Improve This Article: Reasons Packers Retreated To 6-10

[Fritz]

Poor kickers. Their mistakes are so apparent. I sometimes wonder if, after a "if only the kicker had..." statement, there might be two missed blocks that a lineman might've had that - had he made them - might've won the team the two games it lost.

Or if two dropped passes could be the difference between 9-7 and 7-9. Or two missed linebacker assignments.

and so on.

[hoosier]

That right there is why close games are nothing more than.....



When all that takes place on the field is considered, random chance moreso than anything else decides the outcome, it cannot be replicated, long term consistent success or failure cannot be sustained, it is what it is, the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 for most teams is nothing more than a little luck.
No coach can bring it, they cannot teach it, try as they might, no special "clutch" players can do it consistently. A team may get hot or cold for a year or two, but as the picture gets wider, the "clutch" factor disappears into nothingness. Fans want to assign why to things. There is no why, it is just the way the game is. Football is a game of skill and a game of luck.

I haven't looked at this question closely enough to have a strong position in favor or against what you're saying. Intuitively, what you're saying makes some sense--luck undeniably plays a big part in many close games. But so do mental preparation, training and good coaching. Let's imagine doing a five year comparison of a well coached team (Bill Bellichick or Bill Parcells) aginast a poorly coached team (pick your example). You're not really saying that the poorly prepared team would fare equally well over the long run in close games as the well prepared team, are you? Or, to put this in more concrete terms, how would you explain the disparity between Carolina and New Orleans in close games under their current coaches? Carolina is 23-17 in games decided by 4 or fewer points under Fox; New Orleans is 6-15 in games of <4 pts under Payton. Payton has only been coaching for three years; that record might be an anomaly. But Fox has been there for, what, seven years? It seems to me he has to be doing something better than most to be 23-17 in close games over more than half a decade.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Poor kickers. Their mistakes are so apparent. I sometimes wonder if, after a "if only the kicker had..." statement, there might be two missed blocks that a lineman might've had that - had he made them - might've won the team the two games it lost.

Or if two dropped passes could be the difference between 9-7 and 7-9. Or two missed linebacker assignments.

and so on.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Or look at the other side of the coin. How many FGs, dropped passes, etc. were there for the opposing teams in the 6 wins the Pack had last year?

Again, that's just football.

However, some coaches and players will tell you luck is where hard work and opportunity meet.

[ThunderDan]

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.

Well, if Mason Crosby makes two kicks(vs. Bears & Vikings), they would have been 8-8. Not blaming him for the losses mind you, but it does show you this team wasn't as bad as the 6-10 record indicates.

Seriously dude you have to let this line of thinking go. Missed FGs? That's football. I could just as easily say the Vikings were a missed FG away from sweeping the pack last year. I could point out a handful of plays that, had they been different by only inches would have resulted in many more wins for the Vikings, or any othe team.

Like the 4 or 5 times AP was on the field with his helmet off and the officals don't call a 15 yard penalty?

[cheesner]

That right there is why close games are nothing more than.....



When all that takes place on the field is considered, random chance moreso than anything else decides the outcome, it cannot be replicated, long term consistent success or failure cannot be sustained, it is what it is, the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 for most teams is nothing more than a little luck.
No coach can bring it, they cannot teach it, try as they might, no special "clutch" players can do it consistently. A team may get hot or cold for a year or two, but as the picture gets wider, the "clutch" factor disappears into nothingness. Fans want to assign why to things. There is no why, it is just the way the game is. Football is a game of skill and a game of luck.

I haven't looked at this question closely enough to have a strong position in favor or against what you're saying. Intuitively, what you're saying makes some sense--luck undeniably plays a big part in many close games. But so do mental preparation, training and good coaching. Let's imagine doing a five year comparison of a well coached team (Bill Bellichick or Bill Parcells) aginast a poorly coached team (pick your example). You're not really saying that the poorly prepared team would fare equally well over the long run in close games as the well prepared team, are you? Or, to put this in more concrete terms, how would you explain the disparity between Carolina and New Orleans in close games under their current coaches? Carolina is 23-17 in games decided by 4 or fewer points under Fox; New Orleans is 6-15 in games of <4 pts under Payton. Payton has only been coaching for three years; that record might be an anomaly. But Fox has been there for, what, seven years? It seems to me he has to be doing something better than most to be 23-17 in close games over more than half a decade.

I think you are both correct. Luck certainly plays a role in deciding outcomes. Close games and deciding plays that could go either way, are left to chance by at least some percentage. However, it is a coach and players that put themselves in the position to win has also a sizable consideration in the equation.

Think about poker. If you get a great hand on the flop and you sucker some other player into going all in, you did well. You are not guaranteed to win, but the odds are way in your favor. Even though you have a 95% chance of doubling your money - he may luck out and hit runner runner and win the hand. Luck plays a role but playing smartly in poker over the long haul will net me more victories than defeats.

In football if you are coaching well and playing well, eventually, you will get more wins than defeats. The better you are in each of those categories, the more likely you are to win. The more likely you are to win the more wins you will have over the long haul.

[Waldo]

That right there is why close games are nothing more than.....



When all that takes place on the field is considered, random chance moreso than anything else decides the outcome, it cannot be replicated, long term consistent success or failure cannot be sustained, it is what it is, the difference between 6-10 and 10-6 for most teams is nothing more than a little luck.
No coach can bring it, they cannot teach it, try as they might, no special "clutch" players can do it consistently. A team may get hot or cold for a year or two, but as the picture gets wider, the "clutch" factor disappears into nothingness. Fans want to assign why to things. There is no why, it is just the way the game is. Football is a game of skill and a game of luck.

I haven't looked at this question closely enough to have a strong position in favor or against what you're saying. Intuitively, what you're saying makes some sense--luck undeniably plays a big part in many close games. But so do mental preparation, training and good coaching. Let's imagine doing a five year comparison of a well coached team (Bill Bellichick or Bill Parcells) aginast a poorly coached team (pick your example). You're not really saying that the poorly prepared team would fare equally well over the long run in close games as the well prepared team, are you? Or, to put this in more concrete terms, how would you explain the disparity between Carolina and New Orleans in close games under their current coaches? Carolina is 23-17 in games decided by 4 or fewer points under Fox; New Orleans is 6-15 in games of <4 pts under Payton. Payton has only been coaching for three years; that record might be an anomaly. But Fox has been there for, what, seven years? It seems to me he has to be doing something better than most to be 23-17 in close games over more than half a decade.

I think that a lot of it really depends on where your arbitrarily chosen point is. 4 pts? IMO 6 pts or less is a better measure. It is the boundary that separates a 1 play game from a multiplay game, and it captures OT (they don't kick extra points in OT). When the game is within 6, 1 play (assuming automatic extra points, a fairly safe assumption) is all that is needed for a lead change, either a great defensive or offensive play can win the game.

Since Fox came to Carolina they are +6 in W-L of games decided by 6 or fewer points (25-19), a win % of 56.8%. Over the same time period in games decided by 7 points or more they are 38-30, a win % of 55.9%. Interesting to note though, over Fox's tenure prior to 2008, they were +1 in close games (20-19), 2008 was an exceptionally good year for them in the close ones (no shocker that they went 12-4). The net difference in close games W-L in Fox's tenure goes: -2, 6, -5, 1, -1, 2, 5, there is no pattern of consistent success.

For Payton, they are -2 in close games over his tenure, a win % of 44.4%. Over the same period their record in games decided by 7 or more is 56.7%. Again, but just the opposite of Carolina, they are coming off of a down year, prior to 2008 they were +1. The net difference in close games in Payton's tenure goes: 1, 0, -3, again, no pattern.

GB this decade is +1 in close games, a win % of 51.0%. Over the same time period the non close winning % is 62.1%. Prior to '08 the Packers were +7 in close games this decade (we were due). The net difference in close games for the Pack this decade goes: 2, -1, 5, -2, 3, -4, 1, 3, -6, again, absolutely no pattern. Going back to 1970 the Pack is +8 in games decided by 6 or fewer, and there is an average of about 6 close games a year.

Pit has been well coached. They are actually +8 this decade, and their yearly #'s go: -2, 2, 3, -4, 6, -1, 1, -1, 4, for a win % of 58.7%. Their non close winning % over the same time period is 67.3%. No shocker that the year they won 5 close ones they went 15-1 (and went 11-5 the next year, actually as a better team winning the SB), last year they won 4 they went 12-4. Something tells me Pit isn't going to replicate their success next year. Call it a hunch.

[pack4to84]

Very impressive Waldo.

[SMACKTALKIE]

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.

Well, if Mason Crosby makes two kicks(vs. Bears & Vikings), they would have been 8-8. Not blaming him for the losses mind you, but it does show you this team wasn't as bad as the 6-10 record indicates.

Seriously dude you have to let this line of thinking go. Missed FGs? That's football. I could just as easily say the Vikings were a missed FG away from sweeping the pack last year. I could point out a handful of plays that, had they been different by only inches would have resulted in many more wins for the Vikings, or any othe team.

Like the 4 or 5 times AP was on the field with his helmet off and the officals don't call a 15 yard penalty?

Right..... or the pass interference that was not called against Al Harris in week one. Had it been called the Vikings could have easily won that game.

[Scott Campbell]

So are great players lucky more often than average players?

And do great teams blow out more teams to stay out of tight games, and away from luck influenced outcomes?

[Patler]

The problem with looking at just margin of victory to determine a "close game"is that the final margin is not necessarily indicative of the nature of the game. Nearly 40% of all NFL games are decided by 6 points or less, yet I would not call 40% of all NFL games close games.

Too many games that are not particularly close the first 50+ minutes become "close" under the 6 point criteria only in the waning moments of a game. A team comfortably in the lead plays prevent defense and very conservative on offense, and sees a 20 point lead cut to six as time runs out. Conversely, we have all seen seesaw battles late into the 4th quarter all of a sudden swing significantly to one team because of a couple turnovers during the last few minutes.

To properly evaluate the effects of coaching vs. "luck" on close games, one really has to analyze the nature of the game and how the game was decided. If a team has a 20+ point lead into the 4th quarter, and wins by 3 or 6, did their coach do a good job winning a close game, or a poor job for darn near losing a game that should have been in hand? Did the losing coach do badly because he lost a close game, or does he get credit for almost staging a great comeback?

[woodbuck27]

I watched the games and found this to be the biggest problem. This team is soft when it matters and can't stomp on the throat of the enemy. They can take them to the ground but are too gutless to finish the job.

Please give me an example of a player being gutless on the team. Please give me an example of a player being soft. Otherwise, this is a bland generalization of an emotional reaction to losing a game. This does not tell me why they lost, just how someone felt about it. You need to break this down to a finite act, something we can observe and measure. Otherwise its just announcer twaddle that sounds convincing because you are finding fault with the team that lost. It tells us nothing about WHY. Did Hawk struggle because he soft or injured? Did Pickett struggle because he suddenly became soft, injured, or without adequate help at the other DT?

My beef with the team is the lack of mental toughness, which is a reflection on the coach.

Please show me a concrete example, a finite one, of mental toughness. Or the lack thereof. Did Tramon Williams struggle after going back to the nickel spot because of toughness? Where did you see it?

his play calling with the lead could provide some doubt.

This gives us something to work with. But it has nothing to do with toughness or softness or aggression. The strategy used works most of the time. There is a reason people as diverse as Bill Parcells, Belicheck, Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs and Mike Holmgren have used it. Tell me why it failed with McCarthy and the 08 Packers, don't just remind me that it did.

Unless you can point to the event on the field, these are just emotionalisms. Provide us with something specific, more than the fact that the Packers were getting outscored in the 4th quarter. Why did it happen?

No any intended or personal knock on you Partial but we can all learn from this post. I'll add that it's the job of the coach's to review plays that are decisive to loss's and communicate clearly with players that may have screwed up. The GM must ensure that the players have the reasonable skill level to execute properly.

Defensive and offensive philosophy - acquisition - communication - practise - analysis of results- PRACTISE. Players make and remain on a team based on attitude and dedication to contribute. PRACTISE.

I'm getting you pbmax. Here ladies and gentleman is the difference between a mere post and a great post. It calls upon us all to use our brains and not so much our emotions.

It demands of us what is needed to make this forum truly a solid one and not what we see all over the internet and can be best summed up as ignorance and lousy manners.

GO PACK GO!

[Waldo]

And do great teams blow out more teams to stay out of tight games, and away from luck influenced outcomes?

Nope, no pattern to that either. Some years there will be 3 close ones, some years there will be 10.

There is no why. No matter how much we want to believe that there is.

[Fritz]

Poor kickers. Their mistakes are so apparent. I sometimes wonder if, after a "if only the kicker had..." statement, there might be two missed blocks that a lineman might've had that - had he made them - might've won the team the two games it lost.

Or if two dropped passes could be the difference between 9-7 and 7-9. Or two missed linebacker assignments.

and so on.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Or look at the other side of the coin. How many FGs, dropped passes, etc. were there for the opposing teams in the 6 wins the Pack had last year?

Again, that's just football.

However, some coaches and players will tell you luck is where hard work and opportunity meet.

I thought hard work and opportunity met at a beautiful woman.

On a more serious note - wow. A real football discussion. This is so wonderful I'm pinching myself to make sure it's real.

Thank you Waldo, Hoosier, Cheesner, and all who have contributed to this thoughtful analysis.

[Scott Campbell]

And do great teams blow out more teams to stay out of tight games, and away from luck influenced outcomes?

Nope, no pattern to that either. Some years there will be 3 close ones, some years there will be 10.

There is no why. No matter how much we want to believe that there is.

Ok, but then how do great coaches consistently field great teams? Are they just statistical outliers?

I'd like to think that Vince had a little more going for him than luck.

[Fritz]

And do great teams blow out more teams to stay out of tight games, and away from luck influenced outcomes?

Nope, no pattern to that either. Some years there will be 3 close ones, some years there will be 10.

There is no why. No matter how much we want to believe that there is.

Ok, but then how do great coaches consistently field great teams? Are they just statistical outliers?

I'd like to think that Vince had a little more going for him than luck.

He read Goethe's Faust and worked out his own deal?