McCarthy Needs To Think Horizontally
Given the state of his offensive line, the playcaller needs to get back to some basic principals of the West Coast Offense.
By PackerAaron
Last year, with the Packers heading into what most pundits were predicting would be the all but certain annihilation of his team by the mighty New England Patriots, Mike McCarthy devised a gameplan for his back up quarterback Matt Flynn, starting for an injured Aaron Rodgers, that featured a heavy reliance on running plays from the shotgun formation and a healthy dose of slant and smash routes from his wide receivers to match the three and five step drops his quarterback was taking.
On Sunday against the Kansas City Chiefs, you saw McCarthy and the Packers try to keep doing what they've done all year, not to mention most of McCarthy's tenure in Green Bay, by spreading the field with multiple receiver sets and leaving their tackles on islands while having their quarterback take five and seven step drops to coincide with 10 to 15 yard routes by the receivers. And even though Ryan Grant was having a stellar day running the football, McCarthy and his quarterback never turned to him when it became apparent they couldn't block the Chiefs. Instead, they watched as drive upon drive stalled as their receivers simply could not shake free of the Chiefs downfield coverage - and when they did break free and get thrown to, at least during the first half, they often ended up dropping the ball.
(It's typical really - after my calling for McCarthy to win Coach of the Year, his team comes out flat and he coaches his worst game of the year while being completely outcoached by Romeo Crennel.)
We here at CHTV sometimes get accused of having a hive mind, and it would seem to be in full effect this evening as Paul Ott Carruth, a regular contributor and commenter, has chimed in on nearly this exact same subject in the comments section of this excellent post from C.D. on the Packers reliance on big plays.
From POC:
If you go back and watch the New England game from last year you would see a more West Coast centric game plan that nearly won them the game. They had to go this route. As much as Flynn is a capable back-up he’s not as gifted pushing the ball downfield on horizontal stretches (verticals, skinny posts, comeback routes, deep in routes). KC played a lot of coverage. Checkdowns were there. Rodgers and McCarthy insisted on pushing the ball down field.
This is exactly what I mean when I say McCarthy needs to "think horizontally", especially with the offensive line as currently constructed. Shorter routes, more horizontal play and taking shots when they present themselves. Also, I was surprised McCarthy didn't start moving the pocket for Aaron a bit more on Sunday. One of the problems was that Tamba Hali and company knew right where to find the quarterback on every play - right there at the top of his seven step drop.
Look, McCarthy and company won 19 games in a row. They obviously know what the hell they are doing. I just think they can still get caught up thinking they can run their stuff, no matter what defenses are doing, and sometimes they pay the price for that inflexibility in-game. We saw it last year against the Dolphins when Cameron Wake was destroying then-rookie Bryan Bulaga and McCarthy either refused to or didn't think to adjust his gameplan. The same thing happened Sunday against Hali and the Chiefs.
With the Bears coming to town, there's no reason to try and run a bunch of vertical stuff into the heart of Lovie Smith's Tampa 2. Ryan Grant showed how effective he can still be against that defense back in Week 3 and Rodgers had one of his best games as a pro last year in a masterful Week Three performance down in Chicago where he sliced and diced the Bears using a ton of short throws and by taking the checkdown when it was available.
A repeat performance from both Grant and Rodgers on Sunday should bring the Packers to 14-1.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (27)
December 20, 2011 at 12:05 am
Totally agree with every thing you wrote. Not only will this help get a win, but keep A-Rod in one piece.
December 20, 2011 at 05:35 am
Although very much needed right now - McCarthy needs to tell Finley that they don't need his services this week and that he won't need to dress for the bears game - all the dropped passes fr him is INEXCUSABLE !! also Woodson has been slipping for at least the last 2 games ? Is this his first year playing in the NFL? - GET BACK TO BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OR GIVE UP NOW
December 20, 2011 at 10:33 am
Yep. This poster is in complete control of his thought process.
December 20, 2011 at 06:42 am
We rode the wave of having an unstoppable offense for so long it would be difficult for MCCarthy to change his gameplan mid-game. There was no reason to think Rodgers and co wouldn't start kicking it into gear. It didn't work out but at least McCarthy knows the ride has its bumps and he needs to have a plan B in place.
December 20, 2011 at 07:01 am
Hard to disagree because of the way the Packers got wipped. But hind sight is also 20/20. Would you really have turned away from your 13-0 winning formula when playing a 5-8 team - seemingly on the down slide? Would you have predicted you would lose two OTs? Would you have predicted your MVP QB would lose his edge, that his receivers would become so ham-handed, that the KC defense would be so coverage effective? If MM had pursued your plan and the result would have been a 19-14 loss we'd be villifying the guy for going so conservative in the face of continued success. Only fans can envision turning the ship with a flick of the wrist. This team is 13-1 in the face of a lot of adversity. Maybe more to come this weekend, who knows? I really appreciate your perspectives Aaron, and lord knows when he's wrong I curse the play calling of MM, but someone needs to make the call in the present without the luxury of knowing what will be the situation 30 seconds from now. For now I'll keep my money, heart and soul on Mike McCarthy.
PackerAaron
December 20, 2011 at 08:29 am
Yes, I would have "turned away" from the formula that had worked so well up to that point sometime between Hali's first sack and the moment TJ Lang was inserted at right tackle. Maybe after Grant showed he had the hot hand as well. And said as much during the game, not just in hindsight.
I love Mike. I've spent the last 5 years defending/cheering for the guy. But he has his faults, same as anyone. His stubbornness is one of them.
December 20, 2011 at 09:45 am
I agree with Nagler on this one. One of the 'issues' people I know had with McCarthy his first few years was the perception he couldn't make changes at half time to 'right the ship.' Starting out with what's been working is fine, but when it's not, you've got to adapt. I won't quote Carruth, I'll quote Einstein,'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.'
December 20, 2011 at 03:36 pm
Coach Mike WILL "look at the tape" and hopefully eat a bit of humble pie.
This loss is good for the coaches and the players. They are not unbeatable and maybe this will encourage Coach Mike to do a bit of self analysis and develop a bit more perspective on his game management.
I love Coach ...I just believe that maybe they developed myopic vision based on their own success this season. It showed against the Chiefs.
December 20, 2011 at 10:40 am
I agree with much of this. Great points all around, would even add that McCarthy has to think about the playoffs, changing drastically his approach mid-game in a game that wasn't much important could compromise the so-called momentum of the team. And MM always say that "Sundays it's about us".
But ultimately, both of them should be able to see it wasn't going to work and should've changed their approach. It could happen in the playoffs, and they won't have the luxury to wait for it to work. They'll have to be prepared if the OL can't hold for 3 seconds.
December 20, 2011 at 10:55 am
Doesn't hurt to have some diversity on film for the playoff opposition to contend with over the coming weeks, too. Would be great to see a different tempo, some traditional WC and flexible use of personnel.
That's a question I have: Is it better to save a chunk of the playbook for the playoffs, or get it out there on film for the defense to deal with?
I've always felt you can manipulate the oppositions personnel more consistently to create favorable match-ups when you have more on film for them to contend with. NFL is all about match-ups, right?
Thoughts?
December 20, 2011 at 03:34 pm
I disagree.
If it's on film, they can prepare to. I know it expands the film they have to work with, but don't underestimate the impact of unscouted looks. How many plays Woodson makes just because he saw it on film?
If bet the Packers saw a lot of that past Sunday.
December 20, 2011 at 03:42 pm
Devils advocate: How many times have offensive coordinators and QB's set Woodson up because they gave him a look on film, knew how he would respond based on what they've seen him do in other games out of that formation, and Woodson promptly gets burned trying to jump a route?
That's my only point. You can INTENTIONALLY manipulate a defense when they've scouted a look. There's is no manipulation, only chance, when you throw an un-scouted look at them.
(by no means am I saying this tact is right, just conversation)
December 20, 2011 at 06:26 pm
Well, yes, but the plays Woodson does make far outweight the ones he doesn't (as far as this topic).
For what's worth, I do believe MM used that Kuhn handoff to set opponents. He did the same stuff in the regular season over and over and when the playoffs came I think he only used it once, he PAd out of it, he even called a QB bootleg run out of it for crying out loud.
December 20, 2011 at 02:21 pm
Have to be prepared to adjust on the fly, especially if you don't have a lot of film on an opponent, as Coach Philbin seemed to indicate.
December 20, 2011 at 09:01 am
Need Finley in this one, do NOT sit him. Had a monster game vs Chicago in week 3 and need to get his mind right heading into January. Not suggesting we force feed but no need to send him down the seam either. Short stuff, sit in space and take whhat the D gives. This goes for the WR's as well. Add in an effective running game with Grant and this will eat clock and put insurmountable pressure on the Bear passing game that just lost Knox. Add in no Forte as a safety valve and it's a good day for the Pack!
December 20, 2011 at 05:45 pm
Yeah, we'll need Finley to get up the middle against the Bears defense. That's the type of defense they play. You can beat it by running a couple passcatching TEs up the middle.
December 20, 2011 at 09:23 am
Couldn't agree more... Glad someone else is saying it.
From my post on Sunday:
"With the Chiefs secondary playing so well on the deeper routes, and Rodgers’ not displaying his usual accuracy, I kept waiting for Mike McCarthy to simplify things for Rodgers as the Chiefs had done for Orton. Not to mention keep running Ryan Grant, who was having a pretty good day.
Instead, he stuck with his game plan and kept calling routes into the heart of the Chiefs’ secondary. Perhaps not having Starks and Saine and Finley’s drops prevented him from making many adjustments, but I thought McCarthy showed some of his patented stubborn belief in his game plan, come hell or high water. After the game, McCarthy commented that Rodgers was put in some tough spots in this game. I agree, and I think McCarthy contributed to the problem.
Of course, it’s possible that Rodgers is mainly responsible for forcing multiple pass attempts in the 10 – 20 yard range. Without the benefit of watching the game back again, I don’t remember a lot of short routes from the Packers’ receivers. It also seems this would have been a good game to use the slant pass more frequently, but it only appeared a few times."
December 20, 2011 at 10:44 am
Yep, I think it's the latter Al. With so much control of the offense, it's ultimately on Aaron to make corrections.
One thing I ask, though. Why were they able to make the corrections against Tampa Bay, in that drive were Starks was abused both running and catching the ball? Are they so reluctant to use Grant in the passing game that they discard such approach altogether?
December 20, 2011 at 09:35 am
I have been arguing since last year that I think that McCarthy's in-game adjustments are lacking. In-game adjustments are critical. The NFL is too talented and too even, from a coaching stand-point as well as a player stand-point, for any team to assume that they can always just do their own thing and not adjust to what the other team is doing. I'm don't understand all of the intricacies of NFL schemes - but I'm sure that the vast majority of coaches working in the NFL do, and they know how to exploit the weaknesses of any given scheme.
The Packers have gotten away with it more because they are so receiver rich and as I've said before the O-line (for all of its perceived faults), was clearly better than its NFC North rivals, to say the least. But with all of the injuries this line now looks like the Bears offensive line at the beginning of the season - a patchwork of guys who individually you would prefer not to put out there (or at least not at that particular position), but you have no choice.
The Dom did some brilliant coaching and scheme adjustments last year when injuries piled up on the defense. It's MM's turn now to show that he can do the same.
December 20, 2011 at 09:53 am
I'm guessing Taylor and Crabtree will be sitting on Newhouse's hip against Peppers Sunday. This is the game we're likely going to see quite a bit of Ryan Taylor, no?
Also, expecting a big game out of the slot, specifically from either Jones or Cobb. You have to think they're going to ask Finley to drag Urlacher out of the middle with a safety over the top.
December 20, 2011 at 10:28 am
Money Quote:
"And even though Ryan Grant was having a stellar day running the football, McCarthy and his quarterback never turned to him when it became apparent they couldn't block the Chiefs."
Stand. Slow Clapping. Bow to Mr. Nagler. Sit.
December 20, 2011 at 10:42 am
Great analysis! Also, what tends to work best against Urlacher is running right at him. Don't give him time to build momentum.
December 20, 2011 at 11:28 am
I believe that Rodgers has the option for the check down on every pass play. Some of the sacks were the result of him holding onto the ball to long waiting for a play to develop. He has always had that problem even with a good "O" line. Rodgers can also change the play from a running play to a pass play if he thinks he has a good match up. So I think Rodgers has more responsibility for the play calling. If MM sees that Rodgers is constantly changing the plays he needs to take charge and insist that Rodgers runs the plays sent in.
PackerAaron
December 20, 2011 at 11:30 am
While he does indeed have leeway at the line, not every play has a checkdown option built in. And you're right, its on McCarthy to reign things in if the constant spread vertical stuff isn't offering up results.
December 20, 2011 at 02:23 pm
I was thinking the same thing during the game. Why not use Grant more and use short routes designed to pick up first downs. Third and eight, they go deep, fourth and eight they go deep again. The play selection was the same throughout the game.
Another advantage to short routes and running the ball is you keep your defense on the sideline. As for the defense, looked like pretty much the same thing. Why didn't Caper's switch to his Psycho defense. The 2-5 would seem to have been a logical counter mover to the Chiefs offensive game plan.
December 20, 2011 at 03:28 pm
agree with everything you said. and if I never see the Kuhn dive ahead on 3rd and 1 again i will be a happy man. Good god, everyone knows its coming. do something different.
And yes, he needed more smoke screens, quick slants, a shovel pass heaven forbid. Please run it just once. do something to negate the pass rush and put them on their heels.
it was amateur hour with the play calling. which is unfortunate, because Rodgers was exposed to serious pressure all game.
coreyb
December 20, 2011 at 05:15 pm
Dink and Dunk. Stop being greedy Mike