Extend Mike McCarthy?

[Leader]

3 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I think that is the point in reverse.

If you think you can stop them after the punt, then you should be thinking you can stop them if you fail on 4th down.

I wonder if that throw on 3 rd down sent a shudder through McCarthy.  The way Rodgers misses that throw, you have to be wondering what the hell just happened.  

Still, the odds favor going for it on 4th.

I will say this- if he went on 4th and missed, there would be a vocal group saying it was stupid.  That is just life in the NFL.

Understood - but in truth, I'm NOT applying hindsight vision and creating a future that conforms to my thinking.

We DIDNT go for it on 4 & 2 - for what specific reason nobody but MM, AR and some GBP people know. I've been contending it was because the offense was sputtering badly - and providing actual game data to support the contention.

All I'm saying - and its consistent - if we felt we could get that stop inside our own 33 - AND NOT jeopardize them scoring the end it all TD - then we should think we're capable of getting that very same stop when SEA is much further from our EZ and we're still only needing a FG to tie - or a TD to win it outright. 

And - I agree with your last comment completely.

[MacReady]

Just now, Mr Anonymous said:

How do you excuse... How do you excuse...

Aaron Jones struggling in pass protection early on the year and his fumble against the Patriots are how I excuse it.  I don't like it anymore than you do, but if I'm a head coach and I've had Rodgers miss a full season's worth of games in 2013/2017 combined, I'm putting in a RB that's better at pass protection than not. 

[Leader]

9 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You have to add in the fact (and it is a fact) that you have a 57% chance of converting a 4th and 2. It's not about the defense at all, it's that you NEED a stop before a 1st down. So a 57% chance of keeping the ball with the failure resulting in a 1 score game vs a 1 score game is far greater than punting and automatically giving up your 57% chance to keep the ball.

There is statistically no way to support the theory that punting gave us a better chance.

Is that 57% derived from assessing our game only (?) or some NFL average stuff?
All that counts is the world that was GB @ SEA and how were those two teams performing. Thats it.
So which is it?

And btw add on - your comment that things would remain a "one score game" is an assumption - to support a theory.

[Mr Anonymous]

Just now, Outpost31 said:

Aaron Jones struggling in pass protection early on the year and his fumble against the Patriots are how I excuse it.  I don't like it anymore than you do, but if I'm a head coach and I've had Rodgers miss a full season's worth of games in 2013/2017 combined, I'm putting in a RB that's better at pass protection than not. 

We know that's the excuse McCarthy alluded to and the one you're grasping to. But Jones doesn't have to pass block on running plays. And there are ways to play design to cover individual weaknesses of players you put on the field. Besides, Jones pass protection deficiencies have been greatly exaggerated. Keep grasping.

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, Leader said:

Is that 57% derived from assessing our game only (?) or some NFL average stuff?
All that counts is the world that was GB @ SEA is how were those two teams performing.
So which is it?

That's irrelevant. It's the league average, that's how analytics work. Every team, the good and the bad make up that average. You have Aaron Rodgers as your QB, there is rumors of a rift and again you didn't trust him, took the ball from him, and lost. Then you lie and say the analytics support your call. It's a bad look.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

That's irrelevant. It's the league average, that's how analytics work. Every team, the good and the bad make up that average. You have Aaron Rodgers as your QB, there is rumors of a rift and again you didn't trust him, took the ball from him, and lost. Then you lie and say the analytics support your call. It's a bad look.

Looks dont matter to me at all and NFL averages dont apply in a one on one - one down - man against man - matchup.
As for the "you have AR as your QB theory......." - I agree. You'd like to think he could kick *** - but then again - that doesnt apply as I've been pointing out - he (or the offense - make and take your pick) were not performing well.

So the danger of "mis-performing" at that moment - at the field location - jeopardizes the ultimate goal more than punting it.

[Mr Anonymous]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

That's irrelevant. It's the league average, that's how analytics work. Every team, the good and the bad make up that average. You have Aaron Rodgers as your QB, there is rumors of a rift and again you didn't trust him, took the ball from him, and lost. Then you lie and say the analytics support your call. It's a bad look.

Right. If McCarthy is going to cite analytics to cover his *** then the data better support the decision. Whether someone agrees with the decision or not, the math says go for it. McCarthy is flat out lying when he says the analytics he had say to punt there. They don't. He's being disingenuous at best. The analytics likely say punt there with 3 timeouts. He had 1 at his disposal. 

[Gopher Trace]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

What specifically should have made McCarthy on the hot seat for the team's performance in Detroit?  I'd really love to know. 

 We went up against the worst run D in the league and Mac stuck to his asinine "establish the pass/starve the hot hand" philosophy as per usual. Jason Garrett and his anemic offense could figure that out the next week and rode Zeke to victory, but Mike "Offensive genius" McCarthy could not, even though we have been good at running the ball pretty much all year.

Then again, I was of the opinion that McCarthy should have been on a very short frickin leash at the start of this season, whereas most folks on the Fire Mac-bandwagon now have only jumped after this year's mediocrity, so they were not as inclined to see it as soon into the season as that game the way that I was. Everyone wanted Capers gone, but Mac actually did a worse job than the guy we fired last year. I was willing to give him a shot to prove me wrong, but up to this point, he has just confirmed that he should have been part of last year's purge.

Now to the predictable "But, but-but, BUT MASON CROSBY!!"

Yes, would have won the game if not for X or Y or Z or Q has become a recurring theme this season, which just serves to show that this game is letting games they should win become closer than they ought to be and then shoot themselves in the foot due to a lack of discipline and silly mental mistakes. That's just further indictment of the coach.

We commit to the run, we win that game, even with Crosby's kicks not hitting the broad side of a barn.

[Packerraymond]

5 minutes ago, Leader said:

Looks dont matter to me at all and NFL averages dont apply in a one on one - one down - man against man - matchup.
As for the "you have AR as your QB theory......." - I agree. You'd like to think he could kick *** - but then again - that doesnt apply as I've been pointing out - he (or the offense - make and take your pick) were not performing well.

So the danger of "mis-performing" at that moment - at the field location - jeopardizes the ultimate goal more than punting it.

You're taking an old time approach here. You can't ignore numbers. They are there and the successful teams use them (as do the Packers), Mac went with his gut over the numbers and made the wrong call.

[Mr Anonymous]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

You're taking an old time approach here. You can't ignore numbers. They are there and the successful teams use them (as do the Packers), Mac went with his gut over the numbers and made the wrong call.

And then lied about the analytics he had saying the numbers backed his decision.

[MacReady]

Lots of people gonna look silly when we win the Super Bowl against all odds this year.  I'm gonna love it.  I'm going to troll the hell out of all of you and you'll all be okay with it because we will have just won the Super Bowl and you'll be too busy being happy to be mad at me trolling the hell out of you for being wrong about McCarthy. 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

That's irrelevant. It's the league average, that's how analytics work. Every team, the good and the bad make up that average. You have Aaron Rodgers as your QB, there is rumors of a rift and again you didn't trust him, took the ball from him, and lost. Then you lie and say the analytics support your call. It's a bad look.

This year our 4th down conversion rate is 36.4% (4 of 11), the lowest since 2009.  With our horrible 3rd down conversion rate Thursday night, one has to think using the league average conversion rate is a bit optimistic.

I think the better move is to go for it, but with all that had gone on, I don't know that it makes a difference.

[Leader]

3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You're taking an old time approach here. You can't ignore numbers. They are there and the successful teams use them (as do the Packers), Mac went with his gut over the numbers and made the wrong call.

I'll quote Ragnar's comment to reply to yours:

This year our 4th down conversion rate is 36.4% (4 of 11), the lowest since 2009.  With our horrible 3rd down conversion rate Thursday night, one has to think using the league average conversion rate is a bit optimistic.

Doesnt seem to be anything "old time" about it. Seems right up too date in fact.
 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

4 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

And then lied about the analytics he had saying the numbers backed his decision.

You don't know he lied, you just know the numbers he is looking at are different than yours.

i am willing to bet the coaching staff looks at a lot more data than we ever will.

I think everybody gets your view point- you hate McCarthy, want him gone, and like to argue.  

[Mr Anonymous]

4 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

You don't know he lied, you just know the numbers he is looking at are different than yours.

i am willing to bet the coaching staff looks at a lot more data than we ever will.

I think everybody gets your view point- you hate McCarthy, want him gone, and like to argue.  

Math doesn't lie. He is either lying to cover his rear or he looked at the wrong analytics. I already cited an example where he could have looked at the math based on having more than 1 timeout. If the coach of the Packers is looking at the wrong numbers to justify his decision making there shouldn't be a person here who wants him to continue coaching this team. So take your horrible takes and stick them somewhere. i don't follow you around looking to find a way to disagree with everything you say. Oddly you're there after just about every one of my posts dating way way back.