Am I the only one who actually likes McCarthy's playcalling? A lot of people seem to criticize him of being to conservative. Then others complain that we don't run the ball enough. What are your problems exactly (specific instances preferred)?

I'd prefer to keep it entirely on the playcalling. I agree that penalties and sloppy play are a problem and that's a discipline problem (i.e. coaching), but as far as just playcalling goes, I've liked what I've seen.

In the Vikings game he was aggressive and I liked it. We went for it on 4th down twice. The first time we converted but two plays later was Rodgers' pick. The second time Lee dropped Rodger's low pass in the endzone. Again, I liked the aggressiveness even though it didn't pay off. But you play to win the game.

I remember reading a criticism about how we ran a draw on 3rd and long deep in our own territory. But that was immediately after Colledge went down, and I thought that was the smart move given the beating Rodgers was already taking. We didn't run a whole lot in that game. Again, I thought it was a good move since our running game is absolute garbage. If you looked at our numbers, we had a good average, but that's because we ran only when they weren't expecting it. Draws, misdirections, or directly to the fullback. Anytime we tried to straight up run the ball we got stuffed. Got to work with what you got.

Given all the "off with his head" sentiment on the website, I feel that McCarthy's playcalling is one area that has been very solid. Does anyone remember Mike Sherman's playcalling? Now that drove me nuts. I don't know how many times I saw him punt on 4th and 1 at the opponents 40 yard line when we had been cramming the ball down their throats with the run game (A specific instance was in the infamous 4th and 26 game). McCarthy doesn't do that.

Now, in all honesty, I'd prefer if we were a smashmouth offense and we could run it every down and set up playaction that way, but we don't have the personnel to do it. We have a bottom 5 offensive line. The zone blocking scheme sucks (yes - that's McCarthy's fault). I felt like we were finally getting away with it with drafting guys like Sitton and now starting Spitz over Wells at center.

I'd say the only thing I'd like to see more of is maybe rollout passes. Rodgers seems to do well on the run, and if we move the pocket, he might get hit less. I do believe that McCarthy is calling shorter passing plays, but Rodgers is not releasing quickly enough. Although when Babre was guarding Ogunule(sp?), the only way Rodgers could get rid of that ball is if he was in some sort of temoral disturbance.

Bottom line:

What are your problems with his playcalling? Specifics preferred.

Let's discuss.

---

His stubborness to run the ball on 3rd or 4th and short. I understand that quality teams force their will on other teams in this situation, and it is where McCarthey wants to be. But we just don't have that kind of O-line to get the job done and we fail in those situations miserably.

We were a top five offense last year, what's to really complain about?

---

WERE being the keyword here!

I'm pretty confident MM has nothing to do with the plays that are called on defense, and it seems he can not make any adjustments to the offense or defensive schemes during the game!

---

I would that is true, but I recall Sherman called prevent in the infamouse 4th and 26 play where Donatell was calling for a blitz. So, it does happen. Hopefully that's not the case though.

---

Hey, we don't get to talk about Sherman anymore. The day he was fired all responsibility of his regime fell on Evil Ted's shoulders.

---

I think McCarthy is a good offensive tactician and play caller.

He put up several different looks against the Vikes early and they didn't know what was going on. McCarthy obviously wanted the lead early in that game and on two drives Rodgers gets hits and fumbles and then throws the lone INT of the season.

We were moving the ball with no problem and end up starting out behind in that game and playing catch up the rest of the way. I look at that first quarter and how we left points out there as a big factor in the end. You can't fault McCarthy for that.

Offensively, he has the system, the game plan, and the players, and you can see out there if they just execute they could score a ton of points. I have no problem with him running the offense.

---

Its not because of McCarthy's play calling. Its because the offense can't get into rhythm with all of these sacks.


Overall I think McCarthy's play calling has been pretty good.

---

Then call more runs or short passes to tame the pass rushing dogs.

---

In line with this reasoning, I miss seeing those short slant patterns. It seems that at least once a game the Pack used to break one of those for a big gainer. It seems this would be a good play to run frequently since our line can't seem to give AR the protection for a 3-5 step drop. Also, given his obvious athleticism, I think Finley should be targeted much more often, perhaps 10-12 times per game (after he chips a rusher, that is).

---

Our running game is non existant. He can't call runs until we show we can gain more then 2 yards on a run.

---

McCarthy does not stick with what is working. Against MN, we ran some quick plays, a couple screens and move the ball with ease on the first drive. Those plays disappeared the rest of the game. Only one of 4 games so far has Grant had 20 rushes. 16 against Chi getting 3.8 per, 14 vs Cin 3.3, 11 vs MN 4.6 per. None of those games had bad enough production to limit the carries that much.

The passing game needs help from the run. Just consistent use of it even if not gaining big yards will help Rodgers and the WRs.

---

Agreed.

In life, you play to your strengths and cover your weaknesses. Same with football. More screens. More short slants. More passes to Finley and let him bruise some DBs. The short passes open up both the long passes and the running game. Or, it substitutes for the running game.

Now back on topic, this is EXACTLY what MM did in '07. Don't forget we were 7-1 without a running game that year. Notice how late in the game, Favre would complete a bomb? Well, exactly what I was saying - the short passing game opens up the long passing game. It also helps hide the fact that our OL sucks.

---

What your all touching on and what needs to happen is getting more production on first down.

I went through the play by play in the Vikes game and it clearly showed our struggles in this area.

Before the last couple of drives during the normal course of the game there were 16 first down plays. In twelve of those we were 2nd and eight or worse. On three we lost a fumble and Rodgers was sacked twice.

Only once did we make a first down on first down and the other three times we gained 9, 5, and 4 yards. In otherwords the defense won 12 of 16 first down plays.

Now there is no one way of turning that around. If the defense is set to take away the run or is set up to take away the short pass the best possible play has to be called according to how the defense is set up.

The short passing game in itself cannot be a catch all for what is ailing us. I remember two years ago when we were beating the snot out of the Bears in the first half with short passes and slants. They came out in the second half and took that away. Now that opened up other options that we couldn't capitalize on and we ended up losing the game.

Our offense needs to be more consistant and not rely on the big play. We will get our share of those but we can smother teams if we can sustain drives and that is going take better production on first down.

---

Let me say that I don't disagree with much that is in this post, but I'm not willing to budge on one particular issue: the run game against Minnie.

The 11 carries for 4.6 per carry are in themselves skewed numbers. Over half of those yards came on draw plays. They got about as much production as they could against Minnesota, and again, the gameplan we proceeded effective. Green Bay moved the ball pretty consistently, especially taking into account the sacks and especially at the beginning of the game (when, as pointed out, we left points off the board with turnovers).

I stand with the OP -- I like McCarthy's playcalling. I think it's kind of one of those jobs where you don't get the credit when things are going well.

---

Give the rock to the RB more often. It's hard to get into a rhythm for a RB and OL when you're running a run play once a leap year.

---

The biggest thing I don't like is the way the plays are called. One time nothing but runs, another nothing but passes. He doesn't seem to get them mixed consistently. In the MN game, there was not 2 consecutive runs through the 1st 3 qtrs of the game. The only time there were two consecutive runs, is when we were inside our own 10 and it was to setup a punt.

As for the draws against MN, they are the best thing to run against a line that provides that much pressure. Draws and screens, we have been calling for them for a couple weeks. He finally ran them, but not enough.

With the way the offense moved on the first drive with the short passes and screens, to not come back to that plan later was wrong. I am one who definately does not like his playcalling combinations.

---

You are definately entitled to your own opinion. I'm just failing to see the link in the Minnesota game. We ran screens and draws, but not enough? It wasn't like our problem was moving the ball. We moved the ball pretty well throughout -- sacks notwithstanding.

If you want to argue that more screens/draws would cut down on the sacks, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But adding those plays in may not account for all the yards they accrued with the plays that were called. Does what I'm saying make sense?

---

For me it is not a matter of moving the ball. It is a matter of getting our QB killed. Screens, draws, not to mention 3-4 yards slants, curls, crossing routes stop the pass rush. I will see a series where there is a combination that works, then never again and we will be back to 5 medium to long passes to 1 run or something.

We always hear about play scripting, the entire purpose of the script is to have a set of practiced plays, and not to have to decide what to run. Call the play, and see what the D throws to defend. Then see what works and what doesn't, then follow up with the plays that work later in the game. Also to set up other plays, slant and go and stuff. I don't see MM going back to what worked, or using the WCO short game to setup the long balls anymore. He did that with Favre and with Rodgers some last year. I haven't seen it this year.

This year, the majority of the time, I don't even see us using the WCO anymore. We are going against most of the fundamental rules it was designed by.

as you say, that is just the way I see things going.

---

You raise some good points/observations. I think a more rigorous film-study would be in order. It's hard for me to make a determination about a play-call. The plays that ended in sacks -- how many of them were 5-step drop, downfield plays? Again going with the theme that MANY times the pressure came too quickly and with only four rushing, the quick passes aren't necessarily the better option. I can say that I know at least three of those sacks (I was watching with this in mind) were against some variation of a Cover 2 zone defense. This defense is designed to take away short/mid-range passing options. When a defense like that has the added bonus of excellent pressure with the front four, it can be a suffocatingly difficult defense to beat. For the record, many of the big plays we put up (late in the game against Minnesota) were more of the "downfield" variety.

I think you are right in that there needs to be more of a balance. And hey, just like many others on this board I'm a big fan of the slant pass! I do, however, think there's something to the way that McCarthy has been calling the games. You have to attack Cover 2 zone defenses up the deep middle -- look at some of the explosive plays from that game. Jordy Nelson's comes to mind.

---

He's predictable. When he actually get a run play to work, he'll go back to the run for the next two plays. He never mixes things up or hasn't this year. He also throws on first-down way to often. That's one of the reasons why GB is in 3rd and long too much.

There is a difference between playcalling and managing a game or at least I think so. Going for it on fourth down, I agreed with except at the goaline. I do tend to like his aggressive nature. What I don't like is the plays he calls in the situations.

It gets very repetitive. I'd like to see a pass and run mix.

---