Printable View
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...388755321.html
I am sure we'll get to other details eventually, but does anyone remember this from McCarthy?
February would be well after the playoff loss, but I think before the Combine or League Meetings, so maybe this was his end of season wrap up?Quote:
Q. Mike McCarthy said in February that he didn't have a championship-caliber defense in 2015. What was missing a year ago, and do you think the Packers have a championship defense now?
Finally some ambiguous further information from last season's bombshell from nowhere:
What we know:Quote:
Q. After last season, several people with intimate knowledge of the situation have said Mike McCarthy was fed up with your unwillingness to take chances and not reinforce the roster with veteran players from other teams that have the experience and talent to contribute. I've heard McCarthy met with you and Mark Murphy to discuss his frustrations. Did you hear Mike out, and if so where did the conversation lead?
1. More than one source apparently
2. Issue know to two people inside Packer org above M3
3. At least one meeting about it
What I want to know:
1. Odd to have this discussion after Peppers had signed
2. What positions pushed him over the edge (WR, ILB, TE) specifically mid-year last year?
3. Who is leaking?
Now on this one, I have sympathy with McGinn. The Packers are a public franchise that receives subsidies from the state (the tax for the Lambeau renovations expired just a couple of months ago). They ought to provide at least a bare bones update about the steps taken when allegations of violations of the law have occurred.Quote:
Q. Did the Packers conduct an internal investigation of the Al Jazeera report regarding performance enhancers and other drug use or just accept the denials of Clay Matthews and Julius Peppers at face value?
A. Well, I'm not going to be talking about that.
Of course, since this is PEDs, no team wants to tread in between the NFL and NFLPA and no team wants anyone close to the team's role in its pharmacological approaches to keeping players playing at a high level.
if mm actually said that i don't get it. it was obvious that the o was sub-par. the defense more than held up their end.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
MM met with Murphy and TT to discuss it? How would anyone know what was said in that meeting? Was the room bugged? Sounds to me more like corporate gossip, someone knew the meeting was held, may have even seen an agenda ("Free Agents"), and from there the rumors took over ("MM must be pissed we haven't signed any FAs."). We all know how that goes; "They are talking about" becomes "I wonder if MM is mad" to "MM probably is" to "MM is" to "MM screamed his head off about".Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
I found TT's answer to be more enlightening:
TT outright denied they ever had a conversation like that. If there is one thing we have seen from him consistently, it is that he will qualify, avoid, refuse so as not to lie. His flat out denial that a conversation like that ever occurred is more enlightening than anything McGinn said.Quote:
A. That sounds like that might have been some conversations that we had on the big picture from an organizational standpoint, and I'm not going to talk about that. Mike and I have never had any problem about the way we work here or the setup. We've never had a conversation like that.
McGinn's not very good at this. Thompson completely annihilated him this year once again. His questions come off as confrontational, ignorant, arrogant and often offensive - the worst combination there is.
I would really like to hear a recording of the Q&A session. I think the vocal inflections could be very entertaining, and enlightening. Better yet, a video to see their facial reactions as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by vince
Yeah, in one question the organization is too stale with the same people and practices, while in another it's too disruptive. Heck in the same question, he suggests Ted's Dad is all alone, but surrounded by family!
Yes, from Ted's telling this was a typical discussion of how do we evaluate the previous year, adjust if need be and move forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
Perhaps the "fed up" part is simply an emotional reaction to negative events during the season. Fed up with poor results, injuries, lack of depth, etc. That fits much more with McCarthy's comments during the offseason.
They are direct questions about tough topics. There was only one trap (re-state a generic version of do you support all of Mccarthy's coaching changes after the fact) and that seemed more seat of the pants than a planned tactic. The first ask was straightforward.Quote:
Originally Posted by vince
They aren't easy to ask and McGinn is the only one who asks them. But the ground on which he stands to ask several of these is thin. I do think the questions about drug use, the HGH report and the coaching changes last year are legit.
He just doesn't seem to have good info on the internal workings of the relationship between M3 and T2. Hence the fed up part not registering elsewhere. Compare that question that is unanswered and unsupported a half year later to the info he got on Sherman's relationship wth the scouting staff and his approach to drafting. He nailed that to the wall along with Sherman's pink slip (though to be fair I think that happened after Sherman was removed as GM).
Perhaps he simply implied it?Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...nfl-topstories
Quote:
Before last season, Mike McCarthy and Dom Capers sat down and mapped out a three-year plan to take the Green Bay Packers from a better-than-average defense to a championship-caliber unit.
Phase one was mostly a success. At its best, Green Bay’s defense in 2015 kept offenses out of the end zone, pressured the opposing quarterback into mistakes and made games winnable for a flawed offense. At its worst, the defense bled passing yards and endured extended sack droughts.
Statistically, the Packers probably finished the season where they belonged — 15th in total defense (346.7 yards per game), 12th in scoring (20.2 points per game) and tied for seventh in sacks (43). It was a solid showing by most accounts, but not quite to the level of the Super Bowl champion Denver Broncos.
“You always want to do better,” McCarthy said at this week’s NFL owners meetings. “I think the biggest thing is the pressures, we’re getting there, we’re creating matchups and you look at it, it was definitely a positive, our scheme evaluation. And you don’t just stop there, it can be better.”
His repeated questioning (after it had been answered repeatedly) stating that Thompson should expect Rodgers to be solely responsible for multiple championships came off as ignorant of the reality of the game and arrogantly dismissive of Thompson's previous responses IMO.
His assertion that Thompson has undoubtedly thought about being in the Hall of Fame "Or won't you admit it?" was unnecessarily nloaded, confrontational and uncalled for IMO. Numerous better ways to elicit a more valuable response to reflections on his career accomplishments.
The framing of his question about friction with McCarthy shut Thompson right up - and see Patler's demonstration of the logical incongruence that McGinn states as fact.
His assertion that Thompson is not adequately prepared on the pro side of scouting is baseless and offensive in nature, as is his confrontational assertion that they've inappropriately dismissed coaches and held others back IMO.
He could get a lot more about an interviewee's philosophy by asking him about his philosophy rather than accusing him of being incompetent.
I agree completely. How much more insight could he have gotten if he asked the question this way; "John Schneider, Reggie McKenzie and John Dorsey grew up as executives under you, and have gone on to successful or at least initially successful jobs as GMs. (I think there are a couple scouts he could mention, too.) In the past year, it has been reported that you refused to let X, Y and Z interview for open positions. Can you help the fans understand what factors enter in to your decisions on when to allow someone to interview, and when you deny that request?"Quote:
Originally Posted by vince
Follow-up questions:
"It had been reported thatReggie McKenzie was denied interviews several times before finally leaving for Oakland. Is it a matter of when you think the person is ready?"
"The three I mentioned all left within just a few years. Your first obligation is to do what is best for the Packers. Does the frequency of departures enter in to your decision? Are you waiting to build experience farther down the chain so there is competent succession when someone leaves?"
It's not so much that he would give an in-depth answer; from what we have seen from TT he probably wouldn't. But, at least it might encourage him to talk a little, instead of just clamming up.
I read the second part of the McCarthy fed up question as a second event. He reported McCarthy was fed up mid-year, last year. He is now indicating he has heard they had a meeting in which the topic in question might have come up.
But I doubt his source is inside 1265. Its either the team's board OR client to agent (possibly to other agent) info. I very much doubt the front office is advertising this. You need to want to put pressure on Ted to leak this. Murphy just signed him to a long term deal, that doesn't make sense. His department is all his guys (unless someone is mad). You would have to envision Eliot Wolf is in a huge hurry to leak this.
Its either connected to McCarthy, to the board or pure, unadulterated baloney. Maybe John Schneider, looking to stir up trouble elsewhere?
I agree the questions were direct but contentious (basically containing the critique rather than just asking for comment on event). I don't count the Rodgers' championships one against him though. Current sports coverage and the Packers own comments have brought that one on their heads (McCarthy admitted not long ago that he thinks in terms of Rodgers remaining career). That question is going to happen no matter who is seated opposite Thomspon. Packers would be better off not answering like Ted did rather than engage like M3 did.
But here is a bet: Dougherty and Wilde/Demovsky will get a similar sit down. We'll see if they have any more luck with friendlier questioning. Dougherty has done OK. Wilde gets lost in very long winded questions. I bet they get less.
Ah, Thompson Versus McGinn. Kinda like Ali Versus Frazier. A deep hatred and some grudging respect. But mostly hatred.
I don't know if its hatred but McGinn should know you'll get more with honey than vinegar. I too found the questions rather confrontational and most people won't open up under these kinds of circumstances.
Couldn't agree more. McGinn looked petty and not professional with some of his questions....Thought a couple of his questions were provoking.Quote:
Originally Posted by vince
I agree he did have a couple good questions.
I'd really like to know if this was the full interview or just select questions. McGinn needs to at least try to butter TT up before coming in for the kill. Bush league line of questioning from him.
Pete Dougherty linked to this interview which would have been in each paper. So he might not be getting a solo shot at Ted. Wonder if the ESPN duo Demovsky/Wilde get a shot.