McCarthy's Playcalling

[th87]

Luck has nothing to do with it nor does guessing on a test. Surely you don't think Vick flipped a coin in his head to decide whether to throw the ball to the end zone.

Avant's drop was 100% luck. As was Akers' miss. It was luck that those drives ended there. To count on more to hold them off yet again is too much of a dice roll for me.

[wist43]

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).

Disagree. Is a person who guessed correctly on a multiple choice question the same as someone who knew the right answer?

Luck matters. And we got some major breaks in the second half, as I'd mentioned. To count on more to derail their drives wasn't, IMO, statistically sustainable.

Absolutely, I can't fathom why these guys can't see that the #1 best chance of victory is keeping the ball; and given the amount of time left, keeping the ball required a minimum of 2 first downs; that the odds of being able to run for 2 first downs are not good; and that the odds of converting 2 first downs thru the air are much better.

The only consideration given to the clock is the fact that it dictates "we need this many 1st downs to drain it".

Once you follow that chain of logic... you're passing on 2nd down. Vince, Ayn, Max, et al are arguing that other chains of logic are just as valid - no they are not.

The reason they are not as valid is b/c any scenario which diminishes your odds of converting the necessary number of 1st downs to ensure that you maintain possession of the ball, is an inferior position to take b/c it increases the odds that you will have to relinquish possession.

That is the bottom line - and it's logic that cannot be refuted.

[th87]

Absolutely, I can't fathom why these guys can't see that the #1 best chance of victory is keeping the ball; and given the amount of time left, keeping the ball required a minimum of 2 first downs; that the odds of being able to run for 2 first downs are not good; and that the odds of converting 2 first downs thru the air are much better.

The only consideration given to the clock is the fact that it dictates "we need this many 1st downs to drain it".

Once you follow that chain of logic... you're passing on 2nd down. Vince, Ayn, Max, et al are arguing that other chains of logic are just as valid - no they are not.

The reason they are not as valid is b/c any scenario which diminishes your odds of converting the necessary number of 1st downs to ensure that you maintain possession of the ball, is an inferior position to take b/c it increases the odds that you will have to relinquish possession.

That is the bottom line - and it's logic that cannot be refuted.

I think MM got caught in a best of both worlds scenario. Attempt to pick up the necessary first downs, and run it, to minimize time stoppage risks.

This philosophy is fine if and only if the defense had demonstrated a continued ability to stop their opponent. This was not the case with this past game.

[vince]

Avant's drop was 100% luck. As was Akers' miss. It was luck that those drives ended there. To count on more to hold them off yet again is too much of a dice roll for me.

I don't wnat to get bogged down in semantics, but luck had nothing to do with either of those events. Execution in the elements did. In the end, the Packers chose a course that enabled them to force the Eagles into a situation in which they weren't good enough to win the game and in which the Packers won. And those are the only facts in evidence. The rest is total speculation and assumptions that may or may not be valid.

[vince]

Absolutely, I can't fathom why these guys can't see that the #1 best chance of victory is keeping the ball; and given the amount of time left, keeping the ball required a minimum of 2 first downs; that the odds of being able to run for 2 first downs are not good; and that the odds of converting 2 first downs thru the air are much better.

The only consideration given to the clock is the fact that it dictates "we need this many 1st downs to drain it".

Once you follow that chain of logic... you're passing on 2nd down. Vince, Ayn, Max, et al are arguing that other chains of logic are just as valid - no they are not.

The reason they are not as valid is b/c any scenario which diminishes your odds of converting the necessary number of 1st downs to ensure that you maintain possession of the ball, is an inferior position to take b/c it increases the odds that you will have to relinquish possession.

That is the bottom line - and it's logic that cannot be refuted.

No one argues with the logic wist. It's your assumptions. The only reason they only needed two first downs to win is because they ran the ball, kept the clock running and forced the Eagles to burn their timeouts. If they pass the ball and throw incompletions, they would need 3 or maybe even 4 first downs to run the clock out. You are assuming that they will throw every pass complete and there will be no impcompletions or worse yet, an interception or catch and fumble, etc. Given those assumptions, how can you be wrong? Handing the ball off is the best way to protect possession of the ball.

[th87]

I don't wnat to get bogged down in semantics, but luck had nothing to do with either of those events. Execution in the elements did. In the end, the Packers chose a course that enabled them to force the Eagles into a situation in which they weren't good enough to win the game and in which the Packers won. And those are the only facts in evidence. The rest is total speculation and assumptions that may or may not be valid.

What defensive execution took place to cause the ball to hit Avant's hands and bounce off of them? He was wide open. What ST execution caused the miss of a chip shot FG?

This is like saying Freeman's MNF catch or the Immaculate Reception were products of execution. I would highly disagree with those assertions.

[packers11]

Even though I was one of the people that did not like the way the offensive play-calling was going late in the fourth qtr. I think MM has more faith in this defensive unit then any other he has seen under his belt @ GB... For this reason, I think he felt safe playing the field position "game", while giving the eagles very little time to reach our endzone...

The only thing that kind of bugs me is I knew how those last three plays where going to go... Run Run Pass... The only way we could have ended that game under those three plays is if Starks breaks one free (which they were stacking the box for the run) then on third and long your chances of getting a first down are very slim...

But in hindsight I can see why MM did what he did, but if it backfired and the Eagles won, I think many people on this forum (including me) would have been bashing him for awhile...

Defense wins championships... right???

[vince]

What defensive execution took place to cause the ball to hit Avant's hands and bounce off of them? He was wide open. What ST execution caused the miss of a chip shot FG?

This is like saying Freeman's MNF catch or the Immaculate Reception were products of execution. I would highly disagree with those assertions.

It's about the other team's execution too. By forcing the opposition to execute perfectly, you're bound to win a lot of the time. See Bears D and Falcons. Again, you can call it luck if you want, but it's just semantics. I would say that nothing that happens on the field - other than the coin toss - has anything to do with luck.

[get louder at lambeau]

But in hindsight I can see why MM did what he did, but if it backfired and the Eagles won, I think many people on this forum (including me) would have been bashing him for awhile...

And if he play action passed on 2nd down and the Eagles won, many people on this forum would still be bashing him for a while.

They're even bashing him after a win. A third consecutive win. An 11th win this year. An upset playoff win on the road. They bashed him last year after the Packers set franchise records for points scored in a season and points scored in a playoff game. It's what they do.

[wist43]

No one argues with the logic wist. It's your assumptions. The only reason they only needed two first downs to win is because they ran the ball, kept the clock running and forced the Eagles to burn their timeouts. If they pass the ball and throw incompletions, they would need 3 or maybe even 4 first downs to run the clock out. You are assuming that they will throw every pass complete and there will be no impcompletions or worse yet, an interception or catch and fumble, etc. Given those assumptions, how can you be wrong? Handing the ball off is the best way to protect possession of the ball.

Vince, lol...

McCarthy did what you wanted and did not "protect possession of the ball"... you seem to be trying to butress your argument by citing the very failure I am criticizing as if it were a success )

My preference would be to go complete on every attempt and burn clock of course, but it's not my primary goal... my primary goal is to keep the ball. I don't mind throwing, as I said, forget the clock... other than a turnover, the worst case scenario is we fail to pick up the necessary 1st downs, and we end up punting the ball away - which is exactly where your MO landed us anyway.

Plug the scenarios into a computer 1000 times each way??? of course my way would produce more wins... it would necessarily produce more wins b/c there would be considerbly more times where we would maintain possession of the ball, and the Eagles would never even get the opportunity on offense.

[vince]

Oh and wist, your assumption about Belicheck being the only guy that "gets it?" Turns out he doesn't get it either.

New England Patriots 2010 Passing/Rushing Splits by Quarter

Passing														
BY QUARTER	ATT	COMP	PCT	YDS	YDS/A	YDS/G	LONG	TD	TD%	INT	INT%	SACK	YDSL	RATE
Quarter = 1	120	77	64.2	839	7.2	0	45	8	6.7	0	0	4	24	107.7
Quarter = 2	147	93	63.3	1061	7.7	0	59	10	6.8	0	0	10	66	109.4
Quarter = 3	128	90	70.3	1182	9.6	0	79	11	8.6	2	1.6	5	42	122.7
Quarter = 4	103	66	64.1	727	7.5	0	35	8	7.8	3	2.9	6	43	100.4
Overtime	9	5	55.6	38	4.2	0	23	0	0	0	0	0	0	66
										
Rushing														
BY QUARTER	ATT	YDS	YD/A	LONG	20+	TD	YDS/G	FUM	FUML	1DN				
Quarter = 1	96	501	5.2	33	4	5	0	1	1	28				
Quarter = 2	97	412	4.2	22	2	5	0	1	0	26				
Quarter = 3	98	447	4.6	36	1	5	0	0	0	23				
Quarter = 4	160	605	3.8	26	2	4	0	0	0	42				
Overtime	3	8	2.7	4	0	0	0	0	0	0

[billy_oliver880]

And if he play action passed on 2nd down and the Eagles won, many people on this forum would still be bashing him for a while.

They're even bashing him after a win. A third consecutive win. An 11th win this year. An upset playoff win on the road. They bashed him last year after the Packers set franchise records for points scored in a season and points scored in a playoff game. It's what they do.

My god we sound like bear fans.

[vince]

Vince, lol...

McCarthy did what you wanted and did not "protect possession of the ball"... you seem to be trying to butress your argument by citing the very failure I am criticizing as if it were a success )

The only indisputable fact we know here is that it DID succeed. You can ignore the fact that the defense held up all day long, but it doesn't make it go away.

[get louder at lambeau]

Plug the scenarios into a computer 1000 times each way??? of course my way would produce more wins... it would necessarily produce more wins b/c there would be considerbly more times where we would maintain possession of the ball, and the Eagles would never even get the opportunity on offense.

Pretty sure you would lose that bet. If I thought there was a way to test it, I'd put money on it.

[wist43]

I give up