McCarthy's Playcalling

[El Guapo]

We've also gone up against two of the best rushing defenses in the NFL. You're already off the Eddie Lacy train there JBlood?

Let's also not forget the salient facts:

LT - 2nd year
LG - veteran
C - rookie
RG - veteran
RT - hard to define, but slightly more than a rookie in terms of experience

We have a very inexperienced offensive line outside of our two above average guards. It will take time especially with the quality D-lines that they have been facing. What you should see is improvement once we start getting into the Bears/Vikings/Dolphins part of the schedule. Panthers and Saints should be tough to run against and then the schedule eases up a bit post-Bye.

 

[JBlood]

We've also gone up against two of the best rushing defenses in the NFL. You're already off the Eddie Lacy train there JBlood?

Let's also not forget the salient facts:

LT - 2nd year
LG - veteran
C - rookie
RG - veteran
RT - hard to define, but slightly more than a rookie in terms of experience

We have a very inexperienced offensive line outside of our two above average guards. It will take time especially with the quality D-lines that they have been facing. What you should see is improvement once we start getting into the Bears/Vikings/Dolphins part of the schedule. Panthers and Saints should be tough to run against and then the schedule eases up a bit post-Bye.

Yes, EG, I'm pretty frustrated with the team at present. I like Lacy, but even the great backs need something like a hole to pop through. And don't forget, this is MM's self-described "best line" (with Bulaga). Even with Bulaga, it appears much like all of the lines developed by Campen. Who knows, maybe they'll decide to play every down like it means something. Wouldn't that be part of the coach's responsibilities? It bothers me that the team wasn't ready to play at Seattle and at the start of the Jets game--again coaching, imo.

 

[red4tribe]

What I do like a lot about MM, despite the seemingly regular slow starts to the season, is that he gets the time rolling when it matters most, from week 10 onwards.

 

[El Guapo]

And don't forget, this is MM's self-described "best line" (with Bulaga). Even with Bulaga, it appears much like all of the lines developed by Campen.

Coaches usually talk up their teams prior to the season...coach speak. I don't put much stock in it. Good point about Campen though. I loved the guy as a player but haven't really seen much come out of his coaching. What I look for is low round players that develop into contributors and top-level players that match their expectations. Few and far between for the Packers in recent years.

As for being prepared, there certainly are some coaching issues to be addressed about the first two games. However, especially when you look at the Jets game I hardly saw a difference in coaching/playcalling that caused the momentum shift. That looked like 95% players to me. Of course, the coaches are supposed to motivate the players but like the Federal Reserve you only have so many levers at your disposal to help guide an out of control beast.

 

[GoPGo]

After 2 weeks the Packers rank 24th in rushing offense. 18% of the rushing is Rogers' scrambles. Our running game is pathetic at present.

We've also played against arguably the two best run defenses there are. The Jets had 8 in the box most of the game, so Rodgers exploited it in the air. Sometimes you take what the defense gives you and you run with it.

 

[JBlood]

We've also played against arguably the two best run defenses there are. The Jets had 8 in the box most of the game, so Rodgers exploited it in the air. Sometimes you take what the defense gives you and you run with it.

The Lions will be just as tough against the run. Against the Seahawks we were running on first and second downs against 8 or 9 in the box and passing on 3rd down. I guess it was MM's idea to display our power running game, which unfortunately depends on an offensive line that can control the LOS. So it is refreshing to see that MM decided to pass against similar defenses the Jets used. The point is: we were supposed to be a balanced offense this year with an excellent offensive line and a dominant running back that could control the clock, and the pace of the game. But it appears that we're a finesse team that runs only when the passing game needs a breather. Rogers IS the offense, and with 7 sacks in 2 games it wouldn't be surprising if he is injured again. In that case: season over.

 

[JBlood]

Coaches usually talk up their teams prior to the season...coach speak. I don't put much stock in it. Good point about Campen though. I loved the guy as a player but haven't really seen much come out of his coaching. What I look for is low round players that develop into contributors and top-level players that match their expectations. Few and far between for the Packers in recent years.

As for being prepared, there certainly are some coaching issues to be addressed about the first two games. However, especially when you look at the Jets game I hardly saw a difference in coaching/playcalling that caused the momentum shift. That looked like 95% players to me. Of course, the coaches are supposed to motivate the players but like the Federal Reserve you only have so many levers at your disposal to help guide an out of control beast.

The Federal Reserve IS the beast--but that's for another forum.
MM is a good person, but one of his faults is his allegiance to his hires--which I admire, but he needs to realize that for the good of the team changes are sometimes necessary. I think one of them is Campen, another appears to be Capers.

 

[Carl]

Two of the best run defenses in the NFL. Nothing to worry about.

 

[El Guapo]

MM is a good person, but one of his faults is his allegiance to his hires--which I admire, but he needs to realize that for the good of the team changes are sometimes necessary. I think one of them is Campen, another appears to be Capers.

Apparently I should re-watch the game film. This is a good summary of how Capers changed the scheme from his base quad 4-3 against the Jets to his 4-3 Under. For most of us, it's such a subtle change that we don't notice it.

I stand corrected.

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2014/9/16/6257153/dom-capers-packers-jets-dom-defensive-adjustment

 

[PikeBadger]

After 2 weeks the Packers rank 24th in rushing offense. 18% of the rushing is Rogers' scrambles. Our running game is pathetic at present.

I'd be careful about using stats after such a small sample size. It's too early to draw conclusions about our running game. We were playing catch up in both games.

 

[TJV]

This is a good summary of how Capers changed the scheme from his base quad 4-3 against the Jets to his 4-3 Under. For most of us, it's such a subtle change that we don't notice it.

While re-watching the first half I noticed the D alignment on the play that resulted in Tramon’s INT. The Jets had a WR wide left, a TE on the right side with two more TEs lined up next to the TE, a couple of yards off the LOS and one back. The Packers had five players on the LOS, from left to right: Clay, Peppers, Boyd, Daniels, and Neal. Peppers, Boyd and Daniels were in a three-point stance. Neal was outside the LT and Peppers was over the TE on the LOS. About 5 yards behind them (from left to right) were Burnett, Hawk, and Lattimore. Tramon lined up about 8 yards behind the LOS outside of the widest TE on that side. Shields was wide right, one-on-one. Clinton-Dix lined up in the deep middle. It looked unusual - a 5-3 - and that was probably due to the unusual formation the Jets used on that play. All 5 Packers on the LOS rushed with Clay getting immediate pressure and Daniels delivering the hit that caused the 'lame duck'.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000394625/Tramon-Williams-picks-off-Geno-Smith

 

[7thFloorRA]

Am I the only one who thinks MM look like he is running a goal line style offense in the middle of the field sometimes? The 2 TE sets with 2 TE's who only work near the LOS seems weird. If you need an extra blocker I would much rather see Kuhn in and neither TE or Bostic who can actually work beyond 10 yards. Big Ed would probably look better too if MM had less bodies around the LOS as well. When you have 7 guys in the box and the defense has 8 that is a ton of bodies in the box to get around and through.

 

[realcaliforniacheese]

I'd be careful about using stats after such a small sample size. It's too early to draw conclusions about our running game. We were playing catch up in both games.

Stats are for losers

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Stats are for losers

A recent survey said that 29.26% of statistics are made up.

 

[JBlood]

A recent survey said that 29.26% of statistics are made up.

Yeah, but that survey had a confidence level of 25%--making it more or less made up.

 

[Poppa San]

While re-watching the first half I noticed the D alignment on the play that resulted in Tramon’s INT. The Jets had a WR wide left, a TE on the right side with two more TEs lined up next to the TE, a couple of yards off the LOS and one back. The Packers had five players on the LOS, from left to right: Clay, Peppers, Boyd, Daniels, and Neal. Peppers, Boyd and Daniels were in a three-point stance. Neal was outside the LT and Peppers was over the TE on the LOS. About 5 yards behind them (from left to right) were Burnett, Hawk, and Lattimore. Tramon lined up about 8 yards behind the LOS outside of the widest TE on that side. Shields was wide right, one-on-one. Clinton-Dix lined up in the deep middle. It looked unusual - a 5-3 - and that was probably due to the unusual formation the Jets used on that play. All 5 Packers on the LOS rushed with Clay getting immediate pressure and Daniels delivering the hit that caused the 'lame duck'.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000394625/Tramon-Williams-picks-off-Geno-Smith

And the back has no one around him in the flat for a dump off. I think Decker did a curl and shook off Shields in the 1on1. I can't see the entire field.

 

[longtimefan]

Packers were surprised the jets kept in their defense at certain times. So Rodgers wanted to take advantage of that.. That is one reason why not many running plays when people may have wondered why.

Rodgers felt our wr could win those battles..

So sometimes it isnt all on Rodgers

It was discussed on cheesehead tv tonight.

 

[Carl]

Packers were surprised the jets kept in their defense at certain times. So Rodgers wanted to take advantage of that.. That is one reason why not many running plays when people may have wondered why.

Rodgers felt our wr could win those battles..

So sometimes it isnt all on Rodgers

It was discussed on cheesehead tv tonight.

It is weird how the Jets kept their defense the whole game. They loaded the box for almost all of it. It's like they dared Rodgers to pass on them.

 

[HardRightEdge]

One thing I haven't seen talked about much, and may have gotten lost with the excitement of everything in the Jets game, is how do people feel about MM's call to try an onside kick? We have to be careful when talking about this because it's so easy to like successful onside kicks and hate unsuccessful onside kicks.

My personal opinion is that I tend to like that MM will do these onside kicks. I felt like in this game, it was an interesting time to try it as we had just gotten the momentum. There was a little over 3 minutes to go and the score was 17-9. If we had gotten a defensive stop, we would've been right in the game. As it turned out, we failed the onside kick, then created a turnover, and then scored a TD before half.

So my thoughts are that the timing wasn't really the best, but that only added to the surprise of it all. The execution was poor, but because I already slant towards liking these onside kicks, I'm fine with it. The risk was higher than usual, and the reward was lower than usual, but in the end it worked out. Had we lost the game, I do not think I would have blamed the onside kick.

What are your thoughts?

McCarthy has called successful onside kicks at atypical times in the past:

1. to start the game against NE in 2010
2. in the first quarter against MIN in 2011 in a 7-3 game
3. in a tie game with only 2 minutes gone in the second half against the Bears in 2013

Unless it's at the end of the game in desperation, I consider the onside kick to be a gadget play, and like any gadget play it's fine in moderation when the situation or the match ups provide the element of surprise. Since this is not a case of leaning on gadgets as a primary way to generate big plays, I'm fine with it.

Over the previous 5 seasons (2009 - 2013), the Packers were 5 of 8 on onside kick attempts, all executed by Crosby. So, the fact the team has gotten pretty good at it certainly factors into the equation. Besides being a better directional kicker than Masthay, his success with on side kicks might have entered into the equation in returning him to KO duty in 2013 despite Crosby having a mediocre touchback % in 2011. Crosby was 29th. in the league in touchback % in 2013; better this year so far.

 

[El Guapo]

Good points.

Personally I look at onside kicks more like going for it on 4th down. It's a decision about timing and field position. At the end of the 1st half of the Jets game, our defense was already showing signs of improvement. With 3 minutes left we would have needed to make a stop one way or another. I like being aggressive at times in all aspects of the game, including ST.

Here is an article written about the play with a select portion pasted below:
http://gnb.scout.com/story/1451537-on-onside-it-felt-like-they-were-in-our-huddle?s=61

Green Bay Packers coach Mike McCarthy’s decision to call a surprise onside kick in the second quarter on Sunday didn’t surprise the Jets one bit. McCarthy’s answer when asked about that decision on Monday was a surprise. “I felt like they were in our huddle, frankly,” McCarthy said. “Just the way they lined up to it is disturbing to me.”

 

[Carl]

How about lining Cobb and Jordy to one side and throwing it to the one on one match up on the other??

Great play design and call.

 

[red4tribe]

McCarthy has called successful onside kicks at atypical times in the past:

1. to start the game against NE in 2010
2. in the first quarter against MIN in 2011 in a 7-3 game
3. in a tie game with only 2 minutes gone in the second half against the Bears in 2013

Unless it's at the end of the game in desperation, I consider the onside kick to be a gadget play, and like any gadget play it's fine in moderation when the situation or the match ups provide the element of surprise. Since this is not a case of leaning on gadgets as a primary way to generate big plays, I'm fine with it.

Over the previous 5 seasons (2009 - 2013), the Packers were 5 of 8 on onside kick attempts, all executed by Crosby. So, the fact the team has gotten pretty good at it certainly factors into the equation. Besides being a better directional kicker than Masthay, his success with on side kicks might have entered into the equation in returning him to KO duty in 2013 despite Crosby having a mediocre touchback % in 2011. Crosby was 29th. in the league in touchback % in 2013; better this year so far.

Don't forget the onside kick against the Cardinals in the 2009 playoffs which got us back in the game.

 

[Oski]

I see lots of criticizing MM for his play calling and I don't understand why at all.

Under his play calling this season, the Packers were 8th in points, 3rd in yards with over 400 a game, 6th in passing yards, and 7th in rushing yards. Those are WITH A SECOND/THRID STRING QB for about half the season. How anyone can think bad play calling leads to those numbers is beyond me.

Commonly, there are few plays that don't work, a fan assumes it's the play call, not the execution, and then conclude MM is bad with his entire play calling duty. That's terrible reasoning.

An example is the last drive vs. the 49ers when people wanted to give it to Lacy three times from the 9. After seeing the 49ers stuff every run the last two weeks in goal to go, it was the correct choice not to try. It looks like McCarthy knew it wasn't a great idea to give it a shot. Besides, most failed plays have some degree of player error. Nobody blocked well on Cobb's run and nobody got open the other two plays. And where's the play calling credit for the drive getting that far in the first place?

McCarthy is a good play caller based on the facts and entire body of work, not a bad one based on a few plays a fan may disagree with.

Tony Dungy scored a lot of points as coach of the colts too, but I don't think anyone thinks that was because of his brilliant play calling. Rodgers masks A LOT of McCarthy's shortcomings.

 

[Carl]

Tony Dungy scored a lot of points as coach of the colts too, but I don't think anyone thinks that was because of his brilliant play calling. Rodgers masks A LOT of McCarthy's shortcomings.

Shortcomings such as? Have specific examples to support that?

 

[Oski]

Shortcomings such as? Have specific examples to support that?

Absurd conservatism. Do I really need to give you examples? He rarely goes for it on 4th and short despite having the best qb in the league. Is terrible at balancing run vs pass selection on first and second down. Kicks a field goal to go down 4 instead of going for it. His clock management is also god awful. That isn't to say he's a terrible coach, just not a great one.