Not even upset

[vince]

So, Stubby called three Lacy dives for what reason?

To milk the clock? No, that wouldn't make sense because Seattle has all three time outs.

To gain a first down? No, after Lacy was stopped once for a loss, and then twice for a loss, Stubby actually thought a 3rd Lacy rush would gain 16 yards.

Stubby blew it. Clear as day. Not hindsight, just common sense.

You say it's common sense. Every coach in the league does the same thing. The defense knows you're gonna run the ball - absolutely. You gotta get a first down anyway.

What's frustrating is it seems like opponents do the same thing against the Pack every game they've got a lead late as well. Difference is they seem to be more successful in moving the chains anyway - just like the Packers need to do in that situation.

That's why it's so tough to beat Seattle. Their defense is the best in the league and it keeps them in the game every time.

You gotta run it in that situation and make Seattle burn their timeouts and the clock - knowing full-well it's gonna be damn tough to do..

Looking back and criticizing when it doesn't work sucks, but it's not on the coach. I don't recall anyone criticizing Stubby when they ran the last 5 minutes off the clock consistently this season.

Budding offensive line holds key to Green Bay Packers fate in 2014

Just as impressively, the Packers have finished off each of the last three games in the four-minute offense—pounding away at defenses that know the run is coming to effectively kill off the clock and preserve wins.

[esoxx]

Being upset that we lost would be the equivalent of being upset that Obama's policiies don't work. I know they are wrong, so I know they won't work. Milking the clock from the 9 minute mark is kinda dumb ya think?

Wait, you skipped to step 3 from step 1. You're already onto bargaining.

It's a process.

[Harlan Huckleby]

After Burnett's interception, we could have been proactive and made a serious effort to make a 1st down or two and avoid an onside kick possibility,

that's where my throbbing headache and heart palpatations began

[woodbuck27]

Being upset that we lost a game that we coached that poorly would be pointless. We played not to lose and we got what we deserved. Seattle didnt' deserve to win, but we sure as shit deserved to lose based on the coaching decisions we made.

We kicked the shit out of the seahawks and lost because we decided we had done enough to win. We changed our style and approach and got more and more cautious as the end neared.

McCarthy owns this one. Not slocum, not capers, but McCarthy as the philosophy a game is played, is on the head coach. We decided to mail it in and milk the clock instead of putting a team away. Loss well earned, winning that way would have been a crime.

Unfortunately we have to get used to that as that's Mike McCarthy's way.

He's Mike 'Almost Did It' McCarthy. His style of coaching the Packers will always limit the teams success.

Mike McCarthy works his tail off. He's one heck of a nice fella. The Ultimate winner he isn't. There's simply something missing inside of that man. It's like any sport when you get a decent lead with lots of time remaining in a game.

Do you back up and allow the other team to make moves on you or do you keep charging?

You all should know the answer to that one and MM is always backing away... always backing down.

When you've got that guy down and that guy is capable you knock the crap out of him. You finish him but not Mike.

He won't change and not one member here will ever see Aaron Rodgers win another Super Bowl with MM as his Head Coach.

[Maxie the Taxi]

You say it's common sense. Every coach in the league does the same thing. The defense knows you're gonna run the ball - absolutely. You gotta get a first down anyway.

What's frustrating is it seems like opponents do the same thing every game they've got a lead late as well. Difference is they seem to be more successful in moving the chains anyway - just like the Packers need to do as well.

That's why it's so tough to beat Seattle. Their defense is the best in the league and it keeps them in the game every time.

You gotta run it in that situation and make Seattle burn their timeouts and the clock - knowing full-well it's gonna be damn tough to do..

Again, at the risk of beating this dead horse, not every coach in the league runs three times in that situation. Mike Holmgren, for instance, would have figured out a way to throw for the first...and complete the throws...maybe on all three downs.

[Bretsky]

They also kept losing yardage which doesn't help the field position.

Can you accept the logistics by many in here that Hoody Genius as a HC would have never let this happen ?
MM seems to always play the odds by going conservative. It almost always works but when it fails it is a terrible terrible feeling that we ignored the strengths of the best QB in the game

[vince]

Going in almost noone thought the Packers were good enough, with a hobbled Rodgers, to compete in this game. Big underdogs. Most of those people were likely shocked (as was I for most of the game) that the Packers could so thoroughly dominate what most people regard as the clear cream of the NFL.
I didn't think the Packers would be able to hang, much less dominate. They did though. And now it's the coaches fault. That makes no sense. They got what everyone regards as an inferior team on the road to the brink of victory, and there were some unfathomable mistakes by players on the field that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And it's the coaches' fault? I disagree.

[vince]

Again, at the risk of beating this dead horse, not every coach in the league runs three times in that situation. Mike Holmgren, for instance, would have figured out a way to throw for the first...and complete the throws...maybe on all three downs.

No. Holmgren was a classic conservative in those situations. Run three times and punt. Now I gotta go figure out how to dig up proof of that.

[pbmax]

The problem with predicting an outcome like this is you have to imagine the D collapses too. Does McCarthy know Matthews is out with a hamstring or needing a breather?

Because that isn't a though that occurs to him, he doesn't see that his season is going to come down to an onside kick. Which is 70/30 odds when its expected. But that is the WORST odds the team will face at the end of this game until they are behind.

A two score game that is not a full two TD lead is probably not different enough to change strategy from the Dallas game.

[pbmax]

Can you accept the logistics by many in here that Hoody Genius as a HC would have never let this happen ?
MM seems to always play the odds by going conservative. It almost always works but when it fails it is a terrible terrible feeling that we ignored the strengths of the best QB in the game

Hoody play the odds too, but they have an ultra efficient shot passing game that gets someone open short every time.

Did you see a Packer receiver running horizontally who was open at any point during the game? Cobb got pulled down twice on flat routes.

It would have had to be a down field throw unlike BB. BB also has Gronk.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

Going in almost noone thought the Packers were good enough, with a hobbled Rodgers, to compete in this game. Big underdogs. Most of those people were likely shocked (as was I for most of the game) that the Packers could so thoroughly dominate what most people regard as the clear cream of the NFL.
I didn't think the Packers would be able to hang, much less dominate. They did though. And now it's the coaches fault. That makes no sense. They got what everyone regards as an inferior team on the road to the brink of victory, and there were some unfathomable mistakes by players on the field that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And it's the coaches' fault? I disagree.

Makes sense to me. I don't give a rats ass who thought what. All I know is we had the game in the bag and then blew it when we started getting conservative on both sides of the ball. Sure, some players screwed up individual plays but it all went downhill in a hurry qith that conservative bullshit.

[Joemailman]

[pbmax]

No. Holmgren was a classic conservative in those situations. Run three times and punt. Now I gotta go figure out how to dig up proof of that.

Yep. He was a classic trust you defense guy.

[Iron Mike]

Enjoy next year's season in Oakland, Mr. Bostic.

[King Friday]

You gotta run it in that situation and make Seattle burn their timeouts and the clock - knowing full-well it's gonna be damn tough to do.

Why? Sherman had one good arm at that point. Thomas was dinged up in the game. The Seahawks had not mounted a capable pass rush for most of the game. Their ONLY strong point on defense at that point was stopping the run...and you basically concede the 3-and-out to that strength. As a coach, you need to dictate the strengths and weaknesses to your advantage. That is what wins games. McCarthy clearly did not do this in the last 6+ minutes of this game.