McCarthy and "Close Games"

[Smidgeon]

OK, last point. I went through the season looking to see if any "good" teams have problems in close games like the packers do. Problem is that I keep seeing teams like atlanta and the Jets (first two I looked at) who win some close games....and lose others by 14 or even 42 points. I guess we could say they have problems in close games if they would have at least been competitive in games like that, but by getting completely man handled they proved they can win close ones.

EVERYONE on this board (save one or two posters) thought we would lose and lose bad to the patriots. The fact that we were in it to the last play means MM is a bad coach in close games....anyone see a flaw in this logic? And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.

I wish this site had a "Like" button...

[Patler]

Being close is fine; but, playoff runs usually involving winning close games at the end. With 5 years of history, overall I do not like what MM has shown in the last half of the 4th quarter.

What you do to stay close isn't necessarily what you need to do at the end to win. If you don't know how to win, all you will ever be is a really good team that never seems to win a championship. In football there are a lot of variables regarding possession, clock management, FG vs TDs, punting strategies, etc. etc. SO far, MM does not show particular skill in knowing how to close out games.

[denverYooper]

OK, last point. I went through the season looking to see if any "good" teams have problems in close games like the packers do. Problem is that I keep seeing teams like atlanta and the Jets (first two I looked at) who win some close games....and lose others by 14 or even 42 points. I guess we could say they have problems in close games if they would have at least been competitive in games like that, but by getting completely man handled they proved they can win close ones.

EVERYONE on this board (save one or two posters) thought we would lose and lose bad to the patriots. The fact that we were in it to the last play means MM is a bad coach in close games....anyone see a flaw in this logic? And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.

I agree with this and feel that a good part of what they need to win close games is on the players. After Rodgers's play at the end of the Atlanta game, I felt like he was there. It seems like a circular thing to say they just need to win some close games to win some more close games but I feel that is the case. It's like w/Minnesota and Favre, once they got that out of the way they seemed to have a bit more confidence. Now they need to do the same in close games.

[swede]

And don't even get me started on the fact that the one or two plays that might have changed this game had zero to do with coaching.

I didn't get to see the last two or three plays in the game...because Stubby gets the sweats and can't think under pressure and wastes the last minute of the game we lost the chanced to run any number of plays that attacked the end-zone.

But yay for getting us to almost win. Yay yay yippee flipping yay!

[RashanGary]

Capers was a brilliant hire. I didn't know a whole hell of a lot about him when he was first hired, but when I read through the bio, I felt like we lucked into the best defensive coach on the market one of the best in the game.

We have to make that move on ST's NOW and we have to make the move with an OL guy. We're getting there talent wise (outside of the OL). It's time to just sell out for a superbowl. We're there. Coaches, players, everything. We're close enough to go for it and close enough ot pick our hire. Any coach would want to be here.

[Bretsky]

Capers was a brilliant hire. I didn't know a whole hell of a lot about him when he was first hired, but when I read through the bio, I felt like we lucked into the best defensive coach on the market one of the best in the game.

We have to make that move on ST's NOW and we have to make the move with an OL guy. We're getting there talent wise (outside of the OL). It's time to just sell out for a superbowl. We're there. Coaches, players, everything. We're close enough to go for it and close enough ot pick our hire. Any coach would want to be here.

I was listening to Gil Brandt the other day and he was analyzing some fan complaints about certain assistant coaches and inquired as to how to land a top tier assistant coach wth experience.

Brandt offered some nice viewpoints.

Every year there are certain head coaches fired and when that occurs the general rule of thumb is those assistants are probably gone and are open to negotiate with other teams.

So if you want a quality assistant with experience and you intend on making a change your coach/GM should be evaluating the staffs that are likely to be fired and eyeing up their asistant coaches at your position of need.

Then you move fast to fill your coaching void.

So maybe you start looking at the OL/ST coaches of say.......the Bengals (no brainer), Carolina (likely), 49ers (likely), Titans (sounds like Fischer and the owner may clash over Young), Texans (Kubiak is probablygone)..............and try to move fast.

It would be a fun exercise to do this but if MM goes the status quo and takes these guys back because he is comfortable with them or takes his sweet time with the analysis of the coaches it could be too little too late

[denverYooper]

I was listening to Gil Brandt the other day and he was analyzing some fan complaints about certain assistant coaches and inquired as to how to land a top tier assistant coach wth experience.

Brandt offered some nice viewpoints.

Every year there are certain head coaches fired and when that occurs the general rule of thumb is those assistants are probably gone and are open to negotiate with other teams.

So if you want a quality assistant with experience and you intend on making a change your coach/GM should be evaluating the staffs that are likely to be fired and eyeing up their asistant coaches at your position of need.

Then you move fast to fill your coaching void.

So maybe you start looking at the OL/ST coaches of say.......the Bengals (no brainer), Carolina (likely), 49ers (likely), Titans (sounds like Fischer and the owner may clash over Young), Texans (Kubiak is probablygone)..............and try to move fast.

It would be a fun exercise to do this but if MM goes the status quo and takes these guys back because he is comfortable with them or takes his sweet time with the analysis of the coaches it could be too little too late

Might look at Cleveland also. OL has been a strength for them and Mangini is not safe. Plus, I believe that their OL coach worked with MM for a year in San Fran.

[Fritz]

Well, what's a "non-disappointing season," Ch. Wood? A Super Bowl win?

IF MM gets the Pack a SB win, how much slack will you cut him if the next year is not a SB victory? Or the one after that? Is one SB enough to make you happy? And for how long?

You try to set up your team to compete for the SB every year. You need to have talent, to keep replenishing, know when to ditch guys and when to re-sign them, have a smart, good coach who doesn't lose the players, and good assistants that you can replace when they get hired elsewhere.

People here would agree that NE is the epitome of that franchise - mostly due to Belichick. And they don't even win it every year. Hell, they haven't won a SB for six years. Belichick didn't win a SB in his first six years of coaching. Nor does another class franchise, Pittsburgh, win all the time. And by the way, it took Cowher 14 years to win his first SB. Oh, and his only SB. He had one AFC Championship as well.

If Cowher were coaching in GB would his one Championship title and subsequent SB loss be enough to show you he deserved another ten years to get to the SB again, then win?

So are those two guys disappointments?

[Charles Woodson]

Well, what's a "non-disappointing season," Ch. Wood? A Super Bowl win?

IF MM gets the Pack a SB win, how much slack will you cut him if the next year is not a SB victory? Or the one after that? Is one SB enough to make you happy? And for how long?

You try to set up your team to compete for the SB every year. You need to have talent, to keep replenishing, know when to ditch guys and when to re-sign them, have a smart, good coach who doesn't lose the players, and good assistants that you can replace when they get hired elsewhere.

People here would agree that NE is the epitome of that franchise - mostly due to Belichick. And they don't even win it every year. Hell, they haven't won a SB for six years. Belichick didn't win a SB in his first six years of coaching. Nor does another class franchise, Pittsburgh, win all the time. And by the way, it took Cowher 14 years to win his first SB. Oh, and his only SB. He had one AFC Championship as well.

If Cowher were coaching in GB would his one Championship title and subsequent SB loss be enough to show you he deserved another ten years to get to the SB again, then win?

So are those two guys disappointments?

I see the comparison, but would you really put MM in the conversation with cowher and cheat? All i want is a super bowl, is that so much to ask? (: but yea ill give MM some more credit after yesterdays game. Ill take a little bit of crap because i may have been posting under emotions. But still, my point is that MM needs to get control of close games.

[bobblehead]

Fucking MM still can't win a close game.

[denverYooper]

Fucking MM still can't win a close game.

[mmmdk]

Fucking MM still can't win a close game.

...blame it on the injuries!

[retailguy]

...blame it on the injuries!

I blame it on the damn game plan. That fucker couldn't call a decent game if his life depended on it!

[bobblehead]

I blame it on the damn game plan. That fucker couldn't call a decent game if his life depended on it!

Yep, he needed to go in a shell and let them back in it....but not quite, just within 4.

[vince]

McCarthy is 48-34, but that's unofficial since those are merely the games decided by the final score. He's 43-18 in games that don't count. Fire his ass.

[mraynrand]

He's 43-18 in games that don't count. Fire his ass.

This post is awesome

[Fritz]

McCarthy is 48-34, but that's unofficial since those are merely the games decided by the final score. He's 43-18 in games that don't count. Fire his ass.

I had no idea he'd coached that many preseason games!

[mraynrand]

I guess close only counts in horseshoes and evaluating McCarthy

[mmmdk]

Either y'all got balls or you're just plainly a bunch of silly gophers; Pandora's box will blow open. Yihaa!!

With that said; it's way more important to me that Packers will win Super Bowls with this team than being "right or not" about Stubster.

Packers super bowl champs > Stubby failing

Just win baby!

[rbaloha1]

MM had a good game plan. Execution was exceptional. Still MM is unproven in close games.

Lets hope the Bears game is close -- maybe MM has learned from previous close game mistakes.