Tweet
There is a good article in JS Online on McStubby's lack of a ground game Sunday:
Bob McGinn sums up his article by writing:
The article offers interesting insights from McStubby and Campen on the lack of a ground game.
McStubby sums it up by saying:
He expanded on the subject in today's press conference:
I find McStubby's answer amazing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems McStubby is saying he goes into the game trying to score as many points as possible and actually lets the opponent's defense dictate his play calling mix.
This sounds reasonable on the surface. Yes, points are nice. You can't win without them. And TACTICALLY it's wise to take what the defense gives you.
On the other hand, shouldn't a team have an overall STRATEGY to win the game, not just score points? Yes, scoring a ton of points can lead to a win, but, as we saw yesterday, that strategy doesn't work if the opponent manages to score a ton of points too, plus one.
Big Ben was on the field over 10 minutes longer than Rodgers yesterday. That means the Packer defense was on the field over 10 minutes longer than Pittsburgh's. I think that showed down the stretch.
All of those three and outs the Packers had yesterday consumed very little time and cost the Steelers very little in terms of expended effort.
I don't care what defensive formation the Steelers were in. I don't care what their reputation is for being able to stop the run. If we had run the ball on every down and still went three-and-out, at least we would have bloodied some Steeler noses and took some time off the clock, time which Big Ben needed on that last drive down the field.
I think we could have run the ball more and still have thrown the ball down the field and scored -- maybe not as often, but then maybe we would have needed so many points.
When we've run the ball over 20 times this year, we've done pretty good. We've scored points and won the Time of Possession battle. And won games.
When we've engaged the other team in a pure passing contest, we've failed as often as we've succeeded, especially against teams with top notch QB's. And against them, we've often needed a plus number of turnovers to seal the victory.
Sunday, we gave up on the rushing game -- either by design or by reason of what the Steeler defense dictated. The point is, it didn't work. And it will continue not to work.
You can't rush the ball less than 20 times a game and lose the battle for Time of Possession and still win, unless you save yourself with turnovers.
Sunday, we didn't have any game-changing turnovers. Zero.
We rushed the ball 9 times.
Yeah, I know: "We're a passing team." Many of you have been kind enough to point this out to me.
In my opinion there's more to the game than passing. In fact, someone should tell McStubby that he's wrong. It's not all "about points" and it hasn't always been all about scoring points.
It's about winning. 10 points will suffice as well as 36, so long as the opponent scores 9 or less.
McStubby needs a new Strategery.
Bob McGinn sums up his article by writing:
Clearly, the Packers will need their ground game before long. They just didn't think they needed it in Pittsburgh against the Steelers' 3-4 base personnel.
McStubby sums it up by saying:
"They played a lot more base defense vs. some of our personnel groups," McCarthy said of his extreme offensive imbalance. "We felt confident throwing the football. We intended to attack the middle of the field. That's why we were throwing the football."
(The run-pass ratio was skewed. Are you OK with running the ball as little as you did?)
It's about points; it always has been. I think running the ball and throwing the ball statistically, it just makes you look at that area. I know you go through the run/pass ratios all of the time. We don't always play that way. We have a quarterback and an offensive unit that can handle a lot of adjustments at the line, and I think we're very good at that part of it. If it's running the ball versus a better look, we'll run it, and if it's throwing it versus a better look then we'll throw it. That's a starting point. Sometimes we line up and just throw it and sometimes we line up and just run it. The way the defense plays you when you are a multiple-personnel, multiple-concept, multiple-formation offense, has a lot to do with the direction of the game. Walking into the game I thought we would be a little more mixed run/throw the football, but the way they played us on first and second down, I thought we did a good job of attacking their defense.
It's about points; it always has been. I think running the ball and throwing the ball statistically, it just makes you look at that area. I know you go through the run/pass ratios all of the time. We don't always play that way. We have a quarterback and an offensive unit that can handle a lot of adjustments at the line, and I think we're very good at that part of it. If it's running the ball versus a better look, we'll run it, and if it's throwing it versus a better look then we'll throw it. That's a starting point. Sometimes we line up and just throw it and sometimes we line up and just run it. The way the defense plays you when you are a multiple-personnel, multiple-concept, multiple-formation offense, has a lot to do with the direction of the game. Walking into the game I thought we would be a little more mixed run/throw the football, but the way they played us on first and second down, I thought we did a good job of attacking their defense.
This sounds reasonable on the surface. Yes, points are nice. You can't win without them. And TACTICALLY it's wise to take what the defense gives you.
On the other hand, shouldn't a team have an overall STRATEGY to win the game, not just score points? Yes, scoring a ton of points can lead to a win, but, as we saw yesterday, that strategy doesn't work if the opponent manages to score a ton of points too, plus one.
Big Ben was on the field over 10 minutes longer than Rodgers yesterday. That means the Packer defense was on the field over 10 minutes longer than Pittsburgh's. I think that showed down the stretch.
All of those three and outs the Packers had yesterday consumed very little time and cost the Steelers very little in terms of expended effort.
I don't care what defensive formation the Steelers were in. I don't care what their reputation is for being able to stop the run. If we had run the ball on every down and still went three-and-out, at least we would have bloodied some Steeler noses and took some time off the clock, time which Big Ben needed on that last drive down the field.
I think we could have run the ball more and still have thrown the ball down the field and scored -- maybe not as often, but then maybe we would have needed so many points.
When we've run the ball over 20 times this year, we've done pretty good. We've scored points and won the Time of Possession battle. And won games.
When we've engaged the other team in a pure passing contest, we've failed as often as we've succeeded, especially against teams with top notch QB's. And against them, we've often needed a plus number of turnovers to seal the victory.
Sunday, we gave up on the rushing game -- either by design or by reason of what the Steeler defense dictated. The point is, it didn't work. And it will continue not to work.
You can't rush the ball less than 20 times a game and lose the battle for Time of Possession and still win, unless you save yourself with turnovers.
Sunday, we didn't have any game-changing turnovers. Zero.
We rushed the ball 9 times.
Yeah, I know: "We're a passing team." Many of you have been kind enough to point this out to me.
In my opinion there's more to the game than passing. In fact, someone should tell McStubby that he's wrong. It's not all "about points" and it hasn't always been all about scoring points.
It's about winning. 10 points will suffice as well as 36, so long as the opponent scores 9 or less.
McStubby needs a new Strategery.
Comment