Fuel to the fire.

[Pugger]

That's quite a load to take in 31 and I agree with it. In most cases though, I'd say his estimation of his team relative to the opponent is correct. It hasn't always worked to perfection (NFC Championship at Seattle being the glaring exception) but, like last week, they've won a bunch more than they've lost.

It's more exciting for us fanboys to go for it on 4th down late in the game up by 4, but kicking the field goal at that point is the absolute right call IMO - "conservative" "playing not to lose" or whatever we want to call if from our couch/bar stool.

Regardless of how fans or reporters want to differentiate it - not losing is the same as winning just as not winning is the same as losing. Teams taking chances/not "playing not to lose" results in not winning far more than winning, and not taking chances/"playing not to lose" results in not losing far more than losing.

McCarthy has not lost more than anyone but Bellichek over the last decade due to skill and preparation - not desperation, taking chances, aggressiveness, "playing to win" or whatever we want to call it to spin the perspective. That's just football. Teams that are ahead do things to shorten the game while teams that are behind try to lengthen it. We all know which end of that spectrum the Packers have been on more often than not under McCarthy's tenure.

Yup, had we gone for it instead of going for the FG and failed and then we lose in OT we'll all be screaming for McCarthy's head.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I enjoyed the article you gave the link to, Maxie, in part because in it McCarthy addresses some of the specific criticisms that have been leveled at his supposedly conservative play calling. For example, in the Arizona game, when we were all screaming for him to go for two, he had what he called (I think) the perfect play - one they'd practiced and held for just such an occasion. But when Janis banged his head on the TD hail mary catch, they didn't have enough receivers to run the damn thing. And in the Seattle game, early on, McCarthy went for field goals twice. The second time, he basically said "hey, watch the film - we couldn't get Michael Bennett blocked, period, for three downs - why would I try again when nobody could stop the guy? The risk was too big."

I think he has his reasons, and they don't have to do with his gonads.

As I said, it's a stubborn allegiance to the run game, whether it's working or not. Has nothing to do with gonads.

I don't want to rehash the examples in the articles except to say it's kind of revealing to me that McCarthy says he only had two receivers and "the Packers hadn’t practiced any two-point conversion plays with fewer than three receivers." I find this typical of Stubby.

First of all, why limit himself to selecting plays he's practiced for "two point conversion plays?" Haven't the Packers practiced -- or have in their playbook -- any pass plays designed for a two yard pickup? Or goal-line pass plays -- or short yardage pass plays -- utilizing RB's or TE's? If so, that is just, plain incompetent.

Second of all, so he kicks the extra point...doesn't he realize he's going to have to play possibly a whole quarter of sudden death with only two receivers (and no short yardage pass plays?). Is he planning on pounding the pill every down of Sudden Death, or throwing it deep downfield? He has no pass plays for short yardage, or RB's or TE's?

[Pugger]

Janis would have come back in after the kick off had we won the toss or if the defense could have tackled Fitzgerald in OT.

[pbmax]

Not being able to block Bennett is no excuse. Do you just fold your tent and go home? Belichick would double team the towel boy if he thought he was beating them. You must have a scheme for guy who cannot be controlled.

Yet this take also renders even more impotent the idea of running Lacy three times into the line to milk clock at the end of the game. He admits here he has no plan or hope of getting a first down.

This is creeping Schottenheimer-ism. Its not good. Its ungood. Its Bear-like.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Yup, had we gone for it instead of going for the FG and failed and then we lose in OT we'll all be screaming for McCarthy's head.

This is an argument? What if we missed the FG? We'd all be screaming for Crosby's head. So what does that prove?

[Travbrew]

MM didn't call a good game. The back to back to back run calls on the goal line was laughable, and the Packers last drive (3 and out) wasn't a good look either. There was one play call where they wanted Eddie to run to the outside that made me so mad.

He's frustrating.

Yeah, that one chapped my ass. 2nd and two, shotgun formation and you pitch out to Lacy? WTF? I got so mad after the 2-3 yd loss on that play. Yeah, it was executed poorly, but I still feel the play call was moronic...I would have rather seen play action or a run between the tackles with Aaron under center. That set up a longer 3rd down than we were able to get and kept the jags in the game.

[pbmax]

If they go for it and don't get it, Jax only needs fg to win on that last drive. Then what would USA Today be saying?

How terrible is the Packer D to allow a 70 yard drive to win at the end.

The odds don't just justify it. They endorse it.

This isn't about making a splash, its about putting your team in the best possible position to win. Scoring a TD is a great choice. Defending from the 2 is a good backup position.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Janis would have come back in after the kick off had we won the toss or if the defense could have tackled Fitzgerald in OT.

So McCarthy was counting on winning the game offensively in OT with three WR's, one of whom had a bad back?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Regardless of how fans or reporters want to differentiate it - not losing is the same as winning just as not winning is the same as losing. Teams taking chances/not "playing not to lose" results in not winning far more than winning, and not taking chances/"playing not to lose" results in not losing far more than losing.

Well said.

[pbmax]

Pretty sure that last one was an audible.

These criticisms about playing not to lose carry more weight for me in the playoffs than they do in the regular season, much less right now where a big part of the offense is setting the table in terms of what film teams will see. To me the most compelling argument for going for it was that Rodgers clearly wanted to.

McCarthy's nads drop when the odds get longer. He does more than his fair share of surprise onside kicks, has made it clear through his play calling that there is never a situation where he won't go deep, we've all seen him gamble a bit with the challenge flag, etc. I think what people often mistake as "playing not to lose" is a genuine overestimation of his team. He won't bet big on a splashy decision because he thinks his team's superior talent and preparation are an advantage more likely to overcome the chaotic luck of football through strategic decisions that make for a lower-variance game with ample opportunities to be superior. No better example than the recent trip to OT in the playoffs.

Strategically this is clearly a problem if your coach reliably overestimates your team since this is functionally equivalent to underestimating your opponent. As a fan it drives me crazy when I perceive we're lucky to even have a chance to win yet we don't take it in hopes of having more than one chance to win later. I can see how there could be intangible benefits to cultivating that team culture though.

The challenge thing is his view of the low cost of a timeout. Look at the TOs the offense burns through just operating under the no huddle. When was the last time the Packers has 3 TOs at the end of a game?

Surprise onside kicks are great. When was the last surprise kick in the 4th quarter when the game was within one score? He pulls that stuff in non-stressful situations.

I agree that his superior team/low variance approach isn't all that problematic in the regular season. But if it was truly an informed and considered approach* it would change versus superior opponents like he sees in the playoffs.

His play calling is fantastic. His game situation management is terrible. But terrible is baseline for the League. Belichick isn't the best because he is lucky.

I do agree that he is much much better when he realizes his team is at a disadvantage. Two of his best games were versus that frightening Viking defense with Williams and the other Star Caps defendant prior to their protracted legal education.

He does not adjust when the odds are close. He seems comfortable taking cues from research, but he obviously hasn't gotten into Win Probability or Expected Points. Hell the NYTimes fourth down bot could help. In tight games he follows the script and hoary coaching wisdom and is preyed upon by teams being more aggressive with their chances.


* rather than based on something more solid than "teams that runs the ball more than pass in the 4th quarter win the game 82% of the time". I sincerely believe that is the level of his understanding of numbers in the game. His comments about running with a lead late do not fill me with confidence.

Do you remember when McCarthy was dancing around about the terrible run game after Jeff Jagodinski left? One year he said he had to have a certain number of attempts to keep the defense honest. The next year he wanted the average up. The year after that he said it would be stupid to have a predetermined number of reps. There is no hint of a studied approach. He is just defending the approach on the field without rationale.

[pbmax]

And having one Go***mned 2 point play that is WR dependent in a year where they were ALL BANGED UP is the height of stupidity.

I don't even think Mike believes that one. He is just selling it to the press and public.

[pbmax]

Playing not to lose is allowing your opponent back into the game. It is surrendering every advantage you had in the previous 3 quarters. Not losing being the same as winning only are equivalent with 0:00 on the clock.

If you were clearly the worse team, then shutting down and playing a 4 corners offense is understandable. But the Packers owned that Seattle team until they decided to bleed clock. And block a FG.

[pbmax]

So McCarthy was counting on winning the game offensively in OT with three WR's, one of whom had a bad back?

Exactly. If he actually thought through the scenario, he would understand that the problem of the 2 point conversion is only amplified by OT. Which is why you need more than one go to 2 point play.

[pbmax]

Not being able to block Bennett is no excuse. Do you just fold your tent and go home? Belichick would double team the towel boy if he thought he was beating them. You must have a scheme for guy who cannot be controlled.

See if you can spot the logical fallacy in viewing Michael Bennett as unblockable given the following circumstances:

Both times, Bennett beat guard Lane Taylor, brought onto the end of the line as an extra blocker in the Packers’ goal-line offense. The Packers also ran away from Bennett on both plays, perhaps out of necessity. Their fourth-and-goal play could have been too predictable.

Why on God's green earth are you designing a heavy lineman formation and play where Michael Bennet is being single blocked by your 6th best lineman?

[Maxie the Taxi]

The challenge thing is his view of the low cost of a timeout. Look at the TOs the offense burns through just operating under the no huddle. When was the last time the Packers has 3 TOs at the end of a game?

Surprise onside kicks are great. When was the last surprise kick in the 4th quarter when the game was within one score? He pulls that stuff in non-stressful situations.

I agree that his superior team/low variance approach isn't all that problematic in the regular season. But if it was truly an informed and considered approach* it would change versus superior opponents like he sees in the playoffs.

His play calling is fantastic. His game situation management is terrible. But terrible is baseline for the League. Belichick isn't the best because he is lucky.

I do agree that he is much much better when he realizes his team is at a disadvantage. Two of his best games were versus that frightening Viking defense with Williams and the other Star Caps defendant prior to their protracted legal education.

He does not adjust when the odds are close. He seems comfortable taking cues from research, but he obviously hasn't gotten into Win Probability or Expected Points. Hell the NYTimes fourth down bot could help. In tight games he follows the script and hoary coaching wisdom and is preyed upon by teams being more aggressive with their chances.


* rather than based on something more solid than "teams that runs the ball more than pass in the 4th quarter win the game 82% of the time". I sincerely believe that is the level of his understanding of numbers in the game. His comments about running with a lead late do not fill me with confidence.

Do you remember when McCarthy was dancing around about the terrible run game after Jeff Jagodinski left? One year he said he had to have a certain number of attempts to keep the defense honest. The next year he wanted the average up. The year after that he said it would be stupid to have a predetermined number of reps. There is no hint of a studied approach. He is just defending the approach on the field without rationale.

Hear! Hear!

What about the Time Out Stubby called after Jacksonville's 1st down play with 3:00 minutes to go in the 1st half? What was that? Overconfidence? Stubby being aggressive?