Conservative 2nd Half Play Calling

[Sunshinepacker]

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.

So then you assume the Packers don't convert (because there's no way they were gonna get two yards) and that Seattle then gets the ball back and the Seattle offense, which had been terrible to this point (but for some reason past performance only has relevance to the Packer's offense) was suddenly going to find life when playing on their own two yard line???? I honestly don't understand how you can "laugh out loud" at my reasoning and yet your reasoning, which assumes far more improbable scenarios, seems logical to you.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

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

I've always found it funny that people manage to blame the defense for that loss when that defense forced Russell Wilson into his worst game as a pro and the offense and playcalling were pretty much terrible the first 55 minutes. Yet, somehow, only the last 5 minutes matter.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

It depends on distance on fourth down as well as where in opponent's territory. The expected points value on the fourth down play against the Vikings in week 2 was at 2.63, therefore statistics suggest the Packers should have kicked the field goal.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I've always found it funny that people manage to blame the defense for that loss when that defense forced Russell Wilson into his worst game as a pro and the offense and playcalling were pretty much terrible the first 55 minutes. Yet, somehow, only the last 5 minutes matter.

The defense absolutely deserves part of the blame for giving up three touchdowns on only 17 plays at the end of the game.

 

[gopkrs]

That damn 3 man rush was partially responsible and I see that Capers still has not given up on it entirely.

 

[OldSchool101]

and McCarthy doesn't learn by his mistakes?

2009 McDaniels was 8-8 as HC of the Broncos, same record Shanahan had with the Broncos in 2008.

Then, in the offseason, a year after trading Cutler to the Bears for Orton, McDaniels and the Broncos used a first-round pick on Tim Tebow.

Things quickly went south in 2010; the Broncos twice lost four straight, and McDaniels was fired with a month left in the season. The team was 3-9 at the time.

While he probably has learned a lot since and as the OC of the Patriots, if and when MM quits or is fired, I'm not so sure McDaniels would be my first pick to replace him. Then again, I haven't really been looking for anyone to replace MM, since I think he is a very good HC.

If forced to make that move I'd rather have a coach without a curse like McDaniels. But I think MM is a smart coach.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I've always found it funny that people manage to blame the defense for that loss when that defense forced Russell Wilson into his worst game as a pro and the offense and playcalling were pretty much terrible the first 55 minutes. Yet, somehow, only the last 5 minutes matter.

Although the Seattle game has been and probably will be debated.....forever, its important to remember just how good that Seattle Defense was all year long and on that day as well. So to say our offense and play calling was terrible the first 55 minutes, isn't a correct statement IMO. Scoring as many points (22) against that defense, in their house, along with how good our defense was playing up until the 3:52 mark should have been enough to win the game. If you want to criticize the offense for being too conservative, you might have a very slight argument when the Packers took over after the Burnett interception with 5:04 left in the game. But come on, with a 19-7 lead and as you yourself said, a defense playing extremely well, your focus at that point is to run the clock, make Seattle burn their timeouts and rely on your punter and defense to pin back an offense that hadn't done much all day. Masthay failed to get a good punt off, the defense folded like a cheap tent, Bostick made the blunder of the year on special teams, our 2 point conversion defense didn't show up and the rest is history.

Very few people would have criticized MM, play calling or the offense that day, had the defense and special teams not collapsed in the final 3:52.

Now had MM decided that picking up a first down on that series before the 3:52 mark was absolutely critical to win the game and AR threw a pick 6 and the game played out the same, we would be having a whole new twist to what is being debated.

Debating kicking a field goal or going for it on 4th down during the game is kind of silly as well. The Packers built a 19-7 lead with 3:52 left by playing smart on both offense and defense. How many games are lost with that kind of lead against a team that had one TD all day, on a fake punt. Really hard to put that loss on the offense and MM's play calling, but some will continue to try and do so.

 

[OldSchool101]

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.

Precisely.
It's a gutsy call. IMO there are times when that would've been the right call to make. Such as a high scoring game where we're trading TDs all day. This particular game points were already at a premium and we were struggling.
I believe he thought a 1st down would get us momentum so I get that because I'm a huge proponent for gaining momentum. But even a 1st down didn't guarantee us points. Mikes argument could've made if we were at the 1 because we were playing solid D and the turnover field position is ugly for them and a good surge gets a safety. But we were not. Too much risk vs. a gimme 3 points in a low scoring contest without a "goal to go" scenario
There is one thing that still trumps momentum.. POINTS

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My final point and then I will shut up, at least for now . I often criticize what Burnett did after his interception in that game, I was even screaming at him when it happened, he had plenty of room to roam and probably should have. But, I think everyone watching that game, including the 1000's of Seattle fans who left after the interception, figured that was the dagger that ended the game. As it turned out, Burnett should have advanced that ball as far as he could have, probably into field goal range. But given how good our defense was playing that day, who would have thought the final 3:52 of the game as well as overtime, would have unfolded like it did?

So if you (posters claiming MM was too conservative that day) were smarter then the rest of us and saw the final 3:52 of the game playing out as it did, before all the so called "conservative decisions" were made during the course of the game, then you my friend are Nostradamus and should be coaching in the NFL.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's a gutsy call. IMO there are times when that would've been the right call to make. Such as a high scoring game where we're trading TDs all day. This particular game points were already at a premium and we were struggling.
I believe he thought a 1st down would get us momentum so I get that because I'm a huge proponent for gaining momentum. But even a 1st down didn't guarantee us points. His argument could've made if we were at the 1. But werent. We can fumble, throw a pic, take a sack, take an injury. Etc.. Too much risk vs. a gimme 3 points in a low scoring contest
There is one thing that still trumps momentum.. POINTS

Your points are very good and very similar with both the Viking and the Seattle games. On the road, looking like a low scoring game, against a very good defense, points come at a premium. In the Seattle game, MM is called conservative by some for kicking FG's, taking the points and building a nice lead. In Minnesota, he decides to get aggressive and go for it. No points, Packers end up losing the game by 3.

 

[PackerDNA]

My final point and then I will shut up, at least for now . I often criticize what Burnett did after his interception in that game, I was even screaming at him when it happened, he had plenty of room to roam and probably should have. But, I think everyone watching that game, including the 1000's of Seattle fans who left after the interception, figured that was the dagger that ended the game. So as it turned out, Burnett should have advanced that ball as far as he could have, probably into field goal range. But given how good our defense was playing that day, who would have thought the final 3:52 of the game as well as overtime, would have unfolded like it did?

So if you (posters claiming MM was too conservative that day) were smarter then the rest of us and saw the final 3:52 of the game playing out as it did, before all the so called "conservative decisions" were made during the course of the game, then you my friend are Nostradamus and should be coaching in the NFL.

Yeah, that's clever. Also has nothing to do with the point. You don't play safe on the road, you play aggressive. Had they done so early, they likely wouldn't have had to worry about the last few minutes, even without the benefit of being 'Nostradamus.

 

[Mondio]

Yeah, that's clever. Also has nothing to do with the point. You don't play safe on the road, you play aggressive. Had they done so early, they likely wouldn't have had to worry about the last few minutes, even without the benefit of being 'Nostradamus.

that didnt work so well just 2 weeks ago on the road. and in the last few minutes we were all thinking, man, i wish we had 3 more points

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

nothing clever about what I said. The Packers built up a sizeable lead 19-7 and had shut the Seattle offense out for no points that day, by playing smart offensive and defensive football. I will take that scenario at home or on the road against the best defense in the NFL. Your theory assumes the score could have been 30-7, but it quite easily could have been 13-7 as well.

 

[PackerDNA]

Done with this thread. Again and again, some of you keep shooting down a basic point- play aggressively- as 'what if' and 'theory', with what if and theory on your part.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Evening gentlemen

 

[Mondio]

nothing what if or theoretical about going for it on 4th down in the road in a low scoring game against a good defense and failing to convert I'm a game we lost by 3. It just happened. You win some you lose some. had gone for them or not doesn't matter. If it still would have been a loss, it would still be questioned

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The defense absolutely deserves part of the blame for giving up three touchdowns on only 17 plays at the end of the game.

I am certainly not absolving the defense of any blame, i'm just saying that the defense is not at the top of the list for problems the team had during the game. If the Packers had lost the game 42-37 and the defense prevented the Seahawks from scoring for the last five minutes, would people say the offense was to blame because the offense didn't score enough in the last five minutes?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Although the Seattle game has been and probably will be debated.....forever, its important to remember just how good that Seattle Defense was all year long and on that day as well. So to say our offense and play calling was terrible the first 55 minutes, isn't a correct statement IMO. Scoring as many points (22) against that defense, in their house, along with how good our defense was playing up until the 3:52 mark should have been enough to win the game. If you want to criticize the offense for being too conservative, you might have a very slight argument when the Packers took over after the Burnett interception with 5:04 left in the game. But come on, with a 19-7 lead and as you yourself said, a defense playing extremely well, your focus at that point is to run the clock, make Seattle burn their timeouts and rely on your punter and defense to pin back an offense that hadn't done much all day. Masthay failed to get a good punt off, the defense folded like a cheap tent, Bostick made the blunder of the year on special teams, our 2 point conversion defense didn't show up and the rest is history.

Very few people would have criticized MM, play calling or the offense that day, had the defense and special teams not collapsed in the final 3:52.

Now had MM decided that picking up a first down on that series before the 3:52 mark was absolutely critical to win the game and AR threw a pick 6 and the game played out the same, we would be having a whole new twist to what is being debated.

Debating kicking a field goal or going for it on 4th down during the game is kind of silly as well. The Packers built a 19-7 lead with 3:52 left by playing smart on both offense and defense. How many games are lost with that kind of lead against a team that had one TD all day, on a fake punt. Really hard to put that loss on the offense and MM's play calling, but some will continue to try and do so.

You say it's hard to put the loss on MM and the offense yet it's easier to put the blame on a defense that forced Russell Wilson into, by far, his worst game ever? The point that some argue is that the 19-7 lead that you say was built smartly, is that it wasn't a smart lead. That MM took the three points in classic, conservative coaching fashion. No opinions will be changed on this. Some people look at the math and say he should have gone for it, some people say the math is all well and good in a general sense but that it doesn't ever really matter because no game happens "in a general sense". It's like trying to convince people who to vote for, nobody listens to opinions that don't mirror their own. My main issue is how the defense gets the blame for a stellar performance, on the road, when it was the offense that consistently failed to score TDs...it's the only time I hear people say the Packers offense wasn't good enough to beat the defense so let's lower the bar for our expectations.

 

[Packer Brother]

I think the entire team is collectively at fault for Seattle game. At the minimum, Capers should've been fired after the game. Can't stand the man and the fact his D fails constantly. Instead it was status quo. That's the problem with not having a single owner. No accountability!!!!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You say it's hard to put the loss on MM and the offense yet it's easier to put the blame on a defense that forced Russell Wilson into, by far, his worst game ever?

LOL....his worst game ever? Maybe up until the 3:52 mark. The Packer defense ultimately gave up almost 400 yards that day.

No question in my mind that both the offense and the defense played a good game that day, up until the 3:52 mark. Had the score remained 19-7 and we won the game, both sides of the ball would have had reasons to be proud, especially the defense. But from the 3:52 mark on, the defense was horrible in both regulation time as well as overtime. The special teams was even worse in the second half; giving up a touchdown on a fake punt and losing an onside kick. Guessing that game cost Slocum his job.

Will say it one more time. The Packer offense that day, conservative or not, did everything they should have had to do against the best defense in the NFL to put the team in perfect position to win the game. Special teams and a defense that completely fell apart, ultimately lost us the game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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.

Just curious. Any articles, stats where this has been proven and not just someone's opinion?

If you get more expected points earlier in the game, then game won't be as close at the end.

Isn't that basic math? Didn't seem to work in the Detroit game on Sunday. But the key words in your sentence are "IF" and "expected", as they pertain to the Seattle game. You are making the assumption that playing aggressively will get you more points. Are you open to the idea that playing aggressively can possibly get you less points?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

lHow many games are lost with that kind of lead against a team that had one TD all day, on a fake punt.

After Burnett intercepted Wilson with five minutes left in the game the Packers had a win probablity of 99.9%.

I am certainly not absolving the defense of any blame, i'm just saying that the defense is not at the top of the list for problems the team had during the game. If the Packers had lost the game 42-37 and the defense prevented the Seahawks from scoring for the last five minutes, would people say the offense was to blame because the offense didn't score enough in the last five minutes?

A lot of Packers fans forget how great the 2014 Seahawks defense was playing when they faced the Packers in the NFCCG. Seattle had given up a total of 56 points over the last seven games entering this contest, holding five opponents to seven or less points during that span. The Packers offense putting up 22 points should have been good enough to win.

I think the entire team is collectively at fault for Seattle game. At the minimum, Capers should've been fired after the game. Can't stand the man and the fact his D fails constantly. Instead it was status quo. That's the problem with not having a single owner. No accountability!!!!

Capers isn't to blame for Barrington being fooled on the same pick play he defended perfectly earlier in the game, Clinton-Dix messing up on the two point conversion and Hayward and Williams botched coverages in overtime.

The Packers not having a single owner is most likely the reason they are still playing in Green Bay. I wouldn't complain about that.

 

[Half Empty]

Capers isn't to blame for Barrington being fooled on the same pick play he defended perfectly earlier in the game, Clinton-Dix messing up on the two point conversion and Hayward and Williams botched coverages in overtime.

The Packers not having a single owner is most likely the reason they are still playing in Green Bay. I wouldn't complain about that.

Confused. Three of the four are gone, aren't they?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Confused. Three of the four are gone, aren't they?

I was talking about the team still playing in Green Bay.

 

[Half Empty]

Aha, got it.