Vic Ketchmab calls a spade a spade with fans who live in fantasy

[pbmax]

.
McCarthy doesn't ignore any of that. He takes all of that into account, as well as a full assessment of other options that are higher risk/higher reward and considers how all three phases of the game come together/leverage each other to achieve a winning outcome. It's why he's one of, if not the best finishers in the game in spite of the historical weakness of his defense.

He gets some blame for the defense first of all. He's not Assistant Head Coach for Offense.

But mainly he gets the blame for playing for late leads with FGs too often. Far too often he bleeds the clock, gets a FG and sees the opponent march in TD territory. It cannot be news to him that his Defense is capable of folding under those circumstances. Even if Ted and Dom have betrayed Mike the Offensive Playcaller, his job as McCarthy the Head Coach is to take that into account.

[pbmax]

In a way, that 2 point play in Arizona might crystalize the issue with McCarthy. If the play he needs isn't on the play sheet, he changes his game strategy.

That is ass backwards.

[bobblehead]

Why not both? TT is a top10 GM. Probably top5. AR is top1.

TT is absolutely top 5. He has spawned more successful GM's then anyone else in the NFL.

[bobblehead]

. However, what we are learning from Jared Cook is that he can still play and the team has gotten a nice look at him. I think there may be other under-valued gems like this that can help in the short-term while having a chance to prove a more long-term worth to the team. If that takes a roster spot from a college free agent, well, a number of them churn and burn the bottom of the roster every year anyway.

If it takes the spot of Gunther or Shields??

"Gems TT has signed"

Cook, Guion, Peppers are all very effective players TT has signed in recent years. Early on he signed Woodson and Pickett. I could go on with the Anthony Hargroves of the NFL. Early on TT whiffed with a lot of those types of guys and fans were all over him to sign marquee FA's instead of those crappy veterans.

I'm not good at the unrestricted college kids, but Tramon, Shields, Gunther, Allison, Elliot, Zombo all come to mind immediately as guys who were effective and a net benefit.

[bobblehead]

That run that Spriggs whiffed on was unsuccessful in gaining yards. It was successful in keeping them within field goal range and it forced Dallas to use their second timeout which was most important.

Having only one timeout left on Dallas' final drive helped the defense out by making it risky to use the middle of the field without a timeout to spare besides the one they would need to keep in their back pocket to make sure they can stop the clock to get the field goal team on the field.

Dallas did use the middle of the field to drive rather quickly down the field. BUT that run which protected the opportunity for the go-ahead field goal ALSO helped the defense just enough by forcing Dak to spike the ball on the last first down rather than take the time out they needed to save, which wasted what turned out to be a very important down for them and allowed just enough time on the clock for the Packers to secure the win.

That's what we know. Some hypothetical alternative to that success is nothing but hot air.

Kept us in FG range?? A 56 yarder is hardly the way I want to sew the game up. He owes Crosby a handy at minimum!

Edit:...I'm actually not done yet. Needed a 56 yard and 51 yard FG to be successful, and needed Rodgers to complete a ridiculous pass for a huge chunk of yards down the sideline. Did it work? Sure, but I guess you could say Pete Carroll was flawless in the NFCC against us because his team covered the onside kick.

[vince]

He gets some blame for the defense first of all. He's not Assistant Head Coach for Offense.

But mainly he gets the blame for playing for late leads with FGs too often. Far too often he bleeds the clock, gets a FG and sees the opponent march in TD territory. It cannot be news to him that his Defense is capable of folding under those circumstances. Even if Ted and Dom have betrayed Mike the Offensive Playcaller, his job as McCarthy the Head Coach is to take that into account.

I'm gonna stop because we're going in circles. Once again, your premise is wrong.

You don't blame success. The fact that you're defining success as finishing a game farther ahead in the score than you went into the 4th quarter doesn't make that definition hold for the rest of the universe. They count wins - not 4th quarter wins.

I can only state the reality that he's the single most effective coach/play-caller at successfully finishing games with a 4th quarter lead so many times before recognizing that you're deadset on ignoring that fact in order to maintain a position of second-guessing him by ignoring half of the risk/reward equation in your hypothetical scenarios and steadfastly arguing about why he's a failure in the very area in which he in fact has achieved the greatest success in the league.

[pbmax]

OK, going to put these in here and then parse them later.

In multiple seasons, from 2006 to 2016, only in games where team had a lead at some point in the game, requiring Points Differential <= 7, sorted by most games matching criteria.
Packers 8th in win%

In multiple seasons, from 2006 to 2016, only in games where team trailed at some point in the game, requiring Points Differential <= 7, sorted by most games matching criteria
Packers 8th in win%

In multiple seasons, from 2006 to 2016, requiring Points Differential <= 7, sorted by most games matching criteria
Packers 4th in win%

In multiple seasons, from 2006 to 2016, only in games where team had a lead at some point in the game, only in games where team trailed at some point in the game, requiring Points Differential <= 7, sorted by most games matching criteria
Packers 14th in win%

[bobblehead]

The key question to ask is what would the Packers be like without Aaron Rodgers - or if he was merely a good QB instead of as great as he is? I'm not talking Cutler quality, but let's say maybe Eli Manning or Alex Smith, like that. My answer would be that looking down the rest of the roster, we'd have a pretty bad team - overall, worse that just about anybody else you can name. THAT tells the tale about Ted Thompson. Anybody disagree?

WE also would have drafted several spots higher in every single round of every single draft the last 10 years. Anybody disagree?

And I would disagree at how bad we would be. Its completely unkown who we would have at QB, but I suspect with MM's ability to develop a QB it would be someone above average.

I'll also say take Brady from Belligenius or Ryan from quinn, or Rothlesburger from Tomlin, or any starting QB from any NFCC or AFCC team and see what happens.

[pbmax]

I'm gonna stop because we're going in circles. Once again, your premise is wrong.

You don't blame success. The fact that you're defining success as finishing a game farther ahead in the score than you went into the 4th quarter doesn't make that definition hold for the rest of the universe.

I can only state the reality that he's the single most effective coach/play-caller at successfully finishing games with a 4th quarter lead so many times before recognizing that you're deadset on ignoring that fact in order to maintain a position of second-guessing him by ignoring half of the risk/reward equation in your hypothetical scenarios and steadfastly arguing about why he's a failure in the very area in which he in fact has achieved the greatest success in the league.

Blame success? Most success includes some failures along the way. I am looking for ways to improve on that mix. I take it as a given only that improvement can be had. I do not believe I definitely know what should be done. For all I know, I might be barking up the wrong forest.

If its just a fourth quarter lead we are looking at, then the Packers are the 5th best at winning% with a 1 point lead (or more) at the end of the 3rd Quarter.

http://pfref.com/tiny/Tcj46

If I have interpreted your claim wrong, please send the link so I can look at the numbers. One word of caution with Pro Football Reference, while their links go to the right search and data, the search form itself is missing settings. So for instance each link I posted gives data from teams with a lead (or having been behind at one point) but the search form on the page does not indicate it.

[bobblehead]

If so, that QB is out there somewhere now. I certainly don't see another Aaron Rodgers or even close. Without him, we might not be Browns quality - this years team, but we very well might be Bears quality - consistently mediocre. Whether it's bad luck or whatever, with the exception of Rodgers and maybe Clay Matthews, Thompson hasn't drafted any top level players. Look around at other teams; Just about everybody - with a few lame exceptions - has drafted at least a few more than that. It's not even just about hating to sign high level free agents. It's about just barely getting by instead of maximizing things.

Lets play a game. You name the top notch player hoody has drafted and I will match him with TT. You're on the clock.

[Fritz]

He gets some blame for the defense first of all. He's not Assistant Head Coach for Offense.

But mainly he gets the blame for playing for late leads with FGs too often. Far too often he bleeds the clock, gets a FG and sees the opponent march in TD territory. It cannot be news to him that his Defense is capable of folding under those circumstances. Even if Ted and Dom have betrayed Mike the Offensive Playcaller, his job as McCarthy the Head Coach is to take that into account.

I know it's an "even if" statement, but I've been thinking about how many first-round picks TT has invested in this porous defense. There's Clay Matthews, Kenny Clark, Nick Perry, Datone Jones, Damarious Randall, and Ha-H Clinton Dix. That's six first round picks.

He seems to have spent the majority of his recent first round resources on defense. On offense, and I'm doing all this off the top of my head, there's Bulaga, Rodgers, and . . . ? Lots of second and third rounders, but the seemingly most valuable resource, the first rounder, has been spent primarily on defense. Thompson certainly has not shorted that side of the ball in terms of spending resources. As for results...

This leads me to think that maybe one way to make a transition to the next GM would be to allow Ted to choose only players on the offensive side of the ball, and let someone else - anyone else? - draft the defensive side.

I know injuries are an issue for this defense, but even before the onslaught, this wasn't a defense that appeared to be a unit of strength on this team. And now it's like watching that 2011 defense.

[vince]

Kept us in FG range?? A 56 yarder is hardly the way I want to sew the game up. He owes Crosby a handy at minimum!

Edit:...I'm actually not done yet. Needed a 56 yard and 51 yard FG to be successful, and needed Rodgers to complete a ridiculous pass for a huge chunk of yards down the sideline. Did it work? Sure, but I guess you could say Pete Carroll was flawless in the NFCC against us because his team covered the onside kick.

Yes, Crosby nailed the field goals - all of them. Equally important to the successful conclusion of this game was the forcing of Dallas to use thier spare timeouts, which made possible the final game-winning drive and a huge playoff upset on the road.

The rest is all here in this thread bobble so I'm done using the reality of success to defend against one-sided fantasy scenarios. Sorry pal.

[pbmax]

I know it's an "even if" statement, but I've been thinking about how many first-round picks TT has invested in this porous defense. There's Clay Matthews, Kenny Clark, Nick Perry, Datone Jones, Damarious Randall, and Ha-H Clinton Dix. That's six first round picks.

He seems to have spent the majority of his recent first round resources on defense. On offense, and I'm doing all this off the top of my head, there's Bulaga, Rodgers, and . . . ? Lots of second and third rounders, but the seemingly most valuable resource, the first rounder, has been spent primarily on defense. Thompson certainly has not shorted that side of the ball in terms of spending resources. As for results...

This leads me to think that maybe one way to make a transition to the next GM would be to allow Ted to choose only players on the offensive side of the ball, and let someone else - anyone else? - draft the defensive side.

I know injuries are an issue for this defense, but even before the onslaught, this wasn't a defense that appeared to be a unit of strength on this team. And now it's like watching that 2011 defense.

In reality, this is what vince and I should be arguing about. The Defense should be better, you would think, given the attention given to it. But its always beat to hell.

We would need to run numbers on draft picks again. It always seems like the top picks go to D, but I bet its closer to even than we remember.

[bobblehead]

My replacement cyborg body and mind transference device beg to differ. However, given current laws, we won't be able to settle the bet until CY-pbmax posts in the 2030s.

And me...I've got tiger blood!

[pbmax]

In reality, I also acknowledge that we are arguing about a very fine line. McCarthy playing for FG probably is, overall, a maximizing win play under 3 minutes. Maybe even 4. Especially if that gives you a 4 point lead or greater.

We are talking about greater aggression on 2-4 play calls a game at most and the Packes usually have a big lead.

And no, to repeat, I don't want to change the coach. if there are 7 other coaching candidates who could do as well as McCarthy I would be surprised. Even more so if the Packers found him.