X's & O's: McCarthy's Failings Vs the Seahawks
"Paul Ott Carruth", a former player and coach who wishes to remain anonymous, breaks down different aspects of the Packers from an X's and O's standpoint.
By PackerAaron
Regular Cheesehead TV reader (and all-too-infrequent commenter) "Paul Ott Carruth", a former player and coach who wishes to remain anonymous, breaks down different aspects of the Packers from an X's and O's standpoint. Today he looks at the failings of Mike McCarthy in the NFC Championship game loss to the Seahawks.
There were many plays and players to point the finger at in the epic collapse at Seattle.
Brandon Bostick is the easy victim of choice. Clay Matthews removing himself from the game during a crucial stretch is another potential culprit. From Tramon’s poor technique on the overtime throw, AJ Hawk deciding to cover the train and not the plane on the field goal attempt, to Jordy Nelson’s end zone drop and Aaron Rodgers over throwing Jordy on a wide open attempt, all are complicit when looking at the missed opportunities.
To a man, I’d be willing to bet each would own up to their poor performance in those spots. To his credit, Brandon Bostick has answered every question asked of him. He stood in front of the media and took the shots. Interestingly, the one person who has not owned up to his culpability in this collapse and missed opportunity is the man at where the “buck stops.” When Mike McCarthy states, "If you want to question my playcalling... I'm not questioning it,” one has to wonder if this is a coach who understands his role in the context of the game.
This piece looks to examine Mike McCarthy’s decision making not only in the context of and “flow” of the game as he likes to say but to compare his methods as a playcaller and user of personnel against the opposite sideline, Darrell Bevell.
Personnel, Fronts, & Decisions
I am going to start this segment of my piece with a McCarthy quote. In the post game press conference, when asked about why the 4 minute offense didn’t work, McCarthy states, “That was definitely the toughest point in the game to run the football. Their run defense was better." Uh…gee Mike….you think?
Take note of Figure 1. The Packers are in 22 Personnel (2 RB, 2 TE). Jordy Nelson is the lone receiver isolated on an injured Sherman. I have no problem with the personnel. It’s heavy run personnel. In kind, Seattle presents a 9 man box. Upon further inspection, it’s actually a 10 man front when you consider Earl Thomas is 8 yds from the line of scrimmage. Jim Brown, Larry Csonka, Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, et. al…. would not have made any dent against this front. To run the ball when presented with this situation did not maximize the effectiveness of the personnel.
Take a shot at Sherman on a deep ball. Earl Thomas was not in a position to help on the play due to his alignment. Use a ball control play action pass. Do anything other than pound the ball in to a wall.
Remember, the goal the entire game was to get in to 3rd and manageable to be in a position to gain a first down and move the chains. Instead we know the result. People who blame the offensive line simply don’t understand offensive football. As a coach it is your job to put your players and unit in a position to make a positive play.
It didn’t happen here.
Looking at Figure 2, we see McCarthy come out in 11 Personnel (1 RB, 1 TE). This seems like a better look to run the ball since Seattle has 7 man box. The problem is that Seattle has an unblock defender (6 blockers their 7 defenders). Look at the linebacker posture and you’ll see they’re in run mode. We have Cobb on their slot defender and Jordy on Maxwell. Those are clear advantages compared to running against 7 in the box. The Packers didn’t take advantage of their best possible chance of gaining positive yards.
Keep in mind, even a 5 yd. gain gets it to 3rd and 9. Who knows how much YAC could have been gained?
Four Minute Offense
What is the purpose of the four minute offense? Each coach has their own view on this aspect of game management. In this situation, it is clear McCarthy reverted to Marty Schottenheimer/Bill Cower belief that you “pound the rock” to control the clock. The Bill Walsh view is that you get first downs and the manner in which you get first downs is contingent upon the situations presented. Coach Walsh and his protégé’ Mike Holmgren, liked to run the ball and believed it was the best way to control the clock.
However, they would not have run in those situations as the front presented was not advantageous for a zone run. Given the personnel in the game Walsh and Holmgren would have used a ball control play action pass with the TEs running sticks or bench routes at a depth of 3-5 yds. Most likely, run action to the left with a delay bench route by Richard Rodgers would have been the choice with Nelson attacking on a go route or 12-15 yd. Dig.
Either way, neither Walsh or Holmgren would have run in that situation. This speaks to the West Coast Offense philosophy vs. the Schottenheimer philosophy. It shouldn’t surprise Packer fans because the Schottenheimer philosophy of game management is more prevalent in McCarthy’s approach.
Bevell vs. McCarthy
I’ve said this before. Darrell Bevell is underrated as a play caller and user of personnel. Many Wisconsinites think of Bevell and see a below average signal caller for the Badgers. I see him as a coach who has been immersed in the West Coast Offense philosophy for many years and maximizes his talent, in some cases, talent that is limited when comparing to the Packers. Sure, Bevell and Childress didn’t do very well in Minnesota in the final year.
However, keep in mind Childress was the primary play caller in that situation. Bevell has full control now. Who has done better since?
Now I’m not calling for Bevell to become the next Packer head coach. What I am suggesting though is that by comparison, Bevell is as good if not a tinge better than McCarthy. Want some proof?
Check out Figure 3. The Seahawks come out in 12 personnel (1 RB, 2 TE). The Packer defense responds by playing with a heavier defense, substituting in Richardson for Shields. What you don’t see is Wilson recognizing this and checking in to a shot play. The Packers have 9 defenders within 6 yds. of the line of scrimmage. They are clearly playing run. Why not? Yet, Wilson checks to a shot play that ultimately ends the game. Richardson should have bailed to the deep middle once his key stayed in to block but he didn’t. So was it an execution problem? Sure, you could argue that. It does show a complete understanding of personnel, match-ups and checking in to an advantageous play vs. sticking with a play that had a limited chance of success.
Were they different situations? Yes, this wasn’t 4 minute offense but the larger point is not giving your HOF and MVP quarterback the option to check out of play doomed to failure is not quality coaching. I don’t know if Rodgers had the ability to check out of the runs but judging by both his and McCarthy’s post-game pressers I believe it was run regardless of the situation. Remember, McCarthy stated, “I came in here to run the ball. The one statistic I had has as far as a target to hit was 20 rushing attempts in the second half, I thought that would be a very important target to hit for our offense.”
No Mike, the target is to win the game and if that means you have to throw because that is what the defense and situation dictates you do that in spite of whatever philosophy you have. That, ladies in gentlemen, is bad football and bad coaching. No two ways about it.
Leader of Men and Accountability
I’ve heard it said that McCarthy is the best in the business because he’s a true leader of men. Last time I checked, Pete Carroll is a leader of men and is going to his 2nd straight Super Bowl. Bill Belichick is a leader of men. Heck, he’s jettisoned some people in the process (i.e. Mankins) and still has the respect of his team. Holmgren was a leader of men as well and I’m sure rubbed some of his players the wrong way. Bill Parcells was as abrasive as they come (i.e Terry Glenn) and he sure has been successful. Tony Dungy was a leader of men too. What’s the point? Each coach has their own style, be it hard, soft or rah,rah, or something of an amalgam.
Being a leader of men is not about the style of the coach it’s about the substance and a large part of that substance is being accountable and honest. Some may not like Rodgers hinting at the fact that he didn’t like the play calls in the 2nd half but when your coach calls out the perceived goat of the game (Bostick) instead of glad-handing to the media he should expect some derision when he gets defensive with a reporter who challenges his play calling. If McCarthy expects deference from reporters he should give it to Bostick publicly and criticize privately. That’s how it works. McCarthy didn’t do that. Bostick pointed the finger at himself. McCarthy did not accept his role in the situation. That is not being a leader of men.
How many of you knew if Mike Holmgren was a leader of men before 1992? You didn’t. He was a brilliant offensive coordinator who knew how to maximize his talent. He became a “leader of men” by implementing his knowledge of the system and then expecting results and holding everyone accountable. I enjoy Mike McCarthy’s “available and accountable” schtick, but that’s all it has become….a schtick. You want accountable? How about dismissing Slocum for consecutive years of special team futility. Looks like loyalty instead of accountability has won out in that situation. Perhaps Slocum will be given the boot…..3 years too late.
End-All-Be-All of Playcallers?
Ladies and gentlemen, there are a lot of offensive “gurus” I’d take over McCarthy. Josh McDaniels being one of them. Sure, he gets a bad rap for his time in Denver but lest we forget he went 8-8 with Tebow and was run out of town for trying to bring in Cassell in favor of Cutler. Call me crazy but that seems like a push to me. Looks like he had Cutler pegged. Oh, and of course the Patriots are in the Super Bowl……again, looking like an offensive juggernaut. Greg Roman is very good. Pep Hamilton has done a nice job. You see ladies and gentlemen, McCarthy is good. Don’t’ get me wrong. But this notion that he is leaps and bounds better than guys like Chip Kelly and the aforementioned is ludicrous. It’s not just about calling plays. You can find WCO style plays in any playbook. It’s understanding strengths and limitations that is the real key and so far, McCarthy is coming up short, especially in crucial legacy games.
The difference between winning and losing could be summed up Figures 1 and 3. One stayed the course of 4 minute philosophy despite the conditions while the other allowed for an adjustment to win the game.
Solutions
I’ve always said that if you’re going to point out a problem you need to provide a solution to fix the problem. Here goes: First, to really live the accountability mantra, Slocum has to go and by go I mean immediately go. No hesitation and no regrets. No wringing of hands because you’re friends with his daddy RC. Gone. Second, Mike needs to bring in an offensive coordinator from the outside, quite possibly from a different school of thought. Sometimes, in the systems and “ways” we build, create, and function, we lose sight of the bigger picture. Becoming myopic can be a dangerous thing as we think we have all the answers. It’s hard to stay in the same place doing the same things and not develop a sense of tunnel vision. I’m all for continuity but not for continuity’s sake.
The idea that players can’t adapt to new coaches and ideas is short-sighted. Case in point….Chip Kelly. They haven’t made it to the playoffs but in just a short time have developed in to a formidable offense using essentially many of the same players. It takes time to adjust, just like anything, but that’s the point. You have to adjust or you don’t last long in this league. If Aaron Rodgers can’t adapt to a different school of thought then he’s not the player we think he is.
Who are some guys out there I would consider?
I like Bob Bicknell from Philadelphia. He’s been around the globe (i.e World League/NFL Europe) coached in college and the professional level. He’s coached multiple positions on the offense as well. In the QB coach world, I think Clyde Christensen from the Colts and Carl Smith from the Seahawks have done a nice job. Granted they have some talent at their disposal but other coaches have had talent and messed it up too. Matt Nagy and Greg Knapp are intriguing. They are more along the WCO line of thinking. Knapp was a quality control guy in San Francisco in the mid 90’s and was with Mooch from 98-2000. Just some thoughts. Bottom line, I think the offense needs to hear another voice. It may reaffirm McCarthy’s beliefs but as long as it gets him to think and question that’s a good thing.
Third, if Capers wants to stay he stays. Now I know many of you want to jump on him for the prevent defense in the Seattle game. I don’t necessarily disagree, but the defense didn’t cost the team the game. Capers was functioning without his best defender on the field in the crucial moments of the game. Put in Flynn for Rodgers and you think the Packers even come close to sending the game to overtime? The defense got better once an adjustment (there’s that word again), was made to put Matthews inside on most running downs. The defense was primarily healthy too and you could see the difference. Capers made an adjustment and it paid off. If we’re talking accountability, he’s earned another year if he wants it.
That’s my perspective. Feel free to disagree. All I know is that changes need to be made in some way shape or form, otherwise the Packers won’t be getting to any cusp any time soon.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (55)
PackerAaron
January 20, 2015 at 09:42 pm
For the record, I was fine until:
"...there are a lot of offensive “gurus” I’d take over McCarthy. Josh McDaniels being one of them. "
And completely checked out after:
"Now I know many of you want to jump on him for the prevent defense in the Seattle game. I don’t necessarily disagree, but the defense didn’t cost the team the game. "
Neither did McCarthy, not on his own.
It was a complete team collapse.
jeremyjjbrown
January 20, 2015 at 10:22 pm
You realize that McDaniels is coordinating the leagues #1 offense, right?
D.D.Driver
January 20, 2015 at 11:55 pm
So did Sherm Lewis.
jeremyjjbrown
January 21, 2015 at 10:03 am
Sherm Lewis did not call the plays. Belichick is defensive guy, McDaniels handles almost all of the Offensive game planning and playcalling.
Sometimes the nonsense is unbelievable.
Paul Ott Carruth
January 21, 2015 at 08:14 am
Aaron,
That is fair. But for the record, I'm not claiming McCarthy lost this game on his own. I never said that. In fact, I mentioned you could point the finger at any number of things and players. In the end do I believe the defense lost this game. Not at all. The fact that Capers was playing without Matthews is a huge factor and explains why the zone read was successful when he left the game. Take Rodgers away from McCarthy and the Packers aren't in that game. The point of the article was to show that McCarthy hasn't taken responsibility for his part in the collapse. Until he does so his accountability mantra is nothing but a public relations ploy in my opinion. People are so quick to can Capers but the fact is he made adjustments in the season and the defense improved. The 2 man rush with a spy in that game is not something I would have done but statistically it does work in those situations. If someone wants to make the argument and apologize for Mike's decision to run the ball in to a loaded box because statistics show it was the best chance for improving the team's odds of winning then they have to lay off Capers because the statistics show the same thing in Dom's defense. But I don't look at it from a statistical view. Mike talks about flow all the time. The flow of that game dictated Capers should stick with what was working....applying pressure and playing man. That's why I didn't like the defensive call in that situation. The same holds true for McCarthy. The goal of the offense all game was to get in to manageable 3rd downs to maintain possession of the ball. This was accomplished with some nice mix of run and pass on first and second down. He went away from that formula and this, coupled with the fact that getting any positive yardage on the ground vs. those fronts was near impossible is the basis for my criticism. If people chose to call for Dom's ouster and use this as an example then McCarthy is certainly open for the same derision. You can't have it both ways.
Not quite sure why you don't like McDaniels as a playcaller. He's very good. Deflated footballs aside, he does maximize his talent. Not saying he should replace McCarthy as head coach but comparatively he gets the most out of his offense with lesser to equal talent as McCarthy. I'd take Cobb, Nelson, and Adams over Edelmen, Amendola, and LaFell any day. Same thing with Bevell. Kearse, Baldwin, & Lockette vs. Nelson, Cobb and Adams.
PackerAaron
January 21, 2015 at 11:59 am
McDaniels is a fine playcaller, but he has his own issues, as I'm sure you're well aware. This idea that he would be an "upgrade" over McCarthy is absurd.
Evan
January 21, 2015 at 12:04 pm
Talking McDaniels vs. McCarthy play-calling, I'll let you two far-more knowledgeable people hash it out. I will say, though, with the offense getting stonewalled and the Seahawks loading up against the run down the stretch, I would have liked to see some trickery - like a Cobb pass a la Edelman in the Ravens game.
Not that trick plays are the end-all, be-all, but what was the last trick play MM ran - the Crabtree fake FG?
Paul Ott Carruth
January 21, 2015 at 12:36 pm
This is a valid point. Trick plays aren't the end all be all but coach Walsh liked to use them early because it made everyone aware that they exist. Seattle beat us to the punch with their fake FG....if you call that trickery or deception. Deception can occur with use of personnel (i.e unbalanced line, substitutions, etc.) and is not solely relegated arrows on a grease board (or Microsoft Surface).
Paul Ott Carruth
January 21, 2015 at 12:46 pm
I'm not calling for McDaniels to be the next Packer head coach. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the play calling aspect. I think he's demonstrated he utilizes his personnel much better than McCarthy. I don't think McCarthy overcomes two 14 point deficits against the Ravens.
pooch
January 20, 2015 at 10:01 pm
Capers has got to go because of prevent call,prevent has never worked and for the 1st in years iam looking at consistent pressure on a mobile very good qb and he reverts to prevent....he has got to be gone
jeremyjjbrown
January 20, 2015 at 10:17 pm
'Interestingly, the one person who has not owned up to his culpability in this collapse and missed opportunity is the man at where the “buck stops.”'
I expect to hear him say it tomorrow. I get not owning it in the shock of that loss. But, if he doesn't own his part after watching the film and having a a few days to reflect then I'll loose a bunch of respect for him.
MarkinMadison
January 20, 2015 at 10:29 pm
I don't care what he says to the media half as much as I care what he says to the guys in the locker room. He needs to fix that now. No one likes working for someone who will throw them under the bus.
PackerAaron
January 20, 2015 at 11:54 pm
Absolutely agree Jeremy. People have been piling on him for his post-game comments. Meanwhile, Rodgers gets lauded for his passive-aggressiveness. I don't like either look, but I get why both reacted the way they did.
I hope Mike gives a little on the play calling thing tomorrow.
Huskergbfan
January 20, 2015 at 10:38 pm
You probably know a ton more about football than I do but I cringe at the fact that we gave up over 200 yards in 3 minutes. I do not get Capers shift to attack mode, which yielded 4 ints and then this sudden shift to prevent (which yields more pass and rush yards than seen all game). In my opinion, if it ain't broke don't fix it. But then again I am not sure if Bevell just decided to start running the read option more or not (that is what has killed us in the past), I cannot get myself to go back and watch those details yet. The hole Burnett laying down in the open field has me in a funk, just because I was always taught to do otherwise (yes, just high school football). As far as McCarthy you are correct, the fact that he is keeping track of how many times he ran the ball with Lacy (looking for 20 touches) is disturbing to say the least. I would figure his mental capacity would be better taken up by the number of time outs, down and distance, personnel, red hankies in his pocket and the play call going in. As far as Slocum, fine they converted a fake field goal, I thought they could fake it too, the fact that Seattle was looking for us to send out Hawk and Jones sickens me. The onside, well maybe his player just reacted poorly in the toughest of circumstances, I totally get it. 7 blocked kicks this season, yeah that's a problem. Detroit converting an onside punt, yeah he needs to go. I need to purchase some amnesia medications.
hybridauth_Facebook_1565645300
January 20, 2015 at 10:52 pm
You forget, this is the same organization that has given AJ Hawk a place on the field for far too long, has refused to supplement its roster (with 2 exceptions) through Free Agency, and no matter what, feels immune to criticism because the season ticket list is hundreds of thousands of names long and every game is a sellout.
Things should change; we all hope MM had an epiphany, will change his ways and be more aggressive on offense, hold his players and coaches accountable, and help get us over the hump. I see instead a coach who is obviously convinced he is Bill Belichick JR, and will rely on AR having fantastic runs to ever sniff the Lombardi Trophy again.
God I hope I am wrong, and this team comes back more focused and on a mission next year. But I am not holding my breath.
pacman
January 20, 2015 at 10:59 pm
I thought I finished posting on this but this was a great article - especially with the images. When they asked MM if he has any regrets, he should have said "yes, every call that didn't work".
For years, the boards have been saying special teams are going to cost us a playoff game one day. Yet they kept Slocum. If Bostick didn't know what to do, then it wasn't drilled in to him enough. If he still couldn't do it, why is he on the field? (Still got to feel for the guy but they cut Ross for less of an error.)
Prevent defense when the rush is working?! Shouldn't there have been man coverage then and still have a couple extra defenders? 4th & 26 - remember!! Playing it safe! How about keeping Jones and Hawk around too long. It's a tough game.
Why is MM still calling plays?
Are MM and DC good coaches? Probably. Great? Probably not. Could we do better or do we show loyalty? I guess that's up to the top brass.
Only a SB win next year could offer some redemption for this loss.
mrj007
January 21, 2015 at 01:42 am
I've been lamenting Slocum on the staff since after his second year when Green Bay allowed their opponent 30 + yd fied position. And it is regrettable this team has had 2 HOF QB for the past 23 years and only 2 championships. I remember the Paul Ott Caruth era. 25 years straight of losing. ....
mrj007
January 21, 2015 at 02:02 am
This is why the pain of this loss is so acute - this WAS the redemption game. It WAS retribution for the fail mary and enduring 18 weeks since that opening day humiliation. And is WAS for another Superbowl. And it WAS a physically dominate showing on the penultimate stage..... for 57 minutes. Then it wasn't. Now it is an even worse memory to live with for another year. In the end analysis, this coaching staff did not instill the attitude of a winner who never quits. In this regard alone, Seattle and New England have earned the right to play in the Superbowl - they never quit
Clay
January 21, 2015 at 12:42 am
Look on the bright side guys...we dispatched COW beyond our wildest dreams.
I am using this spot to spread a message that helped me through that hell. You probably have all heard of the movie "Unbroken". See it please.
There is a line in the movie, "A moment of pain is worth a lifetime of glory".
Sunday was the Packers moment of pain. That was the most painful loss we have ever had. Period. F Super Bowl 32.
"If you can take it you can make it".
This team is well well poised to take multiple Superbowls. They beat themselves Sunday.
It is really up to the organization to take this horrible moment and use it.
Yes there are fingers to be pointed. ANY time you lose there are fingers to be pointed.
But unless you are COW you will understand that this team will be favored to win the Superbowl next year when all is said and done.
That is what hurts...we all know they could have done it this year.
I am a Packer fan for life and grateful we have the best QB in the league and so much more.
If Rodgers wins another SB will will see that this moment of pain was part of the journey to that moment of glory.
Peace out.....Go Pack Go
mrj007
January 21, 2015 at 01:59 am
Good article. I think any measure of a leader or coach means getting the most out of his charges or players. I do not feel Holmgren or McCarthy come close to this when compared to Lombardi (admittedly different periods). I lost respect when MM responded arrogantly he wouldn't question play calling. You would think EVERY aspect of a loss would be questioned let alone the most epic fail in football championship history. I gained respect for Elway firing Fox because Fox did NOT get the most out of the talent. MM should not be beyond reproach simply because he signed a 5 yr contact mid season (I question the wisdom of that decision).
Packer_Pete
January 21, 2015 at 06:16 am
With I agree with some points made, I really don't think many statements hold up under scrutiny.
"Case in point….Chip Kelly. They haven’t made it to the playoffs but in just a short time have developed in to a formidable offense using essentially many of the same players. It takes time to adjust, just like anything, but that’s the point."
Ok, so if it takes time, one would see improvement over time. But, the Eagles regressed in all important statistics such as YPPlay, YPPass, YPRush, first downs, etc from 2013 vs 2014. With almost the same players. One would think being in the system the 2nd year would help. Now some might think that they had an injured Foles. But even Foles regressed severely with more than 5% completion percentage less than in 2013 when he was healthy in 2014. No, I think what a Chip Kelly directed offense is is a gimmicky O that can only succeed if the opposing D does not fall for those gimmicks. It also helps to play Ds such as the Giants and Redskins 4 times a year...
Holmgren - as much as I like him, how many SBs did he win exactly as a HC? That's right, 1. Even though he had a future Hall of Fame QB, a great OL, one of the most underrated RB tandems in Packers history, and a couple of good WRs. And the year he won, the D was ranked 1st in the NFL, as well as STs were ranked 1st... So it wasn't exactly the O that won that year alone...
Bevell - Well, what should I say? His playcalling and overall O "guru" mindset was on display on Sunday. I get it, they won. But if anything goes wrong with the desperation heave for 2 points, or if AJ Hawk gives a little more effort in defending Lynch, or if Barrington doesn't lose Lynch on that pass, then the Packers would be heading to Arizona right now. His O didn't do anything for 55 minutes. The first points they scored was on ST, taking advantage of the weak ST play of the Pack. And with the talent he has on the OL, at QB and RB, I'd expect a little more. Let's also not forget, even as a diehard Packer fan, the Packer D is average at best. Personnel is limited in talent, and Capers did the best he could, and it was admireable for most of the game. I also doubt that Bevell had not massive input when he was at the Vikings with Chilly. So please spare me Bevell. It'd rather take McC every day of the week and twice on Sundays...
Who would you replace McC with as HC at the moment? The candidates you list are not as good as McC. And let me make one final statement here. Rodgers is a great "regular season" QB. Maybe the best regular season QB ever. But aside of the SB run, he hasn't exactly played well during playoffs. He was inaccurate the whole game on Sunday. He simply didn't play well. May have been the injury, may have been something else, but it fits into the performances we have seen from #12 in the last few years in playoffs. I really don't have a problem with playcalling, except with the call on 2nd & 14. that's it. Otherwise, the running game was working, and it came down to botched execution, including and most notably from #12 in the game, why the Packers did not score more on O. That has to be pointed out. Rodgers was average at best in Sunday's game. I know that's sacriledge on here, but I don't care, someone has to say it. And just imagine #12 would've thrown an INT on that second to last series, and the Seahawks would've scored a TD after that. Then all the people howling about playcalling here would howl about "why not run and force the Seahawks to take their timeouts..."...
D.D.Driver
January 21, 2015 at 06:36 am
"And just imagine #12 would've thrown an INT on that second to last series, and the Seahawks would've scored a TD after that. Then all the people howling about playcalling here would howl about "why not run and force the Seahawks to take their timeouts..."
Or worse yet, imagine that Rodgers gets lit up on a sack. The Packers win the game but have to play Flynn in the Super Bowl. Every commenter here would want McCarthy's head on a pike.
Paul Ott Carruth
January 21, 2015 at 09:09 am
Or imagine Lacy fumbling because the Seahawks had 10 guys in the box. Why not just take knee then? What if Rodgers throws an interception to KJ Wright on the pass to Quarless even though the situation dictated a pass and he took the match-up he liked? Playing the "what if" game is a futile exercise because it has absolutely nothing to do with the flow of the game and doesn't account for situational football. The plan was to get in to manageable 3rd downs. The situation the Seahawks presented was not conducive to getting in to a manageable 3rd down via the ground. Just like Capers going to prevent when the entire game demonstrated pressure was the successful route. If you deride Capers for his choice you must deride McCarthy for his. You can't have it both ways.
Paul Ott Carruth
January 21, 2015 at 09:11 am
The running game wasn't working against a 9 man box....10 if you count Earl Thomas who was 8 yds. from the LOS.
D.D.Driver
January 21, 2015 at 11:32 am
But this is a straw man. The point wasn't to pick up a first down, the point was to pressure Seattle to use up its timeouts. The running game "worked" to accomplish that goal.
What you dispute is whether McCarthy should have been trying to kill the clock with 4 minutes left, when Seattle needed two touchdowns to win it. I think it was the right call. The Packers had a 96% chance of winning the game at that point. The only way they lose is if a bunch of crazy stuff happen. Well it happened.
But it was still smart play the percentages. Sometimes you play the percentages and you still lose. When you stay on an 18 at the blackjack table, everyone knows that is the right thing to do. Everyone also knows that you can still lose and maybe if you hit you might win under various scenarios.
The problem wasn't the strategy to try to run out the clock. The problem was a series of mental errors and miscues to close out the game.
Evan
January 21, 2015 at 11:46 am
"The point wasn't to pick up a first down, the point was to pressure Seattle to use up its timeouts."
Those goals aren't mutually exclusive. You pressure Seattle to use its timeouts by picking up first downs.
Paul Ott Carruth
January 21, 2015 at 12:42 pm
Bingo! 5:13 is an eternity in the NFL even against a team who doesn't have any timeouts. What is lost in all of the chatter is the fact that Seattle had been moving up tempo around the 7 minute mark of the 4th. Not Packer up-tempo but certainly quicker than their normal pace. If the Seahawks had believed they needed all the time they could get then they would have taken their final timeout on the 3rd and 16 run. They pocketed it. The offense has the luxury of stopping the clock by spiking the ball, throwing it away, running out of bounds, etc. If they truly were concerned about time on the clock they would have taken it at that time.
Packer_Pete
January 21, 2015 at 05:47 pm
I still think one can argue about maybe 1 or 2 calls from McC, on the 2nd to last series in the 4th quarter, at 2nd-and-14 and 3rd-and-16. Let's put things into perspective.
The Packers ran the first run play with 5:04 left, and Seattle took timeout with 4:57 to go. At that time, the Packers led by 12. The D had been absolutely dominant, the O mediocre. The only points the Packers had given up at that time was 7 on an ST play. At the time, the Seahawks had had a total of 7 first downs, with a 3rd down efficiency of 4/11.
With 5 minutes to play, was it reasonable for McC to assume that the D would dominate the rest of the game? Maybe not. but was it reasonable to assume that they wouldn't give up 2 TDs in the last 4 minutes? Absolutely.
And let's not forget something else: #12 was inaccurate and not playing that well for most of the game. He had 16/30 with 1 TD and 2 INTs at the time the sequence after the Burnett interception started. Just from the top of my head, I can list a few inaccurate throws that were unlike Rodgers:
a) Missed TD pass to Jordy, thrown too far to the left.
b) Overthrow on a wide open Cobb.
c) Ball too low for Cobb to keep running, so he had to go down to catch it on the 1st series of the 3rd Q.
d) Bad decisions on both INTs.
e) Ball thrown behind #89 Rodgers, but he twisted and made an acrobatic catch.
f) Overthrown on Starks deep right.
I'm sure there are more, but those come to mind immediately.
The Seahawks then ran their first play after that 3-and-out with 3:52 left from their own 31. They scored a TD within 1:39. They recovered the onsides kick at their own 48. They then scored a TD again within 36 seconds. Then they converted the 2pt conversion. that all of this happened within 2:15 the way the 56 mins of the game had gone before was highly unlikely, and will probably never be seen again.
Once again, and it doesn't really matter who the teams are. If someone told you that one team is leading by 12 with 3:52 left, had held the opposing team to 7 points, and that on a ST play, had held the other team to 7 first downs for 56 minutes with a 3rd down efficiency of 4/11, how much money would you bet that the leading team would still lose that game? I wouldn't even bet a dime, and most wouldn't either. Most coaches would've called plays the same way McC did. Especially Belichick.
But ok, if one is still not convinced, let me ask another question. For the past few years really, I have heard how good #12 is to decipher opposing Ds. How he was able to call either run or pass in the huddle himself. How he could change the play even without really calling it, e.g. the fake spike with a TD throw in the Miami game. Even if he was told there was to be a run no matter what, with the understanding he had with Jordy, a silent signal would've been enough to change the play. Yes, he'd had to have a spat with McC most likely, but that would've gone over quickly. After cooler heads prevailed, one could point to the video and the Seahawks formation to see that a run was not the best option. Why did #12 not do that? Maybe he is not as good as most make him out to be. So then he pouted after the game, and everybody is pointing fingers at McC. I am sure that there were situations in other games where #12 changed the play that McC called, and maybe McC's ego couldn't take that initially, but after video analysis all saw that it was the right thing to do. Or maybe the relationship between the 2 is not as good as it's made out to be. Or, again, maybe #12 is not as good and clever as most want to believe, and he gets all plays and all possible options always provided by McC, and in reality is not really able to decipher opposing Ds that well. In any way, why does almost no blame fall onto #12 when he played relatively bad during Sunday's game (55.8 passer rating), and really played like we were getting used to in playoffs for the past few years??? So much to the statement that McC didn't trust "his best player". NO - #12 was not his best player in that particular game. And anybody who claims otherwise has not seen the game. He was injured, yes, but he also had magnificent protection for most of the game by his OL.
Sorry for venting, and I am sure others have more knowledge and a better football mind than I have, but Mr. Rodgers played badly in this game, and most want to make it sound as if he was having a 150 QB rating game and McC took the ball unnecessarily out of his hands. That was not the case.
Paul Ott Carruth
January 21, 2015 at 06:53 pm
Pete,
I appreciate your thoughts on this. You would think that Rodgers had the ability to check out of those series of plays but judging by his comments and McCarthy's responses in the post game presser I have a hard time believing he had that option at the line. That would be the one direct question I would ask McCarthy...."Did Aaron have the option of checking out of the 1st & and 10, and 2nd & 14 plays?" Hopefully someone in the media has the courage to do it.
I will disagree with you about the premise that you don't throw it in that situation because Aaron wasn't playing at a 120 QB rating. If that is the concern why is he playing at all? Better yet, if you are terrified of him throwing an interception then you don't trot him on the field for the final 1:25 of regulation. You put in Flynn. How would that have worked out? Rodgers was effective enough to win this game and to throw a ball control pass on those two downs. Taking this a step further, using the logic that past poor performance necessitates a drastically different approach, Bevell should never have allowed Wilson to throw the ball in overtime. He did, after all, have 4 interceptions at that point.
I've heard this argument for not throwing it on that series before and it is illogical. I watched the game....extensively and while Rodgers was not typical Rodgers he gave them the best chance to win. You claim that Rodgers was not his best player in that game. Who was the best player on offense that game? Who would you have substituted in at QB for that game?
I've also heard it said that any coach in that situation would have done the same thing? Can't really say that about Belichick as he doesn't run the offense, but Bill has done some "crazy" things that defy what is conventional wisdom (i.e going for it on 4th and 2 in his own territory up by 6) so it isn't a given that every single coach would have done the same thing.
Packer_Pete
January 21, 2015 at 07:25 pm
POC, I appreciate your thoughts and the civil and educational discussion.
I admit that Rodgers was the best option at QB. With him in, there was at least the threat (on the surface and keep the Seahawks D guessing a little) that they could throw. Bringing in Flynn would've telegraphed run-run-run. Best player on O? My gut feeling would tell me Sitton. It definitely was someone on the interior OL, Sitton, Linsley, or Lang, and without having seen the game again, Sitton stood out most, but that's just a gut feel. but the OL as a whole unit was playing very well. I would also list Cobb and Lacy as playing better than Rodgers in that game. Also, Richard Rodgers did the most with his opportunities.
The one thing that I don't buy in is that Rodgers didn't have the choice to check out of the play into a pass. Sure, McC could've told him specifically that only a run should be possible, but #12 could've free-lanced. Now admittedly, I don't know how that works, as I've never played or coached in the NFL. But it seems he has free-lanced before. Don't think the fake spike in the Miami game was an option per se. In the past it seemed that McC had more runs called but Rodgers checked into pass quite often, during regular season games, though. At the same time, a loss in a regular season game could mean missing the playoffs, or at least ending up as a lower seed during playoffs. So it's not as if there are no consequences. But even if McC would've told #12 to only have a run play, and Rodgers would've given a quick quiet signal to Jordy for a pass, and it would've failed. What would McC have done, during the game or in future games? he wouldn't have benched Rodgers in a possible SB. He may have had an intense discussion, but I doubt he would've sit him either in the SB or in the new season 2015. This is one of the best QBs of this generation, and Mike would be under much more pressure to explain how he could not play him based on one play or bad decision in a game, even though it was the NFC championship game.
I am sure Favre did check out of some plays he didn't recognize as favorable matchups and free-lanced a little, yet Holmgren kept playing him, since he provided the best chance to win. Even with all the good back-ups you listed in an earlier post - big difference between Brunell or Hasselbeck vs Flynn or Tolzien, so Holmgren had much better options...
Overall I just don't think that Mike should get as much blame as many want to assign to him. There are other people on the coaching staff. What about Clements speaking up? I am sure Mike, Clements, and other offensive coaches have been in similar situations before, having relatively big leads given up. Decisions have to be made under pressure in a relatively short period of time. Of course I am preaching to the choir, I know you have played and coached in the NFL, so I don't have to tell you. But I also think that a lot of coaches, even very good coaches, partially base a call on a gut feel as what might work, based on down and distance, as well as time left and overall score. Don't tell me Belichick would go for it on 4th&2 in his own territory up by 6 every game, or even more than once out of 100 games... Or Seattle, going for the trick play that gave them their first TD. If they fail, with 5 minutes to go in the 3rd Q, down by 16, then game over. It would've deflated that team completely.
For what it is worth, I have coached soccer in Europe, not in a professional league but a youth league. But the youth league was very competitive. One may not be able to compare the sport or the level of coaching, but I have done things based on my gut feel - letting someone who never had shoot a penalty shoot even though my most precise penalty shooter was still on the field, taking out my best forward to secure a lead and putting a defender in with a few minutes left, and sometimes the exact opposite, taking a defender out even though having a lead late and putting in a forward... It's not all precise, and it certainly wasn't always working out well, but as the one responsible I was the one making decisions.
Overall I think McCarthy has done a good job as Packers HC. Just the fact as to how often he led the team into the playoffs, despite having quite a few injuries for several years. Having Rodgers injured in 2013 and still making the playoffs. And overall, I don't think his teams were more talented or better than Holmgren teams in the 90s or Sherman teams in the early 2000s. But he was just as successful, or even moreso, than Holmgren or Sherman. He certainly has had his share of mistakes, but everybody makes mistakes. What I hope is that he will learn from that, and I think he has shown in the past that he can learn from past mistakes. I think changing the practice schedule and having different emphasis cut down on injuries significantly. His offenses rank consistently in the top 5 of the NFL, so he certainly cannot be that bad a play caller. I agree that sometimes it seems very predictable as to what he calls and does, and that Holmgren was better attacking the opposing Ds weaknesses, and in general more areas and specific areas of the field. But there are not many offensive play callers in the NFL that I would take over McC. A lot of other offensive "gurus" have a lot of talent on their team.
Daniels is working with a great QB who played in the same scheme for years, and the best TE in the NFL, a QBs best friend. The Patriots have shown for years that they can pretty much replace anybody in that scheme and have the same success. His one stint in Denver didn't really show me much, despite Denver being a good offensive team before his tenure, and after.
Bevell has a lot of talent in Seattle, especially OL, RB, QB, and TE. He had a lot of talent in Minnesota, with AP, a decent OL, Favre, and good WRs.
Chip Kelly has supposedly a "QB friendly" O, with a strong running game, and quick WRs fitting that scheme. Yet there really wasn't progress in his 2nd year there.
Who knows, maybe with any of those 3 as play callers the Packers wouldn't have won a SB yet or even made the playoffs as often as under McC? Maybe the Packers would've won 3 or 4 SBs already. I can't judge that. All I know is as Packers fan we can really be glad that this is a perennial playoff contender, and almost every year there is the chance to go to the big game. There are not many teams who can say that, most have 1, 2, or at most 3 good seasons and then be back where they started, being spectators in January - case in point the 49ers. Let's see where the Seahawks end up once they need to pay their top players more. And I think Mike McCarthy plays a very big role in having his teams play well enough to make the playoffs almost every year. And I don't think he is getting enough credit for that.
barutanseijin
January 21, 2015 at 11:46 am
False dichotomy. You need first downs to keep the clock running.
KenEllis
January 21, 2015 at 09:17 am
Please don't attribute Hawk's futile attempts to tackle Lynch during crunch time to a lack of effort.
AJ tried. He always tries hard. He was trying hard the first half of the season when the D was last in the NFL against the run and he was trying hard all 9 years he has been in the NFL.
No, Hawk's only problem is he lacks speed, aggression, instinct and now that he's slimmed down (size). In other words, he lacks talent and always has.
JimTaylor31
January 21, 2015 at 06:37 am
Very good article. I like it. Lots of blame to go around for sure for the Sunday Shit Show but MM has to own up to his role or we are bound to repeat this type of performance down the road. I like the idea of brining in a OC who is given actual play calling responsibilties for a change. In general MM does OK but with the talent on this offense we also waste a lot of opportunities.
hybridauth_Facebook_100000663083241
January 21, 2015 at 06:57 am
I hate to say it, but the game was FIXED...there is no way we blow a lead like that without some kinda of foul play involved...makes no sense and never will....
JimTaylor31
January 21, 2015 at 07:16 am
I know it's hard to believe but if anybody "fixed" the game only the Packers seemed to be in on the "fix". Kinda like a boxer taking a dive and his opponent stands there in disbelief. No, it wasn't "fixed." Just the Packers morphed into such ineptitude that it is unbelievable that it could be anything but "fixed."
KenEllis
January 21, 2015 at 06:59 am
There was an across the board meltdown in Seattle.
Offense, defense (from 55:00 mark on), special teams (oy vey the special teams), coaches, players, and GM (yes those 2 highly paid backup inside linebackers who screwed up the fake field goal and, in Hawk's case, were pathetic when permitted to play D are on TT).
In the end, when there is a meltdown on the field like that which occurred in the NFC Championship game in Seattle on Sunday there is one position/person who imust be held accountable and that is the head coach.
Lots of quibbling over whether MM is at fault for x, y, or z, but that misses the point. He is responsible for D as in DEFEAT.
hybridauth_Facebook_100000663083241
January 21, 2015 at 07:05 am
The fact of the matter is, they lacked a killer instinct to put the game away early...all game long...they kept it close enough for the Seahawks to come back..when in reality with all the mistakes the Seahawks made it could have been a blow out. You can try to tell me anything you want, but the NFL is fixed..and the Seahawks are the NFL's little darlings because they are making them the most money at the moment. Makes me sick, but that is the way it is. #Notwatchingthesuperbowl
D.D.Driver
January 21, 2015 at 11:15 am
ANSWER TO QUIZ
If you haven't taken the quiz (posted above) STOP! Go back up and post your answer then come back. No cheating.
-----------
The scenario that I describe was the scenario Belichick faced against the Eagles in the Super Bowl. This was the last time Belichick actually *won* a championship.
Again, 1:47 left on the clock. Patriots up by only three points with the ball at the opponent's 41. First down seals the Super Bowl trophy. What did Belichick do?
ANSWER:
1st down: Run (2 yard gain);
2nd down:Run (3 yard gain);
3rd down: Run (no gain);
4th down: PUNT! From his opponent's 36 yard line! When a first down seals the game!
BONUS QUESTION: Was Belichick a timid-loser-scaredy-playing-not-to-lose-moron, like McCarthy? Why or why not?
packer4real
January 21, 2015 at 11:23 am
First of all I am a die hard Packer fan. We had the game and gave it to them. The play calling is what it is. 2:07 left in the game, we was still up. The on side kick, the mistake, momentum shifted due to some one not playing their role. This was the turn around in the game. The offense had us on top. The defense didnt allow them score majority of the game, but special team allowed a fake field goal which led to 7 points and a onside kick recovery another 7 points. 14 points allowed by special team. We have a great ball club to go into Seattle and man handle the defending super bowl Champs the way we did. I wasn't suprise because I knew we were the better team. Hopefully they can keep these guys together and build from that stiuation. Maybe add an corner back, inside linebacker, nose tackle, a speedster running back, defensive tackle, and another offensive gaurd or tackle. We will see
egbertsouse
January 21, 2015 at 12:59 pm
OMG! an honest assessment that doesn't kiss MM's ass. He's a good coach, better than most, but he needs an OC and to focus on managing games and players and not stick his nose in his play chart.
I agree with everything in the article except Capers. He needs to join his mentor, Dick LeBeau, in retirement, and take his 1990's defense with him.
When every facet of your game breaks down at once, it's coaching that is primarily at fault. Not every player sucks at once.
Brian
January 21, 2015 at 01:46 pm
Great article. Whether we debate the details of who should be the offensive coordinator or the special teams coach or the defensive coordinator, the shear magnitude of the Packer's collapse, or the numerous bad plays it is the head coach's duty to accept responsibility and make adjustments in the future.
I think the author is trying to make that point using using examples and suggesting some "new blood" be injected into the coaching staff to improve it. I wholeheartedly agree.
Anything short of a super bowl is a failure with the QB we have and the other talent on the team. It's all about championships. McCarthy better do some soul searching after the latest debacle.
Insanity = doing things over and over and expecting different results.
Razor
January 21, 2015 at 03:02 pm
Mike McCarthy is not a top tier coach.
And this is a larger Green Bay issue. Green Bay likes good people and values them more than taking a risk on a top tier person who might be too aggresive for the Green Bay culture.
Green Bay holds on to under-performing players and coaches too long which sets a level of tolerance that undermines urgency and accountability.
Getting rid of Slocum sends a message. If he's not the problem then cut Bostick and Hawk immediately.
When a team has this many failures in a championship game I blame it on coaching - poor preparation, lack of adjustment, fear of failure, poor player coaching and development.
Whatever it is, it starts at the top. If I'm Mark Murphy do I want to have the legacy that is unfolding in from of him. Which is "I had one of the most talented quarterbacks of all time and I chose to stick with Ted and Mike because they are wonderful human beings and that's what the Green Bay Packers are all about. Championships are icing on the cake."
Winning isn't the only thing - having a class organization is the other thing.
Evan
January 21, 2015 at 03:17 pm
"When a team has this many failures in a championship game I blame it on coaching - poor preparation, lack of adjustment, fear of failure, poor player coaching and development."
Maybe...but what about the 55-minutes of ass kicking? Does coaching get the credit for that?
I'm not excusing the historic, embarrassing collapse, but your comments sounds as if the Packers got blown out from the opening kick-off.
To lose that game in that fashion is/was gut-wrenching, no doubt, and there is plenty of blame to go around (Slocum, sure). But, ultimately, I feel that game was more a once-in-a-generation, perfect storm clusterfuck than indicative of some systematic coaching failure.
Packer_Pete
January 21, 2015 at 05:58 pm
Fully agreed - in fact, I think most of us Packers fans wouldn't take the loss that badly if we would've been blown out of the stadium and lost by at least 3 TDs. I still think the Packers were the better prepared and overall better team than the Seahawks. That's why this loss really stings.
How about the "robber" scheme that allowed HaHa to play in a position to make those 2 INTs (and really should've had a 3rd)? How about the D completely shutting down the 10th ranked O in points with 24.6/game for 56 minutes? How about the O scoring 22 pts on the 1st ranked D in points with 15.9/game? The Packers did much better than all experts predicted, they outplayed the Seahawks for most of the game, and had it not been for a few lucky bounces, then the Packers would be on the way to Arizona now.
pooch
January 22, 2015 at 04:21 pm
Packer Pete your serious,22 points 5 turnovers.
pooch
January 22, 2015 at 04:23 pm
The mistakes started way before the 55 minute mark
FITZCORE1252
January 21, 2015 at 03:03 pm
I like Mike... don't think he should lose his job. But I really wish he would've been more aggressive. You're at the champs house, you have them reeling on the ropes... you do everything you can to knock them the Fuck out. Leave no doubt. Don't let it get into the judges hands (OVERTIME). Even going for it on one of the two early field goals, even if we don't score... make em go 99 and let them know you're there to win. I'm still so fucking pissed at that collapse.
I was watching Celebrity Apprentice, kinda made me think about this game. On that show, when there is so much blame to go around, it falls on the Project Manager. As it should. Mike was the PM on Sunday, and again, i don't think he should lose his job... But honestly, I'm so pissed, it wouldn't bother me right now either.
phillythedane
January 21, 2015 at 06:06 pm
So, Mr. Paul Ott C., if you are still reading the comments to your excellent contribution above, I would like your opinion on whether MM has to own up to his play calling in front of the media and the rest of us schmoes. You imply that he should.
He rarely calls out players publicly and never by name. I was a little surprised he alluded to one specific player and one specific play. It's very uncharacteristic. I chalked it up to the heat of the moment.
So my question is, does it really matter how he answers a media question? I take all his public proclamations with a grain of salt. He and the players are very tight-lipped about the juicy stuff that goes on in the locker room, and that's how it should be.
If he holds himself accountable to his players behind closed doors, isn't that good enough?
What's he supposed to say to all the second-guessing about play calling? It happens with every loss.
One play goes differently on Sunday and he's a freakin' genius.
Paul Ott Carruth
January 21, 2015 at 06:51 pm
Phillythedane,
Yes, in my opinion, he has to own up to his mistakes. Confident coaches always hold their share of the bag.....insecure coaches are defensive and confrontational. I've heard many a head coach make remarks like, "if I had to do it over I would maybe call something different there" or "I put our guys in a bad spot." He doesn't have to get specific (although it would be nice). I'm hoping the media asks him the pointed question, "was Aaron allowed to check off in that series?" It's not a hard question to answer. My guess is that it won't get asked. He was very defensive after the game while throwing Bostick under the bus. Most players are tight lipped.....Rodgers is becoming less so.
In the end it probably won't make any difference. As long as he rectifies the situation with the club that's what matters. However, I think, since he threw a player under the bus, he needs to publicly be conciliatory to save face with his club. I'm not a fan of Rodgers passive-aggressive take towards McCarthy's play calling but me thinks it was in response to McCarthy taking a shot at a player. So in that context, I don't have a problem firing a shot across Mike's bow to send a message. Mike can't preach accountability and expect his players to be vague in pressers when he publicly takes a shot at a player. He'll lose credibility that way.
phillythedane
January 21, 2015 at 10:30 pm
He can get awfully defensive, I'll grant you that. In all fairness, however, he often points the finger at himself; to wit: after the first Seattle game he said he had the wrong protection called on the sack-safety when the whole world was blaming Derek Sherrod.
I'm not so sure A. Rodgers is being passive-aggressive as he is trying like hell to stay on message in the face of a media feeding frenzy. It's obvious the players are coached up constantly about what they should and shouldn't say.
But I see your point. If all the players have to stay on message - "win and lose as a team, look in the mirror first, yada yada yada" - then so should the head coach.
Thank you for the fabulous insights, POC.
Thegreatreynoldo
January 22, 2015 at 03:08 am
I made a comment above about the defensive scheme (0 man coverage) used by Capers on the last play of the game (in the context of whether Capers should be retained and as to whether, when he has a lead, he uses prevent defenses and soft zones too much). It probably sounded like I was criticizing Capers for it.
Seattle had 5 eligible receivers in on the last play. As it turned out, they elected to use max protection and the TEs and RBs stayed in. In response, Capers decided to rush 5 and to use a spy since Wilson had started to run effectively. Given that, Capers had 5 in the secondary to cover 5 potential receivers. Thus, 0 man coverage with no safety help. Tramon Williams inexplicably allowed Kearse to have an immediate inside release, so given no deep safety, the WR can run under a long pass thrown in the middle with no boundary or side line to help the CB. Russell Wilson saw the 1 on 1 with no safety help, Seattle's max protection of 7 against GB's 5 rushers picked up the rush, and Russell threw a pretty good pass to Kearse for the TD. Game over.
I can't fault Capers for going with the 5 man rush since pressure had been generally effective during the game. I could quibble about the spy, who could have in the alternative acted as a deep S instead, given that this was overtime where giving up a FG allows the packer offense a chance to tie with a FG or win with a TD, while allowing Seattle to score a TD immediately loses the game. The Safety and 5 other DBs could come up and tackle Russell Wilson if necessary, or the 5 rushers could maintain contain. But all year Capers has put his CBs out on an island with good success, Seattle's WRs are nothing to write home about, and this defense took away important facets of Seattle's offense. All in all, I don't find fault with Capers for it.
JimTaylor31
January 22, 2015 at 06:18 am
We jumped out to a 16-0 lead and then get outscored 28-6 after that. My point is, it's a 4 quarter + OT game not a 55 minute game. It doesn't matter if you get knocked out in the first round or the 12th round. Same result. We really didn't kick their ass for 55 minutes. We kicked their ass for about 22 minutes and then were outscored 28-6. I have reconciled to the fact the best team did win. We had 'em on the ropes for awhile but couldn't finish the job. Let's move on and hope for a better end to 2015.
4thand1
January 22, 2015 at 02:39 pm
For what its worth. About the play calling and AR being able to change plays at the LOS, I think he was duped. Seattle players were saying AR wasn't really injured and I think he thought Sherman was faking and baiting him. The thought of throwing a pick at that point of the game would just be horrendous. AR hates throwing a pick in any game no matter what. He saw what the defense was doing and played it safe. Fear is a greater enemy than anything. JMO.
Evan
January 22, 2015 at 02:51 pm
I know I definitely thought Sherman was faking...or at least exaggerating.
hybridauth_Facebook_100004765273075
January 22, 2015 at 06:17 pm
Very observant Mr Nagler. Highly informative. Only one thing screws up your total entire layout: Aaron Rogers game goes in the toilet when he throws two or more inteceptions.
He stops calling pass plays and sticks with what Mikey is calling.
Ya on many of those plays, we all begged, use your arm Rogers, pass the dam ball and he just the whole friggin game handed in off to Lacy.
22 carries for 73 yards.
The issue was Rogers. Not the defensive lineups. It was Rogers becoming so worried about a third pick he went into a shell.
Watch him next year. He is on fire when his passes are caught but one inteception and then two and its all over. See the film of the KC game. That tells it all.