Thoughts On HC Mike McCarthy's Purge Of Packer Coaches. What makes any sense?

[Bretsky]

OK I'll therefore remove my post content. I tried to demonstrate clearly why I have taken my stance VS Mike McCarthy. I took considerable time and attention to that to do so.

I appreciate the criticism.

I don't think it's valid. While I liked Edgar Bennett as a player MM offered him different jobs as both RB and WR coach and then promoted him to a job that to be honest I was never convinced he was qualified for. He did a lot for Bennett. And if he removed him as OC he has that right. And going back to Philbin was a no brainer. It's a head coached job to evaluate his staff. And I don't think he's a horrible person to concluded they are not doing a good enough job. I have a hard time using that logic against any head coach.

And I don't think there is anything with him sitting in on the GM search and offering his views, whether they are right or wrong. Mark Murphy could have told him to fly a kite and told him to mind his own business but he did not.

Record wise.....it's very obvious Hoody Genius is the best in the NFL.

Cases can definitely be made for Pete Carrol and Mike Tomlin being better coaches

And while I don't love MM by any means, it's tough to build a statistical case based on wins and losses.......or...even in looking at him as an OC versus when he let Tom Clement call play (trainwreck).....that he's a bad coach.

I have no issues with anybody hammering on MM for being too loyal to his assistants and keeping them around too long (Bob Saunders/Capers come to mind). That's a very common criticism...........but if you go that route (which I tend to agree with) then I certainly am not going to call him a hearless jerk for letting assistants go too fast.

And for the record....I can certainly agree with anybody who wants to light up MM for being too loyal/overestimating/not preparing Huntley to replace Rodgers. MM is not w/o fault; he has plenty

But I don't think he's a terrible human being, and I don't think the numbers lead to him being a horrible head coach

[Zool]

And while I don't love MM by any means, it's tough to build a statistical case based on wins and losses.......or...even in looking at him as an OC versus when he let Tom Clement call play (trainwreck).....that he's a bad coach.

Some people will argue in the opposite for Sherman/Farve. Rodgers and MM are linked together in success. Saying one would be bad without the other is short sighted and cherry picking to prove your own point.

[mraynrand]

Some people will argue in the opposite for Sherman/Farve. Rodgers and MM are linked together in success. Saying one would be bad without the other is short sighted and cherry picking to prove your own point.

Their development is linked. Rodgers would be successful elsewhere. Stubby would likely be successful elsewhere, depending on whether the QB and personnel he was molding had sufficient inherent talent.

The conundrum is that very very few QBs will be successful because of some system when they themselves are awful, regardless of coach. The Woodbuck mistake (and those like him here and elsewhere) is always to think that Rodgers is an independent creation, who dropped into Stubby's lap fully formed and competent. Both developed together and as that happened, Stubby made adjustments to accommodate Rodger's skills, and Rodgers became highly proficient in the offense Stubby constructed with him. I have no problem believing Stubby couldn't do the same for the next QB prospect, and that Rodgers couldn't go to another team and adapt to and alter their scheme to be successful, limited of course by his now relatively old NFL body.

[George Cumby]

Their development is linked. Rodgers would be successful elsewhere. Stubby would likely be successful elsewhere, depending on whether the QB and personnel he was molding had sufficient inherent talent.

The conundrum is that very very few QBs will be successful because of some system when they themselves are awful, regardless of coach. The Woodbuck mistake (and those like him here and elsewhere) is always to think that Rodgers is an independent creation, who dropped into Stubby's lap fully formed and competent. Both developed together and as that happened, Stubby made adjustments to accommodate Rodger's skills, and Rodgers became highly proficient in the offense Stubby constructed with him. I have no problem believing Stubby couldn't do the same for the next QB prospect, and that Rodgers couldn't go to another team and adapt to and alter their scheme to be successful, limited of course by his now relatively old NFL body.

Right, look at most of the great championship teams, there is almost always a dynamic synergy between HC and QB. It's not always tea and crumpets, the relationship is complex, multi layered and nuanced. Starr and Lombardi, Landry and Staubach, Noll and Bradshaw, Montana and what's his name (ugh, my memory), johnson and Aikman, etc. if Rodgers had been drafted early in the first and thrown into action his rookie year, he'd be another example of a Tedford QB that couldn't cut it in the NFL.

[woodbuck27]

Their development is linked. Rodgers would be successful elsewhere. Stubby would likely be successful elsewhere, depending on whether the QB and personnel he was molding had sufficient inherent talent.

The conundrum is that very very few QBs will be successful because of some system when they themselves are awful, regardless of coach. The Woodbuck mistake (and those like him here and elsewhere) is always to think that Rodgers is an independent creation, who dropped into Stubby's lap fully formed and competent. Both developed together and as that happened, Stubby made adjustments to accommodate Rodger's skills, and Rodgers became highly proficient in the offense Stubby constructed with him. I have no problem believing Stubby couldn't do the same for the next QB prospect, and that Rodgers couldn't go to another team and adapt to and alter their scheme to be successful, limited of course by his now relatively old NFL body.

This isn't a woodbuck27 mistake or 'a mistake' by any other Packerrat or (Green Bay Packer knowledgeable fan) that see's all things Packers and 'the forest for the trees'.

This is the TRUTH:



This Graph indicates a Green Bay Packers MM/Aaron Rodgers Led Offense, now in a CLEAR Free Fall.

[Zool]

This isn't a woodbuck27 mistake or 'a mistake' by any other Packerrat or (Green Bay Packer knowledgeable fan) that see's all things Packers and 'the forest for the trees'.

This is the TRUTH:



This Graph indicates a Green Bay Packers MM/Aaron Rodgers Led Offense, now in a CLEAR Free Fall.

Well then I say this data clearly shows that Rodgers is in decline and can no longer cut it at the NFL level despite what the coaches are doing to help him.

Or ,since Rodgers calls most of the plays at the line, his ability to call plays that put them in scoring position is severely lacking.

Or, lets grab some sack numbers and say his inability to escape pressure is what is causing the down tick in production.

See, I can use the available data to support a completely different opinion. Data does not equal fact. Data is just data.

[woodbuck27]

Well then I say this data clearly shows that Rodgers is in decline and can no longer cut it at the NFL level despite what the coaches are doing to help him.

Or ,since Rodgers calls most of the plays at the line, his ability to call plays that put them in scoring position is severely lacking.

Or, lets grab some sack numbers and say his inability to escape pressure is what is causing the down tick in production.

See, I can use the available data to support a completely different opinion. Data does not equal fact. Data is just data.

OK Zool !

What do you prefer the 2011 Season Packer Offense or the 2015-16 Season Offenses?

Twist those FACTS around Zool.

[Zool]

OK Zool !

What do you prefer the 2011 Season Packer Offense or the 2015-16 Season Offenses?

Twist those FACTS around Zool.

Both, unless I can find stats that support my current feeling, then I’ll pick neither.

[SudsMcBucky]

This isn't a woodbuck27 mistake or 'a mistake' by any other Packerrat or (Green Bay Packer knowledgeable fan) that see's all things Packers and 'the forest for the trees'.

This is the TRUTH:



This Graph indicates a Green Bay Packers MM/Aaron Rodgers Led Offense, now in a CLEAR Free Fall.

Help me understand this graph. For 2017, you have an AR/MM led offense averaging 20 pts per game. I calculate 26.8 pts/game.

[mraynrand]

Help me understand this graph. For 2017, you have an AR/MM led offense averaging 20 pts per game. I calculate 26.8 pts/game.

And 30.6 for 2013. But Woody isn't interested in presenting an objective view, just cherry picking to fit his narrative. Hmmm..what does that remind me of...

[Joemailman]

Help me understand this graph. For 2017, you have an AR/MM led offense averaging 20 pts per game. I calculate 26.8 pts/game.

The graph indicates ppg for the whole season. It was 27 ppg when Rodgers started, but 20 ppg overall. By AR/MM led offense, I assume they mean since 2009. Not sure why they didn't include 2008.

[mraynrand]

The graph indicates ppg for the whole season. It was 27 ppg when Rodgers started, but 20 ppg overall. By AR/MM led offense, I assume they mean since 2009. Not sure why they didn't include 2008.

yes we know this. The Graph is deliberately inaccurate.

[SudsMcBucky]

The graph indicates ppg for the whole season. It was 27 ppg when Rodgers started, but 20 ppg overall. By AR/MM led offense, I assume they mean since 2009. Not sure why they didn't include 2008.

Ok, but your graph is specifically titled an AR/MM led offense. That's NOT accurate.

[woodbuck27]

Help me understand this graph. For 2017, you have an AR/MM led offense averaging 20 pts per game. I calculate 26.8 pts/game.

That Graph was used from a source and is accurate in terms of how the Packers Total Offense Performed in 2017 and back to the 2009 Season.

It's not calculated then drawn specifically (just for games that Aaron Rodgers) played.

From PRO FOOTBALL Reference the 2017 Season:

Points For: Total Points at 320 (20.0/g) or Ranked 21st in the NFL.


https://www.pro-football-reference.c...s/gnb/2017.htm

[mraynrand]

It's not calculated then drawn specifically (just for games that Aaron Rodgers) played. Of course, that Graph for Seasons 2013 and 2017 would look differently, if it was draw to specifically determine the MM and Aaron Rodgers led Packer 'O'.

Exactly. There is no free fall for MM/AR led offense as you asserted from the start. You just got this one wrong.

[mraynrand]

This Graph indicates a Green Bay Packers MM/Aaron Rodgers Led Offense, now in a CLEAR Free Fall.[/COLOR]

This is Woodcock's exact quote; his interpretation of the graph. The point isn't so much the inaccuracy of the graph (that is whether the graph was meant to be misleading or not), but how that inaccuracy leads to guys like woodblock drawing incorrect conclusions.

[Fritz]

I don't think it's "valid". While I liked Edgar Bennett as a player MM offered him different "jobs" as both RB and WR coach and then PROMOTED HIM to a job that to be honest I was never convinced he WAS qualified for. He did a lot for "Bennett." And if he removed him as OC he has that right. And going back to PHILBIN was a no brainer. It's a head coached job to evaluate his staff. And I don't think he's a "horrible person" to concluded THEY ARE NOT DOING A GOOD ENOUGH job. I have a hard time using that logic against any HEAD COACH.


And for the record....I can certainly agree with anybody who wants to light up MM for being too loyal/overestimating/not preparing Huntley to replace Rodgers. MM is not w/o fault; he has plenty

But I don't think he's a terrible human being, and I don't think the numbers lead to him being a horrible head coach

Bretsky, if you're going to go toe-to-toe with Woody, you've got to learn the style. I tried to help you out above.

For the record, I'm in the unusual and slightly awkward position of agreeing in part with Woodbuck and Anti-Polar. It's the bit you wrote about MM not having Hundley ready. The guy sat and watched and trained for the very moment into which he was thrust, and he simply pooped the bed. Like, diarrhea-splattered the bed.

MM's calling card is his work with QB's. That is his foundation for the claim he's a fine head coach - as others pointed out above, he gets a lot of credit for helping Rodgers develop into the All-World QB that he is.

So for me, the fact that MM didn't have Hundley ready, and couldn't figure out a good game plan to use for Hundley ("we're going to run a lot . . . no, wait, we're going to put the game on Hundley's arm") is a serious, serious indictment.

He had TWO YEARS. QB school or no, he said over and over that Hundley was his guy, and obviously Hundley was his guy for the very situation into which he was put. This was no Seneca Wallace story; MM put his money on and his time into Hundley. And Hundley was bad, in an epic way.

To me, MM is becoming increasingly arrogant yet does not have the results with Hundley to back it up. And he's becoming more public about his arrogance, which is the real sin here.

[Cobra Kai]

To me, MM is becoming increasingly arrogant yet does not have the results with Hundley to back it up. And he's becoming more public about his arrogance, which is the real sin here.

case and point... "Let's state the facts, I'm a highly successful NFL coach"

I'd bet any money that the only reason MM reports directly to Murphy now is to stroke his big fat giant ego. No doubt that whenever MM leaves or gets the boot, BG or whomever is GM then will have full control over the next coach.

[KYPack]

Bretsky, if you're going to go toe-to-toe with Woody, you've got to learn the style. I tried to help you out above.

For the record, I'm in the unusual and slightly awkward position of agreeing in part with Woodbuck and Anti-Polar. It's the bit you wrote about MM not having Hundley ready. The guy sat and watched and trained for the very moment into which he was thrust, and he simply pooped the bed. Like, diarrhea-splattered the bed.

MM's calling card is his work with QB's. That is his foundation for the claim he's a fine head coach - as others pointed out above, he gets a lot of credit for helping Rodgers develop into the All-World QB that he is.

So for me, the fact that MM didn't have Hundley ready, and couldn't figure out a good game plan to use for Hundley ("we're going to run a lot . . . no, wait, we're going to put the game on Hundley's arm") is a serious, serious indictment.

He had TWO YEARS. QB school or no, he said over and over that Hundley was his guy, and obviously Hundley was his guy for the very situation into which he was put. This was no Seneca Wallace story; MM put his money on and his time into Hundley. And Hundley was bad, in an epic way.

To me, MM is becoming increasingly arrogant yet does not have the results with Hundley to back it up. And he's becoming more public about his arrogance, which is the real sin here.

Times a thousand.

MM mismanaged this whole Hundley deal to the max. The biggest beef I had was his gameplan for Hundley. His plays were cut to the bone. If you are gonna play a guy, play him. MM has to take the blame for this whole debacle. He gave Hundley the backup spot, it was a key job. Big Mac must've seen the flaws in Brett 2's game. He screwed this up on his watch.

All that said, Are all you guys going to insist that they can McCarthy, like, NOW?

Have the Goot hire a new coach for his first gig?

We know you don't like 'ol MM, but nobody wants to hear you guys bleat about McCarthy for a year or whatever.

[Fritz]

Times a thousand.

MM mismanaged this whole Hundley deal to the max. The biggest beef I had was his gameplan for Hundley. His plays were cut to the bone. If you are gonna play a guy, play him. MM has to take the blame for this whole debacle. He gave Hundley the backup spot, it was a key job. Big Mac must've seen the flaws in Brett 2's game. He screwed this up on his watch.

All that said, Are all you guys going to insist that they can McCarthy, like, NOW?

Have the Goot hire a new coach for his first gig?

We know you don't like 'ol MM, but nobody wants to hear you guys bleat about McCarthy for a year or whatever.

Come on, KY, you're an old hand around here. You know the routine. I'm going to beat up on Mikey-Mike all offseason, but if the Packers start winning, I'll quiet my criticism, amping it up only when they lose. IF the Packers win it all, I'll trumpet about what a great coach MM is, and how I knew it all along.