I would appreciate it if we could give more concrete examples. Stubbornness so far is only a concept -- what does it mean in the context of a game and what are some examples?
All things considered, can we actually evaluate if McCarthy is "stubborn"? Doesn't that task require wholly more information than we have available? Doesn't a fair conclusion require first taking into account how all sorts of different variables interact with one another?
I've seen the argument laid out that last year Green Bay didn't get things clicking until the offense changed its tune. No more 5-7 step drops, get rid of the ball faster, use more quick-developing and high-percentage plays. The Dallas game is used as the most obvious example of this paradigm shift.
I'm mostly on board with the assumption that this shift helped Green Bay down the stretch. The extent to which this seeming change is reflected in stats, however, is murky at best. In the first eight games Green Bay averaged 377 yards/game -- in the final eight (starting with win over Dallas) it was 381.5 yards/game.
Maybe yards per game aren't the best stat to use. Alright, what about points per game? First 8 games: 26.86 points/game; final 8: 30.75 points/game. Maybe points help us understand it better. But wait, the Pack forced 23 of their 41 turnovers in the final 8 games, maybe that had to do with it. Maybe it wasn't a shift in playcalling.
The only statistic that reflects a prohibitive difference (that I'm aware of) between last season's first and second halves is sacks. To that end, we might applaud the change in offensive philosophy/playcalling. Who is to say that Rodgers' maturation or Cliffy and Tausch didn't play a part in it, as well? How do we distinguish the effects of multiple variables?
My whole point here is that there are a lot of moving parts. We could all argue that success or lack thereof is attributed to a particular variable -- shorter/quicker passing plays, defensive turnovers, etc. But I'm just not comfortable reaching any sound conclusions.
At this point I feel I can comfortably point out only two things. One: I think observation as well as the data would suggest that Green Bay has been pretty poor on 3rd downs. Last year, Rodgers was absurdly proficient in those situations (even in long down and distances, which we were often in due to the volume of sacks). This year, he's been at best shaky. Sacks, dropped passes, communication breakdowns that lead to interceptions, questionable decision making, questionable playcalls -- all have had an effect.
Secondly: Green Bay hasn't had the same turnover success this season (which is understandable -- last year they forced a ton, but also played against a lot of crappy QBs). Through six games last year they had 13 turnovers; this year it's 7. And in honesty, those first 6 games are a pretty appropriate sampling of what they did last year -- their next 6 games featured 14 turnovers, their final 6 games had 14 turnovers. Green Bay was pretty consistently making big plays on defense. The injuries didn't pile up until the end, and you could argue that the effect in the secondary was deleterious. It is hard to expect a similar turnover output anyway, but the early-season injury bug ... ahem ... plague isn't helping.
Failing to sustain drives and becoming more pedestrian in the takeaway department doesn't help a team that's increasingly beat-up.
Sorry for the giant block of text.
William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."