More Banjo: Week 3 vs Lions

[Rutnstrut]

the more worrisome thing if starks is done, is why would he keep taking snaps from lacy, and why do we not have another RB on the roster?

and no, a WR in the backfield doesn't count, cause that never works

quit with the one series for one guy and another series for the other. this is probably eddys last year in green and gold, why not just use him as the bell cow and run him into the ground?

Because that's how stubby wants to do it. Big deal if it doesn't work, he'll do it his way.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Maxie-

I think this is completely wrong regarding last weeks game. We threw the ball a lot in the 1st half and put up 31 points. Yet, even with all of that success we only possessed the ball for 11:31 in the first half because of our quick strikes. Our drives were 3:38, 1:44, :47, :59, 3:53 and :32. Detroit's scoring drives in the 3rd Q and start of the 4th Q were exact opposites - 6:37, 5:42. Those two drives represented more possession than the Packers had the whole 1st half.

I don't disagree with you. See my post to Vince above. The comment you quote was not aimed at last weeks game, but at Stubby's body of work in general.

[hoosier]

Do you seriously think the odds are significant even a little bit that Aaron Rodgers will throw interceptions if he basically continues to march? - uses play calling similar to the first half, which wasn't exactly pass-first as I would like to see it, but which was a major step in the right direction. The second half indeed was excruciating, but that was primarily because, as Maxi said, of McCarthy's damn stubbornness to run first and worse yet, his weird lack of trust for Aaron Rodgers not to give away the game. What QB in all of football avoids interceptions like Aaron Rodgers - even with the constant pass rush pressure on him?

What made the second half hard to watch were things: the pass defense started hemorrhaging yards and the offense failed to convert a couple of third downs. The big difference that I saw in the play calling wasn't the run to pass ratio but the number of times Rodgers went deep--if I'm not mistaken he didn't have a single throw over 20 yards in the second half. So, after further reflection, I've decided that it's misleading to say that McCarthy the playcaller went into a hole in the second half. It may have felt that way, but that is because the offense as a whole became less efficient.

[vince]

What I am arguing is that in today's game a bias for the run and against the pass in time-critical situations exists, that it is old school, that Stubby has it and, frankly, so do you. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. )

That bias exists when teams are winning late in games because it best serves the goal of winning the game - or not losing whichever you prefer.

That's the crux of the disagreement so let's look at McCarthy's career record throughout his biased tenure. As you say it's his body of work, which has resulted in a record of 114-63-1 including postseason. As we know, few of his wins are of the come-from-behind variety - 10 or so. I know it's been posted here not too long ago and he has about a .333 record when there's a lead change in the 4th quarter. So that's in the neighborhood of 25 times his team has given up the lead in the 4th quarter due to his old school Stubbyness. I'm sure those numbers aren't right but they're close enough to look at. So that means his old school 2d outdated Stubbyville strategy has failed 25 times. Given the numbers which are admittedly estimates, he has NOT LOST with the lead in the 4th Quarter 104 times.

Are you suggesting that he adopted the old-school 2d philosophy in those 25 games, but changed his approach to new-school 3d in the 104 instances where it worked? Of course not - given your proclaimed 10-year overall body of Stubbyness. We all know he emphasizes the 4-minute drill to close out games all the time. He talks like it makes his stubby chubby!

Even for super tight-sphinctered McCarthy, old school has resulted in NOT LOSING 4 out of 5 times! Your argument that if he'd just gone new-school it would have been even higher just isn't plausible. Let's say we hypothetically shift half the losses to the win column if he would just get with the times according to Maxie. Assuming you're argument holds any water, that would push him into the echelon of Lombardi and Madden, well ahead of every coach in modern times including Bellichick by a longshot. I think McCarthy's pretty good, and very underrated, but I'd say it's a serious stretch to elevate him to the greatest of all-time status - regardless of school or how many dimensions he can visualize/process in that Stubby melon of his.

You old school guys ( ) never take into account failure to execute on the part of the rushing game. With regard to Stubby's 2nd down play, I could just as well contend "the O-line just needs to block and Starks just needs to hit the hole and all is good."

Failure to execute is, IMO, a simple fact of life. It happens on pass plays, on rush plays and on onsides kick plays. As such, it shouldn't be used to justify one strategy to the exclusion of another.

Actually I'd say it's the other way around. New schoolers don't consider impact of the 40% passing failures. And should a couple of those 40%ers get strung together, the damages magnify. This is the difference between your argument from your living room and that of the coaches at the pinnacle of the sport who you actually believe the game has passed by.

The basis of your argument is that all "failures" are equal - and you equate a no-gain running play late in the game with a game-changing on-side kick doink off the head?
Ignoring the game-changing magnitude of a successfully recovered on-side kick, there is a tremendous difference between "failing" on a pass play late in a game with the lead and "failing" on a running play in the same circumstance. One plays into the hand of the opponent by giving them added time when it fails and the other continues to shorten the game in spite of failure. One strategy entails a strategic benefit even in the event of failure. The other requires success or it imposes punitive damages - potentially of the immediate game changing variety.

If you don't want to accept the dominant logic overwhelmingly espoused by the foremost experts in the game - yesterday, today, tomorrow, or as long as the clock stops late in the game on errant throws, when guys drop balls, defenses retain the ball for their offenses on interceptions and/or score touchdowns on pick sixes when passes "fail", at least look at the actual results of 10 year's worth of Stub.

Those rules haven't changed yet as far as I know, passing era or not. But as you say the game has passed us old school 2d guys by so catch me up if that's wrong.

[pbmax]

Its not new school. No one denies that with 4 minutes left you are very likely to benefit from running even if it doesn't net you first downs. We have all seen it work. Especially when you are in a scenario, with remaining time and TOs, that will likely allow only 3 more possessions. Its easy to construct a scenario where you can deny a team the chance to get a second score to take the lead by virtue running time of the clock.

But McCarthy has repeatedly tilted toward the run long before the 4 minute mark. Which doesn't have that history behind it. There is a reason he named it his 4 minute offense.

Of course there is risk to passing (stopped clock and INT) just as there is for running (fumble). But the reward can be greater as well.

For the Packers specifically is that his course of action takes the ball out of his best offensive players hand. When he goes into that mode, the Defense can ignore the best offensive player in the league. And it puts the game into the hands of his least effective units in his tenure. This is the reason his 4th Quarter record was hideous prior to 2010 (when the O line and the run game were truly pathetic) and has improved to less terrible since.

McCarthy himself has embraced some of Burke's observations. He has truly engaged with the idea that the average NFL coach does not pass enough throughout the game (the article is a few years old) and is too conservative on 4th down especially from midfield in.

But he traditionally switches gears in the second half with a lead. There have been a few signs of him changing it up with play action this year. I hope it continues.

[vince]

During McCarthy's tenure from 2006-Present from Pro-Football-Reference.com

Entering 4th Quarter with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 97-14 .874
League Average - .823
2nd Most Successes, 15th Fewest Failures - 9th Best Success Rate

Entering 2nd Half with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 94-14 .870
League Average - .760
2nd Most Successes, 3rd Fewest Failures - 2nd Best Success Rate

That's pretty amazing. McCarthy is roundly criticized for failing to make adjustments at halftime, getting out-coached in the 2nd half, going too conservative too early, etc., etc.

* Only 1 team has more successes or a better success rate winning games when leading at halftime, AND
* Only 2 teams have fewer failures when leading at halftime.

That bears repeating - The Packers have gone into halftime with the lead - and won those games more often than all but 1 team - and at the same time have failed in those situations fewer times than all but 2. Those 2 teams have had 29 (Broncos) and 36 (Bears) fewer opportunities to fail in that time.
__________________________________________________ _

Regardless of one's opinions of his 2nd Half and/or 4th Quarter approach when leading, whether arguments are that it's outdated, evolving but still not good enough, needs to change, too conservative, no longer effective for today's game, etc. - the assertion that McCarthy has mismanaged these situations to the detriment of team success is not just factually wrong but staggeringly wrong. I had no idea he was THAT good at closing the deal.

If he "switches gears" in games with the lead, whether it's in the 3rd Quarter or 4th (I agree he does), then Packer fans should understand that his approach has been highly successful. Successes and success rate when leading at the half jump from highly successful to absolutely elite.

[Carolina_Packer]

I know running out the clock on offense is called the 4 minute drill. In a similar, but separate fashion, is this what the defense is trying to do?

I'm sure the D is never trying to let the opponent score, but perhaps the way they choose to defend an opponent when the Packers have a big lead says to keep everything in front of them (hopefully no big plays), so while it seems like a bloodletting by 5-10 yard chunks of short routes by the opposing offense, it keeps the clock going on completions, and if you want to take several minutes to matriculate the ball down the field, that saves wear and tear on my offensive players, and while you might score, we are not giving you any more than we are willing to let you have. We are looking at the play clock and counting potential possessions remaining in the game. Even if we let you score a few touchdowns and look like you are catching up, we figure it's going to take time off the clock for you to do that, and the remainder of the time we will run out on offense.

Do I understand the philosophy correctly?

Is it a philosophy that says, it's a long season, so let's play hard, but play smart and only worry about the final score, but not style points if we happen to shut out an opponent? I'm sure it takes more energy and possible risk to players health to play hard enough to shut down an opponent from the defensive side of the ball. I'm not saying the Packers D will always have that kind of control, but with a big lead, that might become the philosophy. It makes the D look soft in the 2nd half, but if it preserves some health and runs out the clock, and doesn't scare fans half to death, it's a workable philosophy.

[Patler]

During McCarthy's tenure from 2006-Present from Pro-Football-Reference.com

Entering 4th Quarter with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 97-14 .874
League Average - .823
2nd Most Successes, 15th Fewest Failures - 9th Best Success Rate

Entering 2nd Half with a Lead, including Playoffs
McCarthy - 94-14 .870
League Average - .760
2nd Most Successes, 3rd Fewest Failures - 2nd Best Success Rate

That's pretty amazing. McCarthy is roundly criticized for failing to make adjustments at halftime, getting out-coached in the 2nd half, going too conservative too early, etc., etc.

* Only 1 team has more successes or a better success rate winning games when leading at halftime, AND
* Only 2 teams have fewer failures when leading at halftime.

That bears repeating - The Packers have gone into halftime with the lead - and won those games more often than all but 1 team - and at the same time have failed in those situations fewer times than all but 2. Those 2 teams have had 29 (Broncos) and 36 (Bears) fewer opportunities to fail in that time.
__________________________________________________ _

Regardless of one's opinions of his 2nd Half and/or 4th Quarter approach when leading, whether arguments are that it's outdated, evolving but still not good enough, needs to change, too conservative, no longer effective for today's game, etc. - the assertion that McCarthy has mismanaged these situations to the detriment of team success is not just factually wrong but staggeringly wrong. I had no idea he was THAT good at closing the deal.

If he "switches gears" in games with the lead, whether it's in the 3rd Quarter or 4th (I agree he does), then Packer fans should understand that his approach has been highly successful. Successes and success rate when leading at the half jump from highly successful to absolutely elite.

Quite interesting. When you think about it, most of our discussions have been because he "almost gave it away". not because they actually did lose. Fans, of course, want to say a first half drubbing continue into the second half, but in all pro sports it is seldom that a period of total domination last for an entire contest. The differences between teams, especially in the NFL, is not that great. Perhaps a more calculated (conservative?) approach really does enhance the chances of winning. Maybe MM really DOES know what he is doing/ Who would have thought....!!

[pbmax]

Those numbers, like his overall numbers, are very, very good.

However, as high as those percentages are, shouldn't they even be higher for the 4th quarter lead?

And don't the virtually identical numbers suggest that the team is not increasing its chance for success in the 4th Quarter? They go from 2nd most successful (lead at half) to 9th most successful (lead to start the 4th).

As with his job, I don't think McCarthy should be replaced based on these career numbers, but I think it does point to an ineffectual strategy late. Those 14 losses seem to be the indicator that gives you the 15th most failures (a number that is influenced by his long tenure and many leads). But the success rate does drop between halftime and the fourth quarter.

[pbmax]

I know running out the clock on offense is called the 4 minute drill. In a similar, but separate fashion, is this what the defense is trying to do?

I'm sure the D is never trying to let the opponent score, but perhaps the way they choose to defend an opponent when the Packers have a big lead says to keep everything in front of them (hopefully no big plays), so while it seems like a bloodletting by 5-10 yard chunks of short routes by the opposing offense, it keeps the clock going on completions, and if you want to take several minutes to matriculate the ball down the field, that saves wear and tear on my offensive players, and while you might score, we are not giving you any more than we are willing to let you have. We are looking at the play clock and counting potential possessions remaining in the game. Even if we let you score a few touchdowns and look like you are catching up, we figure it's going to take time off the clock for you to do that, and the remainder of the time we will run out on offense.

Do I understand the philosophy correctly?

Is it a philosophy that says, it's a long season, so let's play hard, but play smart and only worry about the final score, but not style points if we happen to shut out an opponent? I'm sure it takes more energy and possible risk to players health to play hard enough to shut down an opponent from the defensive side of the ball. I'm not saying the Packers D will always have that kind of control, but with a big lead, that might become the philosophy. It makes the D look soft in the 2nd half, but if it preserves some health and runs out the clock, and doesn't scare fans half to death, it's a workable philosophy.

I think that is a fair restatement for the D. However, the Packers don't necessarily retreat into zone to keep everything in front of them. They tend to use zone to mix up coverages, but prefer man to man under most circumstances.

[hoosier]

Its not new school. No one denies that with 4 minutes left you are very likely to benefit from running even if it doesn't net you first downs. We have all seen it work. Especially when you are in a scenario, with remaining time and TOs, that will likely allow only 3 more possessions. Its easy to construct a scenario where you can deny a team the chance to get a second score to take the lead by virtue running time of the clock.

But McCarthy has repeatedly tilted toward the run long before the 4 minute mark. Which doesn't have that history behind it. There is a reason he named it his 4 minute offense.

Of course there is risk to passing (stopped clock and INT) just as there is for running (fumble). But the reward can be greater as well.

For the Packers specifically is that his course of action takes the ball out of his best offensive players hand. When he goes into that mode, the Defense can ignore the best offensive player in the league. And it puts the game into the hands of his least effective units in his tenure. This is the reason his 4th Quarter record was hideous prior to 2010 (when the O line and the run game were truly pathetic) and has improved to less terrible since.

McCarthy himself has embraced some of Burke's observations. He has truly engaged with the idea that the average NFL coach does not pass enough throughout the game (the article is a few years old) and is too conservative on 4th down especially from midfield in.

But he traditionally switches gears in the second half with a lead. There have been a few signs of him changing it up with play action this year. I hope it continues.

On this particular Sunday I did not notice much of a difference in play calling until they got the ball with 6:40 left in the 4th. At that point they ran on first down, got nothing, and then ran again on second. Until that point, however, the only time they called consecutive running plays was on the first drive of the second half, and those runs were successful--in fact they were the only time they move the ball consistently in the second half! So I don't see where McCarthy got too conservative with his play calling. What happened was that the passing game failed to produce first downs.

[pbmax]

On this particular Sunday I did not notice much of a difference in play calling until they got the ball with 6:40 left in the 4th. At that point they ran on first down, got nothing, and then ran again on second. Until that point, however, the only time they called consecutive running plays was on the first drive of the second half, and those runs were successful--in fact they were the only time they move the ball consistently in the second half! So I don't see where McCarthy got too conservative with his play calling. What happened was that the passing game failed to produce first downs.

They ran more the entire half. But I agree, he mixed in more pass than usual before 6:40. My fear is that 6:40 is still too early with a two score lead, but I would settle for it if it meant he kept passing until that point.

And by passing, I do not mean run-run-pass.

[vince]

Those numbers, like his overall numbers, are very, very good.

However, as high as those percentages are, shouldn't they even be higher for the 4th quarter lead?

And don't the virtually identical numbers suggest that the team is not increasing its chance for success in the 4th Quarter? They go from 2nd most successful (lead at half) to 9th most successful (lead to start the 4th).

As with his job, I don't think McCarthy should be replaced based on these career numbers, but I think it does point to an ineffectual strategy late. Those 14 losses seem to be the indicator that gives you the 15th most failures (a number that is influenced by his long tenure and many leads). But the success rate does drop between halftime and the fourth quarter.

He's been successful in the 4th q at a higher rate than 23 of the other 31 teams. I see no justification for characterizing that position relative to his peers as "ineffectual" at all. Top 10 is a pretty strong tier to be in on about any NFL measure I'd say. I'd call that position, with the added context of the other rankings together as highly successful.

[Pugger]

Those numbers, like his overall numbers, are very, very good.

However, as high as those percentages are, shouldn't they even be higher for the 4th quarter lead?

And don't the virtually identical numbers suggest that the team is not increasing its chance for success in the 4th Quarter? They go from 2nd most successful (lead at half) to 9th most successful (lead to start the 4th).

As with his job, I don't think McCarthy should be replaced based on these career numbers, but I think it does point to an ineffectual strategy late. Those 14 losses seem to be the indicator that gives you the 15th most failures (a number that is influenced by his long tenure and many leads). But the success rate does drop between halftime and the fourth quarter.

I wonder if we as fans are paranoid because of what happened in that playoff game in Seattle in 2014? Whenever we have a nice lead and our opponent begins to creep back in the game we have visions of that nightmare happening again.

[George Cumby]

I wonder if we as fans are paranoid because of what happened in that playoff game in Seattle in 2014? Whenever we have a nice lead and our opponent begins to creep back in the game we have visions of that nightmare happening again.

Probably in part. But fans, by definition, are unreasonable so our expectations are often out of line with reality.

Something to keep in mind is this: the Packer's last Super Bowl season, do you remember the close calls? Win or loss? Probably not. What matters is they got the win over Detroit. Should they win the whole enchilada, none of us will remember this game by the end of 2017.....