Did McCarthy Screw up the Play Calling on Offense (1 Viewer)

[smackdaddies]

1st off - the Packers won, so it's all good. Having said that....

Packer have a first and goal at the end of the game. There was what - 3 min left? They scored with 2:07 left, so I think I am close.

Packers with the 1st and goal proceed to pass, pass, pass, kick fg.

How much time would of been left if the Pack had instead gone run, run, run, run (on 4th down), even if they then did not score? Even without scoring, Pitt having the Ball at the 5 or 4 (or even closer?)

This is just idle speculation - I think the coaching staff did a great job play calling, and obviously I am happy with the result.

But at that point - should the play calling of been designed to run more time off the clock? Even if they don't score?

 

[sho nuff]

1st off - the Packers won, so it's all good. Having said that....Packer have a first and goal at the end of the game. There was what - 3 min left? They scored with 2:07 left, so I think I am close.Packers with the 1st and goal proceed to pass, pass, pass, kick fg.How much time would of been left if the Pack had instead gone run, run, run, run (on 4th down), even if they then did not score? Even without scoring, Pitt having the Ball at the 5 or 4 (or even closer?)This is just idle speculation - I think the coaching staff did a great job play calling, and obviously I am happy with the result.But at that point - should the play calling of been designed to run more time off the clock? Even if they don't score?

Other than the shot in the endzone on 3rd, they completed the other two passes though.So the clock effect was really just the 3rd down incomplete pass in the endzone.

 

[TommyGilmore]

1st off - the Packers won, so it's all good. Having said that....Packer have a first and goal at the end of the game. There was what - 3 min left? They scored with 2:07 left, so I think I am close.Packers with the 1st and goal proceed to pass, pass, pass, kick fg.How much time would of been left if the Pack had instead gone run, run, run, run (on 4th down), even if they then did not score?

Weren't the first 2 passes kept in bounds? Running the ball would not have run any more time off the clock.Run the ball on 3rd down and the clock stops at 2:00 instead of 2:01.Run the ball on 4th down and Pittsburgh gets the ball at 1:57 instead of 1:59.This is a dumb thread.

 

[Eric Stratton]

1st off - the Packers won, so it's all good. Having said that....

Packer have a first and goal at the end of the game. There was what - 3 min left? They scored with 2:07 left, so I think I am close.

Packers with the 1st and goal proceed to pass, pass, pass, kick fg.

How much time would of been left if the Pack had instead gone run, run, run, run (on 4th down), even if they then did not score?

Weren't the first 2 passes kept in bounds? Running the ball would not have run any more time off the clock.Run the ball on 3rd down and the clock stops at 2:00 instead of 2:01.

Run the ball on 4th down and Pittsburgh gets the ball at 1:57 instead of 1:59.

This is a dumb thread.

 

[DevilDog919]

He called short screen passes, which I'm sure was because he had more faith they they would score a TD for him...and he also knew they had a high % rate to be completed, which they were. Steelers were most likely looking for run too, so in all I think his play-calling at the end of the game was solid.

 

[Reepicheep]

McCarthy has taken a lot of heat for being too conservative in his play-calling with a lead. Some of it is deserved, but it is also one of those "you'll never please everyone" things.

On that drive (and final set of downs), he was playing to win the game and putting the ball in the hands of his best player. The TD didn't happen but it was a matter of about an inch on the pass to Nelson. I was happy with the playcalling - with a 3 point lead and Ben on deck, you have to do what you think gives you the best chance to score a TD.

 

[FUBAR]

Like others have stated, short high % passes from Rodgers was the right call. Best player on the field (aside from TP), and running wouldn't have taken much more off the clock.

No need to nitpick the man, he won and coached well. Be happy.

 

[Pipes]

1st off - the Packers won, so it's all good. Having said that....

Packer have a first and goal at the end of the game. There was what - 3 min left? They scored with 2:07 left, so I think I am close.

Packers with the 1st and goal proceed to pass, pass, pass, kick fg.

How much time would of been left if the Pack had instead gone run, run, run, run (on 4th down), even if they then did not score?

Weren't the first 2 passes kept in bounds? Running the ball would not have run any more time off the clock.Run the ball on 3rd down and the clock stops at 2:00 instead of 2:01.

Run the ball on 4th down and Pittsburgh gets the ball at 1:57 instead of 1:59.

This is a dumb thread.

Guy just won a Superbowl yet the op wants to criticize....unf***ing believe.

 

[smackdaddies]

1st off - the Packers won, so it's all good. Having said that....

Packer have a first and goal at the end of the game. There was what - 3 min left? They scored with 2:07 left, so I think I am close.

Packers with the 1st and goal proceed to pass, pass, pass, kick fg.

How much time would of been left if the Pack had instead gone run, run, run, run (on 4th down), even if they then did not score?

Weren't the first 2 passes kept in bounds? Running the ball would not have run any more time off the clock.Run the ball on 3rd down and the clock stops at 2:00 instead of 2:01.

Run the ball on 4th down and Pittsburgh gets the ball at 1:57 instead of 1:59.

This is a dumb thread.

Guy just won a Superbowl yet the op wants to criticize....unf***ing believe.

just what else do you want to talk about until the draft? I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had also about kicking the FG or going for it on 4th down.

Not to run down McCarthy, which I have never done on these boards, but as a discussion item.

You could also ask if McCarthy should of gone for the onsides kick after scoring.....

 

[Mr.Pack]

1st off - the Packers won, so it's all good. Having said that....Packer have a first and goal at the end of the game. There was what - 3 min left? They scored with 2:07 left, so I think I am close.Packers with the 1st and goal proceed to pass, pass, pass, kick fg.How much time would of been left if the Pack had instead gone run, run, run, run (on 4th down), even if they then did not score?

Weren't the first 2 passes kept in bounds? Running the ball would not have run any more time off the clock.Run the ball on 3rd down and the clock stops at 2:00 instead of 2:01.Run the ball on 4th down and Pittsburgh gets the ball at 1:57 instead of 1:59.This is a dumb thread.

on all accounts.

 

[njherdfan]

If not for a great catch by Crabtree on first down, this would be a very valid discussion. But, since Crabtree made that catch and kept the clock moving, there isn't too much you can criticize.

 

[smackdaddies]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

 

[Eric Stratton]

1st off - the Packers won, so it's all good. Having said that....

Packer have a first and goal at the end of the game. There was what - 3 min left? They scored with 2:07 left, so I think I am close.

Packers with the 1st and goal proceed to pass, pass, pass, kick fg.

How much time would of been left if the Pack had instead gone run, run, run, run (on 4th down), even if they then did not score?

Weren't the first 2 passes kept in bounds? Running the ball would not have run any more time off the clock.Run the ball on 3rd down and the clock stops at 2:00 instead of 2:01.

Run the ball on 4th down and Pittsburgh gets the ball at 1:57 instead of 1:59.

This is a dumb thread.

Guy just won a Superbowl yet the op wants to criticize....unf***ing believe.

You could also ask if McCarthy should of gone for the onsides kick after scoring.....

Why? Unless someone wants to prove they aren't very bright.

 

[Football Critic]

Leave it to "some guy" to question a super Bowl winning coach.

Hey, wheres your rings?

McCarthy is about to get an extention, and your surfing the net to try to question his play calling, I just find that funny.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

For someone that just watching his team win a Super Bowl you sure are crabby.

 

[Football Critic]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

Stats dont matter at this point, he is going to Disney World, and your not...unless its out of pocket. So any questioning from you is smoke out your...

 

[Mr.Pack]

McCarthy has taken a lot of heat for being too conservative in his play-calling with a lead. Some of it is deserved, but it is also one of those "you'll never please everyone" things.

On that drive (and final set of downs), he was playing to win the game and putting the ball in the hands of his best player. The TD didn't happen but it was a matter of about an inch on the pass to Nelson. I was happy with the playcalling - with a 3 point lead and Ben on deck, you have to do what you think gives you the best chance to score a TD.

This

 

[Mr.Pack]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

Isn't that what you're doing here?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

Isn't that what you're doing here?

 

[Eric Stratton]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

Isn't that what you're doing here?

 

[Ernol]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

Silly article imo - arguing that missing the FG would have been better statistically than making it?. For one, it makes an assumption that "teams down by 3 play for the FG in that situation, while teams down by 6 are forced to play for the win". Tell that to the Arizona Cardinals the last time the Steelers were down in a Superbowl by 3 points with time running out.

 

[Reepicheep]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

Silly article imo - arguing that missing the FG would have been better statistically than making it?. For one, it makes an assumption that "teams down by 3 play for the FG in that situation, while teams down by 6 are forced to play for the win". Tell that to the Arizona Cardinals the last time the Steelers were down in a Superbowl by 3 points with time running out.

Yeah, I don't understand that. I guess the idea is that historically speaking, based on however they crunch their numbers, teams that make the FG in similar situations lose more often than teams that miss it. So maybe that is a factual thing as far as "past performance" goes. But I think it is the height of arrogance to say your fancy stats should guide a coaches decision there. It is not a bunch of means and standard deviations and datapoints on the field - there are specific players playing and certain schemes being used, in a unique game and circumstance. Sometimes I think these stats guys try too hard to fit something as complicated and chaotic as the interactions of 100+ coaches and players in a football game into quantifiable probabilities and formulas.

 

[Ernol]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

Silly article imo - arguing that missing the FG would have been better statistically than making it?. For one, it makes an assumption that "teams down by 3 play for the FG in that situation, while teams down by 6 are forced to play for the win". Tell that to the Arizona Cardinals the last time the Steelers were down in a Superbowl by 3 points with time running out.

Yeah, I don't understand that. I guess the idea is that historically speaking, based on however they crunch their numbers, teams that make the FG in similar situations lose more often than teams that miss it. So maybe that is a factual thing as far as "past performance" goes. But I think it is the height of arrogance to say your fancy stats should guide a coaches decision there. It is not a bunch of means and standard deviations and datapoints on the field - there are specific players playing and certain schemes being used, in a unique game and circumstance. Sometimes I think these stats guys try too hard to fit something as complicated and chaotic as the interactions of 100+ coaches and players in a football game into quantifiable probabilities and formulas.

The author appears to be using some historical stats in order to support his argument (e.g., % chances of making a field goal), but the assumption that teams down by 3 are more likely to go for the tie in that situation vs the win was pure assumption so that he could use the 50% chance of a tie stat.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

I don't know why everyone is on the OP's case. I think it is valid. I was thinking the same thing when they kicked the FG. Prior to the game wasn't everyone on the "Big Ben always does it when it counts" kick? Especially after the squib kick that would have handed Pitt the ball at the 30 or 35 barring the stupid penalty. I am not a Pack or Pitt fan but was rooting for GB and I was thinking he should go for it.

Worst case scenario was that Pitt has to drive from their own 5 with 2 minutes left and kick a FG to tie the game. Considering they missed a 52 yarder earlier you figure the need at least 60 yards to kick the FG.

Best case is the game is over with a ten point lead.

We are all on a message board to discuss stuff like this. This is no different that Yudkin's "You're down by 15 with 7 minutes left to play and you score a touchdown" thread except this is a real scenario. To boot, the OP actually includes a link to an article that suggests (by someone's standards) that the right call was not made.

You always hear about how the offseason is the best part of this message board. Some of the responses in this thread lead me to believe otherwise.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I don't know why everyone is on the OP's case. I think it is valid. I was thinking the same thing when they kicked the FG. Prior to the game wasn't everyone on the "Big Ben always does it when it counts" kick? Especially after the squib kick that would have handed Pitt the ball at the 30 or 35 barring the stupid penalty. I am not a Pack or Pitt fan but was rooting for GB and I was thinking he should go for it. Worst case scenario was that Pitt has to drive from their own 5 with 2 minutes left and kick a FG to tie the game. Considering they missed a 52 yarder earlier you figure the need at least 60 yards to kick the FG.Best case is the game is over with a ten point lead.We are all on a message board to discuss stuff like this. This is no different that Yudkin's "You're down by 15 with 7 minutes left to play and you score a touchdown" thread except this is a real scenario. To boot, the OP actually includes a link to an article that suggests (by someone's standards) that the right call was not made.You always hear about how the offseason is the best part of this message board. Some of the responses in this thread lead me to believe otherwise.

Driving for a game tying FG is more difficult than driving for a game tying/winning TD????

 

[Football Critic]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

Isn't that what you're doing here?

Mr. Pack didnt you create that McCarthy will be a bust thread? lol

 

[TommyGilmore]

I don't know why everyone is on the OP's case. I think it is valid. I was thinking the same thing when they kicked the FG. Prior to the game wasn't everyone on the "Big Ben always does it when it counts" kick? Especially after the squib kick that would have handed Pitt the ball at the 30 or 35 barring the stupid penalty. I am not a Pack or Pitt fan but was rooting for GB and I was thinking he should go for it.

You are arguing "go for the TD instead of the FG".The OP is arguing "run the ball instead of pass".Not. The. Same. Thing.

 

[Pipes]

1st off - the Packers won, so it's all good. Having said that....

Packer have a first and goal at the end of the game. There was what - 3 min left? They scored with 2:07 left, so I think I am close.

Packers with the 1st and goal proceed to pass, pass, pass, kick fg.

How much time would of been left if the Pack had instead gone run, run, run, run (on 4th down), even if they then did not score?

Weren't the first 2 passes kept in bounds? Running the ball would not have run any more time off the clock.Run the ball on 3rd down and the clock stops at 2:00 instead of 2:01.

Run the ball on 4th down and Pittsburgh gets the ball at 1:57 instead of 1:59.

This is a dumb thread.

Guy just won a Superbowl yet the op wants to criticize....unf***ing believe.

just what else do you want to talk about until the draft? I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had also about kicking the FG or going for it on 4th down.

Not to run down McCarthy, which I have never done on these boards, but as a discussion item.

You could also ask if McCarthy should of gone for the onsides kick after scoring.....

I don't know....maybe question the decision making of the other 31 GM's and head coaches that didn't win the Superbowl.

Debating the statistics about going for it on 4th down is a completely different that creating a thread title asking if the Superbowl winning head coach screwed up the play calling. Your thread title makes it sound like your attacking McCarthy, not trying to create healthy banter amongst fans.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think it's fair to analyze, but the calls (complete high-percentage passes on first two plays) were good ones because they kept the clock moving and the Steelers were thinking run. They could have scored, but at least kept the clock moving.

I will say the coaching staff has a lot of faith in their players to call those passes when there had been so many critical drops. I'm sure it would have been easy to call runs, so it took guts to ignore the drops and let their players try to make plays.

 

[The Berry Man]

I like that he stayed aggressive and two of the passes were completed anyways. If they'd ran it up the middle twice with whatever scrub RB they had, and then threw an overly safe pass on 3rd and 10, the football gods would've punished their timidness by making Ben Roethlisberger actually good on the last possession.

 

[dgreen]

I think it's fair to analyze...

Me too. The problem is he misses on two important pieces of data. One, which has already been pointed out, is that the first two passes were complete and in bounds. Those, in effect were just as good as running plays.The second important piece of data is the time on the clock. The OP started with the assumption that there were about 3 minutes on the clock to start that set of downs. In fact, there was 3:47. Here it is:# 1-8-PIT 8 (3:47) 12-A.Rodgers pass short right to 83-T.Crabtree to PIT 7 for 1 yard (56-L.Woodley).# 2-7-PIT 7 (3:01) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass short right to 89-J.Jones to PIT 5 for 2 yards (24-I.Taylor).# 3-5-PIT 5 (2:15) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to 87-J.Nelson.# 4-5-PIT 5 (2:10) (Field Goal formation) 2-M.Crosby 23 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-61-B.Goode, Holder-8-T.Masthay.Those 47 seconds don't end up making a huge difference in time, but does lead Pittsburgh to use their last timeout. If it was at 3:00 (approximately) and they ran every down, it might have looked like:# 1-8-PIT 8 (3:00) # 2-7-PIT 7 (2:15) # 3-5-PIT 5 (2:00)Timeout Pittsburgh# 4-5-PIT 5 (1:55)Kickoff comes around 1:52 and Pittsburgh's first play on that final drive around 1:45 compared to the actual 1:59 in the game.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

1st off - the Packers won, so it's all good. Having said that....Packer have a first and goal at the end of the game. There was what - 3 min left? They scored with 2:07 left, so I think I am close.Packers with the 1st and goal proceed to pass, pass, pass, kick fg.How much time would of been left if the Pack had instead gone run, run, run, run (on 4th down), even if they then did not score? Even without scoring, Pitt having the Ball at the 5 or 4 (or even closer?)This is just idle speculation - I think the coaching staff did a great job play calling, and obviously I am happy with the result.But at that point - should the play calling of been designed to run more time off the clock? Even if they don't score?

Other than the shot in the endzone on 3rd, they completed the other two passes though.So the clock effect was really just the 3rd down incomplete pass in the endzone.

That is true.I was watching the game and I said it then that I thought those first two passes were bad calls. If you're going to pass the ball, take a shot into the endzone and try to win the game. Those WR screens did Pittsburgh a favor and then the shot finally on 3rd down was decent but still kind of a low percentage type play.I gaurantee if Pittsburgh would have marched down the field and won, those first 2 play calls would definately have been scrutinized. However, the clock was running then because Pittsburgh only had the 1 timeout which was a blunder on their part.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I think it's fair to analyze, but the calls (complete high-percentage passes on first two plays) were good ones because they kept the clock moving and the Steelers were thinking run. They could have scored, but at least kept the clock moving.I will say the coaching staff has a lot of faith in their players to call those passes when there had been so many critical drops. I'm sure it would have been easy to call runs, so it took guts to ignore the drops and let their players try to make plays.

I disagree Neil. I think if you're going to take the risk of passing the ball, go for a shot to win the game. Those pass plays never really had a shot, let's be honest. Pittsburgh was playing over aggressive because they knew that a TD meant the game was over so any little play in front of them was definately going to be covered. In fact, it would only take one healthy Troy P. to inch up and pick something like that off and take it to the house. However, there wasn't a healthy Troy P. on the field that day.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Leave it to "some guy" to question a super Bowl winning coach.Hey, wheres your rings?McCarthy is about to get an extention, and your surfing the net to try to question his play calling, I just find that funny.

I hear what you're saying but it doesn't mean he coached the perfect game. He did a great job this year in getting that team in position to win and he deserves a contract extention. With that said, I didn't love those two Wr screens on 1st and 2nd down. I didn't think they had any chance of getting a TD with an aggressive Steeler D playing everything in front of them. Liked the 3rd down call, just didn't happen for them.W/e though, better team won as far as I could see that day.

 

[Football Critic]

Leave it to "some guy" to question a super Bowl winning coach.Hey, wheres your rings?McCarthy is about to get an extention, and your surfing the net to try to question his play calling, I just find that funny.

I hear what you're saying but it doesn't mean he coached the perfect game. He did a great job this year in getting that team in position to win and he deserves a contract extention. With that said, I didn't love those two Wr screens on 1st and 2nd down. I didn't think they had any chance of getting a TD with an aggressive Steeler D playing everything in front of them. Liked the 3rd down call, just didn't happen for them.W/e though, better team won as far as I could see that day.

Where are your rings? Who are you to question a Super Bowl winning coaches strategy? That is my point....and it is quite disgusting that a person can win a Super Bowl, which is the point, and still be question by people who are not qualified.

 

[JbizzleMan]

You play to win the game.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I think it's fair to analyze, but the calls (complete high-percentage passes on first two plays) were good ones because they kept the clock moving and the Steelers were thinking run. They could have scored, but at least kept the clock moving.I will say the coaching staff has a lot of faith in their players to call those passes when there had been so many critical drops. I'm sure it would have been easy to call runs, so it took guts to ignore the drops and let their players try to make plays.

I disagree Neil. I think if you're going to take the risk of passing the ball, go for a shot to win the game. Those pass plays never really had a shot, let's be honest. Pittsburgh was playing over aggressive because they knew that a TD meant the game was over so any little play in front of them was definately going to be covered. In fact, it would only take one healthy Troy P. to inch up and pick something like that off and take it to the house. However, there wasn't a healthy Troy P. on the field that day.

I think it's fair to think the Steelers, being desperate, might sell out for the run and those plays might have been more open. A broken tackle and it's a touchdown. But if not, it's a completion and more time off the clock. I think it's a gutsy call (even if they're short passes) because the risk of a drop seems higher in that game. If they had been thrown away and no time came off the clock, it might have changed how the Steelers played the last drive. So calling a pass of any kind shows confidence in your pass-catchers, and they didn't necessarily earn it in that game.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Leave it to "some guy" to question a super Bowl winning coach.Hey, wheres your rings?McCarthy is about to get an extention, and your surfing the net to try to question his play calling, I just find that funny.

I hear what you're saying but it doesn't mean he coached the perfect game. He did a great job this year in getting that team in position to win and he deserves a contract extention. With that said, I didn't love those two Wr screens on 1st and 2nd down. I didn't think they had any chance of getting a TD with an aggressive Steeler D playing everything in front of them. Liked the 3rd down call, just didn't happen for them.W/e though, better team won as far as I could see that day.

Where are your rings? Who are you to question a Super Bowl winning coaches strategy? That is my point....and it is quite disgusting that a person can win a Super Bowl, which is the point, and still be question by people who are not qualified.

Is this schtick? There's a "qualification" to have an opinion about a football game? Dan Marino doesn't have any rings, either. Is he allowed to have an opinion?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Leave it to "some guy" to question a super Bowl winning coach.Hey, wheres your rings?McCarthy is about to get an extention, and your surfing the net to try to question his play calling, I just find that funny.

I hear what you're saying but it doesn't mean he coached the perfect game. He did a great job this year in getting that team in position to win and he deserves a contract extention. With that said, I didn't love those two Wr screens on 1st and 2nd down. I didn't think they had any chance of getting a TD with an aggressive Steeler D playing everything in front of them. Liked the 3rd down call, just didn't happen for them.W/e though, better team won as far as I could see that day.

Where are your rings? Who are you to question a Super Bowl winning coaches strategy? That is my point....and it is quite disgusting that a person can win a Super Bowl, which is the point, and still be question by people who are not qualified.

Ironically, I only had to look back a few posts to see you questioning the Black Eyed Peas. Where are your platinum records? Who are you to question them?I'm sure I won't have to go back much further to find you questioning plenty of people in the football world who are far more "qualified" than you.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Before you get your undies in a bunch, feel free to read this, in the NYTimes

That is, if your interested in statistical analysis rather than blowing smoke out your ###

Isn't that what you're doing here?

Mr. Pack didnt you create that McCarthy will be a bust thread? lol

Yes, but if you had been back there, I admitted I was wrong.Sometimes I shoot from the hip, it's a problem I have.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I think it's fair to analyze, but the calls (complete high-percentage passes on first two plays) were good ones because they kept the clock moving and the Steelers were thinking run. They could have scored, but at least kept the clock moving.I will say the coaching staff has a lot of faith in their players to call those passes when there had been so many critical drops. I'm sure it would have been easy to call runs, so it took guts to ignore the drops and let their players try to make plays.

I disagree Neil. I think if you're going to take the risk of passing the ball, go for a shot to win the game. Those pass plays never really had a shot, let's be honest. Pittsburgh was playing over aggressive because they knew that a TD meant the game was over so any little play in front of them was definately going to be covered. In fact, it would only take one healthy Troy P. to inch up and pick something like that off and take it to the house. However, there wasn't a healthy Troy P. on the field that day.

A couple thoughts here.1. This offense, and the west coast in general, loves to throw short and have their play makers make guys miss. That's what they do. So yes, the calls were conservative, but they were right in line with offensive philosophy.2. The defense was playing very well. Yes, they had some injuries. But for most of the day, the Green Bay defense made plays when they had to make plays. My opinion on this is that McCarthy was supremely confident that they could get a stop. And why wouldn't he be? They'd done it in critical situations in the playoffs. By playing more conservative there, he took time off the clock and put the game on the back of the defense.