Extend Mike McCarthy?

[Leader]

7 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

This is why the call to go for it was a no-brainer. This isnt Madden where you just go off variable-less numbers or "analytics." Seattle having the No. 1 rush offense matters. Packers not having Daniels or Clark matters. Packers having 1 timeout matters. Seattle having a mobile QB matters. Needing only 2 yards matters. Being down 3 (so giving up 3 still keeps us alive) matters. The "circumstances" of that particular situation should have led to the conclusion that the "only" decision was to go for it. Way beyond a gut feeling. Pure logic based on the present variables at the time.  

Actually, your comment serves as proof that if we'd gone for it - and failed - there was little chance we'd get the stop necessary to prevent it from becoming a 10pt lead.

You cant have it both ways.....

That we'd have stopped them inside our own 33yd line - and kept the game to a 6 pt lead - but that there was never a shot at stopping them on their own 25 - when we were only down 3

It cant be both.

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

Actually, your comment serves as proof that if we'd gone for it - and failed - there was little chance we'd get the stop necessary to prevent it from becoming a 10pt lead.

You cant have it both ways.....

That we'd have stopped them inside our own 33yd line - and kept the game to a 6 pt lead - but that there was never a shot at stopping them on their own 25 - when we were only down 3

It cant be both.

Again you're not accounting for the fact that it if you make a 4th down, you keep the ball. A punt is a guarantee of losing the ball.

Scoring a TD is totally irrelevant. You can't give up 10 yards, if you do it doesn't matter where on the field it is, game over.

Our best bet was undoubtedly trying to keep the ball. That's what the % chance of winning said too.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

12 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

This is why the call to go for it was a no-brainer. This isnt Madden where you just go off variable-less numbers or "analytics." Seattle having the No. 1 rush offense matters. Packers not having Daniels or Clark matters. Packers having 1 timeout matters. Seattle having a mobile QB matters. Needing only 2 yards matters. Being down 3 (so giving up 3 still keeps us alive) matters. The "circumstances" of that particular situation should have led to the conclusion that the "only" decision was to go for it. Way beyond a gut feeling. Pure logic based on the present variables at the time.  

I think this is exactly the point.

I think the mistake was following the analytics and not identifying that this situation was an exception based on the injury situation of the defense.

 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Again you're not accounting for the fact that it if you make a 4th down, you keep the ball. A punt is a guarantee of losing the ball.

Scoring a TD is totally irrelevant. You can't give up 10 yards, if you do it doesn't matter where on the field it is, game over.

Our best bet was undoubtedly trying to keep the ball. That's what the % chance of winning said too.

No - actually I've been considering it the "go for it" option all along and saying we werent playing well on offense so the likelihood of converting wasnt certain - not on NFL averages but how the GBP and SEA were playing that night.

Our offense has been struggling (overall) and after the 1st qtr of that game - did nothing but struggle to convert simple down/distance plays - while completing bombs.

 

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, Leader said:

No - actually I've been considering it the "go for it" option all along and saying we werent playing well on offense so the likelihood of converting wasnt certain - not on NFL averages but how the GBP and SEA were playing that night.

Our offense has been struggling (overall) and after the 1st qtr of that game - did nothing but struggle to convert simple down/distance plays - while completing bombs.

 

You can't take into account the offense was struggling and justify ignoring league averages based on this specific situation and then not take into account they ran all night on us, with Daniels and Clark and we lost one and had a gimpy Clark. Also Perry is our best run defending EDGE.

Even situationally all signs point to go for it.

[squire12]

15 minutes ago, Leader said:

No - actually I've been considering it the "go for it" option all along and saying we werent playing well on offense so the likelihood of converting wasnt certain - not on NFL averages but how the GBP and SEA were playing that night.

Our offense has been struggling (overall) and after the 1st qtr of that game - did nothing but struggle to convert simple down/distance plays - while completing bombs.

 

The GB defense was also struggling, that needs to be considered as well.

Punting neglected that aspect

[Golfman]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Saints fans said the same thing about Payton.  I have frequently said that it could be the right decision to fire McCarthy.  I don't think it is, but I have allowed that it is possible.  Are you saying that you know beyond a shadow of doubt - BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT - that McCarthy will never win another Super Bowl? 

Surely there must be somebody willing to bet you on that, right?  If you are beyond a shadow of doubt convinced you are right, well, I'd put some money on that if I were you. 

 

 

When the relationship between the head coach and HOF QB is broken, you get rid of the coach. You trade away a HOF QB and you wind up with 60 years of bad luck and counting. See the Detroit Lions. 

Not a McCarthy fan. Never have been a McCarthy fan. His teams never finish. He might be the worst game manager of all time. He is completely clueless in critical situations. Has no go for the throat instincts. His teams have largely been soft. I could go on, but there is no need. 

We'll never see eye to eye on this. 

[AlexGreen#20]

17 minutes ago, Golfman said:

When the relationship between the head coach and HOF QB is broken, you get rid of the coach. You trade away a HOF QB and you wind up with 60 years of bad luck and counting. See the Detroit Lions. 

Not a McCarthy fan. Never have been a McCarthy fan. His teams never finish. He might be the worst game manager of all time. He is completely clueless in critical situations. Has no go for the throat instincts. His teams have largely been soft. I could go on, but there is no need. 

We'll never see eye to eye on this. 

If the relationship between Belichick and 42 year old Tom Brady is broken, you're choosing Brady? Interesting call.

Doesn't the fact that he's won 10 playoff games price that his teams do finish at least occasionally?

Let's be real, the average NFL coach is horrific at game management. Bill Barnwell used to have a column where he would go through and pick out every time management mistake. It was long every week. McCarthy usually graded pretty well there, though it was a while ago he stopped running those pieces.

How do you define a team as soft?

[Golfman]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If the relationship between Belichick and 42 year old Tom Brady is broken, you're choosing Brady? Interesting call.

Doesn't the fact that he's won 10 playoff games price that his teams do finish at least occasionally?

Let's be real, the average NFL coach is horrific at game management. Bill Barnwell used to have a column where he would go through and pick out every time management mistake. It was long every week. McCarthy usually graded pretty well there, though it was a while ago he stopped running those pieces.

How do you define a team as soft?

Pretty typical response from you. First of all, is the relationship with Hoody and Brady broken? I've not seen or heard it. If it is, it is Hoody's doing knowing Brady is at the END. You see any difference there? 

Your justification for McCarthy's ****ty game management is, well so is most everybody else. That is the excuse of a loser. 

Soft: Can't put teams away when they have them down. Can't grind out a first down running when the other team knows you are running. A defense that would seldom stop the other team when that situation was reversed. Keeps a defensive coordinator whose defense was awful, just awful for almost a decade. 

That's for starters!

 

[Dubz41]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

I think everybody can agree when gut instinct and heart and feel of the game was considered, going for it was the right decision.

I also wish more people could agree that the analytics could have dictated they punt and that McCarthy isn't some liar. 

MM punted because he hardly ever 'plays to win'.  He plays 'not to lose'.

Analytics are for cowards with no instincts.  The previously mentioned analytics didn't factor in the loss of Daniels and the hobbling of Clark.

Herm Edwards would have gone for it because 'you play to win the game!'

 

[packfanfb]

2 hours ago, Leader said:

Actually, your comment serves as proof that if we'd gone for it - and failed - there was little chance we'd get the stop necessary to prevent it from becoming a 10pt lead.

You cant have it both ways.....

That we'd have stopped them inside our own 33yd line - and kept the game to a 6 pt lead - but that there was never a shot at stopping them on their own 25 - when we were only down 3

It cant be both.

Easier to defend with the goalline at your back than to get a 3 and out and prevent a single rushing first down. 

[skibrett15]

5 hours ago, Leader said:

ooks 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.

No you just don't understand at all.

[Leader]

Just now, skibrett15 said:

No you just don't understand at all.

LOL
Got it.

[skibrett15]

3 hours ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Packers 4th down conversion rate in 2018:  0.364

This is the wrong stat and the crux of what people are missing.

You need to look at what you expect the packers conversion would be in the long term on 4th and 2

4th and 2 is all that matters.  Our conversion rate is 50ish percent.

 

You're also not considering that you can use 4 downs on the offensive drive assuming you succeed.  This increases your odds of having a successful drive by approx 33% with just 4 downs is more than 3 downs type thinking.

 

There's no analytical model worth anything that says punt it there.

[AlexGreen#20]

32 minutes ago, Golfman said:

Pretty typical response form you. First of all, is the relationship with Hoody and Brady broken? I've not seen or heard it. If it is, it is Hoody's doing knowing Brady is at the END. You see any difference there? 

Your justification for McCarthy's ****ty game management is, well so is most everybody else. That is the excuse of a loser. 

Soft: Can't put teams away when they have them down. Can't grind out a first down running when the other team knows you are running. A defense that would seldom stop the other team when that situation was reversed. Keeps a defensive coordinator whose defense was awful, just awful for almost a decade. 

That's for starters!

 

The relationship between Belichick and Brady seemed pretty damn stressed over the last 12 months with Breast refusing to use the team's medical and training staff and telling other players to use his team of specialists. There was far more smoke there than there ever was around Rodgers/McCarthy. Disputing that point just seems disingenuous. How about Manning/Kubiak in Denver then?

I think we all wish there was an arbitrarily perfect late game manager. I just don't live in the fantasy world where we are choosing between McCarthy and perfection. At the moment we're choosing between men who all have flaws. Acting like McCarthy is broken and others are perfect is asinine. You have to compare what you have work what is available.

Soft in your mind just means hasn't won a Superbowl recently then? This team has been good to great at 4 minute offenses. They've even been pretty good at getting the offense the ball back. Missing your best guys against Seattle is what caused that debacle.