I got in a debate with someone on here 2 weeks ago complaining the Packers ran on 2nd, 3rd, and then kicked 4th and 1 from the goal.
My issue is that what I so often read here or elsewhere is analysis that essentially boils down to did the play work Y/N? If it worked and you ran/passed - your run/pass was brilliant. If it failed and you ran/passed - you're a moron or not aggressive enough. How bad would Carroll have looked if Wilson was sacked at the end of the 1st half and they didn't even get 3 points. Well it worked so he's smart now (or at least as of halftime).
On Mike and Mike this morning, I think they said Lynch had something like 9 1st and goal from the 1 attempts this year for 5 yards. As I said elsewhere, there were 109 1st and 1 pass attempts in the NFL this year....1 interception. Was the play really that risky?
As far as the put it in your best player's hands thoughts. I agree to an extent, but if you have a nice new Audi you don't drive it in the snowstorm just because it's your prettiest car. Lacy or Wilson aren't chopped liver. In the Packers' case, Lacy killed clock and timeouts in a 12 point game. I'm not saying a first down wouldn't have greatly helped the Packers, just that it's not as bad an approach as it's being made out to be. In the case of Wilson, although it was intended to be a snap decision, you still have the ball in the hands of one of the most elusive QBs in the NFL if the slant wasn't there.
Originally Posted by: musccy
Look, I didn't throw McCarthy under the bus after the Seattle game. We did the run, run, throw thing in our five-minute offense all season. I believe we did it to the New England Patriots and it worked then. As mentioned, Quarless had a play on a third-down ball and failed to catch it. The Packers didn't just execute. I do have some issues with how McCarthy managed the game early, but there wasn't just one person responsible for what happened in Seattle. The crime there had more than one criminal.
Last night was more of an isolated instance. That’s why I don’t think you can compare the two. This play wasn‘t executed well, sure, but the coaching was not up to par in this situation.
How many of those 109 first and one pass attempts were an inside slant involving a so-called legal pick? Why not go with a play-action pass? Why not call a fade or back shoulder? Even if you agree with throwing on second down, Seattle had better plays in their arsenal to run there.
With that said, I fully understand what Seattle was thinking. I don’t agree with it. They didn’t want to have to take a timeout after second down. For example, if New England stuffs Lynch on second down, they have to use their final timeout. That makes third down a throwing situation. You can’t disguise anything then. Plus, a sack by New England ends the game. They feared that situation, in my assessment.
The thought process was that pass, run, timeout, and run makes more sense than run, timeout, pass, and run.
To me, Seattle was overtly cautious in that situation because they worried about New England too much. All they had to do was worry about the guys in their huddle. Play to your strengths. Put the ball in the hands of your best player. You and I had the discussion last week, so you know how highly I think of Lynch. As I said, sometimes a bad call is just a bad call. This was a bad call.