1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

4th and 1 on the 1

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Mortfini, Sep 24, 2007.

  1. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,689
    Ratings:
    +2,977
    FG would have been my play..or at least a one back set and dump it off if needed..
     
  2. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Well I just read his transcripts from today and he didn't say anything close to this. Like, not even on the same planet.

    He said that Brett will be disappointed when he sees the film and what he missed in the read on that play and that he was NOT SORRY at all for calling the play. ESPECIALLY when the defense was confused and in the scheme they were in.

    He also went on to say he can't BELIEVE people make a big deal of this after all the success they had all day long spreading them out.

    I don't know what radio broadcast your talking about but it doesn't sound like it was MM you were hearing. Not from what I read word for word from him.
     
  3. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,689
    Ratings:
    +2,977
    Came from

    http://packers.com/news/stories/2007/09/24/1/
     
  4. millertime

    millertime Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    841
    Ratings:
    +0
    the thing that bothered me was the empty backfield on that play. coaches need to be called out for making dumb moves, even in a win.

    next time it is 4th and one on the goal line we might really need some points.

    mccarthy will at least think twice about the empty backfield shot gun line up because of the result from the last game and the heat he took.
     
  5. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,689
    Ratings:
    +2,977
    this isnt the 1st time a pass play ended up being a bad call on the goal line like this..recall the bills game last year?
     
  6. MassPackersFan

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings:
    +0
    If we're lucky, on NFL Replay, they will cut to that bit of the MM press conference (about the 4th and 1 play) and then show the other receivers.
     
  7. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0
    mm said You have to have a comfort when you call particular plays in certain situations, and there have been some growing pains there.
    so he (mm) passed b/c he had no confidence in the runing attack
     
  8. Heelntoe

    Heelntoe Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    77
    Ratings:
    +0
    This was my thinking, too. I mean, you can spread the defense with 4 receivers, but at least call a formation with a back in the backfield on 4th and less than a foot. That formation completely removed all doubt for the D; it's a pass or QB draw. Even a half-assed play fake can get a LB that 1/2 step out of position that you need to complete a pass (the way the pump moved the deep safety out of position so that Jennings could run right past him).

    Anyway, I very very rarely question play calling; you have to understand that many play calls are trying to set something up for later, anticipating a certain D, trying to get you into 2nd and 4 to 6 for another play the coach wants to call, or trying to force favorable matchups. But no back in the backfield on 4th and less than one with the game on the line???
     
  9. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree with millertime. It was the empty backfield that bothered me, especially with Favre not being a running QB. It allowed the Chargers to flood the end zone with defenders.

    Kicking a field goal would not have been good. It was late in the game and they needed a TD.

    I'm not going to complain too much about one highly questionable play call, though, when McCarthy's game plan was so brilliant and so well-executed by his players.
     
  10. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,571
    Ratings:
    +650
    it wasn't that late in the game. we would have had time to get a TD. In fact, i think we would've had time to get 2 TDs. hmmmmm.....
     
  11. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,571
    Ratings:
    +650
    but the game plan was brilliant. i'm not trying to get nasty in this argument. I just think a FG was the smart move there. We played our asses off and it didn't matter, so it's really a moot point. I'm just saying, it was ballsy move! not for the faint of heart, and I'm obviously a bit faint of heart.
     
  12. Heelntoe

    Heelntoe Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    77
    Ratings:
    +0
    You could see on the replays during the game that the receiver that was split wide left ran an in and was open right after the cut. Think it was Jennings but not sure. Problem is on 4th and goal with no back to pick up rushers, you can't take a sack, you can't throw it away. He saw the TE open for an instant and tried to make the throw. Can't blame him for a quick decision in that situation.
     
  13. MassPackersFan

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah, I think the route by Bubba was shortened also, being on the 1 yard line, and it was just too crowded to make a pass that could have worked at the 6.
     
  14. Cdnfavrefan

    Cdnfavrefan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,624
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hard to really know what to think. I was happy they went for it but with the running game we would of second guessed if they tried to run it, but I'd agree to at least put someone in the backfield to keep them guessing. Is it me though or did that whole thing seemed rushed. Maybe they didn't need a timeout but to me after 3rd down before I knew what was happening they had snapped it already. Maybe they wanted to catch them off guard but on a play that big I just thought they could of planned it a bit more
     
  15. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    I see no where at all where he has said he has "no confidence" in the run game and it looks to me from every quoate I have seen that's putting words in his mouth

    What he went on to say that is not quoted here is that the production in the run game is down because of the PLAY CALLER (himself) and that a lot of that is how the game plan ends up looking like.

    I said in another thread that I could see why the Pack kept throwing. The Chargers refused to change out of the 3-4 and that gave our WR's a better chance to win the game than our RB's.

    I think it's got a lot more with being smart than it does having any lack of confidence. Was he confident he could beat the 3-4 by running the ball? No. Like he said it's a "week by week" thing depending on who they play. That doesn't sound like a coach that has "no confidence" to me.
     
  16. mkapp

    mkapp Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    361
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah at least go play action.

    Or they could have faked the FG like LSU did!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8bYrkXof_s

    if Favre is the holder, that could have been the record!!
     
  17. MassPackersFan

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings:
    +0
    If Favre is the holder, they line up in their regular goalline defense. :lol:
     
  18. jdlax

    jdlax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    818
    Ratings:
    +0
    I wonder if Crosby can punt at all. Ryan gets "hurt", and can no longer hold for field goals. Enter the backup holder, Aaron Rodgers. :D
     
  19. olddavid

    olddavid Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    Ratings:
    +0
    Exactly. WTF :-?
     
  20. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    to me it really has nothing to do with lack of confidence in his running backs... but a supreme confidence in his defense to stop the bastards that deep.

    we had it on the one. you either go for it and get 6... or you pin a struggling offense on the one yard line. deep deep in their own endzone. if you kick the feild goal, you get three points but you give up feild position.

    it freakin worked out. worked well cause we are 3- 0.
     
  21. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Lets face it...........had Favre got a TD on that play, we would all be cheering the call. If MM would have called a run, and the RB was stopped short of the goal line, we all would be yelling "Why did he call a run? He KNOWS our run game has stunk so far this year!"
    So he went with what was working so well at the time.
     
  22. olddavid

    olddavid Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    Ratings:
    +0
    Great point. I just didn't like the shotgun. Have at least one back in behind the QB :wink:
     
  23. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Oh, don't get me wrong, i would have had a back in there. At least make them THINK you might run it.
    I was just stating what would happen either way. But hey, we won, and thats what really matters!!! The big "W" at the end if the game! :D
     
  24. KGB94SACKEM

    KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    334
    Ratings:
    +0
    He should of ran the ball IMO. I have no doubt there is a certain amount of doubt in MM's mind regarding the run game, whether he says it or not. To me I think MM has more faith in Brett, even with his occasional forced throws, then the rookies we have running the ball.
     
  25. Timmons

    Timmons Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    623
    Ratings:
    +1
    I too agree that the ball should have been run. It worked for the last TD of the game. And, BTW, Cheesey, as soon as I saw the empty backfield I was screaming rage about the bad decison. Win or not, it was not the right play, even if it works out. INT or INC = no points. A pick is a lot more plausible than a fumble.

    And YES it's the little details that matter. Get these points and the game changes, better for us. I still think they were going for the record.
     

Share This Page