McCarthy and "Close Games"

[vince]

So I've been reading about how McCarthy can't win the close games. He's 5-16 in games decided by 4 points or less. Pretty bad.

It got me thinking about why this stat even came about. Why the 4 point threshold? What about close games that were decided by 1 score or less? So I want back and checked his record in games decided by 7 or less.

His record is 15-18.

That doesn't paint quite the bleak picture that those showcasing the "close games" stat want it to I guess.

[Joemailman]

So he's 10-2 in games decided by 5-7 points. Awesome!

[pbmax]

Nice find Vince. You would think that kind of dichotomy would point to something. Other than some long Crosby misses (a number certainly less than 16), I am not sure what it is.

[mmmdk]

Try 15-21 record including playoffs.

Try another; substract the games decided by 7 point and it's a 10-18 record. Besides, 7 points only ties for OT...lastly, Stubby record in OT is a 1-6 record.

Go Stubster!

[Bretsky]

All these close games are troubling; but on the other hand it just seems like a big bunch of these are attributed to horrid special teams performances.

I keep thinking he's an average coach; not bad enough to get fired but not good enough to me thinking he's top tier.

[vince]

Good catch mm on the playoffs. I went to wikipedia and the playoffs weren't included for some reason. I believe it would be 15-20 though including playoffs. 1 blowout win and 1 close loss in '07 and a close loss in '09...

Even with that the point still stands. Take the rest of the stats you and others who are hand-selecting to support their preconceived notions and throw them out the window. Good teams blow other teams out more than they get blown out and when they lose, the games tend to be close. Imagine that.

McCarthy has been a winner with the youngest team in the league and has his team - that has much room to grow - on the rise. Injuries have taken a toll this year, but the team has outperformed your and just about everyone else's expectations thus far this year.

I understand the criticism of McCarthy. He still has a lot to prove, but he's done pretty well thus far, producing top 10 offenses pretty much every year - and he's not done yet.

Slocum is a problem for sure. It's impossible to argue otherwise, but I'm not prepared to draw the hard conclusions you are regarding McCarthy yet, and I doubt Thompson is either. He's done well so far. Now he has to get to the next level. I doubt it will be this year with all the injuries, but he'll get the time and opportunity to prove himself one way or another.

[Bretsky]

This may be Captan Obvious, but if MM doesn't fire Slocum this offseason he deserves to be torn to shreds all offseason

Several would argue the same for Campen but IMO that is not as glaringly obvious

[vince]

I think it's pretty fruitless to nitpick individual decisions. The coach (and GM) are charged with winning. Whetehr they make the individual decisions I would is irrelevant.

I'm not saying they're above discussion by any means. It's the judgment based on hand-selected individual decisions that is pointless.

[mraynrand]

Bretsky want's to fire Slocum. Others point out the 'failure' in close games but not in 'kinda close' games. Perhaps Slocum 'sucks' because he has back ups to back ups to back ups playing on teams. Perhaps McCarthy 'fails' in close games because he coaches so well that his team is in most games, even when they shouldn't be - like when they are starting the fry cook at OLB, are missing an entire platoon of D linemen, and a guy with no starts at QB. Let's see, you play at the hottest team in the NFL, without your starting TE, RB, and QB and you lose a close game - must be the coach can't win close games cuz he sucks. Fire 'em.

[Farley Face]

Bretsky want's to fire Slocum. Others point out the 'failure' in close games but not in 'kinda close' games. Perhaps Slocum 'sucks' because he has back ups to back ups to back ups playing on teams. Perhaps McCarthy 'fails' in close games because he coaches so well that his team is in most games, even when they shouldn't be - like when they are starting the fry cook at OLB, are missing an entire platoon of D linemen, and a guy with no starts at QB. Let's see, you play at the hottest team in the NFL, without your starting TE, RB, and QB and you lose a close game - must be the coach can't win close games cuz he sucks. Fire 'em.

Any idea how many of these games the Pack was favored to win? That would seem to bring another level of certainty to this debate.

[Bretsky]

Slocum sucked before the backups to backups were playing ST; he sucked last year as well. The head ST coach sucked and we hired his backup as well. Clearly the backup strategy on ST sucks

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bottom line is his wins and losses. You can fault him for some things, but the Packers have rarely not been up to play games. It seems the Packers get blown out far less than any other team, and you have to give McCarthy a lot of credit for that.

[channtheman]

Any idea how many of these games the Pack was favored to win? That would seem to bring another level of certainty to this debate.

I would imagine this year we were favored to beat the Bears, Redskins, Dolphins, and Lions. This team plays up and down to their competition. Lets hope they can get to the playoffs because even if they lose, at least they'll make it a close game.

[packerbacker1234]

Good catch mm on the playoffs. I went to wikipedia and the playoffs weren't included for some reason. I believe it would be 15-20 though including playoffs. 1 blowout win and 1 close loss in '07 and a close loss in '09...

Even with that the point still stands. Take the rest of the stats you and others who are hand-selecting to support their preconceived notions and throw them out the window. Good teams blow other teams out more than they get blown out and when they lose, the games tend to be close. Imagine that.

McCarthy has been a winner with the youngest team in the league and has his team - that has much room to grow - on the rise. Injuries have taken a toll this year, but the team has outperformed your and just about everyone else's expectations thus far this year.

I understand the criticism of McCarthy. He still has a lot to prove, but he's done pretty well thus far, producing top 10 offenses pretty much every year - and he's not done yet.

Slocum is a problem for sure. It's impossible to argue otherwise, but I'm not prepared to draw the hard conclusions you are regarding McCarthy yet, and I doubt Thompson is either. He's done well so far. Now he has to get to the next level. I doubt it will be this year with all the injuries, but he'll get the time and opportunity to prove himself one way or another.

We had more injuries, and worse injuries, than we did in what.... 2006 or was it 2005, when we had our first losing season in forever. Yet, we can't finish below .500 now, and we control, with 2 weeks to go, if we make the playoffs or not. Win out and were in. This team never gave up, and hasn't been throughly dominated by anyone. While it seems all our losses are extremely close, it's also a testament to just how good we are, and how good we would of been had we not had the injuries. Injuries don't happen... we still ahve grant... finely... Chillar... Jones... etc: Wer etalking about completely dominating the NFL.

All things considered, were still a team to be reckoned with. Just ask NE how good we are when we take you to the wire with our probowl QB on the sidelines. Ask the Jets how good this defense of ours is. We are a good team that, really, is held from being great not really due to our coach, but due to our circumstances with key injuries.

ALl that being said, and there is not one game right now, one team we could face in any environment, and not have a chance to win. After what we did at NE without AR, you have to think this team beleives it can win anywhere against anyone. Giants? The team that gave up a 21 point lead with 7 minutes left? THey must be scared shitless with what were bringing. The bears? Hell, can they even compete with us?

We are practically a lock to make the playoffs. We wont get blown out by anyone. Sure, we suck at winning games by 3 or less, and our special teams, while better this year, still has some glaring problems that have only gotten worse as the injuries have piled up. Still, we could make the playoffs with what, 14 guys on AR and Rodgers having to miss a game?

Impressive. I cannot do anything but commend MM for his coaching job this year on offense, and of course, praise capers for his defensive gameplans. If this was 2005/2006, were talking 1 - 16 instead of 6-10.

[bobblehead]

After what we did at NE without AR, you have to think this team beleives it can win anywhere against anyone. Giants? The team that gave up a 21 point lead with 7 minutes left? THey must be scared shitless with what were bringing. The bears? Hell, can they even compete with us?

.

I remember Burt Sugar saying something like "beware of declaring a guy great because of HOW he LOST to mike tyson. He still lost." Razor Ruddok never did amount to much despite putting up a lively fight against tyson (twice I think). I was proud of our defense and offense against the patriots, but the ST failed us again, and with a lead MM abandon the successful running game late. Until we commit to the run, and have success I'm not declaring us anything. We should have won that game despite everything that went wrong. If you want to point to one thing you can count on being better, its that Rodgers is less likely to throw that pick 6....but not impossible. I want to beat the giants before I start feeling too good about losing valiantly.