Growing sense Packers move on from Mike McCarthy End of Season

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'll stick with my PPG.  I know you stick to DVOA, but points are what matters for me.

Points are included in DVOA.

No clue why anyone would knowingly go with an obviously inferior metric.

Oh wait, I do: intellectual dishonesty.

Too bad DVOA ranks didn't suit your narrative, then you could have selected that!

[CWood21]

Just now, incognito_man said:

Points are included in DVOA.

No clue why anyone would knowingly go with an obviously inferior metric.

Oh wait, I do: intellectual dishonesty.

Too bad DVOA ranks didn't suit your narrative, then you could have selected that!

Ah yes, I disagree with you and now I'm going to make things personal.  We're done here.

[Heinz D.]

I...umm...thought I had something reasonable to add to the convo here...but read the last couple of pages and started getting a headache, so I'll back down...

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Ah yes, I disagree with you and now I'm going to make things personal.  We're done here.

There's no rational reason to select a worse metric. 

Do you have an argument why normalizing data is worse than looking at raw data? Can you defend it?

Or is that something "personal"?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

PPG is a very flawed metric. Just like team record. You're just taking 16 end results at max, ignoring how their achieved, and ignoring the hundreds of snaps through a season. Also doesn't take into account opponent. 

We now have better metrics to judge a team's efficiency by. DVOA is one of them. 

[Jakuvious]

So, I like DVOA. It's an interesting stat for comparison arguments (which offense is better, NO or LAR, that kind of thing.) But, in the context of this argument, I'm really not sure it matters or contributes much. DVOA is the kind of thing Packers fans can point to in "Top 10 offense" threads this offseason, but that's not really something that looks good on McCarthy's part. Saying that hey, the offense is pretty successful and efficient, but they don't score that many points along with that, actually sounds like a terrible job by that coach. That's the last place you want to be underachieving on an offense.

[.Buzz]

Oh Cleveland, don't you do it...

[bosko1616]

2 hours ago, .Buzz said:

Oh Cleveland, don't you do it...

I god no. I rather have Arians. 

[Onizuka]

I'm hoping the Packers retain him for at least one more year. I've seen enough of him to know it would hinder our offense rather than help it. His future HOF QB has to constantly say they need to get Jones more involved instead of the committee they had going most season, as well as fans. We've already had a coach who refuses to just play the best players and game plan with their skill sets. 

[Xenos]

Interesting analysis on the Packer's offense. The problem isn't just McCarthy, it's Rodgers as well. He just loves his broken plays too much. It's something that I've noticed since 2016.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/11/26/green-bay-packers-offense-problems-mike-mccarthy-aaron-rodgers

Quote

The Myths of Rodgers, McCarthy and the Packers

Head coach Mike McCarthy has been criticized for running a stale offense, but that hasn’t been the case over the last two months as he’s incorporated concepts from, among other systems, Sean McVay’s Rams offense. It’s time for an examination of Aaron Rodgers’s role in Green Bay’s uneven performance.

 

Andy Benoit

7-9 minutes

---

The Packers turned in another up-and-down, ultimately disappointing performance at Minnesota Sunday night, which only intensifies Mike McCarthy’s already hot seat. The 13th-year head coach has become a receptacle for criticism, much of it adhering to the same theme: that his offensive system is stale.

The first problem is this analysis is a few years too late (more on that in a moment). The second—and much bigger—problem is it gives Aaron Rodgers a pass for the highly inconsistent way he executes this offense.

Please understand, you’re not reading an Aaron Rodgers Hot Take. At least, not according to discussions that occur within the NFL. Around the league, Rodgers is regarded as an incredible but imperfect quarterback. Outside the NFL, Rodgers is basically viewed as a god. It has somehow become heretical to say anything critical of him.

Rodgers is the most physically talented quarterback of all-time; 32 NFL GMs would be happy to build their team around him. When he’s clicking, he’s magnificent. But Rodgers does not click with the regularity of a Drew Brees, Tom Brady or even a resurgent Andrew Luck. There is no stat that captures throws that should be made but aren’t, or throws that could have been made on-schedule but were made off-schedule. If these categories existed, Rodgers would have as many as any quarterback, every year. He’s a scintillating sandlot player who goes into sandlot mode way too often.

Yes, Rodgers’s unique style, which few QBs have enough talent to call upon, has led to some of his most spectacular plays. But in the aggregate, it also creates the illusion of dysfunction around him. To television viewers, Rodgers runs around because his O-line breaks down. Or because, presumably, receivers aren’t getting open. And they’re not getting open because the scheme isn’t helping them. Sometimes this is the case. But just as often, the glitches aren’t coming from everyone around the quarterback, but from the quarterback himself.

What’s most befuddling: Right when you start to think Rodgers will forever read the field with the choppiness of a rookie, he starts slinging the ball with perfectly disciplined timing and rhythm. When that switch is flipped, Rodgers borders on unstoppable. His greatness reaches such a level that, when the switch is flipped back, you understand why outside observers can’t help but assume the problem is everyone else.

This is where McCarthy is getting victimized. A great illustration of Rodgers’s unevenness came two weeks ago in Green Bay’s win over Miami. The Packers faced a 4th-and-2 near midfield. The Dolphins are a zone D that almost always plays nickel. Knowing their nickel would keep two linebackers on the field, McCarthy put in a fourth receiver and aligned Davante Adams in the backfield, so their top weapon could run his route against those overmatched linebackers. Adams did, breaking open on a short-angle route right in Rodgers’s immediate line of vision. The play worked perfectly. And Rodgers, for reasons not even Sigmund Freud could figure out, tried to break down and extend the play. A quick-strike play like this can’t be extended, though, and naturally, the protection cracked and Rodgers was sacked.

Imagine if it had been Sean McVay putting Brandin Cooks at running back. Or Andy Reid putting Tyreek Hill there. Their genius would have been heralded once again. On a big fourth down gamble the offensive mastermind puts his best wide receiver at running back and catches the defense off balance! Boy, you never know what this coach will do next!

Of course, McVay’s QB or Reid’s QB (or almost any team’s QB) would have thrown the ball on that play. McCarthy’s QB didn’t, and so, to outside observers, McCarthy’s creativity here never existed.

That creativity lately has shown up on other plays, too. In fact, this season, McCarthy’s offensive scheme has evolved dramatically. Early in the year, it was mostly just the simple spread formations that propagate isolation routes—that’s the unimaginativeness McCarthy has been dogged for over the years. Most likely he played this way because it accommodated Rodgers’s sandlot tendencies. It worked when the Packers had the right veteran receivers. But with an aging Jordy Nelson gone, James Jones long gone, and Randall Cobb either out injured or not looking like himself, the Packers this season have had to rely on callow, rookie receivers who are not yet capable of getting open on their own or finding the defense’s soft spots when Rodgers extends plays.

So, McCarthy has scrapped some of the iso-spread passing concepts for newer-age designs. He has used spread formations this November about half as often as he did in September. More importantly, he’s used condensed formations, with receivers aligned tight to the formation, about three times as often. Those condensed sets are the same thing McVay uses in L.A. It gives receivers more field to work with, which propagates more schematic variables in the passing game and a more natural intertwinement of routes. It also creates congestion for a defense, rendering coverages more predictable. This makes it easier for a QB to anticipate open throws. And, receivers who align tight to the formation are in better position to block safeties in the running game, which makes play-action off of that even more believable. On a related note, the Packers have also employed more snaps of two-tight end personnel, which diversifies a scheme, particularly on the ground.

The results of McCarthy’s updated approach have been mixed, in part because Rodgers’s execution has been mixed. Still, it’s reasonable to keep McCarthy on the hot seat; even with his improved approach, he’s far from flawless. But when evaluating McCarthy, we must admit that his quarterback is far from flawless, too.

 

[Xenos]

1 hour ago, bosko1616 said:

I god no. I rather have Arians. 

McCarthy has a better scheme for Mayfield than Arians.

[vikesfan89]

On 11/26/2018 at 6:59 PM, incognito_man said:

Oh look here. Someone else who recognize roster talent is important for success!

Need a few more people to recognize this in the GB forum. I've been trying to lay out this Saints, Payton, roster talent point for...awhile now.

So you're saying people were right to question the Packers talent in the off-season?

[incognito_man]

20 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

So, I like DVOA. It's an interesting stat for comparison arguments (which offense is better, NO or LAR, that kind of thing.) But, in the context of this argument, I'm really not sure it matters or contributes much. DVOA is the kind of thing Packers fans can point to in "Top 10 offense" threads this offseason, but that's not really something that looks good on McCarthy's part. Saying that hey, the offense is pretty successful and efficient, but they don't score that many points along with that, actually sounds like a terrible job by that coach. That's the last place you want to be underachieving on an offense.

But dvoa accounts for scoring already...

It just compares it in context to every other team and the situation.

[incognito_man]

3 hours ago, Xenos said:

Interesting analysis on the Packer's offense. The problem isn't just McCarthy, it's Rodgers as well. He just loves his broken plays too much. It's something that I've noticed since 2016.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/11/26/green-bay-packers-offense-problems-mike-mccarthy-aaron-rodgers

 

Perhaps the best write up on this I've seen to date. It's what several of us have also been noting recently.

But, inevitably, the masses think it's "Fat Mac's" fault. 

[Xenos]

9 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Perhaps the best write up on this I've seen to date. It's what several of us have also been noting recently.

But, inevitably, the masses think it's "Fat Mac's" fault. 

When your QB is a star like Rodgers, the blame is going to be on the HC. Though this does beg the question of who you can bring in that can work with Rodgers.