Fire Joe Barry -- Updated -- he's gone

[Schultz]

I would have preferred that it was the Saints that got the ball back with less than a minute on the clock and no timeouts.

Like I said, the Packers scored, the Saints didn't and the Packers won the game, so I am happy. I just hope next time the Packers are in the same position, someone thinks about taking more time off the clock and forcing the other team to burn timeouts, during a winning scoring drive.

Unfortunately, I did not get to see the game winning drive. Going to play devil's advocate here anyway. Please correct me if I am wrong. Were the Packers playing in a nice rhythm? Did they believe if they did not score a TD there was enough time left to stop N.O. and get the ball back? Any and all insight is appreciated.

 

[JK64]

I just hope next time the Packers are in the same position, someone thinks about taking more time off the clock and forcing the other team to burn timeouts, during a winning scoring drive.

I was thinking the same thing. However, there is no guarantee the Packers score there. **** around running the ball and end up not getting a TD. Points in that game were hard to come by.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Unfortunately, I did not get to see the game winning drive. Going to play devil's advocate here anyway. Please correct me if I am wrong. Were the Packers playing in a nice rhythm? Did they believe if they did not score a TD there was enough time left to stop N.O. and get the ball back? Any and all insight is appreciated.

They were playing in a nice rhythm, yes. They were playing "hurry-up" for the most part. I think that was more to keep the Saints from substituting, because Love was still taking some time to call for the snap. All I am saying is this, they could have done a better job and had many opportunities to do so, of taking the game clock down a lot more.

Obviously, by doing that you are saying "we are all in on this drive, if it doesn't work, game over." So yeah, wasn't an easy decision either way and it worked out, this time.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I was thinking the same thing. However, there is no guarantee the Packers score there. **** around running the ball and end up not getting a TD. Points in that game were hard to come by.

I typed the previous comment without seeing this. Yes, a definite possibility that the drive stalls and the Saints get the ball back with 5 minutes or 1 minute on the clock, but in either situation, you are then giving the ball over to the Saints, who can then ice the game. If I am the coach and my team is down by less than 8, I am looking at that final drive as having the game in my hands. So I am going to do whatever I can to make sure that the opposing team has very little, if any time on the clock, if the ball is turned over. No different then what you see teams do when a FG will win the game, you take the clock down to 1 second and put your faith in the kicking unit to get you the win.

 

[JK64]

I typed the previous comment without seeing this. Yes, a definite possibility that the drive stalls and the Saints get the ball back with 5 minutes or 1 minute on the clock, but in either situation, you are then giving the ball over to the Saints, who can then ice the game. If I am the coach and my team is down by less than 8, I am looking at that final drive as having the game in my hands. So I am going to do whatever I can to make sure that the opposing team has very little, if any time on the clock, if the ball is turned over. No different then what you see teams do when a FG will win the game, you take the clock down to 1 second and put your faith in the kicking unit to get you the win.

It depends how the defense is playing. If our defense was letting the Saints run up and down the field, then milking the clock would have been a good option. However, that wasn't the case. Sometimes, the defense has to win the game, and did.

 

[Heyjoe4]

It depends how the defense is playing. If our defense was letting the Saints run up and down the field, then milking the clock would have been a good option. However, that wasn't the case. Sometimes, the defense has to win the game, and did.

Correct. The D gave up 10 points. If that isn't enough to win a game...... And I thought Whelan had a big leg. That punt returned for a TD was a line drive to the returner. As soon as he caught it, he was gone. I don't think there was a Packer within 20 yards of him when he caught it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't know if it was this thread, but someone suggested having one person responsible for time management with a direct like to MLF's ear. It seems like a good idea. Does anyone know if any other teams do this?

That was me who suggested it. Not sure if any teams do it, but they should..IMHO

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It depends how the defense is playing. If our defense was letting the Saints run up and down the field, then milking the clock would have been a good option. However, that wasn't the case. Sometimes, the defense has to win the game, and did.

Not so sure the defense won us the game, more than their kicker missed a makeable FG.

 

[gopkrs]

I typed the previous comment without seeing this. Yes, a definite possibility that the drive stalls and the Saints get the ball back with 5 minutes or 1 minute on the clock, but in either situation, you are then giving the ball over to the Saints, who can then ice the game. If I am the coach and my team is down by less than 8, I am looking at that final drive as having the game in my hands. So I am going to do whatever I can to make sure that the opposing team has very little, if any time on the clock, if the ball is turned over. No different then what you see teams do when a FG will win the game, you take the clock down to 1 second and put your faith in the kicking unit to get you the win.

I'll only say that it is not the same thing as when all you need is a field goal and you are already in decent range. Then you do want to run down the clock. And so I would prefer to do as we did. Except they should have called another time out later when New orleans had the ball and we would have had 40 seconds more had they made the field goal. imo

 

[Heyjoe4]

That was me who suggested it. Not sure if any teams do it, but they should..IMHO

Thanks Poker. I should have known it was you. Seems like a great idea given the importance of those TOs. And I might be overstating it, but the Packers seem to get to the 2 minute warning with all 3 TOs very rarely. Sometimes there is a good reason.

They should have called a TO when Bijan Robinson was lined up with Campbell on 4th and 3 in the 2nd week. Then again, that was very late in the game and they had already burned one. But an extra TO there would have been very handy.......

 

[Heyjoe4]

Not so sure the defense won us the game, more than their kicker missed a makeable FG.

Not so sure Poker. The D held the Saints to 10 pts so they do get some credit. I do agree that missing a 46 yard FG inside on artificial turf is mostly luck. But by that point, the Packers had created a lot of luck on their own in the comeback.

But yeah, an NFL kicker makes that FG probably 85-90% of the time in those circumstances. It was a clean snap and hold and the guy just pushed it right.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not so sure Poker. The D held the Saints to 10 pts so they do get some credit. I do agree that missing a 46 yard FG inside on artificial turf is mostly luck. But by that point, the Packers had created a lot of luck on their own in the comeback.

But yeah, an NFL kicker makes that FG probably 85-90% of the time in those circumstances. It was a clean snap and hold and the guy just pushed it right.

I should have been clearer, I meant at the end of the game, the Saints final drive. The D allowed them to get into FG position pretty quickly, thankfully the Saints K missed the FG.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Thanks Poker. I should have known it was you. Seems like a great idea given the importance of those TOs. And I might be overstating it, but the Packers seem to get to the 2 minute warning with all 3 TOs very rarely. Sometimes there is a good reason.

They should have called a TO when Bijan Robinson was lined up with Campbell on 4th and 3 in the 2nd week. Then again, that was very late in the game and they had already burned one. But an extra TO there would have been very handy.......

Yeah, I really don't get why they wouldn't. How many times have we all chatted about "poor clock management"? How many times has it potentially cost a team the game or a coach his job? Hell, I would brush up on all my NFL rules, use my "vast knowledge" gained by watching Football for years, take a measly $250K/year, sit in the press box with a headset and manage the game and play clock decisions for the Packers. I'll even throw in "Timeout management" for another $100K a year. Making less than veteran minimum.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'll only say that it is not the same thing as when all you need is a field goal and you are already in decent range. Then you do want to run down the clock. And so I would prefer to do as we did. Except they should have called another time out later when New orleans had the ball and we would have had 40 seconds more had they made the field goal. imo

I still contend that if your team gets the ball back, is down by a single score, in the final minutes of the 4th Q., the goal should be to not just score, but to take as much time off the clock as possible. I don't care if you need a FG or a TD to win, don't give the opponent the ball back with enough time on the clock to beat you.

If you think "oh, what if we don't score and have to punt the ball, we want enough time to stop the other team and get a 2nd chance." A. You may not stop that other team and B. 2nd chances aren't as good as 1st chances, go win the game!

 

[Heyjoe4]

I should have been clearer, I meant at the end of the game, the Saints final drive. The D allowed them to get into FG position pretty quickly, thankfully the Saints K missed the FG.

Gotcha. Ironically, that last drive by the Saints was met with the D's worst series of the day, when it mattered most. They had done a very good job of stopping the Saints' O. It was a complete reversal. The Saints had a very makeable FG. So yeah, the D and Joe Barry caught a little break when the kicker pushed the FG right. That just doesn't happen very often.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Yeah, I really don't get why they wouldn't. How many times have we all chatted about "poor clock management"? How many times has it potentially cost a team the game or a coach his job? Hell, I would brush up on all my NFL rules, use my "vast knowledge" gained by watching Football for years, take a measly $250K/year, sit in the press box with a headset and manage the game and play clock decisions for the Packers. I'll even throw in "Timeout management" for another $100K a year. Making less than veteran minimum.

If I'm Gluten I'd hire you in a heartbeat Poker. And what's $350k in the NFL today? That's lower than most workout (ie - show up on time) bonuses. Not even a rounding error on the payroll.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I still contend that if your team gets the ball back, is down by a single score, in the final minutes of the 4th Q., the goal should be to not just score, but to take as much time off the clock as possible. I don't care if you need a FG or a TD to win, don't give the opponent the ball back with enough time on the clock to beat you.

If you think "oh, what if we don't score and have to punt the ball, we want enough time to stop the other team and get a 2nd chance." A. You may not stop that other team and B. 2nd chances aren't as good as 1st chances, go win the game!

You're describing aggressive game planning. And isn't the idea to win the game? Off topic but I was surprised, and then delighted, when MLF went for 2 pts instead of the kick. That's aggressive game play as well. Contrast it with MM's "play not to lose" philosophy and it's a pleasant change (well, until they miss one of those 2 pt conversions......).

 

[gopkrs]

I still contend that if your team gets the ball back, is down by a single score, in the final minutes of the 4th Q., the goal should be to not just score, but to take as much time off the clock as possible. I don't care if you need a FG or a TD to win, don't give the opponent the ball back with enough time on the clock to beat you.

If you think "oh, what if we don't score and have to punt the ball, we want enough time to stop the other team and get a 2nd chance." A. You may not stop that other team and B. 2nd chances aren't as good as 1st chances, go win the game!

Well, I do see your point and we can just disagree here. Joe Montana is really the only one I can think of that actually looked as if he did what you want. And those times were probably just circumstance. I would rather pin them and get the ball back with enough time if we don't make the TD. Especially when it looks like there will be time left on the clock no matter what you do. It isn't as if you can just run the clock and score when you decide to, like on a field goal. You just have to stop them.

 

[gopkrs]

You're describing aggressive game planning. And isn't the idea to win the game? Off topic but I was surprised, and then delighted, when MLF went for 2 pts instead of the kick. That's aggressive game play as well. Contrast it with MM's "play not to lose" philosophy and it's a pleasant change (well, until they miss one of those 2 pt conversions......).

It is a very interesting idea and makes sense. But if you miss it...

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You just have to stop them.

Which, the defense didn't.

I see both sides and in this one game, it worked out just fine. The Packers scored, left the Saints with plenty of time to win the game and they didn't.

I've watched games where the defense basically surrenders the TD, knowing that time on the clock was more valuable than the points.

It is a very interesting idea and makes sense. But if you miss it...

If you miss it, you still have to score a TD and then you go after the 2 points again. XP's are not automatic anymore.

You're describing aggressive game planning. And isn't the idea to win the game?

Well, it seems to be the approach that teams facing the Packers and Aaron Rodgers did for years. They knew that handing the ball back to Rodgers, with even a minute left on the clock could be a death sentence. Like I said, I would prefer controlling the narrative of "We score we win", not "We score, now lets go try and prevent them from scoring."

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Gotcha. Ironically, that last drive by the Saints was met with the D's worst series of the day, when it mattered most. They had done a very good job of stopping the Saints' O. It was a complete reversal. The Saints had a very makeable FG. So yeah, the D and Joe Barry caught a little break when the kicker pushed the FG right. That just doesn't happen very often.

Exactly and just how many times have we seen the Packers defense not be able to stop a team when the game is on the line?

 

[Heyjoe4]

It is a very interesting idea and makes sense. But if you miss it...

I'm with ya. But I'll take the "play to win" attitude over MM's "play not to lose". MM would have kicked the PAT, the game goes to OT, and then who knows. Going for two also acknowledges that it's late in the game, your guys are tired, and the last thing they want is to go to OT to win.

And sure, some games will be lost this way as well. Hopefully a very small number.

 

[JK64]

That was me who suggested it. Not sure if any teams do it, but they should..IMHO

I'm pretty sure other teams do it. They have enough assistant coaches. I think the Packers could find one person to give that responsibility to.

 

[JK64]

the goal should be to not just score, but to take as much time off the clock as possible.

Sure, in an ideal world.

 

[JK64]

Not so sure the defense won us the game, more than their kicker missed a makeable FG.

Well, they didn't give up a TD and they did stop them on 3rd down. There was enough time for Love and company to get into field goal range for the winning score. Still, not what I wanted to see but I'll take it.