Is McCarthy the problem?

[mraynrand]

Koolaid Drinker

I'll see you in the Meadow!

[Smeefers]

I'm going to jump in and say that everyone here except Vince is nuts. MM is one of the best coaches to ever grace the halls of flambeau field. In head to head matches with the Belicheck genius, he's out coached him every time. Do you guys remember wandering into fox borough with some second tier quarterback and we were within a hairs breath of beating them? I love how you guys blame Dom Capers for having Gunther shadowing Julio Jones. Or how you'll blame McCarthy for a TE who shall not be named screwing up the easiest offside kick return in history. We are constantly in serious contention for the super bowl. Year after freaking year. Not just some one and out at the end of the season. It's not like we haven't sniffed the playoffs in the last decade. No, we're right in the thick of things. Guess what, baring major catastrophe, we're going to be right in the thick of things again this year. There is absolutely nothing wrong with MM's coaching. If you think there is, I think you have blinders on. Tunnel vision man. Get into the dudes numbers. There's MM and there's Belicheck and then there's everyone else. He's the second best coach of this generation.

If you want to talk about how he hangs onto coaches too long? Sure, you probably have something there. Slocum was the thorn in the packers side forever. He's a guy who consistently put out a bad product. I could get behind getting rid of that guy and blaming mike for not doing it quickly enough. Like 5 years too late. That's about it though. Dude's too loyal to his staff. Other than that, there isn't a coach in the league that I'd take over him right now except for Belicheck. There is not one other dude who you could say is a solid upgrade to MM. And once again, even there, when the two have met, I think MM has outcoached him every time, regardless of outcome.

Alright. Back to lurking.

[Zool]

I don't have enough total recall to back up your assertion that he's outcoached Old Billy, but he's a pretty damned good coach. Dan Marino had Don Shula who is widely considered one of the best coaches ever. Marino had 9 playoff appearances in 17 years. 13 years were with Shula coaching and they hit the playoffs 6 times. I guess you can talk about NFC Championship games as a detriment, but that's a bit like saying Marv Levy is a bad coach because he lost 4 superbowls.

[mraynrand]

I'm going to jump in and say that everyone here except Vince is nuts. MM is one of the best coaches to ever grace the halls of flambeau field. In head to head matches with the Belicheck genius, he's out coached him every time. Do you guys remember wandering into fox borough with some second tier quarterback and we were within a hairs breath of beating them? I love how you guys blame Dom Capers for having Gunther shadowing Julio Jones. Or how you'll blame McCarthy for a TE who shall not be named screwing up the easiest offside kick return in history. We are constantly in serious contention for the super bowl. Year after freaking year. Not just some one and out at the end of the season. It's not like we haven't sniffed the playoffs in the last decade. No, we're right in the thick of things. Guess what, baring major catastrophe, we're going to be right in the thick of things again this year. There is absolutely nothing wrong with MM's coaching. If you think there is, I think you have blinders on. Tunnel vision man. Get into the dudes numbers. There's MM and there's Belicheck and then there's everyone else. He's the second best coach of this generation.

If you want to talk about how he hangs onto coaches too long? Sure, you probably have something there. Slocum was the thorn in the packers side forever. He's a guy who consistently put out a bad product. I could get behind getting rid of that guy and blaming mike for not doing it quickly enough. Like 5 years too late. That's about it though. Dude's too loyal to his staff. Other than that, there isn't a coach in the league that I'd take over him right now except for Belicheck. There is not one other dude who you could say is a solid upgrade to MM. And once again, even there, when the two have met, I think MM has outcoached him every time, regardless of outcome.

Alright. Back to lurking.

Good post. My abbreviation for this is: *SIGH*

I just get tired writing it out all the time.

[mraynrand]

that's a bit like saying Marv Levy is a bad coach because he lost 4 superbowls.

When the Levy breaks, mama you got to move.

[vince]

OK I was a little quick publishing those stats. Those are the percentage of runs on each down relative to the other downs, not relative to passes. Sorry about that.

Here are the 5-yr. run vs. pass rates in the 4th Q with a lead (all downs combined).

NE - 58%
GB - 63%
League - 65%

Belli is 5% more likely than McCarthy to pass with a lead in the 4th. McCarthy is 2% more likely than the league average. Both are very successful closing games.

[hoosier]

OK I was a little quick publishing those stats. Those are the percentage of runs on each down relative to the other downs, not relative to passes. Sorry about that.

Here are the 5-yr. run vs. pass rates in the 4th Q with a lead (all downs combined).

NE - 58%
GB - 63%
League - 65%

Belli is 5% more likely than McCarthy to pass with a lead in the 4th. McCarthy is 2% more likely than the league average. Both are very successful closing games.

To fully understand the comparison we would need to see a little more differentiation for circumstances. For instance, run calls according to down & distance and size of lead. They could have similar overall numbers in this fourth quarter with lead category, but if it turned out the Patriots tend to have bigger leads than the Packers, then MM's run-calling tendencies would seem even more comparatively conservative than the five percent indicated here.

[mraynrand]

To fully understand the comparison we would need to see a little more differentiation for circumstances.

I like to just watch the games. You get a feel for what works for a particular coach. I generally think many many Packer fans, angry with Stubby for his failures, don't actually watch a lot of other games and see how 25 or more head coaches screw things up on a routine basis.

There's a reason Stubby wins 10 or more games and makes the playoffs every year. And if some smart guy wants to say it's Rodgers bailing him out, then he should give credit to Stubby for training Rodgers so well. But he probably won't!

[Pugger]

Except stubby has been saved by Rodgers. BB would still be a great coach without Brady. Rodgers should be paid 10 times what he is as he has made stubby and TT look great as opposed to the mediocre they are.

Who do you think made Rodgers what he is today? Favre?

[hoosier]

I like to just watch the games. You get a feel for what works for a particular coach. I generally think many many Packer fans, angry with Stubby for his failures, don't actually watch a lot of other games and see how 25 or more head coaches screw things up on a routine basis.

There's a reason Stubby wins 10 or more games and makes the playoffs every year. And if some smart guy wants to say it's Rodgers bailing him out, then he should give credit to Stubby for training Rodgers so well. But he probably won't!

Football is about four decades if not more behind baseball in its analytical evolution. You, sitting on your couch, content to remain in your intuitive slumbers, are part of what is keeping football in its Dark Ages.

[Rutnstrut]

Who do you think made Rodgers what he is today? Favre?

Do you think Rodgers wouldn't be one of the best without stubby? I very much doubt that.

[mraynrand]

Do you think Rodgers wouldn't be one of the best without stubby? I very much doubt that.

I think there's a good chance he wouldn't. He had to shed his tedford indoctrination and learn new mechanics. He got to play in/run one of the best schemed offenses in the past 10 years. There was a pretty good chance he would have gone to a terrible team and have had a Joey Harrington career. there were probably a handful of teams that would have developed him at the same level. And sure, I give him a lot of credit for his success, but great players can suck in terrible environments, even if they develop OK. See for example Steve Young at Tampa Bay.

[MadScientist]

I think there's a good chance he wouldn't. He had to shed his tedford indoctrination and learn new mechanics. He got to play in/run one of the best schemed offenses in the past 10 years. There was a pretty good chance he would have gone to a terrible team and have had a Joey Harrington career. there were probably a handful of teams that would have developed him at the same level. And sure, I give him a lot of credit for his success, but great players can suck in terrible environments, even if they develop OK. See for example Steve Young at Tampa Bay.

So you're saying that had Favre retired earlier, Joey Harrington could have taken over the Packers and lead them to Super Bowl greatness?

[mraynrand]

So you're saying that had Favre retired earlier, Joey Harrington could have taken over the Packers and lead them to Super Bowl greatness?

I don't think Stubby can save every QB. There was some guy they drafted in the second round who didn't pan out IIRC.

[pbmax]

The problem with those run rates is that when you run is almost as important as how much you run.

Last year McCarthy at times seemed to loosen up in the 4 minute offense and pass more when trying to burn clock. Problem was that on several occasions, he went run-run-pass from conservative formations before putting out his 3 WRs package for 3rd down. He might as well have sent Western Union onto the field.

This is Marty Schottenheimer level thinking. That there is a formula to win and if you follow it, you will win. Also, if another team is aware of the formula and counters it, then you just need to win harder.

The answer is to play smarter. You want to burn clock as priority #1 in the 4 minute offense? Then put your pass catching back out there in single back with 3 WRs or 2 TEs, with at least one in the slot. Then go pass-run-run or anything other than telegraphed play calls.

The good thing about those run rates is that it does support the idea that M3 is not far off the mark. He just needs to get over down and distance considerations and try to hurt the defense with some confusion.

[Rutnstrut]

I don't really dislike stubby's way of coaching, except. I hate his unwillingness to realize his "plan" isn't working and gameplan on the fly. That willingness to scrap a preplanned game plan and shift on the fly is what makes BB superhuman compared to other coaches. IMO stubby would never have brought a team back in the SB from behind like Belichick did. I do feel stubby would be the coach lose the lead in a big game though.

[mraynrand]

I don't really dislike stubby's way of coaching, except. I hate his unwillingness to realize his "plan" isn't working and gameplan on the fly. That willingness to scrap a preplanned game plan and shift on the fly is what makes BB superhuman compared to other coaches. IMO stubby would never have brought a team back in the SB from behind like Belichick did. I do feel stubby would be the coach lose the lead in a big game though.

That's why he's Stubby. Still, ya gotta admit, they were down by 14 to Seattle and came storming back (was Favre the one who changed the gameplay on the fly, was it Stubby or both?) and absolutely destroyed Seattle in 2007; Down by 17 at AZ and within about 2 feet of an OT win on that overthrow to Jennings. That's about as good as you can get comeback-wise in the playoffs. They gave up big leads versus Pittsburgh in the SB and Dallas in Divisional last year and still won. Seattle was their huge blunder, that's the only significant lead where they ended up losing in the playoffs, but it was only a two score lead (12 points).

[MadScientist]

The problem with those run rates is that when you run is almost as important as how much you run.

Last year McCarthy at times seemed to loosen up in the 4 minute offense and pass more when trying to burn clock. Problem was that on several occasions, he went run-run-pass from conservative formations before putting out his 3 WRs package for 3rd down. He might as well have sent Western Union onto the field.

This is Marty Schottenheimer level thinking. That there is a formula to win and if you follow it, you will win. Also, if another team is aware of the formula and counters it, then you just need to win harder.

The answer is to play smarter. You want to burn clock as priority #1 in the 4 minute offense? Then put your pass catching back out there in single back with 3 WRs or 2 TEs, with at least one in the slot. Then go pass-run-run or anything other than telegraphed play calls.

The good thing about those run rates is that it does support the idea that M3 is not far off the mark. He just needs to get over down and distance considerations and try to hurt the defense with some confusion.

Perhaps a good part of the problem lately is the personnel available. A RB that can catch and two TE's with one optionally split wide sound great, but when your TE's are crap (R.Rodgers and whoever when Cook was out last year) or one receiving TE (Cook) and a plodding piss-poor blocker (Rodgers). it just doesn't work like you would want it. Add to that a RB situation where you either had a plodding pounder (Rip or previously Fat Eddie), or a converted WR who will really struggle against a stop-the-run front, and you have a situation where it doesn't matter what you want to do, the players aren't going to do it very well.

This year they could play around with Monty and Rip in the backfield, the two good TE's and Jordy, which has potential for power running or 4 credible receiving threats and a bodyguard / safety valve for AR. At least on this forum it sounds good.

[pbmax]

Perhaps a good part of the problem lately is the personnel available. A RB that can catch and two TE's with one optionally split wide sound great, but when your TE's are crap (R.Rodgers and whoever when Cook was out last year) or one receiving TE (Cook) and a plodding piss-poor blocker (Rodgers). it just doesn't work like you would want it. Add to that a RB situation where you either had a plodding pounder (Rip or previously Fat Eddie), or a converted WR who will really struggle against a stop-the-run front, and you have a situation where it doesn't matter what you want to do, the players aren't going to do it very well.

This year they could play around with Monty and Rip in the backfield, the two good TE's and Jordy, which has potential for power running or 4 credible receiving threats and a bodyguard / safety valve for AR. At least on this forum it sounds good.

True for the recent past with the Cook exception, but I was looking forward with my suggestions.

Despite the lack of threatening TEs, M3 can still line up 3 wide in years past and threaten both pass and run. Does the lack of a TE hurt when attacking the middle? Sure. But there are other ways to stress the defense.

[Joemailman]

http://www.tmj4.com/sports/green-bay...nings-comments

Rodgers responded in defense of his coach, saying he’s more concerned with the opinions of his teammates and coaching staff.

“I’ve made it pretty well known how I feel about Mike,” Rodgers said. “He’s our leader and...we follow his lead and we love Mike. We believe in him, and he believes in us, and so we got his back.”