An Attempt At Discussing McCarthy's Future

[Pugger]

what the fuck? Are you fucking kidding me? Fucking playoffs almost every year for 20 years. 3 Super Bowl wins in 18 years. 13 championships, two great HOF QBs back to back. Arguably the greatest coach in all of sports history. Lambeau Field. Mystique with no rival. What the hell is wrong with you people?

They are spoiled and probably never endured the crap we older fans put up with between Lombardi and Wolf/Holmgren. Those years were terrible. We made the playoffs 2 times over a 25 year period. :-p

[digitaldean]

There is nothing wrong with having expectations. That is a good thing. We expect the Packers to win. I have a perfectly clear idea of what it is like to be a Browns fan. So do most other Packer fans. That is why we push for improvement and change when it is necessary.

We don't want to become fans of an irrelevant franchise.

If you are worried about being fans of an irrelevant franchise, be a Titans, Redskins, Browns fan. Yes, I expect them to win. Yes, I'm pissed they crapped the bed at the end (though I said in first half I hoped the lack of points of turnovers wouldn't bite them and it did). Be a Bengals fan and see your team make the postseason only to see Andy Dalton and Marvin Lewis continually hit the wall.

Changes? FIRE SLOCUM! But considering how MM is loyal beyond fault, I am not getting my hopes up.

[hoosier]

There is nothing wrong with having expectations. That is a good thing. We expect the Packers to win. I have a perfectly clear idea of what it is like to be a Browns fan. So do most other Packer fans. That is why we push for improvement and change when it is necessary.

We don't want to become fans of an irrelevant franchise.

High expectations are great. You should have them. Going all chicken little when the Packers don't make it to the SB is overreacting.

[Packman_26]

You guys are so f'ing spoiled. You have no idea what it is like to be fans of most NFL teams. Try living in the shoes of a Redskins fan for just four months. One Superbowl win, three NFC championship games, made the playoffs six years running...You guys are funny

[Tyrion Lannister]

Shanahan didn't get tenure after winning TWO Super Bowls for Denver, so why should McRetardy?

Fire McCarthy!

FYI, I've started www.firethatfatfuck.com. Our mission is to get McRetardy fired. Please donate cash today! Thanks.

[mraynrand]

Shanahan didn't get tenure after winning TWO Super Bowls for Denver, so why should McRetardy?

Fire McCarthy!

FYI, I've started www.firethatfatfuck.com. Our mission is to get McRetardy fired. Please donate cash today! Thanks.

Shanny and Cheat both have won only with one QB, although Cheat is also probably responsible for most of Parcells' success. We may not get to see it, but it will/would be interesting to see Cheat and Stubby have to transition to a new QB.

[pbmax]

Shanahan didn't get tenure after winning TWO Super Bowls for Denver, so why should McRetardy?

Fire McCarthy!

FYI, I've started www.firethatfatfuck.com. Our mission is to get McRetardy fired. Please donate cash today! Thanks.

I'll sign up in 2020. Shanahan got 10 years after the last Super Bowl run.

[Patler]

You people do realize that Belichick hasn't won a Super Bowl for 10 years, don't you? Should he be fired? That's an awful long stretch of playoff failures. He hasn't won it since before MM came to GB. Don't give me the excuse that at least he has made Super Bowls since then, because that doesn't matter. A playoff loss is a playoff loss, it doesn't really matter when it is, especially when the loss is to the eventual SB winner. You would be making the same anti-MM arguments even if he had been to several SBs and lost.

When you have a coach that gets you to the playoffs year after year, one that has won it all, one that has gotten to the playoffs in spite of very, very significant injuries, one that has gotten to the playoffs even with rapidly changing rosters from year to year, rolling the dice with someone else is very risky.

Do I think MM is perfect, or the best there is available? No, not at all. I do place a lot of blame on him for the most recent failure; but I also give him a lot of credit for the 55 minutes that they were in total control of the game, in spite of their failures to maximize the opportunities they had. It was what I expected when I wrote in another thread that GB would win in a game that would be close in score, but one they would control. If Bostic catches the onside kick, or better yet if he blocked and allowed Nelson to make what looked like a much easier catch for him, the game probably would have been exactly what I expected. Had they beaten Seattle, my prediction for the SB would have been a GB win.

I'm not blaming Bostic. I could say the same regarding a half dozen other plays.

[Patler]

The game was lost because players failed to make plays at key times.
The game was close (and therfore "losable"), because MM had a conservative "play not to lose" approach.

But ... For 57 minutes they were well-positioned to win the game because of what MM did in preparing them for the game, and perhaps even because of his conservative approach to this game. Not many gave them much of a chance to win this one. Getting at least some points from every scoring opportunity in a game almost predestined to be low scoring is a solid approach to winning that type of game. Going for max points is well and good in hindsight, but getting nothing from a scoring opportunity against a good defense also can be fatal.

Personally, I had no problem with the first FG, because I think getting an early lead was important. As the lead built, I would like to have seen him be more aggressive on 4th and short when 3 points doen't make a one score lead into a two score lead, or a two score lead into a three score lead. I would not go for it on 4th and short when it is a punting situation. Against a struggling offense, I want to keep the field long.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm not advocating getting rid of McCarthy. On the other hand, everything else being equal, I think the Packers would be just as successful with a guy like Bruce Arians in charge.

[Packman_26]

Good Christ people, who the Hell do you want? Marc Trestman 2.0? The Packers have been one of the top teams in the NFL since 2007. There are a lot more Leslie Frazier's and Jim Schwartz's than there are Vince Lombardi's. Even if McCarthy was the sole reason the Packers lost the game it doesn't mean you should fire him for it. The Packers are a Super Bowl threat every year and have won one already. Losing games like that isn't' acceptable, but the repercussions of losing shouldn't be the fire the guy because there is probably about a 96.7% chance that the next guy won't be any better. It's quite likely he would be worse.

[woodbuck27]

Good Christ people, who the Hell do you want? Marc Trestman 2.0? The Packers have been one of the top teams in the NFL since 2007. There are a lot more Leslie Frazier's and Jim Schwartz's than there are Vince Lombardi's. Even if McCarthy was the sole reason the Packers lost the game it doesn't mean you should fire him for it. The Packers are a Super Bowl threat every year and have won one already. Losing games like that isn't' acceptable, but the repercussions of losing shouldn't be the fire the guy because there is probably about a 96.7% chance that the next guy won't be any better. It's quite likely he would be worse.

Please:

List the members here that have called for Mike McCarthy to be fired !?

[pbmax]

The problem, of course, is finding Bruce Arians before he becomes Bruce Arians with another team. These are the hires so far this year:

Rex Ryan
Jack Del Rio
Jim Tomsula
Gary Kubiak
John Fox
Todd Bowles

Impressed with anyone? Replacing McCarthy is harder than people think it is.

[Smidgeon]

The problem, of course, is finding Bruce Arians before he becomes Bruce Arians with another team. These are the hires so far this year:

Rex Ryan
Jack Del Rio
Jim Tomsula
Gary Kubiak
John Fox
Todd Bowles

Impressed with anyone? Replacing McCarthy is harder than people think it is.

Isn't it interesting that four of the six are retreads?

[Patler]

Isn't it interesting that four of the six are retreads?

Very interesting. In a typical year it would be five of the six.

[mmmdk]

NB - Don't get this wrong. Following the Packers is awesome and it's been good football, will be good football. Kings of the NFC North just no dynasty. And we're not the Lions but that does nothing for me.

[sharpe1027]

Anyone suggesting MM should be fired is delusional. Anyone suggesting he should look to improve next year...no shit. That's the case every year.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/4...gn=ob_nfl_rss#

Was Green Bay's NFC Championship Loss Mike McCarthy's Fault?

" ...“If you want to question my play calling … I’m not questioning it."

"I came in here to run the ball. The one statistic I had as far as a target to hit was 20 rushing attempts in the second half, I thought that would be a very important target to hit for our offense.” ..." Mike McCarthy ...Fr. Article


Comment woodbuck27:

This is a tough day in the life of Mike McCarthy having learned yesterday (Wed. 21 Jan. 2015) that his younger brother Joe McCarthy passed away suddenly. That tragedy for Mike McCarthy is being covered in it's own thread.

I expect he'll try to deal with this tragedy by simply getting back to work and trying to be as effective or purposeful as possible. We all know the effect short term of such loss can be somewhat or more a negative. Mike McCarthy has to be smart enough to seek any support he may require.

This thread is about football and looking at the past to understand it hopefully for an improved future. The fact that a large part of the loss in Seattle is on Mike McCarthy's election of how to call the game; is made clearly evident in this article.
We often see Mike McCarthy make a change in his play calling that's not sensible. It's the old saying:

"Why change what's working for you."

Many of us have a stubborn streak at least..... sometimes.

As I observe Mike McCarthy one of my observations is that he often gets the blinders on.

I believe I suggested early in the Game Day thread what MM might do to give his team a decent chance against a team that was expected to defeat the Green Bay Packers. I certainly did so in other posts. I wrote of the battle I had to want to will a win for the Packers but that gut feeling escaped me. I ended the post predicting the final score.

Back on point:

Mike McCarthy damned himself in this game (before it even started) by trying to meet a target of a certain number of running plays when he has the NFL MVP playing QB for him. The way he changed up his play calling in the second half was a clear error. Aaron Rodgers knows that and anyone worth their salt as an analyst knows that TRUTH.

The proof of that was in the pudding. Mike McCarthy spoiled his pudding in the second half with the Green Bay Packers leading 16-0. Mike McCarthy became as he often is 'anal' in his style of play calling. Mike McCarthy fails to drive the stake home.This article makes that fact clear.

Studying ** the Play by Play for yourself makes that very clear. Mike McCarthy's play calling leads all in terms of why the Green Bay Packers suffered it's worst defeat in history.

As Jordy nelson said (and I paraphrase):

"Just four more points on the board for the Packers makes that a different game."

Just 1-2 more first downs would have likely done it.

The two '3 and outs', late in the Fourth Quarter before the drive for the game tying FG hurt !

The Game Play by Play:

** http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201501...yze=playbyplay

Final Comment woodbuck27:

No one can learn from their error if they refuse to admit error. Real living means learning every single day.

Mike McCarthy has a lot to learn from 'how he failed ' as a play caller in the second half of the Packers collapse.

[ThunderDan]

................................

Final Comment woodbuck27:

No one can learn from their error if they refuse to admit error. Real living means learning every single day.

Mike McCarthy has a lot to learn from 'how he failed ' as a play caller in the second half of the Packers collapse.

If MM's strategy and coaching was so poor, how did we get ahead 16-0 and 19-7? Was it a complete fluke?

Obviously he had a pretty good game plan to beat SEA at SEA and I would say that GB is the only team all year that made SEA look bad.

[woodbuck27]

If MM's strategy and coaching was so poor, how did we get ahead 16-0 and 19-7? Was it a complete fluke?

Obviously he had a pretty good game plan to beat SEA at SEA and I would say that GB is the only team all year that made SEA look bad.

OK I cannot ignore this:

ThunderDan maybe? ... open that mind of yours.

Before you made this post did you read the article and all (or most of) the comments?

Surely this isn't the 'only' group of Packer fans that refuse to get it !



An original game plan must stand up for a complete four quarters. A full 60 minutes. If it's not working then 'of course' that plan must be altered to compensate for anything predicting a loss.

You don't bull headedly focus a game plan on targets. You better be flexible and thinking on your feet. You better allow input.

In Regulation Green Bay had the ball 4:30 longer than the Seattle Seahawks and we see that solid lead at the half.

What are you doing introducing baloney and the term 'fluke'. Get on point please.

The 'only' thing really obvious was the score. A proper analysis gets to the many reasons it got there. This article is clear as to Mike McCarthy's part in why this team was defeated in what he deemed 'a fun game'.

"A fun game". Holy shit Mike !

Vince Lombardi rolled over in his grave at that characterization of Green Bay @ Seattle last Sunday.


Seattle 28 - Green Bay 22.



ThunderDan:

Read the article and do so open minded.

That article answers your questions.