Conservative 2nd Half Play Calling

[PackerDNA]

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.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. I disagreed with going for it in your example, but had no problem with him doing it.
MM was faced with the same situation twice in the first half of the title game. I wouldn't have had a problem kicking a FG on one of the situations. On the road, title game, kick twice? No way, not for me.

 

[PackerDNA]

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

He's got at least as many examples of going turtle. Overall, the guy has worn thin for me.
I feel my points stand on their own, but I don't have a problem with anything as you phrased things in your post

 

[gopkrs]

Deciding whether or not to go for it should involve the situation in the game and the defense you are playing against.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

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.

And, had the Packers not converted, they would have given Seattle the ball at the 2...a Seattle offense that couldn't do anything that day. So most likely, Seattle punts the ball back and the Packers can STILL kick the FG on the next possession. That's the part that constantly gets forgotten. It's like everyone assumes that if the Packers don't score the TD, then that means Seattle automatically drives 98 yards for a TD.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

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.

Yeah, one game proves that going for it is terrible for a team. Packers made correct decision. Playing the result is great after the fact, just hoping McCarthy continues to make the right decision going forward and doesn't let ONE game change his thinking.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I would make a lousy head coach because unless the situation required a TD to win (near end of game or getting blown out) I would always trot my FG kicker out on 4th down in most of these situations. My rationale is this, even if you do pick up the first down, you still have to keep running plays to try and score a TD. So after picking up that first down, one of three things could happen. You could score a TD, you could cough up the ball or you could kick a FG. So if we say the FG being successful for either scenario is about the same, that scenario is a wash. If you cough up the ball, you lose the 3 points a made FG nets you. IF you scored a TD, you gain 3 points (4 with an extra point).

I think Captain rolled out the stats on this one and now I can't find them, but if I remember correctly, the amount of TD's scored after a successful 4th down conversion isn't all that high. Guessing it goes down as the 4th down attempt is further out as well. So, in many cases, I'm taking the 3 and not taking the chance of either not picking up the first (no points), losing the ball (no points), having to later kick a FG (same points) or possibly scoring a TD (3-4 more points).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And, had the Packers not converted, they would have given Seattle the ball at the 2...a Seattle offense that couldn't do anything that day. So most likely, Seattle punts the ball back and the Packers can STILL kick the FG on the next possession. That's the part that constantly gets forgotten. It's like everyone assumes that if the Packers don't score the TD, then that means Seattle automatically drives 98 yards for a TD.

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?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah, one game proves that going for it is terrible for a team. Packers made correct decision. Playing the result is great after the fact, just hoping McCarthy continues to make the right decision going forward and doesn't let ONE game change his thinking.

I doubt MM or any head coach makes this decision based on just one game or just one decision he or any other coach made in the past. There are a lot of factors that go into it and most have been discussed here so I wont rehash it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And, had the Packers not converted, they would have given Seattle the ball at the 2...a Seattle offense that couldn't do anything that day. So most likely, Seattle punts the ball back and the Packers can STILL kick the FG on the next possession. That's the part that constantly gets forgotten. It's like everyone assumes that if the Packers don't score the TD, then that means Seattle automatically drives 98 yards for a TD.

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.

I think Captain rolled out the stats on this one and now I can't find them, but if I remember correctly, the amount of TD's scored after a successful 4th down conversion isn't all that high.

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.

 

[Mondio]

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?

Or what if Lynch takes a run into the line and busts thru everyone and instead of beast mode and thei offense being buried for much of the game; it gets the stadium rocking as he goes on a 40 yard run?

Taking points at that point in the game, in that stadium given that history was hardly a bad decision

 

[PackerDNA]

Seems to me a lot of people are looking to have it both ways.
Captain, you keep saying "no guarantees', then cite stats as if your intent was to apply those stats to any given situation as the definitive answer.
Mondio and others; you appear to take issue with what you define as "what if's"- then refute them with your own what if's.
Not to take a slap at any of you, and my interpretation of your intent could be totally off base.
But my assertion is simply I don't care about what happened in previous situations, and even less about 'stats'. 'll weigh any decision on factors I feel relevant a the time and err on the side of being bold. Not on "gee, it might not work".

 

[Mondio]

There's always what if's. I just use them to illustrate, there's always what ifs. But considering the circumstances. The defense we were facing, in the stadium we were in, knowing that points were going be hard to come by and it probably wasn't going to take a ton to win, and having multiple opportunities from inside the 5 and not making them on 1st,2nd, or 3rd down, I had no problems taking the points.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Seems to me a lot of people are looking to have it both ways.
Captain, you keep saying "no guarantees', then cite stats as if your intent was to apply those stats to any given situation as the definitive answer.
Mondio and others; you appear to take issue with what you define as "what if's"- then refute them with your own what if's.
Not to take a slap at any of you, and my interpretation of your intent could be totally off base.
But my assertion is simply I don't care about what happened in previous situations, and even less about 'stats'. 'll weigh any decision on factors I feel relevant a the time and err on the side of being bold. Not on "gee, it might not work".

I can't speak for you, but going on "my gut" and my opinions is probably why I am working at a desk and not as a Football coach.

Every scenario has a "what if" attached to it before hand, that is the nature of "a decision". The decision maker makes what they perceive to be the best decision based on all the known facts at the time. But questioning that decision based on the results of that decision, after the fact, is what gathers fans around the water coolers every Monday. A fan that continually says "this decision was wrong, it cost us the game" or "if they had only done this", really isn't remembering that the result of the decision wasn't know at the time the decision was made. That kind of fan doesn't alway want to remember all of the correct decisions that were also made along the way.

I get your point of view, as HC you would strap on a big pair and take your chances and make bold decisions. Some of those decisions might work and some might not, but no matter what, you would have someone questioning your decisions.

 

[PackerDNA]

I can't speak for you, but going on "my gut" and my opinions is probably why I am working at a desk and not as a Football coach.

Every scenario has a "what if" attached to it before hand, that is the nature of "a decision". The decision maker makes what they perceive to be the best decision based on all the known facts at the time. But questioning that decision based on the results of that decision, after the fact, is what gathers fans around the water coolers every Monday. But a fan that continually says "this decision was wrong, it cost us the game" or "if they had only done this", really isn't remembering that the result of the decision wasn't know at the time the decision was made. That kind of fan doesn't alway want to remember all of the correct decisions that were also made along the way.

I get your point of view, as HC you would strap on a big pair and take your chances and make bold decisions. Some of those might work and some might not, but no matter what, you would have someone questioning them.

I'm fine with all that. Ex; no problem with MM going for it in Minn, even though at the time I said kick it. Too much questioning is done from both sides of the fence. Make your call, and don't sweat who likes it or not.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm fine with all that. Ex; no problem with MM going for it in Minn, even though at the time I said kick it. Too much questioning is done from both sides of the fence. Make your call, and don't sweat who likes it or not.

I was watching in a loud bar and was yelling for a FG attempt, shaking my head when I saw they were going for it. My friend slapped me and said "dude, lighten up we got this". One guy yelled "About time McCarthy grew a pair!" Had the Packers picked up the first down, scored a TD and won the game by 4, I would have gladly bought MM and those two "dudes" a beer and a plate of crow for myself.

Edit: forgot the best part of the story......right after the Vikings stopped us, I heard the guy who had yelled about MM growing a pair say "F'ing Packers, can never pick up an easy yard" LOL

 

[PFanCan]

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.

I imagine the odds are better if only 4th and goal situations are considered.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I imagine the odds are better if only 4th and goal situations are considered.

Not significantly. Since the start of last season teams scored a touchdown on 36.7% going for it on fourth and goal.

 

[PFanCan]

Not significantly. Since the start of last season teams scored a touchdown on 36.7% going for it on fourth and goal.

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).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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).

Of course you also have to factor in that an extra point is part of those 7 points and aren't as automatic as they once were.

Throw into that, some might say you have to go for 2......I will be back with coffee and donuts to figure this all out......I mean....to watch you figure it all out.

 

[Packerlover]

Maybe the danger of what happened on Sunday was for fans and coaches (if they did) to assume that the defense would continue to pretty much shut down Detroit like they did for most of the first half. When you go into the locker room with a 21 point lead and look pretty dominant on both sides of the ball, the tendency is to maybe let up a bit, play soft, not take chances by giving up quick scores on big plays or even getting guys hurt. Had MM stayed really aggressive on offense and AR sat in the pocket too long and taken a big shot and gotten injured, with that kind of lead, fans would be calling for MM's head on a pole. Sure I would have liked to have seen a better defensive performance in the second half and the offense put a TD or two on the board, but due to a young depleted defense, some costly player mistakes on both sides of the balls, the Packers still did what they had to do to win by 7 and have possession of the ball at the end of the game.

This makes sense PB. I was upset MM went into prevent mode but no way do I want to see Rodgers or any other offensive guy injured right now.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This makes sense PB. I was upset MM went into prevent mode but no way do I want to see Rodgers or any other offensive guy injured right now.

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.

 

[Packerlover]

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.

Next time put Hundley in the game in the 4th quarter and let him score 2 td's!! I want to have my blow out victory damn it!!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Next time put Hundley in the game in the 4th quarter and let him score 2 td's!! I want to have my blow out victory damn it!!

I too was hoping the offense would keep things rolling and the entire first team could sit for the 4th quarter. But at least this gave the Packers something to work on during the bye week....both offensively and defensively. That offense still needs a lot of work IMO.

 

[Packerlover]

I too was hoping the offense would keep things rolling and the entire first team could sit for the 4th quarter. But at least this gave the Packers something to work on during the bye week....both offensively and defensively. That offense still needs a lot of work IMO.

The Giants game will be a good test I think. They have improved on offense and defense.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Giants game will be a good test I think. They have improved on offense and defense.

Packers will be well rested and the Giants are going to be so tired from their overtime game in Minnesota on Monday night, that Hundley might get to play by the 3rd Quarter!