Tell the defense to get off the field on 3rd and long once in a while.

 

And are you insinuating that Dumbo is the answer for us ?? Personally, I don't see it... Sure, I agree that perhaps 'queasy' is a poor choice of words and opened up the nickname for him, and I'll agree that he may actually have felt that way. Heck, we all feel uncertain about some decisions we make, but is he good enough, has he shown enough to us as fans to make us believe that he's the answer to get this team to that point you make ?? I'm just not sure...

 

Your conclusion is not supported by your evidence.

 

If your conclusion is that it takes 60 minutes to lose a game rather than one play or play call then you're absolutely correct. The play you did not make in the 1st quarter as you ran out to a 14-0 lead that could have been a 21-0 lead could be just as responsible for losing the gam as that final touchdown pass you let up which lost you a 20-21 game. Every play counts.

The reason Queasy Joe has earned himself that nick name is because of his own performance as the head coach.

While we often grade a coach by the performance of his team overall, there are so many moving parts and other individuals that can be evaluated that go into success or non-success that this is only a very loose method of evaluating a head coach. For example Rex Ryan is regarded well despite having a losing record as a head coach. But that's because we are capable as human beings of processing a magnitude of details in order to make our evaluations, and some of those details will involve individual examples where the head coach can/should be credited for something.

The "queasy" incident is just one of the many detail oriented examples of incidents that give us strong clues as to what kind of coach Joe Philbin is. All week he met with coaches and players and told them their focus in that situation would be to be aggressive because the quarterback they're facing can and will bring his team back in a final drive situation. That's fine. I don't know if there is a right or wrong to that decision. You can plan to be aggressive or you can plan to be conservative. Either is probably as good as the other.

What isn't acceptable is planning to be aggressive, having everyone underneath you on the same page that way, letting your offensive coordinator call a few plays accordingly, and then suddenly throwing away everything you had been planning all week, and going conservative after you had already been aggressive. That is the worst thing you can do.

I understand that too often fans accuse smart football calls of being evidence of being too conservative or coaching scared. But just because there are examples where those accusations are baseless doesn't mean they're ALWAYS baseless. And in this instance, you've been planning things one way all week long and everyone is on the same page, you start calling it the way you had it planned and then you abort because you felt "queasy"...that is indeed coaching scared.

And he did it before against the Bills. He did something I am not sure I have ever seen. He got the ball with more than two minutes left in the half, with three timeouts, and ordered his offensive coordinator to run out the clock. That is simply ludicrous. I am not sure I have ever seen that. It's pretty much on the same order of lunacy as when Marty Morninwheg chose in sudden death overtime to play on defense first.

These calls don't have to have been THE thing that lost the game in order to criticize the coach for them. They just have to be nonsensical to the point of obviousness, because such obvious idiotic moments point toward a lot more idiotic decisions that perhaps we as fans CAN'T see. Sort of like when a guy gets caught beating his wife, you kind of assume that's probably not his first time getting physical with a woman, and likely won't be his last.

 

Do you seriously think his "plan" was to continue to be aggressive regardless of circumstances?!? THINK MAN!!!!!!!

What if he had a 7 point lead with 43 seconds left on a 3rd and 12? Stick with the "plan" just so you don't come off as a *****?

 

The plan was to be aggressive, the unspoken context was obviously to be aggressive when situations called for it. Philbin wasn't aggressive when he should have been, when situations called for it. He has a tendency to play scared, that's the bottom line. And that's how a coach gets the unflattering nickname of "Queasy".

 

To me the play that Quesy got his name from wasn't the worst queasy play of the that particular game. The time out he called before GB ran the forth and ten play from their 40 was for more egregious. I'm surprised he didn't sh#t himself right there on the sidelines. I wanted to leave the game when he did that, I knew we would lose.

 

This is a poor point to raise. He planned to be aggressive in EXACTLY the situation they found themselves in. And that is why he had Bill Lazor call the plays aggressively on 1st and 2nd down. If your point were correct, Philbin would have had Lazor call the plays conservatively on 1st and 2nd down because this was a situation that did not fit within their plans for being aggressive. But that is simply not the case. This was exactly the situation in which they planned to be aggressive, and he aborted that plan because he felt "queasy" after a pass rusher buzzed Ryan Tannehill on 2nd down.

 

That was also a mistake. And it was a BIG one. People criticize the "queasy" criticism because it didn't lose the game. But that "kodak" policy of his which he applied rigidly regardless of whether it was smart in that particular moment...probably did cost them that game. There was no reason to call that timeout. The timeout he called later, there was legitimate cause because the defensive players were sucking wind and some needed to sub out. But the 4th & 10 timeout was ludicrous. And it's just poor planning on his part. He should know that when the game clock is running in that situation and the offense has already run a bunch of plays in hurry up and don't have any time to sit around and discuss what they're about to do, you need to let the game clock work FOR you in that case and force that offense to come up with some genius play that converts them a 4th & 10 under a severe time crunch after just having taken a sack. The chances are overwhelmingly strong they won't be able to do that.

 

Exactly. And in that situation he felt like it was the right moment to run clock. His plan was not to be aggressive until the last snap of the game regardless of circumstance. His plan was to be aggressive up until the exact moment he decided it was the right time to switch to clock mode, he stuck to his plan. He was "queasy" not because being aggressive makes him sick, but because it was a difficult decision, it wasn't obvious if it was the right time to switch to clock mode or not. The fact that they barely had enough time to get in to the endzone despite a poor punt should tell you how close the decision was.

When you have an impossible decision being "queasy" is perfectly natural, its not a sign of weakness or being passive. I've seen plenty of the most aggressive people on the planet get "queasy" when forced to make high stakes decisions that amount to nothing more than coin flips.

 

If you're an advocate of playing not to lose with your tail between your legs as opposed to playing to win, have at it. I think that the team laying eggs in the last game of this year and even more so last year is indicative of his lack of leadership qualities. Philbin seems like nice enough of a guy, but he's not a true leader of men.

 

First of all he doesn't kodak regardless of circumstance. Here's a hint: we didn't kodak on a 4th and 10 one time in a game we ended up losing. And the fact that you think that timeout "probably" cost us that game shows you have little understanding of probabilities in general.

 

I'll go to my grave knowing we would have won that game on that play if it was just played out. We had them! Third and ten our pass rush had them, the previous downs as well was just relentless. We had just forced a fumble and Rogers was scrambling to get them to the line trying to make a call, the crowd was in a frenzy, 14 seconds on the play clock and bam! timeout. You could feel the air just leave the stadium. One of if not the most gutless calls I've ever seen in all my years of watching football. I agree that that last timeout was called for, but then again Coyle left the wrong personnel on the field so what good did it do really.

 

IMO the "plan" to stay aggressive meant the playbook was wide open and we would run our normal offense up until the moment Philbin decided it was the right time to go into clock mode. There is always a right time to go into clock mode. Its not about being passive or aggressive, its about being right. And the fact that they barely had enough time to score shows it absolutely was the exact right time to at least think about it and make the decision at that moment. Its debatable as to whether the decision was correct, I happen to think it was, but it was probably pretty close to a coin flip either way.

 

You are really grasping here. The whole team said afterwards they had planned to go for the first down in that situation and not just try to run out the clock. The coach abandoned the plan. He did not have a plan to be agressive until a certain point and then switch.

And the fact that GB used all the dock doesn't really mean anything. Teams tend to use all the clock available to them in situations or they fail trying.

 

Not just the players, Joe Philbin himself said it. Explicitly. So talk about grasping at straws.

 

LOL at your last sentence.

 

But Roy, sometimes in situations like that you don't play the odds, you go with momentum, I understand that sounds wrong but if you remember the previous play we got a strong hit on their qb, all fans were on their feet, and it was fourth and long, I like the chances to ride whatever momentum really is over allowing their offense to reset.

 

I think you're wrong. Go look at Lazor's comments from after the game, he was actually genuinely proud of the fact that we stayed aggressive. This tells me they followed through with their plan. Some people interpreted his comments as him sarcastically taking a shot at Philbin but those people have poor reading comprehension skills. Which is pretty sad for people with literary degrees.

 

Roy?, how do you argue this?

 

I agree. You go with your gut. Which is what Philbin did. Why people think their guts from their couches are more correct than Philbin's is beyond me.

Calling defensive timeouts, icing kickers, which color you wear, and deferring at the coin toss are all decisions that fall outside the realm of game theory. Its silly to act like you know for a fact how any of those decisions will affect the outcome of the game. Maybe calling the timeout results in you losing 45% of the time and not calling the timeout results in you losing 55% of the time. Either way you are going to lose a lot of the time. Either way you are going to have some people saying "if that decision was wrong then the opposite must have been right."

All I know for a fact is Aaron Rodgers is really good.

 

When you got your opponent on the ropes and momentum going in your favor, you do not call an untimely timeout giving the other team an incredible advantage. He basically gave GB a lifeline and they took it and ran with it. The worst thing you can do as a coach is take the game out of your players and assistant coaches control, showing that you have zero confidence in them to get the job done, and then basically hand the game to your opponent with untimely decisions. There have been many other instances of Philbin calling a bad game, but the Green Bay game this year was a textbook example of why Philbin is not Head Coach material.

 

I think its highly likely. How else can you explain the fact that we had the lead after losing time of possession, the turnover battle, and the passer rating differential? Maybe I'm misremembering but Rodgers didn't really have any lulls in his play. Our offense was awful for most of the first half yet we had the lead late in the fourth quarter. If we would have found a way to make another first down and close out the game on offense McCarthy is the one that should have felt like a donkey. It was very reminiscent of the Bills game after the bye in 2013. Tannehill tried to give it away early, the team remained resilient, we got the lead back, then Tannehill went to **** again and did give it away at the end.

 

and that's fine that you believe that, but all the circumstances were readily available to all of us, when you put a hit on the opposing qb that causes him to fumble, when you have put the opponent in a fourth and very long, when you have the crowd on their feet, and your at home, you throw percentages out the window, and that's what he played, the percentages, and his gut was wrong..it's a logical conclusion to let them team pounce on what they accomplished from the previous play, there was a clear advantage that the defense had earned, mainly their team being out of timeouts and rushing to the Los after a kill shot on the qb.

 

Just go look at the comments from the game day threads before and after the TD pass to Wallace at the end of the half in the New England game. Within a minute Philbin went from being a huge moron to a genius. Why? Simply because Wallace stayed in bounds by inches? The decision is either right or wrong, results shouldn't factor in to how you feel about the decision.

 

The game is decided by plays, inches, and fractions of seconds..the game did come down to one play..4th and Long..doesn't matter what happened before that..

 

There was a poster that was at the game and he said him and a bunch of other fans were begging for the timeout there. He is not an idiot. Nor does he like Philbin. So why is your gut more right than his?

 

I'm a bit unclear as to where you stand on this..

Bills game, end of the half, two mins to go and all timeouts? If I'm not mistaken I believe he tried to pass on 1st and 2nd down right?, then on 3rd and 9 he ran it right?

 

We didn't have a third down, the Bills defense plucked the ball out of our QBs hand.

 

I completely understand that good coaching decisions could of put us in that situation to win the game and make it come down to one play, however, the actual one play showed me something philosophically I don't agree with..

 

Exactly, though I call him "Cautious Coach Joe" reality "Queasy Coach Joe" works just as well.

He is simply not a good game day field general, he does not trust his guys. His staff can coach guys up, no doubt about that, and that is his strength..gameday feel..nope

 

I'm sorry bro, just trying recollect the scenario, before I ask you the question I want to ask you, can you tell me how the downs transpired with two mins to go in the half and us with the ball and all timeouts?