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

[woodbuck27]

https://www.totalpackers.com/2018/01...tal+Packers%29

MORE THOUGHTS ON THE PURGE OF PACKERS’ COACHES

01/04/2018

Comment woodbuck27:

If you really want to see what your Green Bay Packer HC really is; then this article will give you a clear indication of what MM is really all about.

Posters here want to make an issue of people that see the TRUTH and what the mess the Green Bay Packers are in. The mess they have ended up being since their Super Bowl win (2010 Season). They want to say we are 'scapegoating' on this or that member of the Packer Brass; when it's simply a matter of us seeing it clearly and as a result knowing there needed to be huge changes. They almost got it right but unfortunately Mike McCarthy's day is in the near future and not out now.

We are not 'scapegoating' on anyone. We are Packer fans that simply want our beloved Packers to win a Super Bowl again, with a fine QB, or Aaron Rodgers in his prime years.

Here and reading (this LINK) is what 'scapegoating' is, and Packer Head Coach Mike McCarthy

As I've already declared it's perfectly obvious that Mike McCarthy knows how to save his own skin.:

I've a new Nickname for MM...Mike 'Scapegoating' McCarthy.

I'll again remind Y'all that kharma has her way of getting back at you. Mike McCarthy's day isn't far away if Packer CEO Mark Murphy doesn't get the Packers GM hire right.

[Pugger]

It appears both you and the author of this article in the link you posted don't care much for McCarthy. I can only think of a handful of assistants Mike had to fire for not producing. Perhaps Mike kept some of these guys around too long but eventually they leave. The other assistants that have left went on to other positions with other teams. So if McCarthy fires a coach when things go bad he's scapegoating them or is he just doing what a HC is supposed to do and relieve a guy of his duties if his charges play poorly? Or is it because you feel the main scapegoat here is the HC and he should be gone? Unless the GM or Murphy fire him he isn't going to fire himself so perhaps your frustrations are aimed in the wrong direction?

[woodbuck27]

Bumped for Bretsky to examine in regards to my criticisms of Mike McCarthy and on another Thread:

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...-as-a-hind-TIT

Page 4.

[Bretsky]

Bumped for Bretsky to examine in regards to my criticisms of Mike McCarthy and on another Thread:

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...-as-a-hind-TIT

Page 4.

I continue to think your packerrats mission to bash MM borders with nearly every post is somewhere in between an unfounded stretch to ridiculous

[woodbuck27]

I continue to think your packerrats mission to bash MM borders with nearly every post is somewhere in between an unfounded stretch to ridiculous

I see the TRUTH and Mike McCarthy clearly. He is the Weakest LINK. He'll be gone soon.

All the same:

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.

[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.

[Tony Oday]

MM must have slapped Woodbucks kid or something.

[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.

[mraynrand]

Alternatively you could look as 2011 as an outlier and 2013 and 2017 as obvious down years due to Rodgers’ injuries. But mostly it’s flat. Even 2010 was barely better than 2015, which was considered a down year.

What might be useful is to overlay that graph on a 32 color graph with all other NFL teams.

[woodbuck27]

MM must have slapped Woodbucks kid or something.

No.Mike McCarthy might 'in fact' be a wonderful man and all else NOT Green Bay Packers.

I'm an analytical Green Bay Packer fan, that simply looks at the obvious weakness in Mike McCarthy in too many respects. I see clearly what he doesn't have and anything even approaching the greatness too many applaud him as having.

Without Aaron Rodgers as his QB his Won-Loss Record is plain UGLY.

In what I see and my TRUTH and analysis;

Packers HC Mike McCarthy is a certain observable 'Weak Link' and Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers winning another Super Bowl Ring.

MM rides on Aaron Rodgers Coattails. M3's record without Aaron Rodgers starting at QB and since the Packers last Super Bowl win, is 5 -10 -1 ...or taking that Tie Vs Minny in the 2013 Season (as a 1/2 or 0.5 Win) Let's make M3's record without Aaron Rodgers starting for the Packers @ 5.5 W and 10.5 L

It is what it is Packerrats.

Without Aaron Rodgers Mike McCarthy has an abysmal 0.34375 Record.

That's not any indication of a NFL Head Coach and anything even marginally approaching greatness.

If you take all games and MM without Aaron Rodgers the record slips to 5 - 11 and One Tie or 5-11-1 and now Mike McCarthy's Winning Percentage is lowered to 0.32353 ! and .... That's Bad !

What it does describe is that Mike McCarthy is just very ordinary as an NFL Head Coach. That supports my position that Mike McCarthy is the weakest LINK.

[Carolina_Packer]

Clear free fall is hyperbole. I've told you a million times never to exaggerate!

When Rodgers got hurt this year, if you look at the trend of the offense going back to "run the table", it was going well, so I'm not sure where this idea of a free fall comes from. The only free fall I saw was A-Rod's when Anthony Barr bear hugged him and drove his shoulder into the ground. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I'm with Woodbuck.

McCarthy's not as good as he thinks he is. Take away Favre and Rodgers, and McCarthy is nothing but a Marty Mornhinweg clone. In New Orleans, McCarthy turned Aaron Brooks into a turnover machine. In SF, he shot Alex Smith's confidence. In GB, he oversaw Hundley's devolution from an inspiration into a carbon copy of Deshone Kizer in just 3 years. Hell, Flynn had his best game as a Packer with Rodgers calling the plays.

Murphy should've traded McCarthy to the Browns.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

No.Mike McCarthy might 'in fact' be a wonderful man and all else NOT Green Bay Packers.

I'm an analytical Green Bay Packer fan, that simply looks at the obvious weakness in Mike McCarthy in too many respects. I see clearly what he doesn't have and anything even approaching the greatness too many applaud him as having.

Without Aaron Rodgers as his QB his Won-Loss Record is plain UGLY.

In what I see and my TRUTH and analysis;

Packers HC Mike McCarthy is a certain observable 'Weak Link' and Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers winning another Super Bowl Ring.

MM rides on Aaron Rodgers Coattails. M3's record without Aaron Rodgers starting at QB is 5 -10 -1 ...or taking that Tie Vs Minny in the 2013 Season (as a 1/2 or 0.5 Win) Let's make M3's record without Aaron Rodgers starting for the Packers @ 5.5 W and 10.5 L

It is what it is Packerrats.

Without Aaron Rodgers Mike McCarthy has an abysmal 0.34375 Record.

That's not any indication of a NFL Head Coach and anything even marginally approaching greatness.

What it does describe is that Mike McCarthy is just very ordinary as an NFL Head Coach. That supports my position that Mike McCarthy is the weakest LINK.

[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.

[woodbuck27]

Clear free fall is hyperbole. I've told you a million times never to exaggerate!

When Rodgers got hurt this year, if you look at the trend of the offense going back to "run the table", it was going well, so I'm not sure where this idea of a free fall comes from. The only free fall I saw was A-Rod's when Anthony Barr bear hugged him and drove his shoulder into the ground. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

I back up my positions with clear analysis using clear Math that doesn't support mere opinion.

That trumps just having an opinion.

[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.

[gbgary]

well...MM's going into put up or shut up period. extending one year was good in that doing so took employment status pressure away so it's totally football. got a feeling that unless it's a SB title next year he's out.