Letting Them Score
Should Mike McCarthy have let the Bears score at the end of the game to give his offense time to answer?
By PackerAaron
Interesting post from Advanced NFL Stats about McCarthy's decision not to let the Bears score at the end of the game to give his offense a chance to answer.
Money quote:
Mike McCarthy missed an opportunity Monday night. With the score tied at 17 and 1:44 on the clock, the Bears managed to earn a 1st and goal from the 9. The Packers had only one timeout, so CHI could run nearly out the clock and kick a field goal if they chose. FGs from that range are successful about 94% of the time, and with the good conditions, it's probably even higher.
Had CHI scored a TD on 1st down, that puts GB down by 7 with 1:40 to go, which gives the average team about a 10% chance of winning. A FG attempt after 3 clock-burning runs, gives GB almost no chance to win. GB's only hope would be to prevent a TD on 3 straight downs and hope a FG misses.
Depending on which down a possible TD might occur, the WP for trying to stop the score is less then 0.03. A FG misses 6% of the time, which could lead to a tie at best at the expiration of regulation time. Assuming a 50/50 chance in OT, that's 0.06 * 0.5 = 0.03.
By not allowing CHI to score the TD on 1st down, McCarthy cut his chances of winning from about 10% to about 3%. Neither prospect is very appealing, but every little bit matters.
Every Packer fan remembers Mike Holmgren allowing the Broncos to score in the Super Bowl and then watching as his offense failed to seal the deal. And anyone who has played Madden long enough has utilized this tactic.
McCarthy and Dom Capers addressed the idea after the game:
McCarthy said he briefly talked about allowing the Bears to score the go-ahead touchdown after a pass-interference penalty on rookie safety Morgan Burnett gave Chicago a first-and-goal from the Packers’ 9-yard line with 1:44 to play but never considered it.“No, I did not. I did not consider letting them score at the end,” McCarthy said. “I felt that they had missed a field goal in the game. It was talked about (but) that’s not the decision that I made.”
Defensive coordinator Dom Capers said he didn’t want to do that, either, even though the Packers only had two timeouts left and the Bears milked the clock down to 9 seconds before setting up Robbie Gould’s game-winning kick.
“That’s always a tough decision,” said Capers, a former head coach with Carolina and Houston. “We were fighting our butt off to try and keep ‘em out and try to get the ball back.”
I can totally get where McCarthy and Capers are coming from. And I also get the "let them score" point of view. What do you guys think?
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (44)
September 28, 2010 at 10:11 am
Aaron, you fence sitter, you!!
They should have let them score.
September 28, 2010 at 10:14 am
I just don't think coaches ever want to tell their players "let the other team score". I think its hard for them to do. I could go either way on it. Best way to avoid it, is to not fumble the ball away. Yes i'm looking at you James Jones.
September 28, 2010 at 10:23 am
There is some chance of a turnover on the offensive plays before the field goal attempt as well. It might not have changed the percentages too much (from 3 to 4 or 5 maybe?), but that should also be taken into account.
That said, I would've rather saw Rodgers on the field down seven with 1:40 to go and one timeout than the Packers chucking a squib kick around down three as the clock expired.
September 28, 2010 at 10:24 am
Does anybody else think the Packers should have gone for it on 4th down at the end of the second half? There were about 2 minutes left, we were on the Bears 40, and it was 4th and less than 4 (might have even been 1). Aaron was looking good on the drive, particularly on short passes. We punted the ball and Chicago ended up with the ball at around their own 40 anyway. An aggressive call prevents a Chicago score and gives us a chance for at the very least a Crosby field goal. Chicago hadn't been moving the ball much the entire half, and what happens on the next play but a huge completion given up by Shield, who seemed to be the only CB giving up large gains.
September 28, 2010 at 11:57 am
It was the end of the first half, and the ball was on about our own 40, but yes, I was thinking that we might want to go for it on 4th and 1. The Bears' O had done nothing since their initial drive and we were moving the ball fairly well- at least, through the air. I wonder if our complete inability to run block had something to do with the decision; I think it becomes an easier decision to go for it if we had been able to generate any sort of rushing attack at all to that point.
As it was, with Hester's return we netted about 7 yards on ther punt.
September 28, 2010 at 10:25 am
100% in the let them score camp. Strictly a percentages decision. Which approach gives you a better chance to avoid losing the game? Spoke to Brian about it after the game on his cheeseheadtv show...
September 28, 2010 at 10:32 am
Working nights that was a big question on sports talk radio last night.
I'm with coach, you never intentionally let a team score. Gould missed a FG earlier (longer but still a miss), botched snaps happen, bad holds happen, shanks happen, blocks happen.
If you let them score you have a little over a minute to go 60-80 yards and score a TD with one time out. How many times did we accomplish that the first 58 minutes of the game with all our time outs???
Tough call, but I stand behind Coach on that one.
And those stats listed above are great, but they're just #'s. Statistically, teams should go on 4th down every time no matter where they are on the field (I will find the link if necessary, Brian Billick brought it to my attention), how many teams do it?
I'm with Coach on this one.
GBP 4 LIFE
September 28, 2010 at 10:36 am
Plus, the GREEN BAY PACKERS N-E-V-E-R 'lye down' and let the bares score. No way, just on principal alone.
September 29, 2010 at 08:18 am
In the Bears eyes we did lie down...do you honestly think they wanted Rodgers to have the ball with 1:40 left.Keeping your best on the bench is lying down.
September 28, 2010 at 10:39 am
If we had saved a time out and let them score, then we probably wouldn't have been entertained by the 3 stooges play at the end. Now that's desperation.
September 28, 2010 at 10:44 am
Let them score.
You go down swinging, rather than the more passive tactic of sitting on your rump hoping that the Bears shoot themselves in the foot.
Of course, the worse coaching failure here was the patented "Mike McCarthey Desperation Challenge." I generally believe in Mike, but this just kills me. It is so obvious IMMEDIATELY that our three remaining timeouts are vital when the Bears get the ball. To waste one like that was a sheer act of panic.
September 28, 2010 at 10:46 am
You know, with the way we had been playing all game, I didn't want to give the ball to the offense. I do believe Rodgers could have gotten it done, but somehow we would end up drawing a foul or some offensive pass interference penalty to screw up our chance. who would then be to blame? Aaron Rodgers, I don't think, deserves to be put in that situation....not the way the game was going for the Packers.
September 28, 2010 at 10:55 am
That wasn't a though decision.
You don't let them score, you have 99% chance of losing the game.
You let them score, you can still win it.
This was BY FAR the worst game MM has ever coached, and he should be held responsable for it. The penalties, the TERRIBLE challenge, the "don't let them score". Even with the awful ST, we still win it if the HC can keep his team focused and makes the right decisions.
September 28, 2010 at 11:11 am
Second. This is McCarthy's low point as a head coach. He would make a great Offensive Coordinator. But I am losing faith in his ability to be a leader.
September 28, 2010 at 03:20 pm
Exactly.
Would you rather have Rodgers plus a buck forty, or would you rather pray for a fluke FG miss?
I'd take Rodgers.
September 30, 2010 at 01:47 pm
Prefer to let the D handle it.
After further thought, even with two point conversion and recovered onside kick options. Still, let the D handle it.
1) The D wanted the play
2) it's less complicated. Too many variables in "let them score."
3)More importantly, the team is not mature enough for MM to be comfortable with the risk and it is a big risk with a lot of added pressure on the O.
Case: 18 penalties. They reverted to past form under pressure, lost their cool in a big game on national TV and officials now have them marked for any infraction. Add inconsistent play of the last few weeks and the need for coaches or losses to kick them into action. They don't seize control of games against hot QBs and teams. Please compare how the Steelers handled Tampa.
Case: AR has not proven he can do a last minute pressure drive like this. Not saying he can't or won't, just hasn't. The Cards game and comparisons to BF still shadow this team until they finally shake it off with a big win.
Case: The projected outcomes of this hypethetical offensive drive; They win with a 2 point conversion, MM and AR look brilliant and the D is mildly bummed out. A tie, they have to do it all over again in OT, fatigue becoming a factor. A loss, MM looks "reckless," AR "can't get it done again like BF," the D is really bummed. MM "plays favorites with the O."
"Let them score" might, however, be something they could work on in practice with everyone getting on board with the plan.
What's holding this team back is the fact that neither coaches nor team as a whole (with exceptions) has ever won at the top level and learned what is necessary to take the next step toward greatness. '07 was guided by BF's and other vets' experience with a new coaching staff. They just have to test themselves through experience and find the will to win in adversity.
Untill the team demonstrates that, the coaches will play it safe.
"A fluke FG miss"? The defense should have stopped the Bears somewhere along the drive and at least blocked the kick (ST?). The D wanted it, they got it, they failed. And the O failed to score enough points that this should never have been a problem.
September 30, 2010 at 01:54 pm
You're playing with semantics on that Rodgers comment. What's 'last minute'? He's given the Packers a lead on several occassions where it should have been the last possession. The comment is utter failure if you're implying or stating he hasn't done it under pressure when it counts.
If you literally mean the final 60 seconds, then it's a meaningless criticism, just silly.
07' was guided by playing 6 teams over .500 and being relatively un-injured. Favres numbers dissapated over the final 4 games just like they did the previous decade.
How was BF in the final 60 seconds of that game when it counted? Ya...
September 30, 2010 at 02:30 pm
Not this "Rodgers can't win close games" BS again... I can't take it anymore.
September 30, 2010 at 02:47 pm
CSS, I refer to the hypethetical 1:40 "buck forty" of the 4th quarter as you stated.
AR has not had a final, game on the line scoring drive, which leaves little or no clock time for the opponent to get back in the game - type of win. No knock on him, not saying he can't or won't or that he's never been under pressure or gotten pressure scores. Not saying it's all his fault. The O makes mistakes, the D sometimes can't hold 4th quarter leads, also signs of immaturity.
Sadly, the Cards game completion to Jennings would have dispelled this. Victory against BF Vikings would have also. When that happens all doubts, shadows and comparisons will go away. That's the nature of following a legend. It also plays into a coach's risk taking calculations.
'07 was also achieved with the help and experience of BF and the other vet players who had been there before and knew what was required. That's all I'm saying. That BF failed in the OT doesn't take away the experience he was able to provide a young team and new coaching staff, just as he did with the Vikings Offense.
Assumptions behind the above topic, I believe,deal with a team trying to grow up and which is not quite there yet, for all of its promise and exciting play.
It's also why "Let them score" would be highly risky at this point.
September 28, 2010 at 10:56 am
Let them score, easy decision for me. It comes down to who do you want tying the game (or keeping the game tied): Rodgers and the offense or the special teams unit?
September 28, 2010 at 10:57 am
You also have to include a stupid penalty by the Bears or a turnover if you play to keep them from scoring along with the remote possibility the kicker cracks under the pressure kicking a game winning field goal. I understand the coaches thinking here.
If it was my decision, let them score. Do the 2 minute drill and go for 2, having said this on Tuesday.
September 28, 2010 at 11:02 am
Only if he had stupidy challenged the fumble by Jones, which cost the Packers the game. What's with MM and his stupid challenges? He's like a little kid.
September 28, 2010 at 11:13 am
Why did he not challenge the interception?
September 28, 2010 at 11:22 am
So let's just assume for a moment MM was right. You hope for a botched snap or a block. Why do you not put the tallest, most athletic, best jumping guys on the field?? Was Finley out there???
September 28, 2010 at 11:28 am
One of the reasons I'm hoarse today was from screaming "Dammit McCarthy, LET THEM SCORE ALREADY!"
ARodg and the offense were moving the ball. We very well could have tied it up and then you're into OT and hopefully a quick Packers score.
I usually don't say I know more than McCarthy. I know I don't. But this looked like a no-brainer to me.
September 28, 2010 at 11:36 am
You let them score. The moment that penalty occurred my brother and I said it almost simultaneously. Swallow your pride and get a win. The Packers had nothing to be proud of with that game anyway, why suddenly feel all chivalrous at the end there?
September 28, 2010 at 11:40 am
you have aaron rodgers and one of the most quick scoring offenses in the league and he decides he'd rather watch them run the clock down to 4 seconds and try a bunch of backyard plays on the KO return. i dont think that played out the same way in MM mind. he fucked up with play calling the entire night.
September 28, 2010 at 01:22 pm
I'm sure AROD is very dissapointed in MM's lack of faith in him moving down the field.His face said it all on the sideline watching the nightmare unfold.
Did they ever do that to Favre...keep him on the sideline to do nothing.How will this guy ever be legitimately compared for comebacks if not allowed to try.
How does any team make their "Elite QB" not want to play there,watch it again and again.No way is Brady,Manning,Brees,Rivers not getting that 1 plus minute to go for it.
The odds of pulling a game like this out is better with them throwing the ball then hoping for a missed FG by one of the best,especially if he already missed one.
September 28, 2010 at 02:42 pm
You absolutely let them score...Not even a question. With how hot Rodgers was in the second half and with a timeout you gotta put the ball in the hands of you best player with the game on the line. Poor decision. Basically everyone, including coaches had a hand in this loss, save for the quarterback, so, you might as well give him the opportunity to get you the win. BAD CALL MIKE.
September 28, 2010 at 02:43 pm
And if the Bears decide to stop at the one yard line and still kick the field goal? Look, the Pack was check mated at that point. The time for a defensive goal line stand was at the Bear's first down, once they got within reasonable field goal distance, the game was largely lost.
As to a down field pass in the last minute, AR was having trouble fining time to pass over 20 yards downfield. What makes you think it would have been any different with the Bears demolishing the O line?
Lovie did more with less.
September 28, 2010 at 02:51 pm
If they try and stop at the 1 you push them in! If the Bears were smart they would've just taken a knee and taken the decision out of our hands. When the opposing team makes a mistake like they did we should have made them pay for it...and that meant letting them score.
September 28, 2010 at 03:56 pm
Push a Bear into the end zone. Unthinkable. :>) The player could have gone to one knee short of the endzone. Point is it didn't need to get to this point. The defense lost the game by not making the stop earlier. The Pack got out maneuvered by Lovie Smith. He did more with less.
September 28, 2010 at 02:48 pm
Another thing I'd like to comment on is the complete lack of the screen pass...If you can't run the ball you have to have some way to slow down the opposing pass rush. Also, I wouldn't mind having TJ Lang and Bulaga start this week, to see if they can inject some life into the run game. Slocum, should be fired (should've never been hired) and TT needs to trade for a quality back...When your on the cusp pull the friggin trigger.
September 28, 2010 at 02:53 pm
Should've never come down to that.
September 28, 2010 at 03:50 pm
It's all hindsight. You let them score and then you don't score back on them and people are up in arms you didn't let them kick it and hope for a miss.
Considering Hartley and Seabass missed easy game winners on Sunday I don't think making them execute a FG was the worst decision so I think MM did the right thing.
Ultimately, the poor decision to challenge Jones fumble is where MM screwed up. Cost them 40 seconds at the end of the game to get the ball back and get in FG range.
September 28, 2010 at 04:17 pm
Just a question on the field goal. I thought with 8-9 seconds on the clock we'd have at lest 6 left on the kickof to get out of bounds and try one hail Mary. Instead the timekeeper let at least 2-3 seconds tick off after the ball was through the uprights. 4 seconds left, game over. I was screaming at the timekeeper as well as everyone else last night. Total homer.
September 28, 2010 at 04:34 pm
Both MM and Lovie made mistakes at the end.We all know what MM did was pathetic but,Lovie was trying to get a solid win by sticking it in(to the PACKERS) and gaining some LOVE ME points for his job.Taking a knee would be the move and not as heroic as scoring a TD and beating GB a little more decisively.7 is always better looking than a 3.
September 28, 2010 at 05:03 pm
My point is "letting them score" is a strategy that can be defeated by intelligent clock and field management. You're likewise "hoping" that you have a minute when you get the ball back for a drive that's probably more than half the field and you're "hoping" your line (which hasn't most of the game) holds long enough for downfield in the flat or defended sideline passes to develope. And you have to score the TD since you just gave one up. The game was largely over by the time the Bears hit the red zone. The Defense failed. You don't win championships by "hoping" the other team screws up their kick. You take control of it earler, which is what the Bears did in the end. But I like the earlier idea of using Finley to block the kick.
September 28, 2010 at 05:34 pm
It comes down to this: Would you rather have 1:40 and a timeout with Rodgers needing to score a touchdown or hope one of the most accurate kickers in NFL history (I heard 3rd all time) misses what amounts to or is equivalent to an extra point? I think its pretty evident what the better option is. Yeah, it should of never got to that point but it did, and you have to play the hand you dealt. McCarthy did a poor job bottom line.
September 28, 2010 at 05:41 pm
The coaches job is supposed to put his players in the best position possible to succeed. McCarthy did not do that last night.
September 28, 2010 at 10:09 pm
The differences in winning percentage is much greater than in the original post, making the MM decision even stupider. Here's why. Under the MM decision, the chance that a RB will fumble the ball on a given play is about 1 in 100 or 1% The Bears ran the ball three times, so that's 3% chance of a fumble on that sequence. Then the Packers needed to recover the ball, say a 50% chance, and win in OT, 50% chance. 3% x 50% x 50% = 0.75%. The MM strategy also works if the Bears miss the field goal and win it in OT. The post says kickers make that kick 94% of the time. Robbie Gould makes that kick EVERY time. For his career, he is 40 for 40 from under 30 yards and 179 for 180 on PATs. So let's say he misses 1 in 200 times or 0.5% of the time. If he misses, the Pack still needs to win it in OT (50% chance). So the FG miss works 0.5% x 50% or 0.25%. Adding the fumble and the miss field goal percentages is 0.75% + 0.25% = 1%. This is the success rate of the MM strategy: 1%.
Under the Let Them Score Scenario, the Packers get a kickoff to return. What is the chance that gets returned for a touchdown? 1 in 100? If so, we are already break-even with the MM strategy before we even consider the odds when Rodgers gets the ball. (It is not clear whether the Advanced NFL Stats includes the kickoff return possibility. Based on the limitations of the calculator on their website, I would guess no.) The post says the odds of the “average team” winning down 7 points with 1:40 left is 10%. Rodgers was the 4th ranked QB last year. The Bears defense is 28th in passing defense this year. Not average teams.
So the Packers had AT LEAST 10x better chance of winning if they let the Bears score. Worst, this kind of scenario happens all the time. McCarthy either knowingly chose the clear losing strategy or was unprepared to make the decision. Dumb as a box of blocks.
September 29, 2010 at 05:19 am
WOW!!! Guess if you guys ever coach in the NFL you can let them score.
September 29, 2010 at 10:39 am
As soon as the Bears got to the nine yard line I remember thinking to myself...."self: LET THEM SCORE!" It was the ONLY way they had even a small chance to win... Robby Gould is NOT gonna miss a chip shot (has he ever?)...
September 29, 2010 at 12:27 pm
A blocked kick is simpler. Too many variables in the "let them score" version. Better to take a chance in OT. Mass the line with our big/high jump players. Doesn't the Pack have a block kick play in their playbook????