Fuel to the fire.

[Upnorth]

Seems I've read this here before.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/09/aaron-rodgers-green-bay-packers-mike-mccarthy-nfl-head-coaches

[red]

yeah, but when i say, i'm just an ignorant asshole

i've read 3 articles this week talking about the same issue

looks like people are starting to see the truth about our awesome HC

[pbmax]

This guy is the culture beat writer for that site!?

Regardless, I agree, they should have gone for it. Not to mention run some kinda pass instead of 3 straight running plays.

[hoosier]

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?

[Pugger]

Any play is a bad play when the players don't execute it.

[Patler]

yeah, but when i say, i'm just an ignorant asshole

Don't take it too hard, Red. We think you are an ignorant asshole for a lot more reasons than just that!

[Patler]

Not to mention run some kinda pass instead of 3 straight running plays.

You have to blame Rodgers for at least the third down call. The OL even still thought it was the passing play, and blocked it that way, while Rodgers had switched to the running play.

[3irty1]

This guy is the culture beat writer for that site!?

Regardless, I agree, they should have gone for it. Not to mention run some kinda pass instead of 3 straight running plays.

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.

[gbgary]

If they go for it and don't get it, Jax only needs fg to win on that last drive.

wouldn't have had a problem with going for it, was actually hoping we would, but the fg IS the smart move.

[Clayish]

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.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Are we sure Arod was vocal about wanting to go for the TD, or was he vocal about the miscommunication (the OLine pass blocking on a run play)?

In any event, I put more weight on the decision to run on the first three downs from the six than I do on the decision not to go for the TD on 4th down. Yes, a very aggressive coach might have gone for the TD, but Stubby is a conservative coach though he insists he's not. See the article "McCarthy: 'I'm not a conservative coach.'"

Whether McCarthy is motivated by an overestimation of his team or by an overriding core, old school belief in a dominant run game, I don't know. Actually McCarthy "pounded the pill" seven out of eight times on that drive from the Jacksonville 48 yard line. Yes, Lacy broke a 28 yard run on one of those rushing plays, but rushing yards are and have been extremely hard to get for the GB offense at or near the goal line. In the goal line situation in question I don't know if even John Kuhn's presence in the backfield would have helped.

I think McCarthy's core philosophy is rushing the football early and when he feels the game is in hand. He uses it to set up the other part of his core philosophy, the big-play pass downfield. The problem is at the end of the game on the goal line, the big-play pass downfield is impossible. So he's left with his favorite: the rushing game.

McCarthy just never impressed me as a guy who felt comfortable with a dink-and-dunk-down-the-field passing game. When he needs two yards, he's more comfortable rushing for them than passing. At the end of a game when he needs to kill the clock AND get a first down, he most always relies on the run game, most especially opting for the run over the pass when two yards or less are needed for that crucial, clock-killing 1st down.

Lately, his running game hasn't been up to the challenge, but McCarthy sticks with it. Either, as 3irty1 says, because he overestimates its ability or because he's not willing to take the risks inherent in the passing game, i.e., a game-changing interception. The latter is the very definition of a conservative coach IMO.

But does this strategy make sense when your QB is risk-averse Arod, who hasn't thrown a pick 6 in ages and rarely throws a pick period and can scramble with the best of them?

I, for one, would rather McCarthy use the pass to set up the run game, which would mean more dink-and-dunk offense. I tend to think the more you use the passing game in crucial short yardage situations in the middle of the field, the more confident you get in it and the more options you'll have at the goal line and in getting that crucial, time-killing first down.

But that's just me.

[Fritz]

Are we sure Arod was vocal about wanting to go for the TD, or was he vocal about the miscommunication (the OLine pass blocking on a run play)?

In any event, I put more weight on the decision to run on the first three downs from the six than I do on the decision not to go for the TD on 4th down. Yes, a very aggressive coach might have gone for the TD, but Stubby is a conservative coach though he insists he's not. See the article "McCarthy: 'I'm not a conservative coach.'"

Whether McCarthy is motivated by an overestimation of his team or by an overriding core, old school belief in a dominant run game, I don't know. Actually McCarthy "pounded the pill" seven out of eight times on that drive from the Jacksonville 48 yard line. Yes, Lacy broke a 28 yard run on one of those rushing plays, but rushing yards are and have been extremely hard to get for the GB offense at or near the goal line. In the goal line situation in question I don't know if even John Kuhn's presence in the backfield would have helped.

I think McCarthy's core philosophy is rushing the football early and when he feels the game is in hand. He uses it to set up the other part of his core philosophy, the big-play pass downfield. The problem is at the end of the game on the goal line, the big-play pass downfield is impossible. So he's left with his favorite: the rushing game.

McCarthy just never impressed me as a guy who felt comfortable with a dink-and-dunk-down-the-field passing game. When he needs two yards, he's more comfortable rushing for them than passing. At the end of a game when he needs to kill the clock AND get a first down, he most always relies on the run game, most especially opting for the run over the pass when two yards or less are needed for that crucial, clock-killing 1st down.

Lately, his running game hasn't been up to the challenge, but McCarthy sticks with it. Either, as 3irty1 says, because he overestimates its ability or because he's not willing to take the risks inherent in the passing game, i.e., a game-changing interception. The latter is the very definition of a conservative coach IMO.

But does this strategy make sense when your QB is risk-averse Arod, who hasn't thrown a pick 6 in ages and rarely throws a pick period and can scramble with the best of them?

I, for one, would rather McCarthy use the pass to set up the run game, which would mean more dink-and-dunk offense. I tend to think the more you use the passing game in crucial short yardage situations in the middle of the field, the more confident you get in it and the more options you'll have at the goal line and in getting that crucial, time-killing first down.

But that's just me.

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.

[texaspackerbacker]

I suppose we shouldn't criticize too much, as they did win, but damn! McCarthy is downright annoying at times in his play calling - making it close and stressful when it doesn't need to be. I would say the same thing on a personnel scale for Ted Thompson. Aaron Rodgers is just so good that a ton of mistakes/shortcomings get masked. It just pisses me off so much when they stubbornly go with a run first mentality instead of setting up the run with the pass. I don't fault him for kicking the field goal, and while I just hate the three straight runs, there apparently is something to the miscommunication thing - it looked like Rodgers coulda run it in easily if the interior linemen had gotten the message.

It sure would be nice to maximize things - sometimes anyway.

[Pugger]

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.

I was disappointed we couldn't score but I agree with Mike early in the Seattle game. We couldn't QB sneak it in - Aaron was playing on only one good leg - so you take the sure points on the road. We also got screwed in the first half when Aaron threw a pick when he felt the chickens were offsides and decided to go for broke but the chickens were never called for that. I sometimes think had Rodgers been 100% we would have won that game without going into OT.

[vince]

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.

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 far more often than not under McCarthy's tenure.