Deferring

[rmontro]

This has been discussed before, but this game today against the Vikings was a perfect example. I know most people don't like to defer because they want to get the offense out there and score and rack up some momentum. I think McCarthy used to like to defer though.

My problem with taking the ball first, with NOT deferring, is you can end up with this situation like we had today. The Vikings had the ball at the end of the second half (and scored). And then started with the ball at the beginning of the second half (and scored). This is the ONLY scenario where your opponent can have two consecutive possessions in the game, and can potentially score twice in a row. That's my problem with not deferring.

 

[gopkrs]

This has been discussed before, but this game today against the Vikings was a perfect example. I know most people don't like to defer because they want to get the offense out there and score and rack up some momentum. I think McCarthy used to like to defer though.

My problem with taking the ball first, with NOT deferring, is you can end up with this situation like we had today. The Vikings had the ball at the end of the second half (and scored). And then started with the ball at the beginning of the second half (and scored). This is the ONLY scenario where your opponent can have two consecutive possessions in the game, and can potentially score twice in a row. That's my problem with not deferring.

It's a possession. This double down nonsense is media made. It sounds good . But you don't have the ball for any more possessions. Imo you need to decide how it might be best for you in the game you are playing. Love says he likes the ball right away. It's a good way to go if you can take advantage right away. As long as you get a few 1st downs; I don't think it hurt you. I don't think Love especially likes sitting down at the start of the game.

 

[DoURant]

This has been discussed before, but this game today against the Vikings was a perfect example. I know most people don't like to defer because they want to get the offense out there and score and rack up some momentum. I think McCarthy used to like to defer though.

My problem with taking the ball first, with NOT deferring, is you can end up with this situation like we had today. The Vikings had the ball at the end of the second half (and scored). And then started with the ball at the beginning of the second half (and scored). This is the ONLY scenario where your opponent can have two consecutive possessions in the game, and can potentially score twice in a row. That's my problem with not deferring.

If the Packers don't have an illegal formation, taking a first down play to midfield away, on our drive with under 2 minutes, the Vikings probably don't get the ball in the final 2 minutes.

 

[rmontro]

I don't think Love especially likes sitting down at the start of the game.

I suppose you should take into account what makes your quarterback comfortable. Still, for $75 million a year maybe he should make himself comfortable lol.

If the Packers don't have an illegal formation, taking a first down play to midfield away, on our drive with under 2 minutes, the Vikings probably don't get the ball in the final 2 minutes.

A valid complaint, but there is still always the chance of the other team getting two consecutive possessions if you don't defer.

 

[DoURant]

I suppose you should take into account what makes your quarterback comfortable. Still, for $75 million a year maybe he should make himself comfortable lol.



A valid complaint, but there is still always the chance of the other team getting two consecutive possessions if you don't defer.

True, but I like the ball first with this team. With Aaron, I liked to defer.

 

[XPack]

I think it has to do more with the mental prep rather than any specific game plan. I think players and staff were a bit overwhelmed probably on the game and it showed. Lots of unforced errors both in and out of the field in first half. It just showcases the lack of readiness in approaching the game.

It would have been a more easier path to victory if we had avoided even half the nonsense we put ourselves through the first half.

 

[milani]

This has been discussed before, but this game today against the Vikings was a perfect example. I know most people don't like to defer because they want to get the offense out there and score and rack up some momentum. I think McCarthy used to like to defer though.

My problem with taking the ball first, with NOT deferring, is you can end up with this situation like we had today. The Vikings had the ball at the end of the second half (and scored). And then started with the ball at the beginning of the second half (and scored). This is the ONLY scenario where your opponent can have two consecutive possessions in the game, and can potentially score twice in a row. That's my problem with not deferring.

Good discussion. In the first half I see a few crucial plays that could have been avoided.
1) On the 31 yard Viking TD pass the Vikings hurried to the line and our D was scrambling and not ready. It looked like a Rodgers special catching the D unprepared. What better a spot to use our first timeout.
2) On the 4th and 3 MLF should have kicked another FG. That is why you have McManus. You are on the road against a great defense. 7-6 means at worse you are down 1 score at halftime. And even if you go for it use a timeout. Get set. The offense scrambled to the line unsure and the game clock was winding. That leads to bad passes and drops.
3) With just around 2 minutes left with 3rd and less than one we get a penalty for not being set. Again we hurried to the line. Use one of your 3 timeouts. Get set and get the first down. We punt and it becomes 13-3.
We take one timeout to the locker room and use 2 to foolishly ice the kicker in the FIRST half.

I see this as a weakness in MLF's coaching ability. And unless your team is loaded with Pro Bowlers you will lose these kind of games to good teams. Rodgers definitely would have called a TO for the offense as we historically know.

 

[tynimiller]

It's game to game, I especially like taking the ball when away - at home and if I have confidence in my defense I prefer to defer. This decision is not one I ever look back on and say that is what lost it.

 

[El Guapo]

It's a possession. This double down nonsense is media made.

I couldn't agree more.

The NFL has shaped itself into a horse race. If that is the case, then it makes sense to try and have as many possessions as possible. If you start with the ball, you have the chance of having one more possession than the opponent. If you defer, you are giving the opponent the possibility of an extra possession. The key is to take the ball to start and then be the last to hold it in the first half - then you'll gain an extra possession.

 

[McKnowledge]

I think it would've been best to accept the ball first when facing a high-powered offense.

The tendency to defer might be contributing to the first half woes.

Minnesota has an elite offense and sneaky good defense.

In hindsight, and possibly in the future; take the ball, run and control the clock.

Ball control, play action, and turnovers must be emphasized for the playoffs.

 

[MC45XavierHS]

This has been discussed before, but this game today against the Vikings was a perfect example. I know most people don't like to defer because they want to get the offense out there and score and rack up some momentum. I think McCarthy used to like to defer though.

My problem with taking the ball first, with NOT deferring, is you can end up with this situation like we had today. The Vikings had the ball at the end of the second half (and scored). And then started with the ball at the beginning of the second half (and scored). This is the ONLY scenario where your opponent can have two consecutive possessions in the game, and can potentially score twice in a row. That's my problem with not deferring.

I don't understand it either. They are acting like they discovered a new way to play the game when it's just the opposite. Every other team defers for the you stated. Get the ball at end of half and start of next half. At the very least, prevent the other team from getting back to back scoring opportunities.

 

[milani]

I think it would've been best to accept the ball first when facing a high-powered offense.

The tendency to defer might be contributing to the first half woes.

Minnesota has an elite offense and sneaky good defense.

In hindsight, and possibly in the future; take the ball, run and control the clock.

Ball control, play action, and turnovers must be emphasized for the playoffs.

And we were doing OK until the fumble.

 

[weeds]

True, but I like the ball first with this team. With Aaron, I liked to defer.

I have always LOVED that photo you're using on the sign in screen. I don't recall if the Pack used that "card on your seat" design more than once, but I recall it being used on the season opener of the 2011 season against the Saints. If you look closely, I'm on the Southwest side -- give or take 35-40 yard line 12 rows up waving to you. I'm the guy in green with the drunk woman sitting next to him running her hand up and down the inside of my leg through out the first half - she must have passed out at half time because she disappeared at half.

As to the point of this thread. I'm an old guy (no, really...), I want the damn ball. Metrics ... pah, I say!! .. PAH!! "WE WANT THE BALL AND WE'RE GONNA SCORE!!"

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

 

[milani]

I have always LOVED that photo you're using on the sign in screen. I don't recall if the Pack used that "card on your seat" design more than once, but I recall it being used on the season opener of the 2011 season against the Saints. If you look closely, I'm on the Southwest side -- give or take 35-40 yard line 12 rows up waving to you. I'm the guy in green with the drunk woman sitting next to him running her hand up and down the inside of my leg through out the first half - she must have passed out at half time because she disappeared at half.

As to the point of this thread. I'm an old guy (no, really...), I want the damn ball. Metrics ... pah, I say!! .. PAH!! "WE WANT THE BALL AND WE'RE GONNA SCORE!!"

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

Well, he was right. They did score. For us.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Good discussion. In the first half I see a few crucial plays that could have been avoided.
1) On the 31 yard Viking TD pass the Vikings hurried to the line and our D was scrambling and not ready. It looked like a Rodgers special catching the D unprepared. What better a spot to use our first timeout.
2) On the 4th and 3 MLF should have kicked another FG. That is why you have McManus. You are on the road against a great defense. 7-6 means at worse you are down 1 score at halftime. And even if you go for it use a timeout. Get set. The offense scrambled to the line unsure and the game clock was winding. That leads to bad passes and drops.
3) With just around 2 minutes left with 3rd and less than one we get a penalty for not being set. Again we hurried to the line. Use one of your 3 timeouts. Get set and get the first down. We punt and it becomes 13-3.
We take one timeout to the locker room and use 2 to foolishly ice the kicker in the FIRST half.

I see this as a weakness in MLF's coaching ability. And unless your team is loaded with Pro Bowlers you will lose these kind of games to good teams. Rodgers definitely would have called a TO for the offense as we historically know.

One very rare but glaring weakness of MLF is clock control. Rarely do the Packers get to the 2-minute warning with all 3 TOs. That may be a side effect of also calling the plays, well maybe. He just doesn't have a good feel for the clock, or he's distracted with a play call, and the same is mostly true of Love.

I can't point to an example where it cost them a win, or secured a win. But with all the close losses the Packers have had this season, it probably was a factor in one or more of them.

 

[milani]

One very rare but glaring weakness of MLF is clock control. Rarely do the Packers get to the 2-minute warning with all 3 TOs. That may be a side effect of also calling the plays, well maybe. He just doesn't have a good feel for the clock, or he's distracted with a play call, and the same is mostly true of Love.

I can't point to an example where it cost them a win, or secured a win. But with all the close losses the Packers have had this season, it probably was a factor in one or more of them.

I used to believe that even more so when we had MM. He tried to save clock. But then we throw an incompletion or get a sack and the opposition stops the clock. We punt and then they score. Rather go in at halftime just having the ball.
Rodgers had a lot to do with using up timeouts. Sunday we certainly did have our 3 timeouts...To ice the kicker. Wonderful.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I used to believe that even more so when we had MM. He tried to save clock. But then we throw an incompletion or get a sack and the opposition stops the clock. We punt and then they score. Rather go in at halftime just having the ball.
Rodgers had a lot to do with using up timeouts. Sunday we certainly did have our 3 timeouts...To ice the kicker. Wonderful.

Yeah it does go back to the MM days. I gotta wonder if it's better to take the delay of game penalty and preserve the TO. That would depend on additional factors like down and distance and some other things. Sure seems like most teams take the TO rather than the penalty.