McCarthy's Playcalling

[pbmax]

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.

Yes, I read your entire post. Both of them, including the first that said aggression was the key and that to run the ball and worry about the clock was to be willing to hand the ball back to the opposition. Your first post gave a detailed description of your philosophy and the second gave a specific example of how it would differ from McCarthy's call of Kuhn on 3rd and 1. I think aggression is meaningless in this context and that your strategy in general hands the ball back to the opposition more than an optimal strategy would.

To the first post I point out that some percentage (a significant percentage) of drives are always turned back over to the opposition without scoring. No amount of aggression or passing will prevent it. Passing lengthens games because the 35-40% of incompletes stop the clock. When you have the lead in the 2nd half, one of the last things you want to do is to increase the number of opposition possessions. Play calling should try to drain clock, running when success is possible and throwing high percentage routes. At some point you might need to break a tendency or exploit a coverage designed to stop this, but that shouldn't be the basis for the 2nd half offense with a lead. And we haven't even covered forcing the opposition to use its timeouts.

As for your second post and the specific matter of the Kuhn carry, I have two concerns. An additional 40 seconds is forever and would have allowed the Eagles to take whatever play and shot they wanted to from the 27. They could have gone for two first downs with runs or taken shots into the endzone. Had Vick not thrown an int, (as a result of Kuhn's run) they would have been forced to pass from the 27 and become somewhat predictable.

As for your point that the Eagles had enough time to almost score anyway (Jackson or Cooper with a better throw) I agree with you. But the Packers made two good plays to stop them. The Eagles were threatening, but my second point is that they were limited in what they could attempt to do. Under your scenario, they could have called any play and the Packers would have been forced to make even more plays while they threatened the endzone.

Put another way: the Packers almost gave up a score twice on that last drive. With 40 more seconds, they would have had 3 more shots to defend, minimum.

Lastly, your point about 3 first downs. The Eagles had two timeouts during the last two Packer possessions. If the Packers had passed more (and had a few incompletes), 3 first downs could easily have reduced the time on the clock by less than 2 minutes. So unless those three first downs produced a FG, that might have left the Packers more vulnerable than the two first downs they earned.

[pbmax]

And I do agree with wist that possession is vitally important. But no one scores on every possession. At some point you hand the ball back over. What conditions are presented to the opposition when they get it is largely determined by clock and field position. You cannot ignore either. You have to account for the possibility that you will lose possession. You cannot attack without regard and they have left yourself in a worse position if unsuccessful.

And that is where I think the criticism of McCarthy is valid. To have to call a pass in your own half of the field on 3rd and long is having boxed yourself in a corner. You have to have planned for this knowing how much time can be drained by 2 runs. If another first is vital (and I agree with wist in this drive it was) then you cannot wait to throw on 3rd and long. Play action once on either first or second makes much more sense.

[get louder at lambeau]

And that is where I think the criticism of McCarthy is valid. To have to call a pass in your own half of the field on 3rd and long is having boxed yourself in a corner. You have to have planned for this knowing how much time can be drained by 2 runs. If another first is vital (and I agree with wist in this drive it was) then you cannot wait to throw on 3rd and long. Play action once on either first or second makes much more sense.

I disagree. The Packers just got a first down by running the ball twice right before that, on the same drive. No one is bitching about that. Same exact thing. Two runs on 1st and 2nd down. No bitching. No second guessing.

The run worked all day. The passing game was full of drops and fumbles. They needed to run the clock, and they did. And they won. It worked. The Packers got Philly to use their 2nd and 3rd time outs with that possession, gained some yardage, and used up the two minute warning.

As a result, Philly came out with 5 straight passes and one of them got intercepted.

[gbgary]

again...it's about THE LAST QUARTER AND A HALF and scoring points like we had all game long. take philly out of the game instead of allowing them to get back in it and giving them a chance to win it in the end. now THAT was an unnecessary risk to take.

[pbmax]

I disagree. The Packers just got a first down by running the ball twice right before that, on the same drive. No one is bitching about that. Same exact thing. Two runs on 1st and 2nd down. No bitching. No second guessing.

The run worked all day. The passing game was full of drops and fumbles. They needed to run the clock, and they did. And they won. It worked. The Packers got Philly to use their 2nd and 3rd time outs with that possession, gained some yardage, and used up the two minute warning.

As a result, Philly came out with 5 straight passes and one of them got intercepted.

No quarrel that the running game was working. But run games don't get 4 yards each time, esp when the D knows its coming. At some point, you might need to pass. And it would be best if that pass was not in 3rd and long versus a blitz. Even if he play actioned it on 3rd down, it would have been a better idea.

To a certain degree we don't have a lot to work with in terms of seeing how he would have called the game with more plays. To assume he was in run every down mode is probably not fair. But he did it earlier in the season.

[get louder at lambeau]

again...it's about THE LAST QUARTER AND A HALF and scoring points like we had all game long. take philly out of the game instead of allowing them to get back in it and giving them a chance to win it in the end. now THAT was an unnecessary risk to take.

Because they ran the ball?

The scoring drives earlier in the game were FULL of runs and short passes to RBs.

The first TD drive started like this-
Inc. pass, RUN, RUN, RUN...

The second TD drive started like this-
RUN, RUN, RUN, short pass to FB, RUN...

The third one started like this-
RUN, RUN, RUN...

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think people bitch about playcalling too much.

[Packgator]

I think people bitch about playcalling too much.

+1

[wist43]

One of those late 2nd half possessions started at our own 3 yd line... not gonna open up the playbook there.

The only criticism I have is when we got the ball back at the 4:00 mark - the winning mindset is, "let's close this out, and play to win, i.e. keep the ball"... and that means throwing. I trust Rodgers, and as I said, if we go 2 incompletes and don't burn any clock, so what... we're giving them the ball back either way - either way, you still have to either force a turnover on defense, or stop them on downs.

My way, if successful... we control our own destiny and our defense never sees the field again - more importantly, their offense never sees the field again. You cannot argue with that logic... it is the #1 option for success in that situation. Are there other options??? of course, and McCarthy chose the wrong approach. As I said in another post, everybody hates Bill Belichick, but in this same situation... you know he's going to put the ball in Brady's hands, spread the field, and club you to death with Wes Welker, Danny Woodhead, and 1st downs - that is killer instinct, that is putting your opponent away.

[RashanGary]

The strength of our team is defense and our punter has had a hell of a month. He ran the clock out as much as he could and the way Starks was running, who knows, we could have had a first down anyway. He stuck with what was working even though it had gotten predictable at the end. He put the onus on the strongest part of our team (the defense) and like we expected (most of us anyway) they showed up with big plays by two of this years best defensive players. Game over and big credit to McCarthy. He put the time pressure on them and trusted his defense. MM has been calling big games this way for a while. The big diffrence this year is our defense is great so it will work.

[RashanGary]

Had this game been a 45-42 shootout where the last team with the ball was probably going to win, I would have lost it. But our defense was stopping them all game. Good approach IMO, even if it hadn't worked, I was saying I agreed with the approach and would have stuck to it.

[Smeefers]

One of those late 2nd half possessions started at our own 3 yd line... not gonna open up the playbook there.

The only criticism I have is when we got the ball back at the 4:00 mark - the winning mindset is, "let's close this out, and play to win, i.e. keep the ball"... and that means throwing. I trust Rodgers, and as I said, if we go 2 incompletes and don't burn any clock, so what... we're giving them the ball back either way - either way, you still have to either force a turnover on defense, or stop them on downs.

My way, if successful... we control our own destiny and our defense never sees the field again - more importantly, their offense never sees the field again. You cannot argue with that logic... it is the #1 option for success in that situation. Are there other options??? of course, and McCarthy chose the wrong approach. As I said in another post, everybody hates Bill Belichick, but in this same situation... you know he's going to put the ball in Brady's hands, spread the field, and club you to death with Wes Welker, Danny Woodhead, and 1st downs - that is killer instinct, that is putting your opponent away.

MM's way, if successfull... we control our own destiny and our defense never sees the field again. If it fails, it brings the clock down to the two minute warning. You're way if it fails though adds 45 seconds and the two minute warning . If Vick doesn't feel pressured, maybe he doesn't throw that pick. If he doesn't throw that pick, maybe he dinks and dunks until he gets in the endzone and we loose the game. And maybe, if my aunt had a pair a dangly parts, she'd be my uncle. I have a hard time seeing why you're so against the 3rd and 1 run call. It worked out in the end. We won, because they felt pressured and they ran out of time was running out and Vick made a mistake. I agree, many of MM's calls are suspect, I just think you're picking the wrong play to harp on. It's hard to argue against what ends up being a winning strategy.

[th87]

Had this game been a 45-42 shootout where the last team with the ball was probably going to win, I would have lost it. But our defense was stopping them all game. Good approach IMO, even if it hadn't worked, I was saying I agreed with the approach and would have stuck to it.

I disagree that the defense was stopping them all game. They were tiring out.

A huge drop by Avant ended the Eagles' promising drive after Jackson's TD. He was wide open at our 25. We really lucked out.

Their second drive got them all the way down to our 16. It was a huge play to stop them on 3rd and 1. They were very, very close to converting.

Their third drive was their TD drive.

They were marching pretty well down the field on their final drive. It took a huge play to end it.

That's why I was livid at the attempts to run clock early in the fourth. I felt it was riskier than playing it safe, because we weren't able to stop them by then. But on the other hand, they hadn't demonstrated the ability to stop us, so I thought we should've continued with play-calling variety.

[th87]

MM's way, if successfull... we control our own destiny and our defense never sees the field again. If it fails, it brings the clock down to the two minute warning. You're way if it fails though adds 45 seconds and the two minute warning . If Vick doesn't feel pressured, maybe he doesn't throw that pick. If he doesn't throw that pick, maybe he dinks and dunks until he gets in the endzone and we loose the game. And maybe, if my aunt had a pair a dangly parts, she'd be my uncle. I have a hard time seeing why you're so against the 3rd and 1 run call. It worked out in the end. We won, because they felt pressured and they ran out of time was running out and Vick made a mistake. I agree, many of MM's calls are suspect, I just think you're picking the wrong play to harp on. It's hard to argue against what ends up being a winning strategy.

I just don't think it is sustainable to rely on a huge defensive turnover to win a game. Especially given the fact that they were marching pretty much at will in the second half.

It took a WR drop, a close 1 yard-to-go stuff followed by a missed FG, and an interception to keep them from scoring. Is that something we can consistently rely on?

[gbgary]

I just don't think it is sustainable to rely on a huge defensive turnover to win a game. Especially given the fact that they were marching pretty much at will in the second half.

It took a WR drop, a close 1 yard-to-go stuff followed by a missed FG, and an interception to keep them from scoring. Is that something we can consistently rely on?

don't forget the shoestring tackle of jackson with nothing but the endzone in front of him.