To W L T W-L% Count
1 New Orleans Saints 2006 2014 24 4 0 0.857 28 Ind. Games
2 New England Patriots 2006 2015 34 7 0 0.829 41 Ind. Games
3 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2015 24 5 0 0.828 29 Ind. Games
4 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2015 27 6 0 0.818 33 Ind. Games
5 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2015 16 4 0 0.800 20 Ind. Games
6 New York Jets 2006 2015 16 4 0 0.800 20 Ind. Games
7 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2015 27 7 0 0.794 34 Ind. Games
8 Green Bay Packers 2006 2015 29 8 0 0.784 37 Ind. Games
9 Denver Broncos 2006 2015 25 7 0 0.781 32 Ind. Games
10 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2015 21 6 0 0.778 27 Ind. Games
11 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2015 18 5 1 0.771 24 Ind. Games
12 Atlanta Falcons 2007 2015 12 4 0 0.750 16 Ind. Games
13 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 12 4 0 0.750 16 Ind. Games
14 Carolina Panthers 2006 2015 21 7 1 0.741 29 Ind. Games
15 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2015 18 7 0 0.720 25 Ind. Games
16 New York Giants 2006 2015 17 7 0 0.708 24 Ind. Games
17 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2015 15 6 1 0.705 22 Ind. Games
18 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2015 11 5 0 0.688 16 Ind. Games
19 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2015 11 5 0 0.688 16 Ind. Games
20 Miami Dolphins 2006 2015 13 6 0 0.684 19 Ind. Games
21 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2015 17 8 0 0.680 25 Ind. Games
22 St. Louis Rams 2006 2015 10 5 1 0.656 16 Ind. Games
23 Chicago Bears 2006 2015 18 11 0 0.621 29 Ind. Games
24 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2014 13 8 0 0.619 21 Ind. Games
25 Houston Texans 2006 2014 13 8 0 0.619 21 Ind. Games
26 San Diego Chargers 2006 2014 15 10 0 0.600 25 Ind. Games
27 Washington Redskins 2006 2013 10 8 0 0.556 18 Ind. Games
28 Oakland Raiders 2006 2015 6 5 0 0.545 11 Ind. Games
29 Buffalo Bills 2006 2015 7 6 0 0.538 13 Ind. Games
30 Tennessee Titans 2006 2014 7 7 0 0.500 14 Ind. Games
31 Cleveland Browns 2006 2014 7 11 0 0.389 18 Ind. Games
32 Detroit Lions 2006 2015 6 14 0 0.300 20 Ind. Games
Total 2006 2015 520 215 4 .706 739
Generated 9/30/2016.
Very similar to overall numbers when leading after 3 quarters. If you use the best win percentage recorded (Saints), if its all game management, you get 2 more wins.
OK, different question, what about trailing at 3 Quarters?
Provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com: View Original TableCode:
Rk Tm From To W L T W-L% Count
1 Cleveland Browns 2006 2015 3 48 0 0.059 51 Ind. Games
2 New York Giants 2006 2015 9 40 0 0.184 49 Ind. Games
3 St. Louis Rams 2006 2015 2 47 0 0.041 49 Ind. Games
4 Houston Texans 2006 2015 6 42 0 0.125 48 Ind. Games
5 Oakland Raiders 2006 2015 3 45 0 0.063 48 Ind. Games
6 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2006 2015 3 45 0 0.063 48 Ind. Games
7 Jacksonville Jaguars 2006 2015 2 45 0 0.043 47 Ind. Games
8 Cincinnati Bengals 2006 2015 4 41 1 0.098 46 Ind. Games
9 Tennessee Titans 2006 2015 6 40 0 0.130 46 Ind. Games
10 Atlanta Falcons 2006 2015 5 40 0 0.111 45 Ind. Games
11 Buffalo Bills 2006 2015 3 42 0 0.067 45 Ind. Games
12 Detroit Lions 2006 2015 2 42 0 0.045 44 Ind. Games
13 Chicago Bears 2006 2015 5 37 0 0.119 42 Ind. Games
14 Minnesota Vikings 2006 2015 1 41 0 0.024 42 Ind. Games
15 Arizona Cardinals 2006 2015 3 38 0 0.073 41 Ind. Games
16 Carolina Panthers 2006 2015 3 35 0 0.079 38 Ind. Games
17 San Francisco 49ers 2006 2015 3 35 0 0.079 38 Ind. Games
18 Denver Broncos 2006 2015 6 31 0 0.162 37 Ind. Games
19 Kansas City Chiefs 2006 2015 1 36 0 0.027 37 Ind. Games
20 San Diego Chargers 2006 2015 5 32 0 0.135 37 Ind. Games
21 Seattle Seahawks 2006 2015 8 29 0 0.216 37 Ind. Games
22 Miami Dolphins 2006 2015 4 32 0 0.111 36 Ind. Games
23 New York Jets 2006 2015 2 34 0 0.056 36 Ind. Games
24 Baltimore Ravens 2006 2015 3 33 0 0.083 36 Ind. Games
25 Washington Redskins 2006 2015 3 33 0 0.083 36 Ind. Games
26 Dallas Cowboys 2006 2015 5 30 0 0.143 35 Ind. Games
27 New Orleans Saints 2006 2015 4 31 0 0.114 35 Ind. Games
28 Philadelphia Eagles 2006 2015 1 32 0 0.030 33 Ind. Games
29 Indianapolis Colts 2006 2015 7 25 0 0.219 32 Ind. Games
30 Pittsburgh Steelers 2006 2015 5 27 0 0.156 32 Ind. Games
31 Green Bay Packers 2006 2015 4 26 0 0.133 30 Ind. Games
32 New England Patriots 2006 2015 8 20 0 0.286 28 Ind. Games
Total 2006 2015 129 1154 1 .101 1284
Generated 9/30/2016.
You can see they don't trail often (this is all games (reg season and playoffs included) against playoff qualifiers).
At 30 games when behind, they are 2nd ranked behind Patriots (28 versus 30 games meet criteria).
Their win percentage of these games is 9th. In this case, with a modest amount of games, being the best at this scenario would give you four more wins.
Quick takeaway?
1. We probably overestimate the conservative end of game scenario for its impact on wins. I still maintain it exists and costs them games, but the number overall is less than 5.
2. Playoff leads lead me back to the Seattle game. The Cardinal game featured an ineffectual Packer Offense. It still should have featured a 2 point conversion.
I do think the Packers could increase their success with a more efficient late game strategy. But the difference is not huge. In the playoffs though, one more win is big deal.
3. Packers, given talent elsewhere, not a particularly good comeback team. But difference is still modest.
In regards to the 2 point conversion is has been revealed that Janis was actually hurt on the hail mary and would have been unable to go on a 2pt play. That left GB with only 2 WRs. McCarthy said that he had no two point conversion plays in the playbook based out of a 2WR set
Hard to believe he couldn't have swapped in a short yardage play with two TEs and two WRs. Roll Rodgers right with the weak-side TE going that way and then he has multiple options. Whatever, we now know with utmost certainty that overtime in postseason is instant death for the Packers.
Yeah, I get he didn't have his preferred plays. But injuries happen, the WR corp was already banged up and you need an emergency list.
Its just malpractice not to have it. His offense had not sniffed the red zone much at all. It was the best scoring chance they were likely to get.
Like I said earlier - had MM gone for 2 and we didn't get it you guys would bitched about that. Mike went with the percentages and the tie to try and win it in OT. Who knew our ST and defense couldn't stop Fitzgerald and our offense yet again never saw the damn ball in OT. Besides - who here really thought if we had won that game would we have gone to Charlotte and beaten the Panthers the following week? Or beaten Denver in the SB? This is ancient history. It is way past time to move on from this, gentlemen.
That's the lie. That wasn't the percentage play.
How does the offense, which cannot run a 2 pt play because Janis is injured, score in OT? Was Mr. Miyagi with Janis on the sideline and just needed time? Did McCarthy have a special OT touchdown play on the chart for 2 TE and 2 RB?
I would also like someone who believes McCarthy is correct to run more to protect his defense, defend sending the defense out there again to stop the best NFC offense of 2015?
It too TWO hail marys to climb back into the game. Who was going to deliver another in OT?
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/20...e-gone-for-twoQuote:
NFL Coaches Are Getting Away With Crimes Against Middle-School Math | FiveThirtyEight
According to 538's math, the Packers would have had about a 48.8% chance of winning had they gone for two after the Aaron Rodgers-Jeff Janis hail mary, but just a 40.9% chance of winning if they tried for overtime. This isn't as significant as the Chiefs, who kicked a PAT to go down seven late in the game in New England, which as you'll see is about a 15% swing.
I agree with Pugger. I've been here long enough to know the criticisms that would have followed had he gone for two and lost.
- why pin your season on a single play with your entire receiving corp on the sideline?
- it's dumb to go for two without the personnel that have practiced the two point offense.
- if you take the sure tie, anything can happen in OT, ST score, D score, doesn't have to be the offense.
- GB already had two interceptions, OT could have brought another.
Agree completely. Very good points.
Also, MM had to make this decision within... what? 15-20 seconds of the TD being scored?
If you just get told you don't have enough WRs to run your 2pt play and need to decide what to do within 20 seconds of course the smart thing is to just kick the extra point and live another down.
One has to wonder if he could have processed the fact that his set two point package wasn't available, decided on what plays to use instead, gotten the message out to the assistants to get the correct players on the field and communicated the play selection to Rodgers in the time allowed.
If Michael James Liam Daniel McCarthy's approach to game management includes making ALL the complex calculations between plays without a timeout, then he needs to be removed from the job immediately. This board is now taking an excuse made in the offseason and now ret-conning into a coaching philosophy.
Here is a partial list of things he knew before Janis got hurt.
1. His WR group was thin already. Adams got hurt versus Washington and was not expected to play (this was reported by Tuesday of the week prior to game). Jones was banged up from midseason on. Cobb got hurt in the first quarter and left the game. He played Abby and Janis for most of the game.
2. Having one 2 point play is so dumb, I refuse to believe its his actual approach. While I have disagreements about his methods, I don't think he is this short sighted. Did he have just one goal line play?
3. The ENTIRE GAME was within one score at all times. That makes 2 point conversions an important consideration during the entire game. Especially the entire fourth quarter when you are trailing by conventional scores (3 or 7 points) and have a sputtering offense.
4. McCarty had the 2 minute warning (right before the FG that made it a seven point game) prior to their last drive. Cardinals took a TO at 00:55 seconds remaining.
A coach with a compromised WR position and no depth, had ALL WEEK to prepare more than one 2 pt conversion play and failed to anticipate that this single point of failure was perhaps unwise. It literally should be a weekly part of his preparation that he has more than one go to play in case of emergency that involves multiple personnel groups. McCarthy is so keen on his prep that I cannot imagine he doesn't have this on his chart.
Janis being hurt means Janis might not be able to play the rest of the game. There is no benefit to extending the game in that case. This is the part that kills me. McCarthy doesn't have a full report on player health AFTER the game. But he knows Janis will come back after the PAT and a kickoff have passed?
His offense was putrid in that game. He knew this when the final drive started and he was down seven. At a minimum, he or someone on his staff has the entire drive (and this does not include the calculation that could have been run while the Cardinals were on their previous possession) to find a play.
Despite all the emotion, there is a point buried here, that if true, points to some of his short comings in game management.
If he really was all about that one play for a 2 point conversion, then Mike McCarthy as a coach is dependent entirely on the health of his squad to execute a game plan. Which means at the end of the game he could quite easily be lost without a path to turn to. And since he doesn't know how to take advantage of leverage except when in the lead, this would put him in a precarious position when behind late.
I don't believe he had only the one play. But I might believe that he had one play he liked much better than the others.
Stubby
I was not happy with the decision to kick the EP because I felt that we had a kind of momentum that comes with 2 successful Hail Marys, but I feel certain that there would have been as much criticism on this board from people who couldn't believe that he went for two with Janis out of the game and no viable replacement.
They would have argued that our defense had kept us in the game to that point and we pinned all our hopes on one play with a beat up offense with no receivers.
Its the implication of the entire explanation. That without Janis, there was no play he was willing to try, regardless of game situation or Janis' eventual health. He had a play he liked, that required 3 receivers. Once Janis was banged up, there was no other smart choice.
I strongly doubt its the case, but it is the excuse proffered.
But even if true, it poses the dilemma, what would the offense run if Janis was done for the game?
You are over dramatizing the entire situation. So what if all of their preferred plays for this game were with a minimum of 3 WRs? How much time during the week should be dedicated to working on two point plays? The could have still had a bucket full of plays available with 3 or 4 WRs. That's what the team was prepared for. By this time he was probably even discounting Jones, as being not much more than a body on the field. Abbrederis, Rodgers and Perillo doesn't make the defense worry much about the pass, does it?
Who said Janis was done for the game? He said he knew Janis wasn't available for the two point play. Perhaps Janis was just being checked out and would have returned, but even if he didn't they would have had time to collect the team and proceed with a 2 TE offense.
The problem is, for that game, only certain players were ready to run onto the field for a two point attempt, depending on what was called. That didn't include formations with 2 WRs. Could they have run something else? Sure, but sidelines can be a bit chaotic and communicating that in the world of specialists and role-players that the NFL has become can take more than a few seconds.
That said, I wanted a two-point try just to get it over one way or the other.
On a team that has injury problems with WR, you cannot have all specialty plays be 3 wide. I don't think you would want that in any health scenario; what if the opposition sits on the pass all game? Seems simple enough. But that day they went into the game with 4 active. One of those four, as you point out, was busted up. And two of the others were players he was reluctant to trust. The math simply does not add up here.
Dramatic is McCarthy's claim that the one play he had ready for a 2 pointer was rendered null and void by Janis' injury. If he knew Janis was unavailable for the 2 pointer and had not yet gotten a prognosis on the rest of the game (which I agree is HIGHLY likely) then his decision to eschew a 2 pointer looks even more ill conceived. With 3 WRs, his offense could barely move the ball. With 2, how was he going to drive the length of the field?
How do you call a 2 point play? You call the personnel and formation on the sideline as always happens and you give the play to the QB.
They had two practices that week, I wouldn't expect a lot of time dedicated to practicing two point plays. With limited time, you can prepare limited options.
Heck, would Lacy have even been able to run that far? :-) He was probably still gassed from his long run early in the game when he had to work hard to find a defender to tackle him and put him out of his misery.
The more I think about it, with his available receivers being Abbrederis, Jones, Rodgers, Perillo and Backman; the TEs being less than average blockers, Bakhtiarri on a gimpy ankle, Sitton a bad back, Lang a shoulder some said he shouldn't have played with; they were probably screwed no matter what they would have called in the constricted area of a two point play.
It's funny here how so many people criticize MM kicking the extra point. In the game thread literally only one person said we should have gone for two before the OT coin toss occured. It's easy to second guess after we lose the toss, easier after we lose the game, and especially easy after 8 months of dwelling and analyzing everything. Mccarthy had 20 seconds to choose and he chose to tie. I still have no problem with it. Our goalline offense had been a mess, and if we fail we lose. It's hard to anticipate the worst possible outtcome would actually happen in OT.