McCarthy's Playcalling

[Carl]

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.

Don't need examples, but not having them to back up an opinion does not make for a strong opinion.

I can think of many examples of not being conservative during recent weeks. Went for it on 4th and 1 yesterday. Throwing on 3 and 1 to Adams for a TD against the Vikings. Throwing the ball on 3rd down instead of running to pick up the first against the Jets and seal the game. Trusting the defense yesterday by not going for it was actually very aggressive. He was going for two scores and the win instead of one and a tie. Consistently, they throw deeper than needed to pick up a first on third down and score or pick up big yardage: two TDs vs. the Bears doing that.

Against the Vikings went run, run on 1st and second 9/22 series and did 6/29 yesterday. (I break the 6/29 further in the Studs vs. Duds post.) Clock management yesterday also was 3 seconds away from being perfect.

 

[Oski]

Trusting the defense yesterday by not going for it was actually very aggressive. He was going for two scores and the win instead of one and a tie.

How is that aggressive? Why does going for it preclude the victory? It doesn't. Hell it's a lot easier to score a td from the redzone on 4th down and then drive far enough to kick a game winning field goal then it is to drive the length of the field to score ASSUMING you even get the ball back in time. That extra say 40 yards you need to drive burns clock too. Look how close we were to running out of time yesterday. That doesn't happen if all you need to do is drive to the 40 yard line. If you trust your defense, it's still a dumb call. If you don't, it's unbelievably dumb. If you go for it and don't get it, you still need to drive the length of the field to win in either case.

 

[Oski]

Don't need examples, but not having them to back up an opinion does not make for a strong opinion.

I can think of many examples of not being conservative during recent weeks. Went for it on 4th and 1 yesterday. Throwing on 3 and 1 to Adams for a TD against the Vikings. Throwing the ball on 3rd down instead of running to pick up the first against the Jets and seal the game. Trusting the defense yesterday by not going for it was actually very aggressive. He was going for two scores and the win instead of one and a tie. Consistently, they throw deeper than needed to pick up a first on third down and score or pick up big yardage: two TDs vs. the Bears doing that.

Against the Vikings went run, run on 1st and second 9/22 series and did 6/29 yesterday. (I break the 6/29 further in the Studs vs. Duds post.) Clock management yesterday also was 3 seconds away from being perfect.

As for your other examples, how many of those were chances on the line of scrimmage by Rodgers?

 

[Carl]

How is that aggressive? Why does going for it preclude the victory? It doesn't. Hell it's a lot easier to score a td from the redzone on 4th down and then drive far enough to kick a game winning field goal then it is to drive the length of the field to score ASSUMING you even get the ball back in time. That extra say 40 yards you need to drive burns clock too. Look how close we were to running out of time yesterday. That doesn't happen if all you need to do is drive to the 40 yard line. If you trust your defense, it's still a dumb call. If you don't, it's unbelievably dumb. If you go for it and don't get it, you still need to drive the length of the field to win in either case.

I just told you how it's aggressive. He was getting one score for sure and then trusting the defense to make a stop and the offense get another. Going for two scores and a win.

"If you trust, your defense, it's still a dumb call." We can disagree on that. If you trust your defense, that's a great reason to kick the FG.

Also, close to running out of time still isn't running out of time.

Finally, we were discussing McCarthy's aggression as a coach and you changed the conversation to be about one play.

 

[Oski]

I just told you how it's aggressive. He was getting one score for sure and then trusting the defense to make a stop and the offense get another. Going for two scores and a win.

"If you trust, your defense, it's still a dumb call." We can disagree on that. If you trust your defense, that's a great reason to kick the FG.

Also, close to running out of time still isn't running out of time.

Finally, we were discussing McCarthy's aggression as a coach and you changed the conversation to be about one play.

Once again. Why does going for it preclude going for two scores and the win? Taking the guaranteed points instead taking the chance of scoring points is obviously conservative, not aggressive.

Either way you are asking your defense to hold Miami to win the game. So I'm not sure how that's "trusting your defense."

You seem to be arguing that it was the aggressive and correct call because the packers won. That's bad logic.

It's another clear example of him making the low percentage call because he has no balls.

 

[NOMOFO]

Once again. Why does going for it preclude going for two scores and the win?

Either way you are asking your defense to hold Miami to win the game. So I'm not sure how that's "trusting your defense."

You seem to be arguing that it was the aggressive and correct call because the packers won. That's bad logic.

It's another clear example of him making the low percentage call because he has no balls.

I totally disagree. I don't think he's extremely crazy but I think there are plenty of times he takes chances. Did he not go for it yesterday on 4th and 9?

I do agree that McCarthy is not a good clock manager and I think he's pathetic at thinking quick on his feet. I don't mean play calling, because over-all I think he does well with that with a few exceptions like first and goal series.

 

[adambr2]

My problem with the call is at that point in the game, down 7 with 4 minutes left, you still need a touchdown, any way you look at it, to have a chance to win. Obviously with that much time left you aren't getting 3 FG's. No matter how you slice it, even if you kick a FG, even if you miss it on 4th and 6, you still need the same thing yet in the game -- 1 touchdown.

What do you figure is easier -- already having the ball at the opponents 12 and punching it in after converting a 4th and 6? Or kicking the ball off again with just a few minutes left, putting your tired defense back on the field, forcing a stop, driving the entire length of the field before time expires?

One of those is much, much harder to do than the other. It worked out and I'm thrilled it did, but there was an incredible amount of luck and circumstance involved -- a conservative 3rd down call from the Miami offense, converting a 4th and 10, recovering a fumble, Adams not being tackled in bounds, and 2 ill-timed Miami timeouts. Just because all this happened to fall into place does not mean that it is "statistically" the right call to take the 3 there and count on having a chance to put another drive together.

Analytically I hope we can look beyond the end result and not just conclude that "if it works, it was the right thing. If it doesn't, it was the wrong thing." It would be hypocritical of me to say "good choice to kick the 3" when I still wouldn't do that again given the exact set of same circumstances, and I certainly wasn't saying that yesterday.

 

[Oski]

I totally disagree. I don't think he's extremely crazy but I think there are plenty of times he takes chances. Did he not go for it yesterday on 4th and 9?

I do agree that McCarthy is not a good clock manager and I think he's pathetic at thinking quick on his feet. I don't mean play calling, because over-all I think he does well with that with a few exceptions like first and goal series.

I'd say on the opponents side of the field he goes for it on 4th down maybe 1/3 of the time. BTW most nfl coaches are conservative. I just don't understand being that conservative with Rodgers at qb.

He's not great at making adjustments in game either. If something isn't working, he continues to do it for the rest of the game or until the game is so out of hand he has no choice.

 

[Oski]

My problem with the call is at that point in the game, down 7 with 4 minutes left, you still need a touchdown, any way you look at it, to have a chance to win. Obviously with that much time left you aren't getting 3 FG's. No matter how you slice it, even if you kick a FG, even if you miss it on 4th and 6, you still need the same thing yet in the game -- 1 touchdown.

What do you figure is easier -- already having the ball at the opponents 12 and punching it in after converting a 4th and 6? Or kicking the ball off again with just a few minutes left, putting your tired defense back on the field, forcing a stop, driving the entire length of the field before time expires?

One of those is much, much harder to do than the other. It worked out and I'm thrilled it did, but there was an incredible amount of luck and circumstance involved -- a conservative 3rd down call from the Miami offense, converting a 4th and 10, recovering a fumble, Adams not being tackled in bounds, and 2 ill-timed Miami timeouts. Just because all this happened to fall into place does not mean that it is "statistically" the right call to take the 3 there and count on having a chance to put another drive together.

Analytically I hope we can look beyond the end result and not just conclude that "if it works, it was the right thing. If it doesn't, it was the wrong thing." It would be hypocritical of me to say "good choice to kick the 3" when I still wouldn't do that again given the exact set of same circumstances, and I certainly wasn't saying that yesterday.

Well said. And as I've argued. Going for it doesn't preclude kicking the field goal to win if you get the ball back.

 

[NOMOFO]

I'd say on the opponents side of the field he goes for it on 4th down maybe 1/3 of the time. BTW most nfl coaches are conservative. I just don't understand being that conservative with Rodgers at qb.

He's not great at making adjustments in game either. If something isn't working, he continues to do it for the rest of the game or until the game is so out of hand he has no choice.

In all fairness, we need to acknowledge when he sticks to a plan and it works. This has been the case in several of our Bear's games the past few years. Our run game looked awful to start the game but he stuck with it and it got better. In fact, there have been many times where our run game gets much better as the game goes on.

It's funny because in other towns fans are upset about the opposite. I listen to 670 the score out of Chicago and they endlessly complain that they give up way too soon on the run game.

I don't completely disagree however. IMO we have the best QB in the game. I don't think there's a safer bet to have throwing the ball. There are times I would rather see him throwing it than handing it off when we need a few yards.

 

[Oski]

In all fairness, we need to acknowledge when he sticks to a plan and it works. This has been the case in several of our Bear's games the past few years. Our run game looked awful to start the game but he stuck with it and it got better. In fact, there have been many times where our run game gets much better as the game goes on.

It's funny because in other towns fans are upset about the opposite. I listen to 670 the score out of Chicago and they endlessly complain that they give up way too soon on the run game.

I don't completely disagree however. IMO we have the best QB in the game. I don't think there's a safer bet to have throwing the ball. There are times I would rather see him throwing it than handing it off when we need a few yards.

I'm not suggesting giving up on the run game at all. Simply a run/pass balance on first and second down.

 

[OldSchool101]

Run run pass punt is older than "___________". You fill in the blank

My answer is : buckskin rubbers.

 

[red4tribe]

I think people underestimate how aggressive MM can be. The surprise onside kicks, going for it on 4th down(such as yesterday), the occasional fake punt, taking deep shots on 3rd a short are all examples of him being very aggressive. The guy does not play "not to lose". I don't always agree with all of his calls, but I agree with most of them and think he knows more about football than me.

 

[Oski]

I think people underestimate how aggressive MM can be. The surprise onside kicks, going for it on 4th down(such as yesterday), the occasional fake punt, taking deep shots on 3rd a short are all examples of him being very aggressive. The guy does not play "not to lose". I don't always agree with all of his calls, but I agree with most of them and think he knows more about football than me.

as far as i can tell, the guy has kicked an onside and a done a fake punt once each in his entire career. And this is what his 8th season as head coach? I don't think that makes him overly aggressive. As for going it on 4th down, he does it far less than he should. Knowing more about football than me, doesn't make him aggressive or right for that matter.

 

[Carl]

Once again. Why does going for it preclude going for two scores and the win? Taking the guaranteed points instead taking the chance of scoring points is obviously conservative, not aggressive.

Either way you are asking your defense to hold Miami to win the game. So I'm not sure how that's "trusting your defense."

You seem to be arguing that it was the aggressive and correct call because the packers won. That's bad logic.

It's another clear example of him making the low percentage call because he has no balls.

Trusting a defense who struggled badly the last three drives to make a quick stop with enough time for TD take plenty of balls.

I can tell no matter what I say, you won't change your mind. If you want to keep complaining about a call that worked, there's already a thread for that.

We were discussing MM's aggression as a whole and you switched to talking about one play.

 

[Carl]

as far as i can tell, the guy has kicked an onside and a done a fake punt once each in his entire career. And this is what his 8th season as head coach? I don't think that makes him overly aggressive. As for going it on 4th down, he does it far less than he should. Knowing more about football than me, doesn't make him aggressive or right for that matter.

Other examples of not going for it when he should than yesterday? He's also done more than one onside kick. If you're going to argue against aggression, at least use accurate information.

 

[red4tribe]

as far as i can tell, the guy has kicked an onside and a done a fake punt once each in his entire career. And this is what his 8th season as head coach? I don't think that makes him overly aggressive. As for going it on 4th down, he does it far less than he should. Knowing more about football than me, doesn't make him aggressive or right for that matter.

I don't remember if it was this thread or another one, but there was a short list onside kicks somewhere.

Against the Cardinals in the 2009 playoffs, got us back in the game.
Against the Patriots in the 2010 regular season, kept us in the game.
Against Minnesota in 2011.
Against the Bears in 2013.

Those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head, I'm sure there were other attempts.

I can remember a couple of fake punts, I definitely remember one working in 2012 maybe, it was against the Bears I believe.

And I would not define him as super aggressive, but I think he is definitely aggressive to some degree.

 

[Oski]

Trusting a defense who struggled badly the last three drives to make a quick stop with enough time for TD take plenty of balls.

I can tell no matter what I say, you won't change your mind. If you want to keep complaining about a call that worked, there's already a thread for that.

We were discussing MM's aggression as a whole and you switched to talking about one play.

Once again. It isn't anything about trusting the defense. If you think your defense can get you the ball back you can still kick the winning field goal. It's about taking the guaranteed points. It's a completely ball less decision. He went directly against the odds because he's conservative to a fault.

The fact it worked out doesn't a) mean it was the correct or best decision and b) doesn't mean we don't win in regulation if we went for it.

You incorrectly used it as an example of him being aggressive. I didn't make it about one play.

 

[Oski]

Other examples of not going for it when he should than yesterday? He's also done more than one onside kick. If you're going to argue against aggression, at least use accurate information.

second drive of the second quarter he was at the 49 yard line and punted. let's go crazy and say he's done two onside kicks. that's still 3 aggressive special team plays in 8 years. hell make it 4. that's still one every other season. that's what you consider aggressive?

 

[melvin dangerr]

Well I will go out on a limb and say (Great play caller?) we will see how far the Packers can make it deep in the season and if there is a cure for "one an done syndrome,"MM calls a good game but great remains to be seen, A R does a great job of ad-libbing, which a QB of his caliber is fantastic at, BUT MM is somewhat predictable in some of his play calling, and Miami had seem to exploit that, I just think a-Rod should call more of his own plays, ok let it rip on me!!

 

[PackerFanLV]

MM play calling is so predictable. This game should have been a blow out as well as the Defense played

 

[Carl]

second drive of the second quarter he was at the 49 yard line and punted. let's go crazy and say he's done two onside kicks. that's still 3 aggressive special team plays in 8 years. hell make it 4. that's still one every other season. that's what you consider aggressive?

I already gave up lots of examples from the last three games of aggression. I wasn't using the special teams as an example, just pointing out to have facts straight when trying to make a point.

When the Packers had 4th down at the 49 in the 2nd quarter, it was 4th and 19th... I don't have to explain why he shouldn't go for it then.

 

[Carl]

As for your other examples, how many of those were chances on the line of scrimmage by Rodgers?

I don't know, but giving the QB the option to be aggressive is aggressive coaching. He could tell Rodgers to stick with a conservative call.

 

[NOMOFO]

Well I will go out on a limb and say (Great play caller?) we will see how far the Packers can make it deep in the season and if there is a cure for "one an done syndrome,"MM calls a good game but great remains to be seen, A R does a great job of ad-libbing, which a QB of his caliber is fantastic at, BUT MM is somewhat predictable in some of his play calling, and Miami had seem to exploit that, I just think a-Rod should call more of his own plays, ok let it rip on me!!

We just need to consider something... we don't like one and done. I get it. Would zero and zero be better? Would you rather be one of the 25 teams that perennially suck?

 

[TJV]

He rarely goes for it on 4th and short despite having the best qb in the league.

You must have those stats handy to make such a comment: Where does he stand regarding going for it on 4th down vs. the league?

Is terrible at balancing run vs pass selection on first and second down.

Again, you have the stats vs. the league right? Did you think he was better at balancing the run and pass last season when Lacy’s ypc average was better? (The irony of this comment IMO is a few seasons ago McCarthy had to remind himself to run the ball more.)

Absurd conservatism.

Mike McCarthy has been HC of the Packers for 8 full seasons. His offenses have finished the regular season in the top 10 scoring offenses in 7 of those 8 seasons (only his first year offense didn’t). They’ve finished in the top 5, five times. Over those regular seasons those teams have averaged about 26.7 points per game. (The numbers are better if you eliminate his first season but I included them.) The Packers are currently 8th in points per game this season. I think it’s fair to say he’s accomplished that point production without having a dominant OL. Calling his track record “absurd conservatism” is IMO itself absurd.