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

[hoosier]

Results are real, yes, but because decisions do not have predetermined outcomes I think one needs to consider percentages when evaluating a given decision.

[Maxie the Taxi]

"Hindsight" drives a "Stubby woulda coulda shoulda" argument after a Packer loss.

"Actual Results" drive an "MM can do no wrong" argument after a Packer win.

[hoosier]

"Hindsight" drives a "Stubby woulda coulda shoulda" argument after a Packer loss.

"Actual Results" drive an "MM can do no wrong" argument after a Packer win.

Why don't you go ponder some graphs....

[vince]

Actual results should drive an "Mm achieved these results and here's why" analysis. Not an " if the results were different he would have screwed up" fantasy analysis.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Why don't you go ponder some graphs....

I just thought you ought to know that you're interpreting those pictures above all wrong. LOL

[pbmax]

I won't speculate on the reason for your continued blind spot here PB, but the downside was mitigated by the play call despite the "downward" outcome of the individual play. The larger downside of attempting a pass play it in that situation can only be mitigated by refusing to acknowledge its existence.

Also, it can't be any more clear given the actual results that the loss of a few yards in that situation didn't "affect the kick" as your revisionism suggests.

This is why I prefer to look at this with numbers. With a 50-55% chance of a FG, I would love to know the relative risk of the choices between a 51 yard FD (kneeling), a 56 yard FG (run wide left) or a play action pass.

I think you have done a very good job of explicating the risk of a pass here. I think its easy to figure out a FG here is no sure thing and a 5 yard longer FG is a worse option. But this is only the risk side of the equation. We don't know the upside of a completion, the likelihood of it being made multiplied by its effect on the game situation.

[hoosier]

I just thought you ought to know that you're interpreting those pictures above all wrong. LOL

No doubt, I must be looking on the wrong side of that blue line.

[pbmax]

Actual results should drive an "Mm achieved these results and here's why" analysis. Not an " if the results were different he would have screwed up" fantasy analysis.

I believe the Packers roster is Top 5 in the League. I think McCarthy is Top 7 in coaching. I think both of these can be easily defended. You could easily argue Ted for Top 3 and M3 for Top 5, though you would get more resistance. But I think even consensus would grant that this combination in a franchise yields a team that should be Top 4 in overall performance. Any single year can go bad, but over the course of five years the team should outperform the vast majority of the League.

I have two critiques of McCarthy through observation. One, is his limiting of his own offensive options in a game to the game plan. Normally, this makes sense, as why risk running plays you have not practiced? However, in games where you zigged and the opponent zagged, your plan has to go out of the window. It goes mainly for offense, but has also happened to the defense. This is most obvious when facing a very good team (Seattle, Giants) but I think you can see it against lesser competition too (happens versus Schwartz and Lovie quite a bit). So while strength of the opponent affects this pattern, I don't think it causes it.

There are good reasons that he sticks to this plan and is called Stubby, in part, because of it. He has seen bad teams flail and try to throw everything at a wall in order to find something positive while in a panic. He has seen teams do this just to get the press of their backs. He doesn't want that, neither do I. By and large, this works for 90-95% of the games and gives his talent rich team the best way to leverage their talent. But matchups matter in the NFL, other teams are close to your talent level, and players have limitations in executing against there good players. Sometimes the best laid plan needs to be tossed in the trashcan. Best example of all time is the Fail Mary game.

Second critique is that he relies on single dimensional (this is likely the wrong mathematical convention, but I hope it makes itself clear) analysis about how to close out and win games. He knows that winning teams run more at the end of games. He knows that total attempts and APC don't matter as much as limiting possession and time later in a game. You can infer this from looking at lists of winning team traits and their late game performances.

But it ignores lost opportunity (in most cases, running means less scoring), lost field position, telegraphing the run and the odd fact that Capers D seems incapably of making a good team work hard during a 2 minute drive. They just don't play zone well, and surrender the boundary too often for clock stoppages.

Now I will be dead honest. The last time we ran numbers on this, I was surprised at the team's success in close games with leads. So it could be that playoff woes and easily memorable reg season losses have colored the second critique of McCarthy.

But they are much closer to average when they trail, not in the Top 5 at all. Even this is not a slam dunk as they are still better than average AND have very few games in which they trail (fewest aside from NE).

So I agree with his approach almost all of the time. But still think the approach in each situation can be improved. I would have a hard time telling you how to fix game planning. But I think end of game situations is more obvious.

I am not nitpicking about McCarthy's large body of success, I want modifications to it so that it works even better. NE level better.

[Maxie the Taxi]

No doubt, I must be looking on the wrong side of that blue line.

Yes! Often what you don't see is far more important than what you do see.

[vince]

This is why I prefer to look at this with numbers. With a 50-55% chance of a FG, I would love to know the relative risk of the choices between a 51 yard FD (kneeling), a 56 yard FG (run wide left) or a play action pass.

I think you have done a very good job of explicating the risk of a pass here. I think its easy to figure out a FG here is no sure thing and a 5 yard longer FG is a worse option. But this is only the risk side of the equation. We don't know the upside of a completion, the likelihood of it being made multiplied by its effect on the game situation.

Just as a 5-yard (or more) longer field goal would be in the event of a blind-side sack on a pass play, the downside possibility of which you ignore in your hypothetical guaranteed-to-succeed alternative.

[hoosier]

Yes! Often what you don't see is far more important than what you do see.

Or, to paraphrase Poe, often what you don't see is sitting there right in front of your eyes.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Or, to paraphrase Poe, often what you don't see is sitting there right in front of your eyes.

Or, to paraphrase Marx, either this horse is dead or my watch has stopped.

[vince]

.

I believe the Packers roster is Top 5 in the League. I think McCarthy is Top 7 in coaching. I think both of these can be easily defended. You could easily argue Ted for Top 3 and M3 for Top 5, though you would get more resistance. But I think even consensus would grant that this combination in a franchise yields a team that should be Top 4 in overall performance. Any single year can go bad, but over the course of five years the team should outperform the vast majority of the League.

As they have.

I have two critiques of McCarthy through observation. One, is his limiting of his own offensive options in a game to the game plan. Normally, this makes sense, as why risk running plays you have not practiced? However, in games where you zigged and the opponent zagged, your plan has to go out of the window. It goes mainly for offense, but has also happened to the defense. This is most obvious when facing a very good team (Seattle, Giants) but I think you can see it against lesser competition too (happens versus Schwartz and Lovie quite a bit). So while strength of the opponent affects this pattern, I don't think it causes it.

I don't buy this at all. What evidence do you have to assert that he limits his game plan, play selection and/or in-game adjustments more than other coaches? Assuming he does, how has that played out to the team's detriment when his results demonstrate that since 2011, the Packers have the 3rd best record vs. playoff teams in the league? That's 100% fantasyland IMO.

There are good reasons that he sticks to this plan and is called Stubby, in part, because of it. He has seen bad teams flail and try to throw everything at a wall in order to find something positive while in a panic. He has seen teams do this just to get the press of their backs. He doesn't want that, neither do I. By and large, this works for 90-95% of the games and gives his talent rich team the best way to leverage their talent. But matchups matter in the NFL, other teams are close to your talent level, and players have limitations in executing against there good players. Sometimes the best laid plan needs to be tossed in the trashcan. Best example of all time is the Fail Mary game.

Again, his teams are elite in performing against the league's best teams. You use a selection set of 1 game from 4 years ago as evidence supporting such a general conclusion today? Look no further than the Giants game 2 weeks ago to find evidence supporting the opposite conclusion.

Second critique is that he relies on single dimensional (this is likely the wrong mathematical convention, but I hope it makes itself clear) analysis about how to close out and win games. He knows that winning teams run more at the end of games. He knows that total attempts and APC don't matter as much as limiting possession and time later in a game. You can infer this from looking at lists of winning team traits and their late game performances.

But it ignores lost opportunity (in most cases, running means less scoring), lost field position, telegraphing the run and the odd fact that Capers D seems incapably of making a good team work hard during a 2 minute drive. They just don't play zone well, and surrender the boundary too often for clock stoppages.

You assert that he ignores the upside of higher risk/reward options late in games because he doesn't choose to use them in situations when you think he should?

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 takes action to force the clock to run and/or force the opponent to spend their ability to stop the clock in order to protect his defense as much as possible. Your suggestion/belief that he should be higher risk/higher reward with leads late in games and doesn't properly consider such options is simply misguided. The outcomes from play-to-play are not always perfect, but whatever he's done has been more successful than every other coach/play-caller in the league over the last six years.

Now I will be dead honest. The last time we ran numbers on this, I was surprised at the team's success in close games with leads. So it could be that playoff woes and easily memorable reg season losses have colored the second critique of McCarthy.

But they are much closer to average when they trail, not in the Top 5 at all. Even this is not a slam dunk as they are still better than average AND have very few games in which they trail (fewest aside from NE).

The Packers are 6th best in the league in winning % when trailing going into the 4th quarter since 2011 - 1/1000th of a percentage point behind #5 Arizona - not anywhere remotely close to average but VERY close to Top 5.

So I agree with his approach almost all of the time. But still think the approach in each situation can be improved. I would have a hard time telling you how to fix game planning. But I think end of game situations is more obvious.

Game planning doesn't need to be "fixed" nor do end of game situations. Results indicate he's elite performing in both areas.

I am not nitpicking about McCarthy's large body of success, I want modifications to it so that it works even better. NE level better.

His end-of-game situational performance IS "NE level better". Since 2011, it's better than NE level (by a small margin). It's been the absolute best in the league. You really think if he'd just listen to your critique/advice he'd be perfect?

[pbmax]

.

I don't buy this at all. What evidence do you have to assert that he limits his game plan, play selection and/or in-game adjustments more than other coaches? Assuming he does, how has that played out to the team's detriment when his results demonstrate that since 2011, the Packers have the 3rd best record vs. playoff teams in the league? That's 100% fantasyland IMO.

On numerous occasions he has dumped on the idea of dumping his prep work and game plan for the week and calling things not on the play sheet when the offense is in a funk.

He has commented on this when failing to adjust to give Tackles help with chips on pass protection.

He has sheepishly admitted that he HAD to call plays they did not plan on during game situations they did not plan for. Specifically, recall the lack of a 2 point play versus the Cardinals because his one 2 point play he liked required 3 receivers and Janis was hurt.

Running an offense without the plan would be foolish indeed. With his talent advantage, he would be an idiot not to try to impose their will on other teams. However, there are times when your plan doesn't work and you must dump it. If you have fallen well behind (think Panthers in 2015) you need to do it before the 4th quarter.

This is a very admirable trait taken to an extreme.

[bobblehead]

It's amazing that the Packers get their greatest win since the Super Bowl and some fans still can't help but rip play-calling and player acquisition.

Since the Packers won the Super Bowl, they are the league's BEST team successfully finishing games with a fourth quarter lead - THE BEST.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=career&year_min=2011&year_max=2016&game_type=E&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&temperature_gtlt=lt&team_conf_id=All+Conferences&team_div_id=All+Divisions&opp_conf_id=All+Conferences&opp_div_id=All+Divisions&team_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&team_def_align=Any+Alignment&opp_off_scheme=Any+Scheme&opp_def_align=Any+Alignment&c1stat=score_diff_thru_3&c1comp=gt&c1val=1&c2stat=choose&c2comp=gt&c3stat=choose&c3comp=gt&c4stat=choose&c4comp=gt&c5comp=choose&c5gtlt=lt&c6mult=1.0&c6comp=choose&order_by=pass_td

McCarthy knows what he's doing finishing games. That's a proven fact.

I only questioned 2 play calls this game. Both the runs into the teeth of a D that was stacked to cause a loss and a 56 yard FG that my dead grandma knew were coming. I am overall a fan of MM and have defended him (to quote trump) "very bigly' in the past. The man likes to start counting possessions and playing a soft D too often. As for the stat...well, stats can be manipulated. And any stat showing you are good at something like winning with a lead and the best QB in the game can be misleading.

MM is a great game planner (when his head is in it...like week 8 to the end of the season). He is very good at developing players. He is very good at keeping his team on an even emotional keel. He is good at sticking with a player through a rough patch....he sucks at sticking with a bad player he likes.