Green Bay Packers’ Hurry-Up Offense: TOO fast vs. the Falcons?

56 thoughts on “Green Bay Packers’ Hurry-Up Offense: TOO fast vs. the Falcons?”

1. Al – This is an excellent question and I am unsure of the answer. Many scoring drives eat a lot of clock. When the Packers got the ball, for all they knew, they could well have needed every second to score a game-tying TD as time expired. As they progressed down the field, there were several setbacks that added to the numbr of plays they ran during the drive. A slower paced offense might have presented the opposite time issue for them.

   I understand your point about the 3 minute mark, but sufficient time to score was the one thing that the Packers could control a bit, but would never know how much they really would need.

   The no huddle also might have been used to try to gas the Falcons’ LBs and DBs, who would have to all-out cover every receiver on every play.

   My bottom line is that the amount of time the Packers left for the Falcons to drive for a game-winning FG was not so excessive as to prove poor time management by the Pack. Sure we would have preferred to see 00:00 on the clock after they scored, but the one thing the Packers could not do was allow themselves to use up all of the remaining time before they scored. That risk, in my humble opinion, outweighed the risk of Atlanta scoring in the final minute of regulation.

   1. I do think you make a good point about using the no-huddle for more than just saving time. that is something that occurred to me to, and it could be likely that was part of MM’s strategy in this case. I mostly just wanted to bring up this topic, since I’ve found few people that ever agree with me on this and see what reader comments would be. Yours was a good one.

2. I was thinking the same thing, but a TD to tie it at anytime was a great accomplishment.
   The problem here is that our special teams SHOULD NOT be so bad that thoughts like this even enter our mind.
   Think about the reverse. We get to return a kick. What happens then? We yell at our guy to STAY IN THE END ZONE, take the KNEE.
   Don’t fumble it…. don’t get called for a block in the back… why is our special teams always bad?

   Why did we hire the understudy to a bad system?
   Slocum learned special teams from Stock, who was fired because it didn’t work, for one or two reasons or another. Same thing is happening.

   Either our guys are soft year after year, dumb year after year, or the system sucks. There has to be a reason for it other than ‘coincidence’.

   1. I definitely think it’s coaching, Brian. There are more than enough talented athletes on this team to field good special teams units. When a unit struggles with inconsistency (they have had some good games this year), you have to think the system is lacking. For example, I read yesterday that Slocum wanted Shields to run the ball out from deep in the end zone. They knew the kicker kicks deep, so this was part of their plan. Not sure that’s a great plan, but I understand wanting to get the ball in Shields’ hands. But Shields doesn’t really have an understanding yet of how to run back kicks and how to make moves at top speed. He’s still just a speed guy that needs open space. Hopefully, improvement will come with experience.

      1. Slocum’s thought process was, that there kicker basically out kicks their coverage, some falcons and faster than others, witht he deeper kick there would be larger holes throughout their coverage unit. He was trying to take advantage of this with the speedy shields. However shields has Zero ball carrier vision and elusivness. Slocum needs to GO

3. Hey Al…great topic. Good luck with mining the mind of McCarthy. 😉

   1. I’ve always got my pick and shovel out, working on that…

4. If they don’t play with a sense of urgency, they probably don’t convert at some point and they don’t score. They were going with what worked. And it worked.

   I actually did question whether they were moving too quickly. If they hadn’t gone all the way to fourth down at the end, they leave a LOT of time for ATL. But I remember thinking at that time as well, if they don’t go no huddle, they don’t play with the urgency they really need to score.

   1. A fair point, but not enough to dissuade me…

5. I don’t think killing the clock was of importance on that last drive.Tying the game is #1 priority.When you need to pass only(look BJ and Nance) to move the ball taking time off the clock is hard and becomes an absolute the opponent gets the ball back.Hence you look to the defense to play big,but I think that was in question from the first when It went right down the field from the start even though held to a field goal,it was again what hurt us in the end.

   This is the Packers albatross and will continue and more than likely will be the reason of a one and done in play-offs.

   Going back to when Havner was cut and I felt it was a big mistake to dump the guy that was a major factor that kept the Packers from doing what they did with Rodgers, back to back QB sneaks(really).We have paid for that move all year in the short yardage Red Zone.A little off the subject but I think it all entwines at a point.

   I agree in essence with the no-huddle to soon AL,but when your hands are tied and the only thing you have to ensure going on is the blade of Rodgers pass,cutting yourself is more than a possibility.

   1. I never said there wasn’t some risk involved, but risk can be managed. I don’t think that taking a full huddle on their 30 with almost 3 minutes left is a big risk. I think it’s a reasonable risk.

6. I really liked that you gave us the drive break-down. It’s a great visual to help solidify your point.

   Again, a short-yardage running game would have really helped with time and down on that 2nd-and-1 and 3rd-and-1 at the 2:23 mark.

   1. yes, but everyone in the building knew McCarthy wasn’t going to run again on 3rd and one. So if you take that out of the equation, you don’t need as much time.

7. Very interesting article! Well thought out. My first reaction to the no huddle was that GB was using it to limit personel changes by the Falcons to try to take advantage of match ups and to wear down the players on the field. I actually commented to my wife as we watched the game that as we neared the two minute warning we were not using enough clock and would run the risk of leaving too much time for the Falcons to work with. This seems an easy observation in hindsight, but is something that someone on the staf should be aware of. I do not place the blame for the loss on this, but it may have definately contributed! A reliable running game would have surely helped to use up clock! Hopefully these questions are being discussed at the Coaching levels and not just amongst the fans!!

   1. I’d give anything to know if the thought even enters his mind at that point, or if he’s just totally focused on the plays.

8. I completely disagree. that was a 6 minute gaming tying drive, if anything i say go for 2 when your on the road and play for OT at home. I have nothing wrong with that final drive. A rodg was fantastic. Anything u can take up aolmost the final 6 minutes to try and close out regulation thats a good thing. sometimes things do go your way and u leave a lil time left, but hey.. maybe squib kick it or somethign in that situation?

   1. A squib kick did enter my mind. I’d prefer that Crosby bury it in the end zone, though.

      1. did u notice those wierd line drive kicks we were kicking at Percy 2 weeks ago? We coulda used some of them sunday. They worked

9. I don’t know, Al. If this game was 44-37 at the time, I might agree with you. But it’s not like either team was scoring easily. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to think our defense could stop Atlanta with a minute left given the way the game was playing out (assuming we squib kick or don’t give up a big return/dumb penalty.)

   No-huddle was working. If we start to huddle up and get overrun by the defense on 4 straight plays, Packer Nation is (rightfully) screaming right now “Why the hell did you stop going no-huddle!!!??? You were marching right down the field?!??!”

   Starting a drive with 5:59 left in the game, and scoring a TD with 1 minute left is pretty damn good overall time management, as far as I’m concerned.

   1. Once again, I’m not criticizing them, here. I’m mostly just curious if something like this is even give consideration by an NFL head coach or if I’m just delusional.

      1. Don’t forget the end of the first half of the playoff loss last year. We had to kick a field goal on 1st and goal at the 2 because we didn’t have enough time left. That game was a different situation than this one because we didn’t have extra time. But the point is this–penalties happen. Stupid unexpected things happen. What if there is defensive holding on 3rd down? Then he looks pretty smart for having a 1:30 and 4 more downs.

         Heck, look at the MSU/Penn State game Saturday. An MSU guy intercepts a ball in the end zone, inexplicably runs it out, then fumbles back to the offense at the 6. A little extra time would come in handy there.

         I guess I’m saying that leaving some time for a few more plays just gives you more options should something unexpected pop up. Ideally you want to score at :00, but you’re better off with too much time left than too little.

   2. Interesting point, Ruppert… would we be having this discussion if the kickoff unit had done its job?

      Would the Atlanta Falcons have been able to get into range with the time they had, starting on their 20-25?

10. Completely disagree. I am one of those skeptics.

    The simple answer is “you score when you can”.
    Now, it was 4th down. We had no running game. WE weren’t exactly lighting up the scoreboard. We needed a TD to tie. They had less than a minute to drive the whole field, if not for the stupid ST play.

    Sorry Al, but I call BS.

    There’s no way in hell, no way in hell, when 2 equal teams are playing, that one offense, needing a TD to tie or win the game, can worry about chewing up the clock while trying to score at the same time.

    I urge you to give me 1 example, only 1 example, in those circumstances, where a team did that.

    1. I think there’s some middle ground to be found.

       While the offense needed to eat up time, it also needed to score. Failing in either area would be bad news.

       But how much time you leave on the clock also depends on how much you can trust your special teams and defense to get the job done and put the game into OT.

       1. Again, so show me one factual example. That’s all I’m asking. One example when a team, playing another quality team, and needing a TD, not a FG, a TD to either tie or win the game, was able to chew up the clock while scoring.

    2. I can’t give you any examples because I don’t pay as much attention to other teams, and we know the Packers haven’t done it.

       I think it’s perfectly reasonable, with first and 10 on their thirty and 2:49 left to say, “hey, let’s be smart here with the clock, too.”

       1. That’s my point, it’s not reasonable at all.
          If it were, it would’ve happen before.

          (BTW, don’t try to refute that statement by asking me to produce negative proof, because the first thing you learn in material law is that it’s unreasonable, and quite frankly, impossible.)
          (Finally putting that bachelor degree in law to use!)

          1. RS, that’s ridiculous. If something had to have happened before to be reasonable of happening now, nothing new would ever occur.

             Using “show me an example” is not the way uphold your side of the argument. You can disagree as much as you want, it’s your opinion. But give reasons why you disagree, beyond that it’s never happened before.

             And as the saying goes “past performance is no guarantee of future results.”

             1. I’ve already stated the reasons why I disagree.
                It’s impossible to choose WHEN to score against an opponent of equal value. You take what’s given.

                I understand your reasoning, but you’re not thinking WHY the Packers took a fast paced approach. What if they don’t apply the no-huddle, the D is better prepared to play the formation the Packers use, and it fails? And Rodgers is intercepted? The Packers couldn’t run the ball AT ALL, so how exactly they should’ve approached it?

                My reasoning is that it’s hard enough in the NFL to score when you’re behind and there’s little time left. Let alone to score while spending enough time so that the opponent doesn’t have time himself to be able to score.

                It’s so hard that it’s never been done, not that I can remember of, and not that you can remember.

                1. “It’s impossible to choose WHEN to score against an opponent of equal value. You take what’s given.”

                   yep, and if they’ve given you field position at their thirty with almost three minutes left, no reason to rush anymore. Now, if they wanted to stay in no-huddle because it was their choice of game tactics, fine. But if they were still doing it just to “hurry up”, then I think it could have been handled better.

11. While I tend to side with those who favor scoring whenever the opportunity arises, I think you have made good points and a strong case for another approach.

    My concern as the drive was unfolding was not the clock but the simple matter of whether they would even be able to drive down the field and put a TD on the board. Scoring had not come easily to that point, so the notion that they could put together a sustained drive while managing the clock with precision never crossed my mind. Just getting a TD was all I cared about. Of course, I never imagined the kick off coverage would be so bad that they would set ATL up needing only 20 yards for the game winner.

    At the start of the drive my thoughts went to the Ice Bowl–a similar “do or die” situation against a quality opponent in a difficult environment. That drive started with a bit less time (4:50)and with not as far to travel (68 yards). Starr used nearly the entire clock in engineering that scoring drive. Was that by intent or is that just how it worked out? It would be interesting to hear Starr’s recollections on the matter.

    1. There were 12 plays in the Ice Bowl drive. Seven were running plays. That’s an entirely different animal.

       1-10-32GB 4:50 left Starr passed to Anderson on right for 6
       2-4-38 Mercein at right end for 7, first down
       1-10-45 3:57 left Starr passed to Dowler in middle for 13, first down
       1-10-42D 3:30 left Anderson lost 9 (Townes)
       2-19-49GB Starr passed to Anderson on right for 12
       3-7-39D 2:00 left Starr passed to Anderson for 9
       1-10-30 1:35 left Starr passed on left to Mercein for 19, first down
       1-10-11 1:11 left Mercein in middle for 8
       2-2-3 :54 left Anderson on right for 2, first down
       1-1-1 :30 left Anderson for no gain
       2-1-1 :20 left Anderson appeared to slip for no gain
       3-1-1 :16 left Starr kept for TD
       Chandler scored extra point
       Green Bay 21 Dallas 17 (68 yards in 12 plays)

       1. With :54 left, from the three, GB runs Anderson for two to put them on the one. Presumably, they were trying to score there, thus leaving about :50 seconds on the clock before the kick off. The next two plays were designed to score (I remember them vividly) and only burned clock because the icy ground made it all but impossible to get enough purchase to punch it in.

          So, in reviewing the play-by-play, it seems Lombardi and Starr were less interested in clock management than in scoring and “getting the hell out of here.” Would history be different if Anderson had scored with ~:50 left, giving DAL one more shot? Probably not, given the conditions (and what seemed to be better special teams play for the Packers in those days). But if they had, I wonder if there would have been the same kind of analysis of the decisions of Lombardi and Starr?

          On the other hand, there was no Internet in those days and a lot less media analysis, so maybe it wouldn’t even have come up.

12. Al – excellent point, and one I had not really thought about. I would not put too much emphasis on it, and indeed you don’t, but it does fit into the broader framework of questionable clock management. Your point about McCarthy adopting the conventional wisdom in cases like this is certainly right. It is tough to play a situation like this perfectly, but that is not really an answer for not at least trying to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    1. The biggest question remaining for me is why Tom Freeman, a lawyer, a one time star participant on the PackFans Yahoo! discussion group, and blogger of some insight, not on Twitter? Why must he hide his thoughts from us by not linking his blog posts to a Twitter account?

       I hope the world learns the truth at some point and Tom’s writings will be more visible across the Internet.

       (Hope all is well in your life, Tom.)

       1. Chris – when I saw the reference to me being a lawyer, I thought for sure that an insult was coming. But thanks for your kind words. All is well with me, and I hope the same is true of you. As for Twitter, maybe someday I will figure out how that works. For now, I am having trouble just being a blogger, since I don’t blog in the normal fashion, but just tend to write an article every week or so.

13. After reading all the replys,I have come to the conclusion that everyone is correct in a certain manner.However,my final theorum on this is with the SPT’s play(reputation)as it is,taking them out of the equasion would have been the way to go,so I blame Crosby for somehow always having a dead leg on K/Os and not forcing ATL to go 50-55 yds in 58 secs.Not at all impossible for him but much harder.

    1. Crosby kicked off into the end zone. It looked to me more like a coverage issue than a kick off issue.

       1. That was a coverage issue, but there was a time when Crosby could kick the ball out of the endzone. What happened? Did he lose his leg (not likely) or does Slocum have him thinking too much about placement?

14. I think they should start running more no huddle.

15. And should have the Pack gone for two with :30 left after scoring the TD (eliminate OT). Unconventional?

    1. Unconventional. And that would be WAY too ballsy for McCarthy.

    2. If losing this game meant a near definite out of play-off,yes go for two and the win.So I guess I’m thanking whoever that MM isn’t BALLSY?No need to pull out and play the Herm Edwards tape”you play to win the game”crap.Save that for those who have no shot at anything and have nothing to lose.

       Fact is,most fans pre-accepted this as a loss and the other coming in NE.So we can actually claim victory as we are staying on schedule of the preconceived wins and losses obtained.

       1. Did you pre-accept Washington and Miami as losses?

          1. No I didn’t,but the win over the Jets and the second win over the Vikes makes that a wash.

    3. Thought the same, that we should’ve gone for two. We’ve struggled mightly playing in OT this year.

16. Well I think it comes down to a couple things:

    1. Can’t run the ball: its rather hard to run down the clock with the passing game since it doesn’t produce yards as consistently as the running game. Also keep in mind that with the passing game, a lot of the play clock is sometimes used for audibles and whatever else Rodgers is try to do to fake out the defense. Sometimes Rodgers takes it out to 1 second, sometimes he doesn’t; it all depends on what the defense presents so its kinda hard to say they should have just huddled up since that’s taking time away from pre-snap adjustments, and maybe then the Packers don’t even end up tying the game. I think the most logical reason for why the Packers went into no huddle was that the priority was to score and worry about the clock later.
    2. The defense was solid against the pass: obviously when you get the ball with little time to win, you are going to be in passing mode and overall, I would say that the Packers did a good job containing the pass (as good as you can be against the pass in this NFL). McCarthy might have decided to bet on his defense to hold the Falcon’s as opposed to having his offense burn the clock and then try to tie it. Personally I agree with this tactic, neither team was spectacular on offense. Basically I think we got unlucky, the fumble at the end zone was reminiscence of the McCann fumble in the cowboys game where everything just happened to bounce in favor of one team. Not challenging the Gonzalez catch is kinda like Childress not calling the Quarless touchdown. To be honest, I would rather have us lucky against Minnesota than lucky against Atlanta.

17. I’ve always been a believer in score when the opportunity presents itself, and never leave points on the field. So I have no issue with moving the ball down the field, taking up 5 minutes of the clock to go ahead with one minute left.

    The defense played well enough on Sunday to earn a victory, and MM had to have been confident enough in the D to stop them after Crosby kicked off. I blame the terrible coverage on the kickoff as the primary reason Atlanta was able to score.

    The 2 no huddle plays took a total of 35 seconds off the clock. If conventional play calling had been used instead of the no huddle, it would have still left approx 10-15 seconds to play, assuming the same result for the Packers had scored on their last possession. If the result on the kickoff was also the same, instead of having 5 plays to move 20 yards, the Falcons would have had 1, maybe 2 plays to move to the 30 yard line. Definitely tougher, but not impossible.

    I’ve been a critic of MM saying he likes to score fast to show off his offense, but in this case I don’t see the an issue, other than the fact the kickoff coverage cracked open the window of opportunity for the Falcons substantially more.

18. Al, you made me think. That alone is a miracle. I’m begin to believe that the hurry up offense should be implemented from the beginning of the game. With the high risk of letting GB’s ST’s have an impact on the outcome of the game, they can not go into the last two minutes with a tie or one score lead, EVER. Just take a look at the losses this year. All can be blamed on MM’s coaching philosophy and his perverted confidence in that idiot Slocum. Hence, we need to develop big leads early (ie Minn #1)and hold on later. The record shows MM cannot win the close games. That is a situation that must change.

    1. If I made you think, then mission accomplished. Now you’re making me think. You may have a good point here about using the no-huddle more often.

19. Going no huddle early and often can be harmful as well as beneficial.The faster you score(#plays)5 vs 10 either hurts or helps your defense.Using the no huddle would be great for the Packers IF they were able to throw in a run that can guarantee positive yds and extend #of plays and clock management.Another factor would be scoring every time your on offense,otherwise it just adds more pressure to your defense and SPTs which is why this no huddle thought to begin with.

    The no huddle offense is great if managed properly,but MM seems to have a problem in that area,yes?Or perhaps I just get the wrong perspective from many toward him and his game management.

20. I can’t figure out why the clock stopped at 2:02 before the Packers first-down play? To get the first down we had to complete a 4th down. I realize there was a penalty but we declined it. Since we declined the penalty shouldn’t the clock have started and therefore we wouldn’t have run our first down play until 2:00 rather than running it at 2:02 and then having a time stoppage after the play for the 2-minute warning? This would have been about another 20-25 seconds that should have been less time for the Falcons to work with.

    1. That is correct for most of the game. In the last 5 minutes of a game, the clock stays stopped, even after declining a penalty.

       Rules:

       8. With the exception of the last two minutes of the first half and the last five minutes of the second half, the game clock will be restarted following a kickoff return, a player going out of bounds on a play from scrimmage, or after declined penalties when appropriate on the referee’s signal.

       Good thought, though…

       1. thanks for clearing that up, it was driving me nuts thinking that we got screwed (and then wondering why nobody else was complaining about it). Whew. So “at least” we got beaten fair and square then… 🙁

Comments are closed.