gopkrs
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,385
- Reaction score
- 1,281
Capitan...you are just being flippant.
Conservative 2nd Half Play Calling
- Thread starter Wildcatk23
- Start date
Half Empty
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 604
Tried for a while but couldn't find that post (please note the post number in the future, especially in a thread this long). However, I assume the numbers referenced are something like "the Packers lead in (some number of games) and lost (some much smaller number) of them. Don't doubt that for a minute.
My post said they've turned leads into losses and turning a big lead into a narrow win points in the wrong direction. I haven't seen how anyone can argue with either of those points.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Post #69 (below) I believe is what is being referred to?
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
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
IMO the defense in the second half looked awful, no excuses. However, some of it was palatable for the time being and in the moment of that game, for a few reasons:
1. Big lead, defense played soft.
2. Too many mistakes; dropped interceptions, blown coverages.....all are correctable.
3. Detroit had to open up their offense and go for broke.
4. Many of the starters on D were not playing.
5. The first half defense was excellent (minus the 73 yard TD near end of).
6. Offense couldn't stay on the field long enough to give the D time to rest.
7. We won the game.
Yes, this would have been a miserable game to have lost, but we didn't. The offense finally looks like its figuring things out. The defense had a strong first half and I don't expect the issues in the secondary to continue to look that bad. But many posters are correct, the Packers #1 concern right now on Defense is pass defense.
1. Big lead, defense played soft.
2. Too many mistakes; dropped interceptions, blown coverages.....all are correctable.
3. Detroit had to open up their offense and go for broke.
4. Many of the starters on D were not playing.
5. The first half defense was excellent (minus the 73 yard TD near end of).
6. Offense couldn't stay on the field long enough to give the D time to rest.
7. We won the game.
Yes, this would have been a miserable game to have lost, but we didn't. The offense finally looks like its figuring things out. The defense had a strong first half and I don't expect the issues in the secondary to continue to look that bad. But many posters are correct, the Packers #1 concern right now on Defense is pass defense.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Well, at least against a well below average defense.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
LOL...forgot that one important detail
and I would add "against a banged up well below average defense, at home."I don't view the offense as being fixed because of that first half performance on Sunday, but it was at least encouraging to see some progress. I think most of us are holding our collective breaths as to what we will see out of the offense in the coming games and especially what they look like against top defenses.
I'm really disappointed in Starks thus far. He hasn't played much, but when he has he has looked tentative and slow. That may have been a poor resigning, especially for the kind of money they game him. But still lots of season ahead and Matt Forte is a Jet.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I'm really disappointed in Starks thus far. He hasn't played much, but when he has he has looked tentative and slow. That may have been a poor resigning, especially for the kind of money they game him. But still lots of season ahead and Matt Forte is a Jet.
True, as of right now it seems it was a mistake paying Starks $3 million a season. On the other hand Perry´s contract looks like a great bargain for the team.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Perry has been a pleasant surprise, so I guess 1 out of 2 isn't bad
. I think/hope Starks will still be the dependable backup we have seen in the past and if he isn't, at least the contract was structured in a way that releasing him at the end of this year won't be a giant cap hit ($750K)
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Well, if Starks doesn´t improve significantly over the course of this season the Packers wasted $3 million to bring him back this offseason.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,766
- Reaction score
- 896
I have a question, what happened to Lacy catching the ball? In his best season, 2014, he averaged almost 3 catches a game. Through three games this year he has 2 catches (while Starks has a total of 3). Why has the team given up on passing the ball to the running backs?
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
I read that thought in a few articles as well and IMO, you and those writers are correct. Seems like the Packers bread and butter RB screen has been temporarily shelved. Not sure why.
mongoosev
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 1,384
- Reaction score
- 175
Compared to Jags I'd say that was impressive.
It's not about stats. The man leans toward play it safe. Talk all you want about the last 5 minutes of the Seattle NFC title game, his not going for it on at least one of the two 4th and 1's early were the death knell.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
There´s no guarantee the Packers would have scored going for it on fourth down especially as the Seahawks already had stopped the offense twice from the 1-yard line.
You missed my point, and I don't have the energy. There's equally no guarantee they would have been stopped either. Play timid and not to lose, you lose.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the Viking game this year, the Packers chose to go for it in the 3rd quarter on 4th and short from the 13 yard line, instead of kicking a very makeable field goal. They did not pick up the first down.
Final score of the game......17-14.
Final score of the game......17-14.
Last edited:
Carl
Cheesehead
Can't see how anything during the first half while building a 16-0 lead could be considered a death knell.
But 2 weeks ago, going for it on 4th down in a game we lost, was not aggressive either? How about trying to throw long with less than 30 seconds left in a half in a game you already had a huge lead? Which led to a hit on Rodgers, but was that conservative too? Plenty of examples of MM not being what people peg him as
I need to read other replies before I post
So to recap, playing timid and not to lose is the way to go.
Don't do anything, because anything you do isn't guaranteed to work.
And cherry pick examples as be all end all.
You guys have it your way, but I'll take having a pair everytime.
Don't do anything, because anything you do isn't guaranteed to work.
And cherry pick examples as be all end all.
You guys have it your way, but I'll take having a pair everytime.
Wish they would have went for it on at least one of the two situations; that extra 4 points would have been nice, huh?
For my money, no excuse to go turtle both times.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
I need to read other replies before I post
LOL....I think sometimes we are all so busy frantically typing and brainstorming that we can miss other people's brilliant thoughts.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
I think they should always go for it when they make it and never go for it when they don't make it. It's a win win Crystal ball approach.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
True, the four extra points would have been nice. I wonder if you would have liked it if the Packers had lost by three because of being stopped going for it though like in Minnesota in week 2.
That's not the point anybody is trying to make though. The point is MM has plenty of examples of having a pair, along with playing the odds. Onside kicks, going for it on 4th down, big pass plays etc. the other side is, having a pair doesn't equal success, in fact it quite often doesn't. Which is why plying the odds or plying it safe or being conservative, whatever you'd like to label it as, is just smart football. Sometimes it takes a pair to show restraint too, sometimes it takes bigger ones
