Improve This Article: Reasons Packers Retreated To 6-10

[pbmax]

I think we skipped one.

#3 - 2nd Half Strategy With A Lead

In several of the eight losses, McCarthy was clearly leaning on his run game to burn clock and shorten the game in the second half. This is often a wise strategy as it limits mistakes, limits possessions and usually keeps the field position battle even. Late in games, it can be more important to run 3 times and fail to get a first down as you can burn timeouts or take time off the clock. It also takes the pressure off a first year starter at QB.

But with this edition of his team, swapping punts was usually a net loss. Lurker enumerated the problem with the run game. And the defense, even when it had an advantage in TOP, could not hold up to an offense throwing the kitchen sink at it. Pack D backs can stop the passing game, but getting gashed with long runs makes the pass D an afterthought. Given the capabilities of his team, he took the air out of the ball too early.

I can understand McCarthy not wanting to change his gameplan until injuries made it obvious that this was not going to improve. At a certain point (Tennessee maybe?) he had to realize he had a team that needed to win overwhelmingly with its offense.

[Packnut]

MS

I think we skipped one.

#3 - 2nd Half Strategy With A Lead

In several of the eight losses, McCarthy was clearly leaning on his run game to burn clock and shorten the game in the second half. This is often a wise strategy as it limits mistakes, limits possessions and usually keeps the field position battle even. Late in games, it can be more important to run 3 times and fail to get a first down as you can burn timeouts or take time off the clock. It also takes the pressure off a first year starter at QB.

But with this edition of his team, swapping punts was usually a net loss. Lurker enumerated the problem with the run game. And the defense, even when it had an advantage in TOP, could not hold up to an offense throwing the kitchen sink at it. Pack D backs can stop the passing game, but getting gashed with long runs makes the pass D an afterthought. Given the capabilities of his team, he took the air out of the ball too early.

I can understand McCarthy not wanting to change his gameplan until injuries made it obvious that this was not going to improve. At a certain point (Tennessee maybe?) he had to realize he had a team that needed to win overwhelmingly with its offense.

It's the "Mike Sherman" syndrome. An inability for a coach to react to what's happening on the field and make the right changes. Anyone with half a brain could see our D could'nt stop a HS offense, yet MM handcuffed his offense continually at key times in the 2nd half.

If you look at the good coaches in the NFL both past and present, you'll see their biggest strength is reacting to game play. BB is a master of it in New England. Conversely, look at the poor coaches and they are infected with the Sherman syndrome.

All we can do is hope MM has learned his lesson..........

[woodbuck27]

2. Special Teams. Thompson made a huge blunder by letting Mike Stock talk him into relasing P Jon Ryan mere days before the opener. The position never got settled as they went through multiple punters. The coverage units regressed and were regualry giving up significant position to the opposition while the return units couldn't gain any postion.

To add to this or rub salt into the wound of a judgement of a late cut of a previous starter at a vital position that appeared on the mend:

Jon Ryan had a very solid season punting in Seattle as I recall. Good for Jon Ryan.

I'm still trying to understand Stock's reasoning on that one. If TT hadn't found Kapinos, during the season, we'd have been completely screwed.

That one really shocked me MJ. I know the reputation and heart of Jon Ryan by all I've read on him personally and his career to date. I hope that Jon Ryan will continue to have a solid career as a punter.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

At one point in the season, Ryan was ranked right at the bottom in the major statistics. Not sure how he finished out.

Maybe you could look that up falco? You were never on board with Jon Ryan as I recall.

GO PACKERS!

[pbmax]

Topics Left Untouched By Bedard and This Thread (so far):

6. Rodgers Areas For Improvement (yes it would be OK to compare him to Brett since this is one of the ways the team changed year to year)

7. Linebacking Corp: Victim or Perpetrator of Dreck?

8. Strength of Schedule and Matchups: Its all important, but no one pays attention to it except when next season's schedule is announced. That is the worst way to consider it since all the teams will be different by Sept and REALLY different in November.

[Pugger]

Another problem we had last year (and at times in 2007) was no pass rush. Losing KGB didn't help. Neither did having Harrell on the PUP list and losing Jenkins. Some folks blame it all on TT trading Williams to Cleveland but this trade was before the D line went to hell in a handbasket (and Williams wasn't setting the world on fire in OH either). With this poor pass rush and weakness at safety opposing QBs had a field day against us.

[Fritz]

I'm going to dip into the TexasPackerBacker's playbook:

Injuries. Every team has 'em, sure. No doubt. However, to lose Jenkins and Barnett and to have AJ Hawk and Atari Bigby playing one-armed or one-legged is a lot to overcome.

I'm still glad that Sanders got fired (no glad in terms of wishing him ill), but I do think that maybe 8-8 or perhaps - perhaps - 9-7 was possible if injuries had not played such a major role.

[]{ilr]3]

Some folks blame it all on TT trading Williams to Cleveland but this trade was before the D line went to hell in a handbasket (and Williams wasn't setting the world on fire in OH either).

Really, I didnt people were too ruffled about him being traded away? I thought even at the time we got a decent value for him and then he turned out to be such a turd after he got paid that just sweetened the deal.

[Fritz]

Who knew a turd could sweeten anything?

[wist43]

Number one reason is defense...

That passive piece of junk scheme they were running... might as well have been playing flag football.

TT should have gone to a 3-4 the year he was hired... had he??? we would probably be contenders - as it is, even with the needed switch, and even with bringing in an actual 1st round calibur Def. Linemen (Raji), it is going to take a few years to transition.

So, we are into year 5 of TT's regime, and even if we ramp up from here, we're looking at year 8 before we might be considered contenders... that's a lot of wasted years of OJT.

[SkinBasket]

Who knew a turd could sweeten anything?

You've never tried cheap caviar with boiled egg on a cracker have you?

[woodbuck27]

[b]#5. SES syndrome (Seven-Eleven Syndrome).

This team could not close, be it offensively, defensively or on special teams. Despite what the statistics say, this team was horrible in the second half of games. Until this changes they will stay near 6-10.

I've studied this through historical records of the seasons of several teams, over several years going back decades, and have well over 150 data points.

There is absolutely no correlation to anything when it comes to winning/losing close games.

Carolina lost more close ones than they won for about a 4 year stretch, that is the biggest that I could find. If I recall correctly the Packers are +9 in close games W-L since 1970, since 1992 they win them at a rate of 58%, well below the teams non-close rate. This holds true for all teams in the NFL all QB's, over a given length of time, any teams W-L record in games decided by less than a TD is closer to 50% than their record in decisive games.

When a game is close, roll the dice, the winner of the game is practically decided by pure random chance. There is no such thing as a "winner", that closer than wins in the clutch.

In season the team developed negative momentum last year. With a new season, it takes 1 game to break that type of momentum.

That's good research. Interesting stuff Waldo. I believe the best teams just have that strength of attitude and preperation to close out tight games as winners. That is the true measure of an organization in terms of pleasing the fan and owners.

GO PACK GO!

[bobblehead]

I don't know if you guys have noticed, I have not once entered into any sort of Favre debate. It is a battle I've been fighting for more than 5 years, and I used to come from a very unpopular position, that has risen in popularity in the last year.

So you, me, harrell and several others agree...Favre has always been a selfish ass, its just standing out more now.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't know if you guys have noticed, I have not once entered into any sort of Favre debate. It is a battle I've been fighting for more than 5 years, and I used to come from a very unpopular position, that has risen in popularity in the last year.

So you, me, harrell and several others agree...Favre has always been a selfish ass, its just standing out more now.

You must have skimmed over the part in bold.

[Gunakor]

[b]#5. SES syndrome (Seven-Eleven Syndrome).

This team could not close, be it offensively, defensively or on special teams. Despite what the statistics say, this team was horrible in the second half of games. Until this changes they will stay near 6-10.

I've studied this through historical records of the seasons of several teams, over several years going back decades, and have well over 150 data points.

There is absolutely no correlation to anything when it comes to winning/losing close games.

Carolina lost more close ones than they won for about a 4 year stretch, that is the biggest that I could find. If I recall correctly the Packers are +9 in close games W-L since 1970, since 1992 they win them at a rate of 58%, well below the teams non-close rate. This holds true for all teams in the NFL all QB's, over a given length of time, any teams W-L record in games decided by less than a TD is closer to 50% than their record in decisive games.

When a game is close, roll the dice, the winner of the game is practically decided by pure random chance. There is no such thing as a "winner", that closer than wins in the clutch.

In season the team developed negative momentum last year. With a new season, it takes 1 game to break that type of momentum.

That's good research. Interesting stuff Waldo. I believe the best teams just have that strength of attitude and preperation to close out tight games as winners. That is the true measure of an organization in terms of pleasing the fan and owners.

GO PACK GO!

I think Waldo's post suggests that in tight games many times the outcome rests on which way that oblong ball bounces. It's not always the best or most prepared team that wins those close games, sometimes it's just the luckiest. That's why you almost never see teams go 14-0 or 16-0 for the season. You could be the best prepared team in the NFL week in and week out, but over a 17 week season the ball is bound to bounce in the opponents direction at least once or twice in close contests.