McCarthy's Playcalling

[denverYooper]

I just don't know about Mike Smith's playcalling either. I mean, he punted the ball back to Drew Brees near midfield with ~4 minutes in the Falcons-Saints game. He just puckered up and it cost them that game. Terrible.

[gbgary]

Don't you think judging McCarthy as a playcaller by talking only about 3rd and 2 when McCarthy calls a play in which the players don't execute is a little myopic?

i'm clearly not judging him on just that. the last quarter and a half of the philly game is an example. he tried to run the clock instead of trying to keep scoring (which we were pretty much doing at will) and it nearly led to a loss. he has his moments when he gets myopic.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I think he kept running the ball to sustain a long drive while burning clock and giving the defense a rest from chasing down vick.

[pbmax]

Playing ball control and running the clock with the lead does not equal puckering of the ass. It's how games are won. It's not new or unique fellas.

In general, teams score by passing and finish games off by protecting their lead by shortening the game and minimizing costly mistakes. It's a proven formula that has no relationship whatsoever to getting nervous under pressure. In fact, it likely relates to being more steadfast and confident under pressure than nervous. When you have a great defense, teams tend to do it to an even greater extent.

vince get out of my head.

[pbmax]

thanks! three possessions, thirteen plays (not counting punts), three pass attempts (which includes a sack), one first down, in a quarter and a half. worse than i thought. geesh! if we get a lead against atlanta and mm decides to stop trying to score again we're doomed. way too much pressure to put on the defense.

Two first downs (though 1 by passing). I agree, I think he should have gone full throttle for all possessions through the 3rd Quarter.

But let's face it, the Packer's owned TOP in the 3rd and were down only 50 seconds in the fourth. They were up overall in the game by 3-4 minutes.

And one late drive ended on Kuhn going for a 1 yard first down. While that was a running play, that was not exactly pulling in his horns. That is a successful play for the Packers in 3rd and short. The LB made a good play. And its possible Johnson missed a block or adjustment.

So while it is tempting to lump all the 2nd half offense to previous efforts with the lead, in the one sustained drive he got to work with, McCarthy's aggressiveness did not change. I think he was consciously running more in the last drive, prior to the victory formation.

[wist43]

Playing ball control and running the clock with the lead does not equal puckering of the ass. It's how games are won. It's not new or unique fellas.

In general, teams score by passing and finish games off by protecting their lead by shortening the game and minimizing costly mistakes. It's a proven formula that has no relationship whatsoever to getting nervous under pressure. In fact, it likely relates to being more steadfast and confident under pressure than nervous. When you have a great defense, teams tend to do it to an even greater extent.

For the 1983 Washington Redskins??? yes, let's run it twice and see if we can mash our way to a 3rd and 1; 2010 Green Bay Packers??? spread the field with 4 wide, and force the defense to defend it... 3 first downs, and we never even have to run the risk of Jackson popping free for 60 yds and 6 pts - which was an eyelash away from happening.

That is being aggressive; that is saying, "we have the ball, we control our own destiny as long as we keep the ball".

Yours and McCarthy's approach is the passive approach, i.e. "let's not take the chance of a sack/fumble/INT... we're okay with giving them the ball back". That's just nuts IMO. Why even entertain the idea of giving Vick, Jackson, Maclin, McCoy, Avant the ball back??? There are some serious play makers there... the percentage play, the smart play - is give your QB the greatest opportunity possible to connect in the short passing game and move the chains.

Yes our defense was playing well, but they have some the most dangerous playmakers in the League, and as I said... go back and look at the tape; Jackson had the ball in the open field and was literally inches away from stabbing us right in the heart. There is no way anyone can argue that being more aggressive by passing when we have the ball is not a higher percentage play than the predictability of run, run, pass/sack, punt - then hope the clock runs out, or they make a mistake.

I don't want to leave the game up to them making a mistake... if I have the ball, and the ability to salt the game away where the other team can never even touch it again... that's what I'm going to do. Focusing on the clock is just misguided IMO. Keep the ball, and the clock will drain out with your QB taking a knee

Maybe I've watched too many Belichick coached games... hate the guy, but at least he gets it. Best coach in the league at putting teams away.

[gbgary]

For the 1983 Washington Redskins??? yes, let's run it twice and see if we can mash our way to a 3rd and 1; 2010 Green Bay Packers??? spread the field with 4 wide, and force the defense to defend it... 3 first downs, and we never even have to run the risk of Jackson popping free for 60 yds and 6 pts - which was an eyelash away from happening.

That is being aggressive; that is saying, "we have the ball, we control our own destiny as long as we keep the ball".

Yours and McCarthy's approach is the passive approach, i.e. "let's not take the chance of a sack/fumble/INT... we're okay with giving them the ball back". That's just nuts IMO. Why even entertain the idea of giving Vick, Jackson, Maclin, McCoy, Avant the ball back??? There are some serious play makers there... the percentage play, the smart play - is give your QB the greatest opportunity possible to connect in the short passing game and move the chains.

Yes our defense was playing well, but they have some the most dangerous playmakers in the League, and as I said... go back and look at the tape; Jackson had the ball in the open field and was literally inches away from stabbing us right in the heart. There is no way anyone can argue that being more aggressive by passing when we have the ball is not a higher percentage play than the predictability of run, run, pass/sack, punt - then hope the clock runs out, or they make a mistake.

I don't want to leave the game up to them making a mistake... if I have the ball, and the ability to salt the game away where the other team can never even touch it again... that's what I'm going to do. Focusing on the clock is just misguided IMO. Keep the ball, and the clock will drain out with your QB taking a knee

Maybe I've watched too many Belichick coached games... hate the guy, but at least he gets it. Best coach in the league at putting teams away.

THIS!!

it should never have come down to that last philly possession.

[wist43]

Earlier in the 4th, go to 11:50 remaining.

It is 3rd and 3, and the Packers have spread the field with 4 wide, Kuhn in the backfield for blitz pick up... this is the formation I wanted to see McCarthy go with on that last possession.
The Eagles blitzed, and Rodgers had the ball out of his hands before the first Eagle could even get close to him... 11 yard gain to Driver.

The very next set of downs, the Packers ran it 3 times... on 3rd and 1, Kuhn was dropped for a 3 yd loss.

Understandable if not predictable outcomes for each scenario I would say...

[pbmax]

vince's approach was also Holmgren's approach. It doesn't matter if you are the 1983 Redskins or the 1999 Rams. Sometimes, you need to run the clock. Any pass has a 35% chance of being incomplete, which stops the clock. No team can score on every drive, so some thought must be given to reducing the number of possessions when you have a lead of more than one score in the 2nd half.

The optimal strategy may not be to run on ALL the plays because the defense can predict and adjust. But I find it hard to fault a 3rd and 1 run that has been as successful as any passing strategy on 3rd and short. For a demonstration of how a formation and a pass to Driver can also fail, see Rodgers sack on his last pass attempt. In this, at least he had the presence of mind not to throw it away. He ate the ball and kept the clock ticking.

[wist43]

Good grief!!!

Did you even read my post??? THE CLOCK DOESN'T MATTER!!

How else can I explain this??? If you go incomplete??? So what!!! You need 3 first downs - if you give them the ball back with time on the clock which is exactly what happened!!! Then what good did it do you to "run clock", when you still punted them the ball with 2 minutes left????

If we kill the clock with an incomplete, but then convert on 3rd down and keep the ball... we keep running clock and have a new set of downs. Do that 3 times and we win.

If we kill the clock with 2 incompletes, and still end up kicking them the ball... what's the difference if they have 2:00, or 2:45??? You've still failed to prevent them from getting the ball back with plenty of time.

I don't know how else to explain it??? The clock doesn't matter - what matters is moving the chains.

[get louder at lambeau]

If we kill the clock with 2 incompletes, and still end up kicking them the ball... what's the difference if they have 2:00, or 2:45??? You've still failed to prevent them from getting the ball back with plenty of time.

I don't know how else to explain it??? The clock doesn't matter - what matters is moving the chains.

If you think the clock doesn't matter, you must have missed the Packers @ New England.

[Fritz]

Wist, what the hell are you saying? "what's the difference if they have 2:00, or 2:45???" Well, the difference is about two plays - two more shots, two more chances for Vick to get the Eagles in the endzone. How can you say that doesn't matter?

Here's another problematic quote: "the percentage play, the smart play - is give your QB the greatest opportunity possible to connect in the short passing game and move the chains." This statement of yours assumes the Eagles are in a defense not specifically designed to choke off the run and the short pass. You assume that the Eagles' defensive alignement is such that short pass completion is somehow more certain than a three yard running gain. How do you know that? Did you see the slant Driver tried to run earlier? Where he couldn't get inside position on the defender and the pass fell incomplete (thus stopping the clock)?

Look, I'm on record as saying I wish MM had gone for a play-action on second and nine on the last possession. But I also understand the rationale behind MM's choice of running the ball. Can't you at least respect the logic of the thinking, and can you remember, too, that the Packers won the game?

[gbgary]

forget the last three minutes. think about the last quarter and a half. puting together scoring drives would have eaten up a lot more time than the three-and-out scenarios that occured and it would have put more distance between us and philly without puting pressure on the d and relying on some miracle play to save the game. driving and scoring would have made the freaking clock irrelevant.

[wist43]

Guys, the goal is to keep the ball... the clock is incidental. Get 1st downs and the clock will drain.

Really, in that context, what is the difference between 2:00 min and 2:45??? There is no difference if your goal was to prevent them from ever having the opportunity to stab you in heart.

In this strategic situation, the clock didn't matter when Holmgren was coaching, or Joe Gibbs was coaching, or now... what matters is moving the chains. If the best opportunity a team has to move the chains is run the ball, ala 1983 Redskins... then go ahead and play to your strength and run the ball. Our strength on offense is our passing game... play to that strength, and play to win, play to keep the ball, and I can live with the outcome good or bad.

Giving the other team the ball back in a 1 score game??? Forgive me, but I think that's a pretty bad idea

[Fritz]

Well nobody on the Packer sideline was thinking "hey, let's give them the ball back. That's a good idea!" What they were doing, I think, was weighing the risks and rewards of the possible plays that could be called, and studying the defense the Iggles were putting out there.

Starks had over a hundred yards. The run game had been effective. Incomplete passes stop the clock; quarterback strips and interceptions are risks that are more probable outcomes than a running back fumbling. It's easier to strip a QB trying to throw or intercept a pass on a deflection or jumped route than it is to cause a running back to fumble.

Do I wish MM had taken that risk on one play, on that second and nine on the last possession? Yes. But I also understand the reluctance to do so. I'm not going to accuse MM of "puckering" or going into a shell that cost the team the game. Which, by the way, it did not.

I wonder what this board would look like if MM had called for passes on the last couple of drives, and Rodgers had gotten intercepted or sacked and fumbled. Would gbgary being standing up for MM for having cojones, or would he be bitching at MM for taking unnecessary chances? You know, like throwing long on third and two.