Today’s Packer-Redskin game proved everything I have been saying since the early 1990s. Previous posts prove drive-by-drive why passing on first downs works for the Packers and running on first downs fails (the drive will eventually stall if you keep running on first down), so the theory is easy to prove on a drive basis. I have been very vocal in maintaining that if the Packers, starting with the Favre era and continuing through Rodgers, threw on first downs and on most plays, they would build up a large lead, which would put the pressure on the opponent, reduce the pressure on the Packers, and take the Packers out of the situation the conservative offensive gameplans continue to put them in–close games, some of which they lose, where a turnover, injury, fluke play, etc. can be the difference. Allowing the games to be close lets the other team hang around and gain confidence. I have always said if they would throw on first downs and most plays, they would build big leads and win easily. Even though the strategy holds on a per-drive basis, I have had very few chances to prove what would happen if they did this the first half or first three quarters when the tone of games are set. Colleagues counter that the Packers have to run to set up the pass, have to have a balanced offense, have to run to protect the QB, etc. My point is that Packer QBs can play with less pressure with a big lead, and get into a rhythm when they are aggressive, which means fewer interceptions. Favre’s interceptions tended to be in close games where he was frustrated with the conservative gameplan and where he felt he had to make a play to win the game. The most recent example of the Packers doing what I say they must do was the Atlanta playoff game in the 2010 Super Bowl-winning year. They went into Atlanta (playing on the road) against a team that was favored, and threw on almost 75% of the plays in the first three quarters. As a result, they scored a lot and won by a lot. However, that game didn’t seem to be enough proof for people, as it was one game. A large number of the previous posts on this site through the years have pushed for this strategy.
Today, McCarthy actually used the strategy, which was a huge departure from his normal offensive strategy and his belief that they have to establish the run. Perhaps it was because their first-string running back is out for the year, and their second-string running back got hurt early in the game and he knew he wouldn’t return. Regardless, here is what happened against a good Redskins team that made the playoffs last year.
In the first half, the Packers threw 31 passes. If you count the 3 sacks, which were passing plays, and a TD pass that was called back, they called passing plays on 35 first-half plays. They had 9 runs in the first half, and if you count the run that was called back because of a holding penalty, they called 10 runs. So, in the first half, they called passing plays on almost 78% of their plays. Conventional wisdom, which of course I’ve disagreed with, would say they would be in trouble because they didn’t run to set up the pass and their time of possession would be bad, as they weren’t running. What was the actual result? Rodgers was 26 of 31 for 335 yards and 3 TDs. Had the blatant interference on James Jones been called on the last drive of the half, Rodgers would have been 26 of 30, and probably 4 TDs. The Packers had 17 first downs, and a time of possession of 18:48, vs. 11:12 for the Redskins. The score was 24-0 at halftime, and would have been 31-0 if Jones didn’t fumble at the goal-line at the end of the half. Had the penalty been called, that doesn’t happen and the score is almost definitely 31-0. This is exactly what I predicted. Others laugh when I say the Packers could score 30-or-more points in the first half if they would just keep passing, but they did pass and they did score.
Let’s look at first-down playcalling in the first half. The Packers called passing plays on first down 18 times, which includes a play that was called back. They ran on first down 4 times–had a holding penalty on the first, ran for 14 on the second, ran for 9 on the third, and ran for 2 on the fourth. It was obvious that all of the running success came after the passing success set it up. After the first first-down run where they had the holding penalty, they did not run again on first down until the second quarter when the score was 17-0 Packers.
To start the second half, the Packers ran on first down for no gain on their first possession and punted, then threw on 2 of the 3 first downs on the next drive and scored a TD to go up 31-0. Again, this is EXACTLY what I have been saying for decades would happen if they would just do this. With 11:40 to go in the second quarter, Rodgers had thrown for 200 yards and 2 TDs! With 7:07 left in the half, Rodgers had thrown for 264 yards and 3 TDs, and was 19 of 23! With 2:41 left in the third quarter, even with two pass-interference penalties not called, Rodgers was 29 of 36 for 414 yards and 4 TDs, and the Packers had over 500 yards of offense! This was with more than a quarter to play! He finished 34 of 42 for 480 yards, 4 TDs, and no interceptions. Again, exactly what I predicted would happen.
So, the question remains. Since this has held true since the early 1990s and Packer coaches have not realized it, will McCarthy realize it and continue to be aggressive offensively? In last week’s 6-point loss to the 49ers, he ran on first downs on the first 2 drives and punted, then threw on every play on the third drive and scored an easy TD. However, he then went back to being conservative. So, it will be interesting to see what he has learned from this game.
I should also point out that the bears beat Minnesota by one point today, and the Vikings lost the game because they kept kicking to Hester, who set a team record for kickoff-return yardage. I continue to point out how foolish that is, but teams just don’t get it. His returns set up one TD and field position for another, well more than the difference in the game.