McCarthy's Playcalling

[gbgary]

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...

how many of those runs were on third down? just askin'.

[th87]

how many of those runs were on third down? just askin'.

Not only that, they weren't expecting run early on. But when the team very evidently went into clock mode, everyone expected run. That's the difference.

And I don't think the clock forced Vick to make that throw. There was plenty of time, especially given how easily they were moving it before that play.

We have one of the best offenses in the league facing a defense that had no answer. That's the girl MM brought. No need to stop dancing with her.

[wist43]

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.

There was no 3rd and 1 call in the final possession... the problem I have is with the call on 2nd down, and the formations on both of those 2nd downs. As I said, McCarthy got away with it on the 1st set of downs, but then of course we ended up punting on the 2nd set of downs.

What you guys don't seem to be grasping is that the #1 goal in that situation has to be, keep the ball!!!... punting them the ball with 3 minutes left, or 2 minutes left doesn't matter. Michael Vick, DeSean Jackson, Jeremy Maclin, et al... you don't think they have a legit shot at scoring the winning TD with the ball in good field position and 2 minutes??? I think you guys see the clock at 0:00, and forget how close we really came to losing that game.

The scenario that played out gave the Eagles every chance they could have hoped for, i.e. the ball, and plenty of time - and therein lies the problem.

There is no way to reasonably expect that the Packers are going to be able to run the ball for 2-3 consecutive 1st downs... and since that is the case, you're conceding the Eagles the ball, and relying on your defense. As I said, go back and look at the tape... Jackson almost scored from 60 yds out; they had the ball at the 27, with a 1st down, and still plenty of time; Vick wasn't pressured to make that throw into the end zone... he took a shot - when a TD beats you, the last thing you want is for Pro-bowl calibur QB to be taken one-on-one shots into your end zone.

If you guys can't see that obvious logic... I don't know what to tell ya

We won, but McCarthy played it wrong... he focused on the clock, the same as all of you guys sitting at home, and it almost cost us the game. That's not to say that my approach doesn't produce 2 incompletes and we punt it away anyway... but at least we would have pursued the correct strategic course.

[get louder at lambeau]

Not only that, they weren't expecting run early on. But when the team very evidently went into clock mode, everyone expected run. That's the difference.

And I don't think the clock forced Vick to make that throw. There was plenty of time, especially given how easily they were moving it before that play.

We have one of the best offenses in the league facing a defense that had no answer. That's the girl MM brought. No need to stop dancing with her.

You know WHY they expected the run? Because it's the strategically smart playcall in that situation. The Eagles WANT to force you to pass in that situation. It improves their odds of winning if you pass. That's reality. Especially when the run is working well, the QB has fumbled twice and receivers are dropping balls left and right in the cold.

And if you don't think the clock forced Vick into the INT throw, you must not have seen the Eagles' post-game interviews. His teammates were expecting him to spike the ball (because, ya know, the clock), but VIck hurriedly called all streaks and basically threw up a Hail Mary. That doesn't happen if there's more time on the clock.

[Pugger]

I think people bitch about playcalling too much.

They only bitch when the players fail to execute the called plays.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Funny. We're multiple. It does give opposing defenses several things to prep for.

As we noted Monday, the Packers utilized a three-back set on offense 20 times during the regular season, accounting for nearly 60 percent of the times it was used by all 32 NFL teams this season. Then, in Sunday's wild-card playoff victory over the Philadelphia Eagles, the Packers averaged 7.6 yards on the eight plays they ran out of that set.

So on one hand, the Packers have demonstrated an ability and willingness to use one of the oldest and most conservative formations in the game: the wishbone, or an inverted wishbone in some cases. But on the other hand, they have also used the high-octane, rarely-seen five-receiver set more than any NFL team as well.

(For those who have been asking, ESPN Stats & Information limits the definition of this set to occasions when five actual wide receivers are on the field, not when some of those split out are running backs or tight ends.)

The Packers used this spread formation 30 times during the regular season, employing special teams mainstay Brett Swain as the fifth receiver. The other 31 NFL teams combined to use it 16 times.

[mraynrand]

We won, but McCarthy played it wrong... he focused on the clock, the same as all of you guys sitting at home, and it almost cost us the game. That's not to say that my approach doesn't produce 2 incompletes and we punt it away anyway... but at least we would have pursued the correct strategic course.

You could say that McCarthy played it right, because it worked. I'm certain that his number one priority was to keep the ball, but number 1a was to run the clock and force Phily to use their timeouts, to force them into a situation where they had to become one dimensional. McCarthy certainly wanted to get 1, but if he couldn't he had to have 1a, right? People commented on the defense. The defense gave up one TD off a fumble at the 20, otherwise they gave up 9 points, 6 of which came on a desperation 4th and goal attempt. With the exception of one bad move by Jarret Bush, They essentially forced all field goals or FG attempts. McCarthy knew that and it was certainly part of his calculation. McCarthy did still try to keep the ball. Had the protection been better on the 3rd and 10, I'm sure Rodgers would have found someone. As it was, he correctly ate the ball. Overall, You disagree, and I understand your viewpoint. It has some merit. But even your guy Belichick had some classic F-ups when he tried to keep the ball (recall the classic 4th down play on his own side of the field at Indy). McCarthy may not have kept the ball, but he got 1a, he knew his defense, and he did win the game.

[mraynrand]

Funny. We're multiple. It does give opposing defenses several things to prep for.

McCarthy puts in the gameplan and calls the formations he thinks will expose the weaknesses of the defense across from him. I suspect the Packer's offense in ATL will look a lot different from what you saw in Philly.

[Patler]

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.

I simply can't believe that you see no difference between giving Philly the ball with less than two minutes on the clock and no timeouts left on the one hand, and giving it to them with 2:45 - 3:00 minutes on the clock, one timeout left (or maybe two) and the two minute warning to stop the clock. Philly could easily have run two or three plays before the two minute warning, then had a short field, two minutes and a timeout (or two) to do whatever they pleased.

Vick admitted that the interception was based on a poor decision by him, caused in part by his not wanting to waste time and a play by spiking the ball to stop the clock. In short, he was worried about having sufficient time and enough plays, and it forced him into a bad decision. Giving him more time and ways to stop the clock when needed, his decision making would likely have improved and the game ending interception may never have occurred.

[th87]

You could say that McCarthy played it right, because it worked. I'm certain that his number one priority was to keep the ball, but number 1a was to run the clock and force Phily to use their timeouts, to force them into a situation where they had to become one dimensional. McCarthy certainly wanted to get 1, but if he couldn't he had to have 1a, right? People commented on the defense. The defense gave up one TD off a fumble at the 20, otherwise they gave up 9 points, 6 of which came on a desperation 4th and goal attempt. With the exception of one bad move by Jarret Bush, They essentially forced all field goals or FG attempts. McCarthy knew that and it was certainly part of his calculation. McCarthy did still try to keep the ball. Had the protection been better on the 3rd and 10, I'm sure Rodgers would have found someone. As it was, he correctly ate the ball. Overall, You disagree, and I understand your viewpoint. It has some merit. But even your guy Belichick had some classic F-ups when he tried to keep the ball (recall the classic 4th down play on his own side of the field at Indy). McCarthy may not have kept the ball, but he got 1a, he knew his defense, and he did win the game.

The Eagles dropped a pass at our 25 that would have given them a first down. They got stopped again on our 16 on a very close 3rd and 1, and missed the FG. They scored a TD after that. And then the interception that was preceded by a very, very close tackle.

I thought the defense was pretty lucky in the second half. It took a dropped pass, a close stop, a missed FG, and an interception to escape with a win. I wouldn't want to bank on that to win every week.

[gbgary]

The Eagles dropped a pass at our 25 that would have given them a first down. They got stopped again on our 16 on a very close 3rd and 1, and missed the FG. They scored a TD after that. And then the interception that was preceded by a very, very close tackle.

I thought the defense was pretty lucky in the second half. It took a dropped pass, a close stop, a missed FG, and an interception to escape with a win. I wouldn't want to bank on that to win every week.

yup. it caught a ton of breaks...which wouldn't have been needed had we played to score all game long. it worked out in the end but why temp disaster like that?

[mraynrand]

The Eagles dropped a pass at our 25 that would have given them a first down. They got stopped again on our 16 on a very close 3rd and 1, and missed the FG. They scored a TD after that. And then the interception that was preceded by a very, very close tackle.

I thought the defense was pretty lucky in the second half. It took a dropped pass, a close stop, a missed FG, and an interception to escape with a win. I wouldn't want to bank on that to win every week.

Of course not. But the play of the defense is part of the calculation. McCarthy had to be banking on the ability of his defense to stop Philly in case he didn't get the first down. That allows him to also make sure that he's run the clock and run them out of TOs, including the 2 minute warning (forcing them to pass).

[th87]

I simply can't believe that you see no difference between giving Philly the ball with less than two minutes on the clock and no timeouts left on the one hand, and giving it to them with 2:45 - 3:00 minutes on the clock, one timeout left (or maybe two) and the two minute warning to stop the clock. Philly could easily have run two or three plays before the two minute warning, then had a short field, two minutes and a timeout (or two) to do whatever they pleased.

Vick admitted that the interception was based on a poor decision by him, caused in part by his not wanting to waste time and a play by spiking the ball to stop the clock. In short, he was worried about having sufficient time and enough plays, and it forced him into a bad decision. Giving him more time and ways to stop the clock when needed, his decision making would likely have improved and the game ending interception may never have occurred.

That's if we go three and out. I didn't see that as likely, as the Eagles had only stopped us on a dropped pass by Driver, followed by the fumble. Plus they were expecting us to run to attempt to run the clock. Deft use of play action would have been the bold, and in my opinion, right move.

I didn't think the Eagles were running out of time either. They were moving at will, and almost scored anyway. Just because Vick made a poor throw doesn't mean our move was tactically correct. We were fortunate, IMO.

[mraynrand]

yup. it caught a ton of breaks...which wouldn't have been needed had we played to score all game long. it worked out in the end but why temp disaster like that?

You could argue they made their own luck/breaks. Look, they stopped Philly's offense all day long. The same offense that scored 21 point in 7 minutes, and gave defenses fits all year long - give 'em some credit.

[mraynrand]

That's if we go three and out. I didn't see that as likely, as the Eagles had only stopped us on a dropped pass by Driver, followed by the fumble. Plus they were expecting us to run to attempt to run the clock. Deft use of play action would have been the bold, and in my opinion, right move.

I didn't think the Eagles were running out of time either. They were moving at will, and almost scored anyway. Just because Vick made a poor throw doesn't mean our move was tactically correct. We were fortunate, IMO.

Depends on why you believe he made a poor throw, doesn't it?