Nice write up Mike. I've started wondering when Packer fans are going to question another offseason coaching change: making Alex Van Pelt both the QB coach and WR coach.

I like the idea of synergies that you could get from combining those two groups but maybe they aren't getting enough coaching through this stretch of adversity. Maybe the combined approach works better with a veteran group of WR/QB? This receiving corps is pretty young.

Mike McCarthy was "Consistent in his unwavering Support of staying the course" with Shawn Slocum as well and look how that turned out. The same could be said about his support for Dom Capers. What I find absolutely amazing is McCarthy preaches Accountability to his players weekly, what about himself and coaches? In any place of Business Clements would have been FIRED by now if "Business" dropped as far as the offense has. We hear it all the time, the NFL is a Business, a what have you done for me lately Business. Clements really hasn't done ANYTHING all year. Where's the Accountability Mike? Both for Clements, Capers AND Mike McCarthy? Practice what you preach Mike...

It's not the play calling. If the plays that are called are blocked better, ran better, thrown better, and caught better, there would be no problem. I think us Packers fans have the hardest time blaming the players. More than any other fan base. And I'm not saying our players have no talent, they are very good. The players are just not executing right now. When they start, so will the winning.

I agree completely with everything said in this article.

There is no question that the players have to play better. And I do think the players are more hurt then they want us to know.

That all being said, I think a lot of the problem is play calling. Just like in the article, the first 2 drives each week are usually great. The final 3 are usually great. Problem is in between.
The first 2 drives are always scripted. The last 3 of late have been the 2 minute offense which has Rodgers basically ad libbing. So that is telling me that in between when Clements is directing the offense and play calls, they are struggling.

I think the play calling and lack of creativity in formations and personnel have been a problem all year. I don't know where I can check but it seems like they run out with the 11 personnel every series (3 WR, 1 TE and 1 RB) at least 75% of the time. Even after they struggle all game long, they continue to do the same thing over and over again. They haven't adjust to what defenses are doing to them.

McCarthy stated this week that Abbrederis has been ready to play for over a month now. So why did it take till the Lions game to get him involved? They finally started using him (mostly late in the game), and the offense started to move the ball. This isn't just about Abbrederis, this is about providing a different look for defenses. The offense hasn't done enough of that.

Yes the players have been injured, and they haven't performed to the top of their game (most likely due to injury), but the gameplan/play calling/scheming hasn't done enough to try and keep the defenses guessing to what the offense is trying to do.

Its time they get more aggressive with its play calling and start throwing everything at defenses to find mismatches.

I think play calling is an issue but it is not the main issue for the Packer's offense. The main issue is poor execution. As we now know poor execution caused by numerous injuries and by players not improving, maybe even regressing since last season. First, Jordy is gone on IR, Cobb has been playing through an injury, Jones also playing through an injury, D. Adams has missed games, Montgomery has missed games, Lacy has had ankle and groin injuries, Bakh and Bulaga have been injured and now we know that A. Rodgers is playing with a right shoulder injury. Our TEs have been non-factors for most of the season. Add to that the fact that neither, Linsley nor R. Rodgers have made their "second year jump" and it results in an offense that is playing poorly and besides A. Rodgers, who is playing hurt, who among our skill players should a DC be afraid of right now? Different play calls may help in certain situations but who is expected to execute the play call when so many players are playing hurt. If A. Rodgers is missing an open receiver is that execution or the play call? If A. Rodgers is under pressure all game is that execution or play calling. If there are no holes open for Starks or Lacy, execution or play call. If receivers are dropping passes, well, you get the point by now. The main issue is lack of consistency or a rhythm to this offense due to numerous injuries resulting in poor execution. Will changing the play caller make a difference, maybe. Will changing the play caller enable our receivers to get open or enable Aaron to make better throws with his injured shoulder? We know that MM, Clements and A. Rodgers are all part of the weekly game planning and the plays that are selected based on the game plan. So how does that change if MM is the play caller. We know Rodgers calls or changes many plays at the LOS, so how does the play caller, who is Rodgers about 50% of the time anyway, change that? I think getting our players healthy will do a lot more for this offense than playing musical play callers. I was OK with MM as the play caller anyway. Injuries are not an excuse but they are a reality and the reality is that they are having an effect on the results. However, if changing the play calling will heal our players than I am all for it. Go Pack! Thanks, Since '61

For those saying it's not the play calling, and just execution, I would argue it's much more difficult to execute when you are so predictable the other team knows what you're going to do. If a team studies film on you all week, and then you do the same things you did on film, it's not going to be easy to execute...

If Rodgers is injured SHORTER throws. Easier throws for him to make, which they were doing the first series of the Lions game.

This long stuff puts a lot more on his shoulder and also puts Rodgers in a potentially vulnerable position (given the O line this year) while he waits for routes to develop.

It's not all playcalling, it's not all players. But I think shorter throws/crossing routes would help everyone involved.

Anyone ever wonder why Packers seem to have so many more injuries than most other teams year after year with the exception of last season when there seemed to be less injuries? They talked last season about some different things they had done regarding conditioning. Did they not do those things this year? We lose at least two players in every game. Soon we will be referred to as the Green Bay Pussies!!!! Sorry to be so foul but you know, how else can you say what everyone but Packer fans must be thinking? But then again what can you expect when your head coach walks up and down the sideline whining.

Take Jordy out the offense, remove a TE from a very average group and take your only runner and handicap him with weight and an ankle injury and you got our offense. Beyond Randall Cobb, we don't have much consistent talent. We don't need a play caller, we need Gandolf.

I don't see this as a play calling dilemma as much as I see the lack of good tools to beat physical defenses. And, the Vikings have a good defense.

Turophile nailed it in his comment above: "Top notch players can just be unstoppable." Execution is of course key, but so is playing the hand you are dealt rather than the hand you wish you had. The Packers used to be able to impose their will on other teams by executing their game so flawlessly it didn't matter if the other team knew what they were going to do. That's no longer the case. So they need to adjust.

Example... I am a scrawny 5'8" and 135lbs. You can teach me all about pass blocking technique (and dare I say it — pad level) but if you put me in between Rodgers and B.J. Raji, you're going to be picking little bits of Brad out of the Lambeau turf for weeks to come. It doesn't matter how good the scheme is, I don't have the physical tools to execute it. So you might say, "Well, that's on Thompson for drafting a shrimp like you to play OL!" And you'd be right, but let's say there's no other choice because through some cataclysmic course of events I'm the only option. If you're the coach, you have to find a way to allow me to succeed, like telling me to jump around naked screeching like a monkey as soon as the ball is snapped to distract the defense long enough for Rodgers to dump off a pass as they laugh their asses off.

OK, that analogy got pretty ridiculous, but you get the point. You can say, "The OL needs to block better, the RBs need to run better, the WRs need to get open and AR needs to be more accurate." And you'd be right: execution is a problem right now. But the play calling (whether from MM, TC or AR) has not helped, because it simply seems as though the philosophy is "We are going to stick with our scheme that was working in the past regardless of whether the players have the physical ability to execute it properly."

Remember how this summer, the big news was that Capers had finally admitted his scheme was too complex for the defensive players, and he was simplifying it so the players could react rather than think? It worked — the defensive performance has been better, though hardly perfect. You saw the same thing when Rodgers was out and they were running the offense with Flynn: the scheme was adjusted so the player at the helm could execute it.

Yet week after week, we still see the same thing happening out there for the middle 40 minutes of the game... trying to play the scheme that worked in the past because it worked in the past, regardless of the fact that it isn't working now. All three of MM, TC and AR need to get their heads in the present and adjust their game to the reality on the ground rather than what is supposed to work on paper.

Ok play calling. You have either AP or Starks in the backfield. One gets tripped up behind the line the other breaks tackles and runs for 15. Is that play calling or play making?
Your quarterback throws 5 passes in a row to the same guy for very short gains to take advantage of some bum on the other team being poor in coverage. The other receivers who went deep were covered like blankets. Is that play calling or play making?
I rest my case

I still blame the piss poor play calling of one MM on us losing the Seattle game. A little aggresiveness in the red zone and we could have been up 24-0 at half time instead of settling for field goals.
In case your brain hasn't figured it out yet, upper echelon thought the same as me and took those duties away from MM. He did give that up easily. He was ordered to give it up.

If you review the tape, Clements doesn't conceal a lot of his play calls so if teams are watching tape, they're totally dialed into the offense and can easily verify what play is coming. This, combined with a lack of creativity, is killing this offense. You have to adapt your play calling to fit game scenarios, to exploit match ups and hot hands, but they aren't changing anything until the fourth quarter.
McCartney is loyal to a fault but most people haven't researched when the last time Clements did play calling ... 2003. He's overwhelmed and ineffective and the top brass should step in and help Mccarthy make the call ... which will probably happen after the impending, embarrassing 30 point loss in Minnesota, lest this season be squandered sure to loyalty over results.

The Packers need the coach from "The Waterboy".

I don't think it is.

MM is part of the process all week, part of game planning and strategy, and listening in and consulting with Tom during the game. I don't think him not talking into the head set is the big issue. Not when we have no running game, poor pass protection, receivers who can't get separation or even catch a football, and a suddenly inaccurate QB who trusts literally no one. None of that stuff is a play calling issue and while I admit the play calling is extremely predictable and boring it's not the number one issue. At least I don't think it is.

But at this point it is probably the easiest change that can occur. You can't find an Odell Beckham Jr sitting on a couch somewhere this time of year. You aren't going to be able to redesign your entire offense or wave a magic wand and create chemistry. So giving MM back play calling seems like an obvious choice to see if that helps at all. At this point it can't hurt. I don't see why it can't be at least experimented with.

Problem is what people have already mentioned. MM is as stubborn as a 2 year old in a toy store and refuses to pull his head out of the sand and budge an inch. He's got his arms folded across his chest, eyes closed, and his head turned away.

We "stayed the course" with Shawn Slocum for 2 years too long so I am sure we'll have to sit on this one for awhile too.

So, the offense works okay during the opening 2 drives which are scripted by MM, TC with input from Rodgers during the week. Then no success during the middle 5.5 drives per game, and then success during the last few drives (playing sandlot ball). Sound like terrible play calling. Mike, you make a persuasive, indeed compelling, case about TC.

I was NEVER in favor of MM giving up playcalling. It was a painfully stupid idea from the beginning. I believe that it was forced on him by public opinion and a pissed off (and mostly clueless) GBP executive committee after the NFC Championship game. People needed their sacrificial lamb. That's all.

When MM was calling plays the Packers were always a top notch offense. For years in a row! What brain dead dude would have said, "the problem with the Packers is the offense?" Then the Packers lose the NFCCG because of an epic meltdown on defense and special teams, and you decide to fix this by... changing the offensive play caller???

Stupid.

Great article Mike, very illuminating stats!

Question - Isn't it dificult to criticize TC without knowing how many times AR changes the play? I find it difficult to imagine that TC called 61 pass attempts and only 18 rushes.