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!

Coaching in Bears game was as bad as it gets

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Sunshinepacker, Nov 5, 2013.

  1. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    898
    Ratings:
    +325
    Really comes down to the end of game coaching. I'll just post some quotes from Grantland since they're much more eloquent than I:

    He [McCarthy] let the clock wind past the two-minute warning all the way to 1:14, at which point the Bears ran a first-down running play and miraculously held a Packers player, giving McCarthy a free timeout that he turned down by accepting the penalty. The time stoppage there is far more valuable than the 10 yards, especially considering that the Bears are already in the red zone and more interested in burning clock than they really are in scoring a touchdown. Instead, McCarthy accepted the penalty, giving the Bears another play with which to burn clock (and another chance for McCarthy to be stuck having used all three of his timeouts on defense, which is exactly what happened). It was lost in the Rodgers fracas after the game, but it's hard to imagine mismanaging the clock at the end of the game worse than the Packers did.
     
  2. DarkHelmet

    DarkHelmet Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Messages:
    33
    Ratings:
    +19
    I don't think it would have mattered. Wallace couldn't have moved the team down the field for a touchdown regardless of how many timeouts they had. He couldn't throw further than seven yards.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,628
    Ratings:
    +2,715
    I don't think it would have mattered either but I thought it was a mistake to accept the penalty at the time and still do.
     
  4. BorderRivals.com

    BorderRivals.com Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    594
    Ratings:
    +499
    I was wondering the same thing live. I guessed then and still believe this could be his reasoning - he wanted to preserve the timeouts for Wallace since he knew Wallace couldn't run a 2-minute drill. So, MM was hoping the defense could just get off the damn field. This justifies the non-timeouts usage for part of the end of the game, but not necessarily all of it. But, I'm guessing that was his thought process.
     
  5. Defense92

    Defense92 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +74
    Yeah, but we would have had a shot and some long balls and hope for a defensive pass interference.
     
  6. Defense92

    Defense92 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +74
    I was thinking the same thing. My wife was cheering the penalty, but I kept telling her they have to decline. As I was explaining it, I saw it was accepted and with my head in my hands explained the rest.
     
  7. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    898
    Ratings:
    +325
    If you have so little faith in the backup QB that you commit one of the worst examples of clock management I've seen in recent years, then you need to find a different backup QB.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. JBlood

    JBlood Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,557
    Ratings:
    +982
    We make the tackle on the Bears' 4th down play at their 30 with 10 minutes to go, and we win the game, more than likely.
     
  9. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,506
    Ratings:
    +852
    Agreed. And, worse, Hawk had a good chance to stop Forte for a loss. But, he just didn't grab enough jersey to make it happen.

    It seemed that all night long, the Packers were just missing opportunities. Like on that first TD throw. Neal was sooo close to that sack...
     
  10. Carl

    Carl Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,554
    Ratings:
    +864
    I completely disagree that it was a bad decision to accept the penalty.

    The Bears just moved the ball easily down field and even ran for a first on 3rd and 6. Without moving ten yards back, they probably get another first down inside the five or a touchdown and end the game right then, giving no chance of a comeback.
     
  11. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,582
    Ratings:
    +2,921
    I would like to hear MM's reasoning why he did it
     
  12. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    898
    Ratings:
    +325
    The clock was at 1:14 left and it was first down for the Bears. You need the timeout far more than worrying about what could happen if your defense fails. If you're planning on your defense not being able to hold up then you're going to lose the game either way.
     
  13. RustyShackleford

    RustyShackleford Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    47
    Ratings:
    +17
    The clock mismanagement started before then. McCarthy should have been using his timeouts much earlier.

    Timeouts are much more valuable when taken while on defense (saves 40 seconds per play rather than about 20). He waited so long that had the defense actually been able to make a stop he would have been stuck using them on offense. Would have cost him about an extra minute of game time.

    Of course, it didn't end up mattering since the defense couldn't make a stop and he did end up using them on defense, but still just giving up time.
     
  14. Forget Favre

    Forget Favre Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,835
    Ratings:
    +2,673
    I agree.
    I don't think it mattered at that point.
    Our defense was failing.
    We had a sub QB who was doing sorta OK but not good enough to win the game.
    Bears were outplaying and beating us.
    Just get it over with instead of prolonging the torture any longer.
     
  15. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,655
    Ratings:
    +1,152
    I agree it was poor clock management. I never have, and never will understand when coaches wait until AFTER the 2 minute warning to use their timeouts. It always, always results in less time on the clock.

    Example (not a real one from the game). Bears have the ball 2nd and 10 from the Packers 20, snap occurs with 2:30 left, a run for a game of 3. Coach A calls timeout immediately. Next play is also a run and clock stops at 2:00. Coach B waits til the 2 minutes warning and then calls the timeout after the next play. Bears have it 3rd and 7 regardless, but coach A has 7 more seconds with the same amount of timeouts as coach B. It's just seconds, but why?? Why burn the extra time by waiting until after the 2 minute warning?

    As someone pointed out, timeouts are far more valuable on defense. When time is your enemy and you're on defense, the other team is going to burn off 40+ seconds every play. When time is your enemy and you have the ball, at least you control the clock. You don't have to watch helplessly as seconds tick like when you're on defense, you can rush up and spike it, play for the sidelines, throw, etc. When there's 4-5 minutes left and you have the luxury of saving them while still being able to run your offense, go ahead. But when you're under 2 minutes and you need to score, you better be trying to preserve every last precious second.

    I have yet to hear an explanation for the non-challenge at the end of the first half. It looked to be a catch, but instead of trying a challenge MM simply immediately sent out the punt team. I do like MM as a head coach, but to me this was an atrocious decision. Your potential risk is simply losing 1 of 2 challenges which you are unlikely to need both anyway -- they didn't even use any timeouts that half. Your potential reward is 3-7 points as the play would immediately put you in FG range.

    Even if you think it's an iffy challenge, which I don't think it was, the risk/reward makes it well worthwhile. There seemed to be a failure on MM's part of both logic and math, and I'm disappointed that he never offered an explanation for his line of thinking or an appropriate admission of his mistake.
     
  16. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,582
    Ratings:
    +2,921
    I wanted answers to the non challenge and the clock issue at the end...I dont think any reporter asked him..

    I would guess that someone in a booth told him he didnt have possession..and that is why he didnt challenge..
     
  17. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,655
    Ratings:
    +1,152
    Really foolish move by the booth member if that is the case. If that's your job, you better not get those calls wrong, especially when so crucial. Even so, that doesn't absolve MM as he had access to the same scoreboard replays as 70,000+ others.

    If you're unsure, take a timeout. You called a timeout to save yourself 6 inches of field position earlier in the season but you won't burn one so one of your booth members can take a closer look at a crucial play? Being unsure and not taking the chance is far more damaging in this case than being unsure and losing a challenge.

    I'm curious as to what the rule would have been if they would have taken a delay of game penalty there (since it wouldn't have hurt them anyway) if they could have still gone back and challenged the play.
     
  18. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,655
    Ratings:
    +1,152
    I emailed Haudricourt and asked if he could shed any light on these questions. He's usually pretty good about writing back, but I'm not expecting anything in this case. We'll see.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,628
    Ratings:
    +2,715
    Like most of you, I have a DVR and record Packers games. I don’t think the Quarless play was a catch and I don’t think it was close. If you look at it frame by frame by the time Quarless had possession, his knee was on the turf, out of bounds. So if I were in the booth advising McCarthy I would have advised him not to throw the challenge flag.

    Regarding waiting until after the 2-minute warning, I believe the reasoning is it gives you a better chance to get the ball back if the offense gets a first down – in adambr2’s example if the Bears would have gotten a first down on the play after coach A called a time out, coach B still has three time outs. But I prefer taking the time outs before the 2 minute warning because in addition to what’s already been posted, it puts more pressure on the D. If they allow the O to get a first down, it’s probably over anyway.
     
  20. adambr2

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,655
    Ratings:
    +1,152
    Respectfully -- and I agree with almost all of your posts -- I don't see how the explanation is logical in the case of having a better chance to get the ball back if the offense gets a 1st by waiting until after the 2 minute warning.

    In my example earlier, both coach A and B have burned the same amount of timeouts (1). Coach A has 2:00 left because he called the first one at 2:20 and then the clock stopped automatically at 2:00. Coach B waited for the 2 minute warning first and then had to call the timeout after the next play when there was only 1:53 remaining, costing him 7 seconds. Both have still burned 1 timeout, regardless of whether the previous play resulted in a first down. One coach just burned more time than the other for no reason.
     
  21. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,628
    Ratings:
    +2,715
    adambr2, I was attempting to give the other side of the argument. Assume for a moment there are 4 minutes left in the game. If the HC calls two consecutive TOs and then the O gets a first down, that HC has one TO and the 2 minute warning left where the HC who didn't call a TO has all three left and the 2 minute warning after the first down. IMO that argument fails the closer you get to the warning. Again, in those situations I still prefer putting the pressure on the D to get a stop because for the come-back to work, the D has to rise up and get a 3-and-out.
     

Share This Page