One sentence summary, my long-winded analysis of 2008

[Patler]

I read this in an article. I know we have discussed it, but phrased in a single sentence this way it really hit home as to why the season was so frustrating to so many:


They lost seven times when they were either ahead or tied with less than 4 minutes left in regulation.

Seven times the game was there to be won, and they failed. Thinking back to those times we can remember offensive failures, defensive failures, special teams failures, and yes, questionable coaching decisions.

In 13 of 16 games the team either won, or was in position to win at the very end of the game. Thirteen times! That would seem to indicate the talent level is high enough to compete with anyone. The distressing thing is that failures were not limited to a single aspect of the team. It was everyone. It was offense, it was defense, it was special teams. Yet each of these units was good enough to contribute to the team winning the game or being in position to win games in the final possessions for each team in 13 of 16 games.

If it was one part of the team that was the cause of the failures most of the time you could work to fix it. It is much more difficult when the entire team lets you down at one time or another. How do you fix that in one off season?

The Question. -What was the cause? I think it really boils down to just two possibilities:

1. Coaching. Not just the head coach, his entire staff. An overall philosophical approach that is too soft. Schemes that are "soft" and approaches to practicing that are "soft". We've debated the schemes many times, but not so much the approaches to practice. Very little hitting in practice, training camp with lots of time off, greatly limiting the number of two-a-day practices, not having two practices on consecutive days, practicing indoors when the weather is the least bit bad, and always when it gets cold, not even opening the indoor practice to the outdoor temperatures, etc. etc. In short, being demanding of the players in talk, but not in action; making being a professional football player just a little too easy, too convenient.

2. Just one of those things that happens from time to time.


The Answer- Number 1 above. An overall approach that is too soft. too convenient, too easy. Soft schemes make it easy on the opponent. Soft coaching philosophies do not prepare the players to perform at crunch time, perform with injuries, perform when it matters the most, perform under adverse and pressure packed conditions.

The Evidence- Failures by all aspects of the team, failures in crunch time, mental mistakes, mis-communication, inconsistent performances, abundant penalties, etc. result from soft coaching. Letting teams hang around to win at the end, not putting teams away, not beating the opponents confidence level result from soft schemes.

The Solution- Toughen up the program. I don't necessarily think it requires wholesale changes of the staff. Maybe a few changes, but more importantly a commitment to being less "soft" in scheme and in coaching philosophy. McCarthy has continually shown a willingness to "tweak" his practice philosophy, and hopefully will realize he may have gone too far in one direction. Whether he can or will toughen up his schemes remains to be seen.

If the team were not talented, it would not have won or been in position to win 13 times. There is talent on the roster. Sure, there are areas that need to be improved, but a foundation exists. Now the staff needs to get the most out of it.

[mission]

Which is why I sit here in complete amazement that no one is at least somewhat questioning whether MM should return. All this talk about other coaches, or Sanders, or whatever and no one sees an overall lack of intensity with this team.

It might end up being argued, 10 years from now, that TT's poorest decision, was retaining a coach with his same collected and laidback demeanor. Call me old school but guys like Bill Cowher get their teams to personify them...

I, for one, do not think MM is the answer. Even if I'm the only one on record...

[Patler]

Which is why I sit here in complete amazement that no one is at least somewhat questioning whether MM should return. All this talk about other coaches, or Sanders, or whatever and no one sees an overall lack of intensity with this team.

It might end up being argued, 10 years from now, that TT's poorest decision, was retaining a coach with his same collected and laidback demeanor. Call me old school but guys like Bill Cowher get their teams to personify them...

I, for one, do not think MM is the answer. Even if I'm the only one on record...

Ultimately you might be right, but I would not advocate replacing him now. He inherited a 4-12 team and went 8-8 in year one, 13-3 in year two. He seemingly did a lot of things right in those years. I am more than willing to let MM try to fix what went wrong in 2008. I don't think it is productive to fire a head coach because of one bad season.

[mission]

That's a fair reply and the reason I'm not calling for his head... but deep down I have a gut feeling about it. I screamed about Sherman's lack of insensity and Ive been seeing the same things recently with MM.

When I played ball, our coach just had a way of scaring the shit out of us.. all the time. If I walked by him outside of practice or whatever, I would get nervous even saying "hey coach".. and we won. He just looks too soft and your analysis backs that up... don't make me go on a leadership tangent here :)

[Patler]

That's a fair reply and the reason I'm not calling for his head... but deep down I have a gut feeling about it. I screamed about Sherman's lack of insensity and Ive been seeing the same things recently with MM.


I have to admit. I had Sherman-esque feelings at the ends of several games. Appearances of playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Trying to steal a victory rather than grabbing the game by the throat to win it.

[Patler]

Some good signs!:


Mike McCarthy isn’t scrapping his zone-blocking run scheme, but he said Wednesday his offense is evolving away from the pure Alex Gibbs-designed run game he brought in as Packers coach in 2006......

“We’re doing more variations of (running schemes) than we did Year 1,” McCarthy said at his season-ending press conference. “And we’ll evaluate that, and we’ll look to continue to try to improve that and we’ll tailor it to our players, because at the end of the day, it’s really about the players."....

"We’ll spend probably the next five to six weeks, up until the (NFL scouting) combine, developing our scheme, and then we’ll have it ready in March for when the players come back (for the offseason workout program).”

[packrulz]

I agree with you for the most part that the Packers are too "soft", I think M3 needs to crack the whip more and I was complaining last year that they don't practice outdoors at least once a week in Dec-Jan, to get them acclimated to the cold, blocking/running on a frozen field, & throwing/catching a frozen football. But they also lost those 7 games because M3 would get conservative and call 3 straight running plays after passing the ball the entire length of the field, blocked field goals, and the defense couldn't rush the passer at all.

[SkinBasket]

I actually tend in the opposite direction on this. I think it says a lot about McCarthy that he was able to coach a team under a new QB with various challenging injuries (OL, DL, Barnett, and finding a safety who could make it through an entire game, let alone a season) and Grant's holdout, into position to win those 13/16 games. It was usually pretty specific, though always different, failures in each of those games that led to defeat, which to me points to position coaching and failures at the player level - which isn't always indicative of coaching, but more the result of injuries and simply not having a better, or smarter, player to put on the field.

[Pugger]

I don't think not practicing outdoors in December is an issue. If memory serves I don't recall Holmgren doing it either.

I'm sure we all thought there would be bumps and bruises this season with a new QB but the decline in the defense was even more puzzling. Our LBs struggled but the poor play of our starting DTs was amazing. And losing Jenkins and KGB didn't help. Having a subpar D line reverberated throughout the rest of the defense with the scheme used. I truly hope MM finds a new DC with a different philosophy for next year. Most decent defenses are aggressive and ours is not, especially up front. :? That change could be just the tonic we need.

[privatepacker]

Two teams that much was expected and little was returned....the Packers and Cowboys. Both teams had the same issues. Lack of focus and leadership. I thought it was because of experience but definitly not in Dallas's case. So how to fix it takes will by the coaches over the players. Are the Packer coaches strong enough to impose their will to the players or are they tuned out? Guess we will find out what MM thinks if he ends up keeping all of his staff. My thoughts are that Moss will be Def. coord. if he doesn't get job in S. Louis. Special teams right now is toss up on a change coming. Either way, looking forward to the draft.

[cpk1994]

I don't think not practicing outdoors in December is an issue. If memory serves I don't recall Holmgren doing it either.
Holmgren didn't. Remember the NFC title game against Carolina. They didn't practice outdoors before that game and they didn't have a problem with it. Using the "they didn't practice outdoors" as a reason for bad play is just looking for an exucse for it.

[pbmax]

Some good signs!:


Mike McCarthy isn’t scrapping his zone-blocking run scheme, but he said Wednesday his offense is evolving away from the pure Alex Gibbs-designed run game he brought in as Packers coach in 2006......

“We’re doing more variations of (running schemes) than we did Year 1,” McCarthy said at his season-ending press conference. “And we’ll evaluate that, and we’ll look to continue to try to improve that and we’ll tailor it to our players, because at the end of the day, it’s really about the players."....

"We’ll spend probably the next five to six weeks, up until the (NFL scouting) combine, developing our scheme, and then we’ll have it ready in March for when the players come back (for the offseason workout program).”
He has been doing that since his second year, remember we started to see Power O and Gap stuff when the zones weren't working? And he got into a bit of a tiff with McGinn this preseason when Bob started to question "the Zone Blocking System" approach to run plays and personnel. M3 mentioned then that they have incorporated other plays and that Sitton, Barbre and Spitz at Center were examples of them not being in love with all things undersized.

I agree with your criticisms of the coaches approach, but they are the largely the same as his approach last year, when we were on the winning side of most of the 13 games that were close in the fourth. The coach has a hand in this debacle and I think he largely underestimated how much his defense could be controlled along the line of scrimmage late in a game. With a defense like that, he should have pushed for the alternative schemes to bring pressure and resist the temptation on offense to settle for FGs late. A Figgie late is still a good thing (having the lead is never bad) but with a porous defense, the FG must be taken with much less time on the clock that he allowed. He needed more first downs at the end of the drives.

But what marked the failure this year was losing the battle along the line of scrimmage. Part of that is coaches waiting too long to realize we were outmanned after injuries began to take their toll and the other part is personnel. You cannot dominate a team with pass defense late unless you have a pass rush. You must control the LOS and we could not. It became a lost cause after Jenkins got hurt, but we had little pass rush on third down before he got hurt as well. Safety injuries hurt the pass D late as Woodson was OK at safety, but his move weakened the whole unit.

On offense, when the D was still average, the line did not come together until mid-season again. Clifton got off to a horrible start and Tauscher struggled in pas pro. I thought this would be the year that competition pushed these guys into truly a good unit, but it took too much time and they still had too many breakdowns and injuries.

Still, Spitz at Center and Colledge overall showed improvement. I think Colledge can do it and do it very well. Consistency will come with time. And I know we have said that since after his first year. The bugaboo is Tackle, where if either guy cannot go at a high level next year, that will pull Colledge away from Guard and we get less experience. But I am hopeful Sitton takes RG and can move Sptiz to center. That may be a luxury if Colledge needs to go to tackle, but then we need Barbre or Breno to deliver. Its far from settled here which is unsatisfactory, but unlike the D line, the talent is on hand for a full offseason.

[mr_blonde]

Which is why I sit here in complete amazement that no one is at least somewhat questioning whether MM should return. All this talk about other coaches, or Sanders, or whatever and no one sees an overall lack of intensity with this team.

It might end up being argued, 10 years from now, that TT's poorest decision, was retaining a coach with his same collected and laidback demeanor. Call me old school but guys like Bill Cowher get their teams to personify them...

I, for one, do not think MM is the answer. Even if I'm the only one on record...

I second your opinion. I'm just not sold on McCarthy but he isn't going to be fired. Not only has this team lacked intensity; they are soft, especially on defense and special teams. Changes are most definitely in order. If McCarthy fails to fire Sanders and Stock, one will be able to look at this upcoming offseason as when M3 dug his own grave .... Ted Thompson's as well.

After this past seasons debacle, Thompson and McCarthy should view and approach this offseason and next season with a sense of urgency ... Remember Ted's "Five Year Plan" for getting a team to the Super Bowl? Guess what, next year is Year 5 for Ted ...

[Bretsky]

I still have a bias toward supporting McCarthy, but IMO he'll be tested in the coming week. He's made several apologist references to Bob Sanders and clearly likes the guy. Should be interesting.

[Fosco33]

Which is why I sit here in complete amazement that no one is at least somewhat questioning whether MM should return. All this talk about other coaches, or Sanders, or whatever and no one sees an overall lack of intensity with this team.

It might end up being argued, 10 years from now, that TT's poorest decision, was retaining a coach with his same collected and laidback demeanor. Call me old school but guys like Bill Cowher get their teams to personify them...

I, for one, do not think MM is the answer. Even if I'm the only one on record...

Ultimately you might be right, but I would not advocate replacing him now. He inherited a 4-12 team and went 8-8 in year one, 13-3 in year two. He seemingly did a lot of things right in those years. I am more than willing to let MM try to fix what went wrong in 2008. I don't think it is productive to fire a head coach because of one bad season.

27-21 in three years averages out at 9-7... meaning he hasn't shown much overall improvement in 3 seasons. With the last two years (very lucky/unlucky), we've seen about .500 ball from this team for 3 years.

In '99, Ray Rhodes got canned after one year of 8-8. And Rhodes lost 5 games by 4 points or less... so you could argue he could've gotten it done with more time.

I wouldn't really care if M3 was let go if there's a more capable leader. If he stays, it better be a damn good year or we're setting precident for a mediocre team for years to come.

[MJZiggy]

Fos, so if the Phins last year went 1-15 and this year go 15-1, that still averages out to .500 ball. You know you can't look at it like that. You need to look at trends and decide if the trend upward from 4-11 to 13-3 is the valid trend, or the drop from 13-3 to 6-10.

And you also know that you can't compare Rhodes because while he played .500 ball, he completely lost the locker room. When the team won't show for your meetings and won't work for you, it's pretty indicative that the future trend is not going to be an upward line on the chart.

Does he need to reverse course, sure. But your justification for you opinion is faulty.

[Fosco33]

Fos, so if the Phins last year went 1-15 and this year go 15-1, that still averages out to .500 ball. You know you can't look at it like that. You need to look at trends and decide if the trend upward from 4-11 to 13-3 is the valid trend, or the drop from 13-3 to 6-10.

And you also know that you can't compare Rhodes because while he played .500 ball, he completely lost the locker room. When the team won't show for your meetings and won't work for you, it's pretty indicative that the future trend is not going to be an upward line on the chart.

Does he need to reverse course, sure. But your justification for you opinion is faulty.

I get it, MJ. It's not a great comparison with RR losing control of the team (and I'm fine with that call, btw). What I'm really saying is M3 has been only slightly better than average - not great.

I think we're seeing the 13-3 year wasn't 'true' - should've been something like 10-6 or 9-7 with all the close wins.

On the flip side, this year should've been about 9-7 again with all the close losses.

We also know the 4-12 year was because of tons of injuries at WR/RB, losing Wahle/Rivera without true backups. That team also lost a number of close games (4L under 3 points or 5L under 5 points). Meaning they should've been like 6-10.

So, really - we have a team that's been about .500 for 3 years and has only progressed a few games/year over 4 years.. Sure, M3 may have good rapport with the players/etc - but I agree with Patler in that he's soft. He also makes too many conservative playcalls (see my thread on 2nd and short) and it shows on the field.

So, would I lose sleep if he's let go this year - nope. Maybe he has one year left - but he should know that another average year means the axe.

[The Leaper]

Which is why I sit here in complete amazement that no one is at least somewhat questioning whether MM should return. All this talk about other coaches, or Sanders, or whatever and no one sees an overall lack of intensity with this team.

To me, I think McCarthy just lost focus. He got fat and happy with a 13-3 season and a new contract, and pulled a C-Hunt on us. He got a bride, got a kid, and got too caught up in life off the football field.

If you want to be a great family man and social jitterbug, dont be an NFL head coach. It is unfortunate, but pretty much the way it works.

Now is not the time to get rid of him...he's a good head coach when focused 100% on football, and deserves a chance to rebound. However, there has to be a shakeup on his staff to get some new blood in there.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

A lot of people tend to forget that this Packers team was the youngest for the 2nd straight year. I see bright spots and positives all over the roster, the Packers will never completely outmatched all season(maybe the defense against the Saints). You people act like 6-10 is the end of the world. While I'm not old enough to remember the late 70's and 80's Packers, all I have to do is ask my grandpa or uncle about those years and I realize how lucky most of us have it. The team lost close games, lost momentum, lost toughness, but they played every team to the wire and are certainly not as bad as 6-10 suggests.

Wholesale coaching changes are not the way, you have to give a guy enough time to put his system in place. If M3 has another season like this I say sure, fire the guy, but if you don't give continuity a chance you risk going the way of the Lions, Cardinals and Browns. Firing Marty certainly didn't help the Chargers get anywhere they haven't already been. If the players have to learn a new scheme every 2 or 3 years how much can they actually grow as players?

[mission]

A lot of people tend to forget that this Packers team was the youngest for the 2nd straight year.

No. No one tends to forget this.

We're reminded of it constantly from guys like you ... :arrow:

[Partial]

Which is why I sit here in complete amazement that no one is at least somewhat questioning whether MM should return. All this talk about other coaches, or Sanders, or whatever and no one sees an overall lack of intensity with this team.

I'm on record as well. I have noted numerous times that if MM cannot pick up the intensity, improve his play calling, etc, then he probably isn't the man for the job.

[Partial]

I don't think not practicing outdoors in December is an issue. If memory serves I don't recall Holmgren doing it either.
Holmgren didn't. Remember the NFC title game against Carolina. They didn't practice outdoors before that game and they didn't have a problem with it. Using the "they didn't practice outdoors" as a reason for bad play is just looking for an exucse for it.

I tend to agree, but this why practice with the door closed? Even Sherman was smart enough to realize that getting used to the conditions and cold weather will prepare you to play in them.

The thing that I cannot stand about MM is how he talks a big game about how he wants to be this physical, hard hitting team, yet the offense is a finesse, timing based passing attack, and the defense is a passive bend-but-don't-break scheme.

MM needs to keep building the trenches and hope to find that stud linemen that they can run behind and have consistent success. Our running game is still too inconsistent.

[Bretsky]

interesting topic; my one sentence that would define last year would be

We were 0-7 in games with a four or less point differential

Now the reason............that's debatable

[Partial]

interesting topic; my one sentence that would define last year would be

We were 0-7 in games with a four or less point differential

Now the reason............that's debatable

I would be curious to know if this is a common theme with bad teams. I don't see too many blow outs. I would bet most games are decided by 6 or less.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

A lot of people tend to forget that this Packers team was the youngest for the 2nd straight year.

No. No one tends to forget this.

We're reminded of it constantly from guys like you ... :arrow:

Could you be any more vague? What kind of guy am I like exactly? Asinine comments about a person you know nothing about makes me question how knowledagble you can really be.

[Lurker64]

I would be curious to know if this is a common theme with bad teams. I don't see too many blow outs. I would bet most games are decided by 6 or less.

Well, the Detroit Lions were only 0-3 in games decided by 4 points or less this season...

[mission]

A lot of people tend to forget that this Packers team was the youngest for the 2nd straight year.

No. No one tends to forget this.

We're reminded of it constantly from guys like you ... :arrow:

Could you be any more vague? What kind of guy am I like exactly? Asinine comments about a person you know nothing about makes me question how knowledagble you can really be.

Tell me how I could know nothing about you ... for the last couple years I've read conservative, whoo-rah-rah, everything's-all-good thoughts from you. That's enough for me to form my own opinion of the kind of individual you are... it doesn't take a PHd in Psychology to draw correlations ... just like you can formulate your own opinions of me, which, actually might not be too far from the truth.

But you, or anyone else, questioning my (football) knowledge doesn't require any defense. It just doesn't bother me... you're going to have to pay a little more attention before attempting your own blanket statements. Mine hold some water at least ...

[MJZiggy]

Uhhh...mission? I think you may be confusing our TennesseePackerBacker with TEXASPackerBacker.

A few hundred miles to the west and to the right...

[Bretsky]

Uhhh...mission? I think you may be confusing our TennesseePackerBacker with TEXASPackerBacker.

A few hundred miles to the west and to the right...


well it's the 1st so maybe he's sauced too :lol:

I'm not sure Tenn is the doo rah rah guy mission is referring to and my gut tells me he made the same mix up as well

[pbmax]

Which is why I sit here in complete amazement that no one is at least somewhat questioning whether MM should return. All this talk about other coaches, or Sanders, or whatever and no one sees an overall lack of intensity with this team.

I'm on record as well. I have noted numerous times that if MM cannot pick up the intensity, improve his play calling, etc, then he probably isn't the man for the job.
Intensity and play calling are the criticisms of the confused. No one in the history of the planet has ever accused a successful team of lacking intensity or having bad play calling. If you win, your play calling is genius and you have the intensity of Mike Singletary. Lose, and you are dumb and possibly criminally inclined. White collar crime, not lunch bucket average bag o doughnuts tough blue collar crime.

No one complained about intensity last year and few complained about play calling. Its players and schemes, not heart or intensity. And unless you have coaching film to breakdown, then judging a season's worth of playcalling is worthless too.

[pbmax]

Uhhh...mission? I think you may be confusing our TennesseePackerBacker with TEXASPackerBacker.

A few hundred miles to the west and to the right...
I doubt TN Packerbacker is to the RIGHT of TX Packerbacker, ideologically speaking. :lol:

[MJZiggy]

Uhhh...mission? I think you may be confusing our TennesseePackerBacker with TEXASPackerBacker.

A few hundred miles to the west and to the right...
I doubt TN Packerbacker is to the RIGHT of TX Packerbacker, ideologically speaking. :lol:

Read it the other way 'round. Texas is to the west and no one is further to the right...

[bobblehead]

When MM and TT got together I remember a theme.

1) We need to pound the ball in the Run game.
2) We need to be more physical than our opponent.
3) The battle is won and lost on the DL and OL

Now give me your perception of this team. 1) We don't run well enough 2) We seem to be more finesse and not physical enough 3) The team weakness is DL and inconsistency on the OL.

They seem to understand what we need but haven't accomplished it.

[mission]

Oh shit-- you guys are right, I'm wrong...

I did think it was the $other$ "backer"


:oops:

[gbgary]

the carolina game...when he put his play-calling ego in front of the team just to prove a point on first and goal and got nothing, is when he finished it with me. i've called for his head ever since.

[Joemailman]

interesting topic; my one sentence that would define last year would be

We were 0-7 in games with a four or less point differential

Now the reason............that's debatable

I would be curious to know if this is a common theme with bad teams. I don't see too many blow outs. I would bet most games are decided by 6 or less.

What made the Packers failure unusual was not that they lost a lot of close games. That happens to teams every year. What was unusual was that the Packers lost 7 games in which they had a lead in the last 4 minutes of the game. I don't know that I've seen that before.

[texaspackerbacker]

I read this in an article. I know we have discussed it, but phrased in a single sentence this way it really hit home as to why the season was so frustrating to so many:


They lost seven times when they were either ahead or tied with less than 4 minutes left in regulation.

Seven times the game was there to be won, and they failed. Thinking back to those times we can remember offensive failures, defensive failures, special teams failures, and yes, questionable coaching decisions.

In 13 of 16 games the team either won, or was in position to win at the very end of the game. Thirteen times! That would seem to indicate the talent level is high enough to compete with anyone. The distressing thing is that failures were not limited to a single aspect of the team. It was everyone. It was offense, it was defense, it was special teams. Yet each of these units was good enough to contribute to the team winning the game or being in position to win games in the final possessions for each team in 13 of 16 games.

If it was one part of the team that was the cause of the failures most of the time you could work to fix it. It is much more difficult when the entire team lets you down at one time or another. How do you fix that in one off season?

The Question. -What was the cause? I think it really boils down to just two possibilities:

1. Coaching. Not just the head coach, his entire staff. An overall philosophical approach that is too soft. Schemes that are "soft" and approaches to practicing that are "soft". We've debated the schemes many times, but not so much the approaches to practice. Very little hitting in practice, training camp with lots of time off, greatly limiting the number of two-a-day practices, not having two practices on consecutive days, practicing indoors when the weather is the least bit bad, and always when it gets cold, not even opening the indoor practice to the outdoor temperatures, etc. etc. In short, being demanding of the players in talk, but not in action; making being a professional football player just a little too easy, too convenient.

2. Just one of those things that happens from time to time.


The Answer- Number 1 above. An overall approach that is too soft. too convenient, too easy. Soft schemes make it easy on the opponent. Soft coaching philosophies do not prepare the players to perform at crunch time, perform with injuries, perform when it matters the most, perform under adverse and pressure packed conditions.

The Evidence- Failures by all aspects of the team, failures in crunch time, mental mistakes, mis-communication, inconsistent performances, abundant penalties, etc. result from soft coaching. Letting teams hang around to win at the end, not putting teams away, not beating the opponents confidence level result from soft schemes.

The Solution- Toughen up the program. I don't necessarily think it requires wholesale changes of the staff. Maybe a few changes, but more importantly a commitment to being less "soft" in scheme and in coaching philosophy. McCarthy has continually shown a willingness to "tweak" his practice philosophy, and hopefully will realize he may have gone too far in one direction. Whether he can or will toughen up his schemes remains to be seen.

If the team were not talented, it would not have won or been in position to win 13 times. There is talent on the roster. Sure, there are areas that need to be improved, but a foundation exists. Now the staff needs to get the most out of it.

Patler, I've got a lot of respect for a lot of what you say--unlike what i read from a lot of other people, but I disagree with your conclusions here.

The message here is that there is about an eyelash of difference between 13-3 and 6-10---and that eyelash of difference is that old four letter word: LUCK!--primarily, but certainly not limited to injuries.

I grew up in the Lombardi era, and I understand how some people crave Vince's style of toughness, and yeah, maybe a few--very very few coaches have gotten away with that way of doing things in recent years. But for the most part, that was then and this is now. It just doesn't work to coach that way. It is a societal thing; Parenting is different; Schools are different; Forms of entertainment are different; Contractual obligations are different; People/PLAYERS are different. There just ain't an unquestioning willingness to submit to authority anymore. You give them the choice of "my way or the highway", and they'll take the highway, jump to another team, make more money, and probably come back to beat you.

Furthermore, even on the field, the old-time Packers were a helluva lot more like today's Packers than say today's Steelers or Bears--or some other "tough" team.

I cite that fateful Thanksgiving many years ago when the tehn "tough" Detroit Lions handed Lombardi's Packers their only loss. Vince's defenses were the ultimate of "bend don't break". Vince hated blitzing and lived by man coverage--with the LBs dropping into coverage and getting timely interceptions. We had cover safeties--not Taylor Mays/Ronnie Lott type head-hunting big hitters. Think Willie Wood. On offense, people think of power running, the Lombardi sweep, and Jim Taylor seeking out tacklers instead of avoiding them, but Starr's cautious pin point passing and occasional 3rd and 1 bomb was what did the job.

Over the half century that I have followed football, the huge majority of the "tough" teams have been mediocre, and the huge majority of the tough coaches have failures. The cerebral types--which Lombardi actually was--were the successes--think Landry, Shula, etc., and LUCK was often the difference that put the good teams over the top--that LUCK factor including, of course, the drafting and signing and keeping healthy of good players.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I would be curious to know if this is a common theme with bad teams. I don't see too many blow outs. I would bet most games are decided by 6 or less.

For what it's worth, only one team has lost more games by 4 points or less--the 1984 Cleveland Browns. Now, this was a historical achievement.

[Noodle]

Bravo Tex. One of your best posts.

It's as simple as this -- you want Bill Walsh coaching your team or Mike Ditka?

Give me the smart guy any damn day of the week.

And please, this thing about not enough hitting just does not wash. My guess is that the Packers do as much hitting as, say the Ravens or Steelers. This is the modern NFL, so unless someone has some information that the league's top defenses hit a lot more than the Packers, then this line of argument doesn't work.

[vince]

While I don't think McCarthy is a "soft" coach, and I also think he is being smart with the pactice schedule to try to optimize the health of the team as much as possible, I think there is some credence to the idea that McCarthy's marriage and birth of his daughter may have taken some edge off of him, which may have negatively impacted the team. He seemed to lack the edge he demonstrated his first two years.

Kind of like how Mick wouldn't let Rocky get laid before for a big fight... Makes a man weaker in the legs... :oops:

I do think he is a good coach though, and the stats and facts that have been laid out in this and other threads demonstrate that he has the foundation of a good team. After suffering through this season, I think he'll get that edge back and the team will rebound nicely.

I also think that in the game of football, unlike the classroom and society in general to which Tex alluded, an edge helps. For every Landry and Shula, there are more recent examples, such as Parcells, Cowher, Coughlin, and even Holmgren, that have a more in-your-face disciplinarian edge that justifies the opposite argument.

In the end, I think being able to be smart and flexible enough to push the right buttons at the right time is best. Intelligence and a sense of toughness wins out... All players can respect that, and a coach needs to be respected above all else.

Off the subject a bit, but I'm a big fan of what Singletary is doing out in San Francisco. It'll take some time, but when he gets "his guys" who want to play in a team-first environment, molded in his image, look out for one dangerously tough team to play.

[cpk1994]

I don't think not practicing outdoors in December is an issue. If memory serves I don't recall Holmgren doing it either.
Holmgren didn't. Remember the NFC title game against Carolina. They didn't practice outdoors before that game and they didn't have a problem with it. Using the "they didn't practice outdoors" as a reason for bad play is just looking for an exucse for it.

I tend to agree, but this why practice with the door closed? Even Sherman was smart enough to realize that getting used to the conditions and cold weather will prepare you to play in them.

The thing that I cannot stand about MM is how he talks a big game about how he wants to be this physical, hard hitting team, yet the offense is a finesse, timing based passing attack, and the defense is a passive bend-but-don't-break scheme.

MM needs to keep building the trenches and hope to find that stud linemen that they can run behind and have consistent success. Our running game is still too inconsistent.Yeah becuase it really Hellped SHerman wins those games against Atlanta and Minnersota. :roll: The whole cold weather excuse is pure bullshit.

[Fritz]

I'm not sure, Patler. Marinelli came into Detroit with that mentality of the marine sergeant guy who was going to bust their schnutts in practice, then fielded teams that very often lost at the end of the game (prior to this year, when they just sucked continually).

I fall back to the position that it's all in the trenches. Those are the two places in which a team can assert control of a game. A defensive secondary, no matter how good, can't do that. Nor can a receiver. But the offensive line and the defensive line of your team can, at the end of the game, assert itself and control what happens moreso than any other position group, including QB.

So I'd like to see some talent procured and those two lines stabilized - particularly the offensive side - for the Packers. How, I do not know. It sounds like the big possible fa'sas far as defensive linemen will be re-signed by their teams. So I don't know. Maybe TT can find a second tier guy who can fill a gap, then maybe draft someone who can contribute in one area in his first year. I don't know. But it's the lines that in my estimation require the most attention.