Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

[RashanGary]

M3 should stand up and take some heat as well. His comments after the game about how he isn't interested in being a no-back or one-back offense that's all pass seemed petulant and whiney. You play to your strengths, not your weakness, given the personnel you have at the time. If that means empty backfield or one-back, then so be it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I agree, but McCarthy's decisions weigh in far below the 4 turnovers and 12 penalties. You shouldn't expect the coach to have a perfect game, but you should expect less than 4 turnovers and 12 penalties. Very few teams win after losing the TO battle 4 to 1. That was the story of the game. It's way too easy to just blame the coach.

[esoxx]

M3 should stand up and take some heat as well. His comments after the game about how he isn't interested in being a no-back or one-back offense that's all pass seemed petulant and whiney. You play to your strengths, not your weakness, given the personnel you have at the time. If that means empty backfield or one-back, then so be it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I agree, but McCarthy's decisions weigh in far below the 4 turnovers and 12 penalties. You shouldn't expect the coach to have a perfect game, but you should expect less than 4 turnovers and 12 penalties. Very few teams win after losing the TO battle 4 to 1. That was the story of the game. It's way too easy to just blame the coach.

No where was I blaming just the coach. I've cited the TO's and penalties all week, of course they're a huge factore. I wrote that M3 should take "some" of the heat. That's actually part of his job, to deflect some blame and keep it off the players so they can keep their focus and not lose confidence, especailly for a young team.

Some of the run plays he called in the 2nd half actually would have worked well except for the fact the guards were missing the back side cuts and couldn't get out on Briggs. That's my point. The OL hasn't shown any consistency or reason to believe through the early part of the season in run blocking, so why go to the well so often? M3 simply became too rigid and it burned him. Hopefully he learned a lesson, which most young coaches that are successful will.

[Patler]

The Packers had 22 rushing plays. Among those 22 they had gains of 29, 8, 7, 5, 10, 15, 6, 5. Yards can be made against the Bears on the ground.

To start the second half, the Packers should have felt they could gain yards either on the ground or through the air. Both worked in the 1st half. After all, 100+ yards in a half is pretty darn good.

After gaining 100+ in the 1st half, the first running play of the 2nd half gained 6 yards, still good, 2nd gained 3 yards, 3rd they screwed up, 4th gained 5 yards. So after 4 running plays in the second half that gained 6, 3 (-3) and 5 yards should MM have felt they couldn't be successful running the ball? Of course not.

MM is faced with second and 5 at his own 15. He has run four running plays in the second half that gained 14 yards. He has two downs to get 5 yards. A time consuming drive with even just two first downs can re-establish your team and hopefully reverse field position. A run on second down is a good call. It keeps the clock running, might get the first down based on the success in the game so far in running the ball. Beside, 3rd and 5 is very makable, too. Gaining nothing there was not horrible, even an incompletion on 3rd down and a punt wouldn't have been so awful. The interception and a one play TD was horrible.

At this point, the Packers still had a 3 point lead, had had success running the ball, but a few breakdowns running as well. They had had success passing in the 1st half, and an absolute boneheaded play by Favre to put the Bears right back into it. Should MM have given up the running game completely?

Was he really wrong in call any of the running plays to that point? I don't think so.

He only called 4 more running plays the entire rest of the game. Just when was it that he should have quit running?

[RashanGary]

No where was I blaming just the coach. I've cited the TO's and penalties all week, of course they're a huge factore. I wrote that M3 should take "some" of the heat. That's actually part of his job, to deflect some blame and keep it off the players so they can keep their focus and not lose confidence, especailly for a young team.

Some of the run plays he called in the 2nd half actually would have worked well except for the fact the guards were missing the back side cuts and couldn't get out on Briggs. That's my point. The OL hasn't shown any consistency or reason to believe through the early part of the season in run blocking, so why go to the well so often? M3 simply became too rigid and it burned him. Hopefully he learned a lesson, which most young coaches that are successful will.

Yeah, we pretty much agree. Somehow the conversation turned from MM having a small had in the loss to MM costing the Packers the game. He wasn't perfect and he deserves some of the blame, but I still think the biggest factor was turnovers and penalties.

[Patler]

He wasn't perfect and he deserves some of the blame, but I still think the biggest factor was turnovers and penalties.

Aw come on! If MM had called the right plays they could have overcome 17 screw-ups (5 turnovers, 12 penalties) easily? After all, that's the coach's job!

[Bretsky]

Re: Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

Playcalling is about keeping defenses off balance. In half one we attacked. On second and four that was opportune to pass. MM's conservtivism right from the start here began the rythym killer

[/b]

My God, on the second and 4 play he had called seven consecutive pass plays leading up to it! Why was it so "opportune" to pass an 8th consecutive time???? At that point it is just as likely that the Bears were thinking pass, expecting that the Packers had reverted to their tendencies of the previous weeks.

Are you using the seven consecutive passes from the two minute offense in quarter two to support your point ?? That hardly seems fair

[Bretsky]

Re: Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

8. r - 1 yd
9. r - 3 yds
10. r - 4 yds.

TIME TO ADMIT FAILURE BY NOW AND SHOW SOME STONES. They should have been able to succeed the two previous series and failed. But hey, since our young and weak OL "should" be able to run, let's keep trying. Botching TWO out of FIVE running plays is an indicator what they are doing is not working. Two straight Three and outs would be another obvious indicator.

THAT PLAY CALL SERIES WAS SICK

This series started at the 10 right after Favre's interception. No it did not get the first down you wanted, but again it didn't show the run game to be dead. One bad play, and two that showed you can gain yards running. These were the three plays made by Briggs, in which McCarthy said the guards missed their blocks.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST DOWN PASS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE RUN GAME IS NOT STINKING UP THE JOINT HERE ? It is failing and I flet that watching the game. Three three and outs when you stubbornly try to do what Green Bay is weakest at.

I didn't particularly like that series either, but it was just one series.

The running game was not stinking to that point. It had some ineffective plays and some effective ones, and more of the latter than the former. The running game was not any less effective than Favre's consecutive incompletions that ended one drive and his interception that ended another.

I would say the running game stunk at that point. No runs for first downs. failed us a few drives in a row. You credit a four yard average among five carries and then just say the other three were botched plays. Why not look at the true average up to that point ? Because it was not good at all.

All this muck in half two never let the passing game get into a good rhythym. Two consecutive completions happen often; if MM had gave him a shot consecutive completions would have a heck of a lot more credit.

[Bretsky]

Re: Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

8. r - 1 yd
9. r - 3 yds
10. r - 4 yds.

TIME TO ADMIT FAILURE BY NOW AND SHOW SOME STONES. They should have been able to succeed the two previous series and failed. But hey, since our young and weak OL "should" be able to run, let's keep trying. Botching TWO out of FIVE running plays is an indicator what they are doing is not working. Two straight Three and outs would be another obvious indicator.

THAT PLAY CALL SERIES WAS SICK

This series started at the 10 right after Favre's interception. No it did not get the first down you wanted, but again it didn't show the run game to be dead. One bad play, and two that showed you can gain yards running. These were the three plays made by Briggs, in which McCarthy said the guards missed their blocks.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST DOWN PASS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE RUN GAME IS NOT STINKING UP THE JOINT HERE ? It is failing and I flet that watching the game. Three three and outs when you stubbornly try to do what Green Bay is weakest at.

I didn't particularly like that series either, but it was just one series.

The running game was not stinking to that point. It had some ineffective plays and some effective ones, and more of the latter than the former. The running game was not any less effective than Favre's consecutive incompletions that ended one drive and his interception that ended another.

What the statistics fail to show is that the momentum in that game was slowly, methodically switching to the Bears. The Bears defense was gaining confidence that it COULD shut down the Packers after many, many examples in the 1st half where it couldn't.

Once the momentum shifted, the Bears defense took over the game, and gave the Bears offense an opportunity to make enough little plays to win.

Statistics don't tell that story, but it was clear if you were watching the game.

I agree with Bretsky. Play calling, while not solely responsible had a BIG impact on this game. Bold plays were needed to take the momentum back. They didn't happen, and the momentum shifted as a result.

Exactly

[Bretsky]

1. Turnovers
2. Penalties
3. ST's


Those are the top 3. Way way way way way down on the list is McCarthy's coaching decision. Had the Packers players not shot themselves in the foot over and over and over they would have won that game. McCarthy put them in position to win. Was he perfect? Nope, no coach ever is, but he did enough. Any time you have 4 TO's and 12 penalties, you have to blame the players first and foremost. With 2 turnovers and 8 penalties, the Packers win and the Bears look much less dominating, even in the 2nd half.

This is a VERY young team. We can expect 3 or 4 more of these throughout the season. McCarthy deserves some slack, the same way Thompson deserved slack coming into his situation.

I'd agree that those were the first three factors. As many know I've defended MM in here quite a bit......including passing on 3rd/4th and one3 several times. I have no problem if he loses while going to his strength.

But MM is also not immune to criticism and even though he never publicly acknowledges his playcalling was a factor in the loss I hope he does realize it and learns from it.

[Patler]

Re: Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

Playcalling is about keeping defenses off balance. In half one we attacked. On second and four that was opportune to pass. MM's conservtivism right from the start here began the rythym killer

[/b]

My God, on the second and 4 play he had called seven consecutive pass plays leading up to it! Why was it so "opportune" to pass an 8th consecutive time???? At that point it is just as likely that the Bears were thinking pass, expecting that the Packers had reverted to their tendencies of the previous weeks.

Are you using the seven consecutive passes from the two minute offense in quarter two to support your point ?? That hardly seems fair

No, I thought you were referring to the second and four that occurred midway through the fourth quarter. That running play had been preceded by 7 consecutive passing plays: inc., 5yds to Franks, 1 to Wynn (replayed for holding), inc., inc., 3 yds to Morency, 6 yards to Franks. A few punts in between, but 7 consecutive passes.

In re-reading it I see you were referring to the 2nd and 4 from the Chicago 14, which had been preceded by a 13 yard pass and a 6 yard run. My fault.

I'm not sure even that one was a "bad" call. After gaining 100 yards rushing the first half and 6 yards on one carry in the second half, pounding the ball into the endzone after the Bears opening second half drive for a field goal could have been a real boost. Deception is good, but so is taking it to them and being successful. At that point it had been. In the first half, with 2nd and 7 they got the TD in two plays. He was probably looking for the same sort of redzone performance here.

[Bretsky]

At least this gives us something to debate about

I don't blame MM for this loss; but I do think the playcalling had a big factor in this loss.

Turnovers and penalites are blatantly obvious.
I'm on the fence with the special teams and kicking away from Hester.

But GB's offense never even remotely got into a rhythym in the second half.
I'm not of the view that this team will consistently run over four quarters unless we are playing a powder puff defense (maybe Detroit).

As I sat and watched the game I could feel it slipping away on offense; the Skin would be a good witness to that. My thoughts here were being expressed as I sat and watched the game.

After attacking in half one, we did little of that in half two.

Tomorrow will be interesting; now it's time to go down and feel the current pain of being a Badger fan.

[esoxx]

The Packers gained 19 yards rushing the 2nd half.

What was the argument again?

[RashanGary]

The Packers seem to be floundering without a run identity. Jags leaving might have hurt more than we know.

MM tried to run, run, run it against pass defenses with a lead. The Packers failed. Right now it's pretty clear to most of us that the Packers run offense sucks. They do have a great pass offense, a good defense and good ST's.

As a team and a coach, the Packers and MM are going to either have to get better at running the ball or stay away from it like they did in the first 4 games. The more optimal is to get better at the run and be a complete team. It doesn't look like the Packers are one of the elite, complete teams. MM might have to make do with what he has and replace some players (or a coach) next off season. Then again, they might get it right.

From here forth though, MM doesn't get a pass for (run, run, pass, punt) (run, run, pass, punt). He should be able to see it's not working. He's been very flexible to this point. He might have thought he had the run game all figured out when really it was the Bears not looking for it at all in the 1st half and the Packers doing good because they passed for four games to set up the run. He has an offensive identity that has been working. If he doesn't go back to that and he fails, I'm sure this will become a bigger issue. Right now, if it's a learning experience and I'm OK.

[Patler]

Re: Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

I would say the running game stunk at that point. No runs for first downs. failed us a few drives in a row. You credit a four yard average among five carries and then just say the other three were botched plays. Why not look at the true average up to that point ? Because it was not good at all.

To me there is a difference between running 5 getting no more than 2 or 3 yards on each play; and running 5 plays with 3 that pickup OK yardage and 2 that fail. In the one case you have had no success at all, in the other you have had success.

They gained over 100 yards rushing the first half. Second half goes: 6, 3, -3, 5 and 0. Because of the two plays, -3 and 0, you should abandon what gained over 100 yards the first half and 14 yards on the other 3 plays of the second half? That makes no sense at that point. That's like giving up on the passing game because of a couple interceptions.

MM has always said that the nature of his running offense is a bunch of small gains (with few losses) followed by a long one. It's not a 4 yards every time type running offense. That's why he talks about having to stick with it until the long one breaks, and it did in the 1st half with runs of 29, 10 and 15 yards. If they would have broken just one of those in the second half, things might have been different.

[Patler]

The Packers seem to be floundering without a run identity. Jags leaving might have hurt more than we know.

I don't think they had a run identity under Jagodzinski either. Before this season I questioned on here why they never really learned how to effectively run last year, poor players or poor coaching. They now have 29 games including preseason, and still don't do it well.

If you recall, there is supposed to be some big "secret" in how the scheme is taught to the linemen, to get the timing correct, and the guru (I've forgotten his name - old age you know!) was very guarded in who he showed and what they were allowed to take with them when they left. Supposedly Jagodzinski had learned the secret from I believe one year's exposure.

I'm not sure Jagodzinski learned the "secret" or was able to pass it on to others.