OFFICIAL Mike McCarthy Took Back Play callin

[Pokerbrat2000]

Interesting to read that AR was given less plays that allowed check-offs yesterday. So not only did MM decide to take controls away from TC, but a bit from AR as well. A move that I think was also a good thing, one that could help refocus AR's play execution.

Again, this is one game and the true test will be how the offense responds in the coming weeks, but on a rainy day in GB against a pretty good defense, I think MM called a pretty good game and look forward to having him back in full control.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...-hold-of-the-reins-b99631649z1-361751821.html

found that article to be so much better then the headline grabbing dribble that Rob Demovsky wrote about the change.

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-p...ing-couldnt-fix-all-that-ails-packers-offense

 

[Mondio]

If him being the play caller allows them to execute better, then great. They still weren't great, better for sure, but they have a ways to go. Still didn't score from the 1 or convert a 3rd and short.

But they were blocking better, running better, and catching better. Amazing what can happen when they do their jobs.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Another thing that just occurred to me was whether or not when Clements called the plays, was if Edgar Bennet or someone else was up in the booth giving him another pair of eyes and feedback from up there. Because this is something that goes hand in hand with McCarthy's successful play calling. Yes a lot of it is his experience, but when Clements returned to the coaches' box and was telling MM what was going on from up there, that had a lot of influence over what was being called on the field. Philbin did this when he was here too and that obviously benefited MM.

I'm in no way looking to either exonerate, or blame Clements more so for what was going on, but I have to believe having a good pair of eyes looking down on the field from above does go a long way in helping your play caller out, and I think it's legitimate to wonder since Clements was not in the booth when he called plays, if he was disadvantaged in this regard by not getting feedback from up above.

I think Clements as a play caller, could manage a fully healthy and fully functional offense, but I think MM's knowledge and experience of this playbook and the players on his team, allow for him to be able to make up for injuries and deficiencies in the offense. Gotta have a good to great QB to really make this offense go like it does, but at the same time you gotta have a great coach and play caller to also get the most out of it. In 2013, we saw what life was like without the QB, and in 2015 we saw what it was like without the play caller. Put them back together though like this and things will (and have) start clicking again.

 

[easyk83]

Interesting to read that AR was given less plays that allowed check-offs yesterday. So not only did MM decide to take controls away from TC, but a bit from AR as well. A move that I think was also a good thing, one that could help refocus AR's play execution.

Again, this is one game and the true test will be how the offense responds in the coming weeks, but on a rainy day in GB against a pretty good defense, I think MM called a pretty good game and look forward to having him back in full control.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...-hold-of-the-reins-b99631649z1-361751821.html

found that article to be so much better then the headline grabbing dribble that Rob Demovsky wrote about the change.

http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-p...ing-couldnt-fix-all-that-ails-packers-offense

I never really liked the QB as a field general approach, always felt that it put too much pressure on the quarterback.

 

[Un4GivN]

But I think you oughtta look at the question as to why that is. And to me, this is not a matter of love MM, bash Tom Clements. It's just about the setup as a whole. Obviously MM figured that by taking a back seat, focusing more of his time and energy on the other sides of the ball that he'd have capable enough hands running it and left it up to those guys. But it did not work.

Now MM and Aaron Rodgers love those coaches, and attempted patience with them. But the reality is that you can't depend on hail mary fortune plays to win all your games. MM realized this, so he grabbed the monster by the horns and reeled it in getting it under control.

The fact is Rodgers and the players have a comfort zone with MM calling plays. So why is our execution better? Why were our receivers getting open today and not before? Did we upgrade our receivers? No. Did we upgrade our OL? No. MM just went and got rid of the goofy setup and told them he was going to run it the way it was supposed to be run.

All that to say, it worked, so keep MM on as playcaller and do it all the way to the Superbowl.

I think there is quite a few assumptions made in this statement. None of which I have heard to be true. Like MM grabbing the monster by the horns. Did he address this? If so I hadn't heard it. Also with your statement about comfort. Have Rodgers said this? Because from what I have heard he always talked very highly of Clements and downplayed playcalling as a factor. Even after this game.

I feel like it was a decent start. Let's remember Dallas averages giving up 23.5 and we scored 28... It's not really a remarkable feat by any stretch of the imagination.

This offense didn't score from 2:40 in the 2nd till 4:44 in the fourth. That is nearly a full half of football without a score. 5 consecutive drives with a punt. 60 yards total in those 5 drives. You do that against a good team and you will likely find yourself down by 21. Remember Dallas is 4-9 for a reason. And 0-9 without Romo. This is not a good team at all.

Also because of how utterly unwatchable their offense is sometimes, the defense is out on the field far too long.

So while it was nice to get a nice victory, I don't think all of sudden the team is fixed. They executed slightly better, ran the ball amazing. and got a victory. I think this play-calling thing gets blown up way too much for both Clements and McCarthy.

 

[azrsx05]

I believe that scheme is about execution, but what Clements failed at doing was really calling the right plays at the right time. The difference in this game was that it was mixed very well and they never really got away from the run. Also, it seemed to have more of a rhythm to the flow of the offense than it did with Clements calling the shots. The biggest thing I noticed was the time they plays were being called. One thing we had all noticed in the past was they were rushing to get the play off or Rodgers had to call an unecessary time out. This week it's like they knew exactly what play was next

 

[Sunshinepacker]

All I want to know is what steps were put in place to prevent another issue like the Seahawks game. McCarthy gave up play calling because he said someone needed to be able to focus on the entire game. By taking play calling back, have the Packers given up on that? Is the team ok with the offense no longer knowing when two of the best defenders in the NFL are injured for a half a game?

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I think there is quite a few assumptions made in this statement. None of which I have heard to be true. Like MM grabbing the monster by the horns. Did he address this? If so I hadn't heard it. Also with your statement about comfort. Have Rodgers said this? Because from what I have heard he always talked very highly of Clements and downplayed playcalling as a factor. Even after this game.

I feel like it was a decent start. Let's remember Dallas averages giving up 23.5 and we scored 28... It's not really a remarkable feat by any stretch of the imagination.

This offense didn't score from 2:40 in the 2nd till 4:44 in the fourth. That is nearly a full half of football without a score. 5 consecutive drives with a punt. 60 yards total in those 5 drives. You do that against a good team and you will likely find yourself down by 21. Remember Dallas is 4-9 for a reason. And 0-9 without Romo. This is not a good team at all.

Also because of how utterly unwatchable their offense is sometimes, the defense is out on the field far too long.

So while it was nice to get a nice victory, I don't think all of sudden the team is fixed. They executed slightly better, ran the ball amazing. and got a victory. I think this play-calling thing gets blown up way too much for both Clements and McCarthy.

So is Detroit (also 4-9) any better? NO

Anyone who couldn't see a visible difference in the offense Sunday night from how they looked the last 2 Thursdays, needs their eyes checked.

I'm just so sick of this narrative that someone else calling MM's playbook = MM calling it. That is not true, just because someone drives the same car as somebody else doesn't mean they will have the same driving habits.

 

[Un4GivN]

So is Detroit (also 4-9) any better? NO

Anyone who couldn't see a visible difference in the offense Sunday night from how they looked the last 2 Thursdays, needs their eyes checked.

I'm just so sick of this narrative that someone else calling MM's playbook = MM calling it. That is not true, just because someone drives the same car as somebody else doesn't mean they will have the same driving habits.

Comparing 1 game is unfair.... That is like saying ohh we scored 38 at the chiefs or 30 on the Vikings so MM playcalling sucks. Which is untrue and short sighted.

Both of those teams are comparatively better than the Cowboys or Detriot. Detriot was also on the road where Rodgers isn't historically great if I remember right.

All I am saying is they didn't look unstoppable. Even great to be honest. They looked good. Better than last week for sure, yet not the best I have seen them play all year. Be patient, no reason to jump on and off wagons so fast.

 

[PackerDNA]

The passing game is still shaky, and there is no threat of a deep passing game.
This will be the team's fatal flaw in the playoffs.
Which is ironic since it's usually been their strength.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Assuming Ty Montgomery doesn't come back for the playoffs. Haven't put him on the IR yet so I'm thinking MM is feeling he'll be cleared to play come playoff time and I think getting him back for then can add another dynamic.

 

[El Guapo]

All I want to know is what steps were put in place to prevent another issue like the Seahawks game.

What I always wondered is why they didn't add this to Clement's gameday responsibilities. My assumption was that McCarthy wanted to help Clements continue his ascent in the coaching ranks and eventually get a real OC job, hence the playcalling duty switch. Hopefully the Packers will still have someone upstairs watching the game with tv broadcast going in the background. That way when the announcers claim over and over that Richard Sherman can't use his arm....we know it.

 

[TJV]

My assumption was that McCarthy wanted to help Clements continue his ascent in the coaching ranks and eventually get a real OC job, hence the playcalling duty switch.

Sometimes the obvious reason is the correct one so I think the reason McCarthy turned over the play calling duties to Clements was so he could be more on top of the D and STs (in addition to the O) during games. And to spend more time in D and STs meetings.

As I posted before, I think play calling is an art and some coaches are better at it than others. For example, two players can be identical athletically and mentally but if one has a knack – AKA football instincts – he’ll be consistently better than the other. Same with play calling. Clements is probably very close to McCarthy in evaluating opponent’s defenses and in selecting which alignments and plays are likely to work best against that D. But I think McCarthy has the better in-game feel for play calling. Was that the only reason the offense was better against Dallas? No, I don’t think so but the offense certainly seemed to more in sync than previously. One of the other reasons for success was probably Marinelli’s not using what’s been working against the Packers; press coverage. (It reminded me a little bit of the Texans’ DC sticking to his single high safety scheme against the Packers when the Packers lit ‘em up in Houston in 2012.) It’ll be interesting to see how McCarthy reacts when opponents go back to that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sometimes the obvious reason is the correct one so I think the reason McCarthy turned over the play calling duties to Clements was so he could be more on top of the D and STs (in addition to the O) during games. And to spend more time in D and STs meetings.

As I posted before, I think play calling is an art and some coaches are better at it than others.......... But I think McCarthy has the better in-game feel for play calling......... Was that the only reason the offense was better against Dallas?

I agree with you TJV. I understand some don't want to jump the gun just yet and say that MM taking the controls back has helped to fix the offense, but if the offense continues to get better and more in sync each game, it's going to be difficult to deny MM calling plays again didn't have a positive influence. We will just have to wait and see. As I posted previously, I really don't see a downside to this move, unless McCarthy spending too much time with the offense all of a sudden changes the Special Teams or Defense.

 

[Packerlifer]

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...17/tom-clements-role-what-last-year/77513844/

 

[Sunshinepacker]

McCarthy is a very good playcaller but I'm not willing to say everything is great after one game just because the team ran the ball well...Eddie Lacy had back-to-back 100+ yard rushing games in weeks 10 and 11, that didn't mean the offense was fixed.

 

[Un4GivN]

Sometimes the obvious reason is the correct one so I think the reason McCarthy turned over the play calling duties to Clements was so he could be more on top of the D and STs (in addition to the O) during games. And to spend more time in D and STs meetings.

As I posted before, I think play calling is an art and some coaches are better at it than others. For example, two players can be identical athletically and mentally but if one has a knack – AKA football instincts – he’ll be consistently better than the other. Same with play calling. Clements is probably very close to McCarthy in evaluating opponent’s defenses and in selecting which alignments and plays are likely to work best against that D. But I think McCarthy has the better in-game feel for play calling. Was that the only reason the offense was better against Dallas? No, I don’t think so but the offense certainly seemed to more in sync than previously. One of the other reasons for success was probably Marinelli’s not using what’s been working against the Packers; press coverage. (It reminded me a little bit of the Texans’ DC sticking to his single high safety scheme against the Packers when the Packers lit ‘em up in Houston in 2012.) It’ll be interesting to see how McCarthy reacts when opponents go back to that.

Honestly I don't understand the logic of "MM playcalling is magical". The passing game didn't do anything special last week, it wasn't their best showing of the year. Granted it was better than their worst showing of the year. But they didn't score for nearly a full half of football, in fact they were in a 14-7 game against a team that is like 1-9 without their starting quarterback at home. Lets not get too crazy about 1 game against a horrible team in which we still didn't good through about 54 minutes.

Fact is we beat one of the worst teams in the NFL, tied for the worst record in the NFC. And they are even worse than that without Romo.

While I am hopeful that this week is the week we get things actually going. No one outside of Packer nation would equate that win with the type of dominance that Seattle has had lately. The play-calling is being blown completely out of proportion.

You give me a game where the offense look unstoppable, just for even a half, where they don't have to punt. Or don't have more 3 and outs than scoring drives... Ill happily give credit the amazing mastermind of awesomeness that is MM playcalling.

 

[TJV]

Honestly I don't understand the logic of "MM playcalling is magical". The passing game didn't do anything special last week, it wasn't their best showing of the year.

Perhaps you don’t understand because I never wrote McCarthy’s play calling was “magical”: What word did I type you misunderstood for “magical”?

No one outside of Packer nation would equate that win with the type of dominance that Seattle has had lately.

This is what’s known as a straw man. If you disagree could you point to a post in which anyone posted the Packers last win was a dominant performance by the offense? I could re-type what I already wrote, but I assume you can read so if you want to address what I actually wrote, go ahead.

Ill happily give credit the amazing mastermind of awesomeness that is MM playcalling.

This is another example of what I see as your passive/aggressive posting style. You write ‘we all have opinions, can’t we just get along?’ and then you write this kind of inflammatory and exaggerated BS. I didn’t read a single post in which someone wrote the play calling was solely responsible for the win, let alone anything close to the BS I just quoted. When I see that kind of posting I ask myself why would a Packers fan show such disdain for McCarthy? And I’ve already posted what I see as the answer.

 

[Un4GivN]

Perhaps you don’t understand because I never wrote McCarthy’s play calling was “magical”: What word did I type you misunderstood for “magical”?

This is what’s known as a straw man. If you disagree could you point to a post in which anyone posted the Packers last win was a dominant performance by the offense? I could re-type what I already wrote, but I assume you can read so if you want to address what I actually wrote, go ahead.

You are absolutely right... This is my mistake. I took your comments about the improvements of the offense last week and MM role in it to another level. My bad for sure.

This is another example of what I see as your passive/aggressive posting style. You write ‘we all have opinions, can’t we just get along?’ and then you write this kind of inflammatory and exaggerated BS. I didn’t read a single post in which someone wrote the play calling was solely responsible for the win, let alone anything close to the BS I just quoted. When I see that kind of posting I ask myself why would a Packers fan show such disdain for McCarthy? And I’ve already posted what I see as the answer.

This one I do disagree with though, I have no disdain for MM as a coach. As I have posted in these forums. (put an example below). He's above average, not great, but not bad either in my opinion.

Not saying I disagree... Great is quite the jump in my mind, and should be reserved for a special group. But Ill go as far as above average.

 

[Greenbaykid]

Someone make Mike McCarthy's month and buy a Christmas present for him: Green & Gold Memories - Growing up in Vince Lombardi's Green Bay. It's a new book on Amazon. He'd like it. You might too.

 

[Greenbaykid]

Perhaps you don’t understand because I never wrote McCarthy’s play calling was “magical”: What word did I type you misunderstood for “magical”? This is what’s known as a straw man. If you disagree could you point to a post in which anyone posted the Packers last win was a dominant performance by the offense? I could re-type what I already wrote, but I assume you can read so if you want to address what I actually wrote, go ahead. This is another example of what I see as your passive/aggressive posting style. You write ‘we all have opinions, can’t we just get along?’ and then you write this kind of inflammatory and exaggerated BS. I didn’t read a single post in which someone wrote the play calling was solely responsible for the win, let alone anything close to the BS I just quoted. When I see that kind of posting I ask myself why would a Packers fan show such disdain for McCarthy? And I’ve already posted what I see as the answer.

Mr. Vainisi was important in building Lombardi's Packers. .

 

[Greenbaykid]

This is a really good and accurate article.

We need Aaron to trust the O-Line again, so he's not automatically running around like his head is chopped off. Maybe more importantly, we need them to get our running game back as well. We're missing Lacy BADLY. If the O-Line REALLY gets it together, I think we will start seeing improvements.

Rodgers holds the ball way too long some of the time; he'd rather take a sack that risk an Int.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Rodgers holds the ball way too long some of the time; he'd rather take a sack that risk an Int.

A common criticism of Rodgers and one I don't particularly agree with. Favre was blasted by many for playing this way, "just throwing it up for grabs". I will take a sack over an interception any time. It's easy sitting at home seeing the whole field as well as replays and wonder why Rodgers didn't hit this guy or that guy, but I'll take #12 and his ball management any game.

 

[Un4GivN]

Mr. Vainisi was important in building Lombardi's Packers. You can read about him in "Green & Gold Memories - Growing up in Vince Lombardi's Green Bay." It's on Amazon.com and available at Bosse's Bookstore and The Reader's Loft in Green Bay.

Roger Dier is that you?

 

[Un4GivN]

A common criticism of Rodgers and one I don't particularly agree with. Favre was blasted by many for playing this way, "just throwing it up for grabs". I will take a sack over an interception any time. It's easy sitting at home seeing the whole field as well as replays and wonder why Rodgers didn't hit this guy or that guy, but I'll take #12 and his ball management any game.

He does how ever ignore the dump off safety outlet quite often. But to your point. Every person, not just NFL player has flaws. And PB is right, I'll take AR flaws over most quarterbacks in the NFL.