More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[beveaux1]

Despite all the emotion, there is a point buried here, that if true, points to some of his short comings in game management.

If he really was all about that one play for a 2 point conversion, then Mike McCarthy as a coach is dependent entirely on the health of his squad to execute a game plan. Which means at the end of the game he could quite easily be lost without a path to turn to. And since he doesn't know how to take advantage of leverage except when in the lead, this would put him in a precarious position when behind late.

I don't believe he had only the one play. But I might believe that he had one play he liked much better than the others.

I was not happy with the decision to kick the EP because I felt that we had a kind of momentum that comes with 2 successful Hail Marys, but I feel certain that there would have been as much criticism on this board from people who couldn't believe that he went for two with Janis out of the game and no viable replacement.

[beveaux1]

They would have argued that our defense had kept us in the game to that point and we pinned all our hopes on one play with a beat up offense with no receivers.

[pbmax]

Who said he only had one play?

Its the implication of the entire explanation. That without Janis, there was no play he was willing to try, regardless of game situation or Janis' eventual health. He had a play he liked, that required 3 receivers. Once Janis was banged up, there was no other smart choice.

I strongly doubt its the case, but it is the excuse proffered.

But even if true, it poses the dilemma, what would the offense run if Janis was done for the game?

[pbmax]

I was not happy with the decision to kick the EP because I felt that we had a kind of momentum that comes with 2 successful Hail Marys, but I feel certain that there would have been as much criticism on this board from people who couldn't believe that he went for two with Janis out of the game and no viable replacement.

They would have argued that our defense had kept us in the game to that point and we pinned all our hopes on one play with a beat up offense with no receivers.

Of course he could be criticized. Comes with the territory. But it must be a question about what gives you the best chance to win as a team.

Bad offense from the 2.5 yard line > Bad offense from their own 20

[Patler]

Its the implication of the entire explanation. That without Janis, there was no play he was willing to try, regardless of game situation or Janis' eventual health. He had a play he liked, that required 3 receivers. Once Janis was banged up, there was no other smart choice.

I strongly doubt its the case, but it is the excuse proffered.

But even if true, it poses the dilemma, what would the offense run if Janis was done for the game?

You are over dramatizing the entire situation. So what if all of their preferred plays for this game were with a minimum of 3 WRs? How much time during the week should be dedicated to working on two point plays? The could have still had a bucket full of plays available with 3 or 4 WRs. That's what the team was prepared for. By this time he was probably even discounting Jones, as being not much more than a body on the field. Abbrederis, Rodgers and Perillo doesn't make the defense worry much about the pass, does it?

Who said Janis was done for the game? He said he knew Janis wasn't available for the two point play. Perhaps Janis was just being checked out and would have returned, but even if he didn't they would have had time to collect the team and proceed with a 2 TE offense.

The problem is, for that game, only certain players were ready to run onto the field for a two point attempt, depending on what was called. That didn't include formations with 2 WRs. Could they have run something else? Sure, but sidelines can be a bit chaotic and communicating that in the world of specialists and role-players that the NFL has become can take more than a few seconds.

That said, I wanted a two-point try just to get it over one way or the other.

[Rutnstrut]

One has to wonder if he could have processed the fact that his set two point package wasn't available, decided on what plays to use instead, gotten the message out to the assistants to get the correct players on the field and communicated the play selection to Rodgers in the time allowed.

Belichick could have processed all that, drawn up ten NEW plays with the players available and had time to spare.

[pbmax]

You are over dramatizing the entire situation. So what if all of their preferred plays for this game were with a minimum of 3 WRs? How much time during the week should be dedicated to working on two point plays? The could have still had a bucket full of plays available with 3 or 4 WRs. That's what the team was prepared for. By this time he was probably even discounting Jones, as being not much more than a body on the field. Abbrederis, Rodgers and Perillo doesn't make the defense worry much about the pass, does it?

Who said Janis was done for the game? He said he knew Janis wasn't available for the two point play. Perhaps Janis was just being checked out and would have returned, but even if he didn't they would have had time to collect the team and proceed with a 2 TE offense.

The problem is, for that game, only certain players were ready to run onto the field for a two point attempt, depending on what was called. That didn't include formations with 2 WRs. Could they have run something else? Sure, but sidelines can be a bit chaotic and communicating that in the world of specialists and role-players that the NFL has become can take more than a few seconds.

That said, I wanted a two-point try just to get it over one way or the other.

On a team that has injury problems with WR, you cannot have all specialty plays be 3 wide. I don't think you would want that in any health scenario; what if the opposition sits on the pass all game? Seems simple enough. But that day they went into the game with 4 active. One of those four, as you point out, was busted up. And two of the others were players he was reluctant to trust. The math simply does not add up here.

Dramatic is McCarthy's claim that the one play he had ready for a 2 pointer was rendered null and void by Janis' injury. If he knew Janis was unavailable for the 2 pointer and had not yet gotten a prognosis on the rest of the game (which I agree is HIGHLY likely) then his decision to eschew a 2 pointer looks even more ill conceived. With 3 WRs, his offense could barely move the ball. With 2, how was he going to drive the length of the field?

How do you call a 2 point play? You call the personnel and formation on the sideline as always happens and you give the play to the QB.

[Pugger]

On a team that has injury problems with WR, you cannot have all specialty plays be 3 wide. I don't think you would want that in any health scenario; what if the opposition sits on the pass all game? Seems simple enough. But that day they went into the game with 4 active. One of those four, as you point out, was busted up. And two of the others were players he was reluctant to trust. The math simply does not add up here.

Dramatic is McCarthy's claim that the one play he had ready for a 2 pointer was rendered null and void by Janis' injury. If he knew Janis was unavailable for the 2 pointer and had not yet gotten a prognosis on the rest of the game (which I agree is HIGHLY likely) then his decision to eschew a 2 pointer looks even more ill conceived. With 3 WRs, his offense could barely move the ball. With 2, how was he going to drive the length of the field?

How do you call a 2 point play? You call the personnel and formation on the sideline as always happens and you give the play to the QB.

Read my last sentence in my above post. That game is ancient history. It's easy to second guess this crap in hindsight. Even if we won that game we would have been smoked in Carolina or killed in the SB. smh

[Patler]

They had two practices that week, I wouldn't expect a lot of time dedicated to practicing two point plays. With limited time, you can prepare limited options.

Heck, would Lacy have even been able to run that far? He was probably still gassed from his long run early in the game when he had to work hard to find a defender to tackle him and put him out of his misery.

The more I think about it, with his available receivers being Abbrederis, Jones, Rodgers, Perillo and Backman; the TEs being less than average blockers, Bakhtiarri on a gimpy ankle, Sitton a bad back, Lang a shoulder some said he shouldn't have played with; they were probably screwed no matter what they would have called in the constricted area of a two point play.

[yetisnowman]

It's funny here how so many people criticize MM kicking the extra point. In the game thread literally only one person said we should have gone for two before the OT coin toss occured. It's easy to second guess after we lose the toss, easier after we lose the game, and especially easy after 8 months of dwelling and analyzing everything. Mccarthy had 20 seconds to choose and he chose to tie. I still have no problem with it. Our goalline offense had been a mess, and if we fail we lose. It's hard to anticipate the worst possible outtcome would actually happen in OT.

[esoxx]

Stubby

[pbmax]

Every argument about how limited the offense was makes the decision less defensible, not more. Score from the 2.5 yard line. Or score from your own 20.

During the game day thread no one got exercised because as fans it was stunning to get the game tied. Everyone was happy the team still had a shot in a game that they were outplayed for large stretches (Defense was magnificent except for OT). That is not the coaches job, to be impressed with a tie game. The coaches job is to win. And the 2 point conversion was the best opportunity.

[Patler]

Every argument about how limited the offense was makes the decision less defensible, not more. Score from the 2.5 yard line. Or score from your own 20.

During the game day thread no one got exercised because as fans it was stunning to get the game tied. Everyone was happy the team still had a shot in a game that they were outplayed for large stretches (Defense was magnificent except for OT). That is not the coaches job, to be impressed with a tie game. The coaches job is to win. And the 2 point conversion was the best opportunity.

You know there is a big difference between an offense being able to score from the red zone, let alone from inside the 5, and being able to move the ball from farther out. Beside, they wouldn't necessarily have had to score a TD to win. A FG could have been enough. The offense wouldn't necessarily have had to do much, maybe even nothing. Another interception, a fumble recovery, a kick or punt return could have put them in position for a winning FG even if it didn't outright score itself. A defensive stand leading to a punt followed by a first down or two and a FG could have won the game.

There is absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that the game was unwinnable in OT just because there wasn't confidence in the offense for a two point attempt.

[pbmax]

You know there is a big difference between an offense being able to score from the red zone, let alone from inside the 5, and being able to move the ball from farther out. Beside, they wouldn't necessarily have had to score a TD to win. A FG could have been enough. The offense wouldn't necessarily have had to do much, maybe even nothing. Another interception, a fumble recovery, a kick or punt return could have put them in position for a winning FG even if it didn't outright score itself. A defensive stand leading to a punt followed by a first down or two and a FG could have won the game.

There is absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that the game was unwinnable in OT just because there wasn't confidence in the offense for a two point attempt.

We are talking about probabilities, not certainties. They might have been able to drive 45 yards to FG range. If they saw the ball again, if the Cardinals didn't score a TD, if the Cards turned it over, if the Packers could beat their 38.6 yards per drive in the game. Incidentally, before the Janis dual hail marys, that figure was 33.3 yards.

But none of that is as likely as scoring from the 2.5 yard line.

[yetisnowman]

There was 5-10 minutes between the extra point and OT. Plenty of time for you and others to profess how clearly they should have gone for 2 and the win. You can say that have us the best chance at a win, but what play would you have drawn up? Jammed up on the goalline I would say our limited personnel was much more glaring. He probably didn't trust a play and thought there were many different ways we could win in OT, and he didn't want to lose the game right after that miracle play. I'd say AZ winning the toss AND scoring a TD on their first posession was far less likely than us failing in the 2pt attempt. Remember he had 20 seconds to make a decision. Pretty logical that he didn't want to lose right there.