Analysis of the MM/Rodgers Era/Close Games

[LUKE23]

Just food for thought here and wanted to get some discussion going. Under MM/Rodgers, we have played 40 games. I have the W's and L's PPG margin listed for each year here:

2008 AVG
L 11 9 3 3 1 22 4 3 4 3 6.3
W 5 23 10 20 34 10 17

2009
L 7 7 12 10 1 7.4
W 6 19 26 28 10 6 22 13 7 38 17.5

2010
L 3 3 3 3
W 7 27 2 4 9 9.8

In the 40 games we've played under MM, we've had 13 games decided by 4 points or less. We've won 2 of them. Our average loss in the 18 games is 6.05 points, so less than a TD. In our wins, we have won by an average of 14.8 points. Is anyone else of the belief that the talent overrides everything against the games we should win, but coaching holds us back in a lot of the toss up games. Maybe I'm off base, just thought I'd throw it out there.

[Flames24Rulz]

I've been saying that for well over a year now. There's no question that our coaching holds us back in tight games.

McCarthy basically admitted that he overthought the gameplan for the Jets coming into the game yesterday. That's not good.

[Ayt]

I really don't put much stock into this.

[MickeyDavis]

I've never thought MM was a good game coach. I think he does a good job getting the team motivated and not quitting. It would have been easy for this team to have given up with the injuries and close losses. It didn't. last years team was 3-4, losing to a bad Tampa team and facing a good Dallas team. Could have packed it in, instead went 7-1 in the second half.

[RiotPunch]

My only issue with McCarthy is his poor judgement on the field, when it matters. He is a master talent-developer and also seems to really care about and defend his guys. I really like that about him. Aaron's current reputation around the league as a borderline elite QB in the NFL had a lot to do with MM.

I am not convinced that we can be a year in/year out force in the NFC with McCarthy as our guy. The only scenario I foresee is Mike giving up his playcalling and bringing in an offensive mind to maximize Aaron's talents during his prime years. I don't think that could happen though, MM is a stubborn SOB.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

My only issue with McCarthy is his poor judgement on the field, when it matters. He is a master talent-developer and also seems to really care about and defend his guys. I really like that about him. Aaron's current reputation around the league as a borderline elite QB in the NFL had a lot to do with MM.

I am not convinced that we can be a year in/year out force in the NFC with McCarthy as our guy. The only scenario I foresee is Mike giving up his playcalling and bringing in an offensive mind to maximize Aaron's talents during his prime years. I don't think that could happen though, MM is a stubborn SOB.

Pretty much agree. He won't take us to the next level with his decision-making, but is a great motivator.

[paulpressey25]

I do not think that MM or TT have paid enough attention to special teams. Wolf wanted the best kicker, punter and return man he could find. And had no problem drafting guys late who he knew could at a minimum be a special teams stud on coverage units. In the meantime Holmgren was a detail freak who made Nolan Cromwell accountable on his special teams work.

Those poor special teams have manifested themselves in the close losses IMO.

Go back to the year we won the Super Bowl. We had the #1 offense and #1 ranked defense. And arguably our special teams and Desmond Howard were what sealed the deal that year from week two against the Chargers to the Super Bowl. Even with the best O and best D, we still needed those special teams.

[MickeyDavis]

Agreed. Good special teams yesterday were a key to our win. No long returns, good punting, no penalties. We need that every game.

[xTitan]

The only problem with looking at stats is you do not see the variables....anything this team does offensively the rest of this year is a bonus, you have lost perhaps your 2 biggest offensive weapons and also Driver, whether it be injury or he just got to old....hard to overcome. McCarthy is very conservative by nature, he does not choose to step on the throats of opponents when he has the chance and that really hurts him. I also agree 100% about special teams, that has really bothered me a lot, especially this year....you can also throw in lack on concern about penalties and thus mental mistakes. It is not a surprise to me the Packers won the past 2 games with very few penalities and beat the Jets with + special teams, although a return man would be nice.

[Wade-A-Holic]

I do not think that MM or TT have paid enough attention to special teams. Wolf wanted the best kicker, punter and return man he could find. And had no problem drafting guys late who he knew could at a minimum be a special teams stud on coverage units. In the meantime Holmgren was a detail freak who made Nolan Cromwell accountable on his special teams work.

Those poor special teams have manifested themselves in the close losses IMO.

Go back to the year we won the Super Bowl. We had the #1 offense and #1 ranked defense. And arguably our special teams and Desmond Howard were what sealed the deal that year from week two against the Chargers to the Super Bowl. Even with the best O and best D, we still needed those special teams.

I agree completely. This is McCarthy's biggest weakness and possibly my biggest criticism of Thompson's. I think the Packers have outplayed the Bears on offense and defense every single game of the McCarthy era but the record doesn't reflect it only because of garbage special teams play on our part.

That, and the defense did not help Rodgers and the offense out what so ever in his first season.

This is not to say McCarthy and Rodgers don't need to improve in the 4th quarter. It's just not as dire a picture as many make it out to be, and it's something I don't worry about as I think it'll work itself out over time.

[LUKE23]

Under MM, 2-12 in games decided by four points or less.

[OBF-MKE]

Better to lose a game by a close amount then by a huge amount. Good teams, when they lose, don't lose by much and win by a lot. Could be the case here.

The 2-12 in games decided by four points... alarming, but it could be noise.

Just playing devil's advocate, though. I agree that McCarthy makes enough boners to cost the team close games.

[Simulack]

Under MM, 2-12 in games decided by four points or less.

Disturbing but need to refine the criteria a bit if we want a more accurate picture as to how we fare in "close games."

For example, we beat the Bears 21-15 to start the season last year. Although it was a 6 point margin of victory, we of course got the winning score on a long pass to Jennings with about a minute left. I think we would all agree that should be counted as a close game but it is excluded when you just look at margin of victory.

Same deal with Cardinals game in playoffs - we lost by 6 but that has to be counted as a close game.

[rilamann]

The thing is we lose so many close games and in just about every one of them there is multiple glaring coaching blunders.

If we were losing close games because we were simply getting beat that would be one thing.

But we're losing close games over and over again because of bad coaching,it's been a broken record for awhile now.

[Bernman]

Under MM, 2-12 in games decided by four points or less.

Did MM precede TT. (that's a rhetorical question).

The truth is the blame should be shared by both, and actually fall more on TT because he's the one who hired MM in the first place.

MM is a bad decision maker and that will often hurt you in close games. It has hindered the team from winning a couple close games. But a coach only has so much effect on a team with game management. It influences a few plays a game and that's about it.

In the bigger picture it's more an issue of what PP alluded to earlier. The personnel decision maker (TT) doesn't pay attention to detail and have killer instinct. We've lost a number of these games because of special teams. Mason Crosby has blown several game winners in the aforementioned time period. Also, we lost this game in part off his kickoff and suspect special teams' coverage. The lack of short yardage running game, especially this year, has been a killer at consistently moving the chains and punching the ball in, so they're good enough to hang around, but often not get over the top. And there are many defensive chokes in the 14 games.

To put any blame in general on Aaron Rodgers is silly. He's about a clutch neutral quarterback at this point.

[trwi7]

Okay, I'm doing this for Simulack. I'll let you guys choose which ones you want to use.

2006:

vs New Orleans - Packers get the ball down 7 with 3:09 left at their own 41. They get to the New Orleans 44 before 4 straight incomplete passes end the game. Packers lose 34-27.

@ Detroit - Packers lead by 7. Detroit gets the ball on their own 32 with 54 seconds left. They advance to the Packers 45 but can't convert a hail mary. Packers win 31-24.

vs St. Louis - Packers trail by 3. They get the ball on their own 46 with 2:41 left and drive down to the St. Louis 11 yard line. Brent fumbles, Rams recover. Packers lose 23-20.

vs Minnesota - Packers trail by 1. They get the ball on their own 33 with 4:47 left. They drive to the Minnesota 26. Dave Rayner kicks a 44 yard FG, the defense holds. Packers win 9-7.

2007:

vs Philadelphia - Mason Crosby kicks a 42 yard FG with 2 seconds left. Packers win 17-14.

vs San Diego - Packers take the lead with 2:03 left on a 57 yard pass to Jennings. They get the ball back and a little over a minute later score another TD to give them a 10 point lead. San Diego gets a FG with 20 seconds left but the Packers recover the onside kick. Packers win 31-24.

@ Minnesota - Packers have a 7 point lead with 1:55 left. Brint fumbles and the Vikings get the ball back with 1:44 left. They get to the Packers 34 before Bigby gets an INT. Packers win 23-16.

vs Chicago - Game is tied. Bears get the ball with 5:27 left at their own 21 and drive down to score a TD with 2:03 left. The Packers get the ball and drive to the Bears 32 before Brint is picked off. Packers lose 27-20.

vs Washington - Packers win by 3.

@ Denver - Obvious. Packers win in OT.

@ Kansas City - Packers take a 1 point lead with 3:05 left. Crosby adds a FG with 1:40 left to put the Packers up 4. Woodson seals it with a pick 6 with 59 seconds left. Packers win 33-22.

vs New York - Obviously know about this. NFC Championship game.

2008-2010 is pretty much covered.

[raysbookclub]

2008 was the worst, so many losses in close games. Remember that one against Carolina? Ugh. I think we were on the NFL Network's game of the week Replay like 5 times, all or 4 out 5 losses.

How do we keep losing these games? Today, could've won, but a respectable loss, even though it was horrendous to give them the ball at the 50 after tying it. The Bears loss this season was terrible. I wonder if we are sometimes done in by overconfidence, like we're almost entitled to wins because of superior ability. I wonder if in that Bears game, players got frustrated because they knew the score should've been lopsided for the Pack, and made not-smart plays down the stretch.

The other question, yes, is how does Slocum still have a job? It feels like when Kurt Schottenheimer was our DBs coach year after year.

[Simulack]

Another angle of approaching this problem is too look at the frequency of losses where the Packers have nonetheless out gained their opponent. Although it isn't perfect, it is one way of quantifying the sense many of us have that we often lose games "we should have won."

Today we out gained Atlanta 418 yards to 294 and still lost. Unfortunately this is a common theme the last few years.

Since 2008, the Packers have managed to lose 10 games where they have out gained their opponent in total yardage (19 losses total during this stretch). During the same period, there were only 4 games where we won a game despite being out gained by our opponent (24 total wins). So we out gained our opponents in 52.6% of our losses; conversely, only 16.7% of our wins were situations were we stole a win despite being out gained.

These stats are somewhat skewed toward the 2008 year where there were more instances of this. This year we are actually 3-3 in terms of losing while out gaining versus winning while being out gained. Still, I think it is telling that 3 of our 4 losses were games where the Pack out played a team both in our perception and the stats.

Continually losing despite an edge in yardage emphasizes the importance of things like coaching, special teams, turnovers and penalties.

[El Duderino]

Under MM, 2-12 in games decided by four points or less.

Did MM precede TT. (that's a rhetorical question).

The truth is the blame should be shared by both, and actually fall more on TT because he's the one who hired MM in the first place.

MM is a bad decision maker and that will often hurt you in close games. It has hindered the team from winning a couple close games. But a coach only has so much effect on a team with game management. It influences a few plays a game and that's about it.

In the bigger picture it's more an issue of what PP alluded to earlier. The personnel decision maker (TT) doesn't pay attention to detail and have killer instinct. We've lost a number of these games because of special teams. Mason Crosby has blown several game winners in the aforementioned time period. Also, we lost this game in part off his kickoff and suspect special teams' coverage. The lack of short yardage running game, especially this year, has been a killer at consistently moving the chains and punching the ball in, so they're good enough to hang around, but often not get over the top. And there are many defensive chokes in the 14 games.

To put any blame in general on Aaron Rodgers is silly. He's about a clutch neutral quarterback at this point.

I agree and that's why i hate people just trying to place blame on McCarthy and Rodgers for so many close losses.

Mason Crosby alone could have won a few of these close losses if he didn't choke so often on crucial kicks. The defense as you said has done their fair share of late game fold jobs when we badly needed a stop. Last time i checked, neither Rodgers/McCarthy coaches or plays on the defense.

As for the inability to simply run for first downs/TD's when we only need a yard or two, you could argue that it cost us today's game and the Washington game even though Crosby missed a game winning FG.

Everyone blames McCarthy for calling two sneaks at the goal line today, but it's easy to second guess from a computer given the way our OL was getting it's asss handed to them when McCarthy tried to run and our crappy stable of running backs.

This has been a big problem all season. We can run the ball decently here and there more so by deception in the shotgun because defenses are usually geared up trying to defend our passing game first, but if it's 3rd and short or near the goal line, defenses play run first and our combination of OL/RB is very poor at converting when McCarthy gives them the chance. I'm sure he'd love to look smart by being able to do what Atlanta does in those situations, just give it to Turner and covert at a high percentage.

So MM with good reason has very little confidence that in short yardage, he can simply hand it to a RB and get that needed yard or two. It's to the point that id almost rather see it be say 3rd and 4 than 3rd and 1.

[Enrique]

Under MM, 2-12 in games decided by four points or less.

Did MM precede TT. (that's a rhetorical question).

The truth is the blame should be shared by both, and actually fall more on TT because he's the one who hired MM in the first place.

MM is a bad decision maker and that will often hurt you in close games. It has hindered the team from winning a couple close games. But a coach only has so much effect on a team with game management. It influences a few plays a game and that's about it.

In the bigger picture it's more an issue of what PP alluded to earlier. The personnel decision maker (TT) doesn't pay attention to detail and have killer instinct. We've lost a number of these games because of special teams. Mason Crosby has blown several game winners in the aforementioned time period. Also, we lost this game in part off his kickoff and suspect special teams' coverage. The lack of short yardage running game, especially this year, has been a killer at consistently moving the chains and punching the ball in, so they're good enough to hang around, but often not get over the top. And there are many defensive chokes in the 14 games.

To put any blame in general on Aaron Rodgers is silly. He's about a clutch neutral quarterback at this point.

I agree and that's why i hate people just trying to place blame on McCarthy and Rodgers for so many close losses.

Mason Crosby alone could have won a few of these close losses if he didn't choke so often on crucial kicks. The defense as you said has done their fair share of late game fold jobs when we badly needed a stop. Last time i checked, neither Rodgers/McCarthy coaches or plays on the defense.

As for the inability to simply run for first downs/TD's when we only need a yard or two, you could argue that it cost us today's game and the Washington game even though Crosby missed a game winning FG.

Everyone blames McCarthy for calling two sneaks at the goal line today, but it's easy to second guess from a computer given the way our OL was getting it's asss handed to them when McCarthy tried to run and our crappy stable of running backs.

This has been a big problem all season. We can run the ball decently here and there more so by deception in the shotgun because defenses are usually geared up trying to defend our passing game first, but if it's 3rd and short or near the goal line, defenses play run first and our combination of OL/RB is very poor at converting when McCarthy gives them the chance. I'm sure he'd love to look smart by being able to do what Atlanta does in those situations, just give it to Turner and covert at a high percentage.

So MM with good reason has very little confidence that in short yardage, he can simply hand it to a RB and get that needed yard or two. It's to the point that id almost rather see it be say 3rd and 4 than 3rd and 1.

agree completely. 3rd and 1 is the Packers cryptonite. Hard to win on the road against good teams when you can't punch it in on short yardage. It's too bad, cuz our passing game was damn near unstoppable.