Lets talk about anything EXCEPT Adrian Hubbard. (formerly Adrian Hubbard feels some MM love)

[Sunshinepacker]

Where did I say that I "solely" blame the loss on the defense? No, I primarily blame the loss on the defense for failing to close it out. And the way they booted the game away indicates to me a dysfunctional culture that goes beyond one game.

As for Sherman, I would say judging from his pick earlier in the game, whatever was wrong with his shoulder was bothering him not in the least in coverage.

The offensive key to the SB win was attacking Polamalu who was gimped up with a bad Achilles. This was not that.

So it was a good thing to attack Polamalu but it was good thing this year to not go after Earl Thomas (who had a separated shoulder and torn labrum that required surgery after the season) or Richard Sherman (playing with a sprained elbow)?

You want to know why it's a good thing that MM is stepping back from playcalling? Look at the above sentence. Nelson admitted after the game that the offense DIDN'T KNOW THOSE GUYS WERE HURT!

So this whole conversation about not attacking those guys is off base. The offense didn't know that they COULD be targeting injured defenders because the head coach was too involved in the playcalling and I'm not sure who else would be responsible for seeing those things. The defensive staff is reviewing plays and not paying a ton of attention to the field when the offense is on the field.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You want to know why it's a good thing that MM is stepping back from playcalling? Look at the above sentence. Nelson admitted after the game that the offense DIDN'T KNOW THOSE GUYS WERE HURT!

IMO it's inexcusable that not a single member of the coaching staff realized Thomas and Sherman were playing injured.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Even primarily blaming the defense us the wrong approach in evaluating the NFCCG.

It is abundantly clear that you are incorrect in this matter. There is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise.

Sherman suffered the elbow injury in the fourth quarter so I really have no idea what his interception in the first quarter has to do with his ability to make plays at the end of the game.

Right. No matter. Throwing against Sherman when the object is to run out the clock remains a ludicrous proposition, bum elbow or not. Nobody reacts to the ball better when it's in the air...that's not a guy to throw against when the object is DON'T TURN THE BALL OVER.

By the way, how did Brady exploit the injured Sherman in the Super Bowl? According to the ESPN play-by-play it was 2 for 2 for 4 yards. So, McCarthy, Rodgers, Belichick and Brady were all wrong about this.

 

[HardRightEdge]

So it was a good thing to attack Polamalu but it was good thing this year to not go after Earl Thomas (who had a separated shoulder and torn labrum that required surgery after the season) or Richard Sherman (playing with a sprained elbow)?

You want to know why it's a good thing that MM is stepping back from playcalling? Look at the above sentence. Nelson admitted after the game that the offense DIDN'T KNOW THOSE GUYS WERE HURT!

So this whole conversation about not attacking those guys is off base. The offense didn't know that they COULD be targeting injured defenders because the head coach was too involved in the playcalling and I'm not sure who else would be responsible for seeing those things. The defensive staff is reviewing plays and not paying a ton of attention to the field when the offense is on the field.

Polamalu couldn't run. Big difference. If anything, these guys with shoulder and elbow injuries should be more vulnerable to the run.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It is abundantly clear that you are incorrect in this matter. There is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that I'm incorrect on this matter.

Right. No matter. Throwing against Sherman when the object is to run out the clock remains a ludicrous proposition, bum elbow or not. Nobody reacts to the ball better when it's in the air...that's not a guy to throw against when the object is DON'T TURN THE BALL OVER.

By the way, how did Brady exploit the injured Sherman in the Super Bowl? According to the ESPN play-by-play it was 2 for 2 for 4 yards. So, McCarthy, Rodgers, Belichick and Brady were all wrong about this.

The object should have been to stay aggressive and not starting to run out the clock with seven minutes left and the Seahawks having all timeouts left.

First of all Sherman had two weeks to heal before the Super Bowl. The Patriots didn't have to throw at Sherman because after Jeremy Lane went down with an injury they were able to exploit Tharold Simon over and over again.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The object should have been to stay aggressive and not starting to run out the clock with seven minutes left and the Seahawks having all timeouts left.

You can say that, but I'm beyond any manner of argument that will convince me.

By the way, it's not 7 minutes with 3 timeouts. By running the ball twice, then attempting a throw, and then punting, while expecting nothing out of it but burning the clock, it was 5:13 with 3 timeouts. Then it was 3:52 the second time around with 1 timeout.

The really f*cked up thing about all this is they didn't even need the last timeout, taking the lead with 1:33.

Two drives, 11 plays, 119 yards with only 2:27 take off the clock, and Seattle didn't even use a timeout to do it.

And you want to make an issue about not throwing a ball against an All Pro corner who may or may not have been compromised? There is no way this will ever make sense to me.

An offense going 3 and out a couple of times late in a game with 12 point lead is not preferable nor admirable, but it is understandable. What the defense did borders on the inconceivable.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

By the way, it's not 7 minutes with 3 timeouts. By running the ball twice, then attempting a throw, and then punting, while expecting nothing out of it but burning the clock, it was 5:13 with 3 timeouts. Then it was 3:52 the second time around with 1 timeout.

The first drive that ended in a three-and-out started with 6:53 left.

The really f*cked up thing about all this is they didn't even need the last timeout, taking the lead with 1:33.

Two drives, 11 plays, 119 yards with only 2:27 take off the clock, and Seattle didn't even use a timeout to do it.

And you want to make an issue about not throwing a ball against an All Pro corner who may or may not have been compromised? There is no way this will ever make sense to me.

There's no denying the defense had an epic meltdown over the last four minutes. But prinarily blaming the loss on the unit doesn't make any sense to me.

The defense allowed only 15 points in regulation which should be good enough to get a win on a team featuring the highest scoring offense in the league.

But that offense turned five turnovers into only six points, averaging an awful 3.4 yards per play (21-71) after a turnover.

With the special teams blunders resulting in a TD and a recovered onside kick by the Seahawks it is beyond my understand why anyone would primarily blame the loss on the defense.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The first drive that ended in a three-and-out started with 6:53 left.

So what? They went three and out handed the ball back at 5:13. You didn't even read what I said.

There's no denying the defense had an epic meltdown over the last four minutes. But prinarily blaming the loss on the unit doesn't make any sense to me.

That, my friend is a non sequitur.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So what? They went three and out handed the ball back at 5:13. You didn't even read what I said.

Do you realize the offense had the ball twice during that period and did absolutely nothing, totalling two yards on six plays. While you seem to be satisfied with them playing scared and not turning the ball over that wasn´t the right move. A single first down on any of those drives would have most likely won the game.

 

[vince]

Hi guys. New here. It looks like there's some good banter on this site so I'll chime in.

Conservative offense? Yup. That hurt but I think HRE is correct that ball control is paramount in that situation. If they have a successful 4-minute offense in that situation no one questions it post-mortem. In retrospect, there's no way to deny that they should have done something different offensively to get a first down and burn more clock. Up 2 scores as they were, I have a hard time blaming McCarthy for having confidence in his offense to move it a bit more effectively but even more so in his defense to make Seattle take more time than they did to score.

Defensive meltdown? Yup but over the course of the game the defense not just controlled Seattle, but dominated them for 55 minutes. They needed a bit more help not just from the offense in the 4th quarter but - and this in my opinion was the most impactful cause of that loss by many orders of magnitude - from Special Teams - especially Brandon Bostick. In football, rarely does one play have such a defining impact on the outcome of the game as that one did.

Within a matter of seconds, Seattle went from a desperate team 2 scores down and barely more than 2 minutes on the clock to an energized team less than 1 score down with the ball in enemy territory, a ton of time on the clock and unbelievable momentum against a shell-shocked defense who couldn't believe what just happened. All because one guy, who was coached to do a very simple thing - block the defender who's trying to recover the ball and protect your teammate who is the designated recoverer - suffered from a momentary lapse of reason and tried to recover the easy pop up but without teammate protection and had it go through his hands, doink of his helmet and fall right into the guy's hands who he neglected to block. Had he just done his job, Jordy could have muffed the pop-up and still sat down on the ball because there would have been no-one around him.

It was a Billy Buckner moment - but at least Buckner was trying to do the right thing. Had Brandon Bostick (BB - something fateful about that coincidence) just tried to do the right thing, the Packers almost certainly win that game.

You can look at every play from both offense and defense, and say a different decision or execution would have brought a different result, but NONE of those other decisions or results had even remotely close to the same impact on the outcome as that one on-side play. At that singular moment, and as a direct result of Bostick's fateful decision AND failure to execute, what was actually a great defensive performance and a gutty, grind-it-out offensive effort against the best defense in the league, became the opposite.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Conservative offense? Yup. That hurt but I think HRE is correct that ball control is paramount in that situation. If they have a successful 4-minute offense in that situation no one questions it post-mortem. In retrospect, there's no way to deny that they should have done something different offensively to get a first down and burn more clock. Up 2 scores as they were, I have a hard time blaming McCarthy for having confidence in his offense to move it a bit more effectively but even more so in his defense to make Seattle take more time than they did to score.

McCarthy played scared during these two drives and it cost the Packers. This offense isn´t made to run against an opponent stacking the box with extra guys while expecting a run.

Defensive meltdown? Yup but over the course of the game the defense not just controlled Seattle, but dominated them for 55 minutes. They needed a bit more help not just from the offense in the 4th quarter but - and this in my opinion was the most impactful cause of that loss by many orders of magnitude - from Special Teams - especially Brandon Bostick. In football, rarely does one play have such a defining impact on the outcome of the game as that one did.

Within a matter of seconds, Seattle went from a desperate team 2 scores down and barely more than 2 minutes on the clock to an energized team less than 1 score down with the ball in enemy territory, a ton of time on the clock and unbelievable momentum against a shell-shocked defense who couldn't believe what just happened. All because one guy, who was coached to do a very simple thing - block the defender who's trying to recover the ball and protect your teammate who is the designated recoverer - suffered from a momentary lapse of reason and tried to recover the easy pop up but without teammate protection and had it go through his hands, doink of his helmet and fall right into the guy's hands who he neglected to block. Had he just done his job, Jordy could have muffed the pop-up and still sat down on the ball because there would have been no-one around him.

It was a Billy Buckner moment - but at least Buckner was trying to do the right thing. Had Brandon Bostick (BB - something fateful about that coincidence) just tried to do the right thing, the Packers almost certainly win that game.

You can look at every play from both offense and defense, and say a different decision or execution would have brought a different result, but NONE of those other decisions or results had even remotely close to the same impact on the outcome as that one on-side play. At that singular moment, and as a direct result of Bostick's fateful decision AND failure to execute, what was actually a great defensive performance and a gutty, grind-it-out offensive effort against the best defense in the league, became the opposite.

Brandon Bostick made a terrible mistake on the onside kick and it has been discussed in abundance on the forum but it was only one of several plays that ended up being the reason for the Packers losing. If only one of those plays works out in the Packers favor the team is headed to Arizona for the Super Bowl.

 

[vince]

In my opinion, "scared" had nothing to do with McCarthy's mental state or how he "played." He focused on ball control, which in retrospect was the wrong strategy because it obviously didn't work.

I'd characterize how he "played" as over-confident. He saw how his defense had performed for 55 minutes and expected them and his offense to close out that game as they had controlled it up to that point. That obviously didn't happen but it wasn't because McCarthy was scared. Ball control is a fundamental premise of winning football - especially late in games when the opponent requires multiple possessions to come back. He believed in his guys to execute and was let down.

The only reason to take added risk with the football (by throwing it) when you're up 2 scores late in the 4th quarter is if he was "scared" that the team would choke - as it essentially did. He should have been scared, and therefore taken more risk offensively, to protect the defense and special teams from the colossal meltdown that ensued.

He was over-confident, which we can say after witnessing the result, not scared.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

In my opinion, "scared" had nothing to do with McCarthy's mental state or how he "played." He focused on ball control, which in retrospect was the wrong strategy because it obviously didn't work.

I'd characterize how he "played" as over-confident. He saw how his defense had performed for 55 minutes and expected them and his offense to close out that game as they had controlled it up to that point. That obviously didn't happen but it wasn't because McCarthy was scared. Ball control is a fundamental premise of winning football - especially late in games when the opponent requires multiple possessions to come back. He believed in his guys to execute and was let down.

The only reason to take added risk with the football (by throwing it) when you're up 2 scores late in the 4th quarter is if he was "scared" that the team would choke - as it essentially did. He should have been scared, and therefore taken more risk offensively, to protect the defense and special teams from the colossal meltdown that ensued.

He was over-confident, which we can say after witnessing the result, not scared.

He should have tried to get at least another first down (which would most likely have resulted in the Packers winning the game) instead of only running some time off the clock. All three phases of the team choked late in the NFCCG and McCarthy´s conservative play calling was to blame for the offense not getting anything done.

 

[vince]

Agreed. I'd say that's inarguable looking back given the result.

It was a grind-out physical game in which Rodgers was relatively ineffective throughout. I personally don't fault McCarthy for leaning a bit on and expecting his defense (as it had to that point) and special teams to perform better than they did - again, particularly when they were up two scores that late in the game.

Nice exchanging opinions with you today WIMM. In the end I'd say we're all right and polarizing each others' perspectives by picking nits.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It was a grind-out physical game in which Rodgers was relatively ineffective throughout. I personally don't fault McCarthy for leaning a bit on and expecting his defense (as it had to that point) and special teams to perform better than they did - again, particularly when they were up two scores that late in the game.

Nice exchanging opinions with you today WIMM. In the end I'd say we're all right and polarizing each others' perspectives by picking nits.

I´d rather have my play caller keeping his foot on the gas and try to close out the game than get conservative to run some time off the clock. Rodgers wasn´t great by any means during that game but I would have trusted him to get at least a completion for a single first down with the Seahawks only lining up three defensive backs, two of them being severly injured.

Welcome to the forum, vince, looking forward to further contributions in the future.

 

[TJV]

IMO McCarthy wasn’t scared or over-confident in his play calling for those two series – he was just extremely conservative. Again, with the way they were crowding the LOS, a fake to Lacy and pass – not directed to a particular DB but to the most open receiver probably would have won the game. With the way they were stacking the LOS IMO there was a good chance someone would have been wide open. And I can’t think of a QB I’d trust to make that decision more than Rodgers.

They needed a bit more help not just from the offense in the 4th quarter but - and this in my opinion was the most impactful cause of that loss by many orders of magnitude - from Special Teams - especially Brandon Bostick. In football, rarely does one play have such a defining impact on the outcome of the game as that one did.

Certainly as I look back at the game Bostick’s brain freeze was the one most impactful play. This is quote from MMQB captainWIMM linked to in a thread about Bostick’s release:

Andrew Quarless lined up next to me. “I got this guy, you got this guy,” he said. “You know your assignment?” “Yeah,” I said. “I got this.” I was supposed to block for Jordy Nelson, who was right behind me. We had practiced this dozens if not hundreds of times before. But when the ball appeared in front of me, just floating in the air, my mind went blank. I forgot everything I was supposed to do.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/26/brandon-bostick-nfc-championship-game-onside-kick/

As I mentioned in that thread, I think Slocum deserved to be fired but this pivotal play wasn’t his fault. Practiced “dozens if not hundreds of times” and Bostick’s teammate even reminds him right before the kick of his responsibilities. That’s as much as a coach and teammates can do.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Polamalu couldn't run. Big difference. If anything, these guys with shoulder and elbow injuries should be more vulnerable to the run.

Uhhmmm....you completely missed the point. The offense didn't know those guys were hurt while the rest of the NFL-watching public knew. Sure, they were vulnerable to the run too, but they didn't call run plays designed to take advantage of those injuries because they didn't know about those injuries!!

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

McCarthy stepped down mainly (at least this SHOULD be the main reason) because nobody on offense knew that Thomas and Sherman were playing injured or that maybe the special teams shouldn't have been on the field for the fake FG since three points would have done NOTHING for Seattle and the team could have just left the defense on the field. There was nobody looking at the whole picture to tell the receivers that, "hey, maybe you should take advantage of a safety with a dislocated shoulder".

Your excuse for the offense not performing is that the Seattle defense is REALLY good?! The Packer's offense was REALLY good too! The Packer's defense (which apparently is awful) gave the Packer's offense FOUR EXTRA POSSESSIONS. So, does an elite defense get eight turnovers?

Seattle moved up and down the field over the last five minutes because Matthews decided to take himself out of the game (I'm sure Capers asked him nicely to go sit on the bench) and the defensive line rotation for this team consists of Mike Daniels and......well, maybe the Packers will have a decent rotation this year?

Oh yeah, and Capers also asked Dix to forgot how to control his limbs during a 2-pt conversion and also asked Williams to forget how to play corner and let an undrafted free agent WR beat him deep. I also have an unnamed source that told me that prior to every field goal defense, Capers pulled Brad Jones aside and told him to run inside and forget outside contain.

Great analysis Sunshine. Do you know why CMIII was on the sidelines for the last five minutes? Was he purely exhausted? Or did no one on the coaching staff see this (much like they missed Sherman basically playing with one arm in a sling)? Thanks. Joe

 

[HardRightEdge]

I find these arguments inexplicable.

I'll provide one more comment on this issue in the form of an analogy, which concedes the play calling was too conservative, which I in fact do not believe to be case.

A guy is driving down the street after having a couple of beers and with the radio blaring, He hit's a telephone pole at 20 miles per hour and his defective air bag ejects a metal projectile into his forehead, killing him at the scene.

I would consider the loud radio and those beers to be the possible proximate causes of his death, since had those factors not been in play he might not have hit the pole in the first place. However, the cause-in-fact for his death was the airbag projectile. Had the airbag deployed properly, the incidence of death under those circumstances are miniscule.

Should he have the radio playing loudly or should he have been driving after those beers? Probably not. Did it cause his death? No, it did not. The projectile was the cause.

The Packer defense did not deploy properly.

People like to recall games where an offense goes conservative or a defense goes prevent, and a lead and the game is lost. However, in the preponderance of circumstance, even those less lopsided than this one, conservative late-game strategies with a healthy lead result in victory.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

What kind of car was he driving ?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Uhhmmm....you completely missed the point. The offense didn't know those guys were hurt while the rest of the NFL-watching public knew. Sure, they were vulnerable to the run too, but they didn't call run plays designed to take advantage of those injuries because they didn't know about those injuries!!

I don't who knew what or when, but the fact of the matter is a DB with a gimpy leg is prone to giving up separation and a good QB sees it and throws his way. A guy with a bum shoulder or a elbow is not so inhibited, particularly a safety who's not called upon for press coverage. In this case, it was arguably the best safety in the game. If a DB is in some way impaired, but it does not give up separation, a good QB will be looking to the next option in the progression.

 

[HardRightEdge]

What kind of car was he driving ?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Thank you

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If a DB is in some way impaired, but it does not give up separation, a good QB will be looking to the next option in the progression.

That doesn´t work with the head coach calling a run five out of six times though.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That doesn´t work with the head coach calling a run five out of six times though.

The question was why not throw at this impaired DB. I provided the answer, and why the Polamalu situation was different. In other words, had the Packers chosen to throw, there's no reason to believe the receiver Thomas would have been covering would have been any more open than otherwise. That should have been obvious. I'm always disappointed when you nit pick stuff that doesn't even matter. Trees vs. forest.

Whether to throw at all is a different question. And that's not the question I was responding to.