Conservative 2nd Half Play Calling

[Poppa San]

Big lead games like this past one may be a great time to expand the playbook. The defense knows you will most likely run but they wouldn't be looking for the jet sweep, end around, or read option. That could be the back breaker on 2nd and 9.

 

[Wildcatk23]

Enlighten us, what games are you referring to and in regards to what? Bad coaching? Losing a lead? Fire Capers?

Like oh lets say, the Seattle game a couple years ago? that we lost in OT because we stopped moving the ball and tried to run the clock out.

 

[Packerlifer]

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...s-averted-potentially-historic-fold/91162154/

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Im not just questioning this game. Its multiple games and years now.

Like oh lets say, the Seattle game a couple years ago? that we lost in OT because we stopped moving the ball and tried to run the clock out.

Right, and I will ask again, what are you questioning in the Seattle game? The play calling or player execution of plays? If its play calling, give me some specifics of bad play calling in the Seattle game and compare that to execution by players and tell me which one had the most influence on the Packers losing that game.

You are saying that it's not a good thing to try and run the clock out when you have a lead? That a coach should have no confidence in his defense and risk turning the ball over or give the other teams offense more time due to incomplete passes? In the Seattle game it was MM's poor play calling and his poor decision to try and run the clock out that cost us that game?

You said multiple games and years. Since I am not as convinced as you are that the Seattle game was one that play calling specifically lost us the game, what other ones are you thinking of? Are you thinking the play calling by MM almost lost the Detroit game on Sunday? What was responsible for getting us a 21 point lead at the half and running the clock out at the end of the game?

I get that MM and his play calling is the easy target for some fans to blame when the Packers lose a game (which they didn't Sunday). But sometimes don't you think that maybe execution of the plays has something to do with wins and loses? MM can call the perfect play for a situation and if the players don't execute it, is that on MM and his play calling?

I'm also not trying to imply that MM is infallible at play calling, but I think too often people use him as the scapegoat for a loss far more often then they give him credit for a win.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Interesting.

If FGs were always successful, one would have to score a TD on 42% of the drives that "go for it" with 4th down attempts (within FG range) in order to break even on scoring (.42*7=3).

But, knowing that only about 90% of FGA are successful within 40 yards, the break even needed is lowered to about 38%. Then, knowing that some of the drives still score a FG (no TD) after successfully gaining a 1st down (after a 4th), this breakeven is lowered again.

Without working on this more than the above quick look, I would say that in the long run both strategies score about the same amount of points per drive (keeping all things equal of course).

The exprected points before going for it on fourth down vs. the Vikings was 2.63. Therefore McCarthy should have kicked the field goal.

I think we have all watched games where teams have left starters in too long, only to see them get hurt. While MM didn't have a chance to pull the starters, nor should he have, I kind of have a feeling that both AR and MM were on the same page of "don't take any unnecessary hits with a big lead". Some may call that conservative, I call it self preservation planning for the next week and beyond.

The best way to prevent injuries to starters is being able to rest them at some point in the game. The Packers could have done that by still leading by three scores in the fourth quarter.

Right, and I will ask again, what are you questioning in the Seattle game? The play calling or player execution of plays? If its play calling, give me some specifics of bad play calling in the Seattle game and compare that to execution by players and tell me which one had the most influence on the Packers losing that game.

You are saying that it's not a good thing to try and run the clock out when you have a lead? That a coach should have no confidence in his defense and risk turning the ball over or give the other teams offense more time due to incomplete passes? In the Seattle game it was MM's poor play calling and his poor decision to try and run the clock out that cost us that game?

Mostly I agree with not criticizing McCarthy´s play calling but there´s reason to question running the ball five out of six times late in the fourth quarter at Seattle to run out the clock, especially with the Seahawks stacking the box while lining up with two of their best defensive backs hurt.

Don´t get me wrong, there were other reasons the Packers lost that game but the head coach´s conservative approach contributed to it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The best way to prevent injuries to starters is being able to rest them at some point in the game. The Packers could have done that by still leading by three scores in the fourth quarter.

You optimist you, only 3 scores with the way our defense was playing? But yes, always nice when you can run a score up by the 4th quarter, rest your starters and get some playing time for the back-ups. I don't remember the last time that happened for the Packers, probably Scott Tolzien coming in to kneel down? I also don't think its necessary to over expose Rodgers to potential injury when you have a big lead. I would be telling him "quick passes", don't be dancing around in that pocket like we are down by 7."

Mostly I agree with not criticizing McCarthy´s play calling but there´s reason to question running the ball five out of six times late in the fourth quarter at Seattle to run out the clock, especially with the Seahawks stacking the box while lining up with two of their best defensive backs hurt.

Don´t get me wrong, there were other reasons the Packers lost that game but the head coach´s conservative approach contributed to it.

Again I agree with you. Like I said, there are times when I think even MM himself would/should second guess plays that he called, especially after the fact. But I think some fans are too quick to blame a loss solely on "MM being too conservative". The Seattle game was a perfect example of that and one the poster I was responding to seemed to think was the Holy Grail of an example as to why MM's conservative play calling costs us games. While the Packers offense didn't pick up a critical first down in the 4th quarter, I would point to special teams, the defense and some individual players for not doing their jobs in the last 5 minutes and overtime of that game as the main reasons for the loss. MM called a pretty decent game that day and had it not been for those mental mistakes by players, some might have called it a spectacularly coached and played game against a really strong Seattle team on the road.

Just the nature of this thread being posted after what happened against Detroit on Sunday, leads me to believe that no matter what MM does, some will always fall back on the notion that "MM is too conservative". Similar to fans who were no doubt screaming "Fire Capers!" after MJJ's 73 yard TD at the end of the first half. Have to look at the big picture.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You optimist you, only 3 scores with the way our defense was playing? But yes, always nice when you can run a score up by the 4th quarter, rest your starters and get some playing time for the back-ups. I don't remember the last time that happened for the Packers, probably Scott Tolzien coming in to kneel down? I also don't think its necessary to over expose Rodgers to potential injury when you have a big lead. I would be telling him "quick passes", don't be dancing around in that pocket like we are down by 7."

The last time the Packers were able to afford resting Rodgers late in the game happend during a blowout victory over the Eagles in 2014 (53-20). I agree that I prefer the quarterback to throw quick passes and rely on the running game to move the ball once leading by three scores. Unfortunately the offense didn´t execute on a high level vs. the Lions at the start of the fourth quarter.

Again I agree with you. Like I said, there are times when I think even MM himself would/should second guess plays that he called, especially after the fact. But I think some fans are too quick to blame a loss solely on "MM being too conservative". The Seattle game was a perfect example of that and one the poster I was responding to seemed to think was the Holy Grail of an example as to why MM's conservative play calling costs us games. While the Packers offense didn't pick up a critical first down in the 4th quarter, I would point to special teams, the defense and some individual players for not doing their jobs in the last 5 minutes and overtime of that game as the main reasons for the loss. MM called a pretty decent game that day and had it not been for those mental mistakes by players, some might have called it a spectacularly coached and played game against a really strong Seattle team on the road.

Absolutely agree that McCarthy´s play calling wasn´t the main reason the Packers lost the NFCCG at Seattle.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

There´s no guarantee the Packers defense would have stopped the Seahawks offense immediately and the offense getting a chance to kick another field goal.



Only 34.1% of the drives in which a team went for it on fourth down in field goal range resulted in a touchdown last season.

A) There was a larger chance that the Seahawks would have to punt and the Packers would get the ball back.

B) That percent doesn't tell the whole story. What really matters is what percent of teams failed on fourth down and then surrendered points. THAT's the important part of the discussion. People keep assuming that failing on fourth down means the other teams automatically scores points and that's just not true.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

But you also make the assumption here that "most likely" Seattle punts the ball back and the Packers can "STILL" kick a FG.....what if Seattle doesn't punt the ball until after a few first downs and a decent punt by Ryan?

We can play the "what if" game all day. What if McCarthy had gone for it and scored a TD? What if the Packers had failed on the conversion and Wilson threw ANOTHER interception to the Packers which put them in great scoring position? We can't know everything that would have happened but the "what ifs" line up much better on the side of going for it.

 

[Mondio]

We can play the "what if" game all day. What if McCarthy had gone for it and scored a TD? What if the Packers had failed on the conversion and Wilson threw ANOTHER interception to the Packers which put them in great scoring position? We can't know everything that would have happened but the "what ifs" line up much better on the side of going for it.

they line up better? because running 6 out of 8 plays from inside the 5 and failing every single time was proof that just one more was going to work LOL. I wouldn't have minded if he had gone for it either, but I certainly wouldn't say the "what if's" line up better.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That percent doesn't tell the whole story. What really matters is what percent of teams failed on fourth down and then surrendered points. THAT's the important part of the discussion. People keep assuming that failing on fourth down means the other teams automatically scores points and that's just not true.

It´s true that a team going for it on fourth down from the 1-yard line that doesn´t score still has a positive expected points value. Of course that number is smaller than kicking a field goal though at 0.38.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

A) There was a larger chance that the Seahawks would have to punt and the Packers would get the ball back.

B) That percent doesn't tell the whole story. What really matters is what percent of teams failed on fourth down and then surrendered points. THAT's the important part of the discussion. People keep assuming that failing on fourth down means the other teams automatically scores points and that's just not true.

While I don't know what Captain is thinking, I never assumed Seattle would get the ball and score, although its a possibility. What I assumed is if the Packers fail to pick up the first down, they get no points, Seattle gets the ball and has the ability to possess it and do what an offense does with the ball. Even if they don't do much, with an average punt, the Packers are by no means back to where they started prior to going for it on 4th down, in FG range, as you seem to imply.

Using your philosophy, it seems like no team should kick a FG if they are within a certain distance of the other teams endzone, since even if they don't pick up the first down, the other team probably won't score and probably will just give them another chance at .......kicking a FG.....which they already had a better chance of making prior to all of this. I get what you are saying....a TD is always better then a FG, but the chances of scoring a TD are much lower then making a FG in that situation, especially in that particular game.

I totally get your philosophy if the situation was near the end of the game and you are down by more then 3 points. But in a game that is a total defensive struggle, on the road in the noisiest stadium in the NFL, you take points when you can.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We can play the "what if" game all day. What if McCarthy had gone for it and scored a TD? What if the Packers had failed on the conversion and Wilson threw ANOTHER interception to the Packers which put them in great scoring position? We can't know everything that would have happened but the "what ifs" line up much better on the side of going for it.

Why can't Wilson throw ANOTHER interception after the Packers kickoff after making a FG?

You are right, the "what if" game can be played all day and is part of what goes through a coaches mind in making decisions.

1. What if we fumble, throw an interception or don't pick up the first down?
2. What if Wilson catches us napping and instead of throwing a pick, throws a touchdown from the 3 yard line?
3. What if we make the FG, kick off and Wilson throws a pick 6 on the next play?
4. What if we go for a FG, it's blocked, we pick it up and run it in for a TD?

See where I am going here? Yes....a ton of "what ifs"....some crazier then another..but you need to stick to the ones more relative to the circumstances surrounding that particular situation and see how they line up, not really sure how you are seeing them line up so strongly in favor of going for it.

But I also think you need to look at the facts during that situation to make the proper decision:

1. Defensive battle, low scoring game.
2. On the road in a very loud hostile environment.
3. momentum of scoring vs not scoring.
4. Packers had already failed to pick up short yardage on numerous tries.
5. Pretty much a sure 3, much longer odds on 7.

 

[gopkrs]

Statistics are almost always misleading. Total stats on % of 4th down plays working don't even take into consideration the defense you are playing against. Probably the most important consideration. The coach needs to think of how much time is left...what the score is...who the defense is...where you are on the field...the general feeling about this particular game as regards to scoring on both sides...and then maybe if he has some special play against the defense. Pretty much the same thought process as going for 2 except where you are on the field. imho What did I leave out?
(edit)Sorry if I stepped on you Pokerbrat as you gave a similar response.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

...and then maybe if he has some special play against the defense. Pretty much the same thought process as going for 2 except where you are on the field. imho What did I leave out?
(edit)Sorry if I stepped on you Pokerbrat as you gave a similar response.

No worries.......I totally forgot about that "special play" that successful play I think many fans feel will be the one run on that particular 4th down attempt.

It would be fun to know and see it if he does......Does MM have a little book of "special plays" for 4th and short? Can't wait to see that pulled out.

I kind of agree with your assessment about the 2 point thing, but if there is such a thing as "playing harder" and "fan excitement"......I think that tilts in favor of a defensive stand against a potential touchdown VS a 2 point attempt....but minor detail

 

[PackerDNA]

While I don't know what Captain is thinking, I never assumed Seattle would get the ball and score, although its a possibility. What I assumed is if the Packers fail to pick up the first down, they get no points, Seattle gets the ball and has the ability to possess it and do what an offense does with the ball. Even if they don't do much, with an average punt, the Packers are by no means back to where they started prior to going for it on 4th down, in FG range, as you seem to imply.

Using your philosophy, it seems like no team should kick a FG if they are within a certain distance of the other teams endzone, since even if they don't pick up the first down, the other team probably won't score and probably will just give them another chance at .......kicking a FG.....which they already had a better chance of making prior to all of this. I get what you are saying....a TD is always better then a FG, but the chances of scoring a TD are much lower then making a FG in that situation, especially in that particular game.

I totally get your philosophy if the situation was near the end of the game and you are down by more then 3 points. But in a game that is a total defensive struggle, on the road in the noisiest stadium in the NFL, you take points when you can.

Title game, on the road , vs the defending champs, you play aggressive.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Title game, on the road , vs the defending champs, you play aggressive.

We will never really know what would have happened if MM had been as aggressive as you seem to think he should have been. Whatever type of Football Game MM was calling that day seemed pretty good for more then 55 minutes. A 16 point half time lead and a 9 point lead and the ball with 5:04 left to play after Burnett's interception and for some reason voluntarily falling to the ground at the Seahawk 43, despite plenty of open field to run and at minimum, put the Packers into field goal position. Dissect the game from that point on if you would like, but remember the play calls (and plays) that got the Packers that lead and some of the reasons (besides play calling) that put them in the position to eventually lose it. Don't forget to factor in the Seahawks fake punt near the end of the 3rd quarter for a TD.

I can't remember where the Packers had to punt the ball from after the interception and the 3 and out, but had a 50+ yard FG been an option, is MM too conservative if he punts it there? Just curious.

BTW, that Seahawks defense had given up the following points in their previous 6 games (not all at home):

6, 6, 7, 14, 3, 3

Not sure if the other 6 teams had played more aggressive in those games, but putting up 22 points on that Seahawks defense in their backyard, wasn't done with over conservative poor play calling.

 

[PackerDNA]

Dissect it from early on, no guts no glory. The Packers should have been up by 3 plus TD's with 5 minutes to go. All that last 5 minutes should have done is make the final margin of victory for the Packers closer. We do know what happened playing it safe- they lost. Putting the boot on the throat early would have meant a trip to the Super Bowl.

 

[Mondio]

If the boot did in fact actually drop onto and stay on the throat. maybe it misses and instead there are no points on the board. If only they had been able to have 6 tries from around the 5 to try and drop that foot...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Putting the boot on the throat early would have meant a trip to the Super Bowl.

and you know this how?

While we will never agree on this and that is fine, it is what makes discussion of Football Games and strategy fun, I really think you are picking a game where calling MM's conservative play calling a big factor in the loss, a bit off base. 99 out of 100 times a team wins that game just the way it was played, up until the moment Burnett intercepted the ball. At that point forward, way too many things contributed to the loss to pin it all on what MM did before or after that moment.

But yes, had the Packers scored TD's instead of FG's on all of 5 of those possessions, Packers are up 35-6 and well on their way to the SB. Or......down 6-0 and MM is coaching Pee Wee Football today.

 

[Shawnsta3]

I'm amazed people still argue after reading this.

Where did you find this info, by the way?

Pro football reference does a great job with search queries.

http://www.pro-football-reference.c...=lt&c6mult=1.0&c6comp=choose&order_by=pass_td

 

[longtimefan]

lets look back to the Lions game

http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/did-mi...onservative-turtle-mode-2nd-half-vs-the-lions

While it’d been great for the Packers to dominate the second half just like they did the first, I don’t think it was due to being too conservative. On paper, they might have had more success in the second half had they handed off to Eddie Lacy every single play. While this isn’t reasonable, it is true that most of their shortcomings happened when they were trying to be aggressive and throw the ball in the second half. Overall, the game plan was fine in the second half it was just the execution that was lacking.

 

[longtimefan]

But yes, had the Packers scored TD's instead of FG's on all of 5 of those possessions, Packers are up 35-6 and well on their way to the SB.

That was my stance to those that said the def failed...the offense needed to do more in 1st half but didnt

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I can't remember where the Packers had to punt the ball from after the interception and the 3 and out, but had a 50+ yard FG been an option, is MM too conservative if he punts it there? Just curious.

The Packers punted from their own 37 yard line after losing six yards on three runs after Burnett´s interception. There was no way McCarthy would have been able to kick a field goal from there but it would for sure have helped if Masthay wouldn´t have punted the ball for only 30 yards.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

While I don't know what Captain is thinking, I never assumed Seattle would get the ball and score, although its a possibility. What I assumed is if the Packers fail to pick up the first down, they get no points, Seattle gets the ball and has the ability to possess it and do what an offense does with the ball. Even if they don't do much, with an average punt, the Packers are by no means back to where they started prior to going for it on 4th down, in FG range, as you seem to imply.

Using your philosophy, it seems like no team should kick a FG if they are within a certain distance of the other teams endzone, since even if they don't pick up the first down, the other team probably won't score and probably will just give them another chance at .......kicking a FG.....which they already had a better chance of making prior to all of this. I get what you are saying....a TD is always better then a FG, but the chances of scoring a TD are much lower then making a FG in that situation, especially in that particular game.

I totally get your philosophy if the situation was near the end of the game and you are down by more then 3 points. But in a game that is a total defensive struggle, on the road in the noisiest stadium in the NFL, you take points when you can.

Yes, I'm not sure where the line of demarcation is, but it's been shown that teams should be far more aggressive on fourth down when in their opponent's territory than they are. And time of the game doesn't really matter. If you get more expected points earlier in the game, then game won't be as close at the end.