Conservative 2nd Half Play Calling

[sschind]

Sorry. I rarely pay attention to the thread titles because, after the first couple of posts, they are usually no longer germane. In your context, I understand the comment.

No, but quite often they are still Michael or Tito. Interestingly they are NEVER Jackie or Marlon and as proof I had to look those last two up.

 

[sschind]

Well if your going to play not giving up the big plays you better have a very big lead. If yesterday's game had a fifth quarter, the Lions would have won. It was like playing "beat the clock".

but if they would have had a 6th quarter the Packers would have come back to win.

 

[PackerDNA]

sschind, you're on a roll, buddy.

 

[Half Empty]

This entire thread is proof that most people, even Packer fans, don't know **** about football. All they know is if they covered their bets, or have a W to gloat about or an L to ***** about. In some cases the people ***** about W's and L's. This offense did not go "conservative" in the 2nd half, they didn't have any possessions, and when they did, not scoring points is disappointing, but penalties and dropped passes do not = conservative play calls.

Just like fielding half a defense of UDRFA's (yes I know i'm exaggerating) doesn't mean we played a prevent defense either. Plenty to fix with those guys on defense in the way of communication and execution, but neither of which had to do with a "prevent defense"

Always an advantage to have someone who does understand football, I assume that's you, here to correct the rest of us.

 

[sschind]

sschind, you're on a roll, buddy.

It's either that or go out and look for a job.

 

[Half Empty]

I can do it in 1 word and its a word you used, WIN.

As always, if you can be happy with a win when it shows many of the problems that have been a kick in the gut for half a decade, more power to you. Some of us prefer seeing a team that can not only take a big lead, but keep it big.

 

[Packerlover]

Let's put that numbers into some perspective though. Since 2006 all teams have a combined record of 206-8 in games when leading at least by 21 points at halftime, 2019-427-4 when entering the fourth quarter with a lead as well as 1200-70-2 leading by at least 10 after three quarters.

While McCarthy's record is better than the overall numbers even less talented teams win most of the time understand these circumstances.



The Packers averaged 4.8 yards per carry in the second half, therefore not throwing the ball wasn't the reason the offense didn't score more points in the last 30 minutes. The reason for that was actually not executing on pass plays.

They only threw 6 passes

 

[Packer Brother]

Noticed Josh McDaniels is looking to be a coach next year. Just an FYI...in case MM gets the boot.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Noticed Josh McDaniels is looking to be a coach next year. Just an FYI...in case MM gets the boot.

And McDaniels would be a good replacement....why?

 

[Packer Brother]

And McDaniels would be a good replacement....why?

Fresh blood who said he learned from his mistakes.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Fresh blood who said he learned from his mistakes.

and McCarthy doesn't learn by his mistakes?

2009 McDaniels was 8-8 as HC of the Broncos, same record Shanahan had with the Broncos in 2008.

Then, in the offseason, a year after trading Cutler to the Bears for Orton, McDaniels and the Broncos used a first-round pick on Tim Tebow.

Things quickly went south in 2010; the Broncos twice lost four straight, and McDaniels was fired with a month left in the season. The team was 3-9 at the time.

While he probably has learned a lot since and as the OC of the Patriots, if and when MM quits or is fired, I'm not so sure McDaniels would be my first pick to replace him. Then again, I haven't really been looking for anyone to replace MM, since I think he is a very good HC.

 

[gopkrs]

The Packers had 10 3rd down plays and according to what I saw in the PBP they didn't call a single running play. I think two were scrambles by Rodgers but those were most likely called passes. I don't know how much harder they could have tried to pass to make 1st downs.

A lot of the times McCarthy does not trust us to get a running 1st down...probably for good reasons. Hence the need to pass. I would like to pass more often when they think we are gonna run. I don't think we do that often.

 

[Packer Brother]

and McCarthy doesn't learn by his mistakes?

2009 McDaniels was 8-8 as HC of the Broncos, same record Shanahan had with the Broncos in 2008.

Then, in the offseason, a year after trading Cutler to the Bears for Orton, McDaniels and the Broncos used a first-round pick on Tim Tebow.

Things quickly went south in 2010; the Broncos twice lost four straight, and McDaniels was fired with a month left in the season. The team was 3-9 at the time.

While he probably has learned a lot since and as the OC of the Patriots, if and when MM quits or is fired, I'm not so sure McDaniels would be my first pick to replace him. Then again, I haven't really been looking for anyone to replace MM, since I think he is a very good HC.

His Denver experience definitely is a black mark. When/if MM is gassed, l hope the Packers don't go the retread route of a Lovie Smith, John Fox type.

 

[sschind]

As always, if you can be happy with a win when it shows many of the problems that have been a kick in the gut for half a decade, more power to you. Some of us prefer seeing a team that can not only take a big lead, but keep it big.

Its a matter of perception. Some people simply look at it like we had a big lead and won by a small margin so obviously we screwed up somewhere along the line and almost lost the game. That's the simplistic way to look at it. I understand that some fans prefer to play every single drive of every game full on like its the first drive of the game but at some point that is impractical and unnecessary not to mention reckless. As long as the Packers are getting big leads and not turning big leads into losses I'm not too concerned. I'm certainly not concerned in the least over what the offense did on Sunday. To score on 6 of 10 drives, have only 1 3 and out and only 2 punts and only running 50 plays, I'll take that.

 

[PackerDNA]

It's the usual MM play not to lose syndrome. Sometimes I think getting a big early lead is the worst thing that can happen to this team. No way this game should have come down to the end.

 

[Poppa San]

You may not admit it here, but I'd bet there was a time you did run out of gas, not different than the Packers losing a game they should have won.

OK, I'll admit it but it wasn't my fault. My motorcycle didn't have a gas gauge. I drove it X number of miles and refilled. I was in a different town and got gas from a different source. It gave me about 2 MPG less than my normal source. A few days later on my way to work I ran out about 2 miles from my normal refill station. I should have had more than 6 miles left in the tank. I have never ever, with any of my vehicles, bought gas there again (its been 20+ years.)

 

[Half Empty]

Its a matter of perception. Some people simply look at it like we had a big lead and won by a small margin so obviously we screwed up somewhere along the line and almost lost the game. That's the simplistic way to look at it. I understand that some fans prefer to play every single drive of every game full on like its the first drive of the game but at some point that is impractical and unnecessary not to mention reckless. As long as the Packers are getting big leads and not turning big leads into losses I'm not too concerned. I'm certainly not concerned in the least over what the offense did on Sunday. To score on 6 of 10 drives, have only 1 3 and out and only 2 punts and only running 50 plays, I'll take that.

Certainly true about perception (or semantics evaluation or a bunch of other subjective terms). I agree with the second bold, but the problem some of us see is that they have turned leads into losses, and turning big leads into narrow wins is heading in the wrong direction.

Actually, I guess I agree with the first bold, too. It is pretty simple - they were ahead by a lot and turned it into a contest.

 

[JK64]

Can I ask, did you like MM in the first half of the game?

Sure, I liked it, but then he went conservative and took all the rhythm out of the passing game and made it much closer than it should have been. With so many injuries on defense, the offense needed to keep going.

 

[RRyder]

Certainly true about perception (or semantics evaluation or a bunch of other subjective terms). I agree with the second bold, but the problem some of us see is that they have turned leads into losses, and turning big leads into narrow wins is heading in the wrong direction.

Actually, I guess I agree with the first bold, too. It is pretty simple - they were ahead by a lot and turned it into a contest.

Here in lies the problem. A poster in this very thread listed the numbers MM has while playing with a lead and yet those numbers are being glossed over because they don't fit the narrative

 

[Carl]

Mike Spofford should put this to rest:

"This whole line of thought filling the Inbox about the Packers going conservative in the second half is so misguided, and Vic didn’t help matters with his answers Monday. I think he set me up. Let’s look at the facts, please, from the play-by-play. The Packers had three possessions in the second half before they killed the final 3:34. First drive, four Lacy runs for 30 yards, then a first-down pass to Perillo for 13 to the Detroit 32, followed by Lacy for no gain. Then incomplete pass on second down, a holding call on a third-down pass/scramble, and another pass/scramble on the replayed third down, leading to a field goal. Next drive, Lacy plows for four yards, then 14 to move the chains, then two more. Pass on second-and-8 is a zero-yard sack. Pass on third down to Cobb is broken up over the middle. Punt. Third drive, a first-down pass to wide-open Davis beyond the marker is dropped, a run gets stuffed, and a third-and-11 checkdown comes up two yards short. Punt. The penalty and dropped pass were significant. There are four called passes in those sequences on first or second down, plus every third down was a pass play. If that’s going conservative with a multi-score lead, then I can’t help you. Results do not define intent."

Read more: http://www.packers.com/news-and-eve...ba9-0e27-4469-bbcd-3e2358cc40fc#ixzz4LVUdJkUj

His last line is perfect. If the Packers moved the ball more in the second half, but the plays were exactly the same, there wouldn't be complaints.

 

[Carl]

MM has a 14-0 record in games Green Bay is leading by at least 21 at the half. He has a 97-14 record in games where he had a lead of at least a point heading into the 4th quarter. Not a big lead, not protecting a huge margin, just at least a point. His record in games where the Packers had a lead of at least 10+ points heading into the 4th quarter? 60-1. That one loss isn't even the NFC Championship game, as people forget that the Packers only had a 9 point lead heading into the 4th; they made it a 12 point lead late in the 4th with a FG.

So for all the incredible *****ing everyone likes to do about how MM "TAKES HIS FOOT OFF THE GAS AND NOW GREEN BAY IS DOOMED", Green Bay has a sensational record in games that they're protecting a big lead in.

Fun note, the New England Patriots and Bill Belichick, the poster child for "step on the gas, then on their throat" for a lot of fans? He's lost 2 games where they had a fourth quarter lead of at least 10 points from 2006-2016, or twice as many as MM. So next time you're convinced the Packers are doomed because one time in a big game a whole bunch of unthinkable **** happened in a row, just remember that statistical outliers are called outliers for a reason; because they aren't representative of the whole

I'm amazed people still argue after reading this.

Where did you find this info, by the way?

 

[sschind]

It's the usual MM play not to lose syndrome. Sometimes I think getting a big early lead is the worst thing that can happen to this team. No way this game should have come down to the end.

Certainly true about perception (or semantics evaluation or a bunch of other subjective terms). I agree with the second bold, but the problem some of us see is that they have turned leads into losses, and turning big leads into narrow wins is heading in the wrong direction.

Actually, I guess I agree with the first bold, too. It is pretty simple - they were ahead by a lot and turned it into a contest.

But the stats do not bear that out. People are acting like MM turns big leads into losses all the time and in fact it is a rare occurrence. More rare than the rest of the league in fact.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

I'm amazed people still argue after reading this.

Those facts are honestly shocking. HOWEVER, that does not mean there is no room for improvement and criticism. Why not take a proactive stance to ensure those winning records keep improving, and games being won by even larger margins? It is all about continuous quality improvement just like with any business.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Maybe the danger of what happened on Sunday was for fans and coaches (if they did) to assume that the defense would continue to pretty much shut down Detroit like they did for most of the first half. When you go into the locker room with a 21 point lead and look pretty dominant on both sides of the ball, the tendency is to maybe let up a bit, play soft, not take chances by giving up quick scores on big plays or even getting guys hurt. Had MM stayed really aggressive on offense and AR sat in the pocket too long and taken a big shot and gotten injured, with that kind of lead, fans would be calling for MM's head on a pole. Sure I would have liked to have seen a better defensive performance in the second half and the offense put a TD or two on the board, but due to a young depleted defense, some costly player mistakes on both sides of the balls, the Packers still did what they had to do to win by 7 and have possession of the ball at the end of the game.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The average yardage per running play is a misleading statistic. If you run once for 15 yards and then on the next series go 2 on 1st down and then another 1 on 2nd down; you have a 6 yard average. But you are not moving the chains.

I´m quite sure a 15-yard run moves the chains on most occasions.

It's called "prevent defense" rather than give up quick big scoring plays they let them get little plays that will burn up time. On the offensive side they run the ball to keep the clock running, but it backfires if you don't get first downs. A prime example of this is the Championship game against the Seahawks where the Packers had a 12 point lead with five minutes remaining.

The Packers didn´t play a prevent defense in the second half and I´m convinced Capers didn´t plan on allowing the Lions to complete a ton of passes for more than 10 yards.

Not much of an exaggeration; 1/3 of the roster is UDFA.
Anybody notice that when the Lions got within a score (I said to a buddy, '3 run up the middles and punt') MM called a run up the middle. The fans booed; he came back with a pass the next play.

The Packers only passed the ball once on their last drive after Rodgers converted a third down running for 11 yards.

It's the usual MM play not to lose syndrome. Sometimes I think getting a big early lead is the worst thing that can happen to this team.

I´m quite sure that trailing by 28 points shortly before halftime is worse.