McCarthy's play calling-let's discuss it

[Bretsky]

They only passed it 12 times, which is a far cry from the 28 Favre had in the 1st half. We were winning when Favre was throwing the ball. DeShawn Wynn gave us a big boost at the beginning, but Favre was winning the game for us at the beginning. That and the Bears offense.

However, it is not the amount of runs that MM called, but when he called them. As Bretsky pointed out, those 3 drives were just painful to watch. It was so conservative, as pointed out previously, he was playing not to lose.

We had numerous opportunities to get something going, but we'd get nothing on first down and then we'd have 2nd and 10 from our own 20. The reason why we had such a great 3rd conversion rate is because earlier in the game we were giving ourselves manageable 3rd down situations. Later in the game, it was almost always 3rd and 5+. That's going to put you in a position where Favre is going to start and try to force things and when he does that we lose.

I had posted this after getting back at about 2:00 in the morn after watching the game with Nutz,HW, SF,and Skin. I'll have to look up the series later but I'm sure mmdk was right in showing the sequence

It noticeably hurt the rhythym of the offense. We never got that rhythym back.

This game reminded me of the Saints game last year.

We dominated the first half
Halftime adjustments were made
We were dominated in the second half when the opposition made the adjustments. We had no answer for the adjustments.

[run pMc]

I think the Bears made good adjustments at halftime and took away some things GB wanted to do on offense. They also played more ball-control with their offense, which kept GB's passing attack on the sidelines. Penalties really helped CHI. The INT and then a fumble on consecutive possessions sure didn't help GB either.

I don't know that 9 runs is too conservative...when you call them is part of the equation. I think GB didn't have the ball enough (and played too sloppy) to get in a good rhythm in the 2nd half.

I didn't like the field position M3 gave away on kickoffs. GB punted to Hester...why not let Crosby boot it as far as he can? It's not like it's January and the ball is an ice cube. Odds are he would have kicked 6-7 yards deep in the endzone. I agree kicking right to Hester is risky, but I'd also agree that giving the the ball at the 40 was a too conservative.

[wist43]

McCarthy lost this game... pure and simple.

McCarthy has to understand the fundamental weakness of his team - they can't run the ball - and no amount of trying the same thing over and over again is going to fix that. If this team is going to win consistantly, they're going to have to pass to set up the run; and, they're going to have to pass to run out the clock.

[BallHawk]

So is the consensus here that the run worked at the beginning because we caught the Bears offguard?

[Scott Campbell]

They only ran the ball 9 times in the second half.

As it turned out, that was 7 times too many.

[Carolina_Packer]

There is the whole playcalling vs. execution argument that discussions like this always brings to my mind.

If any play succeeds, was it a good play call? If a play fails, was it bad play calling or bad execution of the play call?

I guess that depends on what the situation would typically dictate. If you have a 3rd and long and decide to do a delayed hand-off and get two yards and have to kick, that might just be a bad call, because it's too conservative, even though the thinking is, they are expecting us to pass.

If you call a good play for the right situation and something bad happens, either a turnover, incompletion, sack or no gain/loss of yardage, was it still a bad play call, or bad execution?

Seems to be a fine line you walk between calling something a bad play call and bad execution of a play call. I don't claim to understand necessarily what that is, but it's more of a gut feeling when you're watching it.

[Scott Campbell]

McCarthy lost this game... pure and simple.

McCarthy has to understand the fundamental weakness of his team - they can't run the ball - and no amount of trying the same thing over and over again is going to fix that. If this team is going to win consistantly, they're going to have to pass to set up the run; and, they're going to have to pass to run out the clock.

I'm in agreement. We killed them with slants in the first half. While this team can't run conventionally, they have been able to replace their run game with the short passing game.

[Patler]

McCarthy lost this game... pure and simple.

McCarthy has to understand the fundamental weakness of his team - they can't run the ball - and no amount of trying the same thing over and over again is going to fix that. If this team is going to win consistantly, they're going to have to pass to set up the run; and, they're going to have to pass to run out the clock.

I don't necessarily think that was the situation last night. Three of the runs came after the long kickoff return. The first play was a 13 yard pass and a first down. The next was a run that picked up 6. Second down was a run for 3. They ran again on 3rd and 1, whicjh I can't fault as a call....BUT I believe that was the play in which Madden was amazed that Favre didn't audible to a slant. Two LBs moved into the gaps before the snap, and as Madden said the run was doomed from the snap.

Why didn't Favre audible in that situation is a good question. They still got the FG, but...

The next series started at their own 10. A run on first picked up 5. A run on second and 5 from the 15 was for no gain. On third Favre threw the int. I'm not sure I can fault the two runs in that situation. Certainly 1st down was effective.

The series after that I kind of have problems with, 3 runs for 1, 3 and 4 starting at their own 21.

After the Bears tied it, the Packers only ran twice and threw 8 times even before the last drive in which they threw 8 more.. So in the 4th qtr it was 2 rushing attempts and 16 pass attempts.

There were so many things that went wrong in this game, all of which contributed to it, including shooting themselves in the foot with penalties. With 12 penalties and 5 turnovers, that's 17 plays they screwed up. Pretty hard to win that way.

[mraynrand]

It's always pretty useless to question specific playcalling, considering the Packers scout out all the alignments and design plays to best match up with the defense. How would anyone outside the organization know what their game plan was except Bill Belichick? And you never know, unless you have access to the coaching tape, what the secondary looked like and who executed properly, etc. I'm much more interested in coaching philosophy. A few observations.

1) When Favre throws an INT, McCarthy has now (at least to my recollection) run three or more straight times, directly following. He did so on Sunday night. Is this the best decision?

2) The idea of benching Jones long-term after fumbles could be questioned. What good does it do to bench Jones? He knows he screwed up. He's got to get back on that horse. Keeping him out breaks up whatever consistency they had, especially with Jennings out as well.

3) Field position - you won't run the same plays in different areas of the field - at least not typically

4) Special teams strategy, kicking away from Hester - Hester was kept in check, but the Packers had poor field position partly because of it (see 3). Yes he could have run one back, but was this the wisest strategy?

5) Run game - the run game was designed to attack the middle of the Bear's defense, so that Urlacher can be isolated and blocked - he's much better running sideline to sideline - he can be neutralized with off tackle running. The Bears D line is also a quick aggressive line, that is easier bull rushed. The game plan was to take the run directly at them. It worked. Wells being out hurt that plan. But with Wells out, do you scrap the game plan? And even if you do, what's to say that Spitz will be able to pass block any better than run block at center?

[Scott Campbell]

2) The idea of benching Jones long-term after fumbles could be questioned. What good does it do to bench Jones? He knows he screwed up. He's got to get back on that horse. Keeping him out breaks up whatever consistency they had, especially with Jennings out as well.

I thought Jones was lucky just to get back into the game after the two fumbles. I wouldn't have faulted MM for sitting him out the remainder of the game. And I had Jones starting on my fantasy team.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's always pretty useless to question specific playcalling, considering the Packers scout out all the alignments and design plays to best match up with the defense.

I agree. Which is also why you can't debate the playcalling in detail.

But a fan can tell when the coach is playing not-to-lose, when the offense loses its agression over a period of several drives.

[mraynrand]

2) The idea of benching Jones long-term after fumbles could be questioned. What good does it do to bench Jones? He knows he screwed up. He's got to get back on that horse. Keeping him out breaks up whatever consistency they had, especially with Jennings out as well.

I thought Jones was lucky just to get back into the game after the two fumbles. I wouldn't have faulted MM for sitting him out the remainder of the game. And I had Jones starting on my fantasy team.

Then why not sit him for the rest of the season or forever? What's the correct amount of time to sit, and what criteria will you use for reinstatement. I'm not blasting your point of view, I just want to know what people really think is the answer. My opinion is to pull him out, get in his face, and put him back in. Don't lose more than a series. every player is different, but what you want to do is solve the problem. You've got to re-establish Jone's confidence, and Favre's confidence in Jones, right away.

[Freak Out]

It's always pretty useless to question specific playcalling, considering the Packers scout out all the alignments and design plays to best match up with the defense. How would anyone outside the organization know what their game plan was except Bill Belichick? And you never know, unless you have access to the coaching tape, what the secondary looked like and who executed properly, etc. I'm much more interested in coaching philosophy. A few observations.

1) When Favre throws an INT, McCarthy has now (at least to my recollection) run three or more straight times, directly following. He did so on Sunday night. Is this the best decision?

2) The idea of benching Jones long-term after fumbles could be questioned. What good does it do to bench Jones? He knows he screwed up. He's got to get back on that horse. Keeping him out breaks up whatever consistency they had, especially with Jennings out as well.

3) Field position - you won't run the same plays in different areas of the field - at least not typically

4) Special teams strategy, kicking away from Hester - Hester was kept in check, but the Packers had poor field position partly because of it (see 3). Yes he could have run one back, but was this the wisest strategy?

5) Run game - the run game was designed to attack the middle of the Bear's defense, so that Urlacher can be isolated and blocked - he's much better running sideline to sideline - he can be neutralized with off tackle running. The Bears D line is also a quick aggressive line, that is easier bull rushed. The game plan was to take the run directly at them. It worked. Wells being out hurt that plan. But with Wells out, do you scrap the game plan? And even if you do, what's to say that Spitz will be able to pass block any better than run block at center?

If he is running the ball to somehow discipline #4 then that is stupid. If he thinks he needs to be calmed down then call a damn timeout because you are only going to get so many chances against the Bears.

Jones needed to be back in the game. Sit him for a series but he is needed on the field.

On a side note....it bothers me to see #4 out there yelling at teammates after they have made a mistake or blown an assignment, talk to them, get in there face a bit but getting borderline hysterical and humiliating someone usually does not help the situation.

[Brohm]

If Jones takes the benching to heart the way Edgar Bennet took it after Holmgren benched him for fumbling, I will be very happy

[Patler]

On a side note....it bothers me to see #4 out there yelling at teammates after they have made a mistake or blown an assignment, talk to them, get in there face a bit but getting borderline hysterical and humiliating someone usually does not help the situation.

Me too. I mentioned it earlier in the season. Last night he really got after Clifton one time. Did any team mate get in his face after the gift to Urlacher?