Mike McCarthy, Forrest Gregg, Vince Lombardi

[CaliforniaCheez]

I was recently looking for some information on Forrest Gregg and I came across a tidbit on the official Bengals site. It was discussing their January 10,1982 win in the second coldest game ever played.

"Gregg ends this day with the distinction of winning the two coldest games in NFL history. He had been the right tackle in the Ice Bowl when he dug in next to right guard Jerry Kramer and center Ken Bowman on the Lambeau Field goal line as Packers quarterback Bart Starr knifed between them with 16 seconds left to give Green Bay the NFL championship over the Cowboys in minus-13 and minus-48 wind chill weather on the last day of 1967.

Now 14 years later the icemen cometh again and while San Diego stumbles to four turnovers (future Bengal running back James Brooks has a costly fumble), Gregg's men turn it over just once. After the Packers lost the 1960 NFL title game on a frozen field in Philadelphia, Packers coach Vince Lombardi never practiced indoors again on the way to five NFL titles.

So he sends the Bengals outside all week before the game."

MCCarthy's record with the Packers in the last week of November to the end of the season is 10-9 outdoors with 3 of those wins being at home against the Lions.
If you take out the Lions games McCarthy is 4-2 at Lambeau regular season and 1-1 in the playoffs.
The late season road losses were at Chicago(2), Seattle, Dallas, Carolina, and Jacksonville.

Anyone else think McCarthy should have the players practicing outdoors more late in the season?

10-9 outdoors in cold weather does not sound very good and nonLion games being 7-9 seems poor for a team that should have an advantage in cold weather.

[Tony Oday]

Re: Mike McCarthy, Forrest Gregg, Vince Lombardi

I was recently looking for some information on Forrest Gregg and I came across a tidbit on the official Bengals site. It was discussing their January 10,1982 win in the second coldest game ever played.

"Gregg ends this day with the distinction of winning the two coldest games in NFL history. He had been the right tackle in the Ice Bowl when he dug in next to right guard Jerry Kramer and center Ken Bowman on the Lambeau Field goal line as Packers quarterback Bart Starr knifed between them with 16 seconds left to give Green Bay the NFL championship over the Cowboys in minus-13 and minus-48 wind chill weather on the last day of 1967.

Now 14 years later the icemen cometh again and while San Diego stumbles to four turnovers (future Bengal running back James Brooks has a costly fumble), Gregg's men turn it over just once. After the Packers lost the 1960 NFL title game on a frozen field in Philadelphia, Packers coach Vince Lombardi never practiced indoors again on the way to five NFL titles.

So he sends the Bengals outside all week before the game."

MCCarthy's record with the Packers in the last week of November to the end of the season is 10-9 outdoors with 3 of those wins being at home against the Lions.
If you take out the Lions games McCarthy is 4-2 at Lambeau regular season and 1-1 in the playoffs.
The late season road losses were at Chicago(2), Seattle, Dallas, Carolina, and Jacksonville.

Anyone else think McCarthy should have the players practicing outdoors more late in the season?

10-9 outdoors in cold weather does not sound very good and nonLion games being 7-9 seems poor for a team that should have an advantage in cold weather.

Well give it a year...I mean c'mon that is a small sampling and hell the team was not good two years ago...

[bigcoz75]

Re: Mike McCarthy, Forrest Gregg, Vince Lombardi

Well give it a year...I mean c'mon that is a small sampling and hell the team was not good two years ago...

I agree plus last year was the first year they had a quality outdoor practice facility.

[Tony Oday]

I do have to say though I miss the REAL homefield advantage we used to have...it used to be a house of horrors for the visiting team...

[The Leaper]

It has nothing to do with practicing outdoors.

It has everything to do with a running game and OL that doesn't need help from the passing game to be successful. In frigid weather, you have to have a running game that can run the ball 80% of the time and find success.

Our OL and running game right now struggles whenever the ratio of run-pass moves in favor of run plays. Our OL is not good enough to consistently open up holes for the RBs...and the RBs aren't good enough to make some plays when there isn't a hole.

[vince]

Sounds good Leaper, intuitive even, but it doesn’t stand up to the facts. Running the ball in the cold doesn't drive winning. Winning teams tend to run the ball to milk the clock, but running teams don't necessarily win - in the cold or heat.

Holmgren was 10-1 regular season after Thanksgiving at home in his first four years with the Packers, averaging 113 yards rushing, running the ball 47% of the time in those games.

McCarthy teams have been 7-3 regular season after Thanksgiving at home in his first four years with the Packers. They also have been more effective running the ball in those games (with a lower winning percentage) on about the same run/pass ratio as Holmgren's teams. They've averaged 126 yards rushing, running the ball 46% of the time in those cold-weather home games.

[The Leaper]

Sounds good Leaper, intuitive even, but it doesn’t stand up to the facts. Running the ball in the cold doesn't drive winning.

I didn't say running the ball means you will win. I said you have to at least be somewhat good at running the ball to play well in cold weather...because passing cannot be counted on in Dec/Jan in cold climates. And you simply cannot use straight running plays alone as Holmgren's true "run game", because his version of the WCO did utilize short passing routes to RBs that effectively were part of the run game...when guys like Bennett and Levens were racking up 50-70 catches a year at 6-8 yards a pop.

The current Packer squad doesn't have anything close to resembling Homgren's efficiently balanced offensive attack.

[vince]

Not sure how counting passes as runs validates the claim that running the ball leads to success in the cold - or that McCarthy's o-lines haven't opened holes and RB's haven't created holes well enough to win in the cold...

Holmgren's teams averaged 22nd in yards rushing and 19th in yards per carry. McCarthy's teams have averaged 18th in yards and 14th in yards per carrry.

McCarthy's teams have simply been better than Holmgren's teams (first 4 years each) running the ball. I didn't check the numbers if you want to count passes as runs too, but doing so inherently defeats the comment about the OL not being good enough to open holes and the running backs not being good enough to create holes iin the cold anyway.

The reasons for the Packers not winning as much as we'd like in the McCarthy era - regardless of whether in the cold or heat - more likely has had far more to do with the defense and special teams than it has with the running backs, O-line blocking, or any other offensive component.

[steve823]

Not sure how counting passes as runs validates the claim that running the ball leads to success in the cold - or that McCarthy's o-lines haven't opened holes and RB's haven't created holes well enough to win in the cold...

Holmgren's teams averaged 22nd in yards rushing and 19th in yards per carry. McCarthy's teams have averaged 18th in yards and 14th in yards per carrry.

McCarthy's teams have simply been better than Holmgren's teams (first 4 years each) running the ball. I didn't check the numbers if you want to count passes as runs too, but doing so inherently defeats the comment about the OL not being good enough to open holes and the running backs not being good enough to create holes iin the cold anyway.

The reasons for the Packers not winning as much as we'd like in the McCarthy era - regardless of whether in the cold or heat - more likely has had far more to do with the defense and special teams than it has with the running backs, O-line blocking, or any other offensive component.

I agree with most of your post ,but the blocking part. Our o-line blocking has a lot to do with our lack of success as illustrated in the past few seasons.

[The Leaper]

McCarthy's teams have simply been better than Holmgren's teams (first 4 years each) running the ball.

Fine...without bothering to account for strength of division or anything else, you are correct. McCarthy has been able to get enough success against the dregs of the league to make his run game look decent, even when it isn't. I don't give a flying shit if McCarthy can rack up 200 yard run games against the Browns...but apparently that is good enough for you.

Holmgren's offense WAS more efficent and the RBs were far more of a threat in the offense. That's my whole point, which you seem to miss. You have to have a running game that is a THREAT to be consistently successful in both the cold and the postseason.

McCarthy's run game...and his RBs...have not been much of a threat at all to any COMPETENT DEFENSE during his time here. Holmgren's RBs were a threat against anyone...because they weren't one-dimensional putzs.

[Fritz]

Not sure how counting passes as runs validates the claim that running the ball leads to success in the cold - or that McCarthy's o-lines haven't opened holes and RB's haven't created holes well enough to win in the cold...

Holmgren's teams averaged 22nd in yards rushing and 19th in yards per carry. McCarthy's teams have averaged 18th in yards and 14th in yards per carrry.

McCarthy's teams have simply been better than Holmgren's teams (first 4 years each) running the ball. I didn't check the numbers if you want to count passes as runs too, but doing so inherently defeats the comment about the OL not being good enough to open holes and the running backs not being good enough to create holes iin the cold anyway.

The reasons for the Packers not winning as much as we'd like in the McCarthy era - regardless of whether in the cold or heat - more likely has had far more to do with the defense and special teams than it has with the running backs, O-line blocking, or any other offensive component.

It's called prevaricating, Vince.

[vince]

The facts show that the Packers' run game has been thoroughly average over McCarthy's tenure, but Holmgren, Walsh and others have proven that in a West Coast offense, it doesn't need to be great. It just needs to be a credible threat - which it has been enough of - and the offense as a whole can generate the points and control the clock to succeed - in cold weather as well as hot.

[The Leaper]

I don't see how a "thoughly average" run game is a "credible threat".

[Lurker64]

I don't see how a "thoughly average" run game is a "credible threat".

You don't have to run the ball well enough to get 250 yards on the ground and 4 TDs, no matter what the defense does.

You do need to be able to run the ball well enough to consistently string together first downs if the other team chooses to neglect defending the run in order to defend the pass.

The former is an elite rushing attack, while the latter is an average one. The latter is sufficient, provided your passing attack is good enough.

[Gunakor]

Re: Mike McCarthy, Forrest Gregg, Vince Lombardi

Anyone else think McCarthy should have the players practicing outdoors more late in the season?

No. I don't want my players facing any unnecessary risk of injury or illness simply because it's freezing cold or extraordinarily windy or rainy or the fog is too dense while they practice. What are the odds the opponent is practicing outside in these same elements? Probably next to zero. If a team has an indoor practice facility they normally use it when the weather gets shitty. Why should Green Bay be any different?