Packer Notes: On Challenges, Special Teams, Tony Gonzalez, and Rankings
by Brandon on Dec 2, 2010 7:01 AM CST
in Green Bay Packers Analysis
Email
PrintKevin Seifert discusses the replay disadvantage that the Green Bay Packers had as the visiting team last week. But what I found interesting was that Mike McCarthy has been the most successful coach on replays in the NFC North this season. None of the current (and former) head coaches have been very aggressive, but it's no surprise that Lovie Smith has the worst percentage. He might be a great coach in many regards, but not when it comes to throwing the challenge flag.
The special teams were awful on returns and coverage last week. But according to the Journal-Sentinel, the in-game injuries to TE Spencer Havner, CB Pat Lee, RB Dimitri Nance, and LB Brandon Chillar really caused those units some problems, and forced them to shuffle personnel. That's a good point as to that game. However it carries little weight as to all the problems they've been having on special teams all season long (or all last season long, or the season before that...).
If you can stomach it, Football Outsiders goes into detail on how TE Tony Gonzalez owned the Packer linebackers and safeties on a couple key plays. The article seems to be most critical of LB A.J. Hawk and S Charlie Peprah. The touchdown reception was a big mistake, but it's hard to put the blame on any one player since the pass was thrown in-between multiple defenders.
Some various rankings from around the web. Football Outsiders ranked Aaron Rodgers's game against the Falcons as the 4th most valuable QB performance of the week. While the Packers slipped from No. 2 to No. 7 in the SB Nation power rankings, they're the 4th best team according to Football Outsiders.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kevin Seifert Blog
One thing I found interesting in reading the Kevin Seifert discussion of challenges is that through 11 games NFC North coaches have taken a grand total of 4, 5, 5, and 6 challenges. Those numbers don’t exactly make me think challenges should be treated as cherished red rubies (to match the red flag, of course) that should be preserved and not “wasted” on challenging crucial 4th down plays when there is at least a sliver of doubt about the outcome of the play.
You should read the follow up article
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/20343/dirty-laundry-update-the-nfls-response
Specifically the section about the length of time it takes for the replays to be shown in the stadium. The issue appears to be the lack of information to issue a challenge and thus not knowing when to challenge. There wasn’t even a sliver of doubt in the coaches’ booth.
Well Danwood
it looks like that follow-up pretty much summed up everything we’ve said for the past 5 days
I guess that means we win the internetz lol
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Dec 2, 2010 2:59 PM CST up reply actions
You can have the internetz,
but the update seems to suggest that our booth did not see even one replay. I don’t think you or Danwood ever suggested something quite that radical.
The point is
with what they saw there was nothing that made them even think a challenge was a plausible endeavor as pretty much everyone against us said… so we’d be back to MM making a challenge based on not liking the outcome as opposed to thinking he could win it
by Goldenarmadillo4 on Dec 2, 2010 3:40 PM CST up reply actions
Is anybody saying he shouldn’t have challenged that play? Because, in hindsight, yeah… He should’ve challenged it. He had about 15 seconds to make the call, and he got it wrong. It happens.
I’ll say I like the way he’s handling his message this week. He keeps stressing the need to win every play, and good is the enemy of great, etc. That’s right on. If we’d done better in the red zone, if we’d run the ball better, so on and so on… There are ways to make sure that games don’t come down to blind chance.
by Curly Lambeau on Dec 2, 2010 12:28 PM CST up reply actions
I have heard this argument over and over,
about how games should not come down to one play, one decision, etc. because we should have played better. This makes absolutely no sense to me. (That’s not to say I don’t wish we would play better.) No team can count on every game playing without mistakes and winning by a comfortable margin. That is why you hear people refer to football as a game of inches. They could also say it is a game of seemingly small decisions. Some games will be close and every team needs to conduct themselves in a way to win close games. It is no secret that for some reason the Packers tend to lose close games. I don’t think this is just being unlucky. McCarthy and his staff need to put their collective heads together and figure out how to change that trend.
There should have been doubt
I don’t believe any of the fans that say they saw the ball touch the ground in the initial replays or during the “live” game. But I do know what I did not see. To me, there was simply too much of that “catch” that we did not see to claim that there was no doubt it was a catch.
unfortunately
in the record book——it reads atlanta 20— green bay 17——no asterisk.
i’m guessing there won’t be one either.
point being, many plays determine outcomes of games. you just can’t focus on 1 and definitively say “that’s why we lost”.
I'm not saying that's why we lost
In fact, I think the fumble in the end zone is more to blame than the non-challenge. I am sure McCarthy and staff will address the variety of problems that lead to that fumble to try to make sure it does not happen again. But, McCarthy said in his PC that they have a process they follow to determine when to challenge and when to refrain. I would suggest that perhaps they should reexamine this process and make sure it is giving them the best chance to win football games. That’s all.
I am right being wrong, DAMN IT!
Bottom line: not getting that challenge called was a mistake and a turnover.
There have been many excuses thrown out to justify this mistake, from Coach McCarthy and a few nonsensical fans. The fact of the matter was Gonzales did not make the catch and the Packers had no way to get the information they needed in a timely fashion. The information and proof was there, but the transmission was way too slow. These are the facts.
A time out would have given them a chance to see the non-catch. Regardless, they still have to improve the speed and flow of surveillance information in order to get challenges called on short notice.
Shut up already with trying to justify the missed challenge.
by docg on Dec 3, 2010 2:06 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Shut up already
with your “nonsensical” attempt, on thread after thread, to justify potentially risking two timeouts and/or two challenges on a hope and a prayer (which, given the information that was available at the time, and without the benefit of hindsight, is all that it was).
Let it go, already.
Sheesh!
TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!
by NorthStarr on Dec 3, 2010 7:23 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs
We all want to let it go...
I just want the last word. :-)
Seeing your tag line helps me see the psychology of those defending the lost challenge and turnover opportunity.
Just so you know, I have been labeled a “kool-aid drinker” since 2006, which of course got much worse in 2008. At those times, logic and objectivity warranted giving the management and coaching time to finish building and construction before tearing the building down. I called the attackers premature ejaculators at that time.
From a strict business, team chemistry, and talent evaluation levels. Thompson was and is a genius. I (still) hope McCarthy proves to be his equivalent at the coaching level.
Getting back to our last game, yes, you are right that the information was not available and the time was not there to warrant a challenge. You can also say that there was not enough information available to use a low cost simple time-giving time out. (It would not have costed two time outs to take a look.)
Now from a business management and problem-solving perspective, from someone who makes a good living finding faster and better ways to see and do things in life, business, and medicine, I am just saying the team needs to improve the flow of surveillance data and information. If what you have does not do the job as needed, you find a better way to do things. There are always better ways to do and see things.
The goal is to be better, smarter, and faster than your competition. Trust me, this is what separates winners from failures. Nothing personal and nothing against coach McCarthy, but not getting that call right, while in the heat of battle, was a huge mistake. The mistake led to a 7 – 14 point turn in points. Mistakes are part of the game. There were several different mistakes that cost the Pack that game. Eliminate any one of them and they probably win.
My argument is not about living in the past or attacking anyone, it is about getting things right and being smarter and better than the opponents in the future. Logic and objectivity now warrants that they learn from that mistake. Defending the mistake just maintains the status quo and no one evolves.
BTW, I learned to use the “shut up” language in How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie.
the team needs to improve the flow of surveillance data and information
That has NOTHING to do w/ the team… At least not the packers… That is on the home team and the NFL. From what I’ve gathered part of home field advantage is being able for some reason to get replays faster for the home team, and not the visitors!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I said "potentially."
You can also say that there was not enough information available to use a low cost simple time-giving time out. (It would not have costed two time outs to take a look.)
If McCarthy burned a timeout to look at the replays, then decided to throw the red flag, and, for whatever unknown reason. the ruling on the field was upheld, then we would have been charged another timeout for the unsuccessful challenge.
And, at the time that the decision must be made to burn that timeout, that is absolutely a possibility.
Also, even if, after seeing the replays, McCarthy decides not to challenge, because there is nothing in the replays to justify doing so (again, still a distinct possibility at the time you take that timeout), then he gets lambasted for wasting a timeout, especially given the benefit of hindsight that some posters on this site like to use as a crutch so much.
TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!
I am sure
Belichick’s actions have significantly limited what teams can do in the way of surveillance, but I guarantee that the technology is there to improve information flow within the rules. I have seen the technology that allows people to see fine details and actions from a distance in the dark. What was needed to see Gonzo’s actions is a lot easier than that. Information flow has everything to do with the team and their success. Overcoming obstacles is a game and art of life.
I always deal with problems with a starting perspective of “how can I do things better?” This mindset has made me a rich man. Again, those who start with a perspective of “this is the best I can do” or “the only way” will never find a better way.
Information flow has everything to do with the team and their success
Where do you get that from? Everything I’ve read on it suggests that the home team controls to some extent the replays that are immediately available… That and the networks and maybe the NFL, but the Packers being the visitors don’t have that advantage!!! That appears to be something that falls under the HOME field advantage from what I can tell… So the team (at least not the visiting Packers in this case) doesn’t have the ability to control what replay angles are immediately available!! Give it up already!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Matthew Stafford spends $15,000 to win auction package, then gives it to a young fan’s family
- Tim Tebow allegedly asked Broadway actress to remove scantily-clad Twitter photo
- Erin Andrews reportedly dating ‘Gossip Girl’ actor Chace Crawford, who also happens to be Tony Romo’s brother-in-law
- Madden ’13 will include ‘Tebowing’
- Deep Posts: Winslow not wanted in Tampa Bay?
