I just hate this type of playcalling. I always have. Especially what we did with it. A funny looking play action that the vikes didn't fall for. You know why they didn't fall for it?..Because why the heck else would we be in gun if we weren't passing?..Jeez. Where's the full house backfield there?..Or something. Maybe a rollout and give Aaron an option. Or heck, pound the dang thing for a yard. No wonder the OL has no confidence. You're going spread on 3rd and 1 on your own side of the field.

---

It's like you took the word out of my mouth. I wrote the same thing in a different thread. I know why he did it though. He was trying to be cute.

GB has ran on 3rd and one a couple of times this year including last week on their first 3rd and one against Cleveland. They ran with I believe Brandon Jackson.

McCarthy knew Minnesota saw that on film and he thought he could fool them.

Not so much.

---

What the heck is Ahman even here for?..It seems like 3rd and short is made for him. He dang sure ain't made for KR.

---

Ugh. If it freaking works, we don't doubt the playcall. The fact is between both contests we ran the draw -- and in the first matchup we did so effectively. That means EXACTLY in a situation like 3rd and 1 that the draw is a distinct possibility. Minnesota didn't fall for it and Rodgers had nowhere to go about it. That doesn't mean it wasn't a good call.

---

Uh..And if I had one more number right on my lottery ticket, I'd be rich. What's your point?..I hate going spread on third and short in ALL situations. It's just plain trying too hard. Take the big back you brought back for THIS TYPE OF SITUATION...and run him twice. If you can't get a yard in those two plays..You lose. oh well.

---

I agree. If it doesn't work, it's not a good call. Vikings didn't fall for it. A good call or good coaching would have called something that they would have fallen for.

One play doesn't mean the coaches aren't good, it just means that the other coaches were better on that particular call, because, the play didn't work.

A lot of factors go into a play call, but percentages play a big role IMO.

I would be willing to say the percentage of getting a first down on 3rd and one is greater if you run the ball than if you play action out of shot gun....

Even play action out of a regular formation a full house set or i-formation.

That play was a very strange call. I get what he was doing, but sometimes you need to respect your opponents 'intelligence too. Not sure he did that. Against bad teams who are usually over aggressive and undisciplined, that play probably works, but against a very very good team, that play mostly doesn't.

---

With our run game and running back I would be a lot more comfortable passing it. Now a play-action that's not out of gun probably would have been more suitable. In all honesty though I would just QB sneak it. It's probably the highest percentage play in that situation. I remember seeing a coach do that a few weeks ago, I think it was Josh McDaniels. They were driving and had a 3rd and 1 in the 4th quarter I believe and instead of messing around he just had Orton line up and snap it instantly and go forward giving the defense no time to really prepare for it. I liked that call a lot.

Really? Our run game that didn't exist? We ran the ball something like 15 times. 5 of the carries were Aaron Scrambling.

Because we can't run it. We failed so badly running in the first half and did much better when we did run. I'm just saying the Vikings defensive line would probably have collapsed the line before Grant could get out of backfield. Aaron on a bootleg gives him a pass/run option or a QB sneak means we don't have to risk getting pulled down in the backfield.