Conservative play calling cost Green Bay this game?

[Northhawk]

Lots of Packer fans, many in the media, blame McCarthy and even Rodgers hinted that the coach's conservative play calling was the reason why they lost.

But, really, if you're up by over two scores with less than five minutes, what would any coach do? Start throwing a wet ball down field? Especially since Lacey was having some success early?

Not buying it. Our D held them off and and O & special teams pulled off a miracle.

 

[SonicHawk]

What lost them the game is scoring fewer points than Seattle.

 

[sutz]

Pretty standard bill of fare.

:229031_shrug:

 

[mikeak]

What they are talking about is NOT going for it in first quarter. They have seattle offense shutdown and they are on fourth and inches TWICE from a TD

Yeah that pretty much set the tone and cost them points.

 

[sutz]

What they are talking about is NOT going for it in first quarter. They have seattle offense shutdown and they are on fourth and inches TWICE from a TD

Yeah that pretty much set the tone and cost them points.

Well enough, but you never know how things will affect a game going forward. Don Shula used to say that the thing that will swing momentum more than anything else is a successful goal line stand. If either one of those had been tried and failed it could have been far worse for GB. I usually don't complain about 'conservative' play calling in the first quarter, especially with the lead. Adding any points at all makes the opponent's job that much harder.

Players will almost always go for the 'aggressive' play call, and they're generally wrong, from a statistical standpoint.

 

[tom sawyer]

...uhm...actually, it was the lower score at the end of the game... but other excuses are welcome.

 

[mikeak]

What they are talking about is NOT going for it in first quarter. They have seattle offense shutdown and they are on fourth and inches TWICE from a TD

Yeah that pretty much set the tone and cost them points.

Well enough, but you never know how things will affect a game going forward. Don Shula used to say that the thing that will swing momentum more than anything else is a successful goal line stand. If either one of those had been tried and failed it could have been far worse for GB. I usually don't complain about 'conservative' play calling in the first quarter, especially with the lead. Adding any points at all makes the opponent's job that much harder.

Players will almost always go for the 'aggressive' play call, and they're generally wrong, from a statistical standpoint.

Statistically I am willing to bet money on grantland having an article tomorrow how much of a bonehead move it was twice.

Prior subjects have stated that score is averages 3+ pts when going for it there.

Already a goal line stand when they kick 3....

 

[mikeak]

Also compare it to the fake FG and it was coaching scared

 

[randomation]

Mathematically it was absolutely the wrong call not to go for it there. Even outside of stats the way the game was going then the worst that happens is you give the Seattle O the ball at the 1 given how our line was playing it's quite likely we give up a safety. Both cases it was absolutely the wrong call. On 4th and 1 the correct call is almost always to go for it, when you are at the opponent's one yard line it definitely is.

 

[themunn]

Mathematically it was absolutely the wrong call not to go for it there. Even outside of stats the way the game was going then the worst that happens is you give the Seattle O the ball at the 1 given how our line was playing it's quite likely we give up a safety. Both cases it was absolutely the wrong call. On 4th and 1 the correct call is almost always to go for it, when you are at the opponent's one yard line it definitely is.

mathematically

realistically, the seahawks have stopped opponents on their own goalline far more than they have allowed point scored. if the packers knew they would get a second opportunity, maybe they go for it twice, but taking points when they're available has to be the best option against the seahawks.

for 57 minutes they played a perfect game. you can't blame not doing something 55 minutes prior to that for them failing to win. more likely than not, what would have happened was that the game would never have made it to overtime

 

[Sherman4Prez]

When you let off the gas pedal, you deserve to lose. That's not what got you the lead so it's foolish to think it's the smarter way to go. The door was left open and the burglar came through. SEA stole that one, but GB deserved to lose for letting up. Hopefully 5 turnovers isn't the story against NE.

 

[hawk45]

Huh. I certainly agree going for it would have been fine even if they failed given how inept our offense was.

But then again, given how inept our offense was, 3 pts doesn't seem like quite the booby prize it ordinarily would have either.

Comparing their play calling to our play calling isn't very fair. We went for a fake on 4th down...well our offense hadn't shown signs of life the entire game and this was looking like the closest we'd ever get to the end zone. We were truly in desperation mode, made sense to pull a desperation gamble out. In their case, they'd been moving the ball every drive, they could afford to slowly pile up the points.

If they knew we had a miracle in our back pockets they'd have played it differently, but it ain't a miracle if it's easily foreseen.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Not sure I buy that. Up by 2 scores with 5 minutes left, and your defense hasn't allowed a TD. You need to milk the clock. It's hard to get first downs when the other team knows you are going to run it 3 times in a row. The game for GB was lost on special teams and a late collapse by the D.