OFFICIAL Mike McCarthy Took Back Play callin

[longtimefan]

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.

Again with posting that book??

Knick it off..you were told once

This is last time

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

It's true that I take a sack over an interception as well but would prefer Rodgers throwing the ball away.

 

[TJV]

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.

Thanks very much. I actually have no idea who Jack Vainisi was, I just typed a random number of letters and spaces and that's what came up in my signature. Thanks too for responding directly to the points I made in the post you quoted. That was very helpful. And it doesn't seem at all like you are shilling for a book. Your behavior on this board really makes me want to buy your book.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

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.

I don't believe he intended to put the put-down full on Mike McCarthy, I think it's just one of those things where ... well it is kinda crazy to think how one man switching the play calling can have as big an impact as this.

But to add to that, if he didn't honestly feel that taking back play calling could help his team at all, MM would not have done it. The reason he downplayed doing so is because he wants his team to be focused, and he's patient. I truly believe he felt his assistant coaches would pull through and fix everything, but it didn't happen, and at this juncture of the season when his team's in a race for the playoffs and the division, he knows the margin for error is becoming smaller and smaller and that having a more steady hand at the wheel is important.

Also Clements has been a good QB coach, and does a good job working up in the booth, a position that's highly underrated. We probably wouldn't have the success we do without that. I just think calling the plays in and doing the big driving work that MM has been so good at for years is something we had to keep.


There is no either or situation here, it's not "Packers' offense is solely reliant on MM calling plays for it's success", nor is it "Packers' offensive success and execution has nothing to do with MM calling the plays".

But look, sometimes you try something new like what we did this year and it just doesn't work. And sometimes the way you fix that, is you just gotta go back to doing what you did before that you had success with. I'm glad they did, and I'm hopeful we'll be building off of it.

 

[longtimefan]

Still looking for logical reasoning why play calling was perfect when it was 14-7 with 8 mins to go

Imo

The team did exactly as other games at the end...they decided to focus and execute.

Im going to post scoring in 4th q of the horribe games to clarify myself

 

[longtimefan]

Carolina game
scored 22 out of 29 in 2nd half (15 in 4th q) scored more in 4th q compared to Dallas game and this was vs a much better def, and at their house

1st Detroit game
scored 15 out of 18 in 2nd half ( 9 in 4th q)

2nd Detroit
scored all 27 (13 of them in 4th q ) in 2nd half

Dallas game
14 out of 28 in 4th q

The team has shown for what ever reason they can score like crazy in 2nd half, or more so the 4th q.

So even with MM doing play calling, they did basically the same---scored in 4th q...

 

[longtimefan]

Still looking for logical reasoning why play calling was perfect when it was 14-7 with 8 mins to go

Imo

The team did exactly as other games at the end...they decided to focus and execute.

Im going to post scoring in 4th q of the horribe games to clarify myself

Still no replies

I guess everyone agrees?

 

[Mondio]

Still no replies

I guess everyone agrees?

I will preface this with, I was never a "it's the play calls" guy during their struggles. But I think last game the lower score was more a by product of committing to the run than anything. They certainly weren't perfect, but they were executing better and that was the difference.

 

[longtimefan]

I will preface this with, I was never a "it's the play calls" guy during their struggles. But I think last game the lower score was more a by product of committing to the run than anything. They certainly weren't perfect, but they were executing better and that was the difference.

14 to 7

8 mins to go

 

[milani]

I think he should give it back. Some of the worst 4th quarter decisions by an offense I've ever seen. If it were not for his track record he could have been fired.
4th quarter - 1st and goal at the 2 and they send Lacy to the right as a wideout? Then try a quick pass into a crowd? Run the ball, MM . Use clock! Then kick the FG if you don't get in. Could have been picked.
4th quarter - Raider 14 yd. line. Rodgers rolls right and lofts an easy INT? Run the ball 3 times, MM! Then kick the FG. Use clock and timeouts.
4th quarter - 4th down just a little more than a minute to go. 50 yard FG in a monsoon on the worst turf in the NFL? Kick blocked. Lucky it was not run back for a TD. Punt the ball, MM! Pin em' deep. Game over.
Don't make life any harder for your D especially when they made some plays with out Magic Sam today.
Do that next week and you'll get your clock cleaned.

 

[greenandgold]

I'm leery. My entire time he was calling plays I would have been running half the time he called passes, and passing half the time he calls a run. He just can't seem to figure out how to attack a third and one yard to go. It's almost predictable if we have an incomplete pass on first down, we run it for second down, and usually not for far which leaves us in third and long. I am actually more comfortable with a third and 4-5 than a third and 1. He goes for it when I would kick it, and kicks it when I would go for it. But....he has a Superbowl ring, I do not. He took back over the play calling, and he is 2-0.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think he should give it back. Some of the worst 4th quarter decisions by an offense I've ever seen.

Curious if you are questioning the play calling or the execution by the players?

Easy to question a 50 yard FG attempt after it was blocked, but given Masons history, was it that far fetched that he makes it and puts us up by 13? So you punt it and that is blocked, bad decision?

Was the interception in the endzone a bad play call or a bad decision on AR's part to throw it, or a result of Janis not putting himself in a position to compete for the ball?

Passing the ball from the 2 yard line, instead of using your non-existent running game?

Easy to be critical of failed plays, but a failed play isn't necessarily the fault of the play caller, more then it is the 11 guys on the field trying to execute the play.

 

[Un4GivN]

Curious if you are questioning the play calling or the execution by the players?

Easy to question a 50 yard FG attempt after it was blocked, but given Masons history, was it that far fetched that he makes it and puts us up by 13? So you punt it and that is blocked, bad decision?

Was the interception in the endzone a bad play call or a bad decision on AR's part to throw it, or a result of Janis not putting himself in a position to compete for the ball?

Passing the ball from the 2 yard line, instead of using your non-existent running game?

Easy to be critical of failed plays, but a failed play isn't necessarily the fault of the play caller, more then it is the 11 guys on the field trying to execute the play.

It's been this way since the beginning of the season... Its players... Not plays that decides games. Especially on a team where the quarterback has freedom to change out of a bad one. If its that bad he will audible out. If he's running it it means it has a decent chance to succeed.

Players NOT plays.

 

[Half Empty]

An obvious Vic fan?

 

[Un4GivN]

An obvious Vic fan?

Nope, just a football fan... Anyone with knowledge of the game will tell you almost 0% of games are won and lost because of playcalling. It's the execution that wins or losses the game. I learned that from my high school days back in 1998. So unless Vic made it popular then, I think he is copying us.

We had one game against Lena where we ran the play " 32 dive" (Halfback lead dive) for 4 quarters. Every play... won 56 -7 over 500 yards rushing.

Our team was better, faster, stronger... Didn't matter what the play was. We were a better team. The NFL is a different beast given the teams are much more even. So there is something to be said about playcalling "helping" a team that isn't as talented. BUT it does not decide the games.

But those high school days made me realize if you are more talented. You will will win, no matter the play call.

 

[PFanCan]

Curious if you are questioning the play calling or the execution by the players?

Easy to question a 50 yard FG attempt after it was blocked, but given Masons history, was it that far fetched that he makes it and puts us up by 13? So you punt it and that is blocked, bad decision?

Was the interception in the endzone a bad play call or a bad decision on AR's part to throw it, or a result of Janis not putting himself in a position to compete for the ball?

Passing the ball from the 2 yard line, instead of using your non-existent running game?

Easy to be critical of failed plays, but a failed play isn't necessarily the fault of the play caller, more then it is the 11 guys on the field trying to execute the play.

I was not pleased with the exact play calls as they occurred, as described by Milani above. So, I was critical at the time, not as a 20/20 hindsight coach.

Run, Run, Run, then attempt FGs if you don't get in with those first two series mentioned. No brainer. Passing into a crowded field just doesn't make sense given the circumstances. Just ask Russell Wilson about this.

The last series with the blocked FG, I was shaking my head on that call, too. A block is a block-- could happen on either a punt or a FG attempt, though I am guessing that a punt is safer (no stats to back that up, though). However, punting and putting your opponent as far away from the end zone in a two score game with limited time remaining would be the conventional thinking, IMO. Miss that lower odds FG (more likely than a block), and the opposing team is already at mid field. Not a good situation. Luckily, it all worked out and, as Mike McCarthy would say, be happy with the 10 wins.

Maybe I can learn more about why these plays were selected by reading the book, "Green & Gold Memories - Growing up in Vince Lombardi's Green Bay", which I understand is available on Amazon.

 

[Half Empty]

Interesting. My original comment was mostly because yours was an exact quote from Vic's column, or was from the days I read it.

I kinda understand your position, especially having watched the Pack since pre-Lombardi days. Running the Packer Sweep with the players we had then was a pretty reliable way to win. However, I personally think that a more talented team can be beat if the wrong plays are called. We've seen the Vikes beaten when not using their main weapon, Peterson. If the '60s Packers had chosen to go deep to Dale and Dowler all the time, how would that have worked out? If one has the better overall talent AND chooses to use it properly, I'll take the bet.

Obviously, another subjective and un-provable argument/discussion, but there is another side. Somewhat like the continuing controversy of TT vs MM - does one not procure the best talent, or does the other misuse it?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Maybe I can learn more about why these plays were selected by reading the book, "Green & Gold Memories - Growing up in Vince Lombardi's Green Bay", which I understand is available on Amazon.

You had me until right there........ LOL

Is the offense fixed by MM calling plays? Not even close. But IMO, its starting to show signs of life (solid run game against Dallas, Rodgers to Jones and Cobb yesterday). What the offense lacks right now is confidence and consistency, something they need to get back and soon. I am just not hanging my hat on poor play calling yesterday as the reason they didn't score more on offense.

 

[Un4GivN]

Interesting. My original comment was mostly because yours was an exact quote from Vic's column, or was from the days I read it.

I kinda understand your position, especially having watched the Pack since pre-Lombardi days. Running the Packer Sweep with the players we had then was a pretty reliable way to win. However, I personally think that a more talented team can be beat if the wrong plays are called. We've seen the Vikes beaten when not using their main weapon, Peterson. If the '60s Packers had chosen to go deep to Dale and Dowler all the time, how would that have worked out? If one has the better overall talent AND chooses to use it properly, I'll take the bet.

Obviously, another subjective and un-provable argument/discussion, but there is another side. Somewhat like the continuing controversy of TT vs MM - does one not procure the best talent, or does the other misuse it?

Very good points... I think using your talent to the best of its ability is important. And scheme definitely helps contribute to the outcome of the game. But to me that is all pre-planning with everyone's input from Rodgers, to MM, to Clements. BUT playcalling itself is a different aspect of the game which I believe sometimes is over-rated. Especially given the fact that if it is that bad of a play, Rodgers can check out of it.

 

[TJV]

IMO anyone with knowledge of the game will tell you play calling obviously has something to do with the outcome of the game. Execution is more important but that doesn't mean play calling has 0 effect on the outcome of a game. BTW, since McCarthy has taken over play calling, it has been reported that Rodgers has more restrictions on him regarding using audibles.

 

[Un4GivN]

IMO anyone with knowledge of the game will tell you play calling obviously has something to do with the outcome of the game. Execution is more important but that doesn't mean play calling has 0 effect on the outcome of a game. BTW, since McCarthy has taken over play calling, it has been reported that Rodgers has more restrictions on him regarding using audibles.

I heard this as well regarding the audibles...

Something yes... But IMO doesn't decide the outcome of the game. I think a truly better team will win regardless of who is calling the plays. Everyone calling plays in NFL has a certain amount of skill and that the difference between the best and the worst is not the same between the best and worst team in talent.

Switch Josh McDaniels (Patriots) with John DeFilippo (Browns). And I don't think the Patriots and Browns switch records. Maybe a game difference at most.

 

[PFanCan]

You had me until right there........ LOL.

. I probably also got LT to, at least, groan...

Is the offense fixed by MM calling plays? Not even close. ... I am just not hanging my hat on poor play calling yesterday as the reason they didn't score more on offense.

Nor I. But, had the game been lost, I am sure the so-called experts would be heavily criticizing MM's various decisions during the 4th quarter.

 

[El Guapo]

Dealing in absolutes is dangerous un4given, unless you're talking death and taxes.

Of course playcalling can win and lose games. It's ridiculous to say otherwise. You said it yourself. Have a monkey call your same halfback dive play for an entire Packers game and tell me that playcalling doesn't have an effect. You can't execute it perfect enough when the other team knows it's coming. Heck, even Lombardi didn't call his famous sweep on every play. If it was purely the players and not the play calls, he would have run to daylight. Even he knew that you need to mix it up.

Not running out the clock was plain stupid by McCarthy. Run the ball three times in a row because it's all about the clock, not about yards. What did we do? Threw an incomplete pass on third down. THAT was play calling affecting the game. A run virtually eliminates the chance for stopping the clock, aside from fumbles or penalties which could happen in either scenario. Throwing a pass introduced an additional unnecessary risk of stopping the clock and giving time to the Raiders for a comeback.

McCarthy is a great play caller, and like any play caller, he has his foibles. I'm still happier with Mike calling the plays than just about anybody else but he's still open for criticism. Same as TT, I love his style but can question his moves every so often.

 

[milani]

Curious if you are questioning the play calling or the execution by the players?

Easy to question a 50 yard FG attempt after it was blocked, but given Masons history, was it that far fetched that he makes it and puts us up by 13? So you punt it and that is blocked, bad decision?

Was the interception in the endzone a bad play call or a bad decision on AR's part to throw it, or a result of Janis not putting himself in a position to compete for the ball?

Passing the ball from the 2 yard line, instead of using your non-existent running game?

Easy to be critical of failed plays, but a failed play isn't necessarily the fault of the play caller, more then it is the 11 guys on the field trying to execute the play.

A coach has to put his team in a position to win even before they do win. That is the Jimmy V philosophy. He also needs to sometimes think a little like Woody Hayes.
When you pass the ball 3 things can happen and 2 of them are bad.
Michigan botched its punt at the end vs. Michigan State. The Browns had their FG blocked at the end of the Ravens game. Both teams turned sure victory into defeat. However, when you look at distance, weather, and turf in this case, a punt has the greater chance of success. 10 points vs. 13 points is still a 2 score game.

Even with a Brady, Manning, or Brees in that situation most coaches do not throw even if the receiver is Jerry Rice. It's just not sound football. It's trying to be cute.

 

[Packerlifer]

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...25/wanted-full-time-receivers-coach/77838066/